COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EX-ANTE EVALUATION Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing the European Solidarity Corps programme and repealing [European Solidarity Corps Regulation] and Regulation (EU) No 375/2014
Date: 2018-06-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, European Commission
Subjects: EU office or agency, EU programme, education policy, humanitarian aid, vocational training, voluntary organisation, voluntary work, young person, youth employment, youth policy

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 11.6.2018 SWD(2018) 317 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EX-ANTE EVALUATION Accompanying the document Proposal for a  REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing the European Solidarity Corps programme and repealing [European Solidarity Corps Regulation] and Regulation (EU) No 375/2014  {COM(2018) 440 final} - {SWD(2018) 318 final} - {SWD(2018) 319 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

1 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ............................................................... 3 

1.1. 

Scope and context ...................................................................................................................... 3 

1.2. 

Lessons learned from previous programmes ............................................................................. 6 

2 

THE OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................................. 9 

1.3.  Challenges for the programmes of the next MFF ...................................................................... 9 

1.4.  Objectives of the programmes of the next MFF ...................................................................... 11 

3 

4 

5 

PROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES ........................................................................... 13 

DELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING ...................................................... 15 

HOW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED?....................................... 18 

Annex 1: Procedural information ......................................................................................................... 22 

Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation ...................................................................................................... 23 

Annex 3: Evaluation results ................................................................................................................. 24 

Annex 4: Suggested detailed monitoring framework ........................................................................... 29 

Annex 5: Suggested evaluation matrix ................................................................................................ 32 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
GLOSSARY 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

EACEA 

Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency 

EU 

MFF 

NPS 

TEU 

TFEU 

European Union 

Multiannual Financial Framework 

Net Promoter Score 

Treaty on European Union 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

2 

 
 
 
 
1  INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

1.1. 

Scope and context 

On  2  May  2018,  the  European  Commission  adopted  its  proposals  for  a  new  Multiannual  Financial 
Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027. Under these proposals, the European Solidarity Corps programme will 
have a budget of EUR 1,260,000,000 over this period1. This ex-ante evaluation reflects the decisions of the 
MFF  proposals  and  focuses  on  the  changes  and  policy  choices  which  are  specific  to  this  instrument.  It 
takes  into  account  the  lessons  learned  and  the  recommendations  from  the  external  evaluations  for  the 
relevant programmes, as well as the recent open public consultation. 

1.1.1 Current state of play 

The  European  Union  is  built  on  solidarity,  a  shared  value  which  is  strongly  felt  throughout  European 
society. Solidarity defines the European project and provides the necessary unity to cope with current and 
future crises by holding a strong moral ground. Solidarity provides a clear compass to guide the European 
youth  in  their  aspirations  for  a  better  Union.  In  the  Rome  Declaration,  at  the  occasion  of  the  60th 
anniversary  of  the  Treaties  of  Rome,  the  leaders of 27  Member  States  and of  the  European  Council,  the 
European  Parliament  and  the  European  Commission  reaffirmed  their  commitment  to  enhance  unity  and 
solidarity in order to increase the strength and resilience of the European Union2. 

The State of the Union address of 14 September 2016 emphasised the need to invest in young people and 
announced  the  idea  of  a  European  Solidarity  Corps  to  create  opportunities  for  young  people  across  the 
European Union to make a meaningful contribution to society, show solidarity and to develop their skills, 
"thus  getting  not  only  work  but  also  invaluable  human  experience".  The  Bratislava  Summit  of  16 
September  2016  called  for  reinforced  political  momentum  to  support  young  Europeans  and  to  establish 
new  EU  programmes  to  improve opportunities  for  them.  The  Commission Communication  “A  European 
Solidarity Corps” of 7 December 20163 launched the first phase of the European Solidarity Corps. During 
this initial phase, eight different EU programmes4 have been mobilised to offer volunteering, traineeship or 
job opportunities to young people across the EU. 

There are many young people who want to engage in solidarity activities and, at the same time, there are 
many  unmet  needs  in  communities  that  could  be  better  addressed  thanks  to  the  involvement  of  young 
people  in  solidarity  activities.  There  is  an  untapped  demand  by  many  organisations  for  motivated  young 
people  to  support  them  in  their  efforts5;  if  supported,  these  organisations  could  offer  even  more  to 
communities.  There  are  however,  shortcomings  in  the  matching  of  supply  and  demand  and  obstacles 
related to the availability of resources, to ensuring quality, as well as various legal aspects. 

The  current  European  Solidarity  Corps  was  created  to  merge  several  EU  volunteering  and  solidarity 
traineeships/jobs schemes into one same programme. The proposal for a Regulation was accompanied by 
an ex-ante evaluation, which demonstrated the need for a single EU programme acting as a "one stop shop" 
for all solidarity related opportunities for young people6. 
Despite the high demand from young people for solidarity opportunities7, further development of activities 
can  be  attained,  in  particular  with  regards  to  an  extension  of  the  geographical  scope,  synergies  with 
national  frameworks,  a  larger  community,  and  an  inter-generational  dimension  of  the  programme. 
Furthermore,  given  the  similarities  between  former  programmes,  the  decision  was  taken  to  enlarge  the 
scope of the European Solidarity Corps to include volunteering in humanitarian aid related projects. 

1.1.2 Inclusion of humanitarian aid 

European solidarity knows no borders. It is not something that should be restricted within our borders, but 

1 

2 
3 
4 

5 
6 
7 

Modern Budget for a Union that Protects, Empowers and Defends – The Multiannual Financial Framework for 
2021-2027, COM(2018) 321 final, p. 29. 
Rome declaration, 25 March 2017. 
A European Solidarity Corps, COM(2016)942, 7 December 2016. 
The  Erasmus+  programme,  the  Employment  and  Social  Innovation  programme  (EaSI),  the  LIFE  programme, 
the  Asylum,  Migration  and  Integration  Fund,  the  Health  Programme,  the  Europe  for  Citizens  programme,  the 
European Regional Development Fund (through Interreg) and the Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. 
Mid-term evaluation of the Erasmus+ programme (2014-2020) (SWD(2018)40), 31 January 2018. 
Ex-ante evaluation of the European Solidarity Corps (SWD(2017)166), 30 May 2017. 
While  over  3,500  placements  have  been  accepted,  over  55,000  young  people  are  registered  in  the  European 
Solidarity  Corps  (data  as  per  3  April  2018).  This  proves  placements  offered  are  greatly  overshadowed  by  the 
demand by young people. 

3 

 
                                                            
rather expanded and open to countries outside the Union. 

The  Treaty  of  the  European  Union  highlights  solidarity  as  one  of  the  principles  key  to  the  European 
Union8, which should be promoted not just within our borders, but also be one of the foundations of the 
EU's external action. Indeed, the first general provision governing the EU's external action is the objective 
to advance in the world the principles that are central to our Union:  

The  Union's  action  on  the  international  scene  shall  be  guided  by  the  principles  which  have 
inspired  its  own  creation,  development  and  enlargement,  and  which  it  seeks  to  advance  in  the 
wider world: […] the principles of equality and solidarity9. 

This objective is what the extended European Solidarity Corps wants to achieve. 

The  Council’s  General  Approach  regarding  the  proposed  Regulation  for  the  European  Solidarity  Corps 
suggested  that  the  geographical  scope  of  participating  countries  should  be  extended  for  the  volunteering 
strand10.  This  extension  included,  amongst  others,  countries  covered  by  the  European  neighbourhood 
policy  and  by  the  Instrument  for  Pre-accession  Assistance.  The  proposal  which  this  ex-ante  evaluation 
accompanies is in line with this desire for the extension of the geographical scope. 

Also, we must take into account the outermost regions of the European Union, which are included in the 
programme11.  Additional  funding  is  foreseen  for  young  people  from  these  regions,  in  particular  through 
increased travel contributions (as suggested by President Juncker12), as well as for participants taking part 
in placements in these regions. 

While challenges arise from the fact that these regions are far away from the European continent, this also 
represents  more  opportunities.  The  European  Union’s  neighbours  are  situated  not  only  around  the 
Mediterranean and to the East. They are also in the Caribbean, in West Africa, and the Indian Ocean. The 
outermost regions share maritime and land borders with several countries, some of them being part of the 
list  of  countries  where  EU  Aid  Volunteers  can  deploy  volunteers.  One  of  the  key  pillars  of  the  EU’s 
outermost  regions’  strategy  is  promoting  regional  cooperation  and  tightening  the  links  with  these 
neighbours,  especially  given  their  ties  with  Oversea  Countries  and  Territories  and  with  the  African, 
Caribbean  and  Pacific  Group  of  States13.  For  instance,  Caribbean  countries  share  most  of  the  same 
challenges  as  the  French  outermost  regions  in  the  Caribbean  with  regards  to  climate  change  and 
environment, two of the areas covered by the European Solidarity Corps14. 

This ex-ante evaluation as well as the proposal for a Regulation it accompanies assumes continuity of the 
current  European  Solidarity  Corps  (in  line  with  proposed  regulation  of  May  2017),  but  reflects  the 
consideration of extending the Corps to humanitarian aid deployments. In order to highlight the importance 
of humanitarian aid related activities, these are covered in the proposal under a separate chapter, to tailor 
for the particularities derived from the context in which these deployments will take place. Furthermore, as 
described  in  section  3  of  this  ex-ante  evaluation,  the  programme  structure  includes  a  separate  action  for 
these  activities.  Finally,  it  must  be  noted  that  the  extension  of  geographical  scope  does  not  affect  the 
occupational  strand  (traineeship  and  job  placements),  as  these  will  remain  available  only  within  the 
European Union. This is due to Union market regulations, which make it simpler and more transparent to 
have such placements in Member States. 

1.1.3 Proposed programme 

The extended European Solidarity Corps provides a wide range of opportunities for young people (starting 
at 18 years old, but not older than 30 years old) to take part in solidarity activities. These should be aimed 
at  addressing  unmet  societal  needs,  and  developed  in  relation  to  different  areas,  such  as  education  and 
training,  employment,  gender  equality,  environment  and  nature  protection,  climate  action,  disaster 
prevention,  preparedness  and  recovery,  social  assistance  and  welfare,  and  cooperation  across  borders,  to 
name a few. These activities can take place in the participant's country, in another EU Member State, in an 
third  country  associated  to  the  programme,  or  in  a  partner  country.  The  expected  number  of  placements 
would  depend  on  the  budget  assigned  to  the  programme,  and  thus  varies  between  250,000  and  375,000 

8 
9 
10 
11 

12 

13 

14 

Treaty on European Union, TEU (2012/C326/01), art. 2. 
ibid , art. 21, par.1. 
Council of the European Union, General Approach, 20 November 2017, page 14. 
A  stronger  and  renewed  strategic  partnership  with  the  EU’s  outermost  regions  (COM(2017)623),  24  October 
2017, page 11. 
Speech of President Juncker during the Conference of Presidents of Outermost Regions, Cayenne, 27 October 
2017. 
A  stronger  and  renewed  strategic  partnership  with  the  EU’s  outermost  regions  (COM(2017)623),  24  October 
2017, page 15. 
A  renewed  partnership  with  the  countries  of  Africa,  the  Caribbean  and  the  Pacific  (JOIN(2016)52),  22 
November 2016, page 18. 

4 

 
                                                            
solidarity opportunities (see section 5.1 for more details). When compared with the ongoing programmes, 
the  extended  European  Solidarity  Corps  has  some  additional  features,  such  as  an  inter-generational 
component and an improved community. These changes aim mainly at tackling the challenges foreseen as 
described in section 2.1, as well as to address the feedback received from stakeholders on the design and 
implementation of the European Solidarity Corps15. 
The  extended  European  Solidarity  Corps  also  addresses  current  trends  and  new  challenges16  that  are  of 
special  interest  to  the  post-2020  Multiannual  Financial  Framework.  It  directly  contributes  to  reducing 
social  divergences,  as  the  projects  contribute  to  address  certain  societal  needs,  while  also  providing  an 
opportunity for young people to develop their skills, which will increase their employment prospects. 

In particular, skills and competences development is at the core of the specific objective of the programme 
(see below section 2.2), which is thus fully aligned with the way forward proposed in the Reflection Paper 
on the Social Dimension of Europe. Indeed, one of the key factors that determine the future of Europe is 
skills development17. The development of skills is what empowers citizens to create strong societies18.The 
European Solidarity Corps focuses on the participants' skills development, with a training and evaluation 
cycle that starts well before the deployment, and virtually never ends, thanks to the learning platform. The 
skills  developed  during  the  deployment  are  certified,  which  allows  the  participant  to  demonstrate  its 
learning outcomes. 

The extension of the scope to include humanitarian aid will also contribute to the simplification principle, 
by  combining  two  programmes  that  used  to  target  the  same  population  and  in  so  doing  will  decrease 
confusion  for  potential  participating  young  persons  and  organisations.  It  is  also  in  line  with  the  EU 
approach to the Youth, Peace and Security (as set out in UN Security Council Resolution 2250 of 2015), 
which highlights the importance of promoting active participation of young people in society, in particular 
through  cross-border  mobility19.  Lastly,  the  extension  of  the  scope  to  include  humanitarian  aid  related 
activities  also  addresses  the  idea  of  wider  opportunities  for  young  people  as  put  forward  by  the  New 
Narrative for Europe campaign20. 
The proposed programme also follows the four principles key to the design of the future EU budget21: 

EU added value: the EU added value of this proposal comes from: 

 

 

 

 

a common quality standard, by promoting placements according to shared standards for quality 
and a common understanding of the acquisition of skills and competences to be recognised across 
borders. 

solidarity,  as  a  common  European  value,    which  ensures  that  the  European  Solidarity  Corps 
complements,  and does not compete  with,  existing public and private  policies,  programmes  and 
activities, both at national and European level. This is fully in line with the subsidiarity principle, 
as the European Solidarity Corps will not replace similar actions by Member States, but will serve 
to complement and support them. 

economies  of  scale  and  scope,  achieved  as  a  consequence  of  acting  at  European  level.  Indeed, 
while  national  frameworks  could  achieve  similar  results,  they  would  do  so  at  a  greater  cost 
(double the cost), as put forward by the Mid-term evaluation of the Erasmus+ programme (2014-
2020)22. 

consistency,  as  by  bringing  different  types  of  placements  under  one  European  Solidarity  Corps 
brand,  awareness  about  and  visibility  of  the  opportunities  available  to  young  people  can  be 
improved. 

Accountability:  high  degrees  of  both  transparency  and  accountability  are  achieved  through  a  thorough 
monitoring and evaluation framework, as well as through continuous coordination with the implementing 
institutions  (the  Commission,  the  Education,  Audiovisual  and  Culture  Executive  Agency  and  Erasmus 
National Agencies). 

More flexibility within a stable framework: this programme will use the delivery mechanisms already in 

15  Meeting with stakeholders on 30 January 2018. 
16 
17 
18 
19 

Reflection Paper on the Future of EU Finances, 28 June 2017, pages 22 and 23. 
Reflection Paper on the Social Dimension of Europe, 26 April 2017, pages 12 and 19. 
ibid, page 22. 
Draft Council Conclusions on the role of Young people in building a secure, cohesive and harmonious society in 
Europe, 23 February 2018. 
12 Ideas for the Future of Europe, June 2017, idea 2, page 12. 
Reflection Paper on the Future of EU Finances, page 25. 

20 
21 
22  Mid-term evaluation of the Erasmus+ programme (2014-2020) (SWD(2018)40), 31 January 2018. 

5 

 
                                                            
use by the European Solidarity Corps (see below section 4). This guarantees a high degree of flexibility in 
the  implementation  of  the  programme,  allowing  for  adjustments  and  reactivity  to  future,  unforeseeable 
changes  in  the  needs  of  participants,  organisations,  and  society,  while  at  the  same  time  providing  the 
stability  derived  from  the  use  of  the  Erasmus  network,  which  have  proved  so  successful  in  the  past, 
counting on the national experience and know-how from the Erasmus National Agencies. 
Simplified  rules23:  this new  programme  provides for  a simplification  of  procedures, which was recently 
highlighted as a barrier to participation24. Further simplification can be sought to better cater for the needs 
of participants and organisations. 

In  relation  to  the  proposed  programme,  no  similar  existing  programme  has  been  identified.  Nonetheless, 
mention  must  be  made  to  the  pilot  project,  ''Youth  for  Development'',  which  aims  at  sending  young 
European  volunteers  to  projects  funded  through  EU  development  budget  in  order  to  contribute  to  EU 
development cooperation actions is under development. This would enable young EU citizens to improve 
their  skills,  competences  and  intercultural  knowledge.  An  operational  proposal  prepared  for  this  pilot 
recommends  a  collaboration  with  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  after  202025.  Should  the  pilot  show  the 
demand for and positive impact of such activities, it could be considered to include such activities under 
this programme. 

1.2.  Lessons learned from previous programmes 

1.2.1 EU Aid Volunteers: 

The  EU Aid Volunteers  initiative  was  established  in 2014 on  the basis of  article  214(5) of  the TFEU. It 
aims to strengthen the EU’s ability to provide needs-based humanitarian aid and to strengthen the capacity 
and  resilience  of  vulnerable  or  disaster-affected  communities  in  non-EU  countries.  At  the  same  time  it 
allows European citizens to show solidarity with people in need by taking part in humanitarian action in 
these countries. 

Its general objective, as stated in Article 4 of the EU Aid Volunteers Regulation, is: 

The  objective  of  the  EU  Aid  Volunteers  initiative  shall  be  to  contribute  to  strengthening  the 
Union's  capacity  to  provide  needs-based  humanitarian  aid  aimed  at  preserving  life,  preventing 
and alleviating human suffering and maintaining human dignity and to strengthening the capacity 
and  resilience  of  vulnerable  or  disaster-affected  communities  in  third  countries,  particularly  by 
means of disaster preparedness, disaster risk reduction and by enhancing the link between relief, 
rehabilitation and development. That objective shall be attained through the added value of joint 
contributions of EU Aid Volunteers, expressing the Union's values and solidarity with people in 
need and visibly promoting a sense of European citizenship. 

The  programme  has  a  budget  of  EUR  147.9  million  (2014-2020)  and  the  objective  to  deploy  4,000 
volunteers by  2020  to non-EU  countries. Until  end of  2018,  EU  Aid Volunteers will  have  deployed 381 
volunteers  and  provided  around  100  online  volunteering  opportunities.  It  is  expected  that  the  average 
annual amounts for the current budget will reach EUR 15-16 million instead of EUR 21 million planned in 
the  last  MFF.  Currently  the  programme  is  not  restricted  to  young  people.  It  needs  to  be  noted  that  the 
largest  part  of  the  budget  is  dedicated  to  capacity  building  /  technical  assistance  of  organisations  and 
training. During the first three years of implementation (2015-2017) 242 partner organisations (EU based 
and non-EU based) received funding for capacity building activities and 66 organisations received funding 
for technical assistance projects (only EU-based organisations). 
As required, an external evaluation report feeding into the mid-term evaluation26 for the period from mid-
2014 to mid-2017 was carried out for the EU Aid Volunteers initiative27. The evaluation provided useful 
analyses and insights on the implementation of the initiative, including on existing shortcomings and areas 
for further improvement. The external evaluation report28 made the following observations with regard to 
the relevance, coherence, EU added value, effectiveness and efficiency of the EU Aid Volunteers: 

Relevance: the external evaluation focused on assessing the relevance of the five established operational 

23 

A  simplification  of  rules  and  procedures  has  been  stressed  as  a  recommendation  for  the  EU  Aid  Volunteers 
programme, see below section 2.1.1.2.  
As data from the open consultation shows, see section 1.2.3. 
Note to DG DEVCO Management, 18 January 2018 (Ref. Ares (2018) 286676). 

24 
25 
26  Mid-term evaluation of the EU Aid Volunteers, 2017. 
27 
28 

Regulation 2014/375 establishing the EU Aid Volunteers initiative, L122/1, 3 April 2014. 
Please note that the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council as well as the 
Staff Working Document on the interim evaluation of the EU Aid Volunteers initiative has not been adopted yet. 
This part of the ex-ante evaluation may be replaced by the text in the Report / SWD as soon as it is adopted. 
6 

 
                                                            
objectives of the EU Aid Volunteers against the different needs of stakeholders (organisations, volunteers, 
local  communities).  The  evaluation  concluded  that  the  programme  is  highly  relevant.  First,  the  needs 
highlighted in the impact assessment prepared to establish the legislative acts29 are directly addressed by 
the  actions  of  the  programme.  Second,  the  objectives  are  relevant  to  their  intended  stakeholders, 
particularly in regard to strengthening capacity. Third, all the types of action identified in the Regulation 
help to fulfil the objectives to an extent which justifies their funding by the EU Aid Volunteers programme.  

Coherence:  the  analysis  of  the  coherence  of  initiative  with  other  related  EU  activities  (emergency 
humanitarian  response,  development  assistance,  civil  protection)  revealed  room  for  improvement.  The 
initiative  is  not  fully  aligned  with  the  main  EU  humanitarian  aid  processes  (e.g.  global  needs  analysis, 
planning  of  actions,  and  engagement  of  professional  sector  actors).  To  date  there  is  only  informal 
coordination  with  EU  development  actors  (e.g.  DG  DEVCO),  and  the  evaluation  identified  potential 
opportunities  for  cooperation  and  alignment,  especially  as  regards  contributing  to  the  implementation  of 
the EU´s Joint Strategic Approach to Resilience. EU Aid Volunteers shows a few examples of cooperation 
with EU civil protection actors, but there is also a potential for improved coherence in this area. 

EU added value: it was found that the centralised management by the Commission provides added value 
in terms of an integrated transnational approach, a budget for EU level technical assistance, and provision 
of more project opportunities. The standard of volunteer management established by the programme can be 
called a European standard as it is mandatory for all deployment grant applicants. The quality of training 
provided  by  initiative  to  candidate  volunteers  is  also  a  clear  added  value  compared  to  other  existing 
volunteering schemes. However, no evidence could be found that the initiative has significantly enhanced 
EU visibility and image at public level in the EU so far. 

Effectiveness:  processes  and  administration  show  good  effectiveness  levels,  e.g.  implementation 
framework,  contract  management,  technical  and  procedural  information  to  stakeholders,  training  of 
volunteers  and  skills  development.  Limited  effectiveness  was  observed  in  relation  to  “outreach” 
components  such  as  the  engagement  of  professional  humanitarian  actors,  the  external  communication  of 
the  Union's  humanitarian  principles,  or  the  enhancement  of  coherence  and  consistency  of  volunteering 
across Member States. Given that deployment figures are significantly below target, the initiative has not 
proved effective during the first half of its first implementation cycle. 

Efficiency: the evaluation found that the Regulations which govern the initiative, and therefore dictate the 
processes to be followed by EUAV partners, are often perceived as complex, e.g. the need for certification, 
list of eligible countries, list of eligible activities, and long periods before deployment. However, they are 
mostly  complex  because  the  Commission  takes  its  responsibility  for  volunteers  seriously.  A  functioning 
implementation  framework  was  established  and  continuous  attempts  to  reduce  complexity  have  led  to 
visible improvements (e.g. the reduction of the number of partners required for EUAV grant application). 
The established monitoring framework is workable, but some unviable indicators should be reviewed (e.g. 
average cost per person reached by humanitarian aid projects to which the EUAV initiative contributes). 
Cost-conscious  behaviour  of  the  Commission  was  identified,  for  example  requesting  grant  applicants  to 
expressly  comment  on  cost-effectiveness,  and  through  service  contracts,  because  those  drawn  up  for 
training  and  insurance  of  volunteers  mostly  use  variable  cost  positions.  Overall,  the  external  evaluation 
concludes that the establishment and the implementation of the Initiative, based on the requirements laid 
down in the Regulations, can be deemed to be efficient. 

In the context of the interim evaluation of the implementation of the initiative for the period from mid-2014 
to  mid-2017,  extensive  consultations  took  place  with  different  stakeholders  (EU  Aid  Volunteers 
(candidates  and  deployed);  EU  Aid  Volunteers  sending  organisations  and  their  partners;  EU  Aid 
Volunteers  hosting  organisations;  DG  ECHO  FPA  partners  (those  not  yet  engaged);  EU  Aid  Volunteers 
pilot project partners (those not yet engaged); and member states representatives (Council Working Party 
on Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid (COHAFA), Council Working Party on Civil Protection (PROCIV), 
and  Humanitarian  Aid  Committee  (HAC).  Different  tools  were  used  such  as  online  surveys  and  semi-
structured phone or face-to-face interviews. Six targeted surveys were carried out and three field missions 
were  conducted  in  Latin  America  and  the  Caribbean  (Haiti  and  Ecuador),  the  Middle-East  (Jordan  and 
Lebanon),  and  South-East  Asia  (Myanmar  and  Cambodia).  An  open  public  consultation  was  carried  out 
online for three months (August-October 2017) with a total of 30 responses. Three case studies on different 
projects  carried  out  through  the  initiative  (i.e.  certification,  deployment  and  technical  assistance  and 
capacity building) completed the methodological approach. 

Given that the first volunteers had only been deployed end of 2016 and that none of the ongoing projects 
funded  under  the  programme  had  come  to  an  end  during  the  time  of  the  external  evaluation  study,  the 

29 

Impact Assessment accompanying the proposal for a Regulation establishing the EU Aid Volunteers initiative 
(SWD(2012)0265), 19 September 2012.  

7 

 
                                                            
findings stated above on relevance, coherence, EU added value, effectiveness and efficiency are based to a 
large extent on the contributions provided in the stakeholder consultation. 

1.2.2 European Solidarity Corps 

The European Solidarity Corps proposed a budget of EUR 341 million for the 2018-2020 period and aims 
at providing 100,000 placements in that period. The main focus of the European Solidarity Corps activities 
is  solidarity  within  Europe  with  a  broader  range  of  activities  than  EU  Aid  Volunteers  but  a  narrower 
geographical scope. Young Europeans between the ages of 18-30 are eligible for deployment, while those 
at the age of 17 can already register on the platform and benefit from the content available. The European 
Solidarity Corps offers not only volunteering placements, but also traineeships and job placements, as well 
as  solidarity  projects,  which  enable  a  group  of  young  people  to  directly  address  the  needs  of  their 
community. 

Its general objective, as stated in Article 3 of the proposal for a Regulation, is: 

The objective of the European Solidarity Corps is to enhance the engagement of young people and 
organisations  in  accessible  and  high  quality  solidarity  activities  as  a  means  to  contribute  to 
strengthening  cohesion  and  solidarity  in  Europe,  supporting  communities  and  responding  to 
societal challenges. 

Before  its  establishment,  an  ex-ante  evaluation  was  conducted30,  which  compared  two  options:  option  1 
proposed the continued implementation of separate volunteering programmes, while option 2 proposed an 
integration  of  all  programmes  into  the  European  Solidarity  Corps.  Below  is  a  summary  of  the  findings, 
which compared several criteria for both options: 

Accessibility: option 2 was preferred, as it gave a clear and single access point for organisations and young 
people. This responded to stakeholders' wishes for clear and practical information and helped overcome the 
lack  of  awareness  for  relevant  activities.  An  important  message  resulting  from  stakeholder  consultations 
was the need to communicate effectively and widely on the European Solidarity Corps. Pooling activities 
under  one  legal  base  facilitates  communicating  messages  around  the  value  that  the  European  Solidarity 
Corps brings to a young person's personal development and employability. Furthermore, option 2 was also 
the  best  approach  to  optimally  diversify  the  menu  of  options  offering  a  combination  of  in-country  and 
cross-border activities of various natures. 

Quality: option 2 was preferred, as it allows for a high overall quality of placements and of preparedness 
of  the  young  people.  Placement  offers  are  personalised  and  match  the  skills,  interests,  and  learning 
potential of the individual European Solidarity Corps participants. 

Inclusiveness: this was highlighted by stakeholders as of high importance. Option 2 allows for a focus on 
clarity and simplicity on conditions and application procedures. It builds on the experiences with targeted 
inclusion  efforts  under  Erasmus+  programme  (25  %  of  participants  of  the  European  Voluntary  Service 
were from disadvantaged backgrounds) and embeds the inclusiveness approach in the programme design 
through  a  dedicated  inclusion strategy.  This  includes  additional  funding  to  enable  participation  of  young 
people with fewer opportunities on equal terms as others or to support the organisations involving them. 

Synergies:  option  2  benefitted  from  synergies  between  the  activities  and  their  recognition,  which  were 
implemented through different programmes. It put them in one common framework and helped create new 
networks  between  people  and  organisations  with  common  aspirations  for  solidarity  and  towards  new 
communities built around solidarity. 

Efficiency: option 2 was preferred, as it allows for the simultaneous decrease of management costs while 
reaching  greater  effects  (more  value  for  less  money).  This  has  been  done  by  seeking  administrative 
simplification  and  economies  of  scale  and  scope,  notably  to  ensure  fast  treatment  of  applications,  user-
friendly  information  and  forms,  no  red  tape,  no  costs  and  no  need  for  specific  expertise  to  apply. 
Furthermore, common implementation of horizontal services like insurance, training and recognition brings 
higher  efficiency  for  the  programme  management  and  for  the  organisations  it  supports,  whilst  not 
increasing average costs of placements for the organisation. 

In  addition,  since  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  is  strongly  based  in  the  previous  European  Voluntary 
Service, which was implemented under Erasmus+, it is worth taking a look at the recent Erasmus+ mid-
term  evaluation31.  The  main  results  of  this  evaluation  were  presented  in  a  Commission  Report32,  which 
highlights the effectiveness of Erasmus+ in terms of skills and competences development; its undisputable 

30 
31 

Ex-ante evaluation of the European Solidarity Corps (SWD(2017)166), 30 May 2017. 
Highlights  and  main  documents  can  be  found  here  in  the  relevant  website  dedicated  to  the  evaluations:      
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/resources/documents.evaluations_en  

32  Mid-term evaluation of the Erasmus+ programme (2014-2020) (SWD(2018)40), 31 January 2018. 

8 

 
                                                            
European added value; high degree of coherence, in particular due to the pooling of programmes and the 
single  brand  name;  and  its  efficiency  and  simplicity,  underscoring  the  cost-effectiveness  of  mobility 
actions and the reduced management cost (less than half of similar national schemes). 
When looking at the youth sector section of the detailed report33, some relevant lessons can be drawn. For 
instance, almost a third of the respondents identified overlaps in between the youth sector of Erasmus+ and 
other  EU  funding  opportunities,  such  as  EU  Aid  Volunteers.  This  diminishes  the  coherence  of  both 
programmes.  Also,  linguistic  barriers  were  identified  as  one  of  the  main  issues,  which  require  further 
development  of  language  skills.  Finally,  administrative  burden  was  also  noted  as  too  heavy  in  the  youth 
sector. 

1.2.3 Values and mobility consultation 

Finally, a mention must be made of the recent public consultation on "EU funds in the area of values and 
mobility"34, which is relevant for both the current European Solidarity Corps and EU Aid Volunteers. The 
consultation drew 1,839 respondents, of which 1,199 represented an organisation. Some observations can 
be made that are relevant to this ex-ante evaluation. For instance, over 75 % of respondents believe that 
promoting  solidarity,  promoting  social  inclusion,  and  promoting  skills  development  through  mobility  is 
important.  However,  less  than  40  %  of  respondents  believe  that  these  issues  are  either  fully  or  well 
addressed. Nonetheless, respondents  clearly  see  the  EU  added  value  in  this sector,  as  over  75  %  believe 
that  the  current  programmes  add  value  compared  to  what  Member  States  could  achieve  at  national, 
regional and/or local levels. 

Out of all respondents, 135 responded with specific focus on the EU Aid Volunteers and / or the European 
Solidarity Corps. Of these respondents, 82 % believe that the lack of budget to satisfy demand is one of the 
main obstacles preventing the current programmes from achieving their objectives at least to some extent. 
Also,  linked  to  the  simplification  sought  with  the  integration,  it  must  be  highlighted  that  over  68  %  of 
respondents believe that a simplification of forms and  grant selection processes would help in improving 
the results of the programmes. 

2  THE OBJECTIVES 

1.3.  Challenges for the programmes of the next MFF 

2.1.1 Main challenges 

The new programme will face several challenges, which derive both from the previous programme as well 
as  from  the  context  of  the  extension  of  the  scope  to  include  humanitarian  aid.  Therefore,  these  main 
challenges can be classified into two groups: challenges inherited from the implementation of the European 
Solidarity  Corps  from  2018  onwards,  and  challenges  arising  from  the  extension  of  the  scope  to  include 
activities supporting humanitarian aid. 

Regarding  the  challenges  derived  from  the  implementation  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps,  we  can 
highlight the following35: 

Communications:  during  the  transitional  phase  there  has  been  some  confusion  amongst  potential 
participants  on  the  role  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps,  especially  in  relation  to  the  underlying 
programmes which were part of phase 1, as well as the differences with regards to the European Voluntary 
Service, under Erasmus+ or other existing programmes (such as EU Aid Volunteers). 

Coherence: as put forward by the ex-ante evaluation, the two most visible EU volunteering schemes are 
separated. 

Slow  uptake  in  occupational  strand:  the  traineeships  and  job  placements  being  offered  are  fewer  than 
anticipated.  Several  options  will  be  further  reflected  upon  to  increase  the  number  of  placements  offered, 
such as increased financial assistance or jobs of unlimited duration. 

Cooperation with national schemes: the cooperation with national frameworks, initiatives and schemes, 
such  as  civic  service  programmes  or  privately  run  initiatives  should  be  increased  to  avoid  possible 
overlapping of programmes. 

Inter-generational dimension: the logic of placing the participants in organisations is so that knowledge 

33 
34 
35 

Combined evaluation of Erasmus + and predecessor programmes, prepared by ICF, October 2017, page 43. 
Final consolidated analysis is still pending. 
These  challenges  have  been  identified  based  on  the  Concept  paper  on  the  future  of  the  European  Solidarity 
Corps  (11/09/2017,  Ares(2017)4436748),  as  well  as  the  Erasmus+  mid-term  evaluation  and  the  ex-ante 
evaluation accompanying the Regulation of the European Solidarity Corps cited above. 

9 

 
                                                            
is transferred to them. In addition, several projects may take place in meeting the needs of seniors. Finally, 
there is a disconnection between former, current and future participants, which translates into lost expertise 
that is not transmitted from a generation of participants to the next. While all this will be addressed in the 
programme, the age limit remains at 30 years old, as the main aim of this programme is the learning and 
skills development of young people. 

Community building: as seen above, the skills gained through the European Solidarity Corps experience 
should  not  benefit  only  the  projects  already  finished,  but  rather  be  shared  amongst  young  people  and 
beyond. The European Solidarity Corps is missing on that knowledge and sharing of experiences that could 
easily and seamlessly take place through its platform and network of participants. 

Establish a knowledge management system: from data collection to identification and dissemination of 
best practices in project management, the programme will need to better address this issue, to increase the 
quality of reporting of results.  

Regarding  the  challenges  deriving  from  the  inclusion  of  humanitarian  aid,  the  following  can  be 
highlighted36: 

Simplification of the  process  and  procedures  governing  the  programme: there  are  several reasons  to 
suggest this is a challenge that should be addressed in the new programme. For instance, improved access 
to  e-forms  and  simplifying  them  would  increase  the  offers  by  organisations,  given  the  simplified 
procedures.  This  was  also  recommended  by  the  Mid-term  evaluation  of  the  EU  Aid  Volunteers,  a 
recommendation  that  is  in  line  with  the  results  of  the  open  public  consultation,  as  mentioned  in  section 
1.2.3. Another example is possible challenges arising from a complex Regulation or set of legislative acts, 
lacking flexibility to adapt to changing needs of the programme.  

Improving promotion and communication: there is a risk of both potential participants and organisations 
not being aware or interested in the programme. The Mid-term evaluation of the EU Aid Volunteers also 
recommended  several  measures  to  increase  the  reach  of  communications,  which  should  be  addressed  to 
improve the future promotion of the programme. 

Deployment of volunteers to humanitarian aid activities: one of the main challenges of including in the 
programme deployments in support of humanitarian aid activities is the lengthy timeline between the time 
candidates sign up and when they are deployed. Under EU Aid Volunteers, candidates need to apply to a 
vacancy  posted  by  the  organisation,  which  then  evaluates  the  candidates,  selects  them,  and  then  deploys 
them.  A  roster  of  candidates  approach  has  been  suggested  by  the  Mid-term  evaluation,  and  the 
implementation  of  the  new  programme  will  need  to  make  sure  that  participants  for  humanitarian  aid 
activities  do  not  face  additional  barriers  compared  to  participants  in  other  fields.  This,  in  addition  to 
changes in EU Aid Volunteers procedures, would decrease the time between vacancy announcement and 
deployment, which in turn would reduce drop-outs of candidates for humanitarian aid activities. 

2.1.2 Baseline 

This ex-ante evaluation proposes an extended scope of the European Solidarity Corps, including support to 
humanitarian  aid  activities.  In  order  to  be  able  to  measure  the  results  of  the  extension  of  the  scope,  a 
baseline scenario has been considered, consisting of the European Solidarity Corps remaining with a scope 
without support to humanitarian aid activities, and a continuing existence of the EU Aid Volunteers as a 
separate entity.  

Based on the findings of the interim evaluation of EU Aid Volunteers and consultation with stakeholders, 
the  programme  activities  would  need  to  be  simplified  to  increase  the  interest  of  organisations  to  offer 
placements for volunteers. These simplifications would entail changes in the legislative base with regard to 
the certification of sending and hosting organisations, training of candidate volunteers, and deployment of 
volunteers, as well as administrative simplifications with a view to the implementation of the initiative (e.g. 
several calls per year or multiannual call, options to enable fast deployments if needs arise, etc.). 

For  the  European  Solidarity  Corps,  following  the  policy  recommendations  presented  during  the 
Gothenburg  Summit  of  17  November  2017,  it  could  be  considered  that  for  the  period  2012-2027  a 
substantial leap of solidarity opportunities on the ground for young people will be offered, increasing the 
target to about 1.5 million solidarity opportunities. This would require a significant increase compared to 
the  current  levels  of  budget,  and  therefore  will  not  be  considered  as  an  option.  The  baseline  will  be 
considered  as  a  similar  level  of  budget  and  results  as  for  the  current  programme  (which  would  provide 
around 250,000 opportunities). 

The evaluation of the impact resulting from the extension of the European Solidarity Corps as opposed to 

36 

These challenges are drawn from the findings of the Mid-term evaluation of the EU Aid Volunteers, 2017.  
10 

 
                                                            
this baseline scenario will be done using efficiency measures as described in section 5.2. 

2.1.3 Differences in legal bases 

The  current  European  Solidarity  Corps  is  based  on  articles  165(4)  and  166(4)  of  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning of the European Union, which is in part 3 (dealing with "Union policies and internal actions"), 
while the EU Aid Volunteers is based on article 214 (5), which is in part 5 (dealing with "External action 
by the Union").  

This  differences  in  the  legal  bases  on  which  the  programmes  are  currently  based  has  been  taken  into 
account when drafting the proposal for a Regulation. In order to cater for the specificities of deployments 
to  humanitarian  aid  related  activities,  the  relevant  actions  to  be  undertaken  for  each  case  are  addressed 
under two separate chapters in the proposal.  

1.4.  Objectives of the programmes of the next MFF 

2.2.1 General objective 

The general objective of the EU Aid Volunteers is currently stated in article 4 of its Regulation: 

The  objective  of  the  EU  Aid  Volunteers  initiative  shall  be  to  contribute  to  strengthening  the 
Union's  capacity  to  provide  needs-based  humanitarian  aid  aimed  at  preserving  life,  preventing 
and  alleviating  human  suffering  and  maintaining  human  dignity  and  to  strengthening  the 
capacity  and  resilience  of  vulnerable  or  disaster-affected  communities  in  third  countries, 
particularly  by  means  of  disaster  preparedness,  disaster  risk  reduction  and  by  enhancing  the 
link between relief, rehabilitation and development. That objective shall be attained through the 
added  value  of  joint  contributions  of  EU  Aid  Volunteers,  expressing  the  Union's  values  and 
solidarity with people in need and visibly promoting a sense of European citizenship. 

As  for  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  Regulation,  its  article  2,  paragraph  1  specifies  the  definition  of 
solidarity activity as an activity addressing unmet societal needs in the following areas: 

…  education  and  training,  employment,  gender  equality,  entrepreneurship,  in  particular  social 
entrepreneurship,  citizenship  and  democratic  participation,  environment  and  nature  protection, 
climate  action,  disaster  prevention,  preparedness  and  recovery,  agriculture  and  rural 
development, provision of food and non-food items, health and wellbeing, creativity and culture, 
physical  education  and  sport,  social  assistance  and  welfare,  reception  and  integration  of  third-
country nationals, territorial cooperation and cohesion; 

The objective of the EU Aid Volunteers is thus fully aligned with the areas covered by the activities of the 
European Solidarity Corps37. This allows for an integration into the European Solidarity Corps objectives 
without loss of EU Aid Volunteers' objectives. 

Therefore, the main overall general objective of the programme will require only two small modifications 
of the general objective of the European Solidarity Corps, to cater for the increased geographical scope as 
well as the different origin of the legal bases of each of the current programmes. As such, article 3 of the 
European Solidarity Corps Regulation shall read38 (new additions in bold): 

To  enhance  the  engagement  of  young  people  and  organisations  in  accessible  and  high  quality 
solidarity activities as a means to contribute to strengthening cohesion, solidarity and democracy 
in  Europe  and  abroad,  addressing  societal  and  humanitarian  challenges  on  the  ground,  with 
particular effort to promote social inclusion. 

Nonetheless,  in  order  to  guarantee  that  the  EU  Aid  Volunteers  is  not  simply  diluted  into  the  European 
Solidarity Corps, as well as to guarantee that its original legal base (article 214(5)) and previous objectives 
are  respected,  a  separate  chapter  in  the  proposed  Regulation  has  been  drafted  to  give  strength  to  the 
particularities of such deployments. This is reflected in the Programme structure suggested in section 3. 

2.2.2 Specific objective 

To reach the general objective described above, the following specific objectives will be pursued:  

To  provide  young  people,  including  those  with  fewer  opportunities,  with  easily  accessible 

37 
38 

See article 2(1) of the European Solidarity Corps Regulation. 
The  General and  Specific  objectives  are  adapted  from  Council of  the European  Union,  General Approach,  20 
November 2017. 

11 

 
  
                                                            
opportunities for engagement in solidarity activities in Europe and abroad while improving and 
properly  validating  their  competences  as  well  as  facilitating  their  employability  and  transition 
into the labour market. 

The  success  criteria  of  this  specific  objective  of  the  extended  European  Solidarity  Corps  are  further 
developed in section 5 of this ex-ante evaluation. 

The objective includes all the cross-cutting Multiannual Financial Framework objectives: 

Flexibility:  the  specific  objective  allows  for  the  programme  to  quickly  react  to  changes  in  the  needs  of 
society. Indeed, the objective is concrete enough so it can be targeted, and its performance monitored and 
evaluated. However, at the same time, it covers broad areas such as “solidarity activities”, which gives the 
Erasmus National Agencies and the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency the possibility 
to  readjust  in  the  implementation  of  the  programme,  in  particular  with  regards  to  priority  areas. 
Furthermore, the integration under the European Solidarity Corps would mean only one legal base for all 
volunteering  (both  inside  and  outside  the  EU)  and  occupational  placements.  This  would  ensure  the 
implementation is flexible to possible changes in the needs of the organisations and final beneficiaries, as 
well as flexibility in better addressing the needs of the participants, in particular with regards to training 
and skills development. 

Coherence  and  synergies:  the  inclusion  of  EU  Aid  Volunteers  activities  into  the  European  Solidarity 
Corps  programme  would  achieve  improved  synergies  that  could  also  aim  at  achieving  more  clarity  and 
coherence for EU citizens who are interested to participate in solidarity activities, including volunteering 
inside or outside the EU. Creating a ‘one-stop-shop’ for different solidarity opportunities provided by the 
EU would result in opportunities for joint promotion (branding) and the creation of a unique and global EU 
volunteering scheme. 

Simplification:  the  placements  and  deployments  offered  under  the  extended  European  Solidarity  Corps 
will  be  made  more  “accessible”  to  young  people.  As  mentioned  earlier,  this  will  be  achieved  by 
simplifying the rules and procedures currently in place, aligning them to the current European Solidarity 
Corps  procedures.  For  participants,  the  integration  would  imply  a  simplification,  as  it  would  allow  for 
European solidarity to be approached in a holistic way under one EU instrument, covering activities both 
within and beyond EU borders (humanitarian aid dimension added). For organisations, the simplification of 
rules of the existing schemes and establishment of a single implementation procedure would translate into 
less administrative burden, red tape, and barriers for smaller organisations, as well as guaranteeing faster 
deployments. 

Focus on performance: several measures are in place to guarantee that the “solidarity and humanitarian 
aid activities  that are  offered  […]  are  properly  validated…”.  Participants would benefit  from  the  efforts 
and the knowledge of both programmes that would be pulled together and improve their training and skills 
development.  For  organisations,  because  it  enables  them  to  better  tailor  the  projects  to  the  needs  on  the 
ground, with an improved mechanism for the sharing of best practices. These improvements will raise the 
quality of the programme overall. In addition, thanks to the cost savings and enhanced efficiency, coupled 
with the simplification of procedures and the improved communication, the integration would contribute to 
an increased number of volunteers through one single instrument. 

Relevance, effectiveness, and EU added value: the mid-term evaluation of Erasmus+ clearly showed the 
relevance, effectiveness, and EU added value of the programme. The European Solidarity Corps, since it 
incorporates most of what used to be the European Voluntary Service, benefits as well from these. As for 
the EU Aid Volunteers, its mid-term evaluation showed possible improvements to its effectiveness. These 
will  be  addressed  by  the  extended  European  Solidarity  Corps,  by  incorporating  humanitarian  aid  related 
placements to the delivery mechanisms already stablished. 

2.2.3 Operational objectives 

The specific objective will be pursued through the operational objectives below.  

1 - Engagement of young people and organisations 

1.  Provision of volunteering placements 

2.  Provision of traineeships and jobs placements 

3.  Provision of opportunities for young to develop their own grass-root solidarity projects 

4.  Creating opportunities for networking activities 

2 - Quality and support 

12 

 
1.  Enhancing and guaranteeing the quality of the placements – Quality Label 

2.  Training and capacity building activities 

3.  Providing horizontal support measures such as insurance, recognition and online services 

4.  Communication and awareness raising activities 

Based  on  these  operational  objectives,  the  structure  chosen  for  the  Programme  (see  section  3)  highlights 
the separation of 1 - Engagement of young people and organisations, tailoring it to the different needs of 
each  type  of  activity,  making  a  clear  distinction  between  humanitarian  aid  activities  and  the  rest.  This 
distinction is nonetheless excluded from the delivery mechanism (see section 4) chosen, to guarantee the 
benefits of a single mechanism, highlighted above. 

3  PROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES 

Taking  into  account  the  need  for  stability  and  predictability,  the  programme  structure  of  the  extended 
European Solidarity Corps will be built around two chapters, supported by common horizontal actions: 

Participation of young people in solidarity 
activities addressing societal challenges 

European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps 

1a:  Engagement  of  young  people 
organisations in solidarity activities 

and 

1b:  Engagement  of  young  people  and  organisations 
in support of humanitarian aid 

  Volunteering placements 

  Volunteering  placements  in  humanitarian 

  Traineeships and jobs placements 

  Grass-root solidarity projects 

  Networking activities 

aid 

  Networking activities  

2: Networking activities, quality and support 

  Quality Label 

  Horizontal support measures 

  Capacity building and training activities  

  Communication and awareness raising activities 

As it can be seen, deployments for humanitarian aid related projects are considered under a separate action 
to tailor for its particularities. 

A  unique  and  global  EU  scheme  for  solidarity  by  young  persons,  with  the  integration  of  the  EU  Aid 
Volunteers  initiative  into  the  volunteering  strand  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps,  would  improve  the 
overall implementation results. This integration would: 

 

 

 

 

 

be based on the general and specific objectives of the Solidarity Corps as stated above, but with 
the  general  objective  widened  to  include  activities  of  the  European  Solidarity Corps outside  the 
EU39. 

enlarge the scope of humanitarian aid activities to all activities that fall under the objectives of the 
European Solidarity Corps. 

comply with the age range of the European Solidarity Corps40. 

be integrated in a common roster41. 

have single branding and communication activities42. 

39 
40 

41 

In line with recommendation R1.1 of the Mid-term evaluation of the EU Aid Volunteers. 
This will not decrease the potential candidates for activities outside the EU to a large degree. As of today around 
60% of deployed volunteers under EU Aid Volunteers are within the age range permitted under the European 
Solidarity  Corps  (see  Mid-term  evaluation  report,  page  19).  Furthermore,  it  is  believed  that  the  remaining 
positions could easily be filled with candidates falling within the age range of the European Solidarity Corps. 
In line with recommendations R1.5 and R4.2. 

13 

 
 
 
                                                            
 

 

 

 

have a single implementation mechanism, including the use of the same e-form for Quality Label 
and funding application for all organisations and projects43. 

have some distinct features with regard to the accreditation of organisations, safety and security 
obligations.  In  particular,  continuous  monitoring  is  planned  under  the  Quality  label  processes, 
which include possible checks and monitoring missions (if needed) after the award of the Quality 
Label, to ensure high standards remain the norm in the organisation44.  

training  and  evaluation  cycle  for  all  participants,  including  training  prior  to  deployment,  on-
arrival, at mid-term, and after return. 

include activities that used to be implemented under EU Aid Volunteers into existing tools under 
European Solidarity Corps to allow for the dissemination of lessons learned and good practices45. 

 

bring significant synergies and cost savings via maintaining a single set of tools and systems.  

Below is a simplified intervention logic based on the objectives to be achieved: 

Given that both programmes, the European Solidarity Corps and the EU Aid Volunteers initiative will have 
carried out their activities already before 2021, a critical mass in terms of engagement of organisations to 
provide  placements,  interest  of  young  people  to  participate  in  the  enhanced  programme,  and  number  of 
projects  implemented  (in  order  to  gather  sufficient  knowhow  and  feedback  from  stakeholders)  will  most 
likely be achieved. However, in order to keep the same level of cost efficiency and results, the budget for 
the next Multiannual Financial Framework cannot be lower than current levels of funding, as this would 
render the extended European Solidarity Corps inefficient. 

EU added value would be achieved through centralised management of a global EU volunteering scheme. 
This will allow the application of the same procedures for organisations in the entire EU, third countries 
associated to the programme and from some European Solidarity Corps' third countries not associated to 

42 
43 
44 
45 

In line with recommendations R2.2, R4.5, and R4.6. 
In line with recommendations R5.1. 
In line with recommendations R1.2. 
In line with recommendations R4.9. 

14 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                 
the  programme  to  participate  in  the  EU  based  and  global  activities  of  the  extended  European  Solidarity 
Corps. 

Stakeholders  that participated  in  the  open public consultation on  the  EU Aid Volunteers  initiative's  mid-
term  evaluation  had  different  opinions  on  whether  the  needs  addressed  through  an  external  volunteering 
scheme could instead be achieved through Member States’ national volunteering schemes or volunteering 
schemes  run by  other  actors,  e.g. United  Nations  Volunteers  or  Red  Cross  and  Red  Crescent volunteers. 
While 36.8 % of the respondents share this view (they agreed fully or to a large extent with the statement), 
the same number of respondents (36.9 %) agreed only to some extent or not at all. 

Stakeholders  agreed  though  that  an  international  volunteering  scheme  increases  opportunities  for 
neighbouring  countries  to  work  together,  because  they  need  to  form  consortia  and  participate  in  joint 
capacity  building  activities.  It  also  enhances  cooperation  between  organisations  of  varying  backgrounds 
and sizes (e.g. humanitarian actors, civil protection actors, development actors, volunteering organisations). 
An enlargement of the scope to cover solidarity activities more broadly will therefore provide opportunities 
for an ever greater variety of actors. 

Finally, a recent Eurobarometer showed that 11 % of those young people who have volunteered over the 
past 12 months did so to "change something in another part of the world". This highlights the relevance of 
the extension of the geographical scope of the European Solidarity Corps46. 

4  DELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING 

The delivery mechanism to be used is the same as is currently in place in the European Solidarity Corps. 
Before  specifying  it,  it  is  worth  taking  a  look  at  how  several  aspects  of  the  integrated  programme  will 
work.  

4.1 Eligibility 

Participants:  in  order  to  streamline  both  programmes  and  to  underline  the  political  focus  on  the 
engagement  with  young  people,  as  well  as  to  align  with  the  relevant  articles  of  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (in  particular  214(5)),  a  common  age  limit  of  maximum  30  years  is 
proposed.  This  is  in  line  with  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  current  age  limit  and,  as  mentioned  above, 
would include the large majority of volunteers as currently deployed by EU Aid Volunteers. 

Organisations:  any  organisation  can  apply  for  a  Quality  Label,  as  a  pre-condition  to  participate  in  the 
programme and request funding. Specific requirements for organisations active in humanitarian aid could 
be envisaged as part of this process, in particular with regards to safety and security.  

Remit  and  types  of  activities:  the  extended  programme  should  be  aligned  with  the  areas  of  activities 
described in the current European Solidarity Corps Regulation: 

… developed in relation to different areas, such as education and training, employment, gender 
equality,  entrepreneurship,  in  particular  social  entrepreneurship,  citizenship  and  democratic 
participation,  environment  and  nature  protection,  climate  action,  disaster  prevention, 
preparedness  and  recovery,  agriculture  and  rural  development,  provision  of  food  and  non-food 
items, health and wellbeing, creativity and culture, physical education and sport, social assistance 
and  welfare,  reception  and  integration  of  third-country  nationals,  territorial  cooperation  and 
cohesion. 

The majority of these areas are also covered under EU Aid Volunteers activities. Humanitarian aid related 
activities  include  disaster  risk  management,  which  is  also  possible  under  the  Corps.  Another  area  to  be 
considered for activities for the future humanitarian volunteering placements is addressing root-causes for 
migration  in  source  countries,  by  improving  the  socio-economic  context  of  local  communities. 
Participation in conflict/war areas should however continue to be excluded as the potential danger for the 
participants  is  too  high.  Response  to  emergency  situations  is  currently  excluded  from  all  schemes,  but  a 
rapid response function of the extended European Solidarity Corps will be developed to cater for the rapid 
deployment of volunteers to support the recovery after emergencies such as natural disasters. 

4.2 Geographical scope 

a. Participants 

46 

Flash Eurobarometer 455, Briefing note, January 2018, page 5. 

15 

 
 
 
                                                            
The  extended  European  Solidarity  Corps  will  be  open  to  nationals  and  residents  of  Member  States  and 
third countries associated to the programme and third countries not associated to the programme, such as 
Neighbouring Partner Countries and countries covered by the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance, but 
nationals and residents of Neighbouring Partner Countries and countries covered by the Instrument for Pre-
accession  Assistance  could  participate  only  in  activities  in  the  Member  States  and  in  third  countries 
associated to the programme. Nationals and residents of Member States and third countries associated to 
the programme would be able to participate in volunteering worldwide. A limited participation of young 
nationals from receiving third countries could be explored, always as complementary to the deployment of 
nationals  of  the  previously  mentioned  countries.  Finally,  job  and  traineeship  placements  are  open  to 
nationals and residents of Member States. 

Participants  doing  volunteering  with  a  humanitarian  aid  purpose  may  be  required  to  have  more  intense 
training  and  sometimes  previous  experience  or  a  certain  profile  compared  to  participants  in  other 
volunteering activities part of the Corps. 

b. Organisations 

The  extended  European  Solidarity  Corps  will  be  open  to  organisations  based  in  Member  States,  third 
countries  associated  to  the  programme,  and  some  third  countries  not  associated  to  the  programme  under 
certain conditions. In particular, organisations in some Neighbouring Partner Countries could participate as 
supporting and host organisations, while organisations based in other third countries may only participate 
as host organisations. 

c. Activities 

In general, the extended European Solidarity Corps will keep the broader geographical scope of the EU Aid 
Volunteers  with  clear  distinction  of  the  geographical  scope  for  each  activity  type  (i.e.  volunteering 
worldwide  scope;  occupational  activities  only  within  EU).  Thus,  it  covers,  in  the  humanitarian  field,  all 
countries  worldwide  except  in  conflict  zones.  For  all  other  volunteering  opportunities,  potentially  all 
countries participating today in Erasmus+ would be included. Finally, jobs and traineeships opportunities 
will be on offer only in EU Member States. 

4.3 Types of placements 

Three types of placements are foreseen:  

Volunteering: a volunteering placement is a full-time unpaid voluntary service for a limited period (up to 
12  months),  which  provides  young  people  with  the  opportunity  to  contribute  to  the  daily  work  of 
organisations active in solidarity-related fields, to the ultimate benefit of the communities within which the 
activities  will  be  carried  out.  Volunteering  activities  can  be  carried  out  either  individually  or  in  group. 
These activities can also take the form of support to humanitarian aid projects in several countries around 
the world. 

Traineeships: a traineeship is understood as a period of work practice of between 2 to a maximum of 12 
months, remunerated by the organisation hosting the Corps participant. It is based on a written traineeship 
agreement, which includes a learning and training component, and is undertaken in order to gain practical 
and professional experience with  a  view  to  improving  employability  and  facilitating  transition  to  regular 
employment. Traineeships that are part of curricula of formal or vocational education and training, as well 
as  traineeships  whose  completion  is  a  mandatory  requirement  to  access  a  specific  profession  are  not 
supported under the European Solidarity Corps. 

Jobs:  a  job  is  understood  as  a  period  of  work  of  2  to  12  months,  remunerated  by  the  participating 
organisation  employing  the  Corps  participant,  based  on  an  employment  contract  in  accordance  with  the 
national  regulatory  framework  of  the  participating  country.  The  job  will  be  of  good  quality  (in  terms  of 
skills and training opportunities, working conditions, promotion of gender equality). The aim is to provide 
Corps  participants  with  a  job  within  organisations  (NGOs,  public  authorities  or  private  companies) 
operating  in  solidarity-related  sectors,  which  will  provide  them  with  the  skills  and  experience  that  will 
strengthen their employability and support their transition into the labour market. At societal level, the aim 
is to address unmet demand for labour in solidarity-related sectors and promote solidarity across Member 
States. 

4.4 Implementation 

The  extended  European  Solidarity  Corps  will  be  implemented  by  the  Commission,  the  Education, 
Audiovisual  and  Culture  Executive  Agency  and  National  Agencies,  as  currently  done  under  European 
Solidarity  Corps.  Regarding  the  accreditation  process/quality  assurance,  a  Quality  Label  has  been  set  up 
and  will  be  maintained,  but  expanded  with  questions  required  for  humanitarian  activities,  as  well  as  for 
enhanced safety and security measures needed in some countries. 

16 

 
This choice of using the European Solidarity Corps mechanisms is mainly due to the possibility of using 
the Erasmus structures, which have proved so successful in the past, counting on the national experience 
and  know-how  from  the  Erasmus  National  Agencies.  This  mechanism  allows  for  flexibility,  as  the  legal 
base  allows  for  tailored  implementation  of  the  programme,  while  at  the  same  time  guaranteeing  its 
stability.  Furthermore,  it  is  expected  that  this  funding  mechanism  should  remain  the  most  efficient 
regardless of the amount (provided the critical mass in section 3 is achieved). 

The delivery mechanism chosen fully respects the requirements of subsidiarity and proportionality. With 
regards to subsidiarity, the EU has a role to play in supporting a Europe-wide approach to solidarity. EU 
action through the extended European Solidarity Corps will not replace similar actions by Member States, 
but will serve to complement and support them, in full respect of the subsidiarity principle. Moreover, there 
are quite different perceptions of how social protection relates to volunteering, as well as various degrees 
of  legal  status,  learning  and  recognition.  All  this  leads  to  fragmentation  at  EU  level,  which  means  that 
young people across the EU have uneven access to the opportunities on offer. 

Furthermore,  the  extended  European  Solidarity  Corps  will  offer  a  single  entry  point  to  high  quality 
volunteering (also beyond the EU) and occupational solidarity placements for young people across the EU, 
whereas  currently  these  are  only  accessible  via  a  several  programmes.  It  will  therefore  ensure  that  all 
interested  young  people  across  the  EU  have  equal  opportunities  to  join  and  easier  access  to  a  broader 
variety  of  activities.  Bringing  the  different  types  of  placements  under  one  brand  can  also  contribute  to 
improving awareness about and visibility of the opportunities available to young people. 

With  regards  to  proportionality,  while  the  targets  and  budget  remain  unknown,  it  can  be  said  that  the 
extended European Solidarity Corps does comply with this requirement. As seen by the current number of 
potential  candidates  in  European  Solidarity  Corps  (over  55,000  registered  candidates)  and  placements 
accepted (over  3,500),  there is a  great  demand for placements,  in  particular volunteering47.  This demand 
can only be met through the use of EU funds, as it will allow for all young Europeans to have the same 
chances of finding an appealing opportunity. Finally, it should be highlighted that the extended European 
Solidarity Corps would be able to easily absorb the EUR 6.8 billion required to reach 1.5 million solidarity 
opportunities, mainly due to the great demand for volunteering opportunities. 

4.5 Risk assessment 

A risk assessment has been conducted for the extended European Solidarity Corps, which highlighted the 
following risks: 

Risk 

Probability 

Effect 

Mitigating measure 

Communication activities towards young 
people. 

Continuous development of the European 
Solidarity Corps portal in line with the 
user's feedback. 

Community Building activities of already 
registered young people. 

General induction training ensuring 
awareness about the mission of the 
European Solidarity Corps and the 
possible type of solidarity activities. 

Communication activities towards 
organisations. 

Networking activities among 
organisations to enable peer learning and 
sharing of good experience. 

Guidance and support for organisations 
through the implementing structures. 

There are not enough 
young people registered in 
the database with 
necessary motivation for 
solidarity activities. 

Low 

High 

Medium 

High 

Not enough offers from 
organisations or offers that 
do not match the interests 
of the young European 
Solidarity Corps 
participants. 

Involved organisations to 
commit fraud of 

47 

Data as of 3 April 2018 

Low 

High 

Prior screening of organisations through 

17 

 
                                                            
irregularities with received 
funds. 

Fraud committed by 
participants leads to an 
increased cost of insurance 
overall. 

Low 

Low 

granting the quality label. 

Monitoring of implementation structures 
and monitoring system of implementation 
of activities including checks on grant 
beneficiaries. 

Reporting obligations after completion. 

Monitoring of cases through regular 
reporting from insurance contractor. 

Improved communication on the required 
procedures to claim expenses through 
insurance. 

Highlight importance of European Health 
Insurance Card. 

Regularly monitor the situation in 
countries where there are ongoing 
activities. 

Plan for possible required evacuations. 

Rapidly changing 
environment in a third 
country renders the 
deployment of a volunteer 
dangerous. 

Dilution of humanitarian 
aid activities within the 
other European Solidarity 
Corps activities.   

Low 

Medium 

Low 

Low 

Clear distinction in the Regulation 
between volunteering activities in and 
outside the field of humanitarian aid. 

5  HOW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

The  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  programme  in  achieving  the  objectives 
will consist of permanent monitoring to assess progress and an evaluation to assess the existing evidence on 
the  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence,  EU  added  value  of  the  programme  results,  with  an 
efficiency analysis based on a comparison with the baseline option, as explained in section 5.2.  

Monitoring  arrangements  will  be  based  on  an  extensive  analysis  of  the  quantitative  outputs  of  the 
programme,  via  dedicated  IT  systems,  which  will  ease  the  collection  of  necessary  information  about 
activities and projects implemented.  

The  monitoring  and  evaluation  will  be  conducted  at  three  levels:  participants,  organisations,  and 
management of the programme (European Commission, the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive 
Agency,  and  Erasmus  National  Agencies).  The  first  two  levels  will  focus  on  the  effectiveness  of  the 
programme, while the management level will measure its efficiency. In addition, the future evaluations will 
also analyse the impact in the communities in which the solidarity activities take place. Preliminary drafts 
of the monitoring framework and a suggested evaluation matrix have been included in Annexes 4 and 5. 

5.1 Effectiveness measures 

The indicators that will be collected are: 

  number  of  participants  in  solidarity  activities:  this  includes  volunteering  placements  (in-
country and cross-border), traineeship and job placements, and participants in solidarity projects. 
This indicator includes the deployment of volunteers in support of humanitarian action. 

  percentage  of  participants  from  a  fewer  opportunities  background:  this  indicator  allows  the 

measuring of the inclusiveness of the programme. 

  number of organisations holding a European Solidarity Corps Quality Label. 

The  first  indicator  will  allow  for  the  constant  monitoring  of  the  progress  on  the  target  of  solidarity 
activities. In addition, it is a good indicator to compare performance across implementing countries, which 
would  allow  for  informed  programming  decisions  in  terms  of  concentrating  efforts  (in  particular 
communications) in the least performing countries. 

The second indicator is related to the inclusiveness of the programme, embedded in the specific objective. 
Young Europeans with fewer opportunities should be able to participate in the activities of the European 
18 

 
 
Solidarity Corps. In order to measure the effectiveness of promotion and support measures aimed at these 
young  persons,  this  indicator  measures  the  inclusiveness  of  the  programme  by  analysing  the  number  of 
participants from fewer opportunities backgrounds participating in the activities. 

The third indicator is related to both amount and quality of opportunities, and is therefore directly related to 
the specific objective. It is related to the amount of placements in the sense that, the more organisations get 
awarded a Quality Label, the more organisations can apply for funds and offer solidarity opportunities. It is 
also  related  to  quality,  as  the  Quality  Label  is  the  accreditation  process  that  guarantees  that  the 
organisations  offering  placements  have  high  standards  and  are  able  to  offer  a  placement  that  ensures  a 
learning environment for the participant. 

The  table  in  Annex  4  summarises  the  monitoring  of  indicators,  and  explains  what  data  is  collected,  and 
how.  It  includes  both  the  three  key  performance  indicators  as  suggested  for  the  Regulation,  as  well  as 
underlying indicators that contribute to the key performance indicators. While only the former appear in the 
regulation,  a  continuous  monitoring  of  the  others  will  also  take  place,  to  be  able  to  respond  to  changing 
needs  of  both  organisations  and  participants.  Regarding  the  link  between  indicators  and  objectives,  each 
indicator  monitors  the  implementation  of  at  least  one  operation  objective  as  described  in  section  2.2.3. 
Targets for the key indicators are provided further below. 

The  choice  of  indicators,  in  particular  its  number  (only  three)  is  based  on  experience  from  both  EU  Aid 
Volunteers and the current European Solidarity Corps. In the case of the former, too many indicators were 
taken, and in some cases gathering the date to monitor them proved impossible48. On the other hand, while 
the indicators for the current European Solidarity Corps are easy to monitor, they do not take into account 
the satisfaction of the participants nor the inclusiveness of the programme.  

All three indicators meet the criteria to be considered "racer" indicators, since they are relevant (i.e. closely 
linked  to  the  objectives),  accepted  (by  staff),  credible  (in  the  case  of  the  net  promoter  score,  a  detailed 
definition  might  be  required  when  reporting  on  it),  easy  to  monitor  (as  we'll  see  next),  and  robust.  The 
collection of data is possible and seamless within the delivery mechanisms already in place. The first and 
third  indicators  are  collected  through E+  Link,  an  IT  tool  that contains the  relevant  data  of  organisations 
and projects under European Solidarity Corps, from the moment organisations apply for the Quality Label, 
until the project is closed. The second indicator will be collected through the Mobility Tool, an IT tool used 
by organisations to encode information about the placement and the participant. For all indicators, there is 
already data collected for organisations and projects (both programmes) and for satisfaction (only European 
Solidarity Corps). 

Provisional targets are shown below for two scenarios. In the first one, the budget is estimated as remaining 
at the same annual equivalent that that of the 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework, and takes into 
consideration  an  increase  in  placements  due  to  increased  coherence  and  more  refined  implementation 
modalities  building  on  experience  gathered.  In  the  second  scenario,  there  is  an  increase  of  20  %  in  the 
budget.  As  it  can  be  seen  below,  a  20  %  increase  in  budget  translates  into  a  higher  increase  in  total 
opportunities, due to the economies of scale and increased efficiency mentioned above. 
Scenario 1: remain with same budget estimates (around EUR 1.1 billion)49 

2021 

2022 

2023 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

# participants 

34,000 

34,500 

35,000 

35,500 

36,000 

37,000 

38,000 

% partic. fewer 
opportunities 

25 % 

25 % 

25 % 

25 % 

25 % 

25 % 

25 % 

# Quality Label 

2,500 

2,500 

2,000 

2,000 

2,000 

2,000 

2,000 

Scenario 2: 20% increase in budget (around EUR 1.3 billion) 

2021 

2022 

2023 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

# participants 

43,000 

45,000 

48,000 

52,000 

56,000 

61,000 

70,000 

48 
49 

See page 69 of the Mid-term evaluation of EU Aid Volunteers. 
The targets suffer from a "handicap" due to unrealised economies of scale and large proportion of indirect costs. 
Therefore, the relationship between budget and outputs is not one to one. 

19 

 
 
 
                                                            
% partic. fewer 
opportunities 

25 % 

25 % 

25 % 

25 % 

25 % 

25 % 

25 % 

# Quality Label 

3,000 

3,000 

2,500 

2,500 

2,000 

2,000 

2,000 

Given the proposed budget of EUR 1.26 billion, the expected targets are: 

Actual: 15% increase in budget (EUR 1.26 billion) 

2021 

2022 

2023 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

# participants 

41,000 

42,500 

45,000 

48,000 

52,000 

57,500 

64,000 

% partic. fewer 
opportunities 

25 % 

25 % 

25 % 

25 % 

25 % 

25 % 

25 % 

# Quality Label 

3,000 

2,800 

2,400 

2,200 

2,000 

2,000 

2,000 

5.2 Efficiency measures 

In  order  to  evaluate  the  increased  efficiency  of  the  extended  European  Solidarity  Corps,  the  following 
indicators will be used internally to monitor the impact of the integration. Baselines will be prepared before 
the integration for both programmes as separate entities (based on past evidence). These internal indicators 
will be closely monitored throughout the implementation of the project. 

 

Insurance,  cost  per  participant:  this  indicator  will  allow  us  to  evaluate  the  savings  achieved 
through a common contract with insurance, as opposed to having two contracts. The joint average 
cost will be compared to the average costs of both  programmes as separate entities, to determine 
the overhead savings and potential savings in the average variable cost per participant, 

  Management fee per participant: this indicator will allow us to evaluate the increased efficiency 
in  the  use  of  management  fee.  The  baseline  will  be  calculated  for  both  the  former  EU  Aid 
Volunteers (management costs of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency) and 
for  the  pre-integration  European  Solidarity  Corps  (National  Agencies  and  the  Education, 
Audiovisual  and  Culture  Executive  Agency),  and  then  compared  to  the  management  fee  of  the 
extended European Solidarity Corps. 

  Maintenance of website (overall and per participant): this indicator will help us monitor the 
realised  savings  with  regards  to  the  maintenance  of  the  platform.  Maintenance  of  one  platform 
instead of two will decrease the overall cost. 

  Outreach  and  communications  (cost  per  participant,  reach):  these  will  allow  us  to  analyse 
both  the  effectiveness  of  the  communication  (in  terms  of  the  number  of  young  people  and 
organisations reached) and its efficiency (in terms of cost per participant). The baseline, however, 
can only be estimated, as these were not monitored in the pre-existing programmes. 

5.3 Monitoring and evaluation framework 

At the latest six months after the entry into force of the Regulation laying down the legal framework of the 
extended European Solidarity Corps, the Commission shall establish a detailed programme for monitoring 
its  outputs,  results  and  impacts.  This  monitoring  framework  will  be  based  on  the  suggested  list  of 
monitoring indicators as it appears in Annex 4. 

In  2027  the  Commission  will  publish  a  Report  taking  stock  of  the  progress  made  towards  achieving  its 
results. The Commission will perform an independent evaluation four years after the date of adoption of the 
Regulation to assess qualitative outcomes that serve to measure the action's effectiveness and impact on the 
young  people,  unmet  societal  needs  and  participating  organisations.  The  main  components  of  this 
evaluation  will  concentrate  on  a  change  in  knowledge,  attitudes,  values,  skills  and  practices  occurring  in 
individuals, organisations and communities as a direct result of the European Solidarity Corps activities.  

Annex 5 shows a suggested evaluation matrix, to be further developed once the evaluation is prepared. The 
sources  of  verification  for  the  evaluation  will  include  the  analysis  of  work  plans  and  reports  from  the 
National Authorities and Agencies, results arising from dissemination, evidence-based studies and surveys 
focussing on measuring effects. The process will involve the collection and selection of the most significant 
change stories emanating from the field, i.e. by panels of designated stakeholders or staff. The focus will be 
on the continuous process of the extended European Solidarity Corps monitoring and management and will 

20 

 
 
be used to help assess the performance of the extended European Solidarity Corps as a whole. Finally, the 
evaluation  will  also  assess  the  economic,  social  and  environmental  impacts  of  the  European  Solidarity 
Corps activities. 

21 

 
 
Annex 1: Procedural information 

1.  LEAD DG(S), DeCIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

  DG Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (DG EAC) is the lead DG for the European  Solidarity 

Corps post 2020 MFF programme. 

  The  Decide  Planning  reference  is  PLAN/2018/XXX  –  EAC  –  EXTENDED  EUROPEAN 

SOLIDARITY CORPS PROGRAMME. 

ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

This ex-ante evaluation has been steered by DG Education, Youth, Sport and Culture since February 2018. 
It has been under the scrutiny of an inter-service steering group (ISSG) comprising representatives of SJ, 
SG,  DGs  BUDG,  HOME,  NEAR,  REGIO,  AGRI,  DIGIT,  DEVCO,  ECHO,  EMPL,  GROW,  JRC  and 
ENV. 

The ISSG on the upcoming MFF proposals in the area of learning mobility has been chaired by the SG. 
The ISSG reviewed the draft ex-ante evaluation, its executive summary and a concept note Staff Working 
Documents as well as the draft Regulation of the extended European Solidarity Corps. 

ISSG meetings took place on: 28 February, 22 March and 17 April 2018. 

EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

The data sources from which the evidence was drawn for the purposes of this ex-ante evaluation covered: 

 

 

 

 

the  ex-ante  evaluation  accompanying  the  2017  proposal  for  a  Regulation  for  the  European 
Solidarity Corps; 

the mid-term evaluation of the EU Aid Volunteers initiative; 

evaluation of the EU Aid Volunteers pilot action; 

the Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes mid-term evaluation, with a particular focus on the 
Youth sector;  and 

 

the input received following the Open Public Consultation in the area of Values and Mobility. 

A description of the stakeholder consultation activities is provided in Annex 2, while Annex 3 summarises 
the main evaluations analysed. 

22 

 
 
 
Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation 

Open Public Consultation on EU funds in the area of values and mobility 

In  view  of  the  preparation  by  the  European  Commission  of  the  next  generation  of  EU  spending 
programmes  post  2020,  an  open  public  consultation  was  launched  by  the  European  Commission  on  10 
January running up until 9 March 2018.  The objective was to collect the views of all interested parties on 
current programmes' performance and future challenges for Europe, as well as on how to make the most of 
every euro of the EU budget. 

The open consultation focused on a cluster of EU funding programmes. The analysis done for the purpose 
of  drafting  this  ex-ante  evaluation  only  covers  the  replies  relevant  to  the  extended  European  Solidarity 
Corps and does not offer a comprehensive overview of results for all programmes. 

The consultation drew 1,839 respondents, of which 1,199 represented an organisation. Some observations 
can be made that are relevant to this ex-ante evaluation. For instance, over 75 % of respondents believe that 
promoting  solidarity,  promoting  social  inclusion,  and  promoting  skills  development  through  mobility  is 
important.  However,  less  than  40  %  of  respondents  believe  that  these  issues  are  either  fully  or  well 
addressed. Nonetheless, respondents  clearly  see  the  EU  added  value  in  this sector,  as  over  75  %  believe 
that  the  current  programmes  add  value  compared  to  what  Member  States  could  achieve  at  national, 
regional and/or local levels. 

Out of all respondents, 135 responded with specific focus on the EU Aid Volunteers and / or the European 
Solidarity Corps. Of these respondents, 82 % believe that the lack of budget to satisfy demand is one of the 
main obstacles preventing the current programmes from achieving their objectives at least to some extent. 
Also,  linked  to  the  simplification  sought  with  the  integration,  it  must  be  highlighted  that  over  68  %  of 
respondents believe that a simplification of forms and grant selection processes would help in improving 
the results of the programmes. 

23 

 
Annex 3: Evaluation results 
Mid-term evaluation of the Erasmus+ programme (2014-2020) (January 2018)50 

The  evaluation  found  that  all  the  evaluated  predecessor  programmes  were/are  highly  effective,  whereas 
Erasmus+  is  more  coherent,  more  relevant  and  only  partly  more  efficient  than  its  predecessors.  The 
Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  gave  a  positive  opinion,  with  comments  to  improve  the  document.  The 
following summarises the results obtained: 

Effectiveness and European added value 

1) The evaluation finds that the Erasmus+ programme is highly valued by the general public as well as by 
its stakeholders. 

2)  Though  less  visible,  the  evaluation  confirms  the  systemic  effect  of  the  evaluated  programmes  on 
education, training, youth and sport policies and systems, directly through the critical mass reached at least 
in the higher education sector. 

3) The evaluation considers there is potential for better definition of actions to maximise the programme's 
impact in Adult Education, sport, Jean Monnet activities and the Student Loan Guarantee Facility. 

4)  The  evaluation  highlights  the  strong  European  added  value  of  Erasmus+  and  its  predecessor 
programmes,  compared  to  what  could  have  been  achieved  with  similar  programmes  focused  on  separate 
geographical areas. 

5)  The  evaluation  concludes that,  in  the  absence of Erasmus+  and  its  predecessors,  there would be  clear 
negative  effects  on  learning  mobility  abroad,  transnational  cooperation  among  organisations,  including 
with  partner  countries  (now  referred  to  as  third  countries  not  associated  to  the  programme),  integration 
between European countries as well as the attitude of participants towards the EU. 

Erasmus+ is more coherent, more relevant and only partly more efficient than its predecessors 

1) The main structural change of the Erasmus+ programme, compared to its predecessors, is its integrated 
nature which has contributed to enhance the programme's internal coherence. 

2) In terms of policy relevance, the evaluation shows that stakeholders see Erasmus+ as being more clearly 
aligned with EU policies and priorities than predecessor programmes. However, a majority of Programme 
countries (now referred to as Member States and third countries associated to the programme) call for more 
flexibility at national level. 

3) The evaluation found a high complementary between Erasmus+ and other EU policies and programmes 
relevant to education, training, youth and sport. 

4) When it comes to budget, the evaluation concludes that more is needed for the programme to reach a 
critical mass in sectors other than higher education. 

5)  The  evaluation  shows  that  Erasmus+  mobility  actions  are  clearly  cost-effective,  especially  learners' 
mobility.  The  management  costs  (6%  of  Erasmus+  administrative  and  operational  budget)  are  deemed 
reasonable, especially when compared to similar national schemes (14% in average). 

6)  In  terms  of  programme  management,  the  division  of  responsibilities,  as  inherited  from  predecessor 
programmes,  between  the  Commission,  National  Authorities,  National  Agencies  and  EACEA,  is  overall 
clear and fit for purpose. 

7) However, there is clearly a repeated call for further simplification.  

50 

https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/erasmus-plus/eval/swd-e-plus-mte.pdf  

24 

 
 
                                                            
Interim evaluation of the implementation of the EU Aid Volunteers initiative (November 2017)51  

An interim evaluation of the initiative was carried out in 2017 according to the requirements in the legal 
base.  A  study  carried  out  by  an  external  contractor  assessed  the  relevance,  coherence,  EU  added  value, 
effectiveness and efficiency. The findings of the study are stated below. 

Relevance 

When  analysing  the  relevance  of  the  EUAV  Initiative,  the  external  evaluation  team  concentrated  on 
assessing the relevance of the five established operational objectives of the EU Aid Volunteers initiative 
against the different needs identified. The evaluation concludes that the Initiative is highly relevant. First, 
the  needs  highlighted  in  the  Impact  Assessment  are  being  directly  addressed  by  the  actions  of  EU  Aid 
Volunteers.  Second,  the  objectives  are  relevant  to  their  intended  stakeholders,  particularly  in  regard  to 
strengthening  capacity.  Third,  all  the  types  of  action  identified  in  the  Regulation  help  to  fulfil  the 
objectives to an extent which justifies their funding by the EU Aid Volunteers initiative. It is understood 
that  not  all  objectives  are  formulated  to  be  relevant  to  every  stakeholder,  and  not  every  type  of  funded 
action is constructed to be relevant to every objective. 

Coherence 

The  external  evaluation  study's  analysis  of  the  coherence  of  EUAV  with  other  related  EU  activities 
(emergency  humanitarian  response,  development  assistance,  civil  protection)  revealed  room  for 
improvement. The Initiative is not fully aligned with the main EU humanitarian aid processes (e.g. global 
needs  analysis,  planning  of  actions  and  engagement  of  professional  sector  actors).  To  date  there  is  only 
informal  coordination  with  the  EU  development  actors,  and  the  evaluation  has  identified  potential 
opportunities  for  cooperation  and  alignment,  especially  as  regards  contributing  to  the  implementation  of 
the EU's Joint Strategic Approach to Resilience. With respect to civil protection, EU Aid Volunteers shows 
a few examples of cooperation with EU civil protection actors (i.e. one EU national civil protection body 
active  in  an  EUAV  funded  project  and  another  certified  as  an  EUAV  sending  organisation),  but  there  is 
also a potential for improved coherence in this area. 

EU Added Value 

The  external  study  concluded  that  the  centralised  management  of  EUAV  by  the  Commission  provides 
added value in terms of an integrated transnational approach, a budget for EU level technical assistance and 
more project opportunities. The standard of volunteer management established by EUAV can be called a 
European standard as it is mandatory for all deployment grant applicants, and promoted at EU level. The 
quality of training provided by EU Aid Volunteers to their volunteers is also a clear added value compared 
to  other  existing  volunteering  schemes.  There  is,  however,  no  evidence  that  the  EU  Aid  Volunteers 
initiative has significantly enhanced EU visibility and image at public level in the EU so far. A significant 
proportion of interviewed stakeholders, survey respondents and also some Member States’ representatives 
do not fully agree with the statement that “What EU Aid Volunteers aims to achieve cannot be achieved by 
other Member States’ initiatives”. 

Effectiveness 

The external study found that the effectiveness of EU Aid Volunteers varies between the different elements 
of the initiative. Those elements of EU Aid Volunteers related to processes and administration show good 
effectiveness  levels,  e.g.  implementation  framework,  processes  and  procedures,  contract  management, 
technical  and  procedural  information  to  stakeholders,  training  of  volunteers  and  skills  development.  To 
date the Initiative shows limited effectiveness in relation to “outreach” components such as the engagement 
of professional humanitarian actors, the external communication of the Union's humanitarian principles, or 
the  enhancement  of  coherence  and  consistency  of  volunteering  across  Member  States.  With  respect  to 
deployment (a core aspect of EU Aid Volunteers, where figures are significantly below target), the EU Aid 
Volunteers Initiative has not proved effective during the first half of its first implementation cycle. 

Efficiency 

With  regard  to  efficiency  the  study  compiled  by  the  external  contractor  concludes  that  the  Regulations  
which govern EU Aid Volunteers, and therefore dictate the processes to be followed by EU Aid Volunteers 
partners,  are  often  perceived  as  complex,  e.g.  the  need  for  certification,  list  of  eligible  countries,  list  of 
eligible  activities,  and  long  periods  before  deployment.  Based  on  findings,  the  external  study  concluded 
that  DG  ECHO,  together  with  the  Executive  Agency  EACEA,  have  managed  to  establish  a  functioning 
implementation  framework  where  continuous  attempts  to  reduce  complexity  have  led  to  visible 
improvements over time such as the reduction of the number of partners required for EU Aid Volunteers 
grant application. The established monitoring framework is complex but workable, although some unviable 

51 

http://ec.europa.eu/echo/funding-evaluations/evaluations/thematic-evaluations_en 

25 

 
                                                            
indicators  should  be  reviewed.  As  stated  above,  the  evaluation  identified  cost-conscious  behaviours  (i) 
within  DG  ECHO  /  EACEA,  for  example  requesting  grant  applicants  to  expressly  comment  on  cost-
effectiveness, and (ii)  through  service  contracts: those  drawn up  for  training  and  insurance  of  volunteers 
mostly  use  variable  cost  positions.  Overall,  the  establishment  and  the  implementation  of  the  Initiative, 
based on the requirements laid down in the EU Aid Volunteers Regulations, can be deemed to be efficient. 
Evaluation of the pilot action of the EU Aid Volunteers initiative (July 2014)52  

The pilot action of the EU Aid Volunteers initiative (2011-2014) was evaluated by an external contractor 
and presented in a study in July 2014. The purpose of the pilot action was to guide the development of the 
Regulation  to  establish  the  initiative  and  to  inform  the  development  of  standards  and  systems  around 
specific dimensions (training, certification mechanism, deployment set-up, data-base) of the future EU Aid 
Volunteers scheme. 

Overall evaluation findings of this study are stated below. 

The effectiveness of the pilot action 

The purpose of the EU Aid Volunteers Pilot Action was to fund projects that would ‘test’ different models 
or methods of implementing the distinct dimensions of EU Aid Volunteers initiative. The pilot action was 
effective in testing these. Indeed, almost all of the different aspects now included in the new Regulation 
were  first  ‘tested’  through  the  pilot  actions.  Overall,  the  pilot  action  was  also  robust  to  the  extent  that 
multiple models / approaches were trialled for each ‘dimension’ of the EU Aid Volunteers. The evaluation 
team  considered  that  only  three  dimensions  were  not  explicitly  tested  (database  model  of  deployment, 
exchange of staff and volunteers, certification mechanisms) and that in these cases, comprehensive lessons 
have not been generated to inform the practical delivery of these aspects of the programme. 

Lessons  were  generated  in  relation  to  all  the  remaining  dimensions.  Some  of  the  most  relevant  relate  to 
suitability and usefulness of different profiles of volunteer, key volunteer competences, the understanding 
and  definition  of  ‘expert  volunteer’,  methods  for  volunteer  selection,  volunteer  training  and  preparation, 
volunteer management in the field, capacity-building and security. 

Coherence and complementarity with other programmes 

The  EU  Aid  Volunteers  concept  is  coherent  with  regulatory  frameworks  guiding  DG  ECHO’s  work,  in 
particular Regulation 1257/1996 and the Decision establishing the EU Civil Protection Mechanism. It also 
coheres with the agenda to professionalise the Humanitarian Aid sector. Some EU Aid Volunteers projects 
were clearly development projects, but – if carefully managed – similar projects in the future could provide 
a useful opportunity for exploring, implementing and possibly standardising practices on LRRD. 

Eleven out of the twelve lead sending organisations, as well as several partners were already either running 
or  participating  in  other  volunteering  programmes  at  the  time  of  their  involvement  in  the  EU  Aid 
Volunteers  initiative.  In  some  EU  Aid  Volunteers  pilot  projects  the  objectives,  approach  to  recruitment, 
training  and/or  deployment  was  very  similar,  if  not  identical,  to  the  existing  programmes  of  the  sending 
organisation  involved.  These  sending  organisations  report  that  participation  in  the  EU  Aid  Volunteers 
allowed  them  to  recruit  ‘new’  profiles  of  volunteer  and  design  different  missions  from  their  usual 
programme and thus enrich their portfolio of volunteering activities (e.g. it allowed them to deploy junior 
volunteers instead of expert volunteers, or deploy internationally instead of in Europe). This situation thus 
presents  risk  that  EU  Aid  Volunteers  is  used  as  additional  funding  source  to  expand  existing  schemes, 
possibly at the expense of new organisations without an established programme. 

EU Aid Volunteers volunteers complemented the work of local staff either by helping staff to build new 
skills, filling technical gaps and/or providing additional manpower. However, there is a risk of overlap: one 
eighth to one fifth of volunteers surveyed and one fifth of hosting organisations thought that their work had 
sometimes  replaced  or  duplicated  the  work  of  local  staff.  Such  situations  were  avoided  when  sending 
organisations designed volunteer interventions in partnership with the hosting organisation(s) and – where 
possible  –  the  volunteer(s).  Organisations  participating  in  the  pilot  action  have  suggested  that  the  DG 
ECHO  field  offices  could  have  promoted  complementarity  by  increasing  visibility  of  the  EU  Aid 
Volunteers and supporting synergies with ongoing humanitarian work in-country. 

EU added value 

The key added value of the EU Aid Volunteers Pilot Action was its trans-national dimension, both for the 
organisations  and  the  volunteers  involved.  The  possibility  to  work  with  DG  ECHO  project  and  to  build 
partnerships  with  organisations  from  other  EU  Member  States  was  reported  by  sending  organisations 
interviewed as one of the key reasons for having participated. 76% (54 out of a total of 71) of volunteers 

52 

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/2232eef0-241a-4f8c-b455-bf067bce477b 
26 

 
                                                            
surveyed considered that participation in the EU AV Pilot Action increased, to some extent or to a large 
extent,  their  feeling  of  belonging  to  a  European  Humanitarian  Aid  force,  and  to  the  EU  more  generally. 
Only 18% replied ‘not at all’ to this statement. These findings were confirmed by volunteers participating 
in the Facebook focus group and some of the volunteers interviewed. This sentiment was generated when 
volunteers from different EU countries were deployed together at the same time and were trained together. 
However,  evidence  shows  that  under  some  projects,  volunteers’  ‘loyalty’  was  first  and  foremost  to  their 
sending and/or hosting organisation. 

The EU Aid Volunteers Pilot Action has had a notable added value for the twelve (out of 39) participating 
sending organisations from EU13. For these organisations, the EU Aid Volunteers Pilot Action provided an 
opportunity to learn more about HA provision abroad, especially if this was spread over more than one call, 
raised their profile at Member State level and increased their credibility within the international HA sector. 

By contrast, accessibility to the EU Aid Volunteers for potential volunteers from EU13 is still very limited. 
This is due in a great part to the absence of a historical investment in the EU13 region, but also language 
and financial barriers and in some cases due to inadequate targeting of candidate volunteers at recruitment 
stage. This is a key area for improvement in the future initiative. 

Relevance 

All  of  the  pilot  projects  were  implemented  in  communities  at  risk  of  (or  currently  experiencing)  a 
humanitarian crisis / natural disaster. However, as the pilot projects did not select target communities on 
the basis of a Global Needs Assessment (e.g. in alignment with methods used by DG ECHO in its annual 
Strategy),  it  is  not  possible  to  assert  whether  they  addressed  the  needs  of  the  most  in  need  of  the 
interventions  or  otherwise  the  most  relevant.  Overall,  the  EU  Aid  Volunteers  initiative  is  not  the  most 
relevant way to address the immediate humanitarian needs of local communities in the short-term, because 
volunteers do not always have either the most relevant technical or professional expertise to enable them to 
deliver aid in the most effective and efficient way. 

Equally,  the  EU  Aid  Volunteers  Pilot  Action  did  not  necessarily  target  local  organisations  that  were  the 
most in need, given that hosting organisations were mainly selected on the basis of existing relationships 
rather than a wider assessment. However, given the time and practical constraints this is a logical approach. 
Furthermore,  selected  hosting  organisations  report  that  sending  organisations  were  overall  effective  in 
assessing and addressing their needs. 

Cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness 

The  total  EU  funding  available  for  the  EU  Aid  Volunteers  Pilot  Action  was  4.5  million  euro  with  the 
planned value of the 12 pilot projects together amounting to 6.5 million euro (including co-financing). The 
average project value was EUR 0.54 million per project. 

Projects  were  implemented  without  any  major  financial  difficulties,  although  in  a  number  of  cases  the 
initially  planned  budget  allocations  for  certain  types  of  expenditure  or  activities  had  to  be  revised  in 
particular,  to  increase  the  human  resources  for  organisational  and  coordination  activities,  working  with 
partners  from  different  EU  Member  States  and  deploying  volunteers  in  multiple  third  countries.  One 
project  reported  underspend  (84%  of  the  project  value  was  spent  upon  completion)  and  the  budget  of 
another  project  was  reduced  by  DG  ECHO.  Considering  the  fact  that  most  of  the  organisations  were 
deploying  volunteers  of  different  nationalities  (and  different  administrative  regulations)  together  for  the 
first time and in view of the pilot nature of the programme, some level of re-budgeting is understandable, 
but some of the overruns and unexpected costs could have been prevented through better and more careful 
planning beforehand, or by setting aside a contingency as part of the budget. 

The  greatest  proportion  of  project  budgets  went  on  staff,  followed  by  volunteer  expenses,  training, 
logistics, then equipment, security, communications and monitoring and evaluation. The budget allocated 
to communication and visibility activities was surprisingly low – in four projects it represented less than 1 
% of the total planned budget and this may account for what appears to be a low impact on increasing the 
visibility of the programme in hosting countries. Very little also went to the local offices (average 2.38 % 
range 0 % - 7.67 % in 2011 and 2012) and hosting organisations had mixed views on the fairness of the 
budget distributed to them with some considering more could have been spent. 

The average cost per volunteer placement based on all 12 pilot projects was EUR 4,414 per month, with 
variations reflecting often the type of placement (requiring a highly experienced volunteer or not) and the 
type of project (short-term specific missions or not). Reliable benchmarking with other voluntary schemes 
has not been possible within the scope of this evaluation, but considering that this average costs comprise 
all  project-related  expenditure,  ranging  from  design  and  development,  administration,  travel  and 
subsistence  to  recruitment,  selection,  training,  monitoring  and  evaluation,  etc.,  this  cost  seems  to  be 
reasonable and is likely to further decrease in the new EU Aid Volunteers initiative. 

27 

 
Impact 

The  evaluation  has  provided  indications  of  the  direct  impact  that  the  programme  may  have  on  those 
participating in it. Based on the outcomes and results of the pilot action, it seems likely that the EU Aid 
Volunteers  could  have  a  strong  impact  on  participating  volunteers  in  (i)  increasing  their  willingness  to 
work in the humanitarian aid / civil protection sector in the future; and (ii) improving their skills. Many of 
those  who  volunteered  through  the  EUAV  Pilot  Action  went  on  to  find  jobs  in  the  sector,  but  this  was 
largely  within  the  sending  organisations  that  recruited  them  and  the  direct  pathway  from  EUAV 
volunteering to employment is less direct / guaranteed than e.g. traineeship / internship schemes. Hosting 
organisations overall felt that the EUAV Pilot Action had a positive impact on their capacity, with success 
in  building  capacity  depending  on  the  hosting  organisation’s  sense  of  ownership  of  the  project  and 
investment in it. 

On a more global scale, the capacity of the EUAV to (i) provide additional capacity to the EU in delivering 
aid  and  (ii)  improve  the  visibility  of  the  EU  humanitarian  principles  is  likely  to  be  limited.  During  the 
period  2014  to  2020,  DG  ECHO  intends  to  train  4,800  candidate  volunteers,  offer  2,000  humanitarian 
apprenticeships, and offer 3,950 deployments through the initiative averaging at around 658 deployments 
per year. By contrast, the UN Volunteers initiative, which also aims to increase the capacity of the agency 
to  provide  humanitarian  response,  deploys  up  to  8,000  volunteers  per  year.  The  EU  Aid  Volunteers  in 
numbers alone is therefore unlikely to have a tangible impact on the EU provision of Humanitarian Aid. 

Whilst pilot projects have tested new standards and approaches to volunteers' management and preparation, 
with some adapting their existing protocols and procedures, it is not possible to assess neither whether they 
will keep using these in the future, nor whether these standards will have a wider impact beyond the EU 
Aid Volunteers. 

28 

 
Annex 4: Suggested detailed monitoring framework 

# 

Specific 
objective 
(SO) / 
Operational 
objective 
(OO) 

1 

SO 

1.1 

OO – 1.1 

1.2 

OO – 1.1 

1.3 

OO – 1.2 

1.4 

OO – 1.2 

1.5 

OO – 1.3 

1.6 

OO – 1.4 

1.7 

OO – 1.4 

1.8 

OO – 2.3 

1.9 

OO – 2.3 

Indicator and 
definition 

Unit of 
measurement 

Data source 

Frequency of 
measurement 

number of 
participants in 
solidarity activities 

number of 
participants in 
volunteering (non-
humanitarian aid) 

number of 
participants in 
volunteering 
(humanitarian aid) 

number of 
participants in 
traineeship 
placements 

number of 
participants in job 
placements 

number of 
participants in 
solidarity projects 

number of 
participants in 
networking activities 

percentage of 
participants from 
previous years, as 
opposed to 
participants who 
have just finished 
their placement 
(former participant  /  
all participants) 

percentage of 
participants that 
undergo online 
training 

percentage of 
eligible participants 
covered by insurance 

number of 
participants 

Mobility 
Tool 

continuous 

number of 
participants 

Mobility 
Tool 

continuous 

number of 
participants 

Mobility 
Tool 

continuous 

number of 
participants 

Mobility 
Tool 

continuous 

number of 
participants 

Mobility 
Tool 

continuous 

number of 
participants 

Mobility 
Tool 

continuous 

number of 
participants 

Mobility 
Tool 

quarterly 

percentage 

Mobility 
Tool 

quarterly 

European 
Solidarity 
Corps 
platform 

contractor 
reports 

continuous 

quarterly 

percentage (per 
training module) 

percentage 

29 

 
 
 
scheme 

1.10 

OO – 2.1 

net promoter score, 
participants 

percentage 

Mobility 
Tool 

continuous 

2 

SO 

2.1 

OO – 1.1 

2.2 

OO – 1.1 

2.3 

OO – 1.2 

2.4 

OO – 1.2 

2.5 

OO – 1.3 

2.6 

OO – 1.4 

2.7 

OO – 2.4 

percentage of 
participants from a 
fewer opportunities 
background 

percentage of 
participants from a 
fewer opportunities 
background in 
volunteering (non-
humanitarian aid) 

percentage of 
participants from a 
fewer opportunities 
background in 
volunteering 
(humanitarian aid) 

percentage of 
participants from a 
fewer opportunities 
background in 
traineeship 
placements 

percentage of 
participants from a 
fewer opportunities 
background in job 
placements 

percentage of 
participants from a 
fewer opportunities 
background in 
solidarity projects 

percentage of 
participants from a 
fewer opportunities 
background in 
networking activities 

number of 
promotional 
campaigns targeting 
young people from a 
fewer opportunities 
background 

percentage 

Mobility 
Tool 

continuous 

percentage 

Mobility 
Tool 

continuous 

percentage 

Mobility 
Tool 

continuous 

percentage 

Mobility 
Tool 

continuous 

percentage 

Mobility 
Tool 

continuous 

percentage 

Mobility 
Tool 

continuous 

percentage 

Mobility 
Tool 

quarterly 

number of 
campaigns 

NA yearly 
reports 

yearly 

30 

 
 
3 

SO 

OO – 2.1  

3.1 

OO – 2.1, 
2.2 

3.2 

OO – 2.2 

3.3 

OO – 2.2  

number of 
organisations 
holding a European 
Solidarity Corps 
Quality Label 

number of trainings 
for newly accredited 
organisations per NA 

number of annual 
events for accredited 
organisations per NA 

percentage of 
organisations (out of 
total organisations) 
that state that the 
programme has 
improved the quality 
of its activities "to 
some extent" or "to a 
great extent". 

number of 
organisations 

E+ Link 

continuous 

number of trainings 

number of trainings 

NA yearly 
reports 

NA yearly 
reports 

yearly 

yearly 

percentage 

Mobility 
Tool 

continuous 

3.4 

OO – 1.1, 
1.2, 1.3 

number of projects 

number of projects 

E+ Link 

continuous 

3.5 

OO – 2.1 

net promoter score, 
organisations 

percentage 

Mobility 
Tool 

continuous 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 5: Suggested evaluation matrix 

The table below shows a preliminary draft of a suggested evaluation matrix, that may be used to plan the 
future evaluations, starting with the mid-term evaluation. The judgement criteria and indicators have been 
omitted  at  this  stage,  as  this  represents  a  preliminary  suggestion  to  be  revisited  when  planning  the 
evaluation.  All  the  relevant  evaluation  criteria  are  addressed  by  the  proposed  matrix:  effectiveness  is 
covered  by  questions  marked  1,  efficiency  by  questions  marked  2,  relevance  by  questions  marked  3, 
coherence by questions marked 4, and EU added value by questions marked 5. 

Question 

Sub-question 

1.1 What are the long-term impacts of the programme? 

Potential data 
sources 

1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 
and 12. 

1.2 What negative and positive factors seem to be influencing 
outputs, results and impacts? 

1, 3, 8, 10 and 
11. 

1.3 What are the differences in impact of programme actions on 
young people from fewer opportunities backgrounds who 
traditionally do not engage in transnational activities as compared 
to other young people that benefit from the programme? 

2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 
12. 

1.4 What have been the unintended effects and their magnitude of 
the programme if any? 

2, 3, 8 and 9. 

1. To what 
extent is the 
programme 
delivering the 
expected 
outputs, results 
and impacts?  

1.5 To what extent are the effects likely to last after the 
intervention ends? 

1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 
11. 

1.6 How effective are the forms of cooperation and the types of 
actions under the programme?  

6, 10 and 11. 

2.1 Are there positive/negative effects that existed in the previous 
programmes, but that no longer exist with the new programme? 

3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 
10. 

2.2 To what extent is the size of budget appropriate and 
proportionate to what the programme set out to achieve? 

5, 6, 8 and 10. 

2. To what 
extent is the 
programme 
cost-effective? 

2.3 To what extent the programme has achieved further efficiency 
in terms of horizontal and management support? In particular, 
with regards to insurance, maintenance cost of the platform, 
management fee, simplified processes for application and 
accreditation and communications and outreach. 

6, 10 and 11. 

2.4 Are there differences in efficiency of programme 
management and implementation between National Agencies and 
the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency? 

2, 6 and 10. 

3.1 To what extent are needs of different stakeholders and sectors 
addressed by programme objectives? How successful is the 
programme in attracting and reaching target audiences and groups 
within different fields of the programme's scope? 

2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 
10 and 11. 

3.2 In case some target groups (such as young people from fewer 
opportunities backgrounds) are not sufficiently reached, what 
factors are limiting their access and what actions could be taken 
to remedy this? 

3, 4 and 7. 

3. To what 
extent is the 
programme 
relevant? 

4. To what 
extent is this 

4.1 To what extent are the centralised and decentralised actions 
coherent? How do they interact/complement each other? 

2, 5, 6 and 10. 

32 

 
 
4.2 To what extent is the programme coherent with relevant EU 
policies? In particular, with regards to education, humanitarian 
aid and neighbourhood policies. 

1, 2, 3, 6, 11 and 
12. 

4.3 To what extent does the programme design (including needs, 
objectives, activities, outputs and effects) provide appropriate 
links and support to the EU policy agendas. 

2, 3, 6, 11 and 
12. 

4.4 To what extent is the programme coherent with various 
interventions pursued at national and international level which 
have similar objectives? 

1, 2, 5, 7 and 8. 

5.1 What does the programme offer in addition to other similar 
schemes available at national level? 

5, 7 and 8. 

5.2 What would be the most likely consequences of stopping the 
programme? 

3, 5, 6, 7 and 8. 

programme 
coherent with 
programmes 
with similar or 
complementary 
objectives?  

5. What is the 
additional 
value resulting 
from EU 
intervention 
compared to 
what could 
reasonably 
have been 
expected from 
Member 
States? 

The following list of potential data sources was identified for future evaluations: 

1.  Desk  research:  review  of  other  evaluations,  NA  yearly  reports  (since  2014),  studies,  academic 

papers at EU, national and international level, etc; 

2. 

Interviews of key informants: semi-guided interviews of selected stakeholders in all sectors, at EU 
level and in multiple locations; 

3.  Open public consultation: to gather the opinions and perspectives of the general public and other 

stakeholders; 

4.  Social media analysis: Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and the European Solidarity Corps app to be 

analysed; 

5.  Benchmarking  with  comparable  national  programmes:  strategic,  process  and/or  financial 
benchmarking  against  national  or  international  schemes  sharing  some  similarities  with  the 
European Solidarity Corps; 

6.  Programme data: gathered by IT tools, mainly E+Link, Mobility Tool and the European Solidarity 

Corps platform; 

7.  Participants  surveys  and  control  groups:  surveys  targeting  both  participants  and  eligible  young 
people that did not participate, to compare some individual characteristics such as employability, 
skills, knowledge, attitude, values, etc; 

8.  Organisations surveys: surveys to organisations participating in the European Solidarity Corps. 

9.  Beneficiary surveys: end beneficiaries of solidarity activities; 

10.  Agencies  survey:  agency  staff  in  charge  of  programme  implementation  (including  National 

Agencies and the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency); 

11.  Experts  (project  assessors)  survey:  assessors  supporting  Quality  Label  accreditation,  project 

selection and those supporting evaluation of final reports (centralised and decentralised projects); 

12.  Case  studies:  cases  mainly  at  organisation  level  to  assess  spill  over  effects  and  changes  at 

organisation and system levels. 

33