COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the interim evaluation of the implementation of the Rights, Equality and Citizenship programme 2014-2020
Date: 2018-06-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, European citizenship, area of freedom, security and justice, children's rights, civil society, consumer protection, data protection, equal treatment, gender equality, human rights

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 29.6.2018  SWD(2018) 359 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the interim evaluation of the implementation of the Rights, Equality and Citizenship programme 2014-2020 {COM(2018) 508 final} - {SWD(2018) 358 final}  
 
 
The report and the staff working document (accompanying the report) represent the results of 
the  interim  evaluation  of  the  first  half  time  implementation  of  the  Rights,  Equality  and 
Citizenship  Programme  (from  2014  to  mid-2017).  The  Programme  was  designed  to  further 
develop a Europe of rights and equality in accordance with the Europe 2020 Strategy. 

Therefore, its general objective is the further development of an area where equality and the 
rights  of  persons,  as  enshrined  in  the  Treaty,  the  Charter  and  international  human  rights 
conventions,  are  promoted  and  protected  by  addressing  fundamental  rights  in  nine  areas 
(violence, anti-racism, non-discrimination, protection of the rights of people with disabilities, 
of children and of consumers, gender equality and gender mainstreaming, data protection, EU 
citizenship) corresponding to its specific objectives.  

The evaluation carried out assessed the Programme's current progress towards its objectives. 
The findings will contribute to the last work programmes for 2019-2020 and will also inform 
the design of the Programme for the post-2020 funding period.  

The  interim  evaluation  illustrated  that  the  Rights,  Equality  and  Citizenship  Programme  is 
performing  generally  well  at  midterm  with  regard  to  its  specific  objectives.  In  particular,  in 
terms of: 

  Effectiveness 

As the progress in achieving the Programme’s outputs and outcomes has been good so far, it 
is reasonable to expect that the Programme is making good progress towards achieving 
also its general objective.  However, sometimes is challenging to trace and attribute the 
changes  in  the  global  indicators  to  the  interventions  of  the  Programme.  Concerning,  in 
particular, its specific objectives, the progress in the achievement of targets in relation to 
the nine objectives is uneven. With regard to three specific objectives (namely the ones on 
promoting  non-discrimination,  promoting  the  rights  deriving  from  the  citizenship  of  the 
Union and promoting consumer rights), the Programme’s contribution is direct and substantial 
and  their  targets  are  likely  to  be  achieved.  Instead,  the  evidence  on  the  impact  of  the 
Programme  on  the  achievement  of  other  specific  objectives  showed  that  the  Programme 
activities  are  contributing  to  the  achievement  of  their  targets,  but  this  impact  is  more 
moderate, due both to the limited amount of Programme resources, as well as change being 
influenced by many other different factors.  

In  any case,  the  key result achieved across the specific objectives  is the  improved skills 
and competences of professionals. Another important achievement of the Programme is the 
contribution  to  systemic  change  by  project  results,  including  better  tools,  procedures, 
services and policies developed across the specific objectives. 

The  monitoring  indicators  selected  for  measuring  the  achievements  of  the  Programme 
are overall adequate, but some improvements could be implemented. 

According to the majority of beneficiaries, the communication activities undertaken by the 
Commission to promote the Programme have been largely successful and the popularity 
of  the  Programme  has,  therefore,  increased  compared  to  the  predecessor  programmes. 
However, efforts need to be maintained to ensure all potential applicants in all Member States 
are reached.  

The benefit of the Programme has been high compared to the predecessor programmes 
also in terms of applications received and awards granted.  

2 

 
 
An additional positive development has been the high level of financial implementation of 
the Programme since the level of funding requested by applicants and granted in relation to 
each  specific  objective  in  years  2014-2015  is  slightly  higher  than  in  the  predecessor 
programmes.  

Moreover,  based  on  several  indicators  and  according  to  the  surveyed  and  interviewed 
stakeholders,  the  evaluation  showed  positive  progress  in  delivering  improvements  in  the 
level  of  knowledge  of  EU  law  and  EU  policies,  rights  and  values.  Moreover,  the 
partnerships  formed  during  the  Programme  activities  have  had  positive  impacts  on 
beneficiaries and Programme participants’ skills and capacities. 

Concerning the sustainability of the Programme’s activities after the end of the funding, the 
majority  of  surveyed  stakeholders  considered  that  actions  are  very  highly  likely  to  be 
sustained  in  terms  of  acquiring  new  skills  and  knowledge,  increased  awareness  and  the 
creation of tools and procedures outlasting the projects. Slightly lower was the expectation of 
the  training  activities  lasting  after  the  project  completion.  However,  only  a  third  of 
respondents expected the partnerships which were funded during the project to last beyond the 
funding period. Similarly, low is the proportion of the stakeholders who considered that the 
partnerships  formed  during  the  projects  financed  by  the  Programme  have  increased  their 
fundraising  capabilities.  In  general,  there  is  very  little  evidence  about  the  sustainability  of 
project results after the end of funding.  

Finally,  more  than  80  %  of  survey  respondents  state  that  the  Programme  is  (very)  highly 
effective in meeting the needs of the relevant target groups. Over 70% of the Programme 
beneficiaries surveyed in the evaluation also considered that the Programme has been highly 
and very effective in targeting the right policy areas and the most relevant target groups.  

  Relevance 

The Programme is highly relevant to the needs of its stakeholders and beneficiaries, e.g. 
in  terms  of  knowledge  development,  training,  awareness  raising  and  structural  support. 
Indeed, the stakeholders surveyed in the evaluation were very positive about the relevance of 
the Programme actions in meeting their needs. However, the evaluation also found some gaps 
in relation to the needs of some stakeholders and citizens that could receive greater attention 
by the Programme, such as women subject to multiple discrimination (e.g. migrant, disabled, 
and older women). 

The needs identified at the time of the Programme’s adoption are still relevant, since, as 
demonstrated  by  the  evaluation  carried  out,  the  achievement  of  several  targets,  relating,  in 
particular,  to  gender  equality  or  rights  of  disabled  people  is  unlikely  as  progress  has  been 
slow.  

The Programme is also flexible enough to incorporate emerging needs.  

Another indication of the continuing relevance of the Programme to the current needs is the 
increase  of  demand  for  grants  funded  compared  to  previous  programmes,  especially 
concerning the specific objectives relating to the violence against children, non-discrimination 
and combating racism.  

  Efficiency 

According  to  the  majority  of  beneficiaries  and  Member  States  representatives,  the  costs  of 
the Programme are either proportionate to benefits or outweighing them.  

3 

 
 
A key achievement of the Programme, compared to its predecessors, has also been the lower 
demand on beneficiaries in terms of time and financial resources.  

Moreover,  according  to  stakeholders,  the  changes  in  the  design  of  the  Programme, 
compared  to  2007-2013,  are  the  most  important  factor  for  the  efficiency  of  projects  in 
achieving the results.  

Beneficiaries  consider  current  funding  instruments  as  adequate  for  the  Programme. 
However,  they  consider  that  there  can  be  scope  for  using  alternative  measures,  such  as 
microcredit and small loans.  

Finally, several beneficiaries pointed out to the issue of the relative long time span between 
the  application  and  the  start  of  project  activities  as  problematic  for  their  efficiency, 
since,  in  this  long  period,  contextual  factors  may  change,  requesting  an  additional  effort  in 
adapting the project to the new context.  

  Coherence, Complementarity, Synergies 

According  to  beneficiaries,  the  Programme  presents  a  high  level  of  internal  coherence 
(between the specific  objectives  and interventions) and a high level of  external  coherence 
and complementarity with other EU instruments, programmes and actions.  

No  significant  overlaps  with  other  EU  funded  programmes  have  been  found  in  the 
evaluation.  This  would  seem  to  confirm  that  specific  objectives  are  more  streamlined  and 
clearly defined if compared to the predecessor programmes.  

Moreover, the Programme is highly coherent with the internationally agreed principles, 
such as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.  

In addition, according to almost 90% of beneficiaries, the Rights, Equality and Citizenship 
Programme is also overall consistent, in its objectives, targets and types of actions, with 
national policies in the same field.  

  EU added value 

The  inherent  “European”  and  transnational  dimension  is  at  the  core  of  the  EU  added 
value  of  the  Programme.  According  to  the  majority  of  beneficiaries,  in  the  absence  of  the 
Programme activities, similar projects would not have taken place or not be possible with the 
same coverage in terms of beneficiaries and target groups, due to lack of available resources 
at  Member  State  level.  This  is  particularly  relevant  for  the  training  actions  in  the  field  of 
prevention of all forms of violence and in the field of data protection. Similarly, EU funding 
for EU level organisations is particularly vital as national funding for a transnational network 
would  be  even  more  difficult  to  obtain.  Moreover,  projects  financed  by  the  Programme, 
according to surveyed stakeholders, seem to have higher quality and to be more innovative 
than those funded at the national level. In particular, these projects, by allowing innovative 
approaches to be experimented with, can be used to show national governments the benefits 
of the activities undertaken.  

Finally,  the  demand  for  Programme  funding  has  continued  to  be  high  throughout  the 
implementation  of  the  Programme.  All  these  findings  suggest  that  there  is  sustained 
demand for EU-level action in the fields covered by the Programme. 

  Equity 

The  Programme  has  provided  specific  support  to  the  promotion  of  the  cross-cutting 
priorities of gender equality, rights of child and rights of people with disabilities.  

4 

 
 
The issue of the gender mainstreaming is promoted through a dedicated specific objective. 
Furthermore,  gender  equality  specific  actions  have  also  been  funded  under  other  specific 
objectives.  This  means  that  significant  financial  resources  have  been  dedicated  to  the 
promotion  of  gender  equality  and  gender  mainstreaming  directly.  Gender  mainstreaming 
principles  and  mechanisms  are  reflected  in  all  Programme  phases  of  programming, 
implementation  and  monitoring  but  still  there  is  scope  for  strengthening  the  protection  of 
women facing multiple disadvantages and also for involving more the  equality bodies in the 
setting of Programme priorities. 

Concerning  the  protection  of  the  rights  of  the  child,  the  Programme  has  two  specific 
objectives directly targeting the promotion of the rights of the child. Furthermore, also other 
specific objectives could fund actions potentially relevant for children. Moreover, the respect 
of  the  rights  of  the  child  is  enhanced  by  the  fact  that  organisations  applying  for  funding, 
which  will  work  directly  with  children  during  the  project  implementation,  must  provide  the 
Commission with a description of their child protection policy. However, the mainstreaming 
of  rights  of  child  across  all  Programme  phases  could  be  further  improved,  in  particular 
through  the  involvement  of  bodies  representing  the  interest  of  children  in  the  setting  of 
Programme priorities.  

The  Programme  envisages  a  specific  objective  for  the  promotion  of  the  rights  of  persons 
with disabilities and one on the promotion of the effective implementation of the principle of 
non-discrimination,  including  based  on  disability.  All  applications  submitted  under  this 
specific  objective  have  been  awarded.  The  mainstreaming  of  rights  of  rights  of  disabled 
people across all Programme phases needs to be increased, in particular through a direct link 
with the EU Disability Strategy 2010-2020 and a more involvement of bodies representing the 
interests of disabled people in the setting of Programme priorities.  

Always in relation to equity, the Programme does not seem to capture the needs of people 
suffering from multiple disadvantages, as the specific objectives do not support synergies 
and actions for groups falling under two or more of them.  

In addition, co-financing seems to be a barrier for small non-governmental organisations 
wishing to participate in the Programme. 

Finally, in the future, the Programme should try to distribute its resources in a more balanced 
manner across the different target groups of beneficiaries and Member States.  

To  understand  better  how  the  Programme  promotes  equity  through  the  funded  activities, 
participants' data broken down by sex, disability status or age, as required by the Regulation, 
shall be collected. This is however not yet done. 

  Scope for simplification 

According to the evaluation, the current direct management mode is adequate given the 
size and objectives of the Programme.  However, according to the majority of beneficiaries, 
there is scope for further simplification of the implementation, management and design 
of  the  Programme. Among the reasons provided, beneficiaries  indicated, in  particular, that 
the  financial  reporting  is  too  detailed,  especially  compared  to  the  ones  applied  within  other 
EU Programmes (e.g. Horizon 2020 and Erasmus+) and underlined the possibility to reduce 
the current administrative burden in terms of proposal drafting and monitoring and reporting 
requirements. 

Another  current  key  suggestion  from  beneficiaries  concerns  the  operating  grants,  whose 
duration in their view could be extended to cover at least two years (instead of one) in order to 

5 

 
 
reduce the administrative burden in terms of project application and management procedures. 
Furthermore,  the  absence  of  standard  costs  implies  sometimes  lengthy  negotiations  among 
project partners on the costs of the different activities.  

On  the  positive  side,  beneficiaries  and  Commission  officials  agreed  that  the  recently 
introduced  system  for  applications  (Participant  Portal)  goes  in  the  direction  of 
simplifying  the  application  process  and  improving  the  collection  and  aggregation  of 
monitoring  data.  However,  there  could  be  still  room  for  further  simplifying  the  process, 
particularly in relation to the administrative documentation to be provided.  

Moreover, another key issue according to beneficiaries is that most of the funding available in 
the  Programme 
to  small  civil  society  non-governmental 
inaccessible 
organisations, due to the co-financing amounts required for the set size of grants.  

is  relatively 

Finally,  an  element  of  administrative  burden,  as  widely  shared  by  all  beneficiaries,  is  the 
excessive length of the period from the application until the start of project activities. 

6