COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Evaluation Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the final evaluation of the 2014-2020 EU Aid Volunteers Initiative
Date: 2025-04-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, European Commission
Subjects: EU aid, EU initiative, activity report, aid evaluation, aid to disaster victims, emergency aid, international voluntary worker, man-made disaster, natural disaster, third country

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 1.4.2025  SWD(2025) 76 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  Evaluation Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the final evaluation of the 2014-2020 EU Aid Volunteers Initiative {COM(2025) 141 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1. 

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2 

1.1  Purpose of the evaluation .......................................................................................... 2 

1.2  Methodology of the evaluation.................................................................................. 2 

1.3  Limitations and constraints ....................................................................................... 3 

2.  EU Aid Volunteers Initiative: the first EU programme focused on supporting 

humanitarian aid volunteering ............................................................................................ 4 

2.1  Origins, structure, objectives and priorities............................................................... 4 

2.2  Expectations vs. Outcomes: a comparative analysis ................................................. 6 

2.3  How has the situation evolved over the evaluation period? ...................................... 7 

2.4  Key findings .............................................................................................................. 9 

2.5  Evaluating programme impact: who benefitted and what challenges arose ........... 20 

3.  What are the conclusions and lessons learned? ................................................................ 25 

3.1  Conclusions on the relevance of the Initiative ........................................................ 25 

3.2  Conclusions on the coherence of the Initiative ....................................................... 25 

3.3  Conclusions on the effectiveness of the Initiative ................................................... 26 

3.4  Conclusions on efficiency of the Initiative .............................................................. 26 

3.5  Conclusions on EU-added value of the Initiative .................................................... 27 

4.  Annex I. Procedural Information ...................................................................................... 28 

5.  Annex II. Methodology and analytical models used ........................................................ 31 

6.  Annex III. Stakeholder consultation – synopsis report ..................................................... 35 

6.1 

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 35 

6.2  Outline of the consultation strategy......................................................................... 35 

6.3  Summarised results of the public consultation ........................................................ 37 

6.4  Summarised results of the survey ............................................................................ 39 

6.5  Comparison of the results of consultation activities ............................................... 42 

7.  Annex IV. Evaluation matrix and, where relevant, details on answers to the evaluation 

questions (by criterion) ....................................................................................................... 4 

8.  Annex IV: Overview of benefits and costs and, where relevant, table on simplification 

and burden reduction ............................................................................................................ 
  36 

1 

 
 
 
 
1. 

Introduction 

Article  27(4)  of  the  Regulation  (EU)  No  375/2014  1  establishing  the  European  Union Aid 
Volunteers  Initiative  (‘the  EUAV’  Initiative,  or  ‘the  Initiative’)  required  the  Commission  to 
submit to the European Parliament and to the Council an ex post evaluation report for the 7-
year  financial  period  of  implementation  of  the  programme  (2014-2020)  no  later  than 
31 December 2021. However, this Regulation was repealed by Regulation (EU) No 2021/888 
establishing the European Solidarity Corps. Since the Initiative was extended for 2 additional 
years and finally discontinued at the end of 2022, this ex post evaluation report covers the 9 
years of operation of the Initiative (i.e. from 2014 to 2022). 

1.1  Purpose of the evaluation 

The  purpose  of  this  evaluation  is  to  support  the  European  Commission  in  fulfilling  its 
obligations under Article 27(4) of the Regulation (EU) No 375/2014 establishing the EUAV 
Initiative. This  evaluation aims to  assess the relevance,  coherence,  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
and EU added value of the Initiative.  

1.2  Methodology of the evaluation 

This evaluation of the EUAV Initiative is based on the findings of a first “ex post” evaluation 
study of the Initiative, which covered the period 2014-20202 and was published in 2021. The 
findings from this study of 2021 have been complemented by an additional study implemented 
in  2023  and  20243  that  reviews,  updates,  and  complements  the  findings  of  the  first  study, 
focusing on the last years of the Initiative until its termination at the end of 2022. 

A mix of different methods was used during the evaluation process, including both qualitative 
and quantitative approaches. These methodological approaches were treated as complementary. 
For instance, the results of quantitative methods were used to improve our understanding of 
qualitative  results  and  vice  versa.  This  was  done  to  ensure  a  well-evidenced  approach  and 
triangulation of evidence. The specific methods are set out in the following six bullet points. 

•  Desk  research: This  included a review of:  (i) relevant  literature;  (ii) administrative and 
monitoring data; (iii) policy documents; (iv) studies; (v) evaluations; (vi) assessments; and 
(vii) technical and operational documents. The review informed both the report’s findings 
and the preparation of case studies. Desk research also supported other evaluation methods 
such as interviews, surveys, and cost-effectiveness assessments. 

1   Regulation (EU) No 375/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 establishing the European 

Union Aid Volunteers (EUAV) Initiative. 

2   ADE  (2021).  Ex-post  evaluation  of  the  EUAV  Initiative,  2014-2020. Available  at:  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-

3  

detail/-/publication/1d172a85-0b96-11ec-adb1-01aa75ed71a1/language-en. 
Interim evaluation for the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps, final evaluation for the 2018-2020 European Solidarity 
Corps 
at 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/5736339 

2014-2020  EU  Aid  Volunteers 

Initiative.  Available 

evaluation 

final 

and 

the 

for 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
•  Targeted surveys:: The evaluation team conducted two targeted surveys across different 
stakeholder  groups,  including  individual  volunteers  and  organisations  involved  in  the 
EUAV  Initiative.  Surveys  were  designed  based  on  evaluation  questions  and  feedback, 
translated into multiple languages, and conducted online.  

•  Interviews:  The  evaluation  team  conducted  31  interviews  with  a  diverse  range  of 
stakeholders from various backgrounds and regions to gain in-depth insights and expand 
its understanding of the impact of the Initiative’s various projects. 

•  Public  consultation:  This  was  hosted  on  the  European  Commission’s  ‘Have  your  say’ 
portal and disseminated through various channels. It generated 215 responses, which were 
analysed and summarised in a factual report. 

•  Case studies: These included two country-level case studies and a cross-cutting case study 

on gender mainstreaming.  

•  Cost-effectiveness  assessment:  This  evaluated  the  costs  and  benefits  of  the  EUAV 

Initiative across different programming periods. 

1.3  Limitations and constraints  

The evaluation was carried out according to the Commission’s ‘Better Regulation’ guidelines. 
It provides reliable evidence covering the five evaluation criteria against which the Initiative’s 
implementation were assessed: effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU-added 
value.  Overall,  the  evaluation  of  the  Initiative  provides  robust  findings  based  on  the 
triangulation of quality data collected through a variety of methods as mentioned above. 

To  each  evaluation  question,  we  assigned  indicators;  assessment  parameters;  information 
sources  and  information-analysis  methods.  These  indicators,  assessment  parameters, 
information sources and information-analysis methods were used by the study to collect and 
analyse  both  quantitative  and  qualitative  data.  This  made  data  triangulation  possible  and 
provided an appropriate mix of evidence for the evaluation questions at hand.  

The response rate and number of responses to the targeted surveys varied between different 
stakeholder groups. To ensure a sufficient number of responses, the study team adopted: (i) a 
user-friendly,  thoroughly  tested  survey  design;  (ii)  an  extended  survey  deadline;  and  (iii) 
additional  reminders  to  encourage  respondents  to  complete  their  survey.  This  led  to  active 
participation  from  many  groups.  Although  a  satisfactory  response  rate  was  achieved,  the 
number of individual volunteers and organisations was relatively low due to the small size of 
the Initiative and the limited scope of the evaluation (focusing only on the final years of the 
Initiative). However, the number of responses collected for all target groups was sufficient in 
absolute terms to carry out statistical analyses. By their very nature (particularly in relation to 
the coherence criteria), some of the answers to the evaluation questions relied heavily on desk 
research and interview data. To  triangulate with  other sources of evidence and  mitigate this 
issue,  the  study  team  carried  out  interviews  with:  (i)  representatives  of  management  and 
implementation  bodies;  (ii)  national  authorities;  (iii)  participating 
individuals  and 
organisations;  (iv)  external  experts;  and  (v)  other  stakeholders.  In  addition,  the  findings 

3 

 
 
 
presented  under  each  evaluation  criterion  indicate  the  extent  to  which  they  are  based  on 
opinions, facts or other types of evidence. 

Moreover,  the  administrative  and  monitoring  data  collected  by  the  Initiative  served  as  an 
important  source  for  a  sound  analysis  of  the  performance  and  cost-effectiveness  of  the 
Initiative.  

Taken together, both the triangulation of data from a highly diverse set of methods applied by 
the evaluation and the high number/diversity of responses to the consultation activities (public 
consultation, interviews and targeted surveys) provide reliable evaluation evidence and robust 
results. 

2.  The  EUAV Initiative:  the  first EU programme focused on supporting 

humanitarian-aid volunteering 

2.1  Origins, structure, objectives and priorities 

When entering  in  force in 2009,  Article 214(5)  of the Treaty  on the Functioning  of the EU 
provided for the creation of the European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps (EVHAC), the 
objective of which was to set up a ‘framework for joint contributions from young Europeans 
to the Humanitarian Aid operations of the Union’.  

Following  the  2010  Commission  Communication  How  to  express  EU  citizen’s  solidarity 
through volunteering: First reflections on a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps, a 
preparatory action towards the design of the EVHAC was launched in 2011. The preparatory 
action  included  various  rounds  of  consultations  with  stakeholders,  a  series  of  assessment 
studies, and a pilot phase covering the period 2011-2013. In 2014, the EUAV Initiative was 
created by Regulation (EU) No 375/20144. The Regulation stipulated the objectives and actions 
of the EUAV Initiative and included provisions for its financing. The subsequent Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) No  (1244/2014) laid down the rules for the operation of the 
EUAV Initiative, while a Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1398/20145 set out: (i) 
the  standards  for  the  recruitment  and  training  of  EU  Aid  Volunteers;  and  (ii)  standards 
governing partnerships between sending and hosting organisations. 

The  overall  objective  of  the  Initiative  was  to  help  strengthen  the  EU’s  capacity  to  provide 
needs-based  humanitarian  aid  aimed  at:  (i)  preserving  life;  (ii)  preventing  and  alleviating 
human  suffering;  (iii)  maintaining  human  dignity;  and  (iv)  strengthening  the  capacity  and 
resilience of vulnerable or disaster-affected communities in non-EU countries, particularly by 
means  of  disaster  preparedness,  disaster-risk  reduction  and  increasing  the  link  between 
disaster-relief, rehabilitation and development. 

Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 375/2014 required the actions of the EUAV Initiative to be 
guided  by  both  the  humanitarian-aid  principles  (i.e.  humanity,  neutrality,  impartiality  and 

4   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014R0375.  
5   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014R1398&qid=1727596204208. 

4 

 
 
 
 
independence) and the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid6. The Regulation also said 
that the actions of the Initiative should aim to: (i) respond to the needs of local communities 
and  the  requirements  of  the  hosting  organisations;  (ii)  ensure  the  safety  and  security  of 
candidate volunteers; (iii) promote transnational partnerships; and (iv) contribute to enhancing 
the effectiveness of the humanitarian sector.  

Moreover,  the  Regulation  stated  that  the  EUAV  Initiative  should  work  in  a  coherent  and 
complementary  manner  with  the  EU’s  policies  and  instruments,  particularly  the  EU’s 
humanitarian-aid  policy,  the  EU’s  development  cooperation  policy,  and  the  Union  Civil 
Protection Mechanism (Regulation EU (No) 375/2014, Article 6). 

In addition to the overarching objective of ‘contributing to strengthening the Union’s capacity 
to provide needs-based humanitarian aid […] and strengthening the capacity and resilience of 
vulnerable or disaster-affected communities in third countries’ (Regulation EU (No) 375/2014, 
Article 4), the EUAV Initiative pursued the following five operational objectives (Regulation 
EU (No) 375/2014, Article 7): 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

to help increase and improve the capacity of the EU to provide humanitarian aid; 

to improve the skills and knowledge of volunteers in the field of humanitarian aid and the 
terms and conditions of their engagement; 

to build the capacity of hosting organisations and foster volunteering in non-EU countries; 

to communicate the EU’s humanitarian-aid principles agreed in the European Consensus 
on Humanitarian Aid; 

to  make  volunteering  more  coherent  and  consistent  across  Member  States  in  order  to 
improve  opportunities  for  EU  citizens  to  participate  in  humanitarian-aid  activities  and 
operations. 

The EUAV Initiative brought together volunteers and organisations from different countries7, 
and aimed to incentivise and foster: (i) collaboration; (ii) the exchange of knowledge and good 
practices;  and  (iii)  the  building  of  partnerships  between  organisations  in  the  field  of 
humanitarian aid.  

Organisations that participated in the capacity-building projects formed consortia composed of 
a minimum of two EU-based organisations and two organisations based in non-EU countries. 
Technical assistance projects required the participation of three organisations based in the EU. 
Furthermore,  the  Initiative  put  in  place  dedicated  training  centres  for  selected  volunteers  to 
prepare them for deployment, creating a strong ‘esprit de corps’ among European volunteers 

6 https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/who/european-consensus_en : Joint Statement by the Council and the 
Representatives  of  the  Governments  of  the  Member  States  meeting  within  the  Council,  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
European Commission 
7   The participating countries include: (i) the 27 EU Member States,  acceding countries, candidate countries, potential 
candidates  and  partner  countries  of  the  European  Neighbourhood  Policy  according  to  the  general  principles  and 
general  terms  and  conditions  for  the  participation  of  those  countries  in  the  EU’s  programmes  laid  down  in  the 
respective Framework Agreements and Association Council Decisions, or similar arrangements; and (ii) European 
Free Trade Association countries which are members of the European Economic Area (EEA), in accordance with 
the conditions laid down in the EEA Agreement.  

5 

 
 
 
from different countries  training together in groups. The goal  of this on-site training was to 
then boost learning and professionalisation in the sector by creating a network of former and 
current EU Aid Volunteers.  

Although the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) was responsible 
for  the  practical  implementation  (i.e.  calls  for  proposals,  contract  management,  budget 
appropriation, etc.), the Initiative itself was managed until 2020 by the Directorate-General for 
European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (DG ECHO). And for the legacy 
projects that continued in 2021 and 2022, the EUAV Initiative was managed by the Directorate-
General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (DG EAC). The Initiative was phased out at 
the end of 2020 (although the implementation of ongoing projects continued until 2022) and 
was integrated into the European Solidarity Corps. 

2.2  Expectations vs outcomes: a comparative analysis 

Following the launch of the Initiative, participation fell short of expectations. During the 2014-
2020 period, the EUAV Initiative set out to: (i) support the training of 4 400 volunteers and the 
deployment  of  4 000  volunteers;  (ii)  provide  technical  assistance  and  capacity  building  for 
participating organisations; and (iii) carry out communication and support activities. However, 
by  the  end  of  2022,  only  1 192  deployments  had  been  financed  (representing  29%  of  the 
original target), and 788 deployments had been completed. 

The Initiative introduced a rigorous certification mechanism that required sending and hosting 
organisations to demonstrate they had the necessary procedures and policies in place to meet 
the  Initiative’s  high  standards  for  volunteering.  The  certification  mechanism  involved 
ambitious  targets  for  certified  organisations  and  volunteers  being  trained  and  deployed. 
However, the mechanism was not in place during the pilot phase and the targets were not fully 
met. 

6 

 
 
 
Graph : Performance assessment 

Source : Performance statement 2014-2020 EU Aid Volunteers8 

2.3  How has the situation evolved over the evaluation period? 

In response to these challenges, a new humanitarian-aid strand was created within the European 
Solidarity Corps under the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework. This new strand aimed 
to  increase  consistency  and  synergy  between  various  volunteering  actions,  building  on  the 
legacy  of  the  EUAV  Initiative.  By  expanding  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  to  include 
humanitarian aid in non-EU countries, the European Solidarity Corps has solidified its role as 
a unique gateway for young people to engage in volunteering and other solidarity activities. 
This expansion has also increased the visibility and impact of the Corps – both within the EU 
and beyond. 

At the implementation level, lessons learned from the Initiative have resulted in significantly 
simplified  access  to  volunteering  for  interested  young  people  and  organisations,  including 
improved  measures  to  involve  people  with  fewer  opportunities. The  Initiative’s  quality  and 
support  mechanisms  were  also  strengthened,  with  additional  training  and  support  options 
available to volunteers before, during, and after their engagement. 

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020 reduced the deployment of EU Aid 
Volunteers to non-EU countries. Travel restrictions and social-distancing measures disrupted 
many ongoing and planned activities. Some volunteers were unable to travel or return home, 
while others stayed in their host countries to continue working. In certain cases, organisations 
arranged repatriation, while other organisations agreed with volunteers that they could stay and 
carry out their duties when safe and feasible. 

8 
statements/european-solidarity-corps-performance_en#mff-2014-2020--eu-aid-volunteers 

https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/performance-and-reporting/programme-performance-

7 

 
 
 
 
 
In  order  to  allow  the  completion  of  projects  that  had  been  disrupted  by  the  COVID-19 
pandemic, the implementation of the Initiative was extended until the end of 2022. 

8 

 
 
 
 
2.4  Key findings 

2.4.1  Assessing  the  success  of  the  EUAV  Initiative:  extent  and 

challenges 

Effectiveness 

Main findings: 

•  The Initiative faced substantial challenges in achieving the targeted number 
of  deployments.  Although  some  of  these  challenges  were  subsequently 
addressed, the Initiative was hit severely by the travel restrictions imposed during 
the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, the number of people who travelled outside 
the EU with the Initiative fell by 90% in 2020 as compared to numbers in 2019. 

•  Individual  EUAV  Initiative  volunteers  benefited  from  improved  skills  and 
professional  development,  particularly  in  high-demand  areas  such  as  project 
management and security training before deployment. These participants also got 
to practice and develop various transversal skills in the development context. 

•  Organisations  gained  increased  capacity  in  disaster-risk  reduction  and  disaster 
their  visibility,  credibility,  and  operational  and 

increasing 

resilience, 
communication capacity. 

•  The Initiative had positive effects on the supported communities, especially 
those  communities  that  are  vulnerable  to natural  hazards  and  large  migration 
flows. The Initiative also provided critically important help to build the disaster-
resilience and disaster-management capabilities of populations in disaster-prone 
areas. 

•  The Initiative increased the use of innovative approaches during the COVID-19 
to  ensure  ongoing  community 

pandemic,  such  as  online  volunteering, 
engagement and support. 

Outputs 

The  EUAV  Initiative  fell  short  of  meeting  its  original  target  of  increasing  opportunities  for 
members  of  the  EU  public  to  participate  in  humanitarian-aid  actions.  Following  initial 
challenges in setting up the programme, the Initiative gained implementation speed between 
2018 and 2019 but was slowed down by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, during which time 
few volunteers were trained and deployed. The calls for proposals published in April 2020 were 
cancelled  entirely  as  a  result  of  the  pandemic.  The  Initiative  had  planned  to  deploy  4 175 
volunteers, but only 1 192 volunteers were deployed during the 2014-2022 period. 

Organisations that aimed to participate in the Initiative and deploy or host volunteers had to be 
certified  as  either  sending  or  hosting  organisations.  An  open  call  was  published  in  2015 
9 

 
 
 
 
 
allowing organisations to apply until 30 September 2020. By the end of 2020, 74 sending and 
296 hosting organisations had been certified. The Initiative also provided technical assistance 
and capacity building to strengthen the abilities of sending organisations and ensure that they 
complied with the standards and procedures set under the Initiative. In total, 439 organisations 
were selected during the period 2014-2019.  

Results 

Improving the skills and knowledge of volunteers in the field of humanitarian aid 

According to the first ”ex post” evaluation study, the EUAV Initiative increased the skills and 
knowledge  of  the  volunteers  in  humanitarian  assistance. Volunteers  acknowledged  the  high 
quality  of  their  pre-deployment  training,  while  both  sending  and  hosting  organisations 
unanimously commended the qualifications of the volunteers. The centralised pre-deployment 
training  played  a  key  role  in  fostering  a  strong  sense  of  community  among  volunteers. 
However, despite its strengths, that training did not adequately address the practical realities of 
volunteer  service.  In  particular,  it  did  not  adequately  address  the  soft  skills  and  cultural 
awareness that were essential for volunteers to be effective in the diverse environments they 
would encounter9. 

The second evaluation study of 2024 has arrived at similar results. Volunteers in the EUAV 
Initiative received high-quality training, with a clear majority confirming the effectiveness of 
this training (73%). The Initiative was also successful in enriching volunteers’ insights into the 
realities of the field, with more than 8 out of 10 confirming this outcome (84%). Almost two 
thirds  of  volunteers  (67%)  indicated  that  the  central  training  provided  by  the  EACEA  was 
satisfactory. However, volunteers were less positive about the pre-deployment and in-country 
training provided by the sending and hosting organisations than they were about the general 
pre-deployment training provided by the Initiative itself, with 62% of volunteers expressing 
satisfaction with the pre-deployment training provided by the organisations and less than half 
expressing  satisfaction  with  the  in-country  training  provided  by  the  organisations  (47%). 
Experiences of mentoring support also varied, with roughly equal proportions  of volunteers 
expressing satisfaction regardless of whether the support came from the sending organisation 
(45% expressed satisfaction) or the receiving organisation (42% expressed satisfaction). Post-
deployment debriefing by the sending organisation was rated positively by just over half of the 
volunteers (51%).  

According to 75% of surveyed volunteers in the EUAV Initiative, deployments with a strong 
focus on professional development offered volunteers the opportunity to hone specific skills 
relevant to their role and the wider humanitarian sector. In addition, 81% of respondents agreed 
that  the  Initiative  developed  their  skills  to  deliver  humanitarian  aid  or  development 
cooperation, and a similar proportion (86%) acknowledged that their deployment overseas with 
the Initiative led to an increase in their knowledge of humanitarian principles. Furthermore, the 
experience  was  instrumental  in  building  valuable  personal  relationships  within  the 

9   ADE (2021). Ex post evaluation of the EUAV Initiative, 2014-2020. 

10 

 
 
 
 
humanitarian and development sectors, with a significant number of volunteers acknowledging 
this benefit (79%). 

Building  the  capacity  of  hosting  organisations  and  fostering  volunteering  in  non-EU 
countries 

The first ”ex post” evaluation study concluded that the EUAV Initiative increased the capacity 
of the participating organisations. However, the matching of volunteers’ skills and profiles to 
the needs of host organisations was criticised due to: (i) delays in the deployment process; and 
(ii) mismatched expectations between volunteers and smaller host organisations. The current 
evaluation confirms that the EUAV Initiative has strengthened the capacity of both sending and 
receiving organisations, creating a group of trained volunteers who became more familiar with 
the practicalities of humanitarian assistance.  

Almost 9 out of 10 hosting organisations (89% of the total) acknowledged that the Initiative 
had improved their capacity to deliver humanitarian aid to the local community, and 93% of 
these hosting organisations also acknowledged that the Initiative had helped them to improve 
their  ability  to  host  and  manage  volunteers.  The  Initiative  was  also  credited  by  79%  of 
organisations  for  improving  project-management  skills  within  organisations.  And  63%  of 
organisations that participated in the Initiative expressed a desire for more opportunities for 
training  or  capacity-building  activities  for  their  organisations. This  suggests  there  remained 
strong demand for the strengthening of organisational skills. 

For instance, host organisations in Uganda10 said that the key benefit from participating in the 
Initiative  was  for  staff  at  the  host  institutions,  who  improved  their  skills  in  disaster-risk 
reduction. This in turn led to effective actions that reduced and prevented disasters in vulnerable 
communities. Other benefits mentioned by host organisations included increased visibility and 
transparency, and the opportunity to foster collaboration with the EU and international agencies 
such  as  UN  Women,  the  UNHCR,  the  Red  Cross,  and  the  UNDP.  For  these  organisations, 
participation  in  the  EUAV  Initiative  served  as  proof  of  the  host  organisation’s  maturity  in 
humanitarian-aid grant applications. Host organisations also said that the Initiative increased 
staff skills in drafting emergency-preparedness and emergency-response plans and integrating 
disaster-risk reduction into their programmes. 

Communicating EU humanitarian-aid principles 

The  first  ”ex  post”  evaluation  study  concluded  that  the  EUAV  Initiative  effectively 
communicated  the  EU’s  humanitarian  principles  to  both  volunteers  and  the  staff  of 
organisations.  Despite  these  successful  efforts  in  communicating  humanitarian  principles 

10   Country case study on Uganda. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
through the Initiative, the dissemination of EU humanitarian principles to wider audiences has 
been somewhat limited. 

This  evaluation  supports  the  finding  that  the  Initiative  ensured  that  EU  humanitarian-aid 
principles were communicated to the volunteers and to the staff of participating organisations 
(both  host  organisations  and  sending  organisations). Almost  9  out  of  10  volunteers  (87%) 
confirmed  that  the  EUAV  Initiative  increased  their  knowledge  of  humanitarian  aid  or 
development-cooperation practices. Participating organisations also reported a large increase 
in their awareness and understanding of EU humanitarian principles. 

Participating organisations generally agreed that the Initiative has played an effective role in: 
(i)  raising  stakeholders’  awareness  of  EU  humanitarian  principles  (87%  of  organisations 
agreed); and (ii) raising awareness of EU humanitarian principles among community members 
(85% of organisations agreed). Moreover, these organisations noted that the Initiative increased 
the  visibility  of  EU  humanitarian  action,  with  84%  agreeing  or  strongly  agreeing  with  this 
statement. Furthermore, the organisations recognised the Initiative for creating opportunities to 
communicate the EU’s humanitarian principles, with 90% of volunteers acknowledging this 
impact.  

On  the  less  positive  side,  volunteers  were  less  eager  than  organisations  to  confirm  the 
Initiative’s effectiveness in raising awareness of the EU humanitarian-aid principles. However, 
the  same  volunteers  agreed  that  the  EUAV  Initiative  positively  represented  the  EU  within 
affected communities (66%). The case study on Uganda revealed that t-shirts with EU logos 
were printed and distributed among different stakeholders to make EU support more visible. 
This printing of t-shirts with EU logos to be worn by volunteers was the most common activity 
promoting the EU carried out by the host organisations in Uganda. And in Colombia, one of 
the  organisations  supported  by  the  EUAV  Initiative  successfully  presented  a  case  to  the 
country’s  Special  Jurisdiction  for  Peace,  supporting  102  women  who  had  been  victims  of 
sexual violence during the armed conflict11.  

Impacts 

The EUAV Initiative demonstrated sustainable impact.  According to  the  first  evaluation 
study  of  2021,  the  Initiative  had  several  types  of  lasting  effects.  The  vast  majority  of  the 
surveyed volunteers stated that, following their experience with the EUAV Initiative, they were 
now working, intended to work, or were now volunteering in the area of humanitarian aid. The 
Initiative  also  marginally  increased  the  capacity  of  the  EU  to  provide  humanitarian  aid  by 
reaching  new  organisations  and  promoting  new  partnerships  between  organisations. At  the 
same time, the first evaluation study from 2021 reported on gaps in the Initiative, such as the 
lack of a contingency plan and an inflexible design during the COVID-19 pandemic. The result 
was a confused and delayed response to the pandemic.  

The latest  evaluation  study  (i.e. the second study from  2023 and 2024) also concluded that 
continued to engage in similar volunteering activities after their involvement with Initiative 

11   Case study on Colombia. 

12 

 
 
 
 
finished, indicating a lasting impact beyond the initial involvement in the Initiative. The EUAV 
Initiative  was  also  effective  in  increasing  volunteers’  interest  in  pursuing  a  career  in 
humanitarian aid or development cooperation (according to 86% of volunteers). This interest 
was evident in the fact that 42% of former EU Aid Volunteers were currently working in the 
field of humanitarian aid, while a further 39% expressed their intention to do so in the future. 
Similarly, 53%  of former volunteers  have continued their  work in the field  of development 
cooperation, and 31% said they intended to start working in this field in the future.  

The  EUAV  Initiative  also  strengthened  the  EU’s  capacity  to  deliver  humanitarian  aid.  In 
addition,  a  large  majority  of  organisations  confirmed  that  the  Initiative  had  stimulated  the 
creation of lasting partnerships with other organisations (77% of organisations) and expanded 
their international networks (72% of organisations).  

The  response  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic  differed  among  organisations.  Organisations 
recognised the EACEA’s flexibility in accommodating necessary project changes caused by the 
pandemic (68% of organisations). Half of these organisations were positive about the support 
and  adaptations  provided  by  the  EACEA  because  of  COVID-19,  including  issuing  clear 
guidelines to ensure the safety of volunteers. For example, the thematic focus of the project 
activities was changed for about a quarter of volunteers due to the pandemic. However, most 
organisations (58%) reported that the pandemic meant that not all participating organisations 
could take part in their project as intended and that their projects were therefore postponed.  

2.4.2  Efficiency 

Budget execution and programme management were efficient given the context within which 
the Initiative was implemented, with improvements to be made in the measuring of outputs and 
outcomes. 

•  Funding was sufficient  as the budget spent was only around 76% of all available funds. 
This underspend was due in large part to the delays in starting up the EUAV Initiative and 
delays towards the end of the outbreak of COVID-19.  

•  Implementation: The actual expenditures for the EU Aid Volunteers Initiative were 
consistent  with  the  share  of  the  budget  allocation  specified  in  Regulation  EU  (No) 
375/2014. However, the rationale behind the budget allocation in relation to expected 
activities and outcomes was unclear. Delays in starting up the Initiative and COVID-19 
both contributed to a low programme implementation rate of only 29% of the initial 
goal in terms of volunteers deployed.12  

12 This indicates that the Initiative allocated 76% of its budget towards achieving 29% of its objectives. 
The budget utilisation rate of 76% reflects the financial expenditure in relation to the total funds available. This includes costs 
such as administrative expenses, training programmes, operational readiness and other preparatory activities that were incurred 
even if the deployment activities were delayed or reduced in scope. 
Implementation rate: The implementation rate of 29% refers specifically to the number of participants deployed in relation to 
the initial target set by the EUAV initiative. This rate measures the achievement of a key output  - the actual deployment of 
volunteers - which was significantly affected by delays in the programme's start-up and additional disruptions caused by the 
COVID-19 outbreak. 

13 

 
 
 
 
The apparent discrepancy between the high budget utilisation rate (76%) and the low 
implementation rate (29%) can be attributed to the following factors: 

o  Fixed  costs: A  large  proportion  of  the  budget  was  allocated  to  fixed  costs  (e.g. 
programme set-up, infrastructure, staff salaries, training and preparatory activities) 
which were incurred regardless of the lower than expected number of participants 
deployed. 

o  Delayed deployment : Delays in deployment due to initial challenges in setting up 
the programme and restrictions imposed on its implementation during COVID-19 
pandemic  further  hindered  the  full  realisation  of  the  intended  outcomes,  despite 
ongoing expenditure. 

o  Unused allocations: Some of the remaining funds (24%) were not spent due to the 

inability to scale up interventions as planned. 

•  Performance  management:  The  actual  costs  per  organisation  engaged  in  interventions 
were  10%  lower  than  anticipated  in  the  budget,  which  indicates  some  degree  of  cost-
effectiveness.  

Funding 

Funding for the EUAV Initiative was sufficient overall. Even though budgets were made 
accessible well into 2021 and 2022 to compensate for disruptions caused by the COVID-19 
pandemic,  24%  of  the  budget  remained  unused  at  the  end  of  2022  when  the  Initiative  was 
terminated. Compared to the follow-up European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps within 
the current European Solidarity Corps, the EUAV Initiative had a proportionately larger budget 
(218% of the current  European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps), but  also  a larger target 
number of deployments (214% larger), with 4 175 deployments targeted against only 1 955 
deployments targeted by the current European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps, so this larger 
budget seems appropriate. 

However,  the  Initiative  failed  to  meet  both  its  spending  targets  and  its  target  for  the 
number  of  participating  volunteers.  By  the  end  of  2022,  funding  was  secured  for  1  192 
deployments,  equating  to  29%  of  the  initial  goal  of  4  175.  Thus,  there  are  doubts  that  the 
available  funding  would  have  been  realistic  for  the  Initiative  to  achieve  all  its  goals.  This 
indicates that the Initiative allocated 76% of its budget towards achieving 29% of its objectives. 
Extrapolating this, fulfilling 100% of the target for the number of volunteers deployed would 
have likely necessitated a much higher budget. 

Volunteers gave marginally positive feedback on the financial compensation they received for 
their participation in the EUAV Initiative. Of these volunteers, 56% agreed or strongly agreed 
that  the  financial  support  received  was  sufficient  to  cover  their  participation  costs.  This  is 
largely in line with previous evaluation findings13. Although most volunteers felt the financial 
support was sufficient and that the benefits of their deployment outweighed the costs, there 

13   ADE (2021), Ex post evaluation of the EUAV Initiative, 2014-2020, retrieved from: https://civil-protection-humanitarian-
aid.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-11/euav_ex_post_evaluation_study_ade_final_report_-_volume_1_-_report.pdf.  

14 

 
 
 
 
remains a significant proportion who may have had different experiences. Approximately 32% 
of surveyed volunteers stated that the financial support they received was not enough for them 
to sustain themselves during their deployment overseas. This seemed to be especially the case 
in countries and urban areas with higher costs of living. Some volunteers even dropped out of 
their deployment  due to  insufficient financing.  However, 62%  of volunteers agreed that the 
benefits  they  gained  from  their  involvement  in  the  Initiative  outweighed  the  costs  (e.g. 
resources expended, or commitment made).  

The first evaluation  study found that the  actual  average cost  of deploying a volunteer for a 
month was EUR 3 180. This is slightly lower than the budgeted amount of EUR 3 279, making 
the  budgeted  amount  appear  sufficient.  When  compared  to  the  costs  of  deploying  a  UN 
volunteer in 2019, the average pro forma costs were significantly higher at about EUR 4 360 
for International UN volunteers and EUR 3 220 for International Youth UN volunteers. This 
comparison  suggests  that  the  EUAV  Initiative’s  deployment  costs  were  competitive, 
particularly when comparing them with the International Youth UN volunteers. However, one 
concern of the Initiative management was the volatility of project costs as the actual cost of 
deploying volunteers varied from around EUR 2 500 to EUR 4 100 a month depending on the 
projects. Several factors might explain differences in real costs per deployment not taken into 
account by unit costs:  

•  geographical locations and differences in purchasing power; 

•  the quality of the volunteering experience and/or level of outputs and outcomes achieved; 

•  seasonal variations in costs of living in specific areas such as tourism hotspots. 

It was not possible to assess whether the allocation of expenditures for the EUAV Initiative was 
consistent with the allocation specified in Regulation EU (No) 375/2014 on the three thematic 
priorities beyond the assessment done by the first evaluation study in 2021 of the Initiative for 
2014-202014. However, there is little divergence between the overall budget spent between the 
publication  of  this  first  evaluation  study  and  the  latest  overall  budget  data  available.  This 
indicates  that  there  was  limited  scope  for  the  initiative  to  deviate  significantly  from  the 
percentage distribution of the budget allocated to each of the three thematic priorities, as major 
changes in the proportional allocation of funds would likely have been reflected in the overall 
budget  data.  Thus,  it  is  assumed  that  the  allocation  of  expenditures  for  the  Initiative  was 
consistent with the allocation specified in Regulation EU (No) 375/2014 on the three thematic 
priorities. 

The EUAV Initiative did not introduce results-based budgeting, nor did it tailor the budget to 
the  three  operational  objectives  under  thematic  priorities  in  the  final  year  of  its  running. 
Consequently, the share of the total budget to be apportioned was also not linked with 
expected  outcomes  (which  were  not  constantly  monitored  during  the  programme's 
duration) or activity levels.  

14   ADE (2021), Ex post evaluation of the EUAV Initiative, 2014-2020, retrieved from: https://civil-protection-humanitarian-
aid.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-11/euav_ex_post_evaluation_study_ade_final_report_-_volume_1_-_report.pdf  

15 

 
 
 
 
The  rationale for allocating  budget  to expected activities  and outcomes was imprecise. 
Annual work programmes (2014-2020) lacked activity-level specific  expected outcomes for 
the Initiative. The seven annual work programmes outlined expected results but without giving 
any detail, primarily as outputs such as the number of volunteers trained or deployed (tracked 
manually  once  a  year  in  ad-hoc  exercises),  not  broader  outcomes  (e.g.,  the  specific  work 
volunteers carried out during their deployment or the lasting impact of their efforts on local 
communities), complicating any assessment as to whether the outcomes were aligned with the 
budget15. 

Administrative burden 

Participation  in  the  EUAV  Initiative  was  somewhat  burdensome  for  volunteers  and 
organisations alike. Although a large minority of surveyed volunteers (43%) claimed that their 
involvement  in  the  Initiative  generated  little  paperwork  from  their  side,  34%  of  surveyed 
volunteers disagreed (34%). 

Although  a  slight  majority  (52%)  of  surveyed  volunteers  found  the  time  lag  between 
application and deployment reasonable, 33% of volunteers disagreed. The frustration expressed 
by volunteers likely stemmed from security-driven restrictions on volunteer deployment, which 
led to a relatively long gap between the planning and deployment of volunteers, and further 
limited volunteers’ involvement in humanitarian interventions16. The length of time between 
organisations submitting a request for volunteers and the actual deployment of those volunteers 
often meant that the needs of organisations had changed in the meantime, and the volunteers 
therefore had to fill a role that had not been originally planned. This suggests that the process 
could have been streamlined – or made more transparent – to reduce frustration, in part by: (i) 
improving  communication  about  these  restrictions  and  their  impact  on  the  deployment 
timeline; and (ii) providing more realistic estimations or more frequent updates on the status 
and reasons for delay.  

Despite  these  problems,  the  Initiative  was  generally  well-received,  with  most  participating 
organisations  expressing  satisfaction.  Despite  encountering  issues  with  applications  and 
deployment, 60% of the participating organisations reported satisfaction with the support they 
received.  This  indicates  that  the  Initiative’s  support  system  was  effective  for  a  significant 
portion of the participating organisations.  

Efficiency in implementation of the Initiative 

The  EUAV  Initiative  has  been  cost-effective  compared  with  similar  programmes,  but  not 
compared with the European Solidarity Corps humanitarian-aid strand. When considering the 
cost-effectiveness of the Initiative it is important to note that many  aspects of the Initiative, 

15   EUAV Initiative annual work programmes (2014-2020). 
16   ADE (2021), Ex post evaluation of the EUAV Initiative, 2014-2020, retrieved from: https://civil-protection-humanitarian-
aid.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-11/euav_ex_post_evaluation_study_ade_final_report_-_volume_1_-_report.pdf.  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
such as deployments to other continents, were much more costly – by design – than similar 
deployments by the European Solidarity Corps’ humanitarian-aid strand. This is because the 
EUAV Initiative – with its higher training requirements and longer, more distant deployments 
– naturally incurred higher costs, resulting in a cost of EUR 49 168.47 per individual volunteer. 
Similarly, the cost-effectiveness per organisation participating in the Initiative was EUR 127 
102.80. This figure represents the average cost to the EUAV Initiative for each organisation's 
participation, covering expenses such as training, deployment and administrative support for 
volunteers. While this result does not include potential savings to participating organisations 
or a breakdown per volunteer, it is in itself a meaningful metric for comparing the efficiency 
of the Initiative with other programmes17. 

The EUR 49 168.47 cost per individual volunteer in the EUAV Initiative is commensurate 
with those of comparable programmes. For instance, the International UN Youth Volunteers 
had a cost of approximately EUR 44 654 per individual volunteer in 2021. This indicates that 
the International UN Youth Volunteers were marginally more cost-effective on a per-participant 
basis18.  

Additionally,  and  as mentioned  in  the  section  on  funding,  the  Initiative’s  cost  per  deployed 
individual volunteer varied greatly in practice. The large variations in costs highlight a potential 
weakness in the call-for-proposals process. The lack of an explicit linkage between the budget 
allocated  to  projects  and  the  number,  duration,  outcomes  and  impacts  of  volunteers’ 
deployment  could  indeed  have  led  to  inefficiencies.  Establishing  a  more  direct  connection 
between these factors would have potentially made the Initiative more cost-effective. 

Performance measurement and monitoring (RACER criteria)  

To evaluate the efficiency of performance measurement and monitoring, this study looks at 
three main indicators. Firstly, the study uses the RACER criteria (relevant, accepted, credible, 
easy to monitor, robust) to assess whether the Initiative was measuring the right things in the 
right way according to the European Commission’s ‘Better Regulation’ toolbox. Secondly, the 
efficiency of tools and methods for tracking progress is measured by checking that they provide 
accurate  and  timely  information.  Lastly,  the  study  looks  at  what  the  EUAV  Initiative  was 
measuring,  and  checks  that  this  aligns  with  what  it  was  initially  set  out  to  measure  in  the 
monitoring and evaluation framework. This ensures that the Initiative was on the right track 
and made the most efficient use of its resources. 

Turning  to  the  RACER  criteria  that  make  up  the  first  indicator,  the  indicators  used  by  the 
Commission  for  monitoring  relevance  were  deemed  only  partially  relevant  and  not 
comprehensive. Monitoring data available through the report on the results of the multiannual 
financial framework were more compliance-focused, assessing the EUAV Initiative’s budget 
at an action level rather than at any type of outcome level (with the exception of 2015 when 

17 For example, if another programme achieved a lower cost per organisation but supported more participants, this difference 
would highlight a trade-off or an area for improvement. 
18   UN (2021), 2021 Proforma cost table, retrieved from: 

https://www.unv.org/sites/default/files/2021%20Proforma%20Costs%20for%20international%20and%20national%20U
N%20Volunteers.pdf.  

17 

 
 
 
 
outcomes were indeed assessed). Performance therefore cannot clearly be linked to the five 
stated objectives of the Initiative. 

On credibility, the performance management of the Initiative faced serious issues due to the 
absence of automated data-collection processes. Manual data entry is prone to human error, 
which can lead to inaccurate data. This resulted in superficial annual monitoring reports, with 
gaps in terms of indicators and a lack of consistency in reporting. On the more positive side, 
the indicators used by the Commission for performance management were few and therefore 
easy to monitor as they were tied to directly measurable outputs.  

Lastly, the absence of exhaustive data at the finalisation stage had a negative impact on the 
robustness  of  performance  management.  Reliable  data  are  crucial  for  identifying  areas  for 
improvement for the successor programme. Despite recommendations in the first evaluation 
study of the Initiative in 2021 to include outcome-related indicators, the overall lack of regular 
monitoring of outcome and impact-related indicators cannot provide a comprehensive picture 
of the performance of the EUAV Initiative. Outcome and impact indicators would have been 
essential to understand the long-term effects and the real impact of the Initiative’s activities on 
the communities it served. 

2.4.3  Coherence 

Main findings: 

•  The  Initiative  was  complementary  to  other  EU  programmes  (including  the 
European Solidarity Corps, the former European Voluntary Service, and Erasmus+) 
due to its wider geographical scope and specific types of activities. 

•  Although  the  Initiative’s  objectives  were  coherent  and  aligned  with  the  EU’s 
humanitarian agenda, there was limited evidence of synergies between the Initiative 
and other EU activities in the areas of humanitarian aid. 

•  The Initiative was  perceived as coherent  with  national  policies in host countries, 
and informal links established at the time with some volunteer networks within EU 
Member States were observed. 

•  Stakeholders  highly  valued  the  Initiative  for  strengthening  local  capacities, 

particularly through training. 

The latest study found that the Initiative was complementary to other EU programmes 
offering volunteering activities. This is due to the Initiative’s wider geographical scope and the 
specific types of activities it worked on. Like the European Solidarity Corps, the Initiative was 
concerned  with  solidarity  but  with  a  focus  on  humanitarian  action  in  non-EU  countries. 
Although  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  and  Erasmus+  also  offered  multilateral  mobility 
opportunities within the EU and partner countries, the EUAV Initiative offered mobility in only 
one direction, from the EU to non-EU countries and only to EU citizens or long-term residents. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
Although  the  Initiative’s  objectives  were  coherent  and  aligned  with  the  EU’s  humanitarian 
agenda, there was limited evidence of synergies between the Initiative’s activities and other EU 
activities in the areas of humanitarian aid. A major challenge, as noted in the initial evaluation 
study, is that security concerns prevented volunteers from being deployed to regions where EU 
humanitarian-aid efforts were underway during disasters. The extent to which the Initiative was 
aligned with other humanitarian actions was limited by: (i) the fact that volunteers could not 
be  deployed  to  conflict  zones19;  (ii)  internal  concerns  about  deploying  young  volunteers  to 
emergency situations20; and (iii) lengthy recruitment and deployment procedures. In addition, 
and as found by the first “ex post” evaluation study of 2021, DG ECHO field offices or other 
EU delegations did not have enough information about the Initiative’s activities and therefore 
had limited interactions with these activities21. However, the fact that the Initiative was very 
small compared with overall EU humanitarian aid – with only EUR 141 million allocated to it 
for  the  period  2014-2020  (EU  Regulation  375/2014)  compared  with  the  European 
Commission’s humanitarian-aid budget of EUR 13.5 billion for the same period22 – also limits 
the potential observation of wider synergies. 

A  greater  degree  of  coherence  was  achieved  between  the  Initiative  and  the  organisations 
sending  or  hosting  volunteers.  The  Initiative  supported  this  by  professionalising  volunteer 
management  and  providing  access  to  a  well-trained  pool  of  volunteers.  Host  organisations 
valued the capacity building provided by the Initiative in areas like security, gender awareness, 
and communication, all of which strengthened their internal processes. Hosting organisations 
also  noted  that  the  Initiative  increased  their  visibility  and  capacity,  fostering  better 
collaboration. Interviews with host organisations and government officials indicated that the 
Initiative  aligned  well  with  national  policies,  particularly  in  development,  disaster 
management, and disaster-resilience programmes. 

The first “ex post” evaluation study of 2021 found informal links between the Initiative 
and some volunteer networks within EU Member States. In addition, the current survey of 
EU Aid Volunteers  shows  that  65%  had  previous  volunteering  experience  in  the  EU  before 
applying to the Initiative. On the more negative side, both the previous and the latest evaluation 
studies  did  not  find  evidence  of  high-level  coordination  between  the  Initiative  and  major 
international  volunteer  networks,  including  United  Nations  Volunteers.  And  although 
interviewees saw the EUAV Initiative as complementary and adding value compared with other 
international  volunteering  programmes  offered  by  humanitarian  organisations  such  as  the 
United  Nations,  the  Red  Cross  or  Rotary,  these  interviewees  did  not  identify  any  direct 
synergies between the Initiative and these other international volunteering programmes. 

19   EUAV regulation 375/2014, Article 14(3). 
20   ADE (2021). Ex post evaluation of the EUAV Initiative, 2014-2020. 
21   Ibid. 
22   DG ECHO Annual Activity Reports 2014-2020. 

19 

 
 
 
 
2.5  Evaluating  the  impact  of  the  Initiative:  who  benefited  and  what 

challenges arose? 

2.5.1  EU-added value 

Main findings: 

•  The  Initiative  helped  to  set  common  standards  for  humanitarian  aid 

volunteering across the EU Member States. 

•  The Initiative helped to improve participating organisations’ capacity to train and 

host international volunteers. 

•  The Initiative increased the deployment of volunteers by taking advantage of 

the EU’s global presence. 

•  The involvement of well-trained volunteers was a distinct EU-added value that 
also  increased  the  operational  capacities  of  the  organisations  involved  in 
humanitarian assistance. 

•  The  Initiative  enabled  local  organisations  to  scale  up  their  operations  and 
improve  their  effectiveness  in  humanitarian-aid  delivery  by  increasing  local 
capacities, volunteer management, and the ability to undertake larger projects. 

•  The  EUAV  Initiative  played  a  significant  role  in  developing  international 

collaboration and networks. 

Scope and volume effects 

The  first  evaluation  study  in  2021  of  the  EUAV  Initiative  2014-2020  concluded  that  the 
Initiative had demonstrated EU-added value by helping to centralise and standardise systems 
and processes. A significant majority (87% of respondents) agreed or strongly agreed that the 
EUAV Initiative effectively introduced common standards for humanitarian-aid volunteering 
across  the  EU.  This  indicates  a  strong  consensus  that  the  Initiative  was  successful  in 
establishing  consistent  and  recognised  benchmarks  in  this  field,  which  is  essential  for  the 
quality and efficiency of EU humanitarian-aid volunteering. 

Additionally, there was a strong agreement (with 82% of respondents agreeing) that the EUAV 
Initiative had made the most of the EU’s global presence to facilitate the deployment of 
volunteers.  This  high  level  of  agreement  suggests  that  the  Initiative  was  perceived  as 
successfully using the EU’s extensive humanitarian and logistical network to increase volunteer 
deployment in humanitarian-aid actions, something that could not be matched by the efforts of 
individual Member States alone.  

Additionally, the first evaluation study of 2021 concluded that the Initiative’s emphasis on 
capacity building in organisations was an EU-added value compared with other schemes 
that exclusively focused on deployments. Our findings for 2021-2022 confirm this conclusion. 

20 

 
 
 
 
A substantial majority (89% of the respondents) agreed or strongly agreed that the Initiative 
had  improved  their  organisation’s  capacity  to  provide  humanitarian  aid. And  93%  of 
respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the Initiative improved their capacity to host 
and manage volunteers. Additionally, 74% of respondents believed that the EUAV Initiative 
had  increased  their  capacity  to  undertake  larger  projects,  with  80%  agreeing  that  the 
Initiative had helped to improve project-management skills. This underlines the capacity-
building effect of the EUAV Initiative for the participating organisations. This enabled 
these  organisations  to  scale  up  their  operations  and  improve  their  effectiveness  in 
humanitarian-aid delivery by improving local aid capacities, volunteer management, and 
the ability to undertake larger projects. This added value was important for increasing the 
impact of EU humanitarian-aid volunteering. 

Moreover, 
the  communities  engaged  with  by  the  Initiative  also  experienced 
improvements. 85% of organisations and 56% of volunteers surveyed either agreed or strongly 
agreed that their work benefited the local communities and societal groups. Based on the results 
of  the  country-level  case  studies  in  Uganda  and  Colombia,  the  communities  in  those 
countries experienced improvements in several areas due to the Initiative such as: (i) improved 
skills  in  fund  mobilisation  and  volunteer-programme  management;  (ii)  greater  success  in 
acquiring grants for promoting income generation in disaster-affected areas; and (iii) greater 
development and use of strengthened disaster-management capabilities. 

Process and innovation 

The first evaluation study of the EUAV Initiative for the period 2014-2020 concluded in 2021 
that the quality and standards of the volunteer training provided by the Initiative, facilitated by 
the  Commission’s  centralised  approach  and  existing  expertise,  were  widely  regarded  as 
providing  added  value  compared  with  other  volunteering  schemes.  For  instance,  75%  of 
volunteers viewed the high-quality training provided by the Initiative as  a key added value. 
Moreover,  beyond  their  general  appreciation  for  the  training  they  received,  a  significant 
number of volunteers felt that their practical skills in humanitarian aid improved through their 
participation in the Initiative, with 80% agreeing or strongly agreeing that it  improved their 
ability to deliver humanitarian aid or contribute to development cooperation. 

The findings on EU-added value highlight not only individual benefits but also organisational 
impacts. The participation of trained volunteers has strengthened the operational capacities of 
organisations involved in humanitarian aid. In fact, 85% of surveyed organisations agreed or 
strongly agreed that their ability to provide humanitarian assistance improved by hosting EU 
Aid  Volunteers.  The  data  indicate  that  the  Initiative  was  well-received  and  successful  in 
achieving  its  objectives  related  to  training  quality,  skills  development,  and  increasing 
organisational capacity in humanitarian and development work. 

21 

 
 
 
 
Network effects  

The first ”ex post” evaluation study of the EUAV Initiative for the period 2014-2020 concluded 
in  2021  that  the  Initiative  had  demonstrated  significant  EU-added  value  by  encouraging 
transnational partnerships the application of which had extended beyond the EUAV Initiative’s 
network. The findings of this evaluation are in keeping with the previous conclusion indicating 
that the EUAV Initiative facilitated the creation and strengthening of local and international 
networks.  A  significant  77%  of  surveyed  organisations  agreed  that  the  Initiative  helped 
establish new partnerships that extended beyond individual projects. Case studies from Uganda 
and  Colombia  further  show  that  local  organisations  were  able  to  secure  both  international 
partnerships  and  funding  by  making  the  most  of  skills  and  knowledge  gained  through  the 
Initiative. 

Additionally, 65% of respondent organisations (24 of the 34 organisations surveyed) agreed 
that the Initiative improved coordination in international multi-stakeholder projects, reflecting 
the Initiative’s positive impact on collaboration. Furthermore, 72% of respondent organisations 
agreed  that  their  international  network  expanded  due  to  the  Initiative,  underscoring  the 
Initiative’s role in improving global connections and partnerships. 

2.5.2  Relevance 

Main findings: 

•  The EUAV Initiative addressed the need to promote capacity building in hosting 
organisations, as it provided timely and necessary support and  expertise to  partner 
organisations. 

•  The  Initiative  was  also  well-aligned  with  the  need  to  improve  EU  volunteering 
within the humanitarian aid field by employing a comprehensive approach. Most 
organisations agreed or strongly agreed that the Initiative addressed persisting needs 
within the less-developed countries. 

•  The  Initiative:  (i)  addressed  the  central  needs  and  concerns  of  participating 
volunteers  and  host  organisations;  (ii)  improved  the  transversal skills  of  these 
volunteers  and  host  organisations;  (iii)  built  an  understanding  of  the  needs  and 
challenges of the less-developed countries; and (iv) addressed the need to prepare for 
careers in international development. 

Individuals 

The first evaluation study of 2021 found that the EUAV Initiative responded to the needs of the 
volunteers  participating  in  the  Initiative,  thereby  promoting  the  Initiative’s  objective  of 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
‘improving the skills, knowledge and competence of volunteers in the field of humanitarian aid 
and the conditions of their engagement’. 

Volunteers indicated that the main reason they applied for the Initiative was to participate in 
training for humanitarian-aid activities and to develop skills in this field. The survey for this 
evaluation shows that most individuals applied to gain work experience (78%) and to improve 
their employability (42%). The interviews also suggests that the Initiative helped individuals 
to develop their skills, as the activities required of volunteers engaged them in the field. As a 
result of this, many organisations noted that their volunteers started careers in  development 
cooperation and civil society organisations soon after their volunteering period ended23. Public 
consultations  with  23  organisations  involved  in  the  Initiative  showed  that  participating 
organisations  mostly  believed  that  the  Initiative  improved  opportunities  for  EU  citizens  to 
participate in humanitarian-aid activities and operations.  

The results support the conclusion of the first evaluation study in 2021 that the EUAV Initiative 
increased the skills and knowledge of volunteers in the field of humanitarian aid. The survey 
conducted in 2024 showed that 93% of organisations felt that volunteers’ skills had improved, 
and  81%  of  participating  volunteers  agreed.  Volunteers’  belief  that  the  specific  value  of 
Initiative activities lay in providing high-quality training and professionalism was also evident 
from the survey results. Although the first evaluation study of 2021 observed that volunteers 
found some of the training they received to be irrelevant, there was only little evidence of this 
in the latest survey of individual volunteers, as 67% said they were satisfied with the central 
training. In contrast, fewer volunteers were satisfied with mentoring support provided by either 
the hosting organisation (42% of volunteers were satisfied) or the sending organisation (45% 
were satisfied).  

Both  the evaluation  study of 2021  and the latest  survey results indicate that  the connection 
between improvements in hosting organisations’ capacity building on the one hand and greater 
resilience among local communities on the other was clearer to organisations than volunteers. 
Many volunteers (32%) were unsure whether their work benefited the community. However, 
the  involvement  of  volunteers  in  more  administrative  or  clerical  work  –  or  even  language 
barriers  between  the  volunteers  and  the  community  –  could  have  influenced  their  limited 
perceptions in this regard. Finally, the interviews identified some potential areas of individual 
dissatisfaction  with  the  level  of  volunteer  compensation  and  housing.  In  some  cases,  as 
highlighted in the country case study on Uganda, volunteers’ dissatisfaction with compensation 
led them to suspend their activities or seek other employment. 

Participating organisations 

The conclusions in 2021 of the first  evaluation study of the Initiative  for  2014-2020 on the 
relevance  of  the  Initiative  stated  that  the  Initiative  addressed  the  need  to  both  improve  EU 
capacity to provide humanitarian aid and build the capacity of hosting organisations.  

23   European  Commission.  Civil 

Society 

–  Neighbourhood 

and  Enlargement 

(https://neighbourhood-

enlargement.ec.europa.eu/enlargement-policy/policy-highlights/civil-society_en). 

23 

 
 
 
 
The EUAV Initiative significantly  helped to  build the capacity of hosting  organisations and 
promote volunteering in non-EU countries. According to surveys, 77% of organisations agreed 
that the Initiative successfully addressed persistent issues in the humanitarian sector, such as 
limited  resources  and  visibility. And  public  consultations  showed  that  83%  of  participating 
organisations  believed  their  capacities  had  increased  thanks  to  the  Initiative,  helping  them 
respond  to  disasters  more  effectively.  Many  organisations  felt  their  work  benefited  local 
communities by addressing humanitarian needs such as by empowering marginalised groups 
and supporting victims of violence. Organisations that participated in the Initiative generally 
appreciated  volunteers’  contributions,  especially  the  mix  of  senior  and  junior  volunteers  it 
provided, although some organisations reported mismatches in skills or language proficiency. 
There were also concerns about sustainability, with some organisations noting unmet capacity 
needs after volunteers left. 

The  Initiative’s  flexibility  during  crises,  such  as  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  was  recognised. 
However, organisations also criticised the Initiative for lacking contingency planning and being 
too rigid in adapting to changing circumstances. While 68% of organisations said they found 
the  Initiative  to  be  adaptable  during  the  pandemic,  only  39%  felt  the  support  and  guidance 
provided  were  sufficient.  Opinions  on  the  effectiveness  of  online  volunteering  were  mixed, 
with only 39% of organisations finding it useful. However, those organisations that engaged in 
online  volunteering  appreciated  volunteers’  support  in  technical  areas  like  translation  and 
graphic design. 

International and national stakeholders 

The first evaluation study of the EUAV Initiative of 2021 found the Initiative to be relevant for 
both organisations and individuals but identified areas for improvement, particularly for third 
parties and the promotion of EU humanitarian principles beyond direct beneficiaries. The latest 
evaluation  study  also  found  the  Initiative  to  be  aligned  with  local  governments’  disaster-
management  needs  and  domestic  initiatives.  Surveys  revealed  that  the  Initiative’s  main 
objectives were generally aligned with societal needs, although volunteers questioned whether 
the  projects  effectively  increased  community  resilience  or  raised  awareness  of  EU 
humanitarian principles. While 85% of organisations agreed the Initiative directly benefited 
local  communities,  and  83%  believed  it  boosted  the  capacity  of  host  organisations, 
organisations  expressed  uncertainty  as  to  whether  the  Initiative  promoted  the  EU’s  broader 
principles. 

Both evaluations lacked field research, making it hard to assess how well EU humanitarian-aid 
principles reached communities beyond the target beneficiaries. However, interviews indicated 
that  most  organisations  had  effective  visibility  strategies  from  the  start.  Public  consultation 
showed  that  70%  of  organisations  agreed  that  the  Initiative  had  created  opportunities  to 
promote  these  principles,  although  two  organisations  disagreed. Additionally,  the  Initiative 
integrated  gender  sensitivity  into  its  operations,  contributing  to  the  EU’s  humanitarian-aid 
policy in this area.  

24 

 
 
 
 
 
3.  What are the conclusions and lessons learned? 

3.1  Conclusions on the relevance of the Initiative 

The  EUAV  Initiative  responded  to  the  need  to  support  both  the  capacity  building  of  host 
organisations  and  the  promotion  of  volunteering  in  non-EU  countries.  By  providing  timely 
support  and  expertise  to  partner  organisations,  the  Initiative  demonstrated  its  relevance  and 
responsiveness to organisational needs. This focus of the Initiative also extended to improving 
EU volunteering in the humanitarian-aid field, which was underlined by positive feedback from 
organisations  on  the  holistic  approach  of  the  Initiative.  The  evaluation  found  that  while 
participating  organisations  appreciated  the  flexibility  offered  by  the  Initiative  during  the 
COVID-19 pandemic, more support and guidance could have been provided. 

The Initiative was: (i) responsive to the needs of the volunteers participating in the Initiative; 
(ii) aligned with the objective of improving the skills and knowledge of volunteers in the field 
of  humanitarian  aid;  and  (iii)  committed  to  the  objective  of  improving  the  volunteers’ 
conditions of engagement. The Initiative improved the transversal skills of volunteers, built a 
solid understanding of the needs and challenges in non-EU countries, and effectively prepared 
volunteers for careers in international development. 

With  regard  to  the  Initiative’s  objective  to  help  strengthen  the  gender  perspective  in  EU 
humanitarian-aid policy, the evaluation  concludes that the Initiative  had integrated a gender 
perspective into all its humanitarian-aid operations, in line with the EU’s wider commitment to 
gender-sensitive interventions. On working with women’s groups and networks, engagement 
by  the  Initiative  took  place  primarily  at  the  level  of  organisations  already  working  with 
women’s  organisations.  However,  the  Initiative  also  encouraged  further  engagement  by 
supporting projects with a specific focus on women’s leadership and participation.  

3.2  Conclusions on the coherence of the Initiative 

The  EUAV  Initiative  was  aligned  with  the  strategic  priorities  of  the  European  Union, 
particularly  in  the  field  of  humanitarian  aid.  It  effectively  complemented  other  EU 
programmes, including the European Solidarity Corps, the former European Voluntary Service 
and  Erasmus+  through  its  wider  geographical  scope  and  the  specific  types  of  activities  it 
promoted. However, while the Initiative’s objectives were coherent and well aligned with the 
EU’s humanitarian  agenda, there was limited evidence of synergies  between the Initiative’s 
activities  and  other  EU  humanitarian  activities.  The  fact  that  the  Initiative  was  very  small 
compared to overall EU humanitarian aid limited the potential for wider synergies. 

A greater degree of coherence was found in organisations sending or hosting volunteers, as the 
Initiative professionalised their volunteer management and increased their access to  a well-
trained  volunteer  pool.  Stakeholders  highly  appreciated  the  role  of  the  Initiative  in 
strengthening local capacities, in particular through targeted training programmes. This focus 
on capacity building both addressed immediate needs, and also contributed to the long-term 
development  of  hosting  organisations  and  communities. The  Initiative  was  perceived  to  be 

25 

 
 
 
coherent  with  national  policies  in  host  countries  and  established  informal  links  with  some 
volunteer networks within EU Member States. 

3.3  Conclusions on the effectiveness of the Initiative 

The  EUAV  Initiative  fell  short  of  meeting  its  objective  of  increasing  opportunities  for  EU 
citizens to participate in humanitarian-aid operations. In this context, a key challenge for the 
implementation  of  the  Initiative  was  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  which  severely  affected  the 
targeted number of deployments, with a  90% decrease in deployments 2019 in 2020 due to 
travel restrictions. 

The Initiative effectively supported the skills and professional development of volunteers. In 
particular, it improved their skills in areas such as project management. In addition, volunteers 
were  able  to  practice  and  develop  cross-cutting  skills  in  the  development  context,  which 
contributed to their overall professional growth and readiness for future humanitarian work. 

The Initiative also: (i) strengthened the capacity of participating organisations, particularly in 
the area of disaster-risk reduction and resilience; (ii) and contributed to increased visibility and 
credibility  for  organisations;  and  (iii)  boosted  the  operational  and  communication  skills  of 
volunteers  and  organisations. At  the  community  level,  the  Initiative  had  a  positive  impact, 
particularly in areas vulnerable to natural hazards and uncontrolled waves of migration, where 
it provided support for building resilience and local disaster-management capacities. 

3.4  Conclusions on the efficiency of the Initiative 

The EUAV Initiative overall demonstrated efficiency in its operations. The budget execution 
and overall programme management were efficient, considering the context within which they 
were implemented. 

Funding  for  the  Initiative  was  sufficient,  with  around  76%  of  available  funds  spent.  This 
underutilisation of funds was largely due to delays in starting up the Initiative and further delays 
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite sufficient funding, a large minority of volunteers 
expressed dissatisfaction with the level of funding they received. 

The actual expenditures for the Initiative were consistent with the budget allocation specified 
in  Regulation  EU  (No)  375/2014.  However,  the  rationale  behind  the  budget  allocation  for 
certain expected activities and certain expected outcomes was unclear. Delays in the Initiative’s 
startup and the impact of COVID-19 contributed to a low implementation rate of only 37%. 

Performance management within the Initiative showed some degree of cost-effectiveness, with 
actual costs per organisation engaged in interventions 10% lower than anticipated. However, 
the limited information provided by the organisations on the outputs and outcomes of activities 
makes it challenging to draw definitive conclusions about overall cost-effectiveness. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
3.5  Conclusions on the EU-added value of the Initiative  

The  EUAV  Initiative  provided  EU-added  value  by  contributing  to  common  standards  for 
humanitarian-aid  volunteering  across  EU  Member  States. The  Initiative  leveraged  the  EU’s 
global presence to improve the deployment of volunteers, providing a platform for people to 
engage in meaningful humanitarian-aid activities in non-EU countries. 

Participating  organisations  benefited  from  greater  capacity  in  their  ability  to  train  and  host 
international  volunteers.  This  improved  capacity  not  only  benefited  the  volunteers  but  also 
strengthened  the  operational  capabilities  of  the  organisations  involved,  enabling  them  to 
undertake  larger  and  more  complex  projects.  The  involvement  of  well-trained  volunteers 
helped  to  improve  the  operational  capacities  of  the  organisations  engaged  in  humanitarian 
assistance.  The  Initiative  also  fostered  local  and  international  collaboration  and  the 
development of networks, which facilitated knowledge sharing, collaborative initiatives, and 
long-term partnerships. 

27 

 
 
 
 
4.  Annex I. Procedural information 

Lead Directorate-General: European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, 
Sport and Culture, DG EAC.  

Agenda planning reference:  PLAN/2022/489.  

Organisation: The main preparatory steps taken in 2022 and 2023 for the second evaluation 
study included: (i) the set-up of an inter-service-group to accompany and steer the evaluation; 
(ii)  publication  of  a  call  for  evidence;  and  (iii)  preparation  of  technical  specifications  for  a 
supporting an external evaluation assignment (service contract EAC-2023-0337). The service 
contract  was  awarded  under  the  DG  EAC  framework  contract  for  evaluations  and  impact 
assessments to a consortium led by PPMI Group, UAB and started in June 2023.  

This  second  and  final  external   ex  post  evaluation assignment included a  public  consultation 
and multiple targeted consultations and provided the main evidence base for the staff working 
document. The 
the service  contractor  has been published  here: 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/5736339.  

final report  of 

full 

available 

The factual summary on the public consultation and call for evidence has been published and 
is 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-
say/initiatives/13507/public-consultation  .  The  synopsis  report  on  all  the  consultation 
activities in the evaluation is annexed to the Staff Working Document.   

here: 

Timing (general chronology of the second and final ex post evaluation study):  

DESCRIPTION  
Call for evidence on ‘Have your Say’ portal  

Signature of contract for external evaluation assignment  
First Inter-Service-Group meeting  
Inception report  
Second Inter-Service-Group meeting  
Public consultation on ‘Have your Say’ portal  

First Interim report  

Third Inter-Service Group meeting  
2nd Interim Report  

TIMING  
18 October 2022 
15 November 2022  
16 June 2023  
29 June 2023  
5 September 2023  
11 September 2023  
13 November 2023 
5 February 2024  
20 November 2023  

29 November 2023  
9 April 2024  

Fourth Inter-Service Group meeting  

18 April 2024  

Draft final report submitted by contractor  
Fifth Inter-Service Group meeting  
Final report submitted by the contractor  
Final version of final report by external contractor approved   October 2024  

27 May 2024  
3 July 2024  
31 August 2024  

-  

-  

28 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
Inter-Service-Consultation  on  Draft  Commission  Report  and 
SWD  
Publication of Commission Report and SWD  

 26  November  2024  to  16 
December 2024 
 March 2025 

DGs  participated  in  the  inter-service  steering  group  (ISSG).  This  ISSG  of  relevant 
Commission DGs  oversaw  the  evaluation  and  met  regularly throughout  the  evaluation 
process. In  addition  to  DG  EAC,  the  ISSG  was  composed  of  representatives  of  13 
Commission DGs.  In line with the ‘Better Regulation’ guidelines, the ISSG was involved in 
all  the  key  steps  of  the  evaluation  work,  including the evaluation  mandate;  the call  for 
evidence; the  evaluation  questions;  the  technical  specifications  for  selecting  the  external 
questionnaires; 
contractor; 
the monitoring progress; steering the evaluation; and providing comments to (and ensuring the 
quality and objectivity of) evaluation reports.  

questionnaire and 

consultation 

survey 

public 

the 

In connection with the meetings of the IISG and key deliverables, consultations were carried 
out in a dedicated Teams channel. The feedback periods and the deadlines/arrangements for 
managing comments and approving deliverables were agreed in the meetings.  

Work/studies carried out by the external contractors: The Commission’s ex post evaluation 
was supported by two independent external ex post evaluation assignments. In line with the 
‘Better  Regulation’  guidelines,  the  contractors  analysed  the  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
coherence, added value and relevance of the EUAV Initiative. A mix of different methods was 
used  during  the  evaluation  process,  including  both  qualitative  and  quantitative  approaches. 
These methodological approaches were treated as complementary; for instance, the results of 
quantitative methods were used to improve our understanding of qualitative results and vice 
versa. This was done to ensure a well-evidenced approach and triangulation of evidence. 

The first external ex post evaluation assignment was carried out between August 2020 and July 
2021. A total of 104 individuals were interviewed, including among EU staff and Members of 
the  European  Parliament  (DEVE  Committee)  and  from  participating  agencies,  peer 
volunteering organisations, former volunteers and organisations with a presumed interest in the 
initiative. Four targeted surveys were published on the EU Survey Platform that were addressed 
to  volunteers,  sending  organisations,  hosting  organisations,  and  EU  Member  State 
representatives on the Council Working Party on Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid (COHAFA). 
The Commission also launched during October 2020 an online Public Consultation as part of 
this evaluation study. 

The second and final external ex post evaluation assignment was carried out between June 2023 
and October 2024, and included public consultation and multiple targeted consultations. The 
consultation  strategy  for  the  evaluation  was  based  on  a  mapping  of  stakeholders,  and 
quantitative and qualitative data were mainly gathered through the consultation activities set 
out in the following five bullet points.  

•  A call for evidence was published on the Commission’s ‘Have Your Say’ portal from 

18 October to 15 November 2022.  

•  A public consultation ran on the ‘Have Your Say’ portal from 13 November 2023 to 

5 February 2024.  

•  Two  targeted surveys  were conducted  across different  stakeholder groups, including 
individual volunteers and organisations involved in the EUAV Initiative. Surveys were 

29 

 
 
designed  based  on  evaluation  questions  and  feedback,  translated  into  multiple 
languages, and implemented online.    

•  The external consultant conducted 121 interviews with a diverse range of stakeholders 
from  various  backgrounds  and  regions  to  gain  in-depth  insights  and  expand  the 
understanding of the impact made by the Initiative’s programmes. 

•  Case studies were carried out including two country-level case studies and a horizontal 
case  study  on  gender  mainstreaming.  Data  were  collected  through  desk  research, 
selected survey questions, and interviews.  

30 

 
 
 
 
5.  Annex II. Methodology and analytical models used during the second 

and final ex post evaluation study 

This  section  outlines  the  methodological  approach,  principles  and  data  that  guided  and 
informed the second and final ex post evaluation study of 2024. The evaluation of the 2014-
2020 EUAV Initiative was based on the triangulation of data collected through desk research, 
stakeholder-consultation activities (public consultation, the targeted surveys and interviews), 
case studies, and a cost-effectiveness assessment. 

Desk research 

Desk research for this evaluation comprised: 

1.  a review of relevant literature and documents; 
2.  an analysis of administrative and monitoring data collected by the Initiative.  

Documentary  review  and  analysis  of  administrative  and  monitoring  data  served  several 
purposes: 

- 
- 
- 

to provide key sources of evidence to answer several evaluation questions; 
to inform the preparation of case studies; 
to prepare other research methods, including interview and targeted surveys, the public 
consultation and associated questionnaires, and the cost-effectiveness assessment. 

The evaluation team consulted a wide range of documents and sources, including: 

a.  policy  documents,  which  provided  the  legal  and  operational  framework  for  the 
Initiative  (including  the  Initiative’s  establishing  Regulation  (EU)  No  375/2014, 
Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No  1398/2014  and  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1244/2014); 

b.  studies,  evaluations  and  assessments  analysing  implementation  of  the  Initiative 
(including the Initiative’s first ex post evaluation (2021) and interim evaluation (2017); 
c.  relevant  technical  and  operational  documents,  which  provided  both  valuable 
contextual  evidence  and  statistical  and  monitoring  data  (these  documents  include: 
annual work programmes, annual implementation reports, DG ECHO annual activity 
reports,  EACEA  annual  activity  reports,  implementation  guidelines  and  monitoring 
frameworks). 

The main limitation  in analysing administrative and monitoring data was that the EUAV 
Initiative lacked complete budgetary data or reports.  

31 

 
 
 
 
 
Stakeholder consultations 

The consultation strategy for the evaluation was based on an exercise to identify stakeholders. 
It comprised the consultation activities set out in the bullet points below  to involve a broad 
range of EUAV stakeholders, individual volunteers and the public. 

-  A  public consultation was  carried out  covering both  the European Solidarity Corps 
and  the  EUAV  Initiative.  The  public  consultation  was  open  to  volunteers  and 
organisations who had participated in the Initiative, other relevant stakeholders such as 
management and implementation bodies, international organisations and networks, and 
the general public. It was hosted on the European Commission’s ‘Have Your Say’ portal 
in all official EU languages (from 13 November 2023 to 5 February 2024). In total, 215 
responses were received. 

-  Two targeted surveys were carried out addressing: 

o  organisations  that  participated  in  the  Initiative  during  the  2020-2022  period 
(from  25  January  2024  to  12  February  2024).  In  total,  73  responses  were 
received. 

o 

individuals  who  participated  in  the  Initiative  during  the  2020-2022  period 
(from  25  January  2024  to  12  February  2024).  In  total,  112  responses  were 
received. 

- 

Interviews were conducted with: (i) volunteers and organisations who had participated 
in the Initiative; (ii) management and implementation bodies; (iii) policy makers; (iv) 
international  organisations  and  networks;  and  (v)  external  experts/evaluators  (from 
August 2023 to April 2024). In total, 31 interviewees were consulted. 

The factual summary report on the results of the public consultation is set out as Annex 7 

These different types of stakeholder consultation were complementary. Surveys of participating 
organisations  and  individual  volunteers  provided  robust  evidence  of  the  Initiative’s 
effectiveness and efficiency, while interviews with participating organisations and individual 
volunteers, managing  and implementing bodies, and external  experts and organisations also 
helped  to  evaluate  the  EUAV  Initiative’s  relevance  and  coherence. The  public  consultation 
covered all evaluation criteria, allowing participating organisations and individual volunteers 
and other relevant stakeholders and the general public to share their views on the Initiative. 

Case studies 

The evaluation team conducted three case studies to examine key aspects and achievements of 
the Initiative in-depth. Data for the case studies was collected through desk research, selected 
survey  questions  and  interviews.  Key  insights  and  examples  from  the  case  studies  were 
integrated in the evaluation’s final report. Details of the case studies are set out in the two bullet 
points below. 

32 

 
 
-  Two country-level case studies helped to comprehensively evaluate the Initiative by 

examining country-level results in Colombia and Uganda. 

-  One cross-cutting case study on gender mainstreaming in the EUAV Initiative was 
conducted. The case study evaluated how successful the Initiative had been in helping 
to  strengthen  the  gender  perspective  in  the  EU’s  humanitarian-aid  policy.  The  case 
study brought together key findings across different evaluation criteria. 

Cost-effectiveness assessment 

The  evaluation  included  a  cost-effectiveness  assessment  of  the  EUAV  Initiative.  The 
assessment estimated the costs of the Initiative in euros and in current prices, while qualifying 
and – where possible – quantifying the benefits. The assessment findings are incorporated into 
the final evaluation report under the criteria of efficiency. However, due to a lack of budgetary 
data or reports, the evaluation had to rely on data reported in previous evaluations or under the 
Commission’s long-term budget-performance results. 

Limitations and constraints 

The  evaluation  was  carried  out  in  accordance  with  the  European  Commission’s  ‘Better 
Regulation’  guidelines.  It  provides  reliable  evidence  covering  the  five  evaluation  criteria 
against  which  the  Initiative’s  implementation  was  assessed:  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
relevance, coherence and EU-added value. Overall, the evaluation of the Initiative provides 
robust findings based on the triangulation of high-quality data collected through a variety 
of methods: desk research, a cost-effectiveness assessment, stakeholder-consultation activities 
(public consultation, the targeted surveys and interviews), and case-study analysis.  

Each evaluation question was assigned indicators and assessment parameters, as well as 
information sources and methods. These were used by the study to collect and analyse both 
quantitative  and  qualitative  data.  This  made  data  triangulation  possible  and  provided  an 
appropriate mix of evidence for the evaluation questions at hand.  

Most  of  the  key limitations  and  constraints  were  identified  at  the  beginning  of  the  study. 
These are described below, together with the mitigation measures taken by the team to ensure 
the robustness of the evidence base. 

-  The  study  team  made  significant  communication  efforts  in  conducting  the  surveys, 
including: (i) a user-friendly, thoroughly tested survey design; (ii) an extended survey 
deadline;  and  (iii)  additional  reminders  to  encourage  respondents  to  complete  their 
survey. Although  a satisfactory response  rate  was  achieved  (23.8% for organisations 
and 19.4% for individual volunteers), the number of individual volunteers (100) and 
organisations (66) from the former EUAV Initiative that responded to the survey was 
relatively low due to the small size of the Initiative and the limited scope of this second 
evaluation  study  (focusing  only  on  the  final  years  of  the  Initiative).  However,  the 

33 

 
 
  
number of responses collected for all target groups was sufficient in absolute terms to 
carry out statistical analyses. 

-  By  their  very  nature  (particularly  in  relation  to  the  coherence  criteria),  some  of  the 
answers to the evaluation questions relied heavily on desk research and interview 
data. To  mitigate  this  issue,  the  study  team  carried  out  an  extensive  programme  of 
interviews  with:  (i)  representatives  of  management  and  implementation  bodies;  (ii) 
National  authorities;  (iii)  participating  individuals  and  organisations;  (iv)  external 
experts; and  (v) other stakeholders. The evaluation also took into account secondary 
sources of information, in particular the Initiative’s previous evaluations. In addition, 
the  findings  presented  under  each  evaluation  criterion  clearly  indicate  the  extent  to 
which the findings are based on opinions, facts or other types of evidence. 

- 

In addition, the administrative and monitoring data collected by the Initiative served 
as  an  important  source  for  a  sound  analysis  of  performance  and  cost-effectiveness. 
However,  the  evaluation  faced  obstacles  in  the  form  of  gaps  and  limitations  in  the 
available  data. As  a  result,  the  evaluation  had  to  rely  on  data  reported  in  previous 
evaluations or under the Commission’s long-term budget-performance results.  

Taken together, both the triangulation of data from a highly diverse set of methods applied by 
the  evaluation  and  the  high  number/  diversity  of  responses  to  the  consultation  activities 
(public consultation, interviews and targeted surveys) provide  reliable evaluation evidence 
and robust results. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
6.  Annex III. Stakeholder consultation – synopsis report 

6.1  Introduction 

This annex presents an overview of – and conclusions on – the work carried out during the 
final  evaluation  of  the  2014-2020  EUAV  Initiative.  It  covers  three  types  of  stakeholder 
consultation  activities:  public  consultation,  surveys,  and  interviews.  In  line  with  the 
requirements of the Commission’s ‘Better Regulation’ guidelines and toolbox24 it: (i) provides 
an  overview  of  the  consultation  strategy;  (ii)  explains  how  each  consultation  activity 
undertaken was implemented and how each of these consultation activities fitted in with the 
initial consultation strategy; and (iii) summarises and compares the results of the consultation 
activities. 

The purpose of this annex is to inform the policymaking process and report back to stakeholders 
on how their input has been taken into account.  

6.2  Outline of the consultation strategy 

Stakeholder  consultation  is  a  formal  process  by  which  the  Commission  and  its  contractors 
gather  information  and  views  from  stakeholders  on  Commission  policies. The  consultation 
strategy should clearly delineate the scope of the consultation and identify which stakeholders 
are to be reached through which consultation tool and for what purpose.  

In designing and implementing our consultation strategy, we followed the relevant principles 
and  steps  for  stakeholder  consultation  set  out  in  the  Commission’s  ‘Better  Regulation’ 
guidelines. The main steps in our stakeholder consultation included:  

•  designing the consultation strategy;  

•  conducting the consultation work;  

• 

informing policymaking through the preparation of our reports.  

The purpose of the stakeholder consultation carried out as part of this study was to gather the 
views  of  key  stakeholders  and  the  data  needed  to  answer  the  evaluation  questions.  The 
following sections set out the categories of stakeholders consulted, the detailed approach to 
each method and the results. The study team triangulated the results of the various consultations 
with the results of other data collection and analysis activities. 

The study team carried out two surveys: one for individual volunteers and one for participating 
organisations.  

24 European Commission, ‘Better regulation’ toolbox – July 2023 edition, p. 364 
https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/9c8d2189-8abd-4f29-84e9-
abc843cc68e0_en?filename=BR%20toolbox%20-%20Jul%202023%20-%20FINAL.pdf 

35 

 
 
 
The  initial  survey  questionnaires  were  developed  based  on  the  evaluation  questions  and 
previous relevant surveys. The evaluation team then finalised the survey questionnaires based 
on a pilot with selected stakeholders. 

The surveys were launched in January and February 2024 and closed at the end of February 
2024. In addition to English, the surveys were available in French, German, Italian and Spanish. 
The table below provides an overview of the target population and the response rates achieved. 

For  some  target  groups,  in  particular  EUAV  Initiative  organisations,  the  numbers  of  people 
targeted and the responses received were lower than other groups. This was due to the small 
size of the EUAV Initiative and the limited period of activity (2020-2022) under the scope of 
the latest evaluation. In areas where the study team considered the survey results not wholly 
conclusive due to their limited number of responses, additional interviews were carried out to 
clarify the findings and fill gaps in understanding. 

TABLE 1. CONSULTATION OF TARGET GROUPS 

CONSULTATION 
ACTIVITY 

PROGRAMME 

TARGET GROUPS 

DATE 

Public consultation 

EUAV Initiative 

Interviews 

EUAV Initiative 

• Participating organisations and 

individual volunteers 

• Other relevant stakeholders 
such as management and 
implementation bodies, national 
authorities, international 
organisations and networks 

• General public 

• Participating organisations and 

individual volunteers 

• European Commission DGs 
• EACEA 
• EU bodies 
• International organisations and 

NGOs 

13 November 
2023 – 5 
February 2024 

August 2023 – 
April 2024 

Source: prepared by the evaluation contractor 

These different types of stakeholder consultation were complementary. Large-scale surveys of 
both participating organisations and individual volunteers provided robust evidence to make 
possible  an  assessment  of  the  Initiative’s  effectiveness  and  efficiency. And  interviews  with 
participating organisations and individual volunteers, managing bodies, implementing bodies, 
external experts and organisations also helped to evaluate the EUAV Initiative’s relevance and 
coherence.  The  public  consultation  covered  all  evaluation  criteria,  allowing  participating 
organisations and individual volunteers, other relevant stakeholders and the general public to 
share their views on the Initiative.  

36 

 
 
 
 
 
6.3  Summarised results of the public consultation 

The public consultation aimed to collect information, expertise and views from participating 
organisations and individual volunteers in the Initiative, relevant stakeholders, and the general 
public. The evaluation contractor developed an integrated questionnaire covering the EUAV 
Initiative. The public consultation was available on the European Commission’s ‘Have your 
say’ portal in all official EU languages and ran from 13 November 2023 until 5 February 2024. 
It was further disseminated through social media channels and news items by the European 
Commission. A total of 215 responses were received. 

As the EUAV Initiative was discontinued at the end of 2022, the public consultation focused 
exclusively on assessing the dimensions of effectiveness and efficiency in the Initiative’s final 
years. Forward-looking dimensions were excluded in line with the retrospective nature of the 
evaluation. 

The questionnaire was designed around several response paths to provide representatives of 
organisations  and  individual  respondents  with  different  sets  of  questions  according  to  their 
participation  in  the  Initiative  and  level  of  familiarity  with  it.  Respondents  representing 
organisations that did not participate in the programmes but that indicated at least some degree 
of familiarity with them received additional questions (unrelated to participation). In total, 28 
organisations and 9 individuals participated in the EUAV Initiative questionnaire. 

Responses to closed questions on the two evaluation criteria formed the basis of this analysis. 
Descriptive  statistics  were  used  to  assess  the  frequency  of  responses  and  the  prevalence  of 
particular  views  for  each  question.  In  addition,  responses  to  open-ended  questions  were 
summarised and analysed qualitatively to complement the quantitative analysis. 

Effectiveness: Individuals and respondents representing organisations were very positive 
about the impact of the Initiative on different stakeholder groups. Of the 208 respondents, 
98 agreed or strongly agreed that the Initiative had a positive impact on the lives and values of 
the  communities  and  social  groups  concerned  (95  respondents  chose  ‘Don’t  know  /  No 
opinion’).  Out  of  8  former  participants  who  had  participated  as  individual  volunteers  and 
responded to this question, 6 reported that their experience with the Initiative had a positive 
impact on their lives. For organisations, 25 of the 28 respondents that had participated said that 
the Initiative had had some, a great or a very great positive impact on their organisation, while 
22 said that it had increased their organisation’s capacity to manage volunteers and/or deliver 
humanitarian aid. 

Overall, the organisations felt that the Initiative had succeeded in achieving its objectives, 
including: (i) creating opportunities to communicate the EU’s humanitarian principles (95 out 
of 199 agreed; 92 selected ‘Don’t know / No opinion’); (ii) increasing opportunities for EU 
citizens to participate in humanitarian activities (91 out of 199 agreed; 96 selected ‘Don’t know 
/ No opinion’); and (iii) increasing the consistency of volunteering across EU Member States 
(82 out of 197 agreed; 106 selected ‘Don't know / No opinion’). 

Efficiency:  Respondents  gave  a  modest  assessment  of  the  costs  and  benefits  they 
experienced due to their participation. While 17 out of 28 organisations considered that the 
benefits from their participation in the Initiative outweighed the costs, 20 organisations and 3 
out of 6 individuals felt that their participation required a lot of effort from them. Information 
about the Initiative was found to be comprehensive by 20 organisations and 3 individuals, while 

37 

 
 
19  organisations  and  3  individuals  considered  this  information  easy  to  find.  Among 
organisations, 19 out of 28 found the grant-application process to be user-friendly, 17 found 
the certification application process to be user-friendly, and 19 found the guidance and support 
tools to be user-friendly. 

Regarding  recent  challenges  that  had  affected  the  Initiative,  the  COVID-19  pandemic 
affected the participation of 12 out of 18 organisations and 1 out of 8 individuals. Meanwhile, 
7  of  the  28  organisations  reported  challenges  in  participating  in  the  Initiative  as  a  result  of 
Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. In addition, 5 out of 36 respondents representing 
organisations reported that unforeseen events or crises in the host countries had affected their 
participation in the Initiative. 

38 

 
 
 
 
6.4  Summarised results of the survey 

TABLE 2. MAIN STATISTICS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SURVEYS 

TARGET 
GROUP  

SURVEY 
LAUNCH 
DATE  

SURVEY 
CLOSURE 
DATE  

NUMBER OF 
INVITATIONS 
SENT OUT  

NUMBER OF 
RESPONSES 
RECEIVED  

RESPONSE 
RATE*  

NUMBER OF 
RESPONSES 
INCLUDED IN 
THE ANALYSIS 
AFTER 
CLEANING  

EUAV 
organisations

EUAV 
individuals 

Partial 12  

Partial: 5  

253  

Complete: 61  

23.8%  

Complete: 61  

25 January 
2024  

12 February 
2024  

Total: 73  

Partial: 21  

Total: 66  

Partial: 9  

465  

Complete: 91  

19.4%  

Complete: 91  

Total: 112  

Total: 100  

*Based on completed responses only. Response rates were calculated using the formula:  

𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 =

𝑁𝑜.  𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑑
𝑁𝑜.  𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑢𝑡

× 100% 

Source: prepared by the evaluation team.  

The data collected from the two surveys were analysed using both quantitative and qualitative 
methods. As most of the survey questions were closed-ended and therefore led to structured 
responses, the study team primarily used MS Excel and R to perform descriptive statistics, such 
as cross-tabulations of key variables to identify patterns between/among different groups of 
respondents. 

Survey data were used to inform all evaluation questions, particularly for those aspects where 
participants’ opinions were very important. All findings from the surveys were included in the 
final report of the evaluation. The following sections summarise the findings from the survey 
data collected from EUAV Initiative participants (individuals and organisations). 

Relevance: Most organisations and individuals  felt that the Initiative was relevant to the 
communities involved, as it addressed ongoing humanitarian needs (30 out of 39 organisations 
and 63 out of 90 individuals agreed with this). The Initiative was also considered by individual 
volunteers as relevant to their needs, providing them with an entry point into the fields of 
humanitarian  aid  and  development.  Most  volunteers  applied  to  the  Initiative  to  gain  work 
experience (78% or 78 out of 100) and to improve their employability (42% or 42 out of 100). 

39 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
After participating in the Initiative, 59% of individual volunteers (59 out of 100) found work 
in humanitarian aid or development25. 

Individual volunteers considered the Initiative’s cross-cutting priorities as relevant to the 
needs  and  expectations  of  society.  Of  these  individual  volunteers,  38%  (or  33  out  of  86 
respondents)  thought  that  ‘Building  the  capacity  of  hosting  organisations  and  fostering 
volunteering in third countries’ was relevant to a large extent. ‘Social inclusion of people with 
fewer  opportunities’  (28%;  25  out  of  88)  and  ‘Communicating  the  EU’s  humanitarian  aid 
principles’ (28%; 25 out of 88), were also seen as relevant by these individual volunteers, while 
‘Integration and diversity, including asylum seekers and migrants’ was seen as least relevant 
(18% or 16 out of 87 respondents considered it relevant). 

Organisations and individual volunteers appreciated the flexible and timely support they 
received  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  Individual  volunteers  felt  that  the  support 
provided by the Initiative was sufficient overall (24 out of 34), while 21 out of 31 organisations 
felt  that  the  EACEA  had  shown  flexibility  in  accommodating  necessary  project  changes. 
Organisations  were  more  modest  in  their  assessment  of  the  provision  of  clear  guidelines  to 
ensure  the  safety  of  volunteers  (17  out  of  33  considered  the  guidelines  sufficient)  and  the 
overall support and guidance provided by the Agency (13 out of 33 were satisfied). Meanwhile, 
9 out of 23 organisations agreed that online volunteering assignments had provided effective 
support to their activities (with 9 neither agreeing nor disagreeing). 

Effectiveness:  Both  individual  volunteers  and organisations  assessed  the  impact  of  the 
Initiative  on  different  stakeholder  groups  very  positively.  Deployments  with  a  strong 
focus  on  professional  development  offered  volunteers  the  opportunity  to  hone  specific 
skills relevant to their role and the wider humanitarian sector, according to 75% of former 
volunteers or 83 out of 93. Most individual volunteer respondents (81%, or 74 out of 92) agreed 
that  the  Initiative  developed  their  skills  to  deliver  humanitarian  aid  or  development 
cooperation,  while  86%  (or  79  respondents)  reported  an  increase  in  their  knowledge  of 
humanitarian principles. Furthermore, 79% (or 73 out of 93 respondents) found the experience 
instrumental  in  building  valuable  personal  relationships  within  the  humanitarian  and 
development sectors. 

The  majority  of  organisations  (89%,  or  24  out  of  27)  acknowledged  that  the  EUAV 
Initiative had improved their ability to deliver humanitarian aid to the local community, 
while  93%  (or  25  organisations)  also  recognised  improvements  in  their  ability  to  host  and 
manage  volunteers.  The  Initiative  was  credited  with  improving  project-management  skills 
within organisations by 79%, or 31 out of 39 responding organisations, and having led to new 
partnerships, according to 77%, or 30 respondents. 

Regarding the Initiative’s impact at local level, 57% of volunteers (or 52 out of 92) and 85% 
or organisations (or 23 out of 27) largely felt that their work benefited the local community and 
social  groups.  Organisations  generally  agreed  that  the  Initiative  was  effective  in  raising 

25 As  respondents  could  contribute  to  all or  some  of  the questions, the  total number of  responses  received  varies between 
questions. 

40 

 
 
 
awareness  of  EU  humanitarian  principles  among  stakeholders  (87%  –  or  34  out  of  39)  and 
among  community  members  (85%  –  or  23  out  of27).  They  also  noted  that  the  Initiative 
increased  the  visibility  of  EU  humanitarian  action  (84%  –  or  32  out  of  38)  and  created 
opportunities to communicate EU humanitarian principles (90% – or 35 out of 39). Volunteers 
also  felt  that  the  Initiative  positively  represented  the  European  Union  in  the  communities 
involved (66% – or 61 out of 92  ). 

Efficiency: Volunteers gave slightly positive feedback on the financial compensation they 
received for their participation in the EUAV Initiative. A slight majority (56%, or 51 out of 
91) agreed or strongly agreed that the financial support received was sufficient to cover the 
costs of their participation. And 62% (57 out of 91) of individual volunteers agreed that the 
benefits they received from their participation in the Initiative outweighed the costs (such as 
resources used or commitment made).  

Participation  in  the  Initiative  was  somewhat  burdensome  for  both  volunteers  and 
organisations. Although  a  large  minority  of  individual  volunteers  (43%,  or  39  out  of  91) 
claimed that their involvement in the Initiative required little paperwork on their part, one in 
three (34%, or 31 out of 91) disagreed. And although a slight majority (52%, or 47 out of 91 
individual volunteers) found the time lag between their application and deployment reasonable, 
one in three (37%, or 34) disagreed. Of the organisations, 69% (27 out of 39) said that their 
participation had required significant effort, while 72% (28 out of 39) agreed that the benefits 
gained outweighed the costs. 

Volunteers received two types of training before their deployment. The first was a centralised 
training course given by the EACEA and attended by all volunteers. The second training course 
was a pre-deployment training, which was more tailored to the specific circumstances of the 
deployment that the volunteer would be sent on. Volunteers were satisfied with the central 
training provided by the EACEA (79%; 62 out of 79), but were less satisfied with the pre-
deployment training (68%, or 57 out of 84 volunteers were satisfied) and in-country training 
(56%, or 43 out of 77) provided by the sending and hosting organisations. Post-deployment 
debriefing by the sending organisation was rated positively by 59% of individual volunteers 
(47 out of 80). 

EU-added  value:  The  EUAV  Initiative  has  demonstrated  EU-added  value  by  helping  to 
centralise and standardise systems and processes, which is more difficult for individual EU 
Member States to achieve. Organisations largely agreed with this statement (87%, or 33 out of 
38). Organisations also felt that the Initiative had used the EU’s global presence to facilitate 
the deployment of volunteers (82%, or 31 organisations agreed). In addition, 74% (28 out of 
38)  of  the  organisations  felt  that  the  Initiative  had  increased  their  capacity  to  undertake 
larger  projects,  while  65%  (24  out  of  38)  of  the  organisations  believed  the  Initiative  had 
helped improve coordination of international multi-stakeholder projects. 

The provision of high-quality training for volunteers was seen as a distinct added value 
of the Initiative compared with other volunteering initiatives: 75% of volunteers (67 out of 
89) agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. A high level of professionalism instilled by 

41 

 
 
the Initiative was seen as an added value by 71%, or 61 out of 87 volunteers. They also saw 
added  value  in  the  opportunity  to  gain  field  experience  (84%,  or  74  out  of  88)  and  the 
experience of working with local NGOs (72% or 63). In addition, 29% of former volunteers 
(26  out  of  90)  stated  that  they  would  not  have  undertaken  a  similar  activity  without  the 
Initiative. 

6.5  Comparison of the results of consultation activities 

The  table  below  presents  the  key  results  per  consultation  activity,  organised  by  evaluation 
criteria, as well as by the level of consistency, complementarity and contradiction of results 
across  consultation  activities.  Overall,  as  summarised  in  the  table  below,  there  was  high 
convergence in the results of different consultation activities. 

42 

 
 
 
EVALUATION 
CRITERION 

PUBLIC 
CONSULTATION 

SURVEY 

INTERVIEW PROGRAMME 

CONSISTENCY 
OF RESULTS 
ACROSS 
CONSULTATION 
ACTIVITIES 

COMPLEMENTARITY 
OF RESULTS ACROSS 
CONSULTATION 
ACTIVITIES 

CONTRADICTION 
OF RESULTS 
ACROSS 
CONSULTATION 
ACTIVITIES 

High 

High 

Low 

that 

organisations 
Interviewed 
believed 
the  work  of 
volunteers was relevant to the life 
of local communities. 
Individual  volunteers  noted  that 
the  Initiative  was  relevant  for 
their  professional 
developing 
skills. 
Organisations  reported  negative 
impacts 
the 
COVID-19 pandemic. 
the 
Organisations  appreciated 
response  of 
in 
allowing  them  to  adapt  initial 
project proposals. 

the  Initiative 

resulting 

from 

Relevance 

Coherence 

Effectiveness 

the 

As  the  EUAV  Initiative  was 
public 
discontinued, 
focused 
consultation 
exclusively  on  assessing  the 
dimensions  of  effectiveness 
and 
the 
Initiative’s final years, in line 
with  the  retrospective  nature 
of the evaluation 

efficiency 

in 

the 

efficiency 

As  the  EUAV  Initiative  was 
public 
discontinued, 
consultation 
focused 
exclusively  on  assessing  the 
dimensions  of  effectiveness 
the 
and 
Initiative’s final years, in line 
with  the  retrospective  nature 
of the evaluation 
Individuals  and  respondents 
representing 
organisations 
shared largely positive views 

in 

Most 
and 
organisations 
individual volunteers felt that the 
Initiative was relevant to both the 
communities  involved  and  the 
needs of individual volunteers. 
Individual  volunteers 
largely 
considered the Initiative’s cross-
cutting  priorities  as  relevant  to 
the  needs  and  expectations  of 
society. 
Individuals  positively  assessed 
the support they received during 
the COVID-19 pandemic. 
the 
assessed 
Organisations 
flexibility  of 
Initiative 
the 
positively but were less positive 
about  the  guidance  and  support 
provided. 

Individuals  and  organisations 
the 
assessed 

impact  of 

the 

indicated 

Hosting 
organisations 
the 
interviewed 
that 
Initiative indirectly contributed to 
better  alignment  and  cooperation 
among  host  organisations  by 
their  visibility  and 
increasing 
capacity 

organisations 
Interviewed 
highlighted that the Initiative had: 
(i)  increased  the  knowledge  and 

High 

High 

Low 

High 

High 

Low 

1 

 
 
 
 
EVALUATION 
CRITERION 

PUBLIC 
CONSULTATION 

SURVEY 

INTERVIEW PROGRAMME 

CONSISTENCY 
OF RESULTS 
ACROSS 
CONSULTATION 
ACTIVITIES 

COMPLEMENTARITY 
OF RESULTS ACROSS 
CONSULTATION 
ACTIVITIES 

CONTRADICTION 
OF RESULTS 
ACROSS 
CONSULTATION 
ACTIVITIES 

the 

the 
different 

impact  of 
on 

about 
Initiative 
stakeholder groups. 
Respondents 
representing 
organisations felt overall that 
the  Initiative  had  succeeded 
in achieving its objectives. 

Efficiency 

Respondents  gave  a  modest 
assessment  of  the  costs  and 
benefits they experienced due 
to their participation 

programme  on  themselves  very 
positively. 
Organisations  believed  that  the 
EUAV  Initiative  had  improved 
deliver 
their 
humanitarian  aid  to  the  local 
community  and  felt  that  their 
work 
local 
community and social groups. 

benefited 

ability 

the 

to 

of 

the 

provided  mixed 
Volunteers 
views 
financial 
compensation  they  received  for 
their  participation  in  the  EUAV 
Initiative. 
Participation in the Initiative was 
seen  as  somewhat  burdensome 
for 
and 
organisations. 

volunteers 

both 

local 

diverse 

background 

increased 
skills  of  staff;  (ii) 
visibility  and  transparency;  and 
(iii) 
and 
improved 
international networks. 
Organisations also considered the 
following  as  important  benefits: 
(i) additional funding support; (ii) 
activities  resulting  from  the  host 
organisations'  new  and  improved 
local  and  international  networks; 
and  (iii)  improved  fundraising 
skills. 
Organisations overall appreciated 
the 
of 
volunteers,  although  some  noted 
an  occasional  misalignment  of 
expectations. 
Commission  officials  that  were 
interviewed noted that some of the 
Initiative’s 
provisions  were 
unrealistic  given  its  small  scope 
and scale, which limited its wider 
impact. 
Organisations 
and  volunteers 
provided  mixed  assessments  of 
budget,  with  multiple 
the 
interviewees  indicating  that  the 
funding amounts set aside did not 
reflect  the  real  costs  that  were 
subsequently incurred. 
Organisations generally found the 
consistently 
Initiative 

to  be 

High 

High 

Low 

2 

 
 
EVALUATION 
CRITERION 

PUBLIC 
CONSULTATION 

SURVEY 

INTERVIEW PROGRAMME 

CONSISTENCY 
OF RESULTS 
ACROSS 
CONSULTATION 
ACTIVITIES 

COMPLEMENTARITY 
OF RESULTS ACROSS 
CONSULTATION 
ACTIVITIES 

CONTRADICTION 
OF RESULTS 
ACROSS 
CONSULTATION 
ACTIVITIES 

the 

EU-added value  As  the  EUAV  Initiative  was 
public 
discontinued, 
consultation 
focused 
exclusively  on  assessing  the 
dimensions  of  effectiveness 
and 
the 
Initiative’s final years, in line 
with  the  retrospective  nature 
of the evaluation 

efficiency 

in 

the 

structure 

efficient and responsive, although 
some  experienced  administrative 
challenges. 
Several organisations highlighted 
and 
that 
requirements  of 
the  Initiative 
were challenging, particularly for 
smaller organisations. 
Organisations were able to use the 
skills  and  knowledge  gained 
through  the  EUAV  Initiative  to 
secure  international  partnerships 
reported 
and 
increased  visibility  within 
the 
donor community, such as the EU, 
UN, World Bank and others. 

funding, 

and 

the 

central 

Volunteers were largely satisfied 
with 
training 
provided  by  the  EACEA,  but 
were less satisfied with the pre-
in-
deployment 
country training provided by the 
organisations. 

training  and 

noted 
added  value 

the 
Organisations 
Initiative’s 
in 
contributing  to:  (i)  improving 
(ii) 
systems  and  processes; 
to 
their  capacity 
increasing 
undertake  larger  projects  and 
international  cooperation;  and 
(iii)  facilitating  the  deployment 
of volunteers. 
Individuals saw the provision of 
high-quality 
for 
volunteers  and  a  high  level  of 
professionalism  as  a  distinct 
added  value  of  the  Initiative 
compared 
other 
volunteering initiatives. 

training 

with 

High 

High 

Low 

3 

 
 
 
 
7.  Annex IV. Evaluation matrix and, where relevant, details on answers to the evaluation questions (by criterion)  

2014-2020 EUAV Initiative: Complete list of evaluation questions, assessment parameters and methods 

Effectiveness 

The effectiveness of the EUAV Initiative was analysed by assessing how successful the Initiative was in achieving or progressing towards its 
objectives. This analysis examined whether the expected outputs, results, and impacts were delivered. While various data-collection and analysis 
methods  contributed  to  the  effectiveness  assessment,  surveys  and  case  studies  were  particularly  important  in  determining  the  impact  of  the 
Initiative. 

Summary of evaluation findings 

The EUAV Initiative faced significant challenges in achieving its targeted number of deployments, particularly due to travel restrictions imposed 
during the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, the number of people who travelled outside the EU with the Initiative fell by 90% between 2019 and 
2020. Despite these setbacks, individual volunteers benefited from improved skills and professional development, particularly in areas like project 
management  and  security  training,  while  also  developing  various  transversal  skills  in  a  development  context.  Participating  organisations 
experienced increased capacity in disaster-risk reduction and disaster resilience, improving their visibility, credibility, and operational capabilities. 
The Initiative benefited supported communities, especially those vulnerable to natural disasters and migration, by providing support for resilience 
building and local disaster management. The Initiative also used more innovative approaches, such as online volunteering during the pandemic, to 
maintain community engagement and support. 

Evaluation questions 

EFFECTIVENESS 
EQ01 

1.1. To what extent has the programme delivered the expected outputs, results and impacts?  

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

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

4 

 
 
1.1.1 To what extent has the programme delivered outputs specified in the intervention logic? 
1.1.2 To what extent has the programme delivered results specified in the intervention logic? 
1.1.3 To what extent has the programme delivered impacts specified in the intervention logic? 
1.2.1 What negative and positive factors influenced the delivery of outputs, results and impacts? 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 
▪  Expected outputs (short-term results), results and impacts (medium-to-long-term results) have been achieved  
▪  Description of negative and positive factors influencing outputs, results and impacts and explanation of their influence 
EUAV INDICATORS 
1.1.1. Outputs (short-term) 
▪  Number and proportion of outputs produced 

▪  Proportion of stakeholders satisfied with the outputs 

1.2.1: Negative and positive factors influencing outputs, results and impacts 
▪  List and description of positive and negative factors mentioned by: 

o  stakeholders and policymakers 
o  respondents to surveys and online public consultation 

▪  Evidence from focus-group discussions 
▪  Evidence from reports and internal documents 
▪  Demonstration of the impact of the indicated factors during case-study 

analysis 

1.1.2. – 1.1.3. Results and impacts (medium-to-long-term results) 
Improve skills and knowledge of volunteers in the field of humanitarian aid and the terms and conditions of their engagement 
▪  Proportion  of  participants  who  consider  that  their  skills  and 
employability have improved as a result of participation in the EUAV 
Initiative 

participation in EUAV training 

▪  Evidence 

▪  Proportion of participants that consider they have benefited from their 

in 
participants’ skills and knowledge 

that  participating 

the  EUAV  Initiative 

improved 

Build the capacity of hosting organisations and foster volunteering in non-EU countries 

▪  Number of hosting organisations that took part in the EUAV Initiative 
▪  Proportion  of  organisations  and  institutions  that  have  developed  or 
improved  their  procedures  as  a  result  of  their  participation  in  the 
EUAV  Initiative  (e.g.  dedicated  roles/people  responsible  for 
mentoring of volunteers) 

▪  Evidence  of  changes  in  hosting  organisations’  standard  operating 

procedures stemming from participating in the EUAV Initiative 

5 

 
 
Make  volunteering  more  coherent  and  consistent  across  Member  States  in  order  to  improve  opportunities  for  EU  citizens  to  participate  in 
humanitarian-aid activities and operations 
▪  Number of certified sending organisations 
▪  Number of certified hosting organisations 
▪  Estimated number of organisations/institutions that continue to follow 
the EUAV Initiative’s common standards, systems, processes and/or 
procedures for volunteer management outside EUAV projects 

▪  Evidence  of  contribution  of  common  standards,  systems,  processes 
and/or  procedures  to  increasing  opportunities  for  EU  citizens  to 
participate in humanitarian-aid activities and operations 

the  delivery  of  humanitarian  aid 

▪  The extent to which the Initiative was able to target its support to both: 
(i) 
the 
recipient/beneficiary local communities who are most in need; and (ii) 
the more specific development or resilience-building needs of local 
communities  

those 

in 

to 

Contribute to increasing and improving the EU’s capacity to provide humanitarian aid 

▪  Proportion  of  stakeholders  who  think  that  the  EUAV  Initiative  has 
helped to increase and improve the EU’s humanitarian-aid capacities  
▪  The  extent  to  which  the  EU  was  able  to  fine-tune  its  support  in 
delivering humanitarian  aid  that met the specific needs of different 
groups  of  people  under  the  EUAV  Initiative  (both  in  terms  of  the 
initial  flexibility  to  plan  a  more  fine-tuned  support  adapted  to  a 
specific context, and in terms of actual success in delivering this fine-
tuned support) 

▪  Estimated  number  of  people  impacted  by  support  in  delivering 
humanitarian  aid  provided  by  the  Initiative  (population  of  the 
deployment communities) 

▪  Number and quality of partnerships of participant organisations  

Communicate the EU’s humanitarian-aid principles agreed in the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid 

▪  The existence of the communication strategy itself, and evidence that 

▪  Quantitative analysis of social-media activities (frequency, engagement 

this strategy reached its target audiences 

▪  Perceptions of stakeholders and partners of the EU’s commitment to 

score, etc.) 

humanitarian values 

Improve capacity and resilience of vulnerable or disaster-affected communities in non-EU countries 

6 

 
 
▪  The extent to which vulnerable or disaster-affected communities were 

actively involved in the Initiative 

▪  The extent to which local leaders were engaged in efforts to improve 

the capacity and resilience of their communities 

▪  The extent to which community members improved the knowledge and 
skills necessary to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters 
thanks to training and resources from the EUAV Initiative  

▪  The extent to which vulnerable or disaster-affected communities have 
been empowered by the EUAV Initiative to take action to improve their 
own capacity and resilience 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 

•  Desk research including:  

o  previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the Initiative;  
o  cross-cutting/transnational studies on volunteering and solidarity; 
o  research data and findings from position papers and recommendations produced by both: (i) relevant networks; and (ii) stakeholders; 
o  monitoring data and examples of best practice from: (i) project databases; (ii) management tools (both public and internal); and (iii) 

Eurobarometer surveys. 

•  All remaining data collection and analysis methods (as this question covers the entirety of the intervention logic of the Initiative)  

EFFECTIVENESS 
EQ02 

2.1 Has the programme achieved its purpose of promoting solidarity as a value and building communities of individuals committed 
to increasing solidarity across Europe and beyond? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

2.1.1.  What  is  the  share  of  EUAV  Initiative  participants  who  share  the  same  understanding  of  ‘solidarity’  as  a  combination  of  empathy,  active 
citizenship, human rights and inclusion? 
2.1.2. What is the share of EUAV Initiative participants who engaged in other solidarity activities after taking part in the EUAV Initiative? 

JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 

▪  Participation level and participants’ attitudes 
▪ 
▪  Collaboration of different operators 

Impact of the programmes on individuals and communities 

INDICATORS 

7 

 
 
 
Participation and participants’ attitudes 

▪  The number, gender, nationality and regional diversity of young people who participated in the programme 
▪  The extent to which programme participants felt engaged and committed to promoting solidarity 

Impact of the programme 

▪  The extent to which the programmes had a measurable and positive impact on improving solidarity within communities 

Collaboration 

▪ 

The  extent  to  which  participating  organisations  and  individuals  have  been  able  to  organise  collaboration  and  partnerships  among  different 
operators to promote solidarity at different levels and in different contexts 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 

•  Desk research including:  

o  previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the Initiative; 
o  cross-cutting/transnational studies on volunteering and solidarity; 
o  research data and findings from position papers and recommendations produced by both: (i) relevant networks and (ii) stakeholders; 
o  monitoring data and examples of best practice from: (i) project databases; (ii) management tools (both public and internal) and (iii) 

Eurobarometer surveys. 

•  All remaining data collection and analysis methods (as this question covers the entirety of the intervention logic of the programme for the two 

periods). 

EFFECTIVENESS 
EQ03 

3.1 With regard to the inclusion priority, what are the main real-life impacts of the 2014-2020 EUAV Initiative actions on young 
participants with fewer opportunities? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

3.1.1. What is the share of participants with fewer opportunities in the Initiative? 
3.1.2. How has participating in the EUAV Initiative impacted young people with fewer opportunities? 

8 

 
 
 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 
▪ 

Identifying efforts to promote the inclusion of hard-to-reach groups, 
people  with  fewer  opportunities  and  disadvantaged  groups,  and 
evidence of the results of these efforts 

INDICATORS 
▪  Proportion of beneficiaries that have introduced measures to promote 
the participation of hard-to-reach and disadvantaged groups aligned 
with  the  framework  of  inclusion  measures  and  the  inclusion  and 
diversity strategy 

▪  Efforts  to  promote  inclusion  in  hard-to-reach  and  disadvantaged 
groups  and  the  results  of  those  efforts,  identified  by  reviewing 
monitoring data, literature and project outputs 
LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 

•  Desk research including:  

▪  Disaggregating results and impacts by group wherever possible and 
identifying the difference in the composition and volume of benefits 
obtained per average group member 

▪  Disaggregating results and impacts (EQ1) in terms of hard-to-reach and 
disadvantaged groups (especially participants with disabilities or health 
problems or participants facing barriers to education and training), and 
by gender 

▪  Proportion  of  hard-to-reach  and  disadvantaged  groups  in  total 

participants 

o  previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the Initiative; 
o  cross-cutting/transnational studies on volunteering and solidarity; 
o  research data and findings from position papers and recommendations produced by both: (i) relevant networks; and (ii) stakeholders 
o  monitoring  data  and  examples  of  best  practice  from:  (i)  project  databases;  and  (ii)  management  tools  (both  public  and 

internal).metanalysis of all findings related to disadvantaged groups; 

o  analysis of existing monitoring and other data; 
o  surveys of learners and practitioners; 
o 
interviews; 
o  case studies; 
o  online public consultation; 
o 
o  review of project outputs. 

literature review; 

9 

 
 
 
EFFECTIVENESS 
EQ04 

4.1 What unintended effects, if any, has the 2014-2020 EUAV Initiative had, and how significant were those effects? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

4.1.1. Has the EUAV Initiative had any unintended effects? 
4.1.2. What unintended effects have affected the 2014-2020 EUAV Initiative? 
4.1.3.How significant was/were the unintended effect(s)?  
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 

▪ 

Identification and scope of unintended effects on participants 

▪ 

Identification and scope of unintended effects in local communities and 
specific organisations 

INDICATORS 
▪  Feedback from participating young people and organisations on the 

unanticipated effects of the programmes 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 

▪  Unintended reactions to social-media communication 
▪  Estimation of the number of individuals and communities affected by the 

unintended consequences 

These questions were evaluated using  
• 
•  Desk research including literature review of:  

interviews, analysis of unstructured monitoring information (e.g. project reports), case studies, online public consultation. 

o  annual programme activity/implementation reports from DG EAC, DG ECHO, and the EACEA; 
o  previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes; 
o  cross-cutting/transnational studies on volunteering and solidarity; 
o  research data and findings from position papers and recommendations produced by both: (i) relevant networks; and (ii) stakeholders; 
o  monitoring data from: (i) project databases; and (ii) management tools (both public and internal); 
o  case studies. 

EFFECTIVENESS 
EQ05 

5.1 To what extent are the effects of the activities likely to last, both for participants and local communities, after the end of the 
intervention? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

10 

 
 
 
5.1.1. Which impacts continued after the projects had ended (without EU support)? 
5.1.2. How likely are the new impacts to continue after the end of the projects (without EU support)? 
5.1.3. How do stakeholders perceive the duration of the effects? 
5.1.4. How likely are the impacts to be achieved also in the new/ongoing programme? 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 

▪  Evidence  of:  (i)  the  pathways  followed  by  participating  individuals  and 
organisations; and (ii) the role of the EUAV Initiative in developing skills 
and expanding the horizons of participating young people 

▪  The extent to  which the EUAV  Initiative activities have built  sustainable 
structures and systems in local communities or host organisations that can 
continue to function and have an impact after the intervention has ended 
▪  The extent to which the activities have fostered a sense of ownership among 
local communities, by: (i) involving them in designing and implementing 
the  intervention;  and  (ii)  encouraging  their  continued  engagement  and 
commitment 

▪  The extent to which the activities have had a multiplier effect, by inspiring 
other  young  people  and  organisations  to  engage  in  similar  solidarity 
activities,  and  contributing  to  a  broader  culture  of  solidarity  and  social 
responsibility 

▪  Evidence  of  EUAV  Initiative  projects  contributing  to 

organisational change and partnerships 

▪  Evidence of EUAV projects  contributing  to systemic and 

policy change and partnerships at community level 

▪  The extent to which the activities, by developing the skills, 
knowledge,  and  resources  of  local  communities  and  host 
organisations, have increased their capacity to continue to 
address the issues targeted by the intervention after it has 
ended 

▪  The extent to which the activities have had a lasting impact 
on  the  participants,  by  increasing  their  awareness,  skills, 
their  continued 
and  knowledge,  and  encouraging 
engagement in solidarity activities 

INDICATORS 
▪  Evidence  of:  (i)  spillover  effects  within  and  beyond  participating 
organisations; (ii) new and innovative approaches being adopted and 
institutionalised; and (iii) new capacities and partnerships being built 
and maintained 

▪  Proportion of participants who perceive and have evidence of positive 

changes as a result of the EUAV Initiative 

▪  Proportion  of  participants  and  host  organisations  who  continued  to 
engage in solidarity activities after participating in the EUAV Initiative 
▪  Evidence  of:  (i)  new  policy  approaches,  guidelines  and  tools  being 
adopted; (ii) innovative approaches being institutionalised via changes 
in legislation; and (iii) new capacities and partnerships being built and 
maintained 

11 

 
 
 
LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 

•  Desk research including:  

o  research data and findings from position papers and recommendations produced by both: (i) relevant networks; and (ii) stakeholders; 
o  monitoring data and examples of best practice from project databases and management tools (both public and internal); 
o  data and documents on national results, initiatives and developments. 

•  A survey was also conducted of individual volunteers of the EUAV Initiative and organisations that participated in the Initiative.  
• 
Interviews were conducted with individuals (participants), participating organisations, national authorities and external experts. 

EFFECTIVENESS 
EQ06 

6.1 To what extent are the programme’s results adequately disseminated and exploited? How successful have the programmes 
been  in  attracting  and  reaching  target  audiences  and  groups  at  individual  and  organisational  level?  How  well  is  the  EUAV 
Initiative known to volunteering communities? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

6.1.1. How good was the reach of the programme’s primary dissemination activities? How active were the participating organisations in spreading 
information about the programme through their networks and communication tools? 
6.1.2. What was the level of awareness about the EUAV Initiative among programme applicants, participants (before and after participation) and 
stakeholders? 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 

The programme results are being adequately disseminated and exploited if: 
▪ 
there is evidence that awareness of the EUAV Initiative increased in 
the 2014-2020 period; 

INDICATORS 
At European level 

▪ 

▪  plans  and  a  strategy  for  dissemination  of  the  results  of  the  EUAV 

Initiative at EU level existed; 
the Initiative achieved its key communication performance indicators 

12 

 
 
 
▪  The  existence  –  and  characteristics  –  of 

the  social  media 
communication  strategy 
frequency  and 
distribution of content; and (ii) types of media chosen to deliver the 
programme’s messages 

including: 

itself, 

(i) 

▪  The  social-media  communication  strategy  met  its  key  performance 

indicators 

▪  Number  of  communication  and  dissemination  outputs,  including 
those specifically targeting young people with fewer opportunities 

At beneficiary/project level 
▪  Participating organisations use different channels to disseminate the 

▪  Evidence on available communication channels for applicants 
▪  The  number  of  people  actively  engaged  with  the  information 

disseminated via the Initiative ’s homepage  

▪  Demographic  and  geographic  characteristics  of  the  individuals 
following and interacting with the Initiative, as well as the potential 
reach, filtered by country, gender and age group 

▪  Proportion of potential beneficiaries that identify a lack of information 

message about the Initiative 

about the Initiative as an obstacle to participation 

▪  Proportion of participating organisations that shared the outputs and 

▪  Proportion  of  participants  who  shared  information  about  the 

results of the projects they hosted or supported  
LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 

•  Desk research including:  

programmes 

o  EUAV Initiative annual work programmes; 
o  previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes; 
o  cross-cutting/transnational studies on volunteering and solidarity; 
o  research  data  and  findings  from  the  position  papers  and  recommendations  produced  by  both:  (i)  relevant  networks;  and  (ii) 

stakeholders.  

•  A survey was also conducted of individual volunteers of the EUAV Initiative and organisations that participated in the Initiative.  
• 

Interviews were conducted with individuals (participants), participating organisations, supervisory bodies, national authorities and external 
experts. 

Efficiency 

Efficiency  was  analysed  by  examining  how  effectively  the  EUAV  Initiative  used  resources  to  achieve  its  intended  objectives.  This  analysis 
evaluated whether the outputs, results, and impacts were achieved with a reasonable amount of financial and other resources,  and determined 

13 

 
 
 
whether the resources allocated were necessary, adequate and sufficient. It also scrutinised the efficiency of the management processes at all levels 
of the Initiative. 

Summary of evaluation findings 

The EUAV Initiative demonstrated overall efficiency in budget execution and programme management, despite some areas needing improvement 
in measuring outputs and outcomes. The available funding was sufficient, with only around 76% of the funds being spent, mainly due to delays in 
starting up the Initiative and the impact of COVID-19. However, a significant number of volunteers provided negative feedback on the level of 
funding.  The  expenditures  were  consistent  with  the  budget  allocation  as  per  Regulation  (EU)  No  375/2014,  but  the  rationale  behind  these 
allocations  was  unclear,  and  delays  led  to  a  low  programme  implementation  rate  of  37%  in  terms  of  participants  deployed  26.  Performance 
management showed that actual costs per organisation were 10% lower than anticipated, indicating some cost-effectiveness, although limited data 
on outputs and outcomes made it difficult to fully assess overall efficiency. 

Evaluation questions 

EFFICIENCY 
EQ07 

7.1 How cost-effective were the various operational actions of the 2014-2020 EUAV Initiative? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

7.1.1. How costly were the operational actions? How did the costs change over time? 
7.1.2. Did they achieve the intended objectives? 

26 This indicates that the Initiative allocated 76% of its budget towards achieving 29% of its objectives. 

14 

 
 
 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 
▪  Costs are the minimum necessary to achieve the intended effects 
▪  Unit  costs  are  comparable  across  actions  and  between  programmes 
(NB: taking account of differences in activities, such as duration and 
nature of activities undertaken) 

▪  Necessity and proportionality of EU funding 
▪  EU- added value of EU funding (i.e. funding is necessary to achieve 

the intended effects) 

▪  No  obvious  inefficiencies  or  wasted  resources  in  activities  and  in 

programme management 

▪  Unit  costs  and  other  costs  are  comparable  across  interventions  and 
with other EU programmes (NB: taking account of differences in the 
programmes) 

INDICATORS 
Cost-effectiveness of various actions and comparisons of the relative costs and effects of the interventions 
▪  Average  unit  costs  (by  categories  of  eligible  costs)  in  actions 

▪  Qualitative  descriptions  of  changes 

supported under the EUAV Initiative 

alongside associated unit costs 

in  capabilities/capacities 

▪  Comparing/benchmarking with similar programmes (e.g. UN Youth 
volunteers, European Solidarity Corps) in terms of the average unit 
costs in similar cost categories 

▪  Percentage change in the average unit costs (by categories of eligible 
costs) in  actions  supported by the programmes (or compared to  the 
simplified cost options)  

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 

▪  Participants’ and other stakeholders’ perceptions of value for money  
▪  Proportion of participants who view the terms of conditions of their 

engagement in the EUAV Initiative positively  

•  Cost-effectiveness analysis, benchmarking analysis, organisational, operational and managerial assessments.  
•  Analysis of administrative and monitoring data, survey of organisations, survey of individual volunteers, stakeholder consultations, statistical 

analysis, interviews and case studies 

•  Desk research including:  

o  annual programme activity/implementation reports on the Initiative from DG EAC, DG ECHO, and the EACEA;  
o  checks on cumulative programme performance overviews; 
o  checks of up-to-date internal financial data; 
o  previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes. 

15 

 
 
EFFICIENCY 
EQ09 

13.1 To what extent was/were the size of the budget and the funding models appropriate and proportionate to what the 2014-2020 
EUAV Initiative set out to achieve? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

9.1.1. What was the size of the programme’s budgets?  
9.1.2. What funding models supported the programme? 
9.1.3. Was the funding sufficient to reach the programme’s goals and fulfil its objectives? 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 
▪  The  Initiative  achieved 

the  organisation, 
operations, management modes and tools are/were implemented 
at minimum costs 

its  goals  and 

▪  The level of unsatisfied demand was comparable with other programmes and 

in line with stakeholder expectations 

▪  Degree to which objectives were fulfilled and intended effects were achieved 

▪  The  results  of  the  Initiative  were  commensurate  with  the 

relative to baseline 

earmarked budget 

INDICATORS 

Appropriateness of the budget to the planned achievements 
▪  The extent to which the Initiative’s targets were achieved 
▪  The extent to which the demand for funding was satisfied (success 

rates) 

▪  Correlation  between  funding  allocations  and  achievement  of  the 

overall targets 

▪  The extent to which the boundary conditions (primarily financial 
arrangements)  of  different  actions  affected  their  capacity  to 
contribute to the achievement of the overall targets 

▪  Opinions  of  EU  policymakers  and  stakeholders  regarding  the 
Initiative’s progress towards its targets using available funds 

Appropriateness of the distribution of funds across the different actions 

▪  The extent to which the interventions’ objectives are achievable given the 
historical evidence on the cost-effectiveness of the EUAV Initiative 
▪  The  extent  to  which  the  funding  allocation  for  different  actions  of  the 
Initiative  is  likely  to  be  sufficient  to  achieve  the  specific  programme 
objectives 

▪  Opinions of programme beneficiaries on the sufficiency of funding  
▪  The extent to which organisations’ beneficiaries confirm that participation 

in the Initiative had a structuring effect on their entities 

16 

 
 
 
▪  Proportion  of  the  overall  programme  budgets  that  were 

▪  Quantitative assessment  of the extent to  which the  Initiative’s highly cost-

allocated to quality-support measures  

effective actions accounted for the largest share of the overall budget 

▪  Evidence  that  the  distribution  of  the  programme  budget  was 
informed  by  evidence  on  the  cost-effectiveness  of  actions 
supported under the successor programmes in similar fields 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 
•  Analysis of administrative and monitoring data 
•  Survey of organisations 
•  Statistical analysis 
• 
Interviews 
•  Case studies  
•  Online public consultation 
•  Benchmarks 
•  Desk research including:  

o  annual programme activity/implementation reports on the Initiative from DG EAC, DG ECHO, and the EACEA; 
o  cumulative programme-performance overviews; 
o  checks of up-to-date internal financial data;  
o  previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the Initiative; 
o  research data and findings from the position papers and recommendations of relevant networks and stakeholders. 

EFFICIENCY 
EQ10 

10.1 What were the financial absorption levels? 

10.2 Has the target number of participants been achieved? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

10.1.1. What were the financial absorption levels? 
10.2.1. What were the target numbers of participants?  
10.2.2. Have these targets been achieved? 

17 

 
 
 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 

The programme is considered successful if:  
▪  budget consumption is high (<90%) in line with planned budget;  
▪  budget consumption is evenly distributed over time; 
▪ 
▪ 

the number of repeat participant organisations and new participant organisations is in line with or above the set targets (or impact assessment);  
the number of participants is in line with set targets. 

INDICATORS 

▪  The percentage of budget spent vs planned 
▪  Stakeholder feedback on the reasons for achieving or falling short of 

set absorption rates or targets 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 

▪  Number of repeat participant organisations  
▪  Number of new participant organisations  
▪  Number of participants 

•  Administrative and monitoring data,  
•  Consultations (interviews and surveys) 
•  Desk research including:  
•  annual programme activity/implementation reports on the Initiative from DG EAC, DG ECHO, and the EACEA; 

o  cumulative programme-performance overviews; 
o  up-to-date internal financial data; 
o  previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes. 

EFFICIENCY 
EQ11 

11.1 How efficient is cooperation between the different management bodies (Commission – Executive Agency), and to what extent did 
the Commission fulfil its guiding role in the process? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

11.2.1. What were the achievements of cooperation between the different management bodies? 
11.2.2. What do stakeholders think about the Commission’s guiding role in the process?  

18 

 
 
 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 
▪  Programme management costs as  a share of the  programme budget 

are similar to comparable EU programmes 

▪  Occurrence of problems or delays in decision-making 
▪  Occurrence of problems in coordination 

▪  Views on the usefulness of management tools 
▪  Views on opportunities for improvements 

INDICATORS 
Appropriateness, efficiency and functioning of the overall institutional structure of programme management 
▪  The  extent  to  which  programme-management  and  programme-
implementation  roles  are  well-defined,  detailed  enough  and  clearly 
attributed to the involved management bodies 

▪  Absence  of  (perceived  or  actual)  overlap  in  management  and 

implementation roles across the management bodies concerned 

▪  The extent to which the distribution of such roles is perceived to be 

efficient by the stakeholders  

Efficiency of cooperation between the different management bodies 

▪  Clarity  and  sufficiency  of  the  formal  rules  setting  out  cooperation 
links and practices between the different management bodies covering 
the whole programme-management cycle 

▪  Presence of non-formal cooperation links and practices between the 

▪  Sufficiency  and  adequacy  of  the  information  flow  and  collaboration 
between the relevant management bodies throughout the programme-
management cycle (i.e. whether this information flow and collaboration 
meets the needs and expectations of the bodies concerned) 

different management bodies 

Extent to which the Commission fulfils its guiding role in the programme-management process 
▪  The Commission provides clear ex ante formulation and explanation 

▪  The Commission provides ongoing guidance and support 
▪  Stability and consistency of guidance issued 

of rules and their explanation 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 
•  Analysis of administrative and monitoring data 
•  Survey of organisations 
•  Survey of individual volunteers 
•  Statistical analysis 
• 

Interviews 

19 

 
 
•  Case studies 
•  Online public consultation 
•  Desk research including:  

o 

legal and policy documents, including EU regulations, communication policies and relevant memoranda of understanding and working 
arrangements; 

o  annual programme activity/implementation reports on the Initiative from DG EAC, DG ECHO and the EACEA; 
o  checks of up-to-date internal financial data. 

EFFICIENCY 
EQ12 

To what extent were the monitoring mechanisms applied by the Commission and the Executive Agency efficient/cost effective? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

12.1.1. To what extent have the monitoring mechanisms met their objectives? 
12.1.2. What were the costs of the monitoring mechanisms? 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 

▪  Level of financial and human resources devoted to monitoring as a 
proportion  of  the  Initiative  budget  compared  with  other  EU 
programmes 
Instances of simplification in monitoring between the two periods of 
the Initiative 

▪ 

INDICATORS 
▪  Proportion of programme budgets allocated to monitoring 
▪  Categorisation  of  scope  and  scale  of  simplifications  identified  in 

programme documents 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 
•  Analysis of administrative and monitoring data  
•  Survey of organisations 

▪  Occurrence of problems or delays in monitoring 
▪ 
▪  Grant recipients’ satisfaction with monitoring activities 

Identification of errors, etc. by auditors 

▪  Quality of monitoring reports 
▪  Number and proportion of errors, etc. identified by auditors 
▪  Recipients’ level of satisfaction with monitoring 
▪  Type of decisions enabled by monitoring activities  

20 

 
 
 
•  Stakeholder consultations 
•  Analysis of documentation relating to monitoring and decision-making at programme level 
•  Statistical analysis 
•  Desk research comprising:  

o 

legal and policy documents, including EU regulations, monitoring frameworks and relevant memoranda of understanding and working 
arrangements; 

o  programme guidelines; 
o  annual programme activity/implementation reports on the Initiative from DG EAC, DG ECHO, and the EACEA; 
o  annual audit reports; 
o  up-to-date internal financial and monitoring data. 

EFFICIENCY 
EQ13 

To what extent do the indicators identified for the programme in the legal basis correspond to the purposes of the monitoring and 
evaluation framework? How could the overall management and monitoring system be improved? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

13.1.1. What is the monitoring and evaluation framework? 
13.1.2. What are the indicators identified for the programme in the legal basis? 
13.1.3. What are the differences between the indicators and the monitoring and evaluation framework? 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 

The programme is considered largely successful if:  

21 

 
 
 
 
▪ 

▪ 

there is  a clear framework showing  how chosen indicators relate to 
programme objectives; 
indicators  are  SMART  and  relate  to  all  main  activities  within  each 
action; 

▪ 

▪  baseline values are identified for all indicators; 
▪ 

target  values  for  indicators  demonstrate  an  appropriate  level  of 
ambition; 

- 
- 
- 

the Commission DGs and the Executive Agency are satisfied with: 
- 

the  correspondence  of  the  indicators  identified  in  the  Initiative’s 
legal  basis  to  the  purposes  of  the  monitoring  and  evaluation 
framework;  
the usefulness of the indicators; 
the fitness for purpose of the indicators; 
the ease of collecting necessary data; 

▪  monitoring data for indicators are available in the legal basis; 
▪ 
the data collected matches the definition of the indicator; 

▪  grant recipients are satisfied with monitoring indicators;  
▪ 

the indicators are aligned with indicators monitored in comparable EU 
programmes. 

INDICATORS 
Extent to which indicators identified for the programme in the legal basis correspond to the monitoring purposes 
▪  Evidence  of  sufficiency  of  available  monitoring  data  to  inform 
programme management and policy-making processes at EU level 
▪  The  extent  to  which  the  monitoring  indicators  measure  the 
programmes’  aims  and  objectives  and  provide  relevant  monitoring 
information for decision-making 

▪  Number  and  properties  of  indicators  which  enable  the  EACEA  to 
effectively  follow  up  and  monitor  the  financial  and  non-financial 
progress of the ongoing projects 

▪  Extent  to  which  the  applied  monitoring  mechanisms  (including  IT 
tools) correspond to the needs of the Commission and the EACEA 

▪  Extent 

to  which 

tools)  are 
efficient/cost-effective in terms of their administrative costs (relative to 
their benefits) 

instruments  (including  IT 

these 

Areas for improvement in the overall management and monitoring system 
▪  Areas  where  monitoring  mechanisms  applied  are  inadequate  and/or 

disproportionate 

▪  Areas where relevant indicators have not been identified and put in 

place 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 
•  Analysis of administrative and monitoring data 

▪  Areas where indicators set out in the legislation are not sufficient 
▪  Areas where indicators set out in the legislation are redundant 

22 

 
 
•  Survey of organisations 
• 
•  Desk research comprising:  

Interviews 

o 

legal and policy documents, including EU regulations, monitoring frameworks and relevant memoranda of understanding and working 
arrangements; 

o  programme guidelines; 
o  annual programme activity/implementation reports on the Initiative from DG EAC, DG ECHO, and the EACEA; 
o  up-to-date internal financial and monitoring data. 

EFFICIENCY 
EQ14 

To what extent were the management-support tools adequate and sufficient to support sound management of the programme? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

21.1.1. What was the role of the management-support tools in programme management? 
21.1.2. What added value did these tools generate? 
21.1.3. Were these tools user-friendly and operational? How often did problems with tool operations occur? 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 
▪  The  purpose,  nature  and  scope  of  the  information  processed  by  the 

tools can be traced back to the legal basis 

▪  The  functionalities  of  the  suite  of  tools  were  consistent  with  one 
another, addressed a specific user base, and prevented instances where 
the user was asked to enter the same information on several different 
occasions   

▪  Occurrence  of  problems  or  delays  related 
insufficiency of management-support tools 

to 

inadequacy  or 

▪  Tools enabled best management practices to be implemented across the 

programme 

INDICATORS 
▪  Type of best management practices enabled by the tools  
▪  Number and types of documented problems or delays due to inadequacy or insufficiency of management tools 
LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 
•  Analysis of administrative and monitoring data  
•  Analysis of documentation relating to programme management 

23 

 
 
 
•  Desk research comprising:  

o  documentation of – and guidelines for – tools 
o  administrative and monitoring data on the tools from the Commission. 

EFFICIENCY 
EQ15 

To what extent did the anti-fraud measures prevent and detect fraud in good time? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

15.1.1. Which anti-fraud measures did the programmes use? Did they function as expected? 
15.1.2. How has the level of fraud changed over time? 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 
▪  Level of fraud relative to comparable EU programmes 
▪  Level of fraud under different management models is consistent 
▪ 

Internal  controls  make possible the swift detection  of fraud  and  the 
implementation of anti-fraud measures (such as the Early Detection 
and Exclusion System) 

▪  Views  of  Commission  DGs  and  the  Executive  Agency  on  the 

effectiveness of anti-fraud measures 

▪  Auditor reports confirm the effectiveness of anti-fraud measures 

INDICATORS 
▪  Number of cases of fraud reported 
▪  Type of anti-fraud measures implemented 
▪  Estimation of the number of cases of fraud avoided (and the value of 

fraud avoided) through the application of anti-fraud measures  

▪  Confidence of Commission DGs and the Executive Agency in anti-

fraud measures 

▪  Confidence in anti-fraud measures expressed by audit reports at EU or 

national level 

▪  Variations in the level of fraud across interventions 

Interviews 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 
•  Analysis of administrative and monitoring data 
• 
•  Analysis of documentation relating to programme management and auditing 
•  Desk research comprising:  
•  annual programme activity/implementation reports of the Initiative from DG EAC, DG ECHO, and the EACEA; 

24 

 
 
 
o  annual audit reports; 
o  administrative and monitoring data on fraud from the Commission; 
o  documentation and guidelines related to anti-fraud measures. 

Relevance 

Relevance was analysed by examining how the EUAV Initiative’s objectives aligned with wider EU policy goals and priorities. This examination 
determined whether the Initiative reflected current and future needs. The analysis assessed whether the Initiative’s activities still addressed the 
most important issues for volunteers, organisations, and other stakeholders within the context of overall EU and national strategic priorities. 

Summary of evaluation findings 

The EUAV Initiative was highly relevant in: (i) addressing hosting organisations’ need to build capacity; and (ii) providing timely support and 
expertise to partner organisations. It addressed well the broader need to improve and increase EU capacity to provide humanitarian aid, adopting 
a  comprehensive  approach  that  most  participating  organisations  acknowledged  as  effectively  addressing  persistent  needs  in  less-developed 
countries. The Initiative also addressed the key needs of participating volunteers and host organisations, improving their transversal skills, building 
an understanding of the challenges facing less-developed countries, and preparing volunteers for careers in international development. 

Evaluation questions 

RELEVANCE 
EQ16 

To what extent were European social needs addressed and reflected in the 2014-2020 EUAV Initiative? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

16.1.1. Which European social needs did the EUAV Initiative address and reflect? 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 
▪  Objectives and priorities were in line with European strategic policy documents 
▪  The  EUAV  Initiative’s  commitment  to  addressing  key  challenges  and  needs  at  European  level  is  confirmed  by  key  European  and  national 

policymakers and stakeholders 

▪  Measures could be adjusted in line with the (emerging) needs and challenges of participants and host organisations 

25 

 
 
 
 
INDICATORS 
Extent to which the Initiative reflected and addressed key socio-economic needs and challenges 
▪  Strength  of  logical  links  between:  (i)  the  objectives,  priorities  and 
actions/activities  of  the  EUAV  Initiative;  and  (ii)  the  needs  (both 
policy needs and socio-economic needs) in the areas of volunteering, 
solidarity and humanitarian aid identified in European strategic policy 
documents 

▪  Links between the EUAV Initiative and national goals and activities 
▪  The extent to which the programmes satisfy the needs of participants in 

solidarity and humanitarian-aid projects 

▪  The  extent  to  which  key  European  and  national  policymakers  and 
stakeholders  confirm  that  the  EUAV  Initiative  was  pertinent  to 
addressing key challenges and needs at European level 

Relevance of the EUAV Initiative’s design and intervention logic 
▪  Strength  of  logical  links  between:  (i)  the  current  Initiative’s 
design/project  selection  criteria;  and  (ii)  key  European  priorities  in 
both the relevant fields (volunteering, solidarity and humanitarian aid) 
and socio-economic development 

▪  The extent to which key European and national policymakers confirm 
that the preferences for certain actions, priorities or geographical areas 
under the EUAV Initiative were pertinent to the key strategic objectives 
of the European Union 

▪  Proportion of EUAV Initiative participants who indicated that no other 
funding was available at national or international level to support the 
type of activities they were engaged in 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 

•  Desk research comprising:  

legal and policy documents, including EU regulations and relevant strategic policy documents; 

o  EUAV Initiative annual work programmes; 
o 
o  previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes; 
o  cross-cutting/transnational studies on volunteering and solidarity; 
o  research data and findings from position papers and recommendations produced by both: (i) relevant networks; and (ii) stakeholders; 
o  data and documents on national results, initiatives and developments. 

•  Survey of individual EUAV Initiative volunteers and organisations that participated in the EUAV Initiative. 
• 

Interviews  with  individuals  (participants),  participating  organisations,  supervisory  bodies  (DG  EAC),  national  authorities,  EU  bodies  and 
policymakers and external experts. 

26 

 
 
RELEVANCE 
EQ17 

Did the programme priorities reflect social expectations? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

17.1.1. What perceptions did key stakeholders have of solidarity, humanitarian aid and youth engagement? 
17.1.2. What were stakeholders’ opinions on the programme priorities? 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 

▪  Stakeholders perceived programme priorities as meeting their needs and expectations 

INDICATORS 

▪  Share of participants in online public consultation who agreed 

▪  Share of survey respondents who agreed that programme priorities met social 

that their expectations were met 

▪ 

expectations 
Interview  data  providing  evidence  that  programme  priorities  met  social 
expectations 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 

•  Desk research comprising: 

legal and policy documents (including EU regulations); 

o  EUAV Initiative annual work programmes; 
o 
o  previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes; 
o  cross-cutting/transnational studies on volunteering and solidarity; 
o  data and documents on national results, initiatives and developments; 
o  Eurobarometer surveys; 
o  research data and findings from position papers and recommendations produced by both: (i) relevant networks; and (ii) stakeholders;  
o  Ab online public consultation. 
Interviews with different stakeholders  

• 
•  Surveys of individual volunteers and organisations. 

Coherence 

27 

 
 
 
 
The  EUAV  Initiative’s  coherence  was  analysed  by  assessing  how  well  the  Initiative  aligned  with  other  EU  programmes  and  overarching  EU 
strategies in related fields. 

Summary of evaluation findings 

The EUAV Initiative demonstrated coherence with other EU programmes, including the European Solidarity Corps, the former European Voluntary 
Service, and Erasmus+, due to its broader geographical scope and specific activities. Its objectives also aligned well with the EU’s humanitarian 
agenda, although there was limited evidence of synergies between the EUAV Initiative and other EU activities in the field of humanitarian aid. 
The Initiative was also perceived as coherent with national policies in host countries, and informal links were established with volunteer networks 
in EU Member States. Stakeholders particularly valued the Initiative for its role in strengthening local capacities, especially through training. 

Evaluation questions 

COHERENCE 
EQ18 

To what extent was the 2014-2020 EUAV Initiative consistent with relevant EU programmes with similar objectives? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

18.1.1. What are the objectives of relevant EU programmes? 
18.2.1. How did the EUAV Initiative interact with and complement these programmes?  
18.2.2. How did the EUAV Initiative support the implementation of cross-cutting priorities? 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 
Coherent if: 
▪ 
▪ 

the objectives were consistent with those of relevant EU programmes;  
the programme addressed cross-cutting priorities; 

▪ 

there  was  effective  coordination  between  applicable  DGs  to  ensure 
consistency; 

▪  stakeholders perceived different programmes as complementary. 

INDICATORS 
Extent to which the objectives were consistent with those of relevant EU programmes  
▪  Evidence of shared funding for related activities 
▪  Existing  mechanisms  for  coordination  among 

the  DGs/units 

▪  Links  between  the  formulation  of  EUAV  Initiative  objectives  and 

the objectives of other relevant programmes 

responsible for the EUAV Initiative and other relevant programmes 

28 

 
 
Extent to which effective coordination existed between DGs to ensure consistency 
▪  Existing mechanisms for communication and interaction between the DGs/units responsible for the EUAV Initiative and other relevant programmes 

Extent to which objectives, target groups and activities were consistent with EU programmes with similar objectives 
▪  Share  of  survey  respondents  perceiving  the  different  relevant 

▪  Evidence in interview data that different stakeholders perceive the 

programmes as complementary 

programmes as complementary 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 

•  Desk research (annual work programmes, legal and policy documents, previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and 

cross-cutting/transnational studies on volunteering and solidarity) 

Interviews with different stakeholders 

•  Analysis of existing monitoring and other data 
• 
•  Surveys of individual volunteers and participating organisations 
•  Case studies 

COHERENCE 
EQ19 

To  what  extent  did  the  design  of  the  2014-2020  EUAV  Initiative  provide  appropriate  links  and  support  to  EU  policy  agendas,  in 
particular policy initiatives and political priorities? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

19.1.1. Which European policy initiatives and political priorities were relevant to the field of solidarity and humanitarian aid? 
19.1.2. Which elements of the EUAV Initiative were linked to the relevant European policy initiatives and political priorities? 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 
▪  The EUAV Initiative could be linked to specific EU-level policy initiatives and political priorities 
INDICATORS 
▪  Links between the EUAV Initiative and different EU-level policy 

▪  Links between EUAV Initiative activities and different EU-level strategies, 

agendas and priorities in the legal basis of the EUAV 

action plans and working groups’ agendas 

▪  Links  between  EUAV  Initiative  needs  and  different  EU-level 

▪  Evidence  of  the  EUAV  Initiative’s  contribution  to  the  implementation, 

strategies, action plans and working groups’ agendas 

monitoring and support of policymaking in various EU policy areas 

▪  Links between EUAV Initiative objectives and different EU-level 

strategies, action plans and working groups’ agendas 

29 

 
 
LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 

•  Desk research including: 
o  regulations; 
o  annual work programmes; 
o  policy documents (including EU regulations and relevant strategic policy documents); 
o  previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programme;  
o  cross-cutting/transnational studies on volunteering and solidarity. 

•  Analysis of existing monitoring and other data 
• 

Interviews with EU bodies, EU policymakers and external experts. 

COHERENCE 
EQ20 

To what extent was the 2014-2020 EUAV Initiative consistent with various interventions pursued at national and international level 
which  have  similar  objectives?  To  what  extent  did  the  2014-2020  EUAV  Initiative  complement  other  Member  States’ 
interventions/initiatives in the field of volunteering in support of humanitarian aid? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

20.1.1. Which national and international policy initiatives and political priorities were/are relevant to the field of solidarity and humanitarian aid? 
20.2.1. Which aspects of the EUAV Initiative were coherent with the relevant objectives of: (i) national policy initiatives; and (ii) international policy 
initiatives? 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 
▪  The objectives were consistent with identified relevant interventions 

▪  The activities were consistent with identified interventions pursued at 

pursued at national and international level 

national and international level which have similar objectives 

▪  The 

target  groups  were  consistent  with 

relevant 
interventions pursued at  national  and international  level  which have 
similar objectives 

identified 

▪  Stakeholders  and  experts  perceived  different  programmes  as 

complementary 

30 

 
 
 
INDICATORS 
▪  Correspondence (in terms of objectives, target groups, and activities) 
between the EUAV  Initiative and national, regional or international 
initiatives on volunteering in support of humanitarian aid in different 
Member States  

▪  Existing mechanisms to allow for mutually reinforcing interventions 
and/or learning between the EUAV Initiative and initiatives pursued 
at national level which have similar objectives 

▪  Evidence of overlaps and duplications between the EUAV Initiative 
activities and various initiatives in the fields of volunteering in support 
of humanitarian aid in different Member States 
LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 

•  Desk research including: 

▪  Examples of specific (non-financial or financial) consistency created as 
a result of mutually reinforcing actions between  the EUAV Initiative 
and  other  Member  States’  interventions/initiatives  in  the  fields  of 
volunteering in support of humanitarian aid in different Member States 
▪  Share  of  survey  respondents  perceiving  different  programmes  as 

complementary and opinions of interviewed respondents 

▪  Share  of  public  consultation  participants  perceiving  different 

programmes as complementary 

legal and policy documents, including EU regulations; 

o  annual work programmes; 
o 
o  previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programme; 
o  cross-cutting/transnational studies on volunteering and solidarity; 
o  data and documents on national results, initiatives and developments. 

Interviews with different stakeholder groups 

• 
•  Surveys of individual volunteers and participating organisations 
•  Online public consultations. 

EU-added value 

EU-added value was analysed by assessing the extent to which the results and impacts of the EUAV Initiative materialised exclusively due to the 
EU’s intervention and would not have occurred without it. This analysis evaluated four key effects: volume, scope, role and process. These effects 
were assessed by measuring: (i) the volume of actions achieved; (ii) the scope of engagement with target groups; (iii) the Initiative’s role as a 
supporter of innovation and best practice; and (iv) the sustainability and learning impact of the Initiative’s results. 

31 

 
 
 
Summary of evaluation findings 

The EUAV Initiative provided EU-added value by contributing to common standards for humanitarian aid volunteering across EU Member States. 
It improved the capacity of participating organisations to train and host international volunteers and made the most of the EU’s global presence to 
increase  the  deployment  of  volunteers.  The  involvement  of  well-trained  volunteers  not  only  added  distinct  EU  value  but  also  improved  the 
operational capacities of organisations involved in humanitarian assistance. The Initiative enabled local organisations to scale up their operations, 
improve their effectiveness in humanitarian aid delivery and undertake larger projects by improving local capacities and volunteer management. 
Additionally, the Initiative contributed to developing international collaboration and networks. 

Evaluation questions 

EU-ADDED 
VALUE 
EQ21 

What additional value and benefit resulted from EU activities, compared to what could be achieved by Member States at national 
and/or regional level? What did the 2014-2020 EUAV Initiative offer over and above other education and training support or solidarity 
schemes available at both international and national levels? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

21.1.1. What were the national and regional solidarity and humanitarian-aid actions? 
21.1.2. What were the differences between: (i) national/regional solidarity and humanitarian-aid initiatives; and (ii) the EUAV Initiative? 
21.2.1. What were the differences between other European education and training support or solidarity schemes and the EUAV Initiative? 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 

Additional value is achieved if evidence shows that: 
▪  a comparable scope and volume of projects would not have reached 

▪ 

people in need without the EUAV Initiative; 

▪  opportunities for complementarities with other relevant EU activities 

▪ 

are successfully exploited; 

the  EUAV  Initiative  provided  better  economic  value  compared  with 
other available programmes;  
the  EUAV  Initiative  contributed  to  the  development  of  innovative 
for 
common  standards,  systems  and/or  operating  procedures 
volunteering. 

32 

 
 
INDICATORS 
A comparable scope and volume of projects would not have reached targeted communities without the EUAV Initiative 
▪  Number  of  projects  undertaken  under  the  scope  of  the  EUAV 

▪  Number of deployment countries within the EUAV Initiative 
▪  Examples  of  transnational  mobility  that  would  not  have  taken  place 

Initiative 

▪  Number of individuals who participated under the scope of the EUAV 

without the EUAV Initiative 

Initiative 

▪  Monetary value of project activities conducted under the scope of the 

EUAV Initiative 

▪  Share of volunteers claiming that  without the EUAV Initiative they 
would not  have had a chance to  volunteer abroad, and examples of 
their projects 

▪  Examples of the EUAV Initiative’s ability to react to crises that other 
national, regional or international initiatives could not have done 

Development of innovative common standards, systems, and/or operating procedures for volunteering 
▪  Number of organisations that received a quality label under the EUAV 

▪  The degree of satisfaction among participants and stakeholders with the 

Initiative  

▪  Examples of standards, systems and operating procedures that were 
adopted by participating organisations as a result of EUAV Initiative 
programmes 

▪  Share of organisations claiming that without the EUAV Initiative they 
would not have had a chance to undertake comparable activities 

adopted standards, systems, processes and/or procedures 

▪  The quality and standard of volunteer training 

Opportunities for complementarities with other relevant EU activities are successfully exploited 
▪  The objectives were consistent with relevant EU programmes 

The EUAV Initiative provided better economic value compared to other available programmes 
▪  Cost-effectiveness of the EUAV Initiative compared with other available programmes 
LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 

•  Desk research including: 

o  annual programme activity/implementation reports of the Initiative from DG EAC, DG ECHO, and the EACEA; 
o  previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes; 
o  cross-cutting/transnational studies on volunteering and solidarity; 

33 

 
 
o  data and documents on national results, initiatives and developments; 
o  monitoring data and examples of best practice from project databases and management tools (both public and internal). 

Interviews with different stakeholders 

• 
•  Survey of organisations 
•  Stakeholder workshops/focus groups. 

EU-ADDED 
VALUE 
EQ22 

To what extent did the 2014-2020 EUAV Initiative promote cooperation between participating countries? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

22.1.1. How did the EUAV Initiative’s cross-country arrangements work? 
22.1.2 What was the scope of the EUAV Initiative’s cross-country arrangements? 
22.1.3. Would these arrangements have been possible without the EUAV Initiative? 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 
▪  The  extent  to  which  the  EUAV  Initiative  promoted  cooperation 

▪  The  EUAV  Initiative  increased  cooperation  and  mutual  learning 

between Member States and non-EU countries  

between organisations in EU Member States 

INDICATORS 
The EUAV Initiative increased cooperation and mutual learning between organisations in EU Member States 
▪  Number of new partnerships and collaboration networks established 
between  organisations,  agencies  and  authorities  thanks  to  their 
participation in the programme 

▪  Evidence of continued partnerships between organisations in Member 
States  and  organisations  in  non-EU  countries  even  after  the  projects 
have ended  

▪  Evidence  that  without  the  EUAV  Initiative  schemes,  the  funded 

▪  The  extent  to  which  cooperation  projects  could  have  taken  place 

international cooperation projects might not have happened 

▪  Evidence  of  the  established  practices  and  procedures  in  the  new 

through programmes other than the EUAV Initiative 
▪  Evidence of learning outputs achieved in the partnerships 

partnerships and collaboration networks  

The extent to which the EUAV Initiative promoted cooperation between Member States and non-EU countries 

34 

 
 
 
▪  Number of new partnerships and collaboration networks established 
between  organisations,  agencies  and  authorities  thanks  to  their 
participation in the programmes 

▪  Evidence of continued partnerships between organisations in Member 
States  and  organisations  in  non-EU  countries  even  after  the  projects 
have ended 

▪  Evidence that without the EUAV Initiative, the funded international 

cooperation projects might not have happened 

▪  Evidence of learning outputs achieved through the partnerships 
▪  The  extent  to  which  cooperation  projects  could  have  taken  place 

▪  Evidence  of  the  established  practices  and  procedures  in  the  new 

through programmes other than the EUAV Initiative 

partnerships and collaboration networks 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 

•  Desk research including: 

o  previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes;  
o  cross-cutting/transnational studies on volunteering and solidarity; 
o  data and documents on national results, initiatives and developments; 
o  research data and findings from position papers and recommendations produced by both: (i) relevant networks; and (ii) stakeholders; 
o  analysis of existing monitoring and other data. 

• 

Interviews with DG EAC, the EACEA and national authorities. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
8.  Annex IV: Overview of benefits and costs and, where relevant, table on simplification and burden reduction 

2014-2020 EUAV Initiative  

Action 

Anticipated output 

Volunteering 

Volunteers are deployed 

Costs 

Planned budget:  
EUR 60 270 000 

Indicative cost per 
individual volunteer:  
EUR 49 168.47 

Anticipated 
results/impact 

Individuals: 
Improved volunteer 
skills and knowledge in 
the field of 
humanitarian aid 

Organisations: 
Hosting organisations 
benefit from additional 
staff and knowledge-
sharing 

Local communities: 
Improved capacity and 
resilience of vulnerable 
or disaster-affected 
communities in non-EU 
countries 

Benefits 

Cost effectiveness assessment 

Assessment: Adequate (/) 

Rationale: 

The cost per individual volunteer 
in the EUAV Initiative was 
commensurate with those of 
comparable programmes (such as 
the International UN Youth 
Volunteers Programme). 
Effectiveness was described as 
very satisfactory by individual 
volunteers and organisations. 

Individual volunteers: 
Planned: 4 175 
Deployed: 1 192 

More than 80% (N=92) of surveyed 
individual volunteers reported that they 
increased their: 
•  knowledge of humanitarian 

aid/development cooperation 
•  development of skills to provide 
humanitarian aid/development 
cooperation 

•  knowledge of humanitarian principles 
•  knowledge about the reality in the field 
•  desire to work in the field of humanitarian 

aid/development cooperation.  

Organisations: 
89% (N=27) of hosting organisations agreed 
that the Initiative increased their capacity to 
provide humanitarian aid to the local 
community; 78% (N=27) agreed that their 
awareness of – and understanding of – EU 
humanitarian aid principles increased. 

Local communities: 
57% (N=92) of individual volunteers and 
85% (N=27) of hosting organisations 
believed that the work of EU Aid Volunteers 
benefited local communities and social 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Action 

Anticipated output 

Anticipated 
results/impact 

Costs 

Benefits 

Cost effectiveness assessment 

Technical assistance 
(TA) and capacity-
building (CB) for 
organisations 

Organisations’ staff 
receive training 

Strengthened capacity 
of hosting and sending 
organisations 

Planned budget for 
training, capacity 
building and 
certification:  
EUR 80.85 million 

The average cost per 
organisation 
participating in TA/CB 
activities was EUR 56 
00027. 

Certification 

Certified organisations 

Improved coherence 
and consistency of 
volunteering; improved 
terms and conditions of 
volunteer engagement 

Planned budget for 
training, capacity-
building and 
certification:  
EUR 80 850 000 

The average cost to 
certify an organisation 
was EUR 86 00029. 

groups by addressing important needs; 36% 
(N=91) of individuals believed that it 
increased the resilience of disaster-affected 
communities. 
Participating organisations28: 
Planned: 635 
Actual: 439 

83% (N=126) of surveyed hosting 
organisations agreed that CB increased their 
capacity to host and manage volunteers; 68% 
(N=126) saw improved project-management 
skills as a result. 

65% (N=46) of surveyed sending 
organisations agreed that TA improved their 
organisation’s capacity to manage 
international volunteers; 63% (N=46) saw 
long-lasting organisational results. 
Certified organisations30: 
Certified: 370 

67% (N=46) of surveyed sending 
organisations and 77% (N=126) of hosting 
organisations considered that the Initiative led 
to an improvement in the terms and 
conditions of deployment for volunteers. 

Assessment: Undetermined (~) 

Rationale: 

Cost-effectiveness cannot be 
reliably assessed based on 
existing evidence. Actual costs 
per organisation engaged in 
TA/CB interventions were lower 
than anticipated, which suggests 
that some attention was paid to 
efficiency considerations. 
Effectiveness was described as 
satisfactory by organisations. 

Assessment: Undetermined (~) 

Rationale: 

Cost-effectiveness cannot be 
reliably assessed based on 
existing evidence. However, 
evidence suggests that the EUAV 
Initiative’s contribution to 
increasing coherence and 
consistency in volunteering across 

27   ADE (2021). Ex post evaluation of the EUAV Initiative, 2014-2020. 
28   EU (2023), ‘MFF Performance Results Reports’, retrieved from: https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/4e8f26d1-6604-496f-87c4-

0b9a886adf29_en?filename=Core%20performance%20indicators%20%28new%29.pdf. 

29   ADE (2021). Ex post evaluation of the EUAV Initiative, 2014-2020. 
30   2020 Annual report on the implementation of the EUAV Initiative. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Action 

Anticipated output 

Anticipated 
results/impact 

Costs 

Benefits 

Cost effectiveness assessment 

Centralised training 
for volunteers 

Candidate volunteers 
are trained 

Volunteers are prepared 
for the activity period; 
improved volunteer 
skills and knowledge in 
the field of 
humanitarian aid 

EUR 8.75 million over 
the 2014-2019 period31. 
No data available for 
the 2020-2022 period. 

Individual volunteers32: 
Planned: 4 300 
Trained: 1 383 

67% (N=92) of surveyed individual 
volunteers were satisfied with the training 
received. 

EU Member States is in line with 
its limited scale. 
Assessment: Undetermined (~) 

Rationale: 

Cost-effectiveness cannot be 
reliably assessed based on 
existing evidence. However, 
evidence suggests that overall, 
training was perceived as high-
quality but could have better 
matched the needs of the 
volunteers in the field. Individual 
volunteers described the 
effectiveness as satisfactory. 

31   ADE (2021). Ex post evaluation of the EUAV Initiative, 2014-2020. 
32   EU (2023), ‘MFF Performance Results Reports’, retrieved from: https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/4e8f26d1-6604-496f-87c4-

0b9a886adf29_en?filename=Core%20performance%20indicators%20%28new%29.pdf. 

38