COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Evaluation Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEEAND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps and final evaluation of the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps
Date: 2025-04-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, European Commission
Subjects: EU aid, EU programme, education policy, humanitarian aid, monitoring report, voluntary organisation, voluntary work, young person, youth employment, youth policy

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 1.4.2025  SWD(2025) 75 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  Evaluation Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEEAND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps and final evaluation of the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps {COM(2025) 144 final}  
 
 
Contents 

GLOSSARY ....................................................................................................................................................1 

1.  

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

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

1.2.  Methodology of the evaluation ............................................................................ 3 

1.3.  Limitations and constraints .................................................................................. 4 

2.   EUROPEAN SOLIDARITY CORPS ....................................................................................................5 

2.1.  European Solidarity Corps: structure, objectives and priorities ........................... 5 

2.2.  Expected outcomes of the evaluation ................................................................... 7 

2.3.  Evolution over the evaluation period and current state of play............................ 9 

2.4.  Evaluation findings ............................................................................................ 10 

2.4.1. 

Assessing programme success: extent and challenges…………………...10 

2.4.1.1.  Final evaluation of the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps………..11 

2.4.1.2. 

Interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps……..19 

HUMANITARIAN AID STRAND…………………………………………………………………….27 

SOLIDARITY PROJECTS…………………………………………………………………………......29 

2.4.2. 

Evaluating the programme’s impact: who benefited and what challenges arose
40 

2.4.2.1  Final evaluation of the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps……………..40 

2.4.2.2. 

Interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps……….…42 

2.4.3. 

Programme relevance: continuing importance or growing obsolescence?.......49 

2.4.3.1  Final evaluation of the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps……………..49 

2.4.3.2. 

Interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps………….51 

2.5.  What are the conclusions and lessons learnt?............................................................57 

2.5.1. 

Conclusions…………………………………………………………………...57 

2.5.1.1.  Conclusions on the relevance of the programme ......................................... 57 

2.5.1.2.  Conclusions on the coherence of the programme ........................................ 57 

2.5.1.3.  Conclusions on the effectiveness of the programme .................................... 58 

2.5.1.4.  Conclusions on the efficiency of the programme ......................................... 58 

2.5.1.5.  Conclusions on the EU added value of the programme ............................... 59 

2.5.2. 

Lessons learnt…………………………………………………………………59 

2.5.2.1. 

Inclusion of PWFOs ..................................................................................... 59 

 
 
 
 
2.5.2.2  Addressing  possible  variations  in  the  geographical  spread  of  resultsand 
impacts  60 

2.5.2.3. 

Improving visa arrangements for non-EU nationals……………………60 

2.5.2.4.  Aligning goals and funding……………………………………………..61 

2.5.2.5. 

IT systems………………………………………………………………61 

2.5.2.6.  Aligning the humanitarian aid strand as part of a youth programme…..62 

3.   ANNEX I. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION .................................................................................. ..63 

4.  ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED .......................................... 65 

5.   ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON ANSWERS 

TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) .............................................................. 72 

5.1 

Effectiveness ...................................................................................................... 72 

5.2.  Efficiency ........................................................................................................... 88 

5.3.  Relevance ......................................................................................................... 104 

5.4.  Coherence ......................................................................................................... 113 

5.5.  EU added value ................................................................................................ 118 

6.   ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS AND, WHERE RELEVANT, TABLE 

ON SIMPLIFICATION AND BURDEN REDUCTION .................................................................. 126 

6.1.  Overview of benefits and costs ........................................................................ 126 

6.1.1. 

2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps (period covered: 2021-2023)…..126 

6.1.2. 

2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps………………………………….131 

7.  ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION – SYNOPSIS REPORT .................................... 135 

7.1. 

Introduction ...................................................................................................... 135 

7.2.  Outline of the consultation strategy ................................................................. 135 

7.3.  Key results of consultation activities ............................................................... 136 

7.3.1.  

Summarised results of the public consultation………………………….136 

7.3.2.  

Summarised results of the survey of the European Solidarity Corps programme:
140 

7.4.  Comparison of the results of consultation activities ........................................ 144 

 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

the programme 

European Solidarity Corps 

CERV 

DG EAC 

EACEA 

ESF+ 

NA 

PWFOs 

SALTOs 

UN SDG 

Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme 

Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture 

European Education and Culture Executive Agency 

European Social Fund Plus 

National Agency 

People with fewer opportunities 

Support, Advanced Learning and Training Opportunities 

United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 

Youth strategy 

2019-2027 European youth strategy  

1 

 
 
 
1.   Introduction 

Article 21 of the Regulation1 establishing the European Solidarity Corps programme requires 
the European Commission to carry out an interim evaluation of the programme no later than 
31 December 2024. That interim evaluation is also to be accompanied by a final evaluation of 
the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme, which feeds into the interim evaluation. 
The interim evaluation assesses the overall effectiveness and performance of the programme 
(its effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value) and the delivery of the 
inclusion measures. This evaluation is informed by participating countries from the Member 
States and associated countries who participate in the programme2 and submitted a report on 
the programme’s implementation and impact in their respective territories to the Commission. 
This staff working document accompanies the Report from the Commission on the mid-term 
evaluation of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps and final evaluation of the 2018-2020 
European Solidarity Corps. 

The European Solidarity Corps initiative was launched in December 2016. It aimed to create 
new opportunities for young people to engage in solidarity-related activities for the benefit of 
communities  and  people  around  Europe.  It  first  operated  as  part  of  eight  pre-existing  EU 
programmes,  including  the  European  Voluntary  Service  (1996-2018).  In  2018,  the  first 
European Solidarity Corps Regulation created a new, coherent framework for solidarity-related 
activities, with a dedicated budget of EUR 375.6 million for 2018-2020. It offered new formats 
and tools, with a sustained commitment to quality, in order to reach out to more young people 
and provide them with a valuable experience. Between the launch of the European Solidarity 
Corps  and  the  end  of  2020,  almost  a  quarter  of  a  million  young  people  registered  on  the 
European  Solidarity  Corps  portal,  which  shows  an  extremely  high  interest  in  the  initiative. 
Based on the positive reception of the initiative by young people and other stakeholders in the 
solidarity sector, the Commission proposed an extension of the European Solidarity Corps to 
the 2021-2027 programming period. The adoption of Regulation (EU) No 2021/888 gave the 
green  light  to  a  new  generation  of  the  programme,  covering  2021-2027,  with  a  budget  of 
EUR 1 009 million that now includes volunteering in the area of humanitarian aid.  

This evaluation concludes that young people involved in the programme bring tangible benefits 
to places and communities in need. By participating in the programme, they also gain essential 
personal, social and civic skills that will help them better cope in a rapidly changing world. 

1.1.  Purpose of the evaluation 

The purpose of this evaluation is  for the Commission to fulfil its obligations under Articles 
21(2) and 21(6) of the European Solidarity Corps Regulation. This includes the submission of 

1   OJ L 202, 2021/888, 8.6.2021, Regulation (EU) 2021/888 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 
establishing  the  European Solidarity  Corps  Programme  and  repealing  Regulations  (EU)  2018/  and  (EU)  No 375/2014, 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32021R0888. 

2   The participating countries include the 27 EU Member States and four non-EU countries associated to the programme. In 
addition, certain parts of the programme’s activities can take place in 22 EU-neighbouring countries that are not associated 
to the programme. See the programme guide (p. 16) for further information. 

2 

 
 
an  evaluation  report  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and 
Social Committee and the European Committee of the Regions by 31 December 2024. In line 
with Article 21(2), the evaluation encompasses both the interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 
European Solidarity Corps programme and the final evaluation of the 2018-2020 programme. 
This evaluation aim to assess the relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency and EU added 
value of the programme. 

1.2.  Methodology of the evaluation 

This evaluation consisted of a mix of different methods that were used during the evaluation 
process,  including  both  qualitative  and  quantitative  approaches.  These  methodological 
approaches were treated as complementary; for instance, the results of the quantitative methods 
were used to improve understanding of the qualitative results and vice versa. This was done to 
ensure a well-evidenced approach and triangulation of evidence. The specific methods included 
were as follows. 

•  Desk  research  included  a  review  of  relevant  literature,  documents  and  analysis  of 
administrative  and  monitoring  data  for  each  programme.  The  documents  reviewed 
included  policy  documents,  studies,  evaluations,  assessments  and  technical  and 
operational  documents.  The  research  not  only  informed  the  report’s  findings  and 
preparation  of  the  case  studies  but  also  supported  other  methods,  like  interviews, 
surveys and cost-effectiveness assessments. 

•  Five  surveys  targeting  stakeholder  groups,  including  individual  participants  and 
organisations  involved  in  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  and  EU  Aid  Volunteers 
Initiative.  Surveys  were  designed  based  on  evaluation  questions  and  feedback, 
translated into several languages and made available online. 

•  121  interviews  with  a  diverse  range  of  stakeholders  from  various  backgrounds  and 
regions  to  gain  insights  and  expand  the  Commission’s  understanding  of  the 
programme’s impact. 

•  A  public  consultation  hosted  on  the  Commission’s  ‘Have  your  say’  portal  and 
disseminated  through  various  channels  that  received  673  responses,  which  were 
analysed and summarised in a factual report. 

•  Eight country-level case studies and five horizontal case studies on thematic priorities 
with data collected through desk research, selected survey questions and interviews. 

•  Counterfactual  analysis  that  estimated  the  causal  effect  of  the  European  Solidarity 
Corps by comparing participants with non-participants through an evolutionary search 
(genetic)  matching  algorithm  to  create  a  comparable  sample  of  applicants  and 
participants,  focusing  on  several  large  themes,  such  as  sociopolitical  values  and 
professional and educational influence. 

•  A cost-effectiveness assessment that evaluated the costs and benefits of the European 
Solidarity  Corps  and  EU  Aid  Volunteers  Initiative  across  different  programming 
periods. 

3 

 
•  Social media analysis that improved the assessment of the programme’s visibility and 

public sentiment towards it. 

1.3.  Limitations and constraints 

The evaluation was carried out in line with the Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines. It 
provides  reliable  evidence  covering  the  evaluation  criteria  of  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
relevance, coherence and EU added value of the programme’s implementation.  Overall, the 
evaluation provides robust findings based on the triangulation of quality data collected through 
the methods mentioned above. 

Indicators  and  assessment  parameters  as  well  as  information  sources  and  methods  were 
assigned to each evaluation question. This process of operationalising the evaluation questions 
facilitated the study’s collection and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data, allowing 
for data triangulation and providing an appropriate mix of evidence for the evaluation questions 
at hand.  

Most  of  the  evaluation’s  key  limitations  and  constraints  were  identified  by  the  end  of  the 
inception  phase. The  response  rate  and  number  of  responses  to  the  targeted  surveys  varied 
across  the  two  periods  of  the  programme  and  different  stakeholder  groups.  To  ensure  a 
sufficient number of responses, the external contractor preparing the study made significant 
communication  efforts.  This  included  a  user-friendly,  thoroughly  tested  survey  design,  an 
extended  survey  deadline  and  additional  reminders,  which  led  to  active  participation  from 
many groups. Although the response rate among individual applicants and participants in the 
European Solidarity Corps was slightly lower than that of organisations,  there were enough 
contributions to achieve data saturation. The number of responses collected for all target groups 
and  programme  periods  was  sufficient  in  absolute  terms  to  carry  out  statistical  analyses,  in 
particular for the counterfactual analysis of European Solidarity Corps participants. 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  the 
evidence and mitigate this issue, the study team carried out an extensive set of interviews with 
representatives of management and implementation bodies, national authorities, participating 
individuals and organisations, external experts and other stakeholders. The evaluation also took 
into account secondary sources of information, in particular reports from networks and research 
bodies  on  the  implementation  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps.  In  addition,  the  findings 
presented  under  each  evaluation  criterion  indicate  the  extent  to  which  they  are  based  on 
opinions, facts or other types of evidence. 

The administrative and monitoring data collected by the programme served as an important 
source for a sound analysis of the programme’s performance and cost-effectiveness. However, 
the evaluation faced challenges due to gaps and limitations in the available data. These include 
incomplete data on implementation of the European Solidarity Corps programme between 2021 
and 2023 at the time of writing, as well as gaps in and limitations of the 2018-2020 budget 
data. While the evaluation used other data collection and analysis methods to validate and give 
context  to  the  findings,  analyses  of  some  aspects  of  the  programme’s  cost-effectiveness 

4 

 
remained  inconclusive  (mainly  comparisons  between  programming  periods  or  direct  and 
indirect management actions). These limitations are clearly identified and given context in the 
sections on programme efficiency. 

Lastly, there are some limitations to  specific analyses. These include specific aspects of the 
counterfactual analysis (which is dependent on the treatment and conditions applied) and the 
social media analysis (due to the limitations of the web crawler/scraping), the limitations of 
which are clearly identified in Annex II. Taken together, the triangulation of data from a highly 
diverse set of methods applied by the evaluation and the high number and diversity of responses 
to  the  consultation  activities  (public  consultation,  interviews  and  targeted  surveys)  provide 
reliable evaluation evidence and robust results. 

2.   European Solidarity Corps 

This section explains the expected outcomes of the programme, the objectives it was intended 
to solve, how it fits within the wider EU policy framework, and how the situation has evolved 
over the evaluation time period. The section will present the findings, recommendations and 
lessons  learnt  identified  in  the  evaluation  for  both  the  2018-2020  and  the  2021-2027 
programme periods.  

2.1.  European Solidarity Corps: structure, objectives and priorities 

The  European  Union  is  built  on  solidarity:  between  its  citizens,  across  borders  between  its 
Member States, and in its activities inside and outside the EU. In line with this, the European 
Solidarity  Corps  programme  was  launched  in  December  2016.  It  aimed  to  create  new 
opportunities  for  young  people  to  engage  in  solidarity-related  activities  for  the  benefit  of 
communities  and  people  around  Europe  and  first  operated  as  part  of  eight  pre-existing  EU 
programmes. 

The specific objective of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme is to provide 
young people, including those with fewer opportunities, with easily accessible opportunities to 
get involved in solidarity activities that bring about positive societal changes to the EU and 
beyond,  while  improving  and  properly  validating  their  skills,  as  well  as  facilitating  their 
continuous engagement as active citizens. To measure whether the programme has reached the 
objective, a set of indicators has been developed to determine the success of the programme.  

The Regulation defines young PWFOs as ‘young people who, for economic, social, cultural, 
geographical  or  health  reasons,  due  to  their  migrant  background,  or  for  reasons  such  as  a 
disability or educational difficulties or for any other reason, including a reason that could give 
rise to discrimination under Article 21 of the Charter, face obstacles that prevent them from 
having effective access to opportunities under the programme’. 

5 

 
 
In 2018, the first European Solidarity Corps programme Regulation3 created a new, coherent 
framework for solidarity-related activities, with a budget of EUR 375.6 million for 2018-2020. 
It offered new formats and tools, with a sustained commitment to quality, to reach out to more 
young people and provide them with a valuable experience. Based on the positive reception of 
the  initiative  by  young  people  and  other  stakeholders  in  the  solidarity  sector,  the  European 
Commission proposed an extension of the programme to the 2021-2027 programming period. 

The adoption of Regulation (EU) No 2021/8884 gave the green light to a new generation of the 
programme, covering 2021-2027, with a budget of more than EUR 1 billion in current prices 
and  activities  that  now  include  volunteering  in  the  area  of  humanitarian  aid.  The  current 
programme now focuses fully on volunteering. By extending its scope to cover volunteering 
activities in support of humanitarian aid operations, the  programme now also contributes to 
needs-based  humanitarian  aid  based  on  the  fundamental  principles  of  neutrality,  humanity, 
independence and impartiality, and will help to deliver assistance, relief and protection where 
most needed. It therefore helps to address not only unmet societal needs in Europe but also 
humanitarian  challenges  in  non-EU  countries  that  have  been  or  that  could  potentially  be 
affected  by  human-made  or  natural  disasters.  Humanitarian  aid  volunteering  actions  of  the 
European Solidarity Corps are guided by the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid5. 

In  November  2018,  the  Council  adopted  a  renewed  resolution  on  the  2019-2027  European 
Union youth strategy6 (‘Engaging, connecting and empowering young people’). The strategy 
sets out the framework for European cooperation in the youth field for the benefit of young 
people and puts solidarity at the heart of EU youth policy. One of the key overall objectives of 
the renewed youth strategy is to ‘Encourage young people to become active citizens, agents of 
solidarity and positive change for communities across Europe, inspired by EU values and a 
European identity’. Under the ‘Connect’7 priority area, the Commission proposes to expand 
mobility actions under the programme and support its implementation through stronger policy 
cooperation and community-building activities. 

The programme sets out two strands of actions: (a) participation of young people in solidarity-
related activities, as referred to in Chapter III of the Regulation; and (b) participation of young 
people in solidarity-related humanitarian aid activities (the ‘European Voluntary Humanitarian 
Aid  Corps’),  as  referred  to  in  Chapter  IV  of  the  Regulation.  To  achieve  its  objectives  the 
programme implements the following operational actions: 

3   Regulation  (EU)  2018/1475  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  2  October  2018  laying  down  the  legal 
framework  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  and  amending  Regulation  (EU)  No  1288/2013,  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1293/2013 and Decision No 1313/2013/EU. 

4   OJ L 202, 2021/888, 8.6.2021, Regulation (EU) 2021/888 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 
establishing the European Solidarity Corps Programme and repealing Regulations (EU) 2018/1475 and (EU) No 375/2014. 
5   European  Consensus  on  Humanitarian  Aid,  https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/who/european-

consensus_en. 

6   OJ C C/2018/456, 18.12.2018, p. 1. 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AC%3A2018%3A456%3AFULL. 

7   The  four  priority  areas  of  the  Youth  Strategy  are:  1)  ENGAGE:  Fostering  youth  participation  in  democratic  life;  2) 
CONNECT: Bringing young people together across the EU and beyond to foster voluntary engagement, learning mobility, 
solidarity and intercultural understanding; 3) EMPOWER: Supporting youth empowerment through quality, innovation 
and recognition of youth work; and 4) MAINSTREAM: Addressing the needs of young people across sectors.’ 

6 

 
 
•  volunteering  (volunteering  under  the  ‘participation  of  young  people  in  solidarity 

activities’ strand and under the European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps); 

•  solidarity projects; 

•  networking activities; 

•  quality and support measures. 

The  2021-2027  programme  works  with  horizontal  priorities,  namely:  (i)  inclusion  and 
diversity; (ii) digital transformation; (iii) the environment and fight against climate change; and 
(iv) participation in democratic life. In addition, the programme allows for flexibility in adding 
annual  thematic  priorities  beyond  the  four  horizontal  priorities. Annual  thematic  priorities 
address pressing challenges and difficulties and are mainly implemented as centralised actions 
(managed  directly  by  the  Commission).  For  instance,  the  thematic  annual  priority  of 
‘Promoting  healthy  lifestyles’  has  been  changed  based  on  changing  priorities  in  the  area  of 
health. It was first added in 2021, and it initially focused on the response to the COVID-19 
emergency and then shifted to promoting general well-being and healthy lifestyles. By 2023, it 
had a stronger emphasis on marginalised groups, including gender-specific needs and mental 
health.  Similarly,  the  ‘inclusion  and  diversity’  priority  evolved  to  focus  more  on  local 
community  needs  in  2023,  such  as  refugee  relief,  assistance,  support  and  integration8. 
Additional  horizontal  priorities  have  been  introduced  through  the  ‘volunteering  teams  in 
priority areas’ action. 

2.2.  Expected outcomes of the evaluation  

The scope of the evaluation was determined by the Better Regulation requirements9 and the 
legal  basis  of  European  Solidarity  Corps.  Article  21  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps 
Regulation specifies that ‘no later than 31 December 2024, the Commission shall carry out an 
interim evaluation of the Programme. That interim evaluation shall also be accompanied by a 
final evaluation of the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme, which shall feed into 
the  interim  evaluation.  The  interim  evaluation  of  the  Programme  shall  assess  the  overall 
effectiveness  and  performance  of  the  Programme,  as  well  as  the  delivery  of  the  inclusion 
measures’. The evaluation has therefore covered actions in all programme countries between 
2018 and 2023. 

The evaluation involves a thorough analysis of how the European Solidarity Corps programme 
has been performing and checks that it is efficient, effective, relevant and coherent, and that 
EU-level action is adding value. More precisely, the evaluation assesses:  

• 

the effectiveness of the measures taken to achieve the programme’s objectives, looking at 
the benefits of the actions and activities supported by the programme  and also trying to 
identify any unexpected or unintended effects that might have occurred; 

8   2023 

Annual 

Work 

Programme, 

pp. 10-11, 

https://youth.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023_annual_work_programme.pdf.. 

9   Better Regulation Guidelines https://commission.europa.eu/document/d0bbd77f-bee5-4ee5-b5c4-6110c7605476_en. 

7 

 
 
• 

• 

• 

• 

the continued relevance of the programme’s objectives, by considering whether they still 
appropriately address the current and future needs; 

the programme’s internal and external coherence with other programmes with similar or 
complementary objectives; 

the efficiency of the programme, including the inclusion measures put in place; 

the EU added value resulting from the actions and activities supported by the programme, 
compared with what could reasonably have been achieved by Member States at national 
and regional levels. 

Complementing EU policy and priorities 

There  is  a  high  degree  of  complementarity  and  synergies  between  the  European  Solidarity 
Corps (2018-2020 and 2021-2027), the EU Aid Volunteers Initiative (2014-2020) and other EU 
programmes and policy initiatives in the field of youth, as well as the Commission’s broader 
strategic priorities for 2019-202410. Furthermore, the European Solidarity Corps programme 
has demonstrated a strong commitment to sustainability, addressing global climate mandates 
such as the Paris Agreement, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (the ‘UN SDGs’) and the 
European Green Deal. It effectively incorporates sustainability by supporting environmentally 
focused projects, integrating climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, and raising 
awareness of sustainability among participants. 

The programme promotes sustainable development by incorporating climate change mitigation 
and  adaptation  at  the  levels  of  National  Agencies  (expertise  and  support),  organisations 
(sustainability in award criteria) and individuals (encouraging low-carbon transport). It fosters 
green practices and environmental sustainability by offering beneficiaries a flexible framework 
for  making  sustainability  a  part  of  their  activities.  This  approach  raises  awareness  and 
commitment  among  organisations  and  volunteers,  while  positively 
local 
communities by connecting local efforts with broader EU initiatives. 

impacting 

Expected results 

The  European  Solidarity  Corps  programme  is  expected  to  promote  social  inclusion  and 
diversity, as indicated by its general objective. This should lead to more involvement of young 
people  and  organisations  in  solidarity  activities,  primarily  volunteering,  as  a  means  to 
strengthen  cohesion,  solidarity,  democracy,  European  identity  and  active  citizenship.  The 
programme is expected to address societal and humanitarian challenges on the ground. It is 
also expected to contribute to European cooperation relevant to young people. 

The programme ensures consistency with international obligations by reflecting eight of the 
priorities of the 17 UN SDGs: ending poverty (UN SDG 1), ensuring healthy lives (UN SDG 
3), ensuring quality education (UN SDG 4), achieving gender equality (UN SDG 5), decent 
work and economic growth (UN SDG 8),  reducing inequalities (UN SDG 10), making cities 
and human settlements inclusive and sustainable (SDG 11) and the green transition (UN SDGs 

10 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024_en 

8 

 
 
12 and 13). Nevertheless, there is scope for further highlighting linkages and for developing 
communication around them. 

2.3.  Evolution over the evaluation period and current state of play 

This section covers the points of comparison between the 2018-2020 programme and the 2021-
2027  programme  as  how  the  situation  has  evolved  over  the  period  as  stipulated  by  Better 
Regulation Tool #49. 

During the current programme period of the European Solidarity Corps, several developments 
have affected its implementation. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russian war of 
aggression against Ukraine, natural disasters and climate challenges led to a shift in priorities 
and caused delays. The programme has therefore been adapted to tackle new challenges. For 
instance, the thematic annual priority of ‘promoting healthy lifestyles’ was changed based on 
changing priorities in the area of health. It was first added in 2021, and it initially focused on 
the COVID-19 emergency health response and then shifted to promoting general well-being 
and healthy lifestyles. By 2023, it had a stronger emphasis on marginalised groups, including 
gender-specific  needs  and  mental  health.  Similarly,  the  ‘inclusion  and  diversity’  priority 
evolved to focus more on local community needs in 2023, such as refugee relief, assistance, 
support and integration11. 

Furthermore, the European Solidarity Corps’ inclusion and diversity strategy (2021) boosted 
the programme’s inclusion priority. The strategy promoted inclusion through additional support 
and services (including more mentoring, personal assistance and sign language interpreters), 
funding and better accessibility throughout the programme for beneficiaries with disabilities. 
The strategy also aimed to involve more organisations that work specifically in the disability 
field. Additionally, some other updates to the programme have helped it better cater for people 
with fewer opportunities (PWFOs) and meet their needs. These updates include the opportunity 
to apply for shorter-term projects, to apply for projects in their own country and to participate 
in team volunteering. 

There have been several changes to the management of the programme, which has  affected 
implementation.  Compared  with  the  2018-2020  European  Solidarity  Corps,  the  current 
programme has improved its internal coherence by streamlining procedures, in particular the 
application  process  for  quality  labels12.  Integrating  the  humanitarian  aid  strand  into  the 
European Solidarity Corps has streamlined volunteering activities by consolidating them into 
a single programme. At the same time, the transition from the EU Aid Volunteers Initiative to 
the  European  Solidarity  Corps  marked  a  shift  in  focus  towards  a  more  individualised  and 
learning-centred  approach.  In  line  with  the  priorities  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  as  a 
youth-focused  initiative,  the  new  strand  focuses  on  providing  opportunities  for  young 

11   2023 Annual Work Programme, pp. 10-11, https://youth.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023_annual_work_programme.pdf. 
12   Examples of improvements introduced for the 2021-2027 period include the clarification of the Quality Label system and 
the addition of the Lead Quality Label, which has simplified the funding application process for accredited organisations, 
as well as clearer procedures on which body (i.e. National Agencies, EACEA and SALTOs) the Quality Label application 
should be submitted to in the NA of the organisation’s country of origin. 

9 

 
 
volunteers to gain valuable learning experiences while showing solidarity with people in need 
in non-EU countries through participation in humanitarian action.  

The budget has had an overall 22% annual budget increase compared with the previous 2018-
2020 programme period.  However,  the programme has also  been more  costly to  run  due to 
inflation and the increased inclusion support. See more on funding in Section 2.4.1. 

Despite  the  budget  increase,  the  2021-2027  European  Solidarity  Corps  has  less  budget 
available per year to achieve its goals due to inflationary pressure, which has absorbed a large 
portion of the budget increase. Additionally, the programme reacted to raising inflation caused 
by the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine by adapting its unit costs in 2023 and 2024, 
while keeping overall funding mostly the same. While higher unit costs made the funding more 
suitable for participating organisations and individuals, it also  meant fewer participants and 
participating organisations could be supported.  National Authorities also underlined that the 
lack of funding undermined visibility efforts  and reduced the programme’s accessibility for 
organisations and individual participants. 

While the programme appears to be oversubscribed as the number of applicants greatly exceeds 
the  number  of  participants,  the  scarce  funding  has  not  been  fully  used. This  is  caused  by  a 
strong demand for volunteering projects, less demand for solidarity projects and the delayed 
start of the humanitarian aid strand. While this was initially driven by funds not fully absorbed 
during  the  COVID-19  pandemic  in  2021  and  2022,  they  are  now  being  reinjected  into  the 
programme  and  absorbed. The  budget  intended  for  solidarity  projects,  which  experienced  a 
moderate increase in demand, was only partially reallocated to the oversubscribed volunteering 
strand starting in 2023. Similarly, funds initially allocated for the humanitarian aid strand that 
were  not  used  due  to  its  delayed  start  were  reallocated  to  other  strands  at  later  stages, 
particularly  from  2022  on.  Furthermore,  some  countries  have  not  used  all  of  their  planned 
budget, negatively impacting the overall use of funds. 

2.4.  Evaluation findings 

The  evaluation  framework  covers  the  five  evaluation  criteria:  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
coherence, EU added value and relevance. These were operationalised through more detailed 
evaluation questions (see Annex II and Annex III) for the relevant evaluation objectives. This 
section is organised by the different evaluation criteria that are further divided into two parts: 
the interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps and the final evaluation of 
the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps. 

2.4.1.  Assessing programme success: extent and challenges 

This part assesses the success of the European Solidarity Corps programme, both for the interim 
evaluation of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps and the final evaluation of the 2018-
2020 European Solidarity Corps. This is assessed based on how well it achieves its objectives 
effectively, efficiently and coherently. 

10 

 
2.4.1.1. 

Final evaluation of the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps 

Effectiveness 

Main findings 

•  The European Solidarity Corps navigated through regulatory and pandemic-related challenges 
between 2018 and 2020, gradually increasing the number of participants engaged in mobility 
but falling short of the targets. 

•  The programme achieved high levels of satisfaction among participants, particularly in terms 
of  improving  personal,  professional  and  educational  skills  and  strengthening  a  sense  of 
solidarity and social and civic awareness. 

•  Organisations  recognised  improvements  in  their  project  planning,  implementation  and 
reporting skills compared with the previous period and noted the positive effects of the Quality 
Label on their future fundraising and project delivery. 

•  The programme had an impact on community development, fostering a sense of community, 
revitalising local initiatives and promoting a broader global perspective, thereby fostering a 
positive opinion of the EU and its values in communities. 

Outputs 

The late adoption of the European Solidarity Corps Regulation in October 2018 and the onset 
of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020 delayed programme outputs, but high performance 
targets  were  maintained.  The  traineeships  and  jobs  action  underperformed,  resulting  in  its 
discontinuation  in  the  2021-2027  programme.  However,  the  programme  saw  growth  in  the 
number of participants in 2020, with 42% of participants coming from backgrounds with fewer 
opportunities,  exceeding  targets.  Moreover,  the  programme  delivered  the  necessary  support 
measures. These include the European Youth portal, in particular the European Solidarity Corps 
portal, where young people interested in the programme had to register to access volunteering 
opportunities and connect with organisations. In 2018, 95 832 young people registered on the 
portal,  exceeding  the  annual  target  of  25 00013.  In  2019,  90 698  young  people  were  newly 
registered on the portal, exceeding the target of 60 00014. 

Results 

Almost all surveyed participants (89%15) were highly satisfied with the European Solidarity 
Corps experience in the 2018-2020 period. The programme supported personal development 

13   DG EAC, Annual Activity Report annexes, 2018, p. 10, https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/ea0a3a65-

3117-456c-8927-caabbd2e4f4b_en?filename=eac_aar_2018_annexes_final.pdf. 

14   DG  EAC,  Annual  Activity  Report  annexes,  2019,  p. 102,  https://commission.europa.eu/publications/annual-activity-

report-2019-education-youth-sport-and-culture_en. 

15 For the total number of responses, please check the synopsis report (Annex 5 of this Staff Working Document) 
and the service contractor’s full final report (https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/5736339)  

11 

 
 
 
(83%), promoted educational and professional growth (83%) and helped participants improve 
their sense of solidarity, as well as social and civic awareness (75%). 

Results for participants 

The 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps significantly improved participants’ personal and 
professional  skills,  increasing  awareness  of  their  skills  and  value  in  the  labour  market. The 
programme fostered a sense of solidarity and improved participants’ social and civic awareness, 
with  a  development  of  self-awareness,  adaptability  and  critical  thinking.  In  particular,  40% 
achieved a B2 level in new languages, mainly English, Spanish and French, and 66% felt their 
skills were in demand. In addition, after participating in the programme, individuals became 
more  engaged  in  social  and  civic  activities,  displaying  greater  tolerance  for  diverse  values 
(82%) and noting improved interaction skills (87%). Their understanding of social and political 
issues  deepened  (70%),  and  environmental  awareness  increased  (67%).  Furthermore,  71% 
reported a strengthened European identity, and 91% felt capable of making meaningful social 
change, indicating a strong sense of optimism about their impact. 

Results for organisations 

Participating  organisations  generally  viewed  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  positively, 
especially  for  strengthening  project  management  skills  and  diversity  practices.  They 
appreciated the Quality Label for ensuring high-quality volunteering and volunteer safety, with 
59% stating the certification process encouraged them to continue improving their work. The 
programme  also  fostered  European  youth  projects  and  knowledge  sharing  among 
organisations. While 82% felt the programme supported volunteers with fewer opportunities, 
many struggled to find consortium partners, with only 53% and 28% finding it easy to secure 
such partnerships. Additionally, only 49% felt there was adequate guidance on inclusion, and 
only 47% deemed the financial support sufficient. 

Moreover, less visible barriers affected young people, including mental health issues. While 
only 20% felt their peers had more opportunities, many faced significant obstacles: 50% had 
been  unsuccessful  in  finding  work,  25%  experienced  mental  health  issues  during  the 
application process, 22% struggled to afford basic necessities, and 18% lived far from urban 
centres. These findings indicate that the status of being disadvantaged often goes unreported. 

Impacts  

The European Solidarity Corps addressed community challenges by strengthening local areas, 
particularly in rural and marginalised regions. It fostered civic engagement and social ties, with 
80%  of  participating  organisations  agreeing  that  volunteers  met  key  community  needs. The 
programme also boosted interest in volunteering, with 92% of participants acknowledging that 
it had a positive impact on their personal and professional development. Young people gained 
new skills, demonstrated creativity, and improved their language abilities. 

While 47% of the organisations continued similar activities after the programme, the COVID-
19  pandemic  made  those  activities  difficult  to  sustain.  Participants  mainly  heard  about  the 
programme  through  friends  (26%),  social  media  (15%),  and  educational  institutions  (21%). 
Youth organisations played a key role in disseminating information, with 83% of participants 

12 

 
sharing project outputs. However, only 41% of the organisations felt that they had sufficient 
funding  for  the  sharing  of  results,  and  just  47%  felt  that  there  was  sufficient  guidance  for 
promoting activities. Despite these challenges, 51% adopted best practices from others, and 
58% acknowledged that the programme provided support in the sharing of success stories. 

Efficiency 

Main findings 

•  Funding was deemed appropriate for this funding period, as only 79.4% of the funding was 
absorbed. A subset of the stakeholders interviewed agreed with that view. The low uptake in 
payments is not an indicator of excessive funding, but rather of inflexible budget allocations 
and the distortions resulting from the COVID-19 crisis. 

•  The administrative burden was reasonable. Most participants, organisations and individuals 

took a positive view of how the programme was run. 

•  The implementation of the programme is difficult to assess reliably due to data discrepancies 
in the output and budgetary data for the previous programming period. A tentative assessment 
would  suggest  good  cost-effectiveness  compared  with  the  parallel  EU  Aid  Volunteers 
Initiative. 

•  The management of the programme was considered to be  moderately efficient. However, 
organisations  were  somewhat  critical  of  user-friendliness  of  the  programme  management 
tools. 

Funding 

Funding was not a major issue for the European Solidarity Corps during 2018-2020 due to the 
delayed adoption of the programme’s regulation.  

There were inefficiencies in budget allocation, particularly for the less popular activities, such 
as traineeships, which accounted for 7% of the budget but met just 5% of its participant targets. 
Feedback  from  participating  organisations  indicated  that,  while  52%  felt  that  the  financial 
support covered participation costs, only 42% believed that the unit cost rates were sufficient 
to  cover  actual  expenses.  Overall,  the  budget  allocation  was  in  line  with  Regulation  (EU) 
2018/147516. The Regulation sets out the budget distribution for the European Solidarity Corps, 
allocating 90% to volunteering and solidarity projects and 10% to traineeships or jobs, with a 
maximum of 20% for in-country activities. Article 9(3) enables the budget to cover expenses 
for  the  preparatory,  monitoring,  control,  audit  and  evaluation  tasks  needed  to  manage  the 
programme17.  

16   OJ L 250, 2018/1475, 4.10.2018, Regulation (EU) 2018/1475 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 

October 2018 laying down the legal framework of the European Solidarity Corps and amending Regulation (EU) No 
1288/2013, Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013 and Decision No 1313/2013/EU, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32018R1475. 

17   Ibid. 

13 

 
 
The budget also includes costs for studies, expert meetings, communication actions, IT support 
for the European Solidarity Corps portal, and other administrative expenses, and no financial 
limits are set. As required, the programme differentiated between in-country and cross-country 
volunteering budgets, but it slightly exceeded the 20% cap for in-country activities, allocating 
23.6%.  This  excess  was  probably  due  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  which  restricted  cross-
country  mobility,  while  the  programme  remained  below  the  threshold  before  the  pandemic, 
only exceeding it by 5% in 202018. The rationale behind budget allocation as regards expected 
activities and outcomes was unclear. The annual work programmes from 2018 to 2020 set out 
the expected results in general terms, with no specific targets. This made it difficult to assess 
whether  the  budget  was  consistent  with  the  intended  outcomes  of  the  European  Solidarity 
Corps. Furthermore, detailed financial absorption levels across all action types could not be 
evaluated due to gaps in the 2018-2020 budgetary data19. 

Administrative burden 

Most participants and organisations found participation in the European Solidarity Corps to be 
manageable.  Specifically,  65%  of  participants  and  57%  of  organisations  considered  the 
administrative tasks and reporting requirements to be reasonable, a slight increase in the case 
of  participants  since  the  previous  period  and  remaining  stable  in  the  case  of  organisations. 
Project  application  procedures  were  seen  in  a  moderately  positive  light,  with  69%  of 
organisations finding the information for applicants to be clear. Moreover, 59% considered the 
guidance and support tools to be user-friendly, while 69% found the funding rules clear. Lastly, 
66% felt that the timescale from submitting applications to receiving grants was reasonable. 

Efficiency of programme implementation 

The  European  Solidarity  Corps  has  been  cost-effective,  based  on  a  calculation  of  cost-
effectiveness  using  comparable  data.  The  programme  achieved  a  cost-effectiveness  of 
EUR 7 160.28 per participant, approximately seven times more cost-effective than the EU Aid 
Volunteers  Initiative  (EUR 49 168.47),  which  ran  in  parallel20.  On  cost-effectiveness  by 
organisation, the European Solidarity Corps is still two-and-a-half times more cost-effective, 
EUR 45 691.51  for  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  vs  EUR 127 102.80  for  the  EU  Aid 
Volunteers Initiative21. While this is to be expected, as the amount of training required and the 
distance and length of deployment for EU Aid Volunteers is much higher than for the European 
Solidarity Corps, the magnitude of the difference per participant is striking. This is probably 
due  to  the  change  in  the  design  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps,  which  allowed  for  more 
participants per organisation, in turn resulting in scaling effects. 

The European Solidarity Corps programme invested considerable resources in preparing high-
quality reference documents, which were crucial to the programme’s effective implementation. 

18   DG  EAC  frozen  monitoring  dashboard  (MFF  2014-2020;  date  of  extraction:  5 January  2024),  %  of  In-Country  Grant 

Amount Contracted. 

19   DG EAC frozen monitoring dashboard (MFF 2014-2020; date of extraction: 5 January 2024). 
20   PPMI calculation based on EU (2023), ‘MFF Performance Results Report’. 
21   PPMI calculation based on EU (2023), ‘MFF Performance Results Report’. 

14 

 
 
Approximately  13%  of  the  annual  budget22  (EUR 16  million)  was  spent  on  training, 
contributing  to  key  programme  features  such  as  volunteer  security,  standardised  training, 
organisational  certification,  volunteer  management  and  partner  governance.  These  efforts 
boosted the programme’s overall effectiveness. However, an assessment of the suitability and 
efficiency of actions under direct and indirect management remains inconclusive due to a lack 
of data on the actual budget spent on direct management actions, such as insurance. 

Efficiency of programme management 

The European Solidarity Corps programme management tools were generally efficient, with 
around 60% of organisations finding the project application guidance user-friendly. However, 
opinions  on  reporting  tools  were  mixed,  with  only  36%  finding  Mobility Tool+  to  be  user-
friendly. Most organisations (68%) felt that the information for applicants was clear, though 
many were dissatisfied with the functionality of the European Solidarity Corps portal, where 
just 37% found it easy to recruit volunteers. 

The  COVID-19  pandemic  had  an  impact  on  participant  engagement,  prompting  70%  of 
participants  to  move  activities  online.  Despite  the  challenges,  78%  felt  that  they  received 
adequate support, although 16% of organisations postponed their participation and some ended 
their activities prematurely. Organisations viewed the support from National Agencies (NAs) 
positively,  with  74%  agreeing  on  the  clarity  of  safety  guidelines  and  83%  appreciating  the 
flexibility available for project adjustments. Overall, while the programme showed itself to be 
adaptable, sustaining reporting flexibility remained a challenge. 

Performance measurement and monitoring (RACER criteria) 

In  evaluating  the  efficiency  of  performance  measurement  and  monitoring,  the  evaluation 
focuses on three main topics. First, it employs the RACER (relevant, accepted, credible, easy 
to monitor, robust) criteria, a set of standards intended to ensure that the programme has been 
measuring the right things in the right way according to the Commission’s Better Regulation 
Toolbox. Second, the efficiency of tools and methods for tracking progress, verifying whether 
they provide accurate and timely information. Lastly, the evaluation checks whether what the 
European Solidarity Corps has been measuring is consistent with what was initially identified 
for measuring under the monitoring and evaluation framework. 

RACER criteria 
Relevance 
and 
acceptability 

The  Commission’s  monitoring  indicators  are  relevant  but  not  necessarily 
comprehensive,  focusing  more  on  compliance  and  output  rather  than 
measuring impact. While compliance indicators  are  crucial for  complying 
with regulations, they may not fully reflect the programme’s broader impact. 
Nonetheless, the indicators used are generally acceptable and meet essential 
requirements. 

22   European Solidarity Corps annual work programmes (2021-2023). 

15 

 
 
 
 
Credibility 

Ease of 
monitoring 

Robustness 

The credibility of the European Solidarity Corps’ performance management 
is to some extent limited by self-reporting and by a wide interpretation of the 
definition of ‘participants with fewer opportunities.’ This makes it difficult 
to accurately identify and measure the programme’s impact on this group. 
Different interpretations have resulted in inconsistencies in data collection. 
Verifying  resource  allocation  for  inclusion  targets  therefore  becomes 
challenging, resulting in concerns as to the programme’s true impact. 
While  the  indicators  chosen  by  the  Commission  were  easy  to  monitor  in 
theory,  not  all  of  the  data  on  monitoring  dashboards  was  complete.  This 
highlights the need for a more robust data verification process  in order to 
reduce instances of misreported or missing data. This could involve cross-
checking  data  from  different  sources  or  using  automated  tools  to  detect 
anomalies. 
The European Solidarity Corps’ performance management was sufficiently 
robust.  However,  missing  data  had  a  negative  impact  on  the  accuracy  of 
performance assessments, suggesting that the data verification of important 
measures and processes could have been improved. 

Table 1. RACER criteria for the final evaluation of the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps 

Coherence 

Main findings: 

•  The  programme  complemented  EU-level  policies  and  served  as  a  single  entry  point  for 

solidarity activities. 

•  Overall, the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps complemented a number of other relevant 
EU  programmes,  in  particular  the  Erasmus+  programme. At  the  same  time,  there  was  an 
overlap between the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps occupational strand and specific 
employment-focused activities of other EU programmes, such as Erasmus+ and the European 
Social Fund.. 

•  For many organisations, the occupational strand did not stand out as an alternative to other 
activities and therefore offered limited complementarity with the rest of the programme. 

•  Key  elements  that  distinguished  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  from  other  existing 
programmes  were the inclusion  of in-country  activities  and  group  projects,  which  reduced 
barriers to volunteering activities. 

Internal coherence 

While  directly  and  indirectly  managed  actions  were  generally  seen  to  be  consistent  and 
distinguishable  from  each  other,  certain  challenges  could  be  identified  for  the  2018-2020 
period. To obtain quality labels, organisations had to follow different application procedures 
depending on the type of organisation and their country. Europe-wide networks and national 
authorities  applied  directly  to  the  European  Education  and  Culture  Executive  Agency 
(EACEA), while other organisations applied to their NA or the relevant SALTO. In addition, 

16 

 
the quality labels had different requirements depending on the type of solidarity activity and 
the role of the organisation. This process has been streamlined and simplified for 2021-2027. 

Traineeships and jobs (occupational strand) 

The  occupational  strand  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  faced  challenges  in  aligning  its 
objectives  with  the  overall  programme  by  incorporating  youth  employment  policies.  By 
offering not only volunteering but also solidarity traineeships and jobs, the programme sought 
to act as a central hub for solidarity activities in Europe and to complement other national and 
EU  initiatives  promoting  social  inclusion  for  disadvantaged  young  people.  However,  some 
stakeholders, such as the European Economic and Social Committee23, argued that vocational 
activities should be offered through existing EU employment programmes, in order to prevent 
confusion  and  job  substitution.  Consultations  with  applicant  organisations  indicated  that 
traineeship and job projects were the least aligned with the programme’s objectives, suggesting 
that participants found that there were barriers to integrating solidarity with employment and 
traineeships. 

Organisations involved in traineeships and jobs were modest in their assessments. While 61% 
found that participation conditions were favourable for organisations and 64% found that they 
were attractive to young people, previous studies indicated that financial incentives were often 
insufficient. This was mainly due to the requirement for organisations to contribute to trainee 
salaries  and  to  the  heavy  administrative  burden24.  The  organisations  interviewed  that  had 
participated  in  the  strand  noted  that  they  had  to  invest  not  just  financial  resources  but  also 
considerable time and  effort  in  training and mentoring.  Some had to  rely  on combining  the 
strand  with  other  financial  incentives,  such  as  national  subsidies  for  recruiting  unemployed 
youth25.  Furthermore,  36%  of  the  organisations  surveyed  that  had  not  participated  in 
traineeships and jobs cited such activities not being relevant to their organisation as a reason 
for not participating in the strand, while 35% did not know about traineeships and jobs26. 19% 
cited insufficient financial incentives, while 5% noted that there were better traineeship or job 
programmes  in  their  country.  Other  reasons  included  lack  of  internal  capacity,  disinterest, 
challenges  with  national  laws,  and  eligibility  restrictions  limited  to  EU  Member  State 
organisations. National implementation reports indicate that there was limited uptake of the 
discontinued  strand  due  to  perceived  inconsistencies  with  the  programme’s  core  values, 
overlaps with existing measures such as Erasmus+, insufficient funding, and legal problems 
with national or regional employment laws. 

23   See also Opinion SOC/566 (2017) of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of 
the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  laying  down  the  legal  framework  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  and 
amending  Regulations  (EU)  No 1288/2013,  (EU)  No 1293/2013,  (EU)  No 1303/2013,  (EU)  No 1305/2013,  (EU) 
No 1306/2013  and  Decision  EU  No 1313/2013,  https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-
reports/opinions/european-solidarity-corps. 

24   European  Commission 

(2020).  Study 

on 

removing 

obstacles 

to 

cross-border 

solidarity 

activities 

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1a7042cb-e678-11ea-ad25-
01aa75ed71a1https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1a7042cb-e678-11ea-ad25-
01aa75ed71a1. 
25   Interview programme. 
26   The higher share of respondents who indicated a lack of awareness may also have been influenced by the fact that the 

strand was discontinued in 2021. 

17 

 
 
External coherence 

The 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps was a key programme enabling the implementation 
of  both  the  2010-2018  EU  youth  strategy  (in  particular  in  the  areas  of  employment, 
volunteering and social inclusion) and the 2019-2027 EU youth strategy. It served as a single 
entry  point  for  solidarity  activities  across  the  EU  and  sought  to  broaden  the  scope  of  the 
European Voluntary Service and  to  complement the Youth  Guarantee scheme by promoting 
work  placements,  which  provide  young  people  with  valuable  experience,  enabling  them  to 
acquire skills and facilitating access to employment. 

Consistency with other EU programmes 

The  2018-2020  European  Solidarity  Corps  complemented  several  EU  programmes, 
particularly  the  2014-2020  Erasmus+  programme,  sharing  resources  and  management 
structures such as NAs and the European Youth portal. However, while there was some overlap, 
particularly in the occupational strand, actual synergies were limited. Unique features of the 
European Solidarity Corps included in-country activities and group projects, which helped to 
reduce barriers to volunteering. Programmes worthy of note are Erasmus+, Europe for Citizens, 
the  European  Social  Fund  and  the  Youth  Employment  Initiative,  European  Employment 
Services (EURES) and Horizon 2020. 

18 

 
2.4.1.2. 

Interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps  

Effectiveness 

Main findings 

•  The  European  Solidarity  Corps  programme  is  designed  to  create  a  cycle  of  benefits  that 
target  group–individuals,  organisations,  and 
permeates 
communities–producing  systemic  impacts  that  are  in  line  with  the  Commission’s  policy 
priorities. 

through  various 

levels  of 

•  Participation produced significant results for individuals, such as high satisfaction with their 
mobility experience, improved personal, professional and study skills, including independent 
learning,  growth  in  their  sense  of  solidarity,  and  social  and  civic  awareness,  leading  to 
increased involvement in relevant activities after the programme. 

•  Organisations saw improvements in their project planning, implementation and reporting skills 
compared with the previous period, and noted the positive effects of the Quality Label on their 
future fundraising and project delivery. 

•  The  programme  had  an  impact  in  terms  of  community  development,  fostering  a  sense  of 
community, revitalising local initiatives and promoting a broader global perspective, thereby 
encouraging the EU and its values to be better received within communities. 

•  However, organisations faced challenges in working with volunteers with fewer opportunities. 
They  reported  difficulties  in  finding  willing  consortium  partners  and  receiving  sufficient 
guidance and financial support, underscoring the need for continuous capacity building and 
programme support. 

Individual level 

At individual level, participants in the European Solidarity Corps programme report significant 
personal, professional, and educational growth. The programme’s tailored mobility experiences 
have produced high satisfaction rates, with 89.6% of the participants surveyed acknowledging 
improvements  in  their  skills,  confidence  and  opportunities.  Key  individual  benefits  include 
skills development, personal development and increased civic engagement. These are further 
explained below. 

Skill and personal development 

The European Solidarity Corps improved participants’ personal, professional and educational 
skills,  including  language  skills.  It  achieved  good  results  by  increasing  participants’ 
involvement  in  social,  voluntary,  solidarity  and  civic  activities  and  by  promoting  greater 
tolerance  and  cooperation  between  different  groups.  It  successfully  developed  participants’ 
understanding  of  key  democratic  values,  increased  their  environmental  awareness,  and 
strengthened  their  sense  of  European  identity.  Moreover,  one  in  three  European  Solidarity 

19 

 
 
Corps participants studied a new language at B2 level after taking part in the programme (33%). 
Improved  language  proficiency  is  also  one  of  the  key  skills  and  educational  development 
outcomes identified by the counterfactual analysis. 

Increased civic engagement 

After  taking  part  in  the  programme,  participants  have  become  more  involved  in  social, 
volunteering, solidarity and civic activities. Moreover, the programme fulfilled its democratic 
potential  by  fostering  a  better  understanding  of  concepts  such  as  democracy,  justice  and 
equality (72%) and increasing willingness to participate in solidarity activities (83%). It also 
increased the participants’ awareness of environmental and climate issues (70%) and their sense 
of European identity (71%). These individual-level benefits lead to improvements at a broader 
organisational and community level, creating a ripple effect that strengthens the programme’s 
goals. 

Solidarity projects within the European Solidarity Corps offer unique added value by providing 
young people with  leadership opportunities, direct  access  to  funding and the  opportunity  to 
address  local  community  needs  and  inspire  wider  social  change.  They  make  a  significant 
contribution to young people’s personal and professional development, particularly their ability 
to adapt and to act in new situations (91% of participants agreed or strongly agreed with this 
statement), to work in teams (89%) and to develop ideas and put them into practice (85%). 
Participants report high levels of satisfaction with the solidarity projects and how they meet 
young people’s needs. 

Organisational level 

For  organisations,  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  has  fostered  significant  improvements  in 
project  management  and  diversity  and  inclusion  practices.  The  Quality  Label  has  been 
in  strengthening  project  delivery  and  organisational  capabilities.  Key 
instrumental 
organisational  benefits  include  capacity  building,  inclusion  and  diversity,  and  international 
opportunities. 

Capacity building 

The  programme  delivered  positive  results  for  organisations,  such  as  improving  diversity, 
inclusion and project management skills. The Quality Label is particularly appreciated for the 
effect  it  has  on  project  management  practices  and  recognition.  Participating  organisations 
generally took a positive view of the impact the programme had had on them, particularly as 
regards the improvement in diversity and inclusion practices and project management skills. 
Improving  diversity  practices  resulted  in  a  deeper  understanding  and  greater  skills  when  it 
comes to working with people of different origins, values and beliefs. This had a spillover effect 
on  the  inclusion  of  people  with  fewer  opportunities,  as  some  of  them  come  from  under-
represented and marginalised communities or have disabilities. Furthermore, the feedback from 
organisations on the Quality Label was overwhelmingly positive. It promotes the delivery of 
high-quality solidarity and volunteering activities (71%) and supports the safety and well-being 
of  volunteers  (68%).  In  addition,  66%  of  organisations  felt  that  the  certification  process 
motivated them to continually assess and improve operations. 

20 

 
Inclusion and diversity 

The  programme  demonstrated  a  strong  commitment  to  supporting  people  with  fewer 
opportunities.  Four  out  of  five  organisations  confirmed  that  the  European  Solidarity  Corps 
programme effectively supports volunteers with fewer opportunities (80%). A key aspect of the 
programme’s success has been its emphasis on inclusiveness, ensuring that the programme not 
only  reaches  a  wide  range  of  young  people,  but  also  actively  facilitates  their  participation, 
regardless  of  their  background  or  circumstances.  Moreover,  the  programme’s  effects  are 
particularly  valuable  for  those  young  people  who  have  fewer  opportunities  to  obtain  them 
elsewhere. 

The programme’s projects focus on a wide variety of young people with fewer opportunities. 
For example, some projects aim to empower young people with intellectual or developmental 
disabilities, as well as those from migrant backgrounds or with mental health issues, facilitating 
the  development  of  social  skills,  cultural  integration  and  freedom  of  expression.  The 
programme provides a safe space for those people’s personal growth27. However, participating 
organisations faced challenges with the availability of equipment, finding willing consortium 
partners and receiving sufficient guidance and financial support. Organisations are not certain 
that they are well-equipped to support volunteers with fewer opportunities. Only half of the 
organisations surveyed reported that they were (58%), while a smaller proportion said that it 
was easy to find consortium partners who were well-prepared for this task (30%). However, 
only  half  of  the  organisations  surveyed  agreed  that  they  received  sufficient  guidance  on 
inclusion  (50%),  while  an  even  smaller  number  of  organisations  agreed  that  the  financial 
support  provided  was  sufficient  to  enable  those  volunteers  to  participate  (42%).  This  can 
potentially  be  linked  to  the  visibility  of  intersectional  and  other  ‘hidden’  barriers  to  the 
opportunities  of  young  people,  such  as  mental  health  and  gender  concerns.  Nevertheless, 
challenges  remain,  particularly  for  smaller  organisations  and  those  in  remote  areas,  which 
struggle with limited resources and the high cost of living in urban centres. It is crucial that 
those challenges be addressed so that the programme’s positive impacts at the organisational 
level can be maintained. 

International opportunities 

One of the programme’s key benefits is that it facilitates pan-European networks, leading to 
long-term partnerships and relationships. According to the survey results, most organisations 
(64%) either agree or strongly agree that the programme helped build new partnerships that 
continued post-project, while 62% of the organisations surveyed either agree or strongly agree 
that their international network expanded as a result of their participation in the programme. 

The  programme  has  enabled  and  encouraged  participating  organisations  to  explore  similar 
volunteering and solidarity activities outside of the European Solidarity Corps, including at an 
international  level.  55%  reported that  their organisation  continued to  be involved in  similar 
volunteering  and  solidarity  activities  after  participating  in  the  programme.  52%  of 

27   Tanja  Strecker,  Johannes  Eick,  RAY  SOC,  Special  Programmatic  Study,  2023,  https://www.researchyouth.net/wp-

content/uploads/2023/10/RAY-SOC_Programmatic-Study_20231004.pdf. 

21 

 
 
organisations stated that they participated in those activities at EU or international level after 
the  programme.  By  learning  from  their  international  partners,  participating  in  training 
programmes and receiving guidance from their NA and SALTOs, organisations have acquired 
valuable  new  skills,  which  have  provided  a  stepping  stone  to  more  complex  funding 
programmes. As  pointed  out  above,  the  Quality  Label  plays  an  important  role  in  this,  as  it 
motivates organisations to continuously assess and improve their operations and provides them 
with  a  European  accreditation  badge  that  they  can  present  to  potential  partners  and  other 
funding programmes. 

Impacts of the European Solidarity Corps 

The European Solidarity Corps strengthens social cohesion and intercultural understanding and 
addresses local challenges, particularly in areas where local volunteering is in decline. While 
successfully  fostering  community  engagement,  leadership  development  and  collaborative 
organisational networks, the programme faced certain organisational challenges in adapting to 
the  specific  needs  of  remote  or  socio-economically  disadvantaged  areas.  Key  community 
impacts include addressing local challenges and community development. 

Addressing local challenges 

The programme helps to strengthen social cohesion, promote intercultural understanding and 
address local challenges, especially in rural areas and regions where local volunteering is in 
decline.  Individual  participants  (81%)  and  participating  organisations  (85%)  agreed  that  it 
effectively  tackles  community  or  societal  challenges  and  improves  the  well-being  of 
communities.  The  external  contractor  conducted  six  national  case  studies  to  examine  the 
implementation  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  in  Germany,  Latvia,  the  Netherlands, 
Slovenia, Spain and Türkiye. The country-specific examples below are from the assessment of 
the programme’s impact on participating organisations and local communities.  

Community development 

The programme’s contribution to rural areas goes beyond filling the volunteer gap; it fosters 
community  spirit  and  addresses  the  challenges  as  regards  quality  of  life.  In  Slovenia,  the 
European  Solidarity  Corps  has  fostered  new  skills  in  the  area  of  digitalisation,  turning  the 
participating  organisations  into  important  community hubs. The projects have increased the 
visibility  of  local  stakeholders  and  inspired  other  community  organisations  to  implement 
similar initiatives. 

The  programme’s  impact  is  particularly  visible  in  terms  of  fostering  community  spirit, 
revitalising  local  initiatives  and  promoting  global  perspectives.  Participating  organisations 
reported that volunteers helped to foster a positive attitude towards the EU in the community 
(81%). Volunteers from diverse backgrounds, such as those from Georgia, provide insights into 
different  political  contexts  and  integration  into  the  community,  offering  a  more  global 
perspective. 

However, the programme faced challenges in remote and socio-economically disadvantaged 
areas.  Türkiye’s  experience  shows  that  preparing  volunteers  for  the  local  context  requires 
considerable resources, and some regions in the country have opted for shorter volunteer stays 

22 

 
due  to  limited  socio-cultural  opportunities.  To  sustain  the  impact  at  community  level,  it  is 
essential  that  these  regions  have  adequate  support  and  resources,  particularly  by  increasing 
involvement and strengthening local organisations. 

The need to further improve the visibility of the programme to reap its full benefits 

The  programme’s  impact  can  potentially  be  expanded  or  improved  by  promoting  it  more 
actively online. According to the Eurobarometer survey, awareness of the programme among 
young  people  is  low,  at  8%.  The  Erasmus+  programme,  which  includes  DiscoverEU, 
outperformed  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  in  terms  of  awareness  among  young  people28. 
Awareness  raising  and  branding  efforts  need  to  be  strengthened  at  European  and  national 
level29.  Interviewees  highlighted  that  post-pandemic  budget  cuts  have  affected  the 
programme’s  visibility  and  outreach. They  pointed  out  that  the  European  Solidarity  Corps’ 
branding was unclear and called for improved communication efforts and increased funding to 
ensure that the programme’s benefits are well promoted and accessible to a wider audience. 

The principal platform for promoting the programme should be social media and the internet. 
The survey shows that participants mainly heard about the European Solidarity Corps through 
friends, social media and a combination of youth organisations and educational institutions. 
However, their friends could have initially learnt about the programme on social media, and 
youth  and  educational  organisations  could  have  promoted  their  activities,  including  the 
programme, on social media. Almost all young people in the EU use social networks and the 
internet in general on a daily basis30. Youth organisations and educational institutions play a 
major  role  in  sharing  information  about  the  programme.  Indeed,  83%  actively  shared  the 
outputs and results of their European Solidarity Corps projects. 

28   Flash 

Youth 
https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/3181. 

Eurobarometer 

545, 

and 

Democracy, 

Eurobarometer, 

2024, 

29   Carlberg, M., Plasilova, I., Szolnoki, N. & Zejerman, I. 2023, Research for CULT Committee – EU funding programmes 
2021-2027  in  culture,  media,  education,  youth  and  sports:  first  lessons,  challenges  and  future  perspectives:  European 
Solidarity Corps, European Parliament, Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies, Brussels. 

30   Eurostat. 96% of young people in the EU use the internet daily, 2023, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-

news/w/ddn-20230714-1. 

23 

 
 
Efficiency 

Main findings 

•  While  many  participants  and  organisations  found  the  administrative  burden  to  be 
manageable, the processes could be further simplified, particularly for organisations and 
youth-led solidarity projects. 

•  Programme management has been efficient, with some caveats, such as the usability of 
online tools.  Participants in  the programme  took  a  positive  view  of  their  collaboration 
with management bodies, and flexible programme management mitigated the impact on 
the  programme  of  external  shocks  such  as  COVID-19  and  the  Russian  invasion  of 
Ukraine. 

•  Overall,  the  funding  of  the  programme  was  insufficient  to  meet  its  needs  and  wider 
objectives. As a result of inflation, the programme has less money available each year to 
achieve its goals, despite the budget increase. 

•  Programme implementation has been very efficient. Adjusting for inflation, the current 
European  Solidarity  Corps  was  twice  as  cost-effective  compared  to  the  2018-2020 
programme in terms of participant costs and 20% more cost-effective per project than the 
previous  European  Solidarity  Corps  period  (bearing  in  mind  the  discrepancies  in  the 
output data for the previous programming period). 

•  While  IT  systems  have  improved  compared  with  previous  programming  periods,  their 

user-friendliness, accessibility and functionality require further attention. 

Funding 

The budget for the European Solidarity Corps programme has been too small to achieve  its 
intended  objectives,  in  terms  of  number  of  initially  planned  participants.  Overall,  the 
programme  has  had  22%  more  budget  available  per  year  than  in  the  previous  2018-2020 
programming period, approximately EUR 143 million per year for 2021-2027 compared with 
EUR 117 million for 2018-202031. However, the programme has also become more costly to 
run32. The first cost increase has been due to inflation, which from 2021 to 2023 amounted to 
17.4%33. Furthermore, the European Solidarity Corps chose to fund an additional 21% of unit 
costs to inclusion support for projects with participants with fewer opportunities (target 30%)34. 
This means that, despite the budget increase, the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps has less 
money available per year to achieve its goals, due to inflationary pressure, which has absorbed 
a  large  portion  of  the  budget  increase. Additionally,  the  programme  reacted  to  the  rise  in 

31   EU 

(2024),  European  Solidarity  Corps  Performance,  https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-
budget/performance-and-reporting/programme-performance-statements/european-solidarity-corps-performance_en#mff-
2014-2020--european-solidarity-corps. 

32   Ibid. 
33   Eurostat (2024), ‘euroindicators’: Annual inflation up to 2.9% in the euro area, 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/18343103/2-17012024-AP-EN.pdf/9d885442-f323-cdde-e149-
17ed99a63a6f#:~:text=European%20Union%20annual%20inflation%20was,and%20Belgium%20(both%200.5%25). 

34   EU (2023), ‘MFF Performance Results Reports’, p. 472. 

24 

 
 
 
inflation due to the Russian war in Ukraine by adapting its unit costs in 2023 and 2024, but 
mostly  keeping  overall  funding  the  same.  While  higher  unit  costs  made  the  funding  more 
suitable for participating organisations and individuals, it also meant  that  fewer participants 
and participating organisations could be supported. Improved financial conditions (the level of 
project grants and/or unit cost rates) are the most important area for improvement according to 
60%  of  the  organisations  that  participated  in  the  European  Solidarity  Corps.  Of  those 
organisations  surveyed  that  had  decided  not  to  participate,  one  in  five  stated  that  the 
programme’s financial incentives were insufficient,  the third most common reason for non-
participation35. 

The programme is oversubscribed, with funds only covering a small proportion of the existing 
demand (approximately 10%). However, not all of the funding has been  used due to under-
subscription  in  solidarity  projects  and  a  delayed  start  to  the  humanitarian  aid  strand.  Funds 
were  initially  underused  during  the  2019-2020  pandemic,  but  they  are  now  being  absorbed 
back into the programme. However, there has been limited demand for solidarity projects, and 
budget reallocations only partially addressed the over-subscription in the volunteering strand 
from 2023. Furthermore, some countries under-use their budgets, which affects overall fund 
usage,  while  countries  with  higher  demand  are  not  allocated  more  funds,  resulting  in 
inefficiencies. A readjustment of funds between countries and from less popular strands to those 
in higher demand could improve efficiency36. This must be done carefully, however, in order 
to  prevent  under-funding  of  essential  activities.  Despite  these  issues,  funding  has  generally 
been adequate for individual participants: 74% were satisfied that their financial needs were 
covered, though 24% said that their participation was affected by rising costs. 

The budget allocation for the European Solidarity Corps programme has been consistent with 
the allocation set out in Regulation 2021/888 as regards the key actions37. The Regulation does 
not specify how the budget should be allocated. However, it does set out indicatively how the 
budget should be distributed between the different operational objectives under certain actions: 
94%  for  volunteering  and  solidarity  projects  and  6%  for  volunteering  under  the  European 
Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps. 

For each action, it set a limit for the maximum amount allocated for in-country volunteering, 
at 20%. Article 11(3) of the Regulation also stipulated that the budget may be used for technical 
and administrative assistance  in  the implementation of the programme, such as preparatory, 
monitoring,  control,  audit  and  evaluation  activities,  including  corporate  information 
technology systems38, but does not impose financial constraints on them. The current amount 

35   PPMI Survey for Evaluation of the European Solidarity Corps: Survey of Organisations. 
36 'The allocation of funds is based on a number of criteria which include, among others, country performance 
weighting 10% of the overall allocation. A readjustment of funds per country would require a readjustment of the 
criteria and their weight 
37   OJ L 202, 2021/888, 08.06.2021, EU (2021), ‘Regulation (EU) No 2021/888 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 20 May 2021 establishing the European Solidarity Corps Programme and repealing Regulations (EU) 2018/1475 and 
(EU) No 375/2014 (Text with EEA relevance). 

38   OJ L 202, 2021/888, 8.6.2021, EU (2021), ‘Regulation (EU) No 2021/888 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 20 May 2021 establishing the European Solidarity Corps Programme and repealing Regulations (EU) 2018/1475 and 
(EU) No 375/2014 (Text with EEA relevance), Article 11(3). 

25 

 
 
allocated to  in-country volunteering, as of January 2024,  stands at  8.1%, well within  its  set 
limits39.  

Excluding  the  unspecified  budget  for  technical  and  administrative  assistance,  the  planned 
budget share allocated across years to volunteering and solidarity projects (95.5%) has been 
slightly higher than the 94% share required by the Regulation. However, commitments closely 
mirrored the expected percentages: 4.5%, as opposed to 6%, has been allocated to the European 
Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps so far. This difference can be explained by the delayed start 
of  the  humanitarian  aid  strand  in  2022,  and  the  intention  is  to  increase  the  allocation  over 
subsequent years. The rationale behind the budget allocation in relation to expected activities 
and outcomes has been unclear. The annual work programmes for 2021-2023 have not been 
specific  about  the  European  Solidarity  Corps’  expected  outcomes,  such  as  the  skills  to  be 
acquired through its activities. Each of the annual work programmes has described expected 
results in a generalised manner, without setting concrete targets, such as the expected number 
of participating organisations to be reached in a given year40. This made it difficult to judge 
whether the budget was consistent with the expected outcomes and with the changes that the 
programme sought to achieve. 

First of all, it is recommended that the rationale behind budget allocation be clearly explained 
in relation to expected activities (e.g. number of training sessions planned per stakeholder) and 
outcomes (e.g. expected learning outcomes of those training sessions). This would provide a 
clear understanding of how resources are being used and the value they are expected to bring. 
In addition, the annual work programmes need to be more specific about the levels of outcome 
that the European Solidarity Corps is expected to achieve. This will set  a clear path  for the 
programme  and  allow  for  better  planning  and  execution  of  activities.  Lastly,  the  expected 
results should be described in a concrete manner, and targets should be set. This will make it 
easier to measure success and to align the budget with the expected outcomes and the changes 
that the programme seeks to achieve. Financial absorption levels across all action types have 
been mixed. While the budget allocated to volunteering under each annual work plan has been 
close to 100%, the budget allocated to solidarity projects has repeatedly fallen short of its goal, 
averaging 67%, coming 10% closer to full absorption each year41. A reliable comparison of 
financial absorption  levels  between NAs has not  been possible due to  reporting  issues. The 
reporting issues among NAs need to be addressed to ensure reliable comparability. This may 
require more time and resources, but it is crucial to the accurate tracking and management of 
financial absorption levels. 

39   PPMI calculation based on Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps (MFF 2021-2027) Dashboard. 
40   European Solidarity Corps annual work programmes (2021-2023), 

https://youth.europa.eu/solidarity/organisations/reference-documents-resources_en. 

41   PPMI calculation based on DG EAC (2024), Erasmus+ and  European Solidarity Corps  (MFF 2021-2027). Monitoring 

Data for Budget and the Annual Work Plan 2021-2023. 

26 

 
 
Humanitarian aid strand 

For the humanitarian aid strand, organisations generally took a positive view of their experience 
so  far,  considering  it  an  improvement  in  most  areas  compared  with  the  EU Aid Volunteers 
Initiative. Organisations appreciated the simplified application and reporting procedures, the 
greater user-friendliness of IT systems, and the clearer financial rules. While organisations have 
generally had a more positive experience compared with the previous programme, some felt 
that the situation regarding the financial support provided by the humanitarian aid strand was 
noticeably worse. 

Compared  with  organisations  participating  in  other  actions,  organisations  involved  in  the 
programme’s humanitarian aid strand were particularly critical of the financial support they 
received.  Of  those  surveyed,  44%  disagreed  that  the  financial  support  was  sufficient,  while 
62% felt that the unit cost rates were too low42. In addition, the area most cited by organisations 
as being in need of improvement was the financial conditions (71%)43. Organisations agreed 
that the programme’s financial rules had been simplified, particularly compared with the EU 
Aid Volunteers Initiative. However, many of them stressed that the available budget had not 
kept up with the rising costs of living since the start of the current European Solidarity Corps 
programme in 2021 and is not proportionate to the time and resources required from local staff 
to manage and build the capacities of volunteers. Hosting and supporting organisations also 
stressed  that  the  budget  was  insufficient  to  cover  volunteer  relocation  or  drop-out 
contingencies.  

One possible reason for organisations’ mixed opinion on the level of funding is that, while the 
strand’s unit costs are based on the funding provided under the EU Aid Volunteers Initiative, 
they do not include funding for technical assistance and capacity-building projects, which are 
no longer provided for under the new strand. While the level of funding per project is expected 
to  be  somewhat  lower  than  under  the  EU Aid Volunteers  Initiative,  the  number  of  projects 
selected is expected to be higher, enabling more organisations to participate in the strand and 
therefore improving its cost-effectiveness. Despite organisations’ mixed views on funding, the 
results of the most recent calls for deployment projects suggest that the strand has been more 
successful than its predecessor in attracting them. The previous initiative had attracted a total 
of  37  proposals  for  deployment  projects  in  2015-2019  and  awarded  32  contracts  for  the 
deployment  of  1 173  volunteers44.  In  comparison,  the  humanitarian  aid  strand  received  49 
applications  in  2022-2023,  of  which  25  were  selected.  In  addition,  the  EACEA  awarded 
humanitarian  aid  quality  labels  to  170  organisations  in  2021-2023,  compared  with  370 
organisations certified under the EU Aid Volunteers Initiative in 2015-2020. 

42   Survey of organisations. Question 43 ‘To which extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the 

financial support provided by the European Solidarity Corps programme?’. 

43 Survey of organisations. Question 53 ‘In your opinion, which of the following aspects of the  European Solidarity Corps 

humanitarian aid strand should be improved to maximise the impact of the programme?’. 

44   ADE  (2021).  ‘Ex post’  evaluation  of  the  EU Aid Volunteers  Initiative,  2014-2020,  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-

detail/-/publication/1d172a85-0b96-11ec-adb1-01aa75ed71a1/language-en. 

27 

 
 
Administrative burden 

Overall, while many participants and organisations found the level of administrative burdens 
manageable,  there  is  room  to  further  simplify  processes,  particularly  for  organisations  and 
youth-led solidarity projects. Most participants (66%) and participating organisations (57%) 
have deemed the various administrative tasks and reporting requirements to be reasonable, a 
slight  increase  in  the  case  of  participants  and  remaining  stable  in  the  case  of  organisations 
compared  with  the  previous  programming  period.  While  organisations  have  occasionally 
described reporting requirements as extensive in interviews, they almost always understood the 
reason for that, acknowledging that public money needs to be monitored closely. 

Participating  organisations  took  a  more  nuanced  view  of  the  programme’s  support. 
Experienced organisations noted several improvements, in particular simplifications to project 
proposal, implementation and reporting, compared with the 2018-2020 period. 51% confirmed 
that the programme has simplified the process of preparing and submitting project proposals. 
Furthermore,  40%  noted  that  the  project  implementation  and  reporting  processes  had  been 
streamlined. The  simplification of project funding mechanisms  was acknowledged by 45%, 
while  40%  noted  the  programme’s  increased  visibility.  The  programme’s  accessibility  for 
newcomer organisations was acknowledged by 36%. In addition, 39% noted that the guidance 
materials had become more user-friendly, and 32% agreed that the IT systems/tools used during 
project  application  and  implementation  were  also  more  user-friendly.  These  results 
demonstrate  the  ways  in  which  the  programme’s  processes,  accessibility  and  resources  are 
considered to have improved. 

Participating  organisations  provided  a  moderately  positive  assessment  of  the  application 
process for the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps Quality Label. Most respondents (62%) 
agreed  that  the  information  provided  to  applicants  was  clear  and  easy  to  understand.  51% 
agreed that the guidance and support tools were easy to use. Furthermore, 63% agreed with the 
statement  about  the  significant  effort  required  by  their  organisation.  Taken  together,  these 
figures  illustrate  a  generally  positive  view  of  the  application  process,  highlighting  its 
effectiveness and the effort involved. The participating organisations expressed a moderately 
positive  opinion  of  the  project  application  procedures.  60%  agreed  that  the  information 
provided  to  applicants  was  clear  and  easy  to  understand.  The  guidance  and  support  tools 
provided were considered user-friendly  by 49%  of respondents.  In  addition,  57% found the 
funding rules and calculation methods clear, and 49% felt that the administrative requirements 
were consistent with the amount of funding requested. 48% of organisations reported that the 
application process required a lot of effort. 55% considered the time between submitting the 
application and receiving the grant to be reasonable. 

The  reaction  of  participating  organisations  to  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  project 
management and reporting procedures was mixed. 40% found it easy to find volunteers via the 
European Solidarity Corps  portal. 49% confirmed that the recruitment  time frame  was well 
suited  to  their  organisational  needs.  Moreover,  56%  agreed  that  the  reporting  requirements 
were  reasonable. The  user-friendliness  of  the  Beneficiary  Module  received  modest  support, 
with  only  36%  stating  that  it  was  easy  to  use.  The  participating  organisations  expressed  a 
positive opinion on support from the NAs and the EACEA during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

28 

 
The COVID-19 pandemic affected 55% of the organisations surveyed. 60% of them contacted 
NAs, and only 2% asked the EACEA for assistance. 74% agreed that NAs and/or the EACEA 
provided clear guidelines for ensuring the safety of volunteers. Similarly, 78% were satisfied 
with the support and guidance received by the organisations. 83% appreciated the flexibility 
shown by the NAs and the EACEA in accommodating the project changes necessitated by the 
pandemic. However, fewer organisations (10%) than was previously the case reported that the 
administrative  requirements  matched  the  amount  of  funding  requested.  In  the  interview, 
organisations  that  have  been  long-term  participants  in  the  programme  stated  that,  while  the 
number of aspects  to  report on has decreased over the years, the burden of proof per claim 
(financial or activity) has increased for organisations. 

Solidarity projects 

While  stakeholders  consider  solidarity  projects  potentially  to  be  the  programme’s  most 
inclusive opportunity for young people, uptake of the action has been significantly lower than 
expected, as explained in previous sections. A lack of awareness of solidarity projects among 
young people and high barriers to participation contribute to the action’s limited uptake. Of the 
programme participants surveyed, 77% agreed or strongly agreed that solidarity projects lack 
visibility, and 70% considered them difficult to initiate without the support of an organisation, 
with a similar level of agreement among the organisations surveyed. Answers to open-ended 
survey questions suggest that the distinction between volunteering and solidarity projects is 
unclear, and many young people are not aware of solidarity projects as a separate activity. 

While  the  promotion  of  solidarity  projects  is  crucial,  the  lack  of  adequate  funding  for  the 
programme  undermines  such  efforts.  Furthermore,  despite  the  intention  to  be  inclusive  and 
centred  on  young  people,  high  administrative  requirements  create  significant  barriers.  In 
addition,  as  noted  by  the  external  experts  interviewed,  the  minimum  requirement  of  five 
participants for a project can be discouraging, as not every young person is as well connected. 
While  these  projects  could  be  attractive  to  young  people,  particularly  those  with  fewer 
opportunities, their requirements and low visibility restrict their reach and accessibility. 

More guidance and facilitation is also needed for solidarity projects. The main mechanisms for 
this are currently organisations that can help young people with their applications and other 
administrative steps, and coaches who provide support throughout the project. However, the 
organisations  interviewed  and  surveyed  note  that  their  role  –  which  is  unpaid  –  requires 
considerable effort and resources. Not all organisations have the capacity for this, particularly 
in light of beneficiaries’ mixed views on funding levels. At present, there are no lists or pools 
of  coaches,  and  young  people  are  expected  to  take  on  the  task  of  identifying  a  coach  and 
involving them in their project. 

Efficiency of programme implementation 

The  European  Solidarity  Corps  has  been  cost-effective,  with  certain  limitations.  Cost-
effectiveness varies greatly between operational actions. This variation is to be expected, as 
actions require differing degrees of effort depending on their nature. It is difficult to make a 
reliable  comparison  between  the  cost-effectiveness  of  the  ongoing  2021-2027  European 

29 

 
Solidarity Corps and that of its previous iteration due to slight discrepancies in the output data 
for the previous programming period. Adjusting for inflation, the current European Solidarity 
Corps  has  managed  to  be  roughly  twice  as  cost-effective  compared  to  the  2018-2020 
programme as regards participant. Furthermore, as regards projects, it has been some 20% more 
cost-effective than in the previous period.  

However, given the expanded scope of the programme, a simple cost-effectiveness comparison 
between  the  two  programmes  is  somewhat  flawed.  When  it  comes  to  inclusion,  both 
programming periods of the European Solidarity Corps can be considered cost-effective. The 
programme achieved a 30% inclusion rate, which is higher than the percentage of 21% of unit 
costs that it has specifically allocated to participants with fewer opportunities, a strong sign of 
cost-effectiveness45.  The  European  Solidarity  Corps  has  been  most  cost-effective  in  its 
solidarity projects, and least cost-effective in the European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps 
strand, based on a comparison of cost per participant. The European Humanitarian Aid Corps 
is  currently  at  an  early  stage  of  development,  with  only  one  single  year’s  complete  data 
available for analysis. As the programme matures, improvements in financial efficiency might 
be  expected.  However,  it  is  important  to  note  that,  while  the  programme’s  implementation 
might improve as it matures, there is no guarantee of that. One possible way of improving the 
strand’s cost-effectiveness could be to reduce the cost of the physical pre-departure training 
provided by some projects by moving it online rather than providing it face-to-face. 

Overall,  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  has  been  more  cost-effective  than  comparable 
international  programmes,  such  as  International  UN  Youth  Volunteers,  with  a  cost-
effectiveness of roughly EUR 44 654 per volunteer in 202146. Even the European Solidarity 
Corps’ most comparable humanitarian aid strand is about twice as cost-effective. The European 
Solidarity Corps invested significant resources in preparing high-quality reference documents 
that  have  been  useful  in  the  implementation  of  the  programme.  The  programme  has  spent 
approximately 10% of its yearly budget, or EUR 16 million per year, on training47. This work 
contributed to developing key features of the programme, including careful consideration of 
volunteers’  security,  a  uniform  approach  to  volunteer  training,  the  certification  process  for 
organisations,  volunteer  management  and  the  governance  of  partners. These  elements  have 
contributed to the European Solidarity Corps’ effectiveness. 

The training and recruitment procedures for volunteers under the humanitarian aid strand have 
been revised from those for the EU Aid Volunteers Initiative. This has improved accessibility 
and transparency and reduced the time between applications to participate in projects and their 
deployment. Previously, organisations pre-selected volunteer candidates to be trained, whereas 
now the training is open to all applicants who, after completing the training, become available 
for recruitment by organisations. Organisations expressed mixed views on these changes. Some 

45   PPMI calculation based on DG EAC (2024), Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps (MFF 2021-2027) Monitoring Data 

for Budget and the Annual Work Plan 2021-2023. 

46   PPMI  calculation  based  on  UN  (2021)  ‘2021  Proforma 

table  for  UN  International  Volunteers  Youth’, 

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

47   European Solidarity Corps Annual Work Programmes (2021-2023), 

https://youth.europa.eu/solidarity/organisations/reference-documents-resources_en. 

30 

 
 
organisations also expressed concern that the new procedures might make volunteer candidates 
less committed, taking training places away from genuinely interested candidates and slowing 
down the recruitment process48. 

Participants  in  the  programme’s  horizontal  training  activities  (general  online  training  and 
online  language support), managed by the  EACEA, are generally satisfied with  the support 
they received, with 71% indicating that they were satisfied with the general online training. 
Participants in online language support were more modest in their assessment. While 47% were 
satisfied  with  the  support,  27%  were  dissatisfied.  There  may  also  be  room  for  improving 
engagement and completion rates, as only 35% of participants actually completed the general 
online training, and 36% in the case of online language support, suggesting that this content 
may not be engaging, relevant or accessible to all49. 

Participants were also generally satisfied with the European Solidarity Corps insurance (67%) 
managed  by  the  EACEA50.  However,  in  response  to  open  survey  questions  and  during 
interviews, numerous organisations, as well as NAs, spontaneously raised potential concerns 
about changes in insurance providers starting from February 2023. Organisations highlighted 
difficulties  in  contacting  customer  service,  receiving  timely  email  responses,  and  receiving 
enrolment certificates in time (especially relevant for volunteers requiring a visa in order to 
participate). In addition, they noted difficulties in the reimbursement of payments, especially 
for volunteers from partner countries. Some NAs interviewed noted that insurance issues are 
particularly  burdensome  for  participants  with  fewer  opportunities,  for  whom  they  can  be  a 
significant obstacle. 

Quality  Label  and  networking  activities  have  been  very  cost-effective.  On  average,  the 
European Solidarity Corps spent 4.5% of its budget, or EUR 6.5 million, on the Quality Label 
and  networking  activities.  Organisations  appreciated  these  activities,  with  62%  of  them 
reporting that their international network has expanded as a result of their participation in the 
programme.  Moreover,  the  Quality  Label  operations  are  successful,  with  two  thirds  of 
organisations saying that they have been encouraged to continue assessing and improving their 
operations51. The assessment of the extent to which the implementation of actions under direct 
and  indirect  management  have  been  appropriate,  efficient,  and  well-functioning  has  been 
inconclusive due to a lack of data on the actual budget spent under direct management actions 
(on insurance, for example). 

Efficiency of programme management 

Three key factors measure the efficiency of programme management: (i) the efficiency gains 
from  the  use  of  programme  management  tools;  (ii)  the  effectiveness  of  cooperation  among 
stakeholders; and (iii) the efficiency of support provided by implementation bodies. 

48   Interview programme and answers to open-ended survey questions. 
49   PPMI Survey for Evaluation of the European Solidarity Corps: Survey of Participants. 
50   PPMI Survey for Evaluation of the European Solidarity Corps: Survey of Participants. 
51   PPMI Survey for Evaluation of the European Solidarity Corps: Survey of Organisations. 

31 

 
 
IT tools 

The assessment of the programme’s management tools shows mixed results. The application 
portal was well-received, but there was significant criticism of the beneficiary and reporting 
tools, with users expressing dissatisfaction. Although the application tools have improved since 
the  previous  period,  they  still  need  to  be  further  improved  for  organisations.  Furthermore, 
organisations  found  the  participant  information  on  the  portal  to  be  not  detailed  enough  and 
highlighted the need for better search and filtering functionalities52. Organisations expressed a 
positive view of the level of support provided by support organisations53. Overall, individual 
participants’  assessment  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  portal  was  positive54.  Despite 
improvements in the beneficiary and reporting tools since 2023, challenges remain in terms of 
their  usability  and  reliability.  National  reports  and  interviews  indicate  that  these  tools  are 
cumbersome,  overly  complex  and  prone  to  bugs,  which  disrupt  key  functionalities.  The 
temporary  unavailability  of  reporting  tools  also  caused  significant  issues  for  users  when 
uploading reports. Many NAs feel the IT system is inefficient, and that it fails to streamline 
project management processes and is too complex for target users. Some National Authorities 
also  noted  a  lack  of  integration  between  systems,  which  adds  administrative  burdens  and 
further inefficiencies throughout the programme. 

Cooperation between stakeholders and the quality of support 

Cooperation between different national management bodies has been efficient. This view has 
been  shared  by  both  the  stakeholders  involved  and  the  participating  organisations. 
Organisations  were  overwhelmingly  satisfied  with  the  quality  of  support  and  the 
responsiveness of NAs and the EACEA. 75% of respondents stated that the level of support 
provided  by  NAs  and  the  EACEA  during  the  project  was  good,  and  74%  stated  that  the 
responsiveness  of  the  NAs  and  the  EACEA  in  answering  questions  was  also  good55. 
Furthermore, the NAs and authorities interviewed described their collaboration with each other 
and with the Commission as efficient. They agreed that the Commission was responsive and 
helpful in dealing with requests, and that it showed great flexibility during crises56. The only 
criticism mentioned in interviews was that the Commission had been too slow in adapting unit 
costs  in  2022,  and  one  Member  State  unilaterally  decided  to  step  in  to  support  hosting 
organisations in their country through a national cost compensation programme57. 

During the evaluation period, the European Solidarity Corps had to respond to several external 
crises  that  had  a  significant  impact  on  the  programme’s  implementation.  The  COVID-19 
pandemic  affected  participants’  engagement  with  the  programme,  but  most  individual 
participants (78%) confirmed that the programme provided sufficient support to enable them 

52   Interview programme. 
53   Survey of organisations. Question 26 ‘To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about your 

experience hosting European Solidarity Corps volunteers?’. 

54   Survey  of  individuals.  Question  79  ‘How  strongly  do  you  agree  or  disagree  with  the  following  statements  about  the 

European Solidarity Corps portal (Youth Portal)?’. 

55   Survey of organisations. Question 27 ‘To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about project 

cooperation and support?’. 

56 Interview programme. 
57   Interview programme. 

32 

 
 
to handle the crisis58. 67% of individual participants noted that some planned activities were 
moved online, while 28% of respondents experienced a change in their project’s thematic focus. 
21% of respondents reported changes in the project’s target communities and social groups. 
The pandemic caused 18% of respondents to postpone their participation, and 7% had to end 
their activity prematurely without the possibility of completing it remotely. Meanwhile, 5% left 
their  activity  early  but  completed  it  remotely.  This  adaptability  is  chiefly  due  to  the 
programme’s ability to quickly adjust and respond to unforeseen events, such as the Russian 
invasion  of  Ukraine  and  the  COVID-19  pandemic. The  programme’s  swift  response  to  the 
immediate needs of beneficiaries during these emergencies highlights its significant capacity 
to adapt operations to changing situations. 

Performance measurement and monitoring (RACER criteria) 

In evaluating the efficiency of performance measurement and monitoring, the study looks at 
three  main  topics.  First,  the  study  uses  the  RACER  criteria,  as  described  above.  Second, 
efficiency  is  measured  by  checking  that  accurate  and  timely  information is  being  provided. 
Lastly, the study checks whether the European Solidarity Corps has actually measured what 
was  initially  required  to  be  measured  under  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  framework. 
Performance measurement and monitoring of the programme demonstrate the relevance of the 
programme. However, there are areas that could be improved, particularly the user-friendliness 
and functionalities of IT tools, which serve as the basis of its monitoring framework. 

RACER criteria 
Relevance 
and 
acceptability 

Credibility 

Ease of 
monitoring 

On  relevance,  the  monitoring  indicators  are  deemed  relevant  but  not 
necessarily  comprehensive.  The  indicators  used  for  monitoring  are  more 
compliance-focused,  rather  than  being  geared  towards  measuring  impact. 
While these indicators are essential for ensuring compliance with regulations 
and guidelines, they may not fully capture the programme’s broader impact 
in achieving its objectives. There therefore needs to be a balance between 
compliance-  and  impact-focused  indicators  in  order  to  provide  a  more 
comprehensive  understanding  of  the  programme’s  performance  and 
outcome. However, the indicators that the Commission uses for monitoring 
are generally acceptable. 
In terms of credibility, the broad interpretation of certain definitions (e.g. on 
participants with fewer opportunities) and self-reporting make it challenging 
to measure impact. However, the European Solidarity Corps did make great 
improvements  in  terms  of  the  credibility  issues  with  its  monitoring  tools 
during  its  earlier  programming  period,  except  for  data  accuracy  at  the 
finalisation  stage.  This  is  particularly  evident  in  light  of  the  increased 
number  of  tracked  indicators  and  the  improved  granularity  of  the  data 
available for monitoring. 
Furthermore, 
the  Commission  uses  for  performance 
management  are  easy  to  monitor  as  they  are  tied  to  directly  measurable 

indicators 

the 

58   Survey of individual participants. Questions 86 and 87. 

33 

 
 
 
outputs. This makes it easier to track progress and assess the effectiveness 
of  various  initiatives.  However,  an  exception  to  this  is  the  monitoring  of 
people with fewer opportunities. Given the complex and multi-faceted nature 
of the challenges faced by this group, the standard indicators may not capture 
the full scope of their experiences or the impact of  project activities. This 
highlights the need for more nuanced and comprehensive indicators that can 
better reflect the realities of people with fewer opportunities. 
Robustness  While  the  robustness  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps’  performance 
management improved greatly compared with its previous iterations, there 
is  still  some  room  for  improvement.  Due  to  problems  with  the  reporting 
tools, many final reports were not submitted in 2021 and 2022, resulting in 
a  lack  of  data  points  at  the  final  stage.  Reliable  data  are  crucial  to 
understanding  and  identifying  areas  for  improvement  at  the  finalisation 
stage.  In  addition,  the  overall  lack  of  regular  monitoring  of  outcome  and 
impact-related  indicators  cannot  provide  a  comprehensive  picture  of  the 
European Solidarity Corps’ performance. Overall, it is recommended that the 
European Solidarity Corps implement a number of measures to address the 
user-friendliness of its reporting tools and simplify its monitoring framework 
in order to improve its performance management.  

Table 2. RACER criteria for the mid-term evaluation of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps 

Coherence 

Main findings: 

•  No specific inconsistencies are perceived between directly and indirectly managed action types, 
as stakeholders consider both to be important and see them as distinguishable in terms of their 
objectives. 

•  Streamlining  volunteering  activities  under  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  has  improved  the 

programme’s coherence. 

•  While integrating the programme into Erasmus+ may seem cost-effective, many stakeholders 
worry that it could raise barriers to participation and weaken the programme’s distinct focus, 
targeted reach and impact. 

•  The 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps is highly complementary to other EU youth policy 

initiatives and the Commission’s broader strategic priorities for 2019-2024. 

•  Overall, the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps complements a number of other relevant EU 
programmes.  However,  it  complements  the  Erasmus+  and  Horizon  Europe  programmes  the 
most, and synergies with them could be further developed. 

34 

 
 
 
Internal coherence 

Coherence between directly and indirectly managed actions 

No  specific  inconsistencies  are  perceived  between  directly  and  indirectly  managed  action 
types, as stakeholders consider both to be important and see them as distinguishable in terms 
of their objectives. The rationale for delegating directly and indirectly managed actions is clear, 
with appropriate delimitation of responsibilities and tasks between the NAs and the EACEA. 
While the comments of some of the participating organisations interviewed were restricted by 
their lack of familiarity with both types of actions, those who could comment  felt that they 
added value through their targeting of different types of participants and thematic areas and 
their overall shorter duration. Compared with the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps, the 
current  programme  has  improved  its  internal  coherence  by  streamlining  procedures,  in 
particular the application process for quality labels59. 

On  coordination,  several  of  the  NAs  interviewed  perceived  a  gap  in  the  information  flow 
between them and the EACEA, with obstacles such as the different systems and tools used and 
a lack of shared information channels. They expressed a need for better information-sharing, 
which could help them respond better to organisations’ questions on the different actions and 
to  monitor  which  organisations  are  involved  in  which  activities.  The  signing  of  a  common 
memorandum  of  understanding  in  2023  is  an  example  of  the  steps  taken  to  improve 
coordination and cooperation. 

Alignment of the humanitarian aid strand as part of a youth programme 

The  integration  of  the  humanitarian  aid  strand  into  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  has 
streamlined volunteering by consolidating activities into one programme, with a stronger focus 
on individual learning and development  for young volunteers. However, some participating 
organisations did not fully understand the shift from the previous EU Aid Volunteers Initiative, 
indicating a need for clearer communication about the strand’s purpose and design. The strand’s 
higher age limit of 35, compared with 30 for other activities, creates internal inconsistencies 
and confusion. Most participants are younger (with an average age of 22.4 years), and demand 
drops significantly after the age of 30. Aligning the age limit with the rest of the programme 
would improve consistency and better meet participants’ expectations. 

The possible integration of the European Solidarity Corps into Erasmus+ 

In  the  discussion  on  the  integration  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  into  Erasmus+, 
stakeholders have not expressed a clear preference. While integration into Erasmus+ may seem 
cost-effective to some, many worry that it could create barriers to participation and undermine 
the  programme’s  distinct  focus,  targeted  reach  and  impact.  The  programme’s  participating 
countries  express  a  similarly  mixed  view.  While  some  stressed  that  the  programme  should 
remain separate in order to maintain the European Solidarity Corps’ focus, others saw it as an 

59   Examples of improvements introduced for the 2021-2027 period include the clarification of the Quality Label system and 
the addition of the Lead Quality Label, which has simplified the funding application process for accredited organisations, 
as well as clearer procedures on which body (i.e. National Agencies, EACEA and SALTOs) the Quality Label application 
should be submitted on the basis of the organisation’s country of origin. 

35 

 
 
opportunity  to  improve  its  visibility  and  efficiency.  Several  countries  did  not  voice  a  clear 
preference. Instead, they emphasised that it was crucial to maintain the programme’s unique 
identity and to increase its funding, regardless of its future format.  

In exploring the reasons for these positions,  in  response to  an open-ended follow-up public 
consultation  question  and  during  interviews,  some  respondents  argued  that  keeping  the 
European Solidarity Corps separate could maintain the programme’s unique character. Doing 
so  could  allow for focused  objectives  on youth  engagement, social inclusion  and solidarity, 
with dedicated funding, easier monitoring and management, and clarity in its implementation. 
Respondents cited the risks and concerns about potential integration listed below. 

•  Risk of reduced specialised support and flexibility to accommodate needs – The European 
Solidarity  Corps  currently  benefits  from  targeted  support  and  funding  for  solidarity  and 
volunteering projects, with the flexibility to accommodate inclusion principles in practice, 
such  as  covering  inclusion  costs.  Integration  could  result  in  these  aspects  receiving  less 
attention  and  fewer  resources,  which  could  affect  the  programme’s  quality  and 
effectiveness and reduce its capacity to meet specific community and individual needs. 

•  Loss of the programme’s identity and autonomy – The unique objectives of the European 
Solidarity  Corps,  particularly  its  focus  on  volunteering  and  solidarity,  could  be 
overshadowed  within  the  wider  framework  of  Erasmus+.  Maintaining  the  European 
Solidarity  Corps  as  a  separate  programme  allows  it  to  have  its  own  strategic  direction 
tailored to the evolving needs of volunteering and solidarity initiatives. Integration could 
lead  to  a  loss  of  this  identity  and  autonomy,  potentially  making  the  programme  less 
responsive to the sector’s specific needs. 

•  Challenges in budget allocation – While flexible budget management is an advantage, there 
is a risk that funding for specific volunteering activities could be compromised or reduced 
in favour of other education components in Erasmus+. 

•  Operational integration challenges – Integrating the two programmes, each with its own 
rules, objectives and stakeholder expectations, could result in operational difficulties and 
confusion for participants and managing bodies. 

On  the  other  hand,  some  respondents  suggested  that  merging  the  two  programmes  could 
increase  visibility  and  reach  more  young  people  and  organisations.  This  could  allow  for 
economies of scale, greater synergies between the different types of youth actions, and offer a 
more integrated approach to young people, greater budgetary flexibility for NAs, and improved 
consistency of rules: 

• 

Increased visibility and clarity – The European Solidarity Corps could reach more young 
facilitating 
people  and  organisations  under 
communication, dissemination and awareness of its opportunities. 

the  well-known  Erasmus+  brand, 

•  Programme  synergies  –  A  single  programme  could  foster  greater  synergies  between 
different  types  of  youth  activities,  enriching  the  experience  for  participants  by  offering 
diverse opportunities within a single, coherent framework (see also the sections below on 
potential  duplications).  An  integrated  programme  combining  the  non-formal  learning 

36 

 
opportunities  of  Erasmus+  with  the  volunteering  and  solidarity  focus  of  the  European 
Solidarity Corps could offer a more integrated approach to youth development. 

•  Administrative efficiency – Managing a consolidated programme could simplify the work 
and  potentially  reduce  administrative  complexity  for  the  NAs  and  participating 
organisations  by  merging  accreditation  schemes/quality  labels,  facilitating  reporting  and 
enabling the use of shared templates. 

•  Budgetary flexibility  – Integration could  allow for a more flexible reallocation of funds 
within the broader framework of youth mobility and education, potentially ensuring that 
resources are used where they are most needed without the rigidity of programme-specific 
allocations between the European Solidarity Corps and Erasmus+. 

External coherence 

The  2021-2027  European  Solidarity  Corps  highly  complements  other  EU  youth  policy 
initiatives and the Commission’s broader strategic priorities for 2019-2024, in particular ‘a new 
push for European democracy’. The legal framework for the 2017-2027 European Solidarity 
Corps explicitly integrates the programme into the 2019-2027 EU youth strategy and supports 
the youth action plan under EU external action for 2022-202760. Compared with the previous 
programming period, and in line with the EU youth strategy’s increased emphasis on youth 
engagement61, the programme places greater emphasis on the participation of young people in 
its objectives and actions. The aim is to strengthen the active citizenship of its participants and 
their engagement in democratic life. This indicates a high level of appropriate links with and 
support  for  EU  policy  agendas,  while  the  projects’  thematic  coverage  indicates  it  aligns,  to 
varying extents, with horizontal EU-level policies and priorities.  

While the programme is consistent overall with broader EU youth policy initiatives, there is 
room for further recognition of the benefits of volunteering and solidarity activities within EU 
youth  employment  initiatives.  Currently,  these  frameworks  do  not  explicitly  identify 
volunteering as a potential means for supporting young people not in education, employment 
or training (NEETs). However, the evaluation shows that volunteering is an effective way to 
contribute to the development of young people’s personal, professional and educational skills. 
Furthermore, the evaluation suggests that participants see the programme as an opportunity to 
improve employment-related skills and therefore as a potential bridge between education and 
the  labour  market.  Strengthening  the  links  between  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  and  EU 
youth employment initiatives could  boost synergies and support the transition of vulnerable 
young people to continued education or employment. 

60 https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/policies/youth/youth-action-plan_en 
61 In particular, the strategy’s overall objectives are to: (1) enable young people to be architects of their own lives, support 
their personal development and build up their resilience; and (2) encourage and equip them with the necessary resources 
to become active citizens. 

37 

 
 
Coherence with other EU programmes 

The  2021-2027  European  Solidarity  Corps  complements  a  number  of  other  relevant  EU 
programmes  (see  below),  as  required  by  the  programme’s  legal  basis62.  However,  the 
programme complements the Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe programmes the most, and there 
is room for developing further synergies with them. No specific examples of duplications were 
identified. National implementation reports also highlighted a need for better synergies. Many 
countries  recognised  the  programme’s  alignment  with  national  and  EU-level  initiatives,  but 
they  recommended  that  better  links  and  coordination  efforts  be  developed  with  other 
programmes at EU and national level. This could avoid potential overlaps and confusion while 
maximising the programme’s impact and overall consistency.  

Erasmus+ 

Both programmes cover similar goals and challenges in the 2019-2027 EU youth strategy by 
supporting  youth  participation  and  non-formal  learning63  and  raising  awareness  of  existing 
cross-programme opportunities. At the same time, while they address similar target groups, the 
European Solidarity Corps  has lower barriers to  participation, making it  more accessible to 
young  individuals  outside  formal  institutional  frameworks. This  is  particularly  important  in 
terms  of  achieving  the  programme’s  objective  of  including  young  people  with  fewer 
opportunities,  who  are  more  likely  to  be  detached  from  formal  institutional  settings. 
Furthermore, the complementarity with Erasmus+ makes it easier for participants from diverse 
institutional and non-institutional backgrounds to become involved in EU youth activities and 
remain  engaged  across  programmes  in  order  to  achieve  their  goals.  This  aspect  was  also 
consistently highlighted by national and EU-level interviewees, who emphasised that the two 
programmes  have  a  clear  logical  link  that  enables  participating  organisations  to  work  with 
young people through different activities.  

Synergies also arise from activities under Erasmus+ that support volunteering, such as capacity 
building for organisations, which the European Solidarity Corps does not offer. The skills and 
knowledge gained from Erasmus+ projects and common tools and materials for volunteering 
improve  the  quality  of  European  Solidarity  Corps  activities.  However,  consultations  with 
national  and  EU-level  stakeholders  suggest  that  these  synergies  are  not  promoted  or  used 
systematically. The programmes also create synergies by using shared resources, such as the 
same (or similar) NAs, IT platforms (including the European Youth  portal) and the SALTO 
network,  which  promotes  both  programmes  and  supports  their  implementation  and 
development  within  the  broader  context  of  European  youth  work.  This  enables  existing 
resources to be better used and creates an information loop and spaces for collaboration across 
programmes. 

62   OJ L 202, 2021/888, 8.6.2021, Regulation (EU) 2021/888 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 
2021 Establishing the European Solidarity Corps Programme and Repealing Regulations (EU) 2018/1475 and (EU) 
No 375/2014 (Text with EEA Relevance),  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32021R0888. 

63   Including the common use of Youthpass as a recognition of learning. 

38 

 
 
A  potential  area  for  duplication  highlighted  by  interviewees  concerns  Erasmus+  youth 
participation  activities.  These  activities  enable  young  people  with  fewer  opportunities  to 
engage and learn to participate in civic society through local action, similarly to the solidarity 
projects under the European Solidarity Corps. However, national and EU-level stakeholders 
also  clearly  recognised  the  unique  purpose  and  value  of  the  opportunities  offered  by  the 
European Solidarity Corps compared with other programmes (see Section 2.4.2.2 on EU added 
value). This suggests that potential areas for duplication could be tackled by clarifying their 
differences and communicating them to potential participants. 

Horizon Europe 

In  2023  and  2024,  the  volunteering  activities  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  received 
financial support from the Horizon Europe Missions (respectively EUR 16.53 million in 2023 
and  EUR 12.71  million  in  202464)  through  a  co-delegation  agreement  implemented  by  the 
European Solidarity Corps NAs. In practical terms, the top-up allows the European Solidarity 
Corps to offer more volunteering opportunities for young Europeans to address the following 
priorities:  the green  transition, health,  the digital transition, culture, civil security and food-
bioeconomy. This synergy has boosted NAs’ focus on Mission priority topics. Moreover, some 
of the Mission priorities (e.g. the green transition and health) are consistent with the priorities 
of the European Solidarity Corps programme. This coordination offers clear added value given 
that  this  synergy  may  continue  over  the  coming  years. According  to  a  first  data  collection 
carried out in 2023, the largest share of this co-delegated budget is used by the NAs for projects 
addressing  environment-related  Missions,  such  as  climate  change,  soil  health,  oceans  and 
waters, and carbon-neutral cities. 

Other programmes 

There is limited evidence on complementarities or synergies between the European Solidarity 
Corps  and  other  programmes,  though  some  programmes  with  complementarities  have  been 
identified:  

-  CERV  programme  –  While  CERV  focuses  on  promoting  citizens’  participation  in 
democratic life and raising awareness of the EU’s core values, the European Solidarity 
Corps  actively  implements  those  values  through  volunteer  work.  Though  there  are 
instances  of  NAs  advertising  both  programmes  jointly,  this  coordinated  approach  to 
promotion is not a standard practice. 

-  ESF+ – Complementarities with the European Solidarity Corps exist to the extent that 
the  ESF+  places  great  emphasis  on  young  people,  particularly  through  the  Youth 
Guarantee,  which  was  strengthened  with  targeted  actions  and  structural  reforms  to 
support  youth  employment,  education  and  training  while  also  strengthening  social 
inclusion. 

64   Horizon  Europe  Missions  2023-2025  work  programme,  pp. 324-328  https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-

tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/wp-call/2023-2024/wp-12-missions_horizon-2023-
2024_en.pdf . 

39 

 
 
-  Green Deal initiatives for cities such as the Covenant of Mayors, the Green City Accord, 
the EU Green Capital and Green Leaf awards could have complementarities, facilitating 
the participation of European Solidarity Corps volunteers in these actions. 

Coherence with national programmes and initiatives 

Six national case studies and consultations with stakeholders at national level found that the 
European  Solidarity  Corps  plays  an  important  role  in  the  various  national  volunteering 
landscapes  by  complementing  existing  national  initiatives,  while  remaining  distinct  in  its 
activities and scope. Stakeholders consider that the programme’s transnational dimension and 
inclusiveness  clearly  distinguish  it  from  national  initiatives. The  degree  of  consistency  and 
synergies with national volunteering programmes varies from country to country, ranging from 
overlapping target groups, objectives or activities, to serving as a basis for broader commitment 
to  the  EU  and  local  community  cooperation. Although  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  and 
national programmes carry out mutually reinforcing activities, stakeholders interviewed at EU 
and  national  levels  considered  those  activities  to  be  primarily  the  outcomes  of  specific 
initiatives or organisations. Some of the organisations and NAs interviewed indicated that they 
were  not  aware  of  parallel  funding  opportunities,  which  suggests  that  coordination  and 
synergies could be improved.  

2.4.2.  Evaluating  the  programme’s  impact:  who  benefited  and  what  challenges 

arose 

This section assesses (for both the interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity 
Corps and the final evaluation of the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps) the programme’s 
impact in terms of the extent to which it achieves its objectives for EU added value. 

2.4.2.1 Final evaluation of the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps  

EU added value 

Main findings 

•  The European Solidarity Corps helped to strengthen European identity. 

•  The  programme  promoted  active  citizenship  and  facilitated  participants’  personal 

development on a scale unlikely to be achieved through national efforts. 

•  The move from the European Voluntary Service to the European Solidarity Corps increased 
EU  added  value  by  setting  up  a  single,  accessible  entry  point  for  solidarity  activities,  and 
increasing ambition and visibility. 

•  By  broadening  its  scope,  providing  greater  flexibility,  and  strengthening  objectives  of 
inclusion, the European Solidarity Corps was better positioned than the European Voluntary 
Service to meet young people’s current needs. 

•  The  programme  offered  improved  international  networking,  since  it  is  difficult  to  achieve 

international collaboration through national volunteering initiatives. 

40 

 
Scope and volume effects 

The European Solidarity Corps greatly strengthened participants’ sense of European identity, 
with volunteers reporting a 71% increase. The programme also promoted active citizenship, 
with 60% of participants feeling more motivated to engage in their community’s social and 
political life. It also helped young people, especially those facing challenges on the jobs market, 
to transition from education to the jobs market. An impressive 92% of participants recognised 
the programme’s positive impact on their personal and professional development, highlighting 
its success in fostering civic involvement and career growth. 

Process and innovation 

By broadening its scope, increasing flexibility, and boosting inclusion, the European Solidarity 
Corps  was  better  positioned  than  the  European  Voluntary  Service  to  meet  young  people’s 
current  needs65.  Unlike  the  European  Voluntary  Service,  which  was  primarily  focused  on 
volunteering,  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  introduced  additional  opportunities,  including 
solidarity traineeships and a jobs strand. 

Therefore,  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  better  recognises  the  dynamic  nature  of  modern 
volunteering.  This  flexibility  catered  to  the  varied  needs  and  situations  of  young  people, 
ensuring that a broader demographic could participate in a way that resonates with them. The 
programme was also viewed as being more inclusive than its predecessor, as it also emphasised 
domestic volunteering and solidarity activities, specifically targeting young people who face 
challenges, such as language barriers, obstacles linked to disabilities or difficulties in finding 
volunteering  opportunities  abroad66.  The  introduction  of  domestic  volunteering  under  the 
European Solidarity Corps has enabled a wider demographic, including those lacking language 
skills and confidence, to engage in volunteering. However, the transition from the European 
Voluntary  Service  to  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  also  resulted  in  better  international 
opportunities67. It also improved networking opportunities for participating organisations by 
connecting  local  organisations  with  international  bodies,  fostering  a  more  interconnected 
approach to solidarity. That was accompanied by better branding and  more publicity, which 
increased the visibility of local initiatives on the global stage68. 

Network effects 

The  transnational  nature  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  greatly  improved  intercultural 
dialogue and understanding among young Europeans. It enabled participants to experience a 
variety of cultures and viewpoints, in stark contrast to the domestically oriented experiences 
provided by national schemes. The programme’s main added value at European level was in 
promoting pan-European networks, which often resulted in enduring partnerships. According 
to survey findings, a significant number of organisations (64%) reported that the programme 
had helped them to form new partnerships that continued well beyond the duration of specific 

65   Interview programme. 
66   Interview programme. 
67   Interview programme. 
68   Interview programme. 

41 

 
 
projects.  Furthermore,  62%  of  the  organisations  found  that  their  international  networks  had 
expanded as a direct result of their participation in the European Solidarity Corps. They would 
have  struggled  to  achieve  such  an  increase  in  international  networking  and  collaboration 
through  national  volunteering  initiatives.  The  programme  showcased  the  added  value  of 
nurturing long-lasting connections between participants. For example, 76% of respondents are 
still  in  touch  with  volunteers  they  had  met  during  the  programme,  which  highlights  the 
enduring nature of those intercultural exchanges. 

2.4.2.2. 

Interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps  

EU added value 

Main findings 

•  The European Solidarity Corps plays an important role in cultivating a European identity 

and support for European values. 

•  The  programme  is  a  powerful  initiative  for  youth  empowerment  with  a  unique  blend  of 

opportunities for young people. 

•  While  most  participants  came  from  middle-class  backgrounds,  the  programme  includes 

young people facing a combination of different challenges. 

•  Organisations participating in the European Solidarity Corps can significantly bolster their 
capabilities  by  enriching  their  professional  skills  and  improving  their  organisational 
effectiveness. 

•  The programme’s quality standards, including the European Solidarity Corps Quality Label, 
distinguish it from other schemes that may not offer the same level of consistency or scope 
in quality assurance. 

•  The  European  Solidarity  Corps  is  unique  in  creating  pan-European  networks,  leading  to 

long-term partnerships and relationships. 

Scope and volume effects 

Enhancing European identity and support for European values 

The  European  Solidarity  Corps  plays  an  important  role  in  cultivating  a  European  identity 
among young people across the EU. The programme’s wide international scope provides young 
Europeans with opportunities to get involved in cross-border solidarity activities That enables 
them to work together on projects and develop a shared identity that extends beyond national 
borders. 71% of the volunteers surveyed reported feeling a stronger sense of European identity 
after  participating  in  the  programme,  which  highlights  its  impact  on  developing  shared 
European  values,  such  as  democracy,  freedom,  equality,  human  dignity,  and  human  rights. 
Participants also became more tolerant towards the values and behaviour of others (84%) and 
capable of cooperating with people from different backgrounds or in specific situations such 
as  disability  (89%).  Those  findings  are  also  supported  by  the  results  of  the  counterfactual 

42 

 
analysis (see Annex III), which show that the programme has a positive effect on participants’ 
sociopolitical values. Compared with applicants, they are more likely to hold tolerant views, 
and are less likely to hold gender biases. Those results clearly indicate the programme’s effect 
on participants’ values and its contribution to strengthening solidarity and inclusivity among 
young people. 

Participation in the programme has also strengthened the European identity and profile of the 
participating  organisations.  Initially,  they  concentrated  on  local  projects,  but  through  their 
involvement in the programme, they have reported a better understanding and appreciation of 
their  connection  to  the  wider  pan-European  context.  Now,  they  are  expanding  their  focus 
beyond local issues and gaining awareness of the advantages of working together and of how 
their  efforts  contribute  to  the  broader  European  landscape  and  shared  challenges69.  The 
participating  organisations  surveyed  also  reported  that  the  positive  attitude  towards  the  EU 
clearly spills over to the communities and societal groups involved in the programme. 81% of 
those organisations either agree or strongly agree that the work of European Solidarity Corps 
volunteers contributed to  positive attitudes towards the EU in  the  communities and societal 
groups involved in the programme. 

Strengthening democracy and active citizenship 

The  European  Solidarity  Corps  plays  a  critical  role  in  tackling  and  mitigating  the  rising 
challenges of anti-EU and anti-democratic sentiments. Those issues garnered a lot of attention 
from the various stakeholders interviewed, who also indicated that the programme is crucial 
for promoting active citizenship and safeguarding support for democracy. It is well-positioned 
to foster this through its strong international network that cascades from national authorities to 
societal organisations, down to the community and individuals. 

The  link  between  the  programme’s  volunteering  activities  and  its  broader  involvement  in 
societal, political, and citizenship matters is very well recognised. National stakeholders and 
participating organisations have noted that the European Solidarity Corps serves as a gateway 
or reinforcement for broader societal participation. Young people who participate in solidarity 
activities  develop  a  keen  interest  in  society  and  politics,  and  progress  naturally  from 
community  service  to  active  citizenship.  Survey  data  provide  evidence  of  the  programme’s 
success  in  fostering  active  citizenship,  with  65%  of  the  participants  reporting  increased 
motivation to participate more actively in their community’s social and political life. 

Empowering youth 

Resulting from the programme’s contributions to objectives such as strengthening democracy, 
active  citizenship,  solidarity,  and  personal  and  professional  development,  the  European 
Solidarity  Corps  offers  a  unique  blend  of  opportunities  and  is  recognised  as  a  powerful 
initiative for youth empowerment. The programme helps young people to become proactive 
contributors in a dynamic and uncertain global landscape. As an interview respondent from a 
participating organisation in Latvia pointed out, it also supports young people in their personal 

69   Interview programme. 

43 

 
 
and professional growth, enabling them to develop crucial life and work skills that go beyond 
what formal education has to offer. The results of the survey programme support that finding, 
indicating that participants agree that the programme effectively addresses societal challenges 
(80%) and benefits the personal and professional development of the young people involved 
(93%). 

The  results  of  the  interview  programme  also  revealed  that  climate  change,  global  conflicts, 
economic uncertainty, and spiralling mental health issues intersect. That puts pressure on young 
people  who  are  often  in  vulnerable  situations  themselves  (e.g.  unable  to  find  gainful 
employment in  line with  their qualifications). In  that  context, the programme allows young 
people to get involved in topics that interest them and to make a difference in important global 
issues,  which leads  to  deeper learning and meaningful personal development. That helps  in 
tackling the various challenges young people face and empowers them to contribute positively 
to  society. The programme offers opportunities rarely  available at  national  level  through  its 
variety of thematic options, solidarity activities, and unique funding schemes that cover each 
volunteer’s expenses and encourage cross-border involvement. 

A  substantial  proportion  of  the  young  people  interviewed  (34%)  stated  that  the  European 
Solidarity  Corps  represented  their  sole  opportunity  to  engage  in  volunteer  activities.  That 
underscores  the  importance  of  the  programme  in  fostering  volunteerism  among  individuals 
who  may  not  have  other  opportunities  or  are  perhaps  motivated  by  its  specific  projects  or 
structure. Furthermore, 23% were unsure whether they would have participated in volunteering 
activities independently of the European Solidarity Corps. That ambivalence could stem from 
a  lack  of  awareness  of  other  volunteering  opportunities,  lower  intrinsic  motivation,  or 
uncertainty about their ability or willingness to volunteer independently. Taken together, those 
results  underline  the  programme’s  added  value  in  encouraging  and  facilitating  volunteering 
through a blend of opportunities that might otherwise not exist. 

Facilitating the transition from the education system to the jobs market 

The  European  Solidarity  Corps  goes  beyond  its  expected  impact  by  helping  young  people 
facing significant obstacles to finding a job despite their educational achievements. The socio-
demographic profile of the programme’s participants and the targeted survey results indicate 
that it appeals particularly to those at the outset of their careers, who are eager to bridge the 
gap between academic study and professional practice. By participating in the programme, they 
seek not only to tackle societal challenges but also to improve their own skills, gain valuable 
experience, and clarify their professional aspirations. Despite not being one of its direct goals, 
the  European  Solidarity  Corps  can  help  young  Europeans  to  tackle  the  disconnect  between 
education and employment by providing them with the tools and opportunities to advance their 
personal and professional development in a challenging jobs market. 

Significantly, a substantial proportion of the participants in the programme (40%) reported job-
related challenges, specifically, difficulties in finding a job at the time of their application to 
the programme70. That significant figure underscores the harsh employment realities facing a 

70   Survey of individual participants. Question 14. 

44 

 
 
large segment of today’s young people, and indicates that those challenges are an important 
reason  why  young  people  seek  opportunities  through  the  European  Solidarity  Corps.  The 
survey  also  shed  light  on  the  applicants’  educational  background.  Most  of  those  surveyed 
(76%),  had  already  finished  higher  education,  and  therefore  already  possessed  a  strong 
academic foundation at the time of their application. 

In terms of professional experience, the findings also reveal that most of the participants (63%) 
either had less than 1 full year of professional experience or none at all. That is a particularly 
telling statistic because it highlights that a significant proportion of the European Solidarity 
Corps  participants  are  at  the  very  beginning  of  their  professional  journeys  at  the  time  of 
application, and are seeking opportunities to gain initial experience and enter the jobs market. 
Additionally, 41% mentioned the desire to gain professional experience or explore potential 
career paths as their top motivation. That indicates that the young people are keen to leverage 
the programme as a platform for professional development and for navigating the complexities 
of  career  planning.  Overall,  that  means  that  many  of  them  were  seeking  opportunities  to 
improve their employability through the European Solidarity Corps. 

Although  the  evaluation  did  not  assess  participants’  long-term  employment  outcomes,  the 
findings, together with the reported positive impact on participants’ personal, professional and 
educational  skills,  suggest  that  they  (in  particular,  those  facing  challenges  in  finding  a  job) 
perceive  the  programme  as  an  opportunity  to  improve  their  employment-related  skills  and, 
therefore,  to  help  them  bridge  the  gap  between  education  and  the  jobs  market.  Moreover, 
PWFOs are motivated to participate in the European Solidarity Corps because it gives them 
opportunities  to  develop  their  soft  skills,  which  highlights  the  programme’s  potential  as  a 
valuable tool for supporting vulnerable young people. 

Inclusion of PWFOs 

The European Solidarity Corps stands out because it enables PWFOs to participate at a level 
unmatched by existing programmes or national efforts alone, and it is also perceived as offering 
a  unique  and  unmatched  blend  of  cross-border  inclusive  opportunities.  It  achieves  this  by 
providing  funding  to  volunteers  and  subsidising  essential  services,  thereby  reducing  typical 
barriers  (e.g.  on  accessibility).  While  primarily  involving  participants  from  middle-class 
backgrounds, the programme includes young people experiencing a wide range of challenges, 
such  as  unemployment,  mental  and  physical  health  issues,  disability  and  discrimination, 
thereby  showcasing  its  broad  reach  and  inclusive  approach.  On  the  economic  profile  of 
participants, survey results on respondents’ income levels and household status reveal that most 
of them identified as belonging to the average or middle-income group within their respective 
countries at the time of their application. Specifically, 69% of participants reported falling into 
slightly  below-average,  average,  or  slightly  above-average  income  categories.  A  smaller 
proportion of participants (24%) identified their households as belonging to the lower-middle 
to  the  lowest  income  categories.  Within  that  group,  6%  indicated  they  were  in  the  lowest 
income bracket. Correspondingly, 6% of participants reported that they were unable to afford 
food or necessities at the time of their application. 

45 

 
Those findings indicate that the programme mainly attracts those from the middle of the income 
spectrum,  but  also  appeals  to  individuals  from  a  wide  range  of  economic  backgrounds. 
Participants from lower-income households were somewhat less likely to agree (69% agreed 
on  average)  that  their  financial  costs  for  participating  in  the  programme  were  covered 
sufficiently compared with those from higher-income households (78% agreed). Additionally, 
young  people  from  lower-income  backgrounds  are  more  likely  to  be  discouraged  from 
participating by specific issues affecting social benefits for volunteers, such as the potential 
loss of social welfare benefits and the lack of unified administrative and legal frameworks for 
volunteering71.  Those  factors  may  contribute  to  the  lower  representation  of  low-income 
individuals in the programme despite the financial support provided. 

Despite a significant number of participants coming from middle-class income backgrounds, 
the  programme  also  successfully  attracts  and  supports  a  considerable  number  of  vulnerable 
young  people. At  the  time  of  their  application,  many  participants  reported  facing  different 
challenges not directly related to their household income, such as: 

•  being unable to find a job despite trying (40%);  
•  experiencing mental health problems (26%);  
• 
• 
•  having a physical health problem (8%). 

living in a remote geographical area, far away from major urban centres (17%); 
facing discrimination, because of their identity, beliefs, or ethnic background (11%);  

It is important to note that the programme is able to cater to its participants’ diverse needs and 
motivations. The evaluation of the survey results shows that PWFOs have somewhat different 
motivations  for  participating  in  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  compared  with  the  general 
participant  group.  Notably,  48%  of  PWFOs  cited  the  development  of  soft  skills  –  such  as 
communication, teamwork, and adaptability – as a motivation, compared with 42% of other 
participants72. Additionally, only  32% of PWFOs  were motivated by the desire to  volunteer 
abroad compared with 39% of other participants. That is in line with interview findings, which 
highlight that PWFOs often prioritise in-country opportunities due to lower perceived barriers 
to participation. 

Process and innovation 

Capacity building for organisations 

Transcending  national  boundaries,  fostering  broader  collaboration,  improving  skills  and 
providing  access  to  diverse  funding  opportunities  are  distinctive  features  of  the  European 
Solidarity Corps programme. Unlike national programmes, it offers an integrated approach that 
is  difficult  to  replicate  on  a  smaller  scale.  That  European-wide  framework  ensures  that 
participant organisations are not confined to local or national contexts, but are integrated into 
a larger, more diverse network that supports their capacity building and development. 

71   European Commission (2020). Study on removing obstacles to cross-border solidarity activities. Final report. Directorate-
General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1a7042cb-e678-
11ea-ad25-01aa75ed71a1 . 

72   Survey of individual participants. Question 29. 

46 

 
 
Participation  in  the  programme  significantly  bolsters  the  capabilities  of  participant 
organisations  by  enriching  their  professional  skills  and  improving  their  organisational 
effectiveness. This is achieved primarily by developing administrative and project management 
capabilities, which are vital for effectively handling both public and private grant applications 
and for identifying new funding opportunities. 76% of the organisations surveyed either agree 
or  strongly  agree  that  the  programme  improved  their  project  management  skills  (see 
‘Effectiveness’ under Section 2.4.1.2.). National programmes, in comparison, are likely to offer 
more limited resources and scope, especially in terms of the exposure and skills needed to make 
better use of European funding landscapes. 

Another  standout  benefit  reported  by  participants  is  the  significant  improvement  in  their 
English proficiency, which is  crucial for  working  with  European funders and for successful 
cross-border collaboration (see ‘Effectiveness’ under Section 2.4.1.2.). This improvement in 
their language skills goes beyond what they could have achieved through national programmes. 
National  initiatives,  while  beneficial,  typically  do  not  provide  the  same  level  of  linguistic 
exposure or the opportunity to engage with a wide range of European languages and cultures. 
The  European  Solidarity  Corps  provides  a  clear,  standardised  structure  for  volunteering 
activities, which is designed to ensure a consistent quality of experience for participants across 
various  countries.  That  standardisation  encompasses  elements  that  might  not  be  uniformly 
accessible through national programmes, such as support services, comprehensive training, and 
clear  guidelines.  The  assurance  of  consistency  and  quality  offered  by  the  programme 
contributes to a more effective and enriching experience for both organisations and individual 
participants, as illustrated by the high satisfaction rates. 

While organisations may not always consider the financial resources provided directly by the 
European Solidarity Corps to be substantial, the programme compensates by offering them a 
wealth  of  other  resources.  These  include  comprehensive  training,  logistical  support  and 
administrative  guidance,  all  of  which  can  bolster  their  operational  capacities.  Such 
empowerment  often  leads  to  spillover  effects,  enabling  organisations  to  attract  additional 
funding  or  forge  new  partnerships73.  Furthermore,  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  plays  a 
crucial  role  in  making  volunteering  more  accessible  by  covering  individual  volunteers’ 
participation costs. While there is room to further reduce obstacles to participation, that support 
is particularly beneficial for individuals who might otherwise lack the financial means or the 
opportunities  to  become  involved  in  volunteering,  especially  in  a  cross-border  context.  By 
reducing those barriers, the programme facilitates a broader and more inclusive participation 
in volunteering activities, in line with its core objectives of fostering solidarity and cooperation 
across Europe. 

High quality of the programme 

The emphasis on quality within the European Solidarity Corps contributes to significant EU 
added  value  and  distinguishes  the  programme  from  many  national  schemes  that  may  not 
prioritise the same level of quality, consistency and international standards. That commitment 

73   Interview programme. 

47 

 
 
to  quality  ensures  that  participants  have  enriching  and  impactful  experiences  while  also 
enhancing the participating organisations’ credibility and capacity. The programme stands out 
owing  to  its  implementation  of  stringent  standards  and  processes  designed  to  ensure  high-
quality  volunteering  experiences.  That  focus  extends  beyond  what  many  national  schemes 
might offer, as it sets a pan-European standard that aligns with broader objectives and values. 

The rigorous administrative process required to obtain the European Solidarity Corps Quality 
Label  ensures  that  only  well-prepared  and  capable  organisations  can  lead  projects.  That 
selectivity  helps  safeguard  the  quality  of  volunteer  experiences,  and  is  in  line  with  the 
programme’s  overall  goal  of  fostering  solidarity  in  young  Europeans  and  developing  their 
skills.  By  setting  those  high  standards,  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  ensures  a  consistent, 
impactful  volunteer  experience  across  Europe,  which  is  something  that  individual  national 
programmes might not uniformly achieve owing to varying standards and resources. 

The European Solidarity Corps Quality Label bolsters the quality and safety of activities and 
volunteer well-being, while also encouraging organisations to regularly evaluate and improve 
their operations. That is supported by survey results, which indicate that: 

•  71% of participating organisations either agree or strongly agree that the Quality Label 
helps them to provide high-quality activities and to ensure the safety and well-being of 
volunteers;  

•  68% either agree or strongly agree that the Quality Label supports volunteer safety and 

well-being;  

•  66%  either  agree  or  strongly  agree  that  the  certification  process  encourages 

organisations to continually assess and improve their operations. 

Those findings are corroborated by the results of the interview programme, which also indicate 
that attaining the Quality Label boosts the reputation and perception of those organisations, 
thereby strengthening their positions and improving their credibility74. Organisations that are 
recognised  as  European  Solidarity  Corps-qualified  organisations  improve  not  only  their 
operational capacity, as they gain skills through the process of acquiring the label, but also their 
standing within the community and among potential volunteers, as reported in the interview 
programme. That  increase  in  prestige  can  make  those  organisations  more  attractive  to  both 
volunteers and other stakeholders, such as funders or partners. 

Network effects 

The  European  Solidarity  Corps  programme  is  unique  in  facilitating  intercultural  dialogue 
through  its  cross-border  nature,  thereby  significantly  enriching  the  participants’  experience. 
That  exposure  to  diverse  cultures  and  perspectives  is  a  distinct  advantage  which  fosters 
increased  understanding  and  tolerance  among  young  Europeans.  In  contrast,  national 
programmes often provide experiences that are more limited to domestic cultural contexts. The 
programme’s  transnational  character  also  goes  beyond  the  typical  scope  of  in-country 

74   Interview programme. 

48 

 
 
programmes in promoting international collaboration and a sense of European identity among 
young participants. 

One of the programme’s key EU added values is that it enables pan-European networks, leading 
to  long-term  partnerships  and  relationships.  As  the  survey  results  indicate,  most  of  the 
organisations  (64%)  either  agree  or  strongly  agree  that  the  programme  helped  build  new 
partnerships that continued after the project had ended. Furthermore, 62% of the organisations 
surveyed  either  agree  or  strongly  agree  that  they  expanded  their  international  network  by 
participating in the programme. 

Those networks offer support and opportunities and are therefore invaluable to participating 
organisations. According to the survey results, 60% of organisations either agreed or strongly 
agreed that the programme enabled them to share best practices and success stories with other 
organisations.  That  improved  international  networking  and  cooperation  environment  would 
have been difficult to achieve through national volunteering schemes alone. Moreover, survey 
results reflect the programme’s success in fostering lasting relationships among participants. A 
significant  81%  of  respondents  remain  in  contact  with  volunteers  they  met  during  the 
programme. Those statistics demonstrate its pivotal role not only in enhancing individual and 
organisational  capabilities  but  also  in  cultivating  a  collaborative  and  resourceful  European 
community. 

2.4.3.  Programme relevance: continuing importance or growing obsolescence? 

This section assesses – both for the interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity 
Corps  and  for  the  final  evaluation  of  the  2018-2020  European  Solidarity  Corps  -  the 
programme’s relevance in terms of the extent to which it achieves its programme relevance-
related objectives. 

2.4.3.1 Final evaluation of the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps  

Relevance 

Main findings: 

•  The objectives and priorities of the European Solidarity Corps were especially relevant for 

promoting social cohesion and individual development among young people.  

•  The programme’s diverse range of formats and topics made it highly relevant for addressing 

local societal needs and enabling tailored projects.  

Participating organisations 

The European Solidarity  Corps’  main goal  in  2018-2020 was to  promote solidarity,  involve 
young people and organisations in high-quality activities, and strengthen cohesion, democracy, 
and  citizenship  in  Europe.  In  2019,  the  programme  aimed  to  involve  over  100 000  young 
people in solidarity activities and introduced the inclusion of PWFOs as a new priority. While 
most organisations felt that the programme was suitable for supporting inclusion, many were 

49 

 
 
uncertain about their ability to effectively support volunteers with fewer opportunities and felt 
that they needed additional guidance and resources. 

Compared with the overall objectives of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps, the 2018-
2020 programming period focused more on the transition of young people from school to work 
by also providing them with opportunities in the form of traineeships and jobs in solidarity-
related fields. During the programming period of the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps, 
only 2.8%75 of the contracted projects were in the traineeships and jobs strand, and the allocated 
budget for that strand was significantly lower than for volunteering. 

The emphasis in terms of budget and priorities that was put on employability was out of sync 
with the goals and priorities of the organisations at the time. Other sources, such as a SALTO 
research report, indicated that most applicant organisations considered their projects to be most 
closely aligned with the programme objectives ‘competence development of young people’ and 
‘promotion of active citizenship’76. Nonetheless, the report found that most organisations also 
considered  that  their  projects  corresponded  to  the  programme  objective  of  ‘fostering 
employability of young people and their transition into the labour market’. 

Individuals 

Between 2018 and 2020, the European Solidarity Corps effectively addressed young people’s 
needs  and  was  in  line  with  societal  priorities.  Participants  were  largely  satisfied  with  the 
programme,  particularly  in  areas  like  social  inclusion  and  bridging  generational  and  social 
divides. Many applicants were motivated by a desire to gain work or training experience, with 
their lack of job opportunities being a significant factor. Although the programme offered a 
traineeships and jobs strand to address that, the uptake was relatively low, and most participants 
gravitated toward other activities like volunteering. 

Around 33% of applicants had no prior work experience, and their main reasons for joining the 
programme  were  to  live  abroad,  develop  soft  skills  and  gain  professional  experience.  The 
programme’s  emphasis  on  solidarity  and  personal  development  made  those  opportunities 
highly relevant. While the traineeships and jobs strand offered potential benefits, it was less 
effective in complementing other programme activities and was used less by applicants. On 
inclusion, participants were generally satisfied with the programme’s efforts to support people 
with fewer opportunities. They felt that the European Solidarity Corps promoted inclusion and 
tailored its matching process to diverse needs and challenges, making it more accessible to a 
wider range of individuals. 

75 Calculated on the basis of the DG EAC frozen monitoring dashboard (2014-2020 MFF; date of extraction: 5 January 2024). 
76   See Akarçeşme S., Frennes H., Böhler J. and Mayerl M. (2019). ‘Exploring the implementation of the European Solidarity 
https://www.salto-youth.net/downloads/4-17-

Research 

Report’, 

Corps 
4073/01%20RAY%20Report%2020200608.pdf. 

during 

year 

first 

its 

– 

50 

 
 
2.4.3.2. 

Interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps 

Relevance 

Main findings: 

•  The  objectives  and  priorities  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  are  especially  relevant  for 

promoting social cohesion and individual development among young people.  

•  The programme is highly relevant in addressing local societal needs due to its diverse formats 

and topics, which allows for tailored projects. 

• 

It has also proved that it can adapt to meet emerging societal needs such as the impact of more 
frequent and severe climate-related hazards (e.g. floods) and other disasters. 

•  The  programme’s  relevance  is  underscored  by  high  satisfaction  rates  among  individual 

participants, particularly with how it addresses the significant challenges they face.  

• 

It addresses crucial needs of European society, especially by fostering participation in democratic 
life, inclusion, and diversity. 

•  There is scope to further improve the programme’s ability to meet the needs of participants from 
diverse backgrounds by improving the identification of young PWFOs and, in turn, the targeted 
support provided to them. 

National governmental stakeholders 

The European Solidarity Corps is highly relevant to the priorities of participating countries, 
particularly in promoting social cohesion and the individual development of young people. In 
EU  neighbourhood  countries,  its  relevance  also  extends  to  enhancing  social  exchange  and 
strengthening European cohesion. 

The interview programme with  national  stakeholders  indicated that the  European Solidarity 
Corps  is  viewed  as  providing  a  diverse  range  of  formats  and  topics  for  participation.  That 
variety enables a wide array of projects, which can be customised to address societal needs at 
local level and are therefore highly relevant. 

Horizontal priorities 

The European Solidarity Corps’ horizontal priorities for the 2021-2027 programming period 
are:  (i)  ‘inclusion  and  diversity’;  (ii)  ‘digital  transformation’;  (iii)  ‘the  environment  and 
combating climate change; and (iv) ‘participation in democratic life’. 

The  programme  is  flexible  and  allows  annual  thematic  priorities  that  go  beyond  the  four 
horizontal  priorities  to  be  added. They  address  pressing  challenges  and  difficulties  and  are 
mainly carried out through centralised actions. For instance, the ‘promoting healthy lifestyles’ 
annual thematic priority was changed to reflect changing priorities in the area of health. When 
it was first added in 2021, it initially focused on the COVID-19 emergency health response, 
but  then  shifted  to  promoting  overall  well-being  and  healthy  lifestyles.  By  2023,  it  had  a 
stronger emphasis on marginalised groups, including gender-specific needs and mental health. 

51 

 
Similarly,  the  ‘inclusion  and  diversity’  priority  evolved  to  focus  more  on  local  community 
needs  in  2023,  such  as  refugee  relief,  assistance,  support  and  integration77.  National  bodies 
mostly felt that the horizontal and annual priorities of the programme were relevant to country 
realities, flexible enough, and largely aligned with societal needs. There was minor criticism 
of  the  ‘mental  health  (health  promotion  and  support)’  or  ‘digital  transformation’  priorities 
because some national bodies believed that organisations might not be adequately equipped to 
address those priorities.  

National representatives felt that the flexibility of the European Solidarity Corps ensured its 
relevance to emerging societal needs, including the impact of disasters, such as earthquakes 
and climate-related hazards (e.g. floods). For example, the ‘environmental sustainability and 
climate goals’ priority was broadened in 2022 to include disaster response. In addition, several 
changes were made during the programming period to the objectives of the ‘volunteering teams 
in high-priority areas’ action to include a broader focus on human-made and natural disasters. 
Countries participating in the programme also recognised its adaptability and responsiveness 
to emerging societal needs and crises. National implementation reports specifically mentioned 
the programme’s support during the COVID-19 pandemic, natural disasters, and in response to 
the effects of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. 

EU and international stakeholders 

Interviews with representatives of EU youth organisations confirm that the 2018-2020 and the 
2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps  programme  addresses the needs  of European society, 
particularly in the areas of ‘participation in democratic life’ and ‘inclusion and diversity’. 

The  members  of  EU  youth  organisations  emphasised  that  the  programme’s  design  and 
implementation  is  well  suited  to  promote  inclusion  and  participation  in  democratic  life  at 
European  level.  This  is  mainly  because  the  volunteering  experience  helps  young  people  to 
become  involved  and  connected  with  other  (or  their  own)  European  communities.  This  is 
further illustrated by the survey results,  which show that participants become more socially 
aware.  While  they  may  not  have  initially  applied  specifically  with  the  goal  of  promoting 
solidarity and civic engagement78, their experiences helped them develop a sense of solidarity 
and empathy for others, as well as social and political awareness. 

Interviewees also noted that the increased focus on humanitarian aid, solidarity and refugee 
assistance – and in turn, the increase in projects in those thematic areas – contributes to value-
based learning for young people and strengthens the role of the European Solidarity Corps in 
promoting solidarity, cohesion and social inclusion. For example, they highlighted an increase 
in large-scale projects related to integrating refugees79 and underlined the role of volunteering 
team projects in proactively addressing major crises, such as the emerging needs arising from 
Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, or crises linked to disasters, such as floods and 

77   2023 Annual Work Programme, pp. 10-11. 
78   Survey of individuals participating in the European Solidarity Corps. 
79   Interview programme. 

52 

 
 
earthquakes80.  Interviewees  also  saw  the  environment  and  climate  change  as  increasingly 
important. The programme allocated 18.0% of its budget to that horizontal objective in 2021, 
15.8% in 2022 and 16.5% in 202381. 

Lastly, representatives of EU and international stakeholders also believed that the networking 
opportunities arising from the programme’s implementation and design are suited to supporting 
organisational  capacity  building,  knowledge  sharing  and  community  building  among 
volunteers, as well as between host communities and volunteers. That, in their view, can help 
to strengthen the European civic sphere. They emphasised that this aspect of the programme 
can be particularly relevant in countries where democracy is under threat82. 

Stakeholders agreed that the programme priorities needed to be flexible to respond effectively 
to  societal  challenges.  For  instance,  during  Russia’s  invasion  of  Ukraine,  the  European 
Solidarity Corps responded flexibly to challenges by adjusting project applications to address 
urgent issues. Like the NAs, youth organisations also noted the need for ‘continuous learning 
and  improvement’  in  the  programme  in  order  to  respond  rapidly  to  crises,  and  some 
stakeholders suggested the need for even more flexibility in terms of the formats and budget83. 

Participating organisations 

The  participating  organisations  interviewed  were  generally  positive  about  the  alignment 
between  EU  societal  needs  and  the  2021-2027  European  Solidarity  Corps  programme,  and 
confirmed that the projects serve the needs of young people and affected communities. 

Based on the analysis, most organisations believe that the programme serves the dual purpose 
of promoting young people’s skills and personal development and tackling important societal 
challenges. Organisations largely agree that their projects meet the needs of young people (89% 
of organisations) and directly address the relevant needs of the communities involved (85% of 
organisations).  The  programme  website  lists  3 611  decentralised  projects  as  having  been 
completed between 2021 and 2023. Of those, 318 focused specifically on the aspect of young 
people’s learning, while the other projects focused on the aspect of specific social challenges, 
or  on  both  aspects.  Those  findings  are  supported  by  the  interview  programme  where  both 
aspects  of  the  programme  were  found  to  be  relevant.  Survey  data  also  show  that  most 
organisations involved in the programme are both youth and volunteering organisations (41%), 
many are youth organisations (25%), while fewer are solely volunteer organisations (10%). 

The  interview  programme  revealed  that  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  also  addressed 
challenges,  such  as  young  people’s  mental  health  and  social  isolation,  as  well  as  issues  of 
community building in their local communities, and promoted understanding and acceptance. 

The organisations interviewed agreed that the programme’s four horizontal priorities were all 
relevant to current societal needs, particularly  ‘inclusion and diversity’ and ‘participation in 

80   Interview programme. 
81   EU (2023), ‘MFF Performance Results Report’. 
82   Interview programme. 
83   Interview with EU youth organisations. 

53 

 
 
democratic  life’,  and  stated  that  the  programme  promotes  solidarity,  especially  among 
marginalised and minority groups. The survey also showed that digital transformation was seen 
as slightly less relevant, with 10% of organisations viewing it as not relevant, or only slightly 
relevant. In interviews and in response to open questions in the survey, organisations described 
the digital transition as less directly related to their own work than other priorities, which often 
involved vulnerable communities and addressed more pressing basic needs. That view is also 
consistent  with  the  broader  perception  of  the  programme  as  focusing  on  solidarity  and  the 
inclusion  of  vulnerable  groups.  Other  organisations  noted  that  while  they  recognised  the 
benefits  of  digitalisation,  they  saw  it  more  as  a  long-term  process  and  an  ‘add-on’  to  other 
priorities, rather than as a goal in itself. Nevertheless, many organisations emphasised that they 
were trying to incorporate that aspect, even if it was not yet a well-established goal. According 
to European Solidarity Corps monitoring data, 26 % of contracted projects between 2021 and 
2023 addressed the European Commission’s digital priority84. 

As more and more young people are struggling, partly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, with 
mental  health,  its  inclusion  in  the  programme’s  priorities  was  also  considered  timely  and 
relevant. In recent years, there has been an increase in applicants with such struggles85. In the 
context of the green priority, the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps has set environmental 
sustainability  and  the  fight  against  climate  change  as  one  of  the  programme’s  horizontal 
priorities. The evaluation finds that the programme has demonstrated a strong commitment to 
sustainability. The  programme  was  found  to  be  generally  flexible  and  adaptable  to  specific 
needs and exceptional situations. Interviews also suggest that this flexibility has improved in 
recent years. Organisations also recognised the flexible and timely support they had received 
during the pandemic, with survey results showing that they agreed that their needs had been 
met during that period (78%). 

However,  the  fact  that  organisations  might  not  be  as  flexible  as  the  programme’s  priorities 
require them to be was also a recurring theme during the interview programme. The ‘inclusion 
and  diversity  strategy’  was  introduced  to  the  programme  already  in  2021  to  support  the 
inclusion and the identification of young PWFOs. However, international training and support 
organisations noted that it is somewhat harder for them to ‘retrain’ organisations that do not 
focus on marginalised or vulnerable populations.  Interviews also revealed that organisations 
are becoming increasingly aware of mental health difficulties among young people. However, 
not all of the organisations without prior experience in the area have enough support or are 
equipped to address mental health issues. 

Individuals 

The  relevance  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  programme  is  reflected  in  individual 
participants’  high  satisfaction  rates  with  their  activities,  especially  with  the  volunteering 
projects. Overall, 90% of participants were satisfied or very satisfied with their involvement in 
the programme’s  activities.  80% of participants in  volunteering projects  felt that their work 

84   The DG EAC frozen monitoring dashboard (2021-2027 MFF; date of extraction: 5 January 2024). 
85   Survey of applicants, conducted by PPMI. 

54 

 
 
benefited the community and social groups. As for solidarity projects, 78% of respondents felt 
that they also met the needs of young people. 

Survey results show that: 

•  close to half of all participants (40%) and applicants (51%) faced difficulties related to 

finding a job at the time of their application to the programme; 

•  more than 20% faced economic challenges (i.e. could only afford basic necessities), or 

had mental health issues.  

The  programme’s  relevance  to  young  people  seeking  opportunities  to  improve  their 
employability is further underscored by the fact that 41% of participants mentioned the desire 
to  gain  professional  experience or  explore potential  career paths  as their top  motivation  for 
participating86 (see Section 2.4.2.2. on facilitating transition from the education system to the 
jobs market).  

Most  participants  also  felt  that  the  horizontal  programme  priorities  (especially  for  ‘social 
inclusion’  and  ‘democratic  participation’)  meet  the  needs  of  society.    Like  organisations, 
participants  also  perceived  the  digital  transformation  as  somewhat  less  relevant  than  other 
priorities. That may reflect the view – in line with the programme’s strong focus on solidarity 
and  inclusion  –-  that  digitalisation  is  less  directly  linked  to  the  pressing  basic  needs  of 
vulnerable communities. 

Most participants agreed that the EU common values are still relevant (especially some of the 
core values  and priority  areas of the programme, such as solidarity, non-discrimination  and 
democracy) are still relevant. Compared with other areas, participants found it hard to decide 
whether pluralism was as relevant as other values. 

Inclusion of PWFOs 

The European Solidarity Corps programme is explicitly designed to promote social inclusion 
and diversity, given that its general objective in the Regulation is to ‘enhance the engagement 
of young people and organisations in accessible and high-quality solidarity activities, primarily 
volunteering, as a means to strengthen cohesion, solidarity, democracy, European identity and 
active citizenship in the Union and beyond, addressing societal and humanitarian challenges 
on  the  ground,  with  a  particular  focus  on  the  promotion  of  sustainable  development,  social 
inclusion and equal opportunities’. 

The European Solidarity Corps’ 2021 inclusion and diversity strategy significantly boosted the 
participation of young PWFOs between 2021 and 2023 (self-reported, see ‘Effectiveness’ under 
Section  2.4.1.2.).  It  achieved  this  by  providing  additional  support  and  services  (including 
increased  mentoring,  personal  assistance  and  sign  language  interpreters  to  participants  with 
disabilities), funding and increased accessibility throughout the programme. The strategy also 
aimed to involve more organisations that work specifically with that social group. Some other 
updates to the programme have also helped it to better cater for and meet the needs of PWFOs, 

86   Source: survey of individual participants. Question 29 ‘What were the three most important reasons why you applied to 

become a volunteer with the European Solidarity Corps? Check your top three reasons.’ 

55 

 
 
in  particular  by  allowing  them  to  apply  for  shorter-term  projects,  for  projects  in  their  own 
country and to participate in team volunteering. Case studies show an increase in the number 
of such participants in selected countries in the 2021-2023 programming period compared with 
the previous period. 

Meeting the unique needs of PWFOs through early identification 

The  current  method  of  identifying  and  supporting  PWFOs  within  the  European  Solidarity 
Corps programme is problematic because of the broad criteria defining PWFOs and the reliance 
on  self-reporting.  Organisations  frequently  struggle  to  identify  PWFOs  during  the  selection 
process  due  to  insufficient  information  at  the  application  stage.  Consequently,  they  often 
recognise  the  specific  needs  of  PWFOs  only  after  their  arrival,  once  their  background  and 
specific challenges become evident, which hampers timely support and integration. That delay 
prevents organisations from making the necessary arrangements to fully include and integrate 
those  individuals  from  the  start.  During  the  interview  programme,  organisations  stated  that 
their approach to PWFOs is complicated by the fact that they may not be aware of whether 
participants belong to that group until they arrive87.  

It  was  also  mentioned  during  the  interview  programme  that  organisations  that  had  not 
previously focused on PWFOs might not be equipped to accommodate special needs and may 
therefore  find  it  even  more  difficult  to  include  PWFOs.  Implementing  more  robust 
identification processes at the application stage is crucial. That could involve questionnaires to 
identify  potential  challenges  or  interviews  to  gather  comprehensive  information  about 
applicants’ circumstances. 

In  addition  to  the  challenges  identified  above,  specific  factors  need  to  be  considered  for 
including PWFOs in the humanitarian aid strand for which volunteering activities take place 
mainly in countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia. Organisations pointed out that logistical 
and financial barriers can be high, and emphasised that the high degree of mobility required 
and the associated costs may discourage young people, especially those who are economically 
disadvantaged, from taking part 88. Therefore, providing a high level of support to candidates 
and  sufficient  funds  for  participation  is  particularly  important89.  In  that  context,  several 
organisations  surveyed  noted  that  the  programme  could  also  do  more  to  support  applicants 
from non-EU countries, such as Türkiye. Those candidates also require visas to take part in the 
programme’s mandatory face-to-face training in EU Member States and are more likely to face 
economic  barriers.  Some  Turkish  organisations  interviewed  suggested  that  the  programme 
could consider organising training activities in Türkiye or online to help young Turkish people 
participate in the strand. 

87   Interview programme. 
88   Interview programme and answers to open-ended survey questions. 
89   Only 56% of the EU aid volunteers surveyed felt that their financial costs for participation in the initiative had 

been sufficiently covered. 

56 

 
 
PWFOs’ unique motives 

The  survey  evaluation  results  show  that  PWFOs  have  somewhat  different  motives  for 
participating in the European Solidarity Corps than the general participant group. Significantly, 
48% of PWFOs  mentioned  developing soft skills  – such as communication, teamwork, and 
adaptability – as a motivation, compared with 42% of other participants90. Additionally, only 
32% of PWFOs indicated the desire to volunteer abroad as a motivation, which is slightly lower 
than  the  39%  observed  among  the  general  participant  group.  Those  findings  align  with 
interview findings, highlighting that PWFOs often prioritise in-country opportunities due to 
perceived lower barriers to participation. While it is difficult to quantify specific life outcomes 
for PWFOs, stakeholders generally agree that the programme positively impacts young people, 
and young PWFOs in particular. Those outcomes, driven by PWFOs’ unique motives, suggest 
that the programme is especially transformative for them. 

2.5.  What are the conclusions and lessons learnt? 

This section explains the conclusions reached and lessons learnt from the interim evaluation of 
the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps and the final evaluation of the 2018-2020 European 
Solidarity Corps. 

2.5.1.  Conclusions 

2.5.1.1. 

Conclusions on the relevance of the programme 

The European Solidarity Corps effectively addresses European society’s needs by promoting 
social cohesion, personal development, and inclusion. It is in line with national and European 
priorities,  offering  diverse  volunteering  opportunities  that  support  democratic  participation, 
inclusion, diversity, and environmental sustainability. Participants report significant personal 
growth and satisfaction from their involvement. 

Organisationally,  the  programme  is  adaptable,  as  demonstrated  during  the  COVID-19 
pandemic, and offers flexible project formats and budgets to address unexpected challenges. 
However, geographical distribution within participating countries needs to be more balanced. 
Looking  to  the  future,  the  programme  should  aim  to  improve  its  strategies  for  inclusivity, 
particularly  for  young  PWFOs.  By  better  identifying  and  understanding  their  needs,  the 
programme will be able to improve its impact and benefits. 

2.5.1.2. 

Conclusions on the coherence of the programme 

With its focus on youth involvement and policy integration, the European Solidarity Corps is 
well-aligned  with  EU  priorities.  Its  clear  management  structure  and  streamlined  activities, 
which are based on the EU Aid Volunteers Initiative, boost its effectiveness and visibility. The 

90 Survey of individual participants. Question 29 ‘What were the three most important reasons why you applied 

to become a volunteer with the European Solidarity Corps? Check your top three reasons.’ 

57 

 
 
transition to a more individualised, learning-centred approach reflects its youth-focused goals. 
Its potential integration into Erasmus+ presents opportunities and raises concerns.  

Externally,  the  programme  complements  other  EU  initiatives,  as  can  be  seen  from  its  co-
delegation  agreement  with  Horizon  Europe,  although  it  could  benefit  from  more  structured 
alignment.  That  partnership  could  serve  as  a  model  for  future  collaboration.  Linking  the 
programme  with  EU  youth  employment  initiatives,  especially  for  young  people  not  in 
education,  employment  or  training  (NEETs),  and  improving  coordination  with  national 
programmes  could  strengthen  its  impact  and  help  vulnerable  young  people  to  transition  to 
further education or employment. 

2.5.1.3. 

Conclusions on the effectiveness of the programme 

The  European  Solidarity  Corps  effectively  benefits 
communities, and is in line with the European values of solidarity, inclusion, and diversity.  

individuals,  organisations  and 

The  programme  boosts  individuals’  personal,  professional  and  educational  growth,  while 
increasing their civic involvement and social awareness. It promotes European integration and 
cultural exchange by enabling young people from diverse backgrounds to collaborate across 
countries,  thereby  deepening  their  understanding  of  multiculturalism  and  their  European 
identity. 

Organisations benefit from improved project management and diversity practices, thanks to the 
Quality Label, which improves planning, implementation and reporting. The programme also 
broadens their international networks and capacity-building opportunities.  

level,  the  programme  strengthens  social  cohesion  and 

At  community 
intercultural 
understanding, while addressing local challenges. However, it faces challenges in supporting 
remote  or  socio-economically  disadvantaged  areas.  To  maximise  the  programme’s  impact, 
local organisations must be supported and involved more. 

2.5.1.4. 

Conclusions on the efficiency of the programme 

The  European  Solidarity  Corps  operates  efficiently  but  faces  challenges  in  several  areas. 
Although the programme’s funding has been increased compared with the 2018-2020 period, 
it  has  been  undermined  by  inflation  and  the  added  financial  pressures  from  supporting 
participants  with  fewer  opportunities.  This  highlights  the  need  for  better-aligned  budget 
allocations to meet actual needs and ambitions. The programme is oversubscribed, with only a 
fraction of applicants able to participate, which underscores the need for increased funding. 

While  implementation  has  become  more  cost-effective,  variations  across  different  activities 
suggest that targeted financial strategies could improve efficiency, especially for infrastructure-
intensive or high-mobility activities. Programme management has been effective, for example 
by  adapting  to  external  shocks  like  COVID-19,  but  inefficiencies  have  been  identified  in 
financial resource management. Funds are sometimes underused in low-demand areas, while 
high-demand  areas  remain  underfunded,  indicating  a  need  for  more  dynamic  financial 
management. Measuring and monitoring processes have clearly improved, but new IT tools did 

58 

 
not fully meet user needs, which had an impact on the effectiveness of monitoring. Performance 
indicators are better aligned but need to be refined to better capture the programme’s impact, 
particularly for participants with fewer opportunities. Monitoring its geographical spread and 
how  its  benefits  are  distributed  is  essential  for  real-time  learning  and  for  improving  the 
programme. 

2.5.1.5. 

Conclusions on the EU added value of the programme 

The European Solidarity Corps delivers systemic benefits and promotes the European values 
of  solidarity,  inclusion  and  diversity,  achieving  results  that  would  not  be  possible  through 
national  efforts  alone.  It  bolsters  youth  empowerment  and  volunteering  across  Europe, 
strengthening European identity and fostering support for shared values like democracy and 
human  rights.  The  programme  offers  unique  opportunities  for  personal  development  that 
address gaps left by national education systems and support the transition to the labour market, 
particularly for those facing unemployment. 

The  programme  also  ensures  high-quality  projects  through  its  robust  Quality  Label,  setting 
standards that distinguish it from other initiatives. It builds extensive pan-European networks, 
fostering  long-term  partnerships  that  improve  project  management,  attract  resources,  and 
promote  EU  integration.  By  connecting  individuals  and  organisations  across  regions  and 
cultures,  the  programme  strengthens  European  cohesion  and  projects  a  positive  image 
internationally. 

2.5.2.  Lessons learnt 

Several  areas  for  improvement  have  been  identified  in  the  European  Solidarity  Corps 
programme.  The  main  areas  for  improvement  and  the  recommendations  for  potentially 
improving them are listed below. 

2.5.2.1. 

Inclusion of PWFOs 

The 2021 inclusion and diversity strategy helped more PWFOs participate in the programme 
by offering them increased support, such as mentoring, sign language interpretation and better 
accessibility.  However,  more  effort  is  needed  to  identify  and  support  them  effectively. The 
current method of monitoring PWFOs relies either on reporting by organisations and NAs in 
the volunteering activities or on self-reporting in the solidarity projects, which leaves a wide 
margin of interpretation. To improve inclusion, organisations should build capacity to better 
identify and integrate participants, possibly through inclusion officers and situational exercises. 
Better pre-arrival preparation is essential for addressing gaps and ensuring timely support. The 
recommendations include: 

• 

laying down a uniform interpretation of the Regulation’s definition of young PWFOs;  

59 

 
• 

• 

raising awareness of the ‘Implementation guidelines - Erasmus+ and European Solidarity 
Corps inclusion and diversity strategy’91; 

implementing strategies to improve the identification of PWFOs and the understanding of 
their  needs  before  their  arrival,  to  ensure  information-sharing  and  timely  and  adequate 
preparation;  

•  creating more opportunities for capacity building within organisations to better identify and 

integrate PWFOs; 

2.5.2.2  Addressing possible variations in the geographical spread of results and impacts 

Better monitoring of the programme’s geographical spread is needed to accurately assess how 
its  benefits  are  spread  and  to  implement  the  programme’s  solidarity  objective.  The  main 
recommendations are: 

•  monitoring  the  geographical  balance  of  participation  and  benefits  to  ensure  a  fair  and 
balanced geographical spread of the programme’s benefits across participating countries, 
including both urban and non-urban areas; 

•  continuing  to  improve  monitoring  mechanisms  to  track  where  volunteer  activities  are 

taking place and ensure accurate geographical data; 

• 

• 

further improving the availability of ready-to-use data on the geographical distribution of 
organisations and volunteer activities, in particular for monitoring the spread of activities 
across rural and urban areas; 

taking  active  measures  in  consultation  with  the  programme’s  national  implementation 
bodies  (NAs,  in  particular)  to  encourage  the  participation  of  organisations  from  under-
represented types of regions where geographical imbalances have been identified.  

2.5.2.3. 

Improving visa arrangements for non-EU nationals 

The  programme  demonstrates  a  strong  commitment  to  addressing  societal  needs  through 
volunteering  and  solidarity  initiatives  by  emphasising  equal-opportunity  participation. 
However,  volunteers  and  organisations  have  highlighted  persisting  issues  with  visa 
arrangements for non-EU nationals. The main recommendations are: 

•  better collaboration with the relevant institutions to streamline the visa delivery process for 
participants from non-EU countries; that coordinated approach will facilitate smoother and 
more efficient access, ensuring that all eligible participants are able to join the programme 
without undue delay or complication; 

•  close  cooperation  with  EU  Member  States  in  the  implementation  of  Directive  (EU) 
2016/801 on the conditions of entry and residence of non-EU nationals for the purpose of 
research,  studies,  training,  voluntary  service,  pupil  exchange  schemes  or  educational 

91   https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/document/implementation-guidelines-erasmus-and-european-solidarity-corps-

inclusion-and-diversity-strategy 

60 

 
 
projects  and  au  pairing,  which  is  also  in  line  with  Council  Recommendation 
(2022/C157/01) on the mobility of young volunteers across the European Union.  

2.5.2.4. 

Aligning goals and funding 

The level of efficiency of the European Solidarity Corps’ operations is commendable overall. 
However, its funding is similar to that of a pilot programme and is insufficient for it to achieve 
its goals. The programme’s overall annual budget is higher than in the previous programming 
period, but its running costs have also increased. The first cost increase was due to inflation, 
which  increased  by  17.4%  between  2021  and  2023.  That  means  that  despite  the  budget 
increase,  the  2021-2027  European  Solidarity  Corps  has  less  money  available  per  year  to 
achieve its goals  due to  inflationary pressure,  which has  absorbed  a large  proportion of the 
budget increase. Furthermore, the programme provided additional inclusion support of around 
21% of unit costs to projects with PWFOs. The recommendations therefore include: 

• 

for  the  future,  without  prejudice  to  negotiations  on  the  next  Multiannual  Financial 
Framework, consider better aligning the overall budget with the goals of the programme;  

•  consider planning for annual budget increases rather than a flat budget, thereby making the 

project more resilient to economic shocks and allowing for scalability; 

•  bringing in an annual reassessment of the suitability of unit costs, in line with an overall 

increase in the budget; and  

•  stepping up the programme’s efforts to maximise and further develop synergies with other 
programmes to make the most out of existing funding and address common programme 
objectives. 

2.5.2.5. 

IT systems 

IT systems are crucial for managing the European Solidarity Corps  and for facilitating data 
collection and decision-making. While improvements have been made,  there are still issues 
with user-friendliness, accessibility and functionality. Tools to apply for funding are more well-
regarded but could be simplified for organisations. Participant support tools, such as general 
online training, have low uptake, and online language support has mixed reviews. Reporting 
tools have improved but still face usability and reliability challenges. Monitoring tools are more 
detailed, but also more complex. That poses risks, such as data loss and delayed reporting when 
they are not used correctly or experience downtime. The recommendations include: 

•  conducting  comprehensive  user  testing  with  a  diverse  group  of  end  users  to  identify 
usability issues and ensure that all IT tools meet all stakeholders’ needs before deployment 
and updates; 

• 

further  simplifying  the  online  tools  and  forms  used  by  organisations  when  applying  for 
funding;  

•  ensuring that contingency measures are in place to maintain data integrity and continuity 
when IT reporting tools are unavailable, so that data can still be captured in a complete and 
timely manner, especially at the final stage; 

61 

 
• 

integrating the monitoring of data from all the programme’s centrally managed activities 
more deeply and comprehensively into the existing monitoring systems to ensure a more 
comprehensive  and  accurate  overview;  however,  as  centralised  actions  are  managed 
through the eGrant system, this would currently have to be done manually, which would be 
challenging. 

2.5.2.6. 

Aligning the humanitarian aid strand as part of a youth programme 

The  transition  from  the  EU  Aid  Volunteers  Initiative  to  the  European  Solidarity  Corps 
introduced  a  more  individualised,  learning-focused  approach  for  young  volunteers  in 
humanitarian actions.  Clearer communication about  the strand’s purpose is  needed to better 
align  with  the  programme's  inclusive  and  youth-focused  goals. Additionally,  the  higher  age 
limit of 35 years for this strand, compared with 30 years for other activities, creates internal 
coherence issues and is confusing for stakeholders. Aligning the strand more closely with the 
programme’s objectives and improving internal coherence could address those inconsistencies. 
The recommendations include:  

•  communicating  clearly  to  participating  organisations  that  the  primary  objective  and 
purpose  of  the  strand  is  to  provide  individual  mobility  and  learning  to  volunteers,  who 
should not necessarily be expected to have professional skills and significant experience in 
the field before volunteering;  

•  considering bringing the age limit of the humanitarian aid strand into line with the rest of 
the  programme,  as  the  demand  from  people  aged  between  30  and  35  is  not  high  and 
represents only 3% of that strand’s total registrants who expressed interest in the portal for 
this strand. 

62 

 
 
 
3.   Annex I. Procedural information 

Lead Directorate-General:  Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (DG 
EAC) 

Agenda planning reference:  PLAN/2022/489 

Organisation of the evaluation  

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

The  external  evaluation  assignment  included  a  public  consultation  and multiple  targeted 
consultations,  and  provided  the  main  evidence  base  for  the  staff  working  document. The 
published 
service 
here:  https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/5736339. 

contractor’s 

report 

been 

final 

full 

has 

available 

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

here: 

Timing of the evaluation 

DESCRIPTION 
Call for evidence on the ‘Have your Say’ portal 

TIMING 
18 October 2022 
15 November 2022 
16 June 2023 

to 

the  external 

the  contract  for 

Signature  of 
evaluation assignment 
First interservice group meeting 
Inception report 
Second interservice group meeting 
Public consultation on the ‘Have your Say’ portal  13 November 

29 June 2023 
5 September 2023 
11 September 2023 

2023 

to 

First interim report 
Third interservice group meeting 
Second interim report 
Fourth interservice group meeting 
Draft final report submitted by the contractor 
Fifth interservice group meeting 
Final report submitted by the contractor 
Approval  of  the  final  version  of  the  external 
contractor’s final report  
Interservice 
Commission report and SWD 

consultation 

draft 

the 

on 

5 February 2024 
20 November 2023 
29 November 2023 
9 April 2024 
18 April 2024 
27 May 2024 
3 July 2024 
31 August 2024 
October 2024 

26  November  2024 
December 2024 

to  16 

63 

 
Publication of the Commission report and SWD  March 2025 

in 

the 

steering  group. An 

interservice  group  of 

DGs  participated 
relevant 
Commission departments oversaw the evaluation and met regularly throughout the evaluation 
process. In addition to DG EAC, the interservice group was composed of representatives of 13 
Commission departments. In line with the Better Regulation Guidelines, the interservice group 
was involved in all the key steps of the evaluation work, including: (i) the evaluation mandate; 
(ii)  the call  for  evidence;  (iii)  the evaluation  questions;  (iv)  the  technical  specifications  for 
selecting  the  external  contractor;  (v)  the  public  consultation  questionnaire and  survey 
questionnaires; 
(vii) 
and 
and 
providing comments on, and ensuring the quality and objectivity of evaluation reports. 

(vi) monitoring progress 

evaluation; 

steering 

the 

In connection with the interservice group’s meetings and key deliverables, consultations were 
carried out in a dedicated Teams channel. The feedback periods, deadlines and arrangements 
for managing comments and the approval of deliverables were agreed in the meetings. 

The external contractors carried out work/studies. The Commission’s interim evaluation 
was  supported  by  an  independent  external  evaluation  assignment.  In  line  with  the  Better 
Regulation Guidelines, the contractor analysed the effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, added 
value and relevance of the European Solidarity Corps at mid-point. A mix of different methods 
was used during the evaluation process, including both qualitative and quantitative approaches. 
Those methodological  approaches  complemented each other; for instance, the results of  the 
quantitative methods were used to improve the understanding of the qualitative results and vice 
versa. That was done to ensure a well-evidenced approach and the triangulation of evidence.  

The external evaluation assignment was carried out between June 2023 and October 2024 and 
included a 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 gathered mainly through the following consultation activities: 

•  a  call  for  evidence  on  the  Commission’s  ‘Have  Your  Say’ portal  from  18  October  to 

15 November 2022; 

•  a public consultation on the ‘Have Your Say’ portal from 13 November 2023 to 5 February 

2024; 

•  a  survey  programme  consisting  of  five  targeted  surveys  conducted  across  different 
stakeholder  groups,  including  individual  participants  and  organisations  involved  in  the 
European Solidarity Corps and EU Aid Volunteers Initiative. The surveys were designed 
on the basis of evaluation questions and feedback, translated into multiple languages, and 
conducted online;   

•  an interview programme consisting of 121 interviews conducted with a diverse range of 
stakeholders from various backgrounds and regions to gain in-depth insights and expand 
the understanding of the programme’s impact.  

Case studies were carried out. There were eight country-level case studies and five horizontal 
case studies on thematic priorities. Data were collected through desk research, selected survey 
questions and interviews. 

64 

 
 
 
4.  Annex II. Methodology and analytical models used 

The evaluations of the 2018-2020 and 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps were based on 
the  triangulation  of  data  collected  using  the  following  methods:  (i)  desk  research;  (ii) 
stakeholder  consultation  activities  (the  public  consultation,  the  survey  programme  and 
interviews); (iii) case studies; (iv) counterfactual analysis; (v) cost-effectiveness assessment; 
and (vi) social media analysis. 

Desk research 

The desk research for this evaluation comprised: 

1.  a review of relevant literature and documents;  

2.  an analysis of administrative and monitoring data collected for each programming 

period.  

The review and the analysis provided key sources of evidence for answering several evaluation 
questions, and they informed the preparation of case studies. 

Desk research was also used for preparing to apply other research methods, including interview 
and survey programmes, the public consultation and the accompanying questionnaires, and the 
cost-effectiveness assessment. 

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

a.  policy  documents,  which  provided  the  programme’s  legal  and  operational  framework 
(including  its  establishing  regulations  Regulation  (EU)  2018/1475  and  Regulation  (EU) 
2021/888,  Commission 
(EU)  C(2021)  7493,  Council 
Recommendation  2022/C  157/01  and  the  accompanying  Commission  staff  working 
documents, and the 2019-2027 European Union youth strategy); 

Implementing  Decision 

b.  studies,  evaluations  and  assessments  analysing  the  programme’s  implementation 
(including RAY Network reports and studies, studies prepared for the CULT and EMPL 
Committees92,  the  2018  ex ante  evaluation  accompanying  the  proposal  for  a  regulation 
establishing the European Solidarity Corps);  

c.  relevant technical and operational documents, which provided both valuable contextual 
evidence and statistical and monitoring data (including annual work programmes, annual 
programme  guides,  DG  EAC’s  annual  activity  reports,  Commission  implementation 
guidelines on inclusion and diversity, Commission documentation related to management 
support tools, National Agencies’ implementation reports and the YouthWiki). 

The  European  Solidarity  Corps’  monitoring  dashboards  (which  DG  EAC  allowed  the 
evaluation team to access) served as a key source of administrative and monitoring data for the 
evaluation,  and  were  particularly  helpful  for  answering  evaluation  questions  related  to  the 
programme’s effectiveness and efficiency. However, the evaluation was impeded by gaps and 

92 European Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education and Committee on Employment and Social Affairs 

65 

 
 
 
limitations in the available data,  including incomplete data on the implementation of the 2021-
2023 European Solidarity Corps programme at the time of evaluation, and gaps and limitations 
in the 2018-2020 budget data. As a result, certain parts of the cost-effectiveness assessment 
were inconclusive. 

Stakeholder consultations 

The consultation strategy for the evaluation was based on a mapping of stakeholders and used 
the consultation activities listed below that were designed to involve a broad range of the 2018-
2020 and 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps stakeholders, participants and the public. 

•  A  public  consultation  covering  both  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  and  the  EU  Aid 
Volunteers  Initiative  on  the  Commission’s  ‘Have  Your  Say’  portal  in  all  official  EU 
languages  (from  13 November  2023  until  5 February  2024).  It  was  open  to  programme 
participants, other relevant stakeholders, such as management and implementation bodies, 
national  authorities, international  organisations  and networks,  and the general  public. In 
total,  673  responses  were  received,  of  which  565  addressed  the  programme’s 
implementation. 

•  Three targeted surveys addressing: 

o  organisations  who  participated  in  the  programme;  in  total,  they  provided  1 306 
responses to the survey (held from 25 January 2024 until 12 February 2024); 

o 

o 

individuals  who  participated  in  the  programme;  in  total,  they  provided  10 555 
responses to the survey (held from 25 January 2024 until 12 February 2024); 

individuals who applied to participate in the programme but were rejected; in total, 
they  provided  5 993  responses  to  the  survey  (held  from  13 February  2024  until 
28 February 2024). 

• 

Interviews  with  programme  participants,  management  and  implementation  bodies,  and 
policymakers  at  EU  and  national  level,  international  organisations  and  networks,  and 
external experts/evaluators (from August 2023 until April 2024). In total, 96 interviewees 
were consulted. 

Those different types of stakeholder consultations were complementary because:  

• 

• 

large-scale  surveys  of  participating  organisations  and  individual  volunteers  of  the 
programme provided robust evidence on its effectiveness and efficiency;  
interviews with participants, managing and implementing bodies, and external experts and 
organisations served also to cover relevance and coherence evaluation issues.  

The survey of individual European Solidarity Corps applicants was used mainly to provide data 
for  the  counterfactual  analysis.  The  public  consultation  covered  all  evaluation  criteria  and 
enabled not only participants but also other stakeholders and the general public to provide their 
views on the programme. 

Case studies 

66 

 
Data for the case studies was collected through desk research, selected survey questions and 
interviews.  Key  insights  and  examples  from  the  case  studies  have  been  included  in  the 
evaluation’s  final  report.  The  evaluation  team  carried  out  the  following  10  case  studies  to 
examine the key aspects and achievements of the European Solidarity Corps in depth. 

•  Six  country-level  case  studies  that  contributed  to  a  comprehensive  evaluation  of  the 
programme  by  examining  country-level  results  in  Latvia,  Slovenia,  the  Netherlands, 
Germany and Türkiye. The countries selected included both those where the programme’s 
popularity  was  higher  and  those  where  it  was  lower.  In  addition,  the  evaluation  team 
produced a comparative report on the case studies.  

•  Four  horizontal  case  studies  that  addressed  specific  topics  and  areas  considered  highly 
relevant  to  the  programme’s  evaluation  periods.  The  case  studies  brought  together  key 
findings on certain important areas of programme performance across different evaluation 
criteria and also enabled the evaluation team to address issues that were covered either not 
at all, or only to a limited extent, by the evaluation questions.  

Table 1. Horizontal case studies 

CASE STUDY 

programme’s 
The 
to 
contribution 
improved 
social 
inclusion and diversity 

THEME 

Examining  the  extent  to  which  the  2021-2027  European 
Solidarity  Corps  programme  has  so  far  been  successful  in 
reaching  the  goal  (set  in  the  European  Solidarity  Corps 
Regulation  (EU)  2021/888)  of  putting  in  place  special 
measures to promote social inclusion and the participation of 
disadvantaged young people. 

Sustainable 
development 
programme 

in 

the 

Evaluating the extent to which the programme was in line with 
sustainable development  principles  and respected the ‘do no 
harm’  principle  laid  down  in  the  European  Solidarity  Corps 
Regulation (EU) 2021/888. 

The  added  value  of  the 
programme’s 
international/cross-
border dimension  

Evaluating  the  results  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps 
programme in fostering: (1) cross-cultural understanding and 
cooperation;  (2)  a  sense  of  European  identity  among  young 
people;  and  (3)  the  development  of  partnerships  between 
organisations from different participating countries. 

The 
flexibility 
adaptability  

programme’s 
and 

Evaluating how flexible the programme is in adapting to major 
external challenges such as COVID-19 or Russia’s invasion of 
Ukraine, as well as the impact of inflation. 

Counterfactual analysis 

The evaluation used counterfactual impact evaluation methods and techniques to measure the 
causal  effect  of  participation  in  the  2018-2020  and  2021-2027  European  Solidarity  Corps 
programme. The aim was to determine the programme’s effectiveness and impact on individual 

67 

 
 
 
 
participants. The analysis used administrative and survey data to compare the characteristics 
of  individual  European  Solidarity  Corps  participants  (who  represented  the  treatment  group) 
with those of non-participants (meaning rejected applicants to the programme, who represented 
the control group). 

The study team focused on several prominent themes in the analysis of the programme’s effects 
on participants: (1) participation in volunteering and solidarity activities outside the European 
Solidarity Corps; (2) sociopolitical values; (3) professional and educational influence; and (4) 
language  learning.  The  findings  of  the  counterfactual  analysis  were  integrated  into  the 
evaluation’s final report. This method included the steps described below. 

•  Data  collection:  The  study  team  received  a  set  of  available  data  on  applicants  and 
participants  in  the  programme,  including  contact  details  for  the  whole  population  of 
participants. For the population of applicants, the study team requested a stratified random 
dataset  of  applicants  matched  to  the  participant  population  on  four  covariates:  action 
applied  for;  country  of  residence;  gender;  and  year  of  birth. Applicants  and  participants 
were then invited to respond to surveys which included questions about their background, 
their situation at the time applying to the programme and their current situation. 

•  Data analysis: The study team selected genetic matching (GM) as the method to reduce 
bias in estimating treatment effects. GM, while more time consuming, is superior to other 
methods because it is designed to optimise the balance of covariates between treatment and 
control groups without relying on a specific propensity score model. Using this method, the 
study  team  selected  a  control  group  whose  distribution  of  covariates  was  similar  to  the 
treatment group. 

•  Assumptions:  The  family  of  matching  methods  is  subject  to  three  key  statistical 
assumptions.  Two  of  these  assumptions  (the  unconfoundedness  assumption  and  the 
positivity assumption) were fully satisfied in the analysis, while the third assumption (the 
stable  unit  treatment  values  assumption)  was  partially  satisfied.  The  consistency  of 
treatment  assumption  is  a  limitation  of  the  current  counterfactual  analysis  due  to  the 
inherent  characteristics  of  the  programme,  which  include  highly  diverse  conditions  of 
participation and the potential for unobserved characteristics that may affect the quality of 
participation.  To  reduce  the  effects  of  this  limitation,  the  study  team  included  the 
characteristics  of  the  activities/projects  as  covariates  in  the  post-matching  regression 
algorithms: duration, full participation and multiple participations. This allowed the study 
team to account for the effects of these variations. Nonetheless, while the analysis’ average 
treatment effects on treated units (participants) hold and can be used to assess the overall 
effect  of  the  programme,  it  can  potentially  produce  biased  estimates  for  individual 
participants. 

•  Method:  The  study  team  used  the  GM  algorithm  in  R  (a  software  environment  for 
statistical computing and data visualisation). This method iteratively searches to optimise 
covariate  balance  between  the  treatment  and  control  groups.  To  improve  the  study’s 
external validity, the study team applied weights to the survey dataset before the matching 
procedures,  which  were  multiplied  to  produce  the  final  analytical  weights  used  in  the 
analysis. The study team used matching with replacement, which is known to maximise 

68 

 
balance  and  minimise  conditional  bias  in  the  observed  variables.  The  GM  process 
significantly improved the balance of covariates. 

Cost-effectiveness assessment 

The evaluation included a cost-effectiveness assessment for the evaluation of the 2018-2020 
and 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps. The analysis estimated the costs of the programme 
in euro values and in current prices, while the benefits were qualified and – where possible – 
quantified.  The  assessment  findings  are  included  in  the  final  evaluation  report  under  the 
efficiency criteria for each programming period. However, gaps and limitations in the available 
data mean that certain parts of the analysis were inconclusive, such as the comparisons between 
the European Solidarity Corps programming periods and the comparisons between the direct 
and indirect management actions. 

Social media analysis 

The evaluation used social media analysis to assess the visibility of the European Solidarity 
Corps  programme  and  the  sentiment  of  the  messages  it  promoted.  The  analysis  helped 
determine how much the results of the programmes were disseminated and how successful the 
programme  was  in  attracting  and  reaching  target  audiences  and  groups  within  the  different 
areas of the programme’s scope. 

The analysis used the Bandwatch social media analytic tool to track social media pages daily. 
The tool collected approximately 79 000 unique mentions of the European Solidarity Corps 
and other relevant search terms from various sources, including: (i) social media pages, such 
as X (Twitter), Instagram, and Facebook; (ii) EU websites, such as europa.eu, yeseuropa.org, 
salto-youth.net; (iii) other relevant websites, such as reliefweb.int; forums, such as reddit.com; 
and (iv) news sites; video platforms, such as youtube.com. The timeline used for the analysis 
encompasses data mentions collected from the 1 January 2018 to the 22 April 2024. 

The social media mentions collected were further examined through discourse analysis. The 
main themes that emerged are the promotion and visibility of the European Solidarity Corps; 
engagement  with  unforeseen  events,  such  as  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and  the  UK´s 
withdrawal from the EU (Brexit); as well as discourses of funding and financial support and 
engagement and community building. The key findings of the analysis were included in the 
final evaluation report. 

Key  limitations  that  may  affect  the  main  observations  of  this  analysis  include  content 
sources, timeline, technical limitations, and the collection of demographic information. The 
analysis shows an overrepresentation of information from X. This is mainly due to the web 
crawler/scraping limitations for other social media platforms, such as Facebook, Instagram 
and  LinkedIn.  The  findings  may  also  have  been  affected  by  increasing  limitations  for 
scraping social media accounts and other websites and by the COVID-19 pandemic. Since 
demographic  data  were  only  available  on  X,  it  was  not  used  for  the  analysis  to  avoid 
potential biases. 

69 

 
 
Limitations and constraints 

Indicators  and  assessment  parameters  as  well  as  information  sources  and  methods  were 
assigned to each evaluation question. The evaluation study used this operationalisation of the 
evaluation  questions in  the collection and analysis of both  quantitative and qualitative data, 
allowing for data triangulation and providing an appropriate mix of evidence for the evaluation 
questions at hand. DG EAC and the interservice group also reviewed the final evaluation report 
several times and provided detailed feedback and comments.  

Most of the key limitations and constraints were identified by the end of the inception phase. 
These are described below, together with the mitigation measures the team took to ensure the 
robustness of the evidence base. 

-  The  response  rate  and  number  of  responses  to  the  targeted  surveys  varied  between 
different stakeholder groups. The study team made significant communication efforts, 
including a user-friendly, thoroughly tested survey design, an extended survey deadline, 
and additional reminders, which led to active participation from many groups. Although 
the  response  rate  among  individual  applicants  and  participants  in  the  European 
Solidarity Corps was slightly lower than that of organisations, their contributions were 
sufficient to achieve data saturation. The number of responses collected for all target 
groups was sufficient in absolute terms to carry out statistical analyses, in particular for 
the counterfactual analysis of European Solidarity Corps participants.  

-  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 representatives of management and implementation bodies, national authorities, 
participating individuals and organisations, external experts and other stakeholders. The 
evaluation also took into account secondary sources of information, particularly reports 
from networks and research bodies on the implementation of the European Solidarity 
Corps programme. The findings presented under each evaluation criterion also clearly 
indicate the extent to which they are based on opinions, facts or other types of evidence. 
-  The  administrative  and  monitoring  data  collected  by  the  programme  served  as  an 
important  source  for  a  sound  analysis  of  the  performance  and  cost-effectiveness. 
However, the evaluation faced challenges due to gaps and limitations in the available 
data. These include incomplete data on the implementation of the 2021-2023 European 
Solidarity Corps programme at the time of evaluation and gaps and limitations in the 
2018-2020 budget data. While the evaluation used other data collection and analysis 
methods  to  validate  and  contextualise  the  findings,  analyses  of  some  aspects  of  the 
programme’s cost-effectiveness (mainly comparisons between programming periods or 
between  direct  and  indirect  management  actions)  remained  inconclusive.  These 
limitations  are  clearly  identified  and  contextualised  in  the  relevant  sections  on 
programme efficiency. 

Taken together, the triangulation of data from a highly diverse set of methods applied by the 
evaluation and the high number and diversity of responses to the consultation activities (public 

70 

 
consultation, interviews and targeted surveys) provide reliable evaluation evidence and robust 
results. 

71 

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

2018-2020 and 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps: Complete list of evaluation questions, assessment parameters and methods 

5.1  Effectiveness 

The evaluation of effectiveness assesses how successful the European Solidarity Corps programme has been in achieving, or progressing towards, 
its objectives. The matrix outlines the approach to analysing the extent to which the programme has delivered the expected outputs, results and 
impacts.  All  data  collection  and  analysis  methods  contribute  to  answering  the  effectiveness  questions.  However,  surveys,  the  counterfactual 
analysis and case studies are particularly important for determining the programme’s impact. 

Summary of evaluation findings 

During the 2018-2020 period, the European Solidarity Corps programme faced regulatory and pandemic-related challenges, resulting in a gradual 
increase  in  mobility  of  participants,  though  falling  short  of  initial  targets.  Despite  these  challenges,  participants  expressed  high  satisfaction, 
particularly  in  relation  to  improved  personal,  professional  and  educational  skills,  along  with  a  better  sense  of  solidarity  and  civic  awareness. 
Organisations reported improvements in project-related skills and the Quality Label’s positive influence on future projects and fundraising. Local 
impacts included fostering a sense of community, revitalising local initiatives and promoting the EU’s values, thereby improving the perception 
of the EU within communities. 

For the period evaluated, the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme demonstrated a comprehensive series of benefits across individual, 
organisational  and  community  levels,  contributing  to  systemic  impacts  aligned  with  the  Commission’s  policy  priorities.  Participants  reported 
strong individual outcomes, including high satisfaction, improved personal, professional and study skills, and increased social and civic awareness, 
leading to greater post-programme engagement. Organisations saw improved skills in project planning, implementation and reporting, as well as 
benefits from the Quality Label for future fundraising and project delivery. The programme also positively impacted community development by 
revitalising local initiatives, promoting a global perspective and improving the perception of the EU and its values. 

72 

 
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 
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 outputs, results and impacts? 
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme          2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme 
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 an explanation of their influence 
INDICATORS 
1.1.1. Outputs (short-term) 
▪  Number and proportion of outputs produced by the 2018-2020 
European Solidarity Corps programme and by the 2021-2027 
programme 

▪  Proportion of stakeholders satisfied with the outputs 

▪  Number and proportion of outputs that can be attributed thematically 
as contributing to inclusion and diversity, the digital transformation, 
the environment and the fight against climate change, participation 
in democratic life 

▪  The trend of the number of hosting organisations that took part in the 

European Solidarity Corps programmes 

1.2.1: Negative and positive factors influencing outputs, results and impacts 

73 

 
▪  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 

1.3.1 . Results and impacts (medium- to long-term results) 
Improved skills and competencies for personal, educational and professional development 
▪  Proportion of participants who consider that their skills and 
competencies for personal, educational and professional 
development have improved as a result of participation in European 
Solidarity Corps activities 

▪  Proportion of participants who are aware of EU common values and 

EU projects in the youth, solidarity and volunteering fields as a result 
of participation in European Solidarity Corps activities 

▪  Proportion of participants who consider that their employment 

▪  Proportion of participants who consider their English and third-

language skills have improved from their participation in European 
Solidarity Corps training activities 

▪  Proportion of participants that feel more self-empowered and self-
esteem as a result of participation in European Solidarity Corps 
activities 

▪  Proportion of participants who started their own private or non-

governmental initiatives after participating in European Solidarity 
Corps activities 

▪  Proportion of participants who started their own private socially-

opportunities have improved as a result of participation in European 
Solidarity Corps activities 

▪  Proportion of participants who consider engaging in solidarity 

activities, democratic life and society after participating in European 
Solidarity Corps activities 

▪  Proportion of participants who claim that their habits, consumption 

patterns and preferences became more sustainable after participating 
in 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps activities 

▪  Proportion of participants who claim that their digital skills improved 
from participating in 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps activities  

oriented business 

▪  Proportion of participants who consider their decision to enrol in 
educational institutions was inspired by their participation in 
European Solidarity Corps activities 

Build the capacity of hosting organisations to offer quality solidarity activities  
▪  Proportion of organisations and institutions that consider they have 
improved their standard operating procedures and partnerships as a 
result of their participation in European Solidarity Corps activities 

▪  Proportion of organisations and institutions that consider their 
professional environment has improved as a result of their 
participation in European Solidarity Corps activities 

▪  The proportion of hosting organisations that participated in more 
EU/international level activities after taking part in European 
Solidarity Corps activities 

▪  Evidence of participating in European Solidarity Corps helping 

improve diversity practices in the hosting organisations 

74 

 
Improve capacity of local communities to address societal challenges 
▪  Evidence that 2014-2020 solidarity projects addressed local issues or 

developed local opportunities 

▪  Evidence that volunteering projects improved social cohesion and 

civic engagement in local communities 

▪  Evidence that participating in European Solidarity Corps activities 
improved hosting communities’ capacities to address societal 
challenges, including sustainability issues 

▪  Evidence that volunteering projects improved the sense of ownership 

over the development of local communities 

▪  Evidence that the hosting communities’ improved capacities to 

▪  Evidence that the activities have inspired other young people and 

address societal challenges are sustainable 

organisations to engage in similar solidarity activities 

Improve opportunities for the public to participate in humanitarian aid activities and operations 
▪  Number of sending organisations with the specific Quality Label for humanitarian aid volunteering activities 
▪  Number of hosting organisations with the specific Quality Label for humanitarian aid volunteering activities 
▪  Proportion of stakeholders who think that the humanitarian aid strand of European Solidarity Corps has contributed to increasing and improving 

the EU's humanitarian aid capacities 

▪  Extent to which the programme was able to target its support both to delivery of humanitarian aid to those in the recipient/beneficiary local 

communities who are most in need and to their specific needs 

Improve capacity to respond to humanitarian crises and resilience of vulnerable or disaster-affected communities in non-EU countries 
▪  Extent to which local staff and volunteers from the countries and communities in which they are implemented were actively involved in the 

programme 

▪  Extent to which the action has contributed to efforts to strengthen local preparedness or the response to humanitarian crises 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 

Desk research: Documents outlining key priorities and objectives of the programmes, such as annual work programmes, guides and legal and policy 
documents. Annual activity/implementation reports of the programmes, DG EAC, EACEA and National Agencies. Previous evaluations, reports and 
assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity. Research data and findings from relevant 
networks and stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations. 

75 

 
 
 
 
EFFECTIVENESS 
EQ02 

2.1 To what extent have the 2018-2020 and 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programmes succeeded in transforming an 
initiative primarily focused on the learning outcomes of the participants (European Voluntary Service - EVS) into an initiative 
that retains learning mobility and non-formal learning at its heart but has a clear ambition to achieve positive societal changes 
and  enhance  solidarity  across  Europe?  How  many  and  what  types  of  positive  societal  changes  have  been  induced  by  the 
programmes? 

2.2 Have the original objectives set out by the Juncker Commission with regard to these measures been achieved? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

2.1.1. Has the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme achieved its learning outcomes objectives? 
2.1.2. How successful has the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme been in achieving positive societal challenge and enhancing solidarity 
across Europe? 
2.1.3. What is the share of learning mobility and non-formal learning in the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme's activities? 
2.1.4. What kind of societal changes did the programmes induce? 
2.2.1. Have the Juncker Commission's original objectives for these measures been achieved? 

SCOPE 

2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme         2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme 

JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 

▪  The extent to which the programmes still retain a focus on learning 

▪  The extent to which the Juncker Commission's relevant objectives 

outcomes for participants 

have been addressed and achieved 

▪  The extent to which the programmes demonstrate a clear ambition to 

▪  The extent to which the ambition to achieve positive societal changes 

achieve positive societal changes and enhance solidarity 

and enhance solidarity was addressed 

INDICATORS 

The extent to which the programmes still retain a focus on learning outcomes for participants 

▪  Stability of objectives about learning outcomes 

▪  Quantitative trends of such objectives and associated outputs (e.g. 

budget spent, number of projects, etc.) over time 

The extent to which the Juncker Commission's relevant objectives have been addressed  

76 

 
▪  Number of the Juncker Commission’s objectives addressed by the 

▪  The extent to which the objective of a union of democratic change has 

programmes 

been achieved 

▪  The extent to which the objective of a connected digital single 

▪  The extent to which the objective of a new boost for jobs, growth and 

market has been achieved 

investment has been achieved 

▪  The extent to which the objective of justice and fundamental rights 

based on mutual trust has been achieved 

The extent to which the programmes demonstrate a clear ambition to achieve positive societal changes and enhance solidarity 

▪  The extent to which objectives on positive societal changes and 

▪  Proportion of stakeholders who have a shared understanding of 

improved solidarity are well-defined 

solidarity and positive social change 

▪  Existence and quality of measurable objectives on positive societal 

changes and improved solidarity  

The extent to which the ambition to achieve positive societal changes and enhance solidarity was addressed 

▪  Number of successful projects and their regional distribution 
▪  Number of young people who participated in the programme and 

their regional distribution 

▪  Extent to which European Solidarity Corps participants have 
developed new transferable skills and competencies, such as 
communication or teamwork 

▪  The extent to which European Solidarity Corps participants have 
continued to be engaged in social and civic activities beyond their 
initial participation in the programme 

▪  The extent to which European Solidarity Corps projects improved 
cross-cultural understanding, including between participants from 
diverse backgrounds 

▪  The extent to which European Solidarity Corps participants have 

▪  The number of participants continuing to engage in social and civic 

contributed to the needs of the host communities 

activities after completing their projects 

▪  The number of disadvantaged and marginalised groups that the 

projects reached 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 

Desk research: Documents outlining key priorities and objectives of the programmes, such as annual work programmes, guides and legal and policy 
documents. Annual activity/implementation reports of the programmes, DG EAC, EACEA and National Agencies. Previous evaluations, reports and 
assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity. Research data and findings from relevant 
networks and stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations. 

77 

 
 
EFFECTIVENESS 
EQ03 

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

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

3.1.1.  What  share  of  participants  share  the  same  understanding  of  solidarity  as  a  composition  of  empathy,  active  citizenship,  human  rights  and 
inclusion? 
3.1.2. What share of participants became engaged in other solidarity activities after taking part in the programme? 

SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme          2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 

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

Impact of the programmes on individuals and communities 

INDICATORS 

Participation and participants’ attitudes 

▪  The number and gender of young people who participated in the programmes and the national and regional diversity 
▪  Extent to which programme participants felt engaged and committed to promoting solidarity 
Impact of the programmes 

▪  The extent to which the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps 

▪  The extent to which the programmes had a measurable and positive 

programme has spread the concept of social entrepreneurship among 
participants 

▪  The extent to which the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps 

programme has achieved a more active participation of young people 
in democratic life and in society in general 

impact on communities in terms of improving solidarity 

▪  The extent to which the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps 
programme has achieved more willingness of young people to 
remain active and engaged in the area of solidarity 

▪  The extent to which the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps 

programme has increased young people's sense of belonging in the 
EU 

Collaboration 

78 

 
▪ 

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

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 

Desk research: Annual activity/implementation reports of National Agencies. Previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and 
horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity. Research data and findings from relevant networks and stakeholders’ position 
papers and recommendations. Monitoring data and good practice examples from project databases and management tools (both public and internal) 
and Eurobarometer surveys. 

EFFECTIVENESS 
EQ04 

4.1  How  did  the  2018-2020  and  2021-2027  European  Solidarity  Corps  programmes  help  address  societal  and  humanitarian 
challenges  in  local  communities?  How  did  the  2021-2027  European  Solidarity  Corps  humanitarian  aid  strand  help  address 
humanitarian challenges in local communities outside of the EU and programme countries? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

4.1.1. What were the societal and humanitarian challenges in local communities where the European Solidarity Corps operated? 
4.1.2. How successfully has the European Solidarity Corps addressed these challenges? 
4.1.3.  What were the humanitarian and development challenges in local communities where the humanitarian aid strand of the European Solidarity 
Corps operated? 
4.1.4. How successfully has the humanitarian aid strand of the European Solidarity Corps addressed these challenges? 

SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme          2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 

Results and impacts of European Solidarity Corps projects and activities on societal and humanitarian challenges in local communities  

INDICATORS 

▪ 

▪ 

List of achieved results and impacts on societal and humanitarian challenges in local communities 
Local stakeholders’ satisfaction with the quality of outputs produced (proportion of stakeholders satisfied with the outputs from the surveys 
and the trend in expressing satisfaction with the outputs through the interviews) 

79 

 
 
 
LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 

Desk  research:  Annual  activity/implementation  reports  of  National  Agencies  and  EACEA.  Previous  evaluations,  reports  and  assessments  of  the 
programmes  and  horizontal/transnational  studies  on  youth,  volunteering  and  solidarity.  Research  data  and  findings  from  relevant  networks  and 
stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations. Monitoring data and good practice examples from project databases and management tools (both 
public and internal). 

EFFECTIVENESS 
EQ05 

5.1 What are the main specific impacts of the European Solidarity Corps activities on the inclusion of young participants with 
fewer opportunities? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

5.1.1. What is the share of participants with fewer opportunities in the ESC? 
5.1.2. How has participation in the European Solidarity Corps impacted young people with fewer opportunities? 

SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme          2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 
▪ 

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

▪  Disaggregating results and impacts by group wherever possible and 
identifying the different types and amount of benefits obtained per 
average group member 

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

▪  The efforts and their results to promote inclusion in hard-to-reach 
and disadvantaged groups identified through review of monitoring 
data, literature and project outputs 

▪  Disaggregation of the results and impacts (EQ1) in terms of hard-to-
reach and disadvantaged groups (especially in terms of disabilities, 
health problems, barriers linked to education and training systems) 
and gender dimension 

▪  Proportion of overall participants from hard-to-reach and 

disadvantaged groups 

80 

 
 
 
LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 
Desk research: Annual activity/implementation reports of National Agencies. Previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and 
horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity. Research data and findings from relevant networks and stakeholders’ position 
papers and recommendations. Monitoring data and good practice examples from project databases and management tools (both public and internal). 
Methods:  Metanalysis  of  all  findings  related  to  disadvantaged  groups,  analysis  of  existing  monitoring  and  other  data,  surveys  of  learners  and 
practitioners, interviews, case studies, online public consultation, literature review, and review of project outputs. 

EFFECTIVENESS 
EQ06 

6.1 What was the impact of the change from the Erasmus+ youth programmes (including the EVS) to the European Solidarity 
Corps programmes on all the stakeholders concerned? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

6.1.1.  Has  the  transition  from  the  Erasmus+  youth  programmes  (including  the  EVS)  to  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  programmes  affected  the 
composition of stakeholder groups? 
6.1.2. How has the transition impacted the stakeholder groups that were active in both programmes? 

SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme          2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 

▪  Participation: The extent to which the change affected the participation of young people in the programmes, including the number and diversity 

of participants, and their level of engagement and commitment to the programmes 

▪  Opportunities: The extent to which the change affected the range and quality of opportunities available to young people, including the variety of 
projects and activities offered, the level of support provided, and the relevance of the opportunities to young people's needs and aspirations 
▪  Integration: The extent to which the change affected the programme’s integration into the wider EU policy framework, and their alignment with 

the EU’s broader objectives and priorities 

▪  Visibility: The extent to which the change affected the visibility and recognition of the programmes, both within the EU and internationally, and 

their ability to attract new participants and partners 

▪  Sustainability: The extent to which the change affected the sustainability of the programmes, including their ability to secure funding, maintain 

partnerships and deliver long-term impact for participants and communities 

INDICATORS 

81 

 
 
▪  Participation rate in the Erasmus+ youth and European Solidarity 

Corps programmes 

▪  Opinions of organisations that participated in both programmes 
▪  Changes in results on the participating individuals, organisations 

▪  The number of volunteering and solidarity projects organised per 

and communities 

year by both programmes 

▪  Number and distribution of host organisations involved in both 

▪  Background of participants in the Erasmus+ youth and European 

programmes 

Solidarity Corps programmes 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 

Desk research: Monitoring and administrative data on the outputs and results of the European Solidarity Corps and the EVS. Previous evaluations, 
reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity. Stakeholders’ position papers 
and recommendations on the programmes. 
Survey  of  individual  European  Solidarity  Corps  participants,  young  people  who  have  not  participated,  and  organisations  that  participated  in  the 
European Solidarity Corps. 
Interviews with individual participants, participating organisations, authorities and supervisory bodies (DG EAC), national authorities, EU bodies and 
policymakers, external experts. 

EFFECTIVENESS 
EQ07 

7.1  What  were  the  unintended  effects  of  the  2018-2020  European  Solidarity  Corps  programme,  if  any,  and  what  was  their 
magnitude? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

7.1.1. Has the European Solidarity Corps had any unintended effects? 
7.1.2. What unintended effects did the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme have? 
7.1.3. What was their magnitude?  
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 

▪ 

Identification and scope of unintended effects on participants 

▪ 

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

82 

 
 
INDICATORS 
▪  Feedback from participating young people and organisations on the 

unanticipated effects of the programmes 

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

unintended consequences 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 
Interviews, surveys of experts, National Agencies and practitioners, analysis of unstructured monitoring information (e.g. project reports), case studies, 
online public consultation, literature review. Case studies. 
Desk research: Annual activity/implementation reports of the programmes, DG EAC, EACEA and National Agencies. Previous evaluations, reports 
and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity. Research data and findings from relevant 
networks and stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations. Monitoring data from project databases and management tools (both public and 
internal). 

EFFECTIVENESS 
EQ08 

8.1 For the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme, what can be done to increase the number of participants in short-
term  activities  (e.g.  volunteering  teams  and  solidarity  projects)  and,  consequently,  the  number  of  participants  in  the  whole 
programme? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

8.1.1. What was the yearly number of participants in 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps short-term activities? 
8.1.2. What were the reasons for participating in 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps short-term activities? 
8.1.3. How well were the short-term activities promoted? 
8.1.4. What were the reasons for not being selected for participation in 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps short-term activities? 
SCOPE 
2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 

83 

 
 
 
▪  Assessment of the level of demand for short-term activities in 

different countries 

▪  Accessibility of the programme for participants from communities 

with fewer opportunities 

▪  The level of awareness about short-term activities among different 

participating groups 

INDICATORS 

▪  Sufficiency of financing conditions for short-term activities 
▪  Cohesion of the programme schedule with other programmes and 
national events (university schedules, events and projects, etc.) 

Relevance and accessibility of short-term activities 
▪  Evidence that financial support is sufficient to participate or 

▪  Proportion of non-EU-country nationals that are satisfied with the 

organise short-term activities 

visa support in short-term activities 

▪  Proportion of young people who find short-term activities relevant 

▪  The level of competitiveness of the calls for short-term activities  

to them 

Communication materials promoting short-term activities 
▪  Number of posts and promotion materials per each short-term 

▪  Proportion of participants in short-term activities who applied due 

activity every year 

to a communication material 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 

Desk research: Annual activity/implementation reports of the programmes, DG EAC, EACEA and National Agencies. Previous evaluations, reports 
and  assessments  of  the  programmes  and  horizontal/transnational  studies  on  youth,  volunteering  and  solidarity.  Research  data  and  findings  from 
relevant networks and stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations. Relevant Eurobarometer surveys. 
Survey  of  individual  European  Solidarity  Corps  participants,  young  people  who  did  not  participate,  organisations  that  participated  in  European 
Solidarity Corps. 
Interviews with individual participants, participating organisations, authorities and supervisory bodies (DG EAC), national authorities, EU bodies and 
policymakers, external experts. 

EFFECTIVENESS 
EQ09 

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

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

84 

 
 
9.1.1. Which of the impacts were sustained upon the completion of projects (without EU support)? 
9.1.2. How likely are the new impacts to be sustained upon the completion of projects (without EU support)? 
9.1.3. How do stakeholder perceive the effects’ durations? 
9.1.4. How likely are the impacts also to be achieved in the new/ongoing programme? 
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme          2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme 

85 

 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 

▪  Evidence of the pathways followed by participating individuals and 

▪  Evidence of European Solidarity Corps projects 

organisations and the role of the European Solidarity Corps in developing 
skills and changing the perspectives of participating young people 
▪  The extent to which the European Solidarity Corps activities have built 

sustainable structures and systems in local communities or host 
organisations that can continue to function and have an impact after the 
activity has ended 

▪  The extent to which the activities have fostered a sense of ownership 
among local communities, by involving them in the design and 
implementation of the activity, and 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 

contributing to organisational change and partnerships 

▪  Evidence of European Solidarity Corps projects 
contributing to systemic and policy change and 
partnerships at community level 

▪  The extent to which the activities have boosted the local 

communities’ and host organisations’ capacity to continue 
to address the issues targeted by the activities after their 
completion, by strengthening their skills, knowledge, and 
resources, 

▪  The extent to which the activities have had a lasting 

impact on the participants, by increasing their awareness, 
skills, and knowledge, and encouraging their continued 
engagement in solidarity activities 

INDICATORS 
▪  Evidence of spillover effects within and beyond participating 
organisations, new and innovative approaches being adopted, 
institutionalised, and new capacities and partnerships being built and 
sustained 

▪  Proportion of participants with perceived and proven positive 

changes as a result of the programme 

▪  Proportion of participants and host organisations who continued to 
engage in solidarity activities after participating in European 
Solidarity Corps 

▪  Evidence of new policy approaches, guidelines and tools being 

adopted, innovative approaches being institutionalised via changes in 
legislation and new capacities and partnerships being built and 
sustained 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 
Desk research: Research data and findings from relevant networks and stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations. Monitoring data and good 
practice examples from project databases and management tools (both public and internal). Data and documents on national results, initiatives and 
developments, including national reports and YouthWiki. 

86 

 
Survey of individual European Solidarity Corps  participants  and organisations  that participated in the  European Solidarity Corps.  Interviews with 
individual participants, participating organisations, national authorities. 

EFFECTIVENESS 
EQ10 

10.1 To what extent are the programme’s results adequately disseminated and exploited? How successful has the programme been 
in  attracting  and  reaching  target  audiences  and  groups  at  an  individual  and  organisational  level?  How  well-known  is  the 
European Solidarity Corps programme among the youth and volunteering communities? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

10.1.1. How good was the reach of the programme’s primary dissemination activities? How active were the participating organisations in spreading 
(accurate and positive) information about the programme through their networks and communication tools? 
10.1.2. What was/is the level of awareness about European Solidarity Corps activities among the programme applicants, participants (before and after 
participation) and stakeholders? 
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme          2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 

The programme results are adequately disseminated and exploited  
▪  Awareness of the European Solidarity Corps is evidently increasing 

▪  There were/are plans and a strategy for disseminating European 

Solidarity Corps information at EU level 

▪  The programme achieved its key performance indicators in the 

communication area 

INDICATORS 
At European level 

87 

 
 
▪  The existence of and characteristics of the social media 

communication strategy itself, including frequency and distribution 
of content, types of media artefacts chosen for delivering the 
programme’s messages 

▪  The key performance indicators met by the social media 

communication strategy 

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

At beneficiary/project level 
▪  Participating organisations using diverse channels to disseminate the 

message about the programme 

▪  Proportion of participating organisations that shared the outputs and 

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

disseminated via the programme website 

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

▪  Proportion of potential beneficiaries that identify a lack of 

information about the programme as an obstacle to participation 
▪  Proportion of participants who shared the information about the 

results of the projects they hosted or supported  
LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 
Desk  research:  European  Solidarity  Corps  annual  work  programmes.  Previous  evaluations,  reports  and  assessments  of  the  programme  and 
horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity. Research data and findings from relevant networks and stakeholders’ position 
papers and recommendations. Results of the social media analysis. 
Survey of individual European Solidarity Corps participants, young people who have not participated, organisations that participated in European 
Solidarity  Corps.  Interviews  with  individual  participants,  participating  organisations,  authorities  and  supervisory  bodies  (DG  EAC),  national 
authorities and external experts. Social network analysis. 

programmes 

5.2.  Efficiency 

The efficiency analysis considers how effectively the European Solidarity Corps programme uses resources to achieve its intended objectives. It 
assesses whether the outputs, results and impacts are achieved with a reasonable allocation of financial and other resources, considering if the 
resources  allocated  are  necessary,  suitable  and  sufficient.  It  also  evaluates  the  efficiency  of  the  management  processes  at  all  levels  of  the 
programme. 

88 

 
 
Summary of evaluation findings 

During  the  2018-2020  period,  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  programme’s  funding  was  considered  appropriate,  though  inflexible  budget 
allocations  posed  challenges,  exacerbated  by  the  COVID-19  crisis.  The  administrative  burden  was  generally  viewed  as  reasonable.  While 
discrepancies in data limit a thorough evaluation of implementation efficiency, the programme appears to have been cost-effective in comparison 
to  other  initiatives.  Programme  management  was  moderately  efficient,  though  organisations  highlighted  the  need  for  more  user-friendly 
management tools. 

For  the  period  evaluated,  the  2021-2027  European  Solidarity Corps  programme  demonstrated  efficiency  in  management  and  implementation, 
though there are areas for improvement. Most participants and organisations found the administrative burden manageable, yet further simplification 
is needed, particularly for solidarity projects led by young people. Programme management has been efficient overall, with good collaboration 
between  participants  and  management  bodies,  and  flexible  approaches  helped  mitigate  the  impacts  of  external  shocks.  However,  the  overall 
programme  funding  was  insufficient  relative  to  the  needs  and  objectives,  and  inflation  has  further  constrained  resources.  Programme 
implementation has been efficient, with improved cost-effectiveness compared with the previous period, although more user-friendly IT systems 
with better functionality are still needed. 

Evaluation questions 

EFFICIENCY 
EQ11 

11.1  How  cost-effective  were/are  the  various  operational  actions  of  the  2018-2020  and  2021-2027  European  Solidarity  Corps 
programmes? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

11.1.1. How costly were the operational actions? How did the costs change over time? 
11.1.2. Did they achieve the intended objectives? 
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme          2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme 

89 

 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 
▪  Costs are the minimum necessary to achieve the intended effects 
▪  Unit costs are comparable across actions and between the 

programmes (taking account of differences in activities, e.g. 
duration; nature of activities carried out) 

▪  Necessity and proportionality of EU funding 
▪  European 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 the activities and to 

other EU programmes (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 in capabilities/capacities 

supported under the 2018-2020 or 2021-2027 European Solidarity 
Corps 

▪  Comparing/benchmarking within/between the programmes and 

similar programmes 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 with the 
simplified cost options)  

alongside associated unit costs 

▪  Participants’ and other stakeholders’ perceptions of value for money 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 
Cost-effectiveness analysis, benchmarking analysis, organisational, operational and managerial assessments. 
Analysis  of  administrative  and  monitoring  data,  survey  of  organisations,  survey  of  individuals,  stakeholder  consultations,  statistical  analysis, 
interviews, case studies 
Desk  research:  Annual  activity/implementation  reports  of  the  programme,  DG  EAC,  EACEA  and  National  Agencies.  Cumulative  programme 
performance overviews covering both the 2014-2020 and the 2021-2027 MFF. Up-to-date internal financial data. Previous evaluations, reports and 
assessments of the programme. 

EFFICIENCY 
EQ12 

12.1 How cost-effective were/are the quality support measures (training and evaluation measures, inclusion, online linguistic support, 
etc.)? 

90 

 
 
OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

12.1.1. How costly were the quality support measures? How did the costs change over time? 
12.1.2. Did they achieve the intended effects? 
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme          2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 

▪  Costs are the minimum necessary to achieve the intended effects 
▪  Unit costs are comparable across actions and between the programmes (taking account of differences in actions) 
▪  Necessity and proportionality of EU funding 
▪  European 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 activities (e.g. duration; nature of activities carried 

out) 

INDICATORS 

▪  Cost of quality support measures taken before, during and after 
solidarity activities (training, linguistic support, insurance, 
Youthpass, etc.) 

▪  Average survey scores for participants’ and stakeholders’ perceptions 

of the quality and accessibility of programmes 

▪  Cost of action support including management and organisational costs 

▪  Results of quality support measures taken before, during and after 

and information and communications technology costs 

solidarity activities (training, linguistic support, insurance, 
Youthpass, etc.) in quantitative descriptions of outcomes and 
improvements, such as improved skills, increased language 
proficiency, reduced risk, etc. 

▪  Cost of attribution of the Quality Label at activity and organisation 

level 

▪  Benefits of the Quality Label for organisations and for the actions  
LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 

▪  Quantitative descriptions of benefits gained of management and 

organisational support (including systems and tools) 

▪  Cost of supporting measures per new participant and/or organisation 

91 

 
All data collection and analysis methods (as this question covers the entirety of the intervention logic of the programme). 
Desk  research:  Annual  activity/implementation  reports  of  the  programme,  DG  EAC,  EACEA  and  National  Agencies.  Cumulative  programme 
performance overviews covering both the 2014-2020 and the 2021-2027 MFF. Up-to-date internal financial data. Previous evaluations, reports and 
assessments of the programmes. 

EFFICIENCY 
EQ13 

13.1 To what extent is/was the size of budget and the funding models appropriate and proportionate to what the 2018-2020 and 2021-
2027 European Solidarity Corps set out to achieve? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

13.1.1. What was the size of the programmes’ budgets? 
13.1.2. What funding models supported the programmes? 
13.1.3. Was the funding sufficient to reach the programmes’ goals and fulfil its objectives? 
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme          2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 
▪  The programmes achieved/are achieving their goals, and the 
organisation, operations, management modes and tools 
were/are implemented at minimum costs. 

in line with stakeholder expectations 

▪  Level of unsatisfied demand was/is comparable with other programmes and 

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

▪  The order of magnitude of the results of the programmes 

relative to baseline 

were/are commensurate by the earmarked budget 

INDICATORS 

Appropriateness of the budget to the planned achievements 

92 

 
▪  Extent to which the targets of the programmes were achieved 
▪  Extent to which the demand for funding was satisfied (success 

rates) 

▪  Correlation between funding allocations and the achievement of 

the overall targets 

▪  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 on the progress of 

the programmes towards its targets with available funds 

▪  Extent to which the actions’ objectives are achievable given the historical 

evidence on the cost-effectiveness of the programmes 

▪  Extent to which funding allocation to different actions of the action is 
likely to be sufficient for achieving the specific action objectives 
▪  Opinions of programme beneficiaries on the funding sufficiency 
▪  Extent to which organisations‘ beneficiaries confirm that participation in 

the programmes has a structuring effect for their entities 

Appropriateness of the distribution of funds across the different actions 
▪  Proportion of the overall programmes budgets that were 

▪  Quantitative assessment and percentage to which highly cost-effective 

allocated to quality support measures 

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

actions of the programmes were/are also among the actions with the highest 
share of the overall budget 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 
Analysis  of  administrative  and  monitoring  data,  survey  of  organisations,  statistical  analysis,  interviews,  case  studies,  surveys,  online  public 
consultation, benchmarks 
Desk  research:  Annual  activity/implementation  reports  of  the  programmes,  DG  EAC,  EACEA  and  National  Agencies.  Cumulative  programme 
performance overviews covering both the 2014-2020 and the 2021-2027 MFF. Up-to-date internal financial data. Previous evaluations, reports and 
assessments of the programmes. Research data and findings from relevant networks and stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations. 

EFFICIENCY 
EQ14 

14.1 What were the financial absorption levels across all action types and National Agencies? 

14.2 Has the target number of participants in solidarity activities been achieved? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

93 

 
 
14.1.1. What were the financial absorption levels across all action types and National Agencies? 
14.2.1. What were the target numbers of participants in solidarity activities? 
14.2.2. Have these targets been achieved? 
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme          2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 

▪  Budget consumption is high (<90%) across all the different actions and in line with their planned budget 
▪  Budget consumption across all the different actions is evenly distributed overtime  
▪  The number of repeat participant organisations and new participant organisations meets or exceeds the set targets (or impact assessment) 
▪  The number of participants in solidarity activities meets set targets and gradually increases across the successive actions (by type of activities)  
INDICATORS 

▪  The percentage of budget spent versus planned by type of actions 

overtime 

▪  The percentage of budget spent versus planned by national agencies 

▪  Number of repeat participant organisations 
▪  Number of new participant organisations 
▪  Number of participants in solidarity activities (by type of activities)  

overtime 

▪  Stakeholder feedback on the reasons for achieving or falling short of 

set absorption rates or targets 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 

Administrative and monitoring data, consultations (interviews and surveys) 
Desk  research:  Annual  activity/implementation  reports  of  the  programmes,  DG  EAC,  EACEA  and  National  Agencies.  Cumulative  programme 
performance overviews covering both the 2014-2020 and the 2021-2027 MFF. Up-to-date internal financial data. Previous evaluations, reports and 
assessments of the programmes. 

EFFICIENCY 
EQ15 

15.1 What was the impact of key programme management changes such as introducing the support role in the 2018-2020 European 
Solidarity Corps programme and introducing the accreditation system in the 2021-2027 programme? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

94 

 
 
15.1.1. What were the key programme management changes? 
15.1.2. How have they affected the European Solidarity Corps programmes? 
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme         2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme 

JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 

▪  Volunteers derive benefits from supporting role in addition to the predecessor programmes (e.g. awareness raising, preparation for the learning 
and mentoring activities, learning agreement, linguistic preparation, pre-departure training) and after the learning and mentoring activities (e.g. 
dissemination of learning results, exploitation of results, further education, jobs, networking effects of the activity) 

▪  Participating organisations (both the host and supporting organisations) derive benefits in terms of reputation, ability to partner with other 

organisations and advertising opportunities, which ultimately contribute to the action's impact and/or community level impacts 

INDICATORS 

▪  Relation between the distance travelled by participants and results, 

▪  Extent of the participation of accredited organisations in the 

dissemination of results and uptake by their 
organisations/communities, jobs 

European Solidarity Corps (e.g. number of participations, projects, 
etc.) 

▪  Quantitative descriptions of benefits derived from being accredited, 

e.g. higher participation in other EU programmes, tenders, grants, 
higher turnover, higher number of employees.  

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 

Comparative analysis of the cohorts of EU aid volunteers and successor programmes (administrative and monitoring data, interviews, surveys and case 
studies) 
Desk research: Annual activity/implementation reports of the programmes, DG EAC, EACEA and National Agencies. Previous evaluations, reports 
and  assessments  of  the  programmes.  Research  data  and  findings  from  relevant  networks  and  stakeholders’  position  papers  and  recommendations. 
Monitoring data from project databases and management tools (both public and internal). 

EFFICIENCY 
EQ16 

16.1 To what extent has the European Solidarity Corps portal replaced the functions of supporting organisations? 

16.2 Are there any duplications between the portal functions and the role of supporting organisations? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

95 

 
 
16.1.1. What were the functions of supporting organisations? What were the intended functions of the portal? 
16.1.2. Have the intended portal functions been implemented? 
16.2.1. Are there any duplications between the portal functions and the role of supporting organisations? 
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme          2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 

▪  The functionalities of the portal are complementary to the functions entrusted to supporting organisations 
▪  The duplications between the portal functions and the role of supporting organisations are minor or can be explained on the basis of efficiency 

grounds 
INDICATORS 

▪  Types and costs of functions under the responsibilities of supporting 

▪  Extent, number and proportion of duplications between portal and 

organisations 

supporting organisation functions 

▪  Types of functions and cost of running the European Solidarity 

▪  Cost benchmarking of the functions as performed by the portal or by 

Corps portal  

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 

the supporting organisations 

▪  Stakeholders’ feedback on the synergies achieved and or potential for 

further efficiency savings 

Cost benchmarking of the EU Solidarity Corps actions (administrative and monitoring data, interviews, surveys and case studies) 
Desk research: Annual activity/implementation reports of the programmes, DG EAC, EACEA and National Agencies. Monitoring data from project 
databases and management tools (both public and internal). 

17.1 To what extent is the implementation of actions in direct and indirect management appropriate, efficient and well-functioning? 

EFFICIENCY 
EQ17 

17.2 How efficient is the cooperation between the different management bodies (Commission – executive agency – National Agencies 
– national authorities – independent audit bodies – European Solidarity Corps committee) and to what extent does the Commission 
fulfil its guiding role in the process? How has this evolved over time? What are the areas for improvements? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

96 

 
 
17.1.1. To what extent has the implementation of actions in direct and indirect management met the programmes’ objectives? 
17.1.2. What were the implementation costs direct and indirect management actions? 
17.1.3. To what extent has the implementation direct and indirect management actions been without mistakes and corrections? 
17.2.1. What were the achievements of cooperation between the different management bodies? 
17.2.2. What do the stakeholders think about the Commission’s guiding role in the process? 
17.2.3. How has this evolved over time? 
17.2.4. What are the areas for improvements? 
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme         2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 
▪  Programme management costs as a share of the programme budget 

▪  Views on the efficiency of cooperation between the different actors 

are similar to comparable EU programmes 

▪  Occurrence of problems or delays in decision-making (by 
entity/actor involved in implementation and supervision) 

and entities (by entity/actor involved in implementation and 
supervision) 

▪  Views on the usefulness of management tools (by entity/actor 

▪  Occurrence of problems in coordination (by entity/actor involved in 

involved in implementation and supervision) 

implementation and supervision) 

▪  Views of beneficiaries about the usefulness of support provided by the 

▪  Views on the appropriateness of the balance between actions 
financed under direct and indirect management modes (by 
entity/actor involved in implementation and supervision) 

National Agencies 

▪  Views of the National Agencies on the guiding role of the 

Commission 

▪  Views on opportunities for improvements 

INDICATORS 
Appropriateness, efficiency and functioning of the overall institutional structure of the programme management 
▪  Extent to which the programme management and implementation 

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

functions are well-defined, detailed enough and clearly attributed to 
the involved management bodies 

implementation functions across the management bodies involved 
▪  Best practices employed by the different national authorities, which 

▪  The extent to which the stakeholders perceive the distribution of 

could be streamlined throughout the action 

functions as efficient 

Efficiency of cooperation between the different management bodies 

97 

 
▪  Clarity and sufficiency of the formal rules setting out the cooperation 

links and practices between the different management bodies 
covering the whole programme management cycle 
Informal cooperation links and practices between the different 
management bodies 

▪ 

▪  Adequate information flow and collaboration between the relevant 
management bodies throughout the programme management cycle 
(i.e. meets the needs and expectations of the bodies involved) 

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

the rules  

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

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 
Analysis  of  administrative  and  monitoring  data, survey  of  organisations,  survey  of  individuals,  statistical  analysis,  interviews,  case  studies,  social 
network analysis, online public consultation. 
Desk  research:  Legal  and  policy  documents,  including  EU  regulations,  communication  policies  and  relevant  memorandums  of  understanding  and 
working arrangements.  Annual activity/implementation reports of the programmes, DG EAC, EACEA and National Agencies. Up-to-date internal 
financial data. 

EFFICIENCY 
EQ18 

Are there differences in efficiency of programme management and implementation between National Agencies and the Commission 
executive agency or between different programming periods? 

If so, what are the differences and what are the underlying reasons for them? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

18.1.1. What were the costs of programme management and implementation between National Agencies and the Commission executive agency or 
between different programming periods? 
18.1.2. What changes have the programme management and implementation arrangements in the National Agencies and the Commission’s executive 
agency generated, including in different programming periods? 
18.2.1. What were the reasons behind the differences in the changes? 
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme         2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme 

98 

 
 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 

▪  Programme management costs relative to budget 
▪  Speed of completing programme management tasks 
▪  Minimisation of errors, etc. 
INDICATORS 
▪  Percentage of programme budgets allocated to programme 

management 

▪  Satisfaction of beneficiary organisations and participants 
▪  Evaluator’s expert judgement of effectiveness of the design and 

implementation of strategies and approaches 

▪  Time to grant, i.e. time elapsing between the closure of a call and the 

signature of a grant agreement in days 

▪  Dates of launching comparable calls by different bodies and 

▪  Level of errors etc., identified by auditors in total numbers and 

National Agencies 

percentages per level 

▪  Time to inform, i.e. time from the call deadline to the invitation to 

▪  Recipients’ level of satisfaction with the time taken and quality of 

sign the contract in days 

service provided 

▪  Typology of reasons explaining differences in efficiency levels 

achieved 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 
Analysis of administrative and monitoring data, survey of organisations, survey of individuals, stakeholder consultations, analysis of documentation 
on strategies and approaches of programme management bodies, statistical analysis 
Desk research: Legal and policy documents, including EU regulations and relevant memorandums of understanding and working arrangements. Annual 
activity/implementation reports of the programmes, DG EAC, EACEA and National Agencies. Annual audit reports. Up-to-date internal financial and 
monitoring data. 

EFFICIENCY 
EQ19 

To  what  extent  are  the  monitoring  mechanisms  applied  by  the  Commission,  the  executive  agency  and  the  National  Agencies 
efficient/cost-effective? What are the areas for improvement, considering the need for a smooth and effective implementation of the 
programme? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

99 

 
 
 
9.1.1. To what extent have the monitoring mechanisms met their objectives? 
9.1.2. What were the costs of the monitoring mechanisms? 
9.2.1. What are the areas for improvement? 
9.2.2. What are the changes to be introduced by the monitoring and evaluation framework? 
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme          2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 

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

▪ 

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

programme documents 

▪  Number of new indicators introduced by the monitoring and 

evaluation framework 

▪  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 
▪  Typology of decisions enabled by monitoring activities  

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 
Analysis  of  administrative  and  monitoring  data,  survey  of  organisations,  stakeholder  consultations,  analysis  of  documentation  on  monitoring  and 
decision-making at programme level, statistical analysis 
Desk  research:  Legal  and  policy  documents,  including  EU  regulations,  monitoring  frameworks  and  relevant  memorandums  of  understanding  and 
working arrangements. Programme guidelines. Annual activity/implementation reports of the programmes, DG EAC, EACEA and National Agencies. 
Annual audit reports. Up-to-date internal financial and monitoring data. 

EFFICIENCY 
EQ20 

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? 

100 

 
 
 
OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

20.1.1. What is the monitoring and evaluation framework of the European Solidarity Corps programme? 
20.1.2. What are the indicators identified in the legal basis for the programme? 
20.1.3. What are the differences between the indicators and the monitoring and evaluation framework? 
20.2.1. How could the overall management and monitoring system be improved? 
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme          2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 

▪  There is a clear framework showing how chosen indicators relate to 

▪  The Commission, executive agency, national authorities, National 

programme objectives 

▪  The indicators are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and 
time-bound and relate to all main activities within each action 

▪  Baseline values are identified for all indicators 
▪  The target values for indicators demonstrate an appropriate level of 

ambition 

correspondence of the indicators 

Agencies are satisfied with the: 
- 
-  usefulness of the indicators 
- 
- 

fitness for purpose 
ease of collection 

▪  Monitoring data are available for indicators in the legal basis 
▪  The data collected matches the definition of the indicator 
INDICATORS 
Extent to which indicators identified for the programme in the legal basis correspond to the monitoring purposes 

EU programmes 

▪  The grant recipients are satisfied with the monitoring indicators 
▪  The indicators are aligned with indicators monitored in comparable 

101 

 
▪  Proportion of the indicators laid down in National Agency work 

programmes that are aligned with indicators used for measuring the 
overall implementation of the programmes 

▪  Proportion and type of all the monitoring data collected at national 
level that is being analysed and used for programme management 
and policymaking purposes 

▪  The extent to which all National Agencies ensure all relevant 

monitoring data are collected 

▪  Evidence of sufficiency of available monitoring data to inform the 
programme management and policymaking processes at EU level 

▪  The extent to which the monitoring indicators measure the 

programmes’ aims and objectives and provide relevant monitoring 
information to decision-making 

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

disproportionate 

▪  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 

▪  The extent to which the indicators enable National Agencies 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, the EACEA and 
National Agencies 

▪  Extent to which these instruments (including IT tools) are 

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

▪  Areas where indicators set are not insufficient 
▪  Areas where indicators set are redundant 

▪  Areas where relevant indicators are not set 
LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 
Analysis of administrative and monitoring data, survey of organisations, interviews, survey of National Agencies. Desk research: Legal and policy 
documents, including EU regulations, monitoring frameworks and relevant memorandums of understanding and working arrangements. Programme 
guidelines. Annual activity/implementation reports of the programmes, DG EAC, EACEA and National Agencies. Up-to-date internal financial and 
monitoring data. 

EFFICIENCY 
EQ21 

To what extent are the management support tools (e.g. E+ Link, E - Forms, Mobility Tool, Lifecard National Agencies module, Youth 
portal, PMM, BM, Application Forms, Mobility Tool, EU Academy, eGrants) suitable and sufficient to support a sound management 
of the programme? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

102 

 
 
21.1.1. What is the role of the management support tools in programme management? 
21.1.2. What added value do they generate? 
21.1.3. Are they user-friendly and functional? How often do problems with tools occur? 
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme          2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 
▪  The purpose, nature, scope of the information processed by the tools 

▪  Occurrence of problems or delays related to inadequacy or 

can be traced back to the legal basis 

insufficiency of management support tools 

▪  The functionalities of the suite of tools are consistent with one 

▪  Tools enable best management practices to be implemented across the 

another, address a specific user base and avoid multiple collection of 
the same information  

programme 

▪  Views of agencies on the adequacy and sufficiency of management 

support tools 

INDICATORS 
▪  Typology of best management practices enabled by the tools 
▪  Number and types of documented problems or delays due to 

▪  Proportion of National Agencies reporting problems or delays due to 

inadequacy or insufficiency of management tools 

inadequacy or insufficiency of management tools 

▪  Proportion of National Agencies reporting satisfaction with 

management tools 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 
Analysis of administrative and monitoring data, interviews with National Agencies, analysis of documentation on programme management 
Desk research: Documentation and guidelines of tools. Administrative and monitoring data on the tools from NAs and the Commission. 

EFFICIENCY 
EQ22 

To what extent have the anti-fraud measures allowed for the prevention and timely detection of fraud? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

22.1.1. What anti-fraud measures did the programmes use? Did they function as expected? 
22.1.2. How has the level of fraud changed over time? 
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme          2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme 

103 

 
 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 
▪  Level of fraud relative to previous programme periods and 

comparable EU programmes 

▪  Level of fraud under the different management modes is comparable 
▪ 
Internal controls allow swift detection and implementation of anti-
fraud measures (e.g. EDES) 

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

▪  Views of Commission, executive agency and National Agencies on 

the effectiveness of anti-fraud measures 

▪  Auditor reports confirm the effectiveness of anti-fraud measures 

▪  Proportion of National Agencies reporting confidence in anti-fraud 

measures 

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

application of anti-fraud measures 

or national level 

▪  Confidence of Commission and Executive Agency in anti-fraud 

▪  Variations in the level of fraud across actions 

measures 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 
Analysis of administrative and monitoring data, interviews, interviews with National Agencies, analysis of documentation on programme management 
and auditing 
Desk  research:  Annual  activity/implementation  reports  of  the  programmes,  DG  EAC,  EACEA  and  National  Agencies.  Annual  audit  reports. 
Administrative and monitoring data on fraud from NAs and the Commission. Documentation and guidelines related to anti-fraud measures. 

5.3.  Relevance 

The  relevance  analysis  considers  how  the  objectives  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  align  with  broader  EU  policy  goals  and  priorities.  It 
determines whether the programme reflects current and future needs. It assesses whether European Solidarity Corps activities continue to address 
the most important issues for volunteers, organisations and other stakeholders within the context of overall EU and national strategic priorities.  

104 

 
 
 
Summary of evaluation findings 

During the 2018-2020 period, the European Solidarity Corps programme was well-aligned with the objectives of promoting social cohesion and 
individual development for young people. With its diverse range of formats and topics enabling tailored, impactful projects,  it remained highly 
relevant to addressing local social needs. 

For the period evaluated, the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme’s objectives and priorities were particularly relevant for promoting 
social  cohesion  and  individual  development  among  young  people.  The  programme  effectively  addressed  local  societal  needs  through  diverse 
formats and topics, allowing for tailored projects and demonstrates adaptability in responding to climate-related hazards and other disasters. The 
programme’s  relevance  in  addressing  significant  challenges  faced  by  participants  was  underlined  by  high  satisfaction  rates  among  them.  In 
particular, participants rated it highly for fostering participation in democratic life, inclusion and diversity. However, there is room for improvement 
in meeting the needs of participants from diverse backgrounds, by strengthening targeted support for young people with fewer opportunities. 

Evaluation questions 

RELEVANCE 
EQ23 

To  what  extent  have  current  European  societal  needs  been  addressed  and  reflected  in  the  2018-2020  European  Solidarity  Corps 
programme and the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

23.1.1. What European societal needs did the programme address and reflect? 
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps    2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 
▪  Programme objectives and priorities are in line with EU strategic policy documents. 
▪ 

Its commitment to addressing key challenges and needs at European level is confirmed by the key European and national policymakers and 
stakeholders. 

▪  Measures can be adjusted in line with (emerging) needs and challenges of participants and host organisations. 
INDICATORS 
Extent to which the programmes reflect and address key socio-economic needs and challenges in the EU 

105 

 
▪  Strength of logical links between the objectives, priorities and 

▪  Links between the European Solidarity Corps and national goals and 

actions/activities of the European Solidarity Corps in the areas of 
youth, volunteering, solidarity and humanitarian aid, and socio-
economic needs identified in EU strategic policy documents 
▪  Extent to which the key European and national policymakers and 

stakeholders confirm that the European Solidarity Corps is pertinent 
to addressing key challenges and needs at European level 

activities 

▪  Extent to which National Agencies agree that the programme can 
respond to emerging socio-economic needs and challenges  
▪  Extent to which European Solidarity Corps projects contribute to 

environmental sustainability 

▪  Extent to which the programmes satisfy the needs of participants in 

the solidarity and humanitarian aid projects 

Relevance of the European Solidarity Corps design, intervention logic 
▪  Strength of logical links between the current programme 

design/project selection criteria and the key European priorities in 
the relevant fields (youth, volunteering, solidarity and humanitarian 
aid) and socio-economic development 

▪  Extent to which key European and national policymakers confirm that 
the preferences for certain actions, priorities or geographical areas in 
the European Solidarity Corps are still pertinent to the EU’s key 
strategic objectives  

▪  Proportion of European Solidarity Corps participants who indicate 

that no national or international funding was available to support the 
type of activities they were engaged in 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 
Desk research: European Solidarity Corps annual work programmes. Legal and policy documents, including EU  regulations and relevant strategic 
policy documents (e.g. youth strategy, youth action plan). Previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational 
studies  on  youth,  volunteering  and  solidarity.  Research  data  and  findings  from  relevant  networks  and  stakeholders’  position  papers  and 
recommendations. Data and documents on national results, initiatives and developments, including national reports and YouthWiki. 
Survey of individual participants, young people who have not participated, participating organisations. 
Interviews with individuals participants, participating organisations, authorities and supervisory bodies (DG EAC), national authorities, EU bodies and 
policymakers, external experts. 

RELEVANCE 
EQ24 

Is the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme perceived as a programme focused on providing learning opportunities for 
young  people  or  rather  on  addressing  societal  changes?  To  what  extent  is  it  both?  What  type  of  activities  are  offered  to  young 
volunteers and participants in solidarity projects? What is the predominant type of participating organisations: volunteering or youth 
organisations?  Has  the  number  of  volunteering  organisations  involved  in  the  2018-2020  European  Solidarity  Corps  programme 
increased compared with the EVS? What about the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme compared with the EVS? 

106 

 
 
OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

24.1.1. What is the perception of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme among its stakeholders? 
24.2.1. What type of activities are offered to young volunteers and participants in solidarity projects? 
24.3.1. What is the predominant type of participating organisations: volunteering or youth organisations? 
24.4.1. What was the number of volunteering organisations involved in the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps and the EVS? In the 2021-2027 
European Solidarity Corps? 
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps          2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 

The perception of the programme depends on: 

▪  Types of activities offered to participants and their objectives 
▪  Range of projects the participating organisations implement and their number in the European Solidarity Corps and the EVS 
▪  The number and scale of European Solidarity Corps projects that address societal challenges, such as poverty, social exclusion, climate change or 

migration 

▪  The number and scale of European Solidarity Corps projects that exclusively address learning needs, such as gaining new skills, work experience, 

or developing personal and professional competencies 

INDICATORS 

Extent to which the programme focuses on the learning dimension or societal challenges 
▪  Proportion of the programme’s activities and projects that are 

designed to provide learning opportunities for young people and 
proportion focused on addressing societal challenges 

▪  Extent to which the programme works with stakeholders in the fields 
of learning opportunities for young people or addressing societal 
challenges 

▪  Extent to which the programme aligns with EU policies and 

▪  Proportion of European Solidarity Corps participants who participated 

strategies related to providing opportunities for young people or 
addressing societal challenges 

in learning projects and proportion who participated in projects 
addressing social needs 

Level of awareness of participants and applicants of European Solidarity Corps activities 

107 

 
▪  Proportion of European Solidarity Corps applicants and participants 
who believe that the European Solidarity Corps focuses on societal 
challenges and proportion who believe it focuses on learning 
opportunities for young people 

▪  Number of applicants and participants in different types of projects 
and actions/activities in the European Solidarity Corps and the EVS 

▪  Level of awareness of European Solidarity Corps applicants and 

participants about the EU strategies and priorities that address societal 
challenges and improve learning opportunities 

▪  Opinion of national authorities, European Solidarity Corps staff 

members and EU representatives on the most successful projects in 
the European Solidarity Corps programme 

Number of applicants and participants in the European Solidarity Corps and EVS projects 
▪  Number of participating volunteering organisations in the European 

▪  Types of applicant organisations for the European Solidarity Corps 

Solidarity Corps and EVS programmes, by year 

and EVS programmes, by year 

▪  Types of participating organisations in the European Solidarity 

▪  Number of individual participants in the European Solidarity Corps 

Corps and EVS programmes, by year 

and EVS projects, by type of project and by year 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 

Desk research: European Solidarity Corps annual work programmes. Legal and policy documents, including EU regulations and relevant strategic 
policy documents (e.g. youth strategy, youth action plan). Previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational 
studies  on  youth,  volunteering  and  solidarity.  Research  data  and  findings  from  relevant  networks  and  stakeholders’  position  papers  and 
recommendations.  
Survey of individual participants, young people who have not participated, participating organisations. 
Interviews with participants, participating organisations, authorities and supervisory bodies (DG EAC), EU bodies and policymakers, external experts. 

RELEVANCE 
EQ25 

What are the existing alternatives for solidarity activities for persons outside the current age limits?  

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

25.1.1. What are the existing alternatives for solidarity activities for people outside the current age limits?  
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps         2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 

Young people and volunteering communities are aware of the European Solidarity Corps.  

108 

 
 
▪  Similar solidarity initiatives have been identified 

▪  Young people and volunteering community members can indicate 
what distinguishes the European Solidarity Corps from other 
alternatives 

INDICATORS 
Availability and awareness of alternative programmes outside the age limits 

▪  Yearly budgets of alternative solidarity programmes for persons 

▪  Level of awareness of surveyed European Solidarity Corps applicants, 

outside the current age limit 

participants and experts of alternative programmes 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 

Desk  research:  Previous  evaluations,  reports  and  assessments  of  the  programmes  and  horizontal/transnational  studies  on  youth,  volunteering  and 
solidarity. Research data and findings from relevant networks and stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations.  
Survey of young people who have not participated, open public consultation.  
Interviews with organisations, national authorities, EU bodies and policymakers, external experts. 

RELEVANCE 
EQ26 

To what extent is the design of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme focused on people with fewer opportunities?  

What factors limit their access and what actions could be taken to improve access? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

26.1.1. How do the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme’s objectives, eligibility rules and selection criteria address people with fewer 
opportunities? 
26.1.2. What is the proportion of participants with fewer opportunities in the overall number of participants?  
26.2.1. What factors negatively affected European Solidarity Corps work with people with fewer opportunities? 
SCOPE 
2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 
The programme takes into account factors limiting young people’s opportunities 

109 

 
 
▪  There is an existing categorisation of the various vulnerable 
populations relevant to the European Solidarity Corps. The 
programme’s definition of people with fewer opportunities is 
considered valid by stakeholders 

Actions have been taken to overcome accessibility limitations 
▪  The programme has addressed disadvantaged groups in its 

objectives, eligibility rules and selection criteria 

▪  For each identified group, there is a set of relevant identified challenges 

that the European Solidarity Corps is seeking to address 

▪  The outputs by the disadvantaged groups can be measured against 

certain indicators set for the programme  

▪  Stakeholders and European Solidarity Corps staff members 

▪  Quantitative indicators show an increase in the involvement of targeted 

demonstrate awareness of disadvantaged groups. 

populations after the implementation of specific measures 

▪  Disadvantaged groups are included in the programme-related 

documents about specific populations 

The design of the European Solidarity Corps programme is oriented towards young people with fewer opportunities. 
▪  Factors limiting accessibility are identified (see criteria above) 
▪  Actions to overcome limitations are set out (see criteria above) 

▪  There is continuity between the programmes (2018-2020 and 2021-
2027) in addressing groups with fewer opportunities (previous gaps 
have been addressed, new goals are informed by the experience) 
▪  Measures to support groups with fewer opportunities are formulated, 

targets and clear indicators to monitor implementation are set 

INDICATORS 
Factors limiting access of groups with fewer opportunities 
▪  Key groups with fewer opportunities that could potentially benefit 
from the European Solidarity Corps programme, as identified by 
documents and programme staff 

▪  Quantitative limiting factors, as identified by surveyed individuals 

with fewer opportunities 

▪  Key challenges in access to the programme for each group, as identified 

by documents and programme staff 

Actions taken to remedy access limitations for groups with fewer opportunities 
▪  Scope of measures taken to ensure participation of young people 

▪  Level of involvement of young people with fewer opportunities in the 

with fewer opportunities 

European Solidarity Corps projects 

110 

 
 
 
Extent to which the design of the European Solidarity Corps programme is oriented towards groups with fewer opportunities compared with other 
programme participants and applicants 
▪  Factors that limit the opportunities of specific groups 
▪  Actions taken to overcome these limitations, including specific 

▪  Continuity of measures to overcome opportunity limitations through the 
2018-2020 and the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programmes 

measures and indicators for monitoring 

▪  Outputs received by the disadvantaged groups 

▪  Attitudes of applicants, participants and partners of the 2021-2027 

European Solidarity Corps programme toward the measures for young 
people with fewer opportunities 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 
Desk  research:  Legal  and  policy  documents,  including  EU  regulations.  European  Solidarity  Corps  annual  work  programmes.  Annual 
activity/implementation reports of the programmes. Cumulative programme performance overviews covering both the 2014-2020 and the 2021-2027 
MFF. Previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity. 
Research data and findings from relevant networks and stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations. Data and documents on national results, 
initiatives and developments, including national reports and YouthWiki. Monitoring data from project databases and management tools (both public 
and internal). 
Survey of individual participants, young people who have not participated, participating organisations. 
Interviews with individual participants, participating organisations, authorities and supervisory bodies (DG EAC), national authorities, EU bodies and 
policymakers, external experts. 

RELEVANCE 
EQ27 

Based on the analysis of the impact of the EVS and the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps, are there any elements that have been 
discontinued (i.e. are not included in the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps) but could have a possible value added in future cycles 
of the European Solidarity Corps programme? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

27.1.1. What elements of the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme and the EVS were discontinued in the 2021-2027 MFF? 
27.1.2. What were the reasons for discontinuing the elements? 
27.1.3. Do these reasons still hold? 
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps          2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 
The discontinued elements could add value. 

111 

 
 
▪  The performance of the discontinued elements has been measured in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, and EU added value  
▪  Challenges, bottlenecks and good practices have been identified with regard to the functioning of the discontinued elements; the reasons for the 

discontinuation have been identified 

▪  Challenges and issues have been identified in the field of youth, solidarity, volunteering and humanitarian aid that the European Solidarity Corps 

can address in future cycles 

INDICATORS 
List of discontinued elements, their functions and performance 
▪  Discontinued elements, their objectives, functions, targets and key 

▪  Strength of the rationale for discontinuing some elements of the 

performance indicators 

European Solidarity Corps  

Current and future priorities and needs 
▪  Current needs and challenges in areas that the discontinued 

elements addressed in the previous MFF 

▪  Possibility of addressing the reasons for the elimination in order to 

bring the elements back 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 
Desk research: Legal and policy documents, previous evaluations. Annual activity/implementation reports of the programmes. Programme performance 
overviews covering both the 2014-2020 and the 2021-2027 MFF. Reports and assessments of the programmes. Data and documents on national results, 
initiatives and developments, including national reports and YouthWiki. Monitoring data from project databases and management tools (both public 
and internal). 
Survey of individual participants, participating organisations; 
Interviews  with  participants,  participating  organisations,  authorities  and  supervisory  bodies  (DG  EAC),  national  authorities,  EU  bodies  and 
policymakers, external experts. 

RELEVANCE 
EQ28 

Do programme priorities reflect societal expectations? Is it effective to update priorities every year? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

28.1.1. What are the perceptions of solidarity, humanitarian aid and youth engagement among key stakeholders? 
28.1.2. What are the stakeholders’ opinions on the programmes’ priorities? 
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps          2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 

112 

 
 
▪  Stakeholders perceive programme priorities as meeting their needs and expectations 
INDICATORS 

▪  Proportion of participants in the online public consultation 

▪  Proportion of survey respondents who agree that programme priorities meet 

who agree that their expectations are being met 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 

▪ 

social expectations 
Interview data providing evidence that programme priorities meet social 
expectations 

Desk research:  European Solidarity Corps annual  work programmes, legal  and policy documents,  including  EU regulations, previous evaluations, 
reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity, data and documents on national 
results,  initiatives  and  developments,  including  national  reports  and  YouthWiki,  Eurobarometer  surveys,  research  data  and  findings  from  relevant 
networks and stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations.  
Online public consultation, interviews with different stakeholders, surveys of participants and organisations. 

5.4.  Coherence 

The coherence analysis examines whether the different actions under the European Solidarity Corps produce synergies and operate in a consistent 
and non-contradictory manner (internal coherence). It also evaluates whether the European Solidarity Corps is aligned with other EU programmes 
and overarching EU strategies in related fields (external coherence). 

Summary of evaluation findings 

For  the  2018-2020  period,  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  programme  complemented  EU-level  policies  and  acted  as  a  single  entry  point  for 
solidarity  activities  It  was  largely  complementary  to  other  EU  programmes,  particularly  Erasmus+.  However,  while  there  was  some  overlap, 
particularly  in  the  occupational  strand,  actual  synergies  were  limited.  The  inclusion  of  in-country  activities  and  group  projects,  which  reduce 
barriers to participation in volunteering, distinguished the European Solidarity Corps from other programmes. 

For the period of the 2021-2027 programme that was evaluated, stakeholders did not observe major inconsistencies among different action types, 
seeing each as distinct and distinctly important. Streamlining volunteering activities under the European Solidarity Corps has improved coherence. 
Although some stakeholders view integration into Erasmus+ as potentially cost-effective, concerns exist about possible barriers to participation 

113 

 
 
and weakened programme values. The programme is highly complementary to other EU youth initiatives and broader strategic priorities, especially 
Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe, with opportunities to further improve synergies. 

Evaluation questions 

COHERENCE 
EQ29 

To what extent are the direct and indirect management actions consistent with each other? How do they interact/complement each 
other? To what extent has the ‘Volunteering in high-priority areas’ action complemented and added value to the indirect management 
volunteering projects? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

29.1.1. What are the objectives, eligibility requirements and activity types of the direct and indirect management actions? 
29.1.2. How do the actions interact and complement each other? 
29.2.1. What are the objectives, eligibility requirements and activity types of the ‘Volunteering in high-priority areas’ action? 
29.2.2. How do its actions complement and add value to the volunteering projects under indirect management?  
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps          2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps (except the humanitarian aid strand) 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 
Actions under direct and indirect management are consistent with each other. 
▪  There are no clear overlaps between the actions implemented under 
direct management and those under indirect management (in terms 
of objectives, eligibility rules or types of activities) 

▪  There is effective coordination between direct and indirect 

management (e.g. synergies are identified in exchanging good 
practices) 

INDICATORS 
Lack of overlaps between the actions implemented under direct and indirect management 
▪  Linkages between the objectives of actions under direct 

management and objectives of actions under indirect management 

▪  Examples of how actions implemented under direct and indirect 

management interact/complement each other 

▪  Examples of specific synergies (non-financial or financial) created as 
a result of complementarities between actions implemented under 
direct and indirect management 

Effective coordination between direct and indirect management takes place 
▪  Evidence of existing mechanisms for coordinating activities among actions implemented under direct and indirect management 

114 

 
LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 
Document  review  (annual  work  programmes,  legal  and  policy  documents,  previous  evaluations,  reports  and  assessments  of  the  programmes  and 
horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity), interviews with different stakeholders. 

COHERENCE 
EQ30 

To what extent have the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme and the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme 
been coherent with relevant EU programmes with similar objectives such as Erasmus+, cohesion policy programmes funded under 
the European Social Fund Plus ( ESF+ ) and/or the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Horizon Europe? To what extent 
have the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps and the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps proved complementary to other EU 
interventions/initiatives in the field of youth? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

30.1.1. What are the objectives of the relevant EU programmes? 
30.2.1. How did the European Solidarity Corps actions interact and complement them?  
30.2.2. How did the European Solidarity Corps actions support the implementation of horizontal priorities? 
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps          2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 
The programmes are coherent with other EU programmes with similar objectives. 
▪  The programmes’ objectives are consistent with relevant EU 

▪  There is effective coordination between the relevant DGs to ensure 

programmes 

synergies 

▪  Stakeholders perceive different programmes as complementary 

▪  The programmes address horizontal priorities 
INDICATORS 
Extent to which there are synergies in terms of objectives with relevant EU programmes  
▪  Evidence of shared funding for complementary activities 
▪  Existing mechanisms for coordination among the DGs/units 
responsible for European Solidarity Corps and other relevant 
programmes 

Extent to which effective coordination exists between applicable DGs to ensure synergies 

115 

▪  Linkages between the formulation of objectives of European 

Solidarity Corps and the objectives of Erasmus+, cohesion policy 
programmes funded under the ESF+ and/or the ERDF, Horizon 
Europe and external action programmes 

 
 
▪  Existing mechanisms for communication and interaction among the DGs/units responsible for European Solidarity Corps and other relevant 

programmes 

Extent to which there are synergies in terms of objectives, target groups, activities with EU programmes with similar objectives 
▪  Proportion of survey respondents who perceive 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 
Document  review  (annual  work  programmes,  legal  and  policy  documents,  previous  evaluations,  reports  and  assessments  of  the  programmes  and 
horizontal/transnational  studies  on  youth,  volunteering  and  solidarity);  analysis  of  existing  monitoring  and  other  data;  interviews  with  different 
stakeholders; surveys of individuals and organisations; case studies. 

COHERENCE 
EQ31 

To what extent did the design of the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme and the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps 
programme (including needs, objectives, activities, outputs and effects) provide appropriate links and support to EU policy agendas, 
in particular policy initiatives and political priorities such as the 2019-2027 European Union youth strategy, the youth action plan 
and the digital education action plan? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

31.1.1. What European policy initiatives and political priorities were/are relevant to the field of solidarity, humanitarian aid and youth? 
31.1.2. Which European Solidarity Corps elements are linked to the relevant European policy initiatives and political priorities? 
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps          2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 
▪  European Solidarity Corps can be linked to specific EU-level policy initiatives and political priorities 

116 

 
INDICATORS 
▪  Linkages between the European Solidarity Corps and different 
EU-level policy agendas and priorities in the legal basis of the 
European Solidarity Corps programme 

▪  Linkages between European Solidarity Corps priorities and 

objectives and different EU-level strategies, action plans and 
working groups’ agendas 

▪  Linkages between European Solidarity Corps objectives and 

different EU-level strategies, action plans and working groups’ 
agendas 

▪  Linkages between European Solidarity Corps activities and different EU-

level strategies, action plans and working groups’ agendas 

▪  Evidence of the contribution of the European Solidarity Corps to the 

implementation, monitoring and support of policymaking in various EU 
policy areas 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 
Document  review  (regulations,  annual  work  programmes,  policy  documents,  including  EU  regulations  and  relevant  strategic  policy  documents, 
previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity), analysis 
of existing monitoring and other data, interviews with EU bodies and policymakers, interviews with external experts. 

COHERENCE 
EQ32 

To what extent have the 2018-2020  European Solidarity Corps programme and the2021-2027  European Solidarity Corps programme 
been coherent with various interventions pursued at national and international level which have similar objectives? To what extent 
have the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme and the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme proved to be 
complementary to other Member States’ interventions/initiatives in the field of volunteering in support of humanitarian aid and in the 
field of youth? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

32.1.1. What national and international policy initiatives and political priorities were/are relevant to the field of solidarity, humanitarian aid and youth? 
32.2.1. Which European Solidarity Corps elements were/are consistent with the relevant national and international policy initiatives objectives? 
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps          2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps 

117 

 
 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 
▪  The objectives are consistent with identified relevant interventions 

pursued at national and international level 

▪  The activities are consistent with identified interventions pursued at 

national and international level which have similar objectives 

▪  The target groups are consistent with identified relevant interventions 

▪  Stakeholders and experts perceive different programmes as 

pursued at national and international level which have similar 
objectives 
INDICATORS 
▪  Correspondence (in terms of objectives, target groups and activities) 
between the European Solidarity Corps and national, regional or 
international initiatives on youth and volunteering in support of 
humanitarian aid in different Member States  

▪  Existing mechanisms to allow for mutually reinforcing interventions 
and/or learning between European Solidarity Corps and initiatives 
pursued at national level which have similar objectives 

▪  Evidence about overlaps and duplications between the European 
Solidarity Corps activities and various initiatives in the fields of 
youth and volunteering in support of humanitarian aid in different 
Member States 

complementary 

▪  Examples of specific (non-financial or financial) synergies created as 
a result of mutually reinforcing actions between European Solidarity 
Corps and other Member States’ interventions/initiatives in the fields 
of youth and volunteering in support of humanitarian aid in different 
Member States 

▪  Proportion of survey respondents who perceive different programmes 

as complementary and opinions of interviewed respondents 

▪  Proportion of public consultation participants who perceive different 

programmes as complementary 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 
Document review (annual work programmes, legal and policy documents, including EU regulations, previous evaluations, reports and assessments of 
the programmes  and horizontal/transnational  studies on youth,  volunteering and solidarity, data and documents on national  results, initiatives  and 
developments, including national reports and YouthWiki); interviews with different stakeholder groups; surveys of experts and stakeholders; online 
public consultations 

5.5.  EU added value 

The analysis of EU added value assesses the extent to which the results and impacts of the European Solidarity Corps are exclusively due to EU 
action  and  would  not  have  occurred  without  the  programme.  It  evaluates  four  key  effects:  volume,  scope,  role,  and  process.  These  include 
measuring the volume of activities carried out, the scope of engagement with target groups, the programme’s role as a supporter of innovation and 
good practices, and the sustainability and learning impact of the programme’s results. 

118 

 
 
Summary of evaluation findings 

For the 2018-2020 period, the European Solidarity Corps strengthened participants’ sense of European identity and promoted active citizenship, 
facilitating personal development on a scale that national initiatives could not achieve. The transition from the European Voluntary Service to the 
European Solidarity Corps increased EU added value by creating a single, accessible entry point for solidarity activities, with greater ambition and 
visibility.  By  broadening  its  scope,  increasing  flexibility  and  emphasising  inclusion,  the  programme  better  addressed  young  people’s  needs 
compared with its predecessor. It also  facilitated international networking and collaboration, which is challenging to achieve through national 
volunteering initiatives. 

During the period evaluated, the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps played a significant role in fostering a European identity and support for 
European values. The programme provided unique empowerment opportunities for young people and strengthened participating organisations by 
boosting professional skills and improving effectiveness. Distinguishing features of the programme are its emphasis on quality and its ability to 
enable pan-European networks, fostering long-term partnerships and relationships. 

Evaluation questions 

EU  ADDED 
VALUE 
EQ33 

What is the additional value and benefit resulting from EU activities compared  with what could be achieved by Member States at 
national and/or regional levels? 

What did the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme and the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme offer in 
addition to other education and training support or solidarity schemes available at both international and national levels? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

33.1.1. What are the national and regional solidarity, humanitarian aid and youth initiatives’ actions? 
33.1.2. What are the differences between national/regional solidarity, humanitarian aid and youth initiatives and the European Solidarity Corps? 
33.2.1. What are the differences between other European education and training support or solidarity schemes and the European Solidarity Corps? 
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps          2021-2017 European Solidarity Corps 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 

119 

 
▪  Projects of a comparable scope and volume would not have reached 

▪  The European Solidarity Corps has provided better economic value 

people in need without the European Solidarity Corps 

compared with other available programmes  

▪  Opportunities for synergies with other relevant EU activities are 

▪  The European Solidarity Corps contributed to the development of 

successfully exploited 

innovative common standards, systems and/or operating procedures 
for volunteering 

INDICATORS 
Projects of a comparable scope and volume would not have reached targeted communities without the European Solidarity Corps 
▪  Number of projects carried out under the European Solidarity Corps 
▪  Number of participants in projects under  the European Solidarity 

taken place without the European Solidarity Corps  

▪  Examples of transnational mobility instances that would not have 

Corps 

▪  Monetary value of project activities conducted under the European 

Solidarity Corps 

▪  Proportion of volunteers who state that in the absence of the 

European Solidarity Corps they would not have had a chance to 
volunteer abroad and examples of their projects 

▪  Examples of the ability of the European Solidarity Corps to respond to 
crises to which other national, regional or international initiatives 
could not have responded 

Development of innovative common standards, systems and/or operating procedures for volunteering 
▪  Number of organisations issued a Quality Label under the European 

▪  Degree of satisfaction among participants and stakeholders with the 

Solidarity Corps  

▪  Examples of standards, systems and operating procedures adopted 
by participating organisations as a result of the European Solidarity 
Corps programmes 

▪  Proportion of organisations which say that in the absence of the 
European Solidarity Corps they would not have had a chance to 
undertake comparable activities 

adopted standards, systems, processes and/or procedures 

▪  Quality and standard of volunteer training 

Opportunities for synergies with other relevant EU activities are successfully exploited 
▪  Objectives consistent with relevant EU programmes 
European Solidarity Corps has provided better economic value compared with other available programmes 
▪  Comparative cost-effectiveness of various European Solidarity Corps actions versus other available programmes 

120 

 
LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 
Desk research (annual activity/implementation reports of the programmes, DG EAC, EACEA and National Agencies, previous evaluations, reports 
and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity, data and documents on national results, 
initiatives  and  developments,  including  national  reports  and  YouthWiki,  monitoring  data  and  good  practice  examples  from  project  databases  and 
management tools (both public and internal)); counterfactual analysis; interviews with different stakeholders; surveys of organisations; stakeholder 
workshops/focus groups. 

EU  ADDED 
VALUE 
EQ34 

What is the benefit and added value of the 2018-2020  European Solidarity Corps programme and the 2021-2027 European Solidarity 
Corps programme compared with the benefit of the EVS? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

34.1.1. What were the benefits and added value of the EVS? 
34.1.2. In what areas has the European Solidarity Corps performed better than the EVS? 
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps          2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 
▪  The scope of opportunities provided is higher in the European 

▪  The European Solidarity Corps have provided better economic value 

Solidarity Corps than in the EVS 

compared with the EVS  

▪  The scope and number of European Solidarity Corps synergies with 

other relevant EU activities are higher than in the EVS 

▪  The European Solidarity Corps and EVS have contributed to the 
development of innovative common standards, systems and/or 
operating procedures for volunteering 

INDICATORS 
The scope and volume of opportunities provided is higher in the European Solidarity Corps than in the EVS 
▪  Number of projects carried out under the EVS/ European Solidarity 

▪  Evidence of transnational mobility instances that would not have 

Corps 

▪  Number of participants in the EVS/ European Solidarity Corps 
▪  Monetary value of aid provided under the EVS/ European Solidarity 

Corps 

taken place without the EVS/ European Solidarity Corps 

▪  Evidence of the ability of the European Solidarity Corps to respond to 
crises to which other national, regional or international initiatives 
could not have responded 

The scope and number of European Solidarity Corps synergies with other relevant EU activities are higher than in the EVS 

121 

 
 
▪  Evidence of synergies between EVS/European Solidarity Corps 

▪  Proportion of programme-funded projects addressing horizontal 

objectives and relevant EU programmes 

priorities under the European Solidarity Corps compared with the 
EVS 

The European Solidarity Corps has provided better economic value compared with the EVS 
▪  Comparative cost-effectiveness of various European Solidarity Corps /EVS actions versus other available programmes 
Evidence  of  European  Solidarity  Corps  and  EVS  contribution  to  the  development  of  innovative  common  standards,  systems  and/or  operating 
procedures for volunteering 
▪  Number of organisations issued a Quality Label under the European 

▪  Degree of satisfaction among participants and stakeholders with the 

Solidarity Corps and accreditation under the EVS 

adopted standards, systems, processes and/or procedures 

▪  Examples of standards, systems and operating procedures adopted 
by participating organisations as a result of the EVS/ European 
Solidarity Corps 

▪  Quality and standard of volunteer training 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 
Desk  research  (annual  activity/implementation  reports  of  the  programmes,  DG  EAC,  EACEA  and  National  Agencies,  cumulative  programme 
performance overviews, legal and policy documents, previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational 
studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity, monitoring data from project databases and management tools); counterfactual analysis; interviews with 
different stakeholders; surveys; case studies; stakeholder workshops/focus groups. 

EU  ADDED 
VALUE 
EQ35 

What would be the most likely consequences of discontinuing the European Solidarity Corps as a stand-alone programme? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

35.1.1. What are the unique results of the European Solidarity Corps? 
35.1.2. Can these outputs be reasonably replicated by other programmes? 
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps          2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 
▪  The European Solidarity Corps results and assessments justify the 

▪  The negative consequences of discontinuing the European Solidarity 

need for continuing the programme  

Corps as a stand-alone programme outweigh the positive ones 

122 

 
 
INDICATORS 
Extent to which the European Solidarity Corps results and assessments highlight a need for the continuity of the programme 
▪  Evidence of the volume and scope of other European, national or 
international schemes and programmes in comparison with the 
European Solidarity Corps 

international scheme or programme could meet their needs 

▪  Proportion of stakeholders indicating that no other regional/national or 

Extent to which the negative consequences of discontinuing the European Solidarity Corps outweigh the positive ones 
▪  Stakeholders’ assessment of the consequences of discontinuing the 

▪  Evidence of cooperation and learning opportunities lost as a 
consequence of discontinuing the European Solidarity Corps 

European Solidarity Corps based on the evidence of the added value 
above 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 
Desk  research  (annual  activity/implementation  reports  of  the  programmes,  DG  EAC,  EACEA  and  National  Agencies,  cumulative  programme 
performance overviews, legal and policy documents, previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational 
studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity, monitoring data from project databases and management tools, research data and findings from relevant 
networks and stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations); counterfactual analysis; interviews with different stakeholders; case studies. 

EU  ADDED 
VALUE 
EQ36 

Are there national schemes that could effectively replace the European Solidarity Corps programme if no funding is allocated in the 
future? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

36.1.1. What Member States have schemes with similar objectives? How similar are they? 
36.1.2. What is the scope and volume of services provided by these schemes?  
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps          2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 
▪  The likelihood of activities of similar scope and volume taking place without the European Solidarity Corps is low  
INDICATORS 
Likelihood of similar (scope of) activities taking place without the European Solidarity Corps 

123 

 
 
▪  Proportion of European Solidarity Corps volunteers/organisations 
who would have carried out their activities under other schemes (if 
they had not been accepted to the European Solidarity Corps 
programme) 

▪  Evidence on the extent to which the European Solidarity Corps 

results and assessments justify a need to continue the programme 
(previous EQ) 

▪  Evidence from national authorities and experts on the European 

Solidarity Corps unique and similar features in comparison with the 
local programmes 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 
Desk  research  (reports  and  assessments  of  the  programmes  and  horizontal/transnational  studies  on  youth,  volunteering  and  solidarity,  data  and 
documents  on  national  results,  initiatives  and  developments,  including  national  reports  and  YouthWiki,  research  data  and  findings  from  relevant 
networks), interviews with different stakeholders. 

EU  ADDED 
VALUE 
EQ37 

To what extent did the  2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme and the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme 
promote cooperation between participating countries? 

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

37.1.1. How do the cross-country arrangements of the European Solidarity Corps work? 
37.1.2 What is the scope of cross-country arrangements of the European Solidarity Corps? 
37.1.3. Would these arrangements be possible without the European Solidarity Corps? 
SCOPE 
2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps          2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps 
JUDGEMENT CRITERIA 
▪  The European Solidarity Corps promotes cooperation between the 

▪  The European Solidarity Corps increases cooperation and mutual 

authorities and agencies of the Member States and non-EU countries  

learning between organisations in EU Member States 

INDICATORS 
Increased cooperation and mutual learning between organisations in EU Member States 

124 

 
 
▪  Number of new partnerships and collaboration networks set up 
between organisations, agencies and authorities as a result of 
participation in the programmes  

▪  Evidence of continued partnerships between organisations in Member 

States and organisations in non-EU countries even after the 
completion of projects  

▪  Evidence that, in the absence of the European Solidarity Corps 

▪  Extent to which cooperation projects could have taken place through 

schemes, the funded international cooperation projects would not 
have happened 

programmes other than the European Solidarity Corps 
▪  Evidence of learning outputs achieved in the partnerships 

▪  Evidence on the practices and procedures established in the new 

partnerships and collaboration networks  

The extent to which the European Solidarity Corps promotes cooperation between the authorities and agencies of the Member States and non-EU 
countries 
▪  Number of new partnerships and collaboration networks set up 
between organisations, agencies and authorities as a result of 
participation in the programmes 

States and organisations in non-EU countries even after the 
completion of projects 

▪  Evidence of continued partnerships between organisations in Member 

▪  Evidence that, in the absence of the European Solidarity Corps 

schemes. the funded international cooperation projects would not 
have happened 

▪  Evidence on the established practices and procedures in the new 

partnerships and collaboration networks 

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

programmes other than the European Solidarity Corps 

LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 
Desk  research  (previous  evaluations,  reports  and  assessments  of  the  programmes  and  horizontal/transnational  studies  on  youth,  volunteering  and 
solidarity, data and documents on national results, initiatives and developments, including national reports and YouthWiki, research data and findings 
from relevant networks and stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations, analysis of existing monitoring and other data), interviews with DG 
EAC, EACEA, National Agencies, national authorities. 

125 

 
6.   Annex IV. Overview of benefits and costs and, where relevant, table on 

simplification and burden reduction 

6.1.  Overview of benefits and costs 

The  table  below  provides  a  typology  which  has  been  applied  to  classify  the  overall  cost-
effectiveness at the level of actions (key programme strands and training and support actions).  

ASSESSMENT 
TYPOLOGY 

High (+) cost-
effectiveness 

DESCRIPTION 

A high (+) assessment for cost-effectiveness indicates that the programme achieves positive 
outputs and outcomes at a relatively low cost. The programme is implemented efficiently, 
resulting in positive impacts for young people.  

Adequate (/) cost-
effectiveness 

An adequate (/) cost-effectiveness assessment indicates that the programme achieves positive 
outputs and outcomes commensurate with the resources invested. The benefits obtained from the 
implementation of the programme are reasonably commensurate with the costs incurred.  

Low (-) cost-
effectiveness 

A low (-) assessment of cost-effectiveness indicates that the programme does not produce outputs 
and results that justify the costs incurred. The implementation of the programme may be 
inefficient or misaligned, resulting in benefits that fall short of the resources invested. 

Undetermined (~) 

An undetermined (~) cost-effectiveness assessment occurs when information gaps on either costs 
or magnitude of benefits make it difficult to definitively assess whether the programme/its 
individual actions are cost-effective. 

The table below presents a summary of the costs and benefits identified by the programme’s 
evaluation. The main source of quantitative information are the results of the cost-effectiveness 
analysis.  Where  quantitative  information  was  not  available,  information  from  the  survey 
programme  has  been  used  to  provide  a  more  qualitative  view  of  the  costs  and  benefits  for 
different actors. 

6.1.1.  2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps (period covered: 2021-2023) 

Costs  (actual  budget)  and  numbers  of  participants  were  retrieved  from  DG  EAC  frozen 
monitoring dashboards (cut-off date 5 January 2024). At the time of the evaluation, data for 
2023 were not final as not all final reports had been submitted. 

Planned output numbers are milestones for key performance indicators provided in the MFF 
Performance Results Reports93. 

Costs (planned budget) were retrieved from annual work programmes for the implementation 
of the European Solidarity Corps programme. 

Action 

Volunteering 
activities 

Anticipated 
output 

Anticipated 
results/impact 

Supported 
individual 
volunteering 
projects and 
volunteering 
teams projects 

Individuals: 
Improved skills 
and competences 
for personal, 
educational, and 
professional 
development 

Costs 

Benefits 

Planned budget: 
EUR 220 202 653.00 
Actual budget: 
EUR 225 542 897.00 

Individual 
participants: 
Planned: 67 423 
Realised: 61 329 

Cost-
effectiveness 
assessment 

Assessment: 
Adequate (/) 

Rationale: 

Cost per participant: 
EUR 5 159.58 

90% of surveyed 
participants were 

The cost of 
volunteering is 

93MFF  Performance  Results  Reports  https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/4e8f26d1-6604-496f-
87c4-0b9a886adf29_en?filename=Core%20performance%20indicators%20%28new%29.pdf 

126 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Action 

Anticipated 
output 

Anticipated 
results/impact 

Costs 

Benefits 

Organisations: 
Strengthened 
capacities of 
hosting 
organisations 

Local 
communities: 
Strengthened 
local 
communities, 
more capable of 
addressing 
societal 
challenges 

Solidarity 
projects 

Supported 
solidarity 
projects under 
the youth 
initiative 

Individuals: 
Improved skills 
and competences 
for personal, 
educational and 
professional 
development 

Planned budget: 
EUR  36 003 142 
Actual budget: 
EUR 24 304 148 

Cost per participant: 
EUR 1 217.63 

highly satisfied 
with their 
European 
Solidarity Corps 
experience 
(N=8 551). The 
programme 
supported 
personal 
development 
(84%), promoted 
educational and 
professional 
growth (83%) 
and strengthened 
participants’  
solidarity and 
social and civic 
awareness (78%). 

Organisations: 
76% (N=970) of 
surveyed 
organisations 
reported 
increased 
programme 
management 
skills; 78% 
(N=971) reported 
improved 
diversity 
practices; 65% 
(N=972) reported 
new partnerships. 

Local 
communities: 
81% of surveyed 
individual 
participants 
(N=8 405) and 
85% of 
participating 
organisations 
(N=887) agreed 
that community 
and social groups 
benefited from 
the programme; 
80% of individual 
participants 
(N=8 311) 
believe it 
addresses societal 
challenges. 
Individual 
participants 

Planned: 27 800 
Realised: 16 395 

Compared with 
other strands and 

Cost-
effectiveness 
assessment 

adequate 
compared with 
other strands 
and to the 
previous 
programming 
period. The 
overall budget 
was slightly 
overspent 
compared with 
the plan. This 
was deliberate 
and reflects a 
reallocation of 
unused budget 
from solidarity 
projects. 
Effectiveness 
was described 
as very 
satisfactory by 
participants and 
organisations. 

Assessment: 
High (+) 

Rationale: 

Compared with 
other 
volunteering 

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Action 

Anticipated 
output 

Anticipated 
results/impact 

Costs 

Benefits 

programmes, 
solidarity projects 
provide added 
value by offering 
young people 
leadership 
opportunities, 
direct access to 
funding and the 
chance to address 
local community 
needs and inspire 
wider social 
change. However, 
take-up of the 
action has been 
significantly 
lower than 
anticipated. 

78% (N=1 599) 
of surveyed 
participants 
agreed that 
solidarity projects 
meet the needs of 
young people. 
Individual 
participants: 
Planned: 3 000 
Realised:  4 251 

Insufficient data 
are available to 
quantify the 
impact of 
participation in 
VTHPA on 
individuals and 
organisations 
compared with 
other programme 
strands. 

Local 
communities: 
Strengthened 
local 
communities, 
more capable of 
addressing 
societal 
challenges 

Individuals: 
Improved skills 
and competences 
for personal, 
educational and 
professional 
development 

Organisations: 
Strengthened 
capacities of 
hosting 
organisations 

Local 
communities: 
Strengthened 
local 
communities, 
more capable of 
addressing 
societal 
challenges 

Planned budget: 
EUR 15 000 000 

Indicative cost per 
participant: 
EUR 3 317.85 

Volunteering in 
high-priority 
areas (VTHPA) 

Supported 
large-scale, 
high-impact 
projects 
supporting 
short-term 
voluntary 
activities in 
high-priority 
areas 

Cost-
effectiveness 
assessment 
opportunities 
offered by the 
programme, 
solidarity 
projects are 
very cost-
effective. 

Assessment: 
Undetermined 
(~) 

Rationale: 

Overall, based 
on indicative 
data, this strand 
demonstrates 
relatively high 
cost-
effectiveness. 
The estimated 
cost per 
participant is 
significantly 
lower than for 
traditional 
volunteering. 
Note: as no data 
were available 
at the time of 
the evaluation, 
the analysis is 
based on the 
planned budget 
and should be 
interpreted with 
caution. Due to 
the higher than 
planned number 
of participants, 
the 
implemented 
budget is also 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Action 

Anticipated 
output 

Anticipated 
results/impact 

Costs 

Benefits 

European 
Voluntary 
Humanitarian 
Aid Corps 

Supported 
projects in non-
EU countries 
with ongoing 
humanitarian 
aid operations 

Insurance 

Volunteers are 
insured for the 
duration of their 
activity 

Individuals: 
Improved skills 
and competences 
for personal, 
educational and 
professional 
development 

Organisations: 
Strengthened 
capacities of 
hosting 
organisations 

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

Support and 
protection for 
volunteers, 
access to 
necessary care 
and coverage for 
unforeseen 
incidents 

Planned budget: 
EUR 13 000 000 

Individual 
participants 

Indicative cost per 
participant: 
EUR 20 123.84 

Planned budget: 
EUR 14 500 000; 
approximately 
EUR 5 000 000 per 
year 

Planned: 629 
Realised: 678 

79% (N=212) of 
surveyed 
participants 
agreed that they 
had developed 
valuable personal 
relationships with 
other volunteers 
and people 
working in the 
fields of 
humanitarian aid 
or development 
cooperation. 

67% (N=4 284) 
of surveyed 
participants were 
satisfied with the 
European 
Solidarity Corps 
insurance; 
however, 
numerous 
organisations and 
National 
Agencies raised 
potential 
concerns about a 
lack of effective 
support and 
responsiveness. 

Online 
language 
support (OLS) 

Volunteers 
participate in 

Improved 
language skills 
of volunteers 

Unknown 

Among surveyed 
volunteers, 36% 
(N=4 697) of 

Cost-
effectiveness 
assessment 

likely to be 
higher. 
Assessment: 
High (+) 

Rationale: 

Overall cost-
effectiveness 
was high, as the 
costs were less 
than half the 
inflation-
adjusted costs 
of similar 
programmes 
such as EU Aid 
Volunteers or 
UN Volunteers. 
It should be 
noted that only 
one full year of 
data were 
available for 
analysis at the 
time of the 
evaluation. 
Assessment: 
Undetermined 
(~) 

Rationale: 

It is difficult to 
make a full 
assessment of 
cost-
effectiveness as 
data on costs 
saved are not 
available. 
However, 
insurance has 
been more cost-
effective than 
during the 
previous 
programme, 
which cost 
EUR 7 million 
per year. The 
rate of 
participant 
satisfaction 
seems to 
suggest that the 
cost-
effectiveness of 
the insurance is 
adequate 
overall. 
Assessment: 
Undetermined 
(~) 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Action 

Anticipated 
output 

Anticipated 
results/impact 

Costs 

Benefits 

language 
learning 

Quality Label 

Organisations 
with a Quality 
Label 

Improved 
standards, 
systems and/or 
operating 
procedures for 
volunteering 

On average, the 
European Solidarity 
Corps spent 4.5% of 
its budget, or EUR 6.5 
million, on Quality 
Label and networking 
activities. 

General online 
training 

Volunteers 
participate in 
training 

Support for 
volunteers 
engaged in 
solidarity 
activities 

Planned budget for 
general online training 
and specific training 
for participants in 
cross-border 
activities: 
EUR 15 430 000 

those who had 
received some 
form of linguistic 
support indicated 
that they had 
participated in 
OLS, suggesting 
that the courses 
offered may not 
be engaging, 
relevant or 
accessible to all; 
among OLS 
participants, 47% 
(N=1 705) 
expressed 
satisfaction. 
Most surveyed 
organisations 
agreed that the 
Quality Label: 
•  promotes the 
delivery of 
high-quality 
solidarity and 
volunteering 
activities 
(71%, N=974) 

•  supports the 
safety and 
well-being of 
volunteers 
(68%, N=974) 

•  motivates 
them to 
continually 
assess and 
improve 
operations 
(66%, 
N=968). 
Among surveyed 
volunteers, 35% 
(N=8 531) 
participated in the 
general online 
trainings; 71% 
(N=2 939) were 
satisfied with the 
general online 
training. 

Cost-
effectiveness 
assessment 

Rationale: 

Cost-
effectiveness 
cannot be 
reliably 
assessed based 
on existing 
evidence. Low 
participation 
and a modest 
satisfaction rate 
suggest room 
for 
improvement.  

Assessment: 
Undetermined 
(~) 

Rationale: 

Cost-
effectiveness 
cannot be 
reliably 
assessed based 
on existing 
evidence. 
Perceived 
benefits and 
high satisfaction 
rates suggest 
good cost-
effectiveness. 

Assessment: 
Undetermined 
(~) 

Rationale: 

Cost-
effectiveness 
cannot be 
reliably 
assessed based 
on existing 
evidence. 
Survey results 
suggest that 
cost-
effectiveness is 
reasonable 
given the high 
satisfaction 
rates, but 
relatively low 
completion rates 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Action 

Anticipated 
output 

Anticipated 
results/impact 

Costs 

Benefits 

Training for 
participants in 
solidarity-
related 
activities 

Volunteers 
participate in 
training 

Pre-departure 
preparation of 
volunteers for 
the European 
Solidarity Corps 
experience 

Planned budget: 
EUR 48 850 000; 
approximately 
EUR 16 000 000 per 
year. 

Specific spending and 
implementation data 
were unavailable at 
the time of the 
evaluation. 

Among surveyed 
volunteers, 72% 
(N=7 054) were 
satisfied with pre-
departure training 
and support 
received, while 
69% (N=7 185) 
were satisfied 
with the task-
related training  

Cost-
effectiveness 
assessment 

suggest that 
there is room 
for 
improvement. 

Assessment: 
Undetermined 
(~) 

Rationale: 

Cost-
effectiveness 
cannot be 
reliably 
assessed based 
on existing 
evidence. 

6.1.2.  2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps 

Costs  (actual  budget)  and  numbers  of  participants  were  retrieved  from  DG  EAC  frozen 
monitoring dashboards (cut-off date 5 January 2024). 

Planned output numbers are milestones for key performance indicators provided in the MFF 
Performance Results Reports94.  

Costs (planned budget) were retrieved from annual work programmes for the implementation 
of the European Solidarity Corps programme. 

Action 

Volunteering 
activities 

Anticipated 
output 

Anticipated 
results/impact 

Costs 

Benefits 

Supported 
individual 
volunteering 
projects and 
volunteering 
teams projects 

Individuals: 
Improved skills 
and competences 
for personal, 
educational and 
professional 
development 

Organisations: 
Strengthened 
capacities of 
hosting 
organisations 

Local 
communities: 
Strengthened 
local 
communities, 
more capable of  
addressing 

Planned budget: 
EUR 203 789 051.00 
Actual budget: 
EUR 123 079 357.76 

Individual 
participants:  
Planned: 61 900 
Actual: 28 844 

Cost per participant: 
EUR 4 267.07 

89% of surveyed 
participants were 
highly satisfied 
with their 
European 
Solidarity Corps 
experience 
(N=3 430). The 
programme 
supported 
personal 
development 
(83%), promoted 
educational and 
professional 
growth (83%) 

Cost-
effectiveness 
assessment 

Assessment: 
Adequate (/) 

Rationale: 

The cost-
effectiveness of 
the volunteering 
activities appears 
to be adequate 
and  similar to the 
cost-effectiveness 
of similar 
volunteering 
activities in the 
programme. 
When adjusted 
for inflation, 
these activities 
are even more 
cost-effective. 

94  MFF  Performance  Results  Reports  https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/4e8f26d1-6604-496f-
87c4-0b9a886adf29_en?filename=Core%20performance%20indicators%20%28new%29.pdf 

131 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Action 

Anticipated 
output 

Anticipated 
results/impact 

Costs 

Benefits 

Cost-
effectiveness 
assessment 

societal 
challenges 

Solidarity 
projects 

Supported 
solidarity 
projects under 
the youth 
initiative 

Planned budget: EUR  
23 429 844.00 
Actual budget: 
EUR 15 096 158.69 

Cost per participant: 
EUR: 1 177.27 

Individuals: 
Improved skills 
and competences 
for personal, 
educational, and 
professional 
development 

Local 
communities: 
Strengthened 
local 
communities, 
more capable of 
addressing 

and strengthened 
participants’ 
solidarity and 
social and civic 
awareness 
(75%). 

Organisations: 
74% (N=83) of 
surveyed 
organisations 
reported 
increased 
programme 
management 
competences; 
72% (N=83) 
reported 
improved 
diversity 
practices; 55% 
(N=83) reported 
new 
partnerships. 

Local 
communities: 
79% of surveyed 
individual 
participants 
(N=3 381) and 
80% of 
participating 
organisations 
(N=70) agreed 
that community 
and social 
groups benefited 
from the 
programme; 
80% of 
individual 
participants 
(N=3 341) 
believe it 
addresses 
societal 
challenges. 
Individual 
participants:  
Planned: 18 900 
Actual: 12 823 

75% (N=629) of 
surveyed 
participants 
agreed that 
solidarity 
projects met the 
needs of young 
people. 

Assessment: High 
(+) 

Rationale: 

The cost-
effectiveness of 
solidarity projects 
appears to be 
high. It is similar 
to, or even higher 
than,  their cost-
effectiveness in 
the 2021-2027 
programming 
period, adjusted 

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Action 

Anticipated 
output 

Anticipated 
results/impact 

Costs 

Benefits 

VTHPA 

Supported 
large-scale, 
high-impact 
projects 
supporting 
short-term 
voluntary 
activities in 
high-priority 
areas 

Planned budget: 
EUR 2 789 725.00 

Indicative cost per 
participant: 
EUR 1 886.22 

societal 
challenges 

Individuals: 
Improved 
personal, 
educational, and 
professional 
development 
skills 

Organisations: 
Strengthened 
capacities of 
hosting 
organisations 

Local 
communities: 
Strengthened 
local 
communities, 
more capable of 
addressing 
societal 
challenges 

Traineeships 
and jobs 

Supported 
traineeships / 
jobs projects 

Planned budget: 
EUR 25 200 000.00 
Actual budget: 
EUR 2 418 118.46 

Cost per participant: 
EUR 2 844.85 

Individuals: 
Improved 
personal, 
educational and 
professional 
development 
skills; better 
employability 
and transition 
into the labour 
market 

Individual 
participants: 
Planned: -- 
Actual: 1 479 

Insufficient data 
are available to 
quantify the 
impact of 
participation in 
VTHPA on 
individuals and 
organisations 
compared with 
other 
programme 
strands. 

Individual 
participants: 
Planned: 11 200 
Actual: 850 

Insufficient data 
are available to 
quantify the 
impact of 
participation in 
traineeships and 
jobs on 
individuals and 
organisations 
compared with 
other 
programme 
strands. 

Cost-
effectiveness 
assessment 
for inflation. With 
costs around a 
third of those of 
volunteering 
projects, 
solidarity projects 
are especially 
cost-effective. 
Assessment: 
Undetermined (~) 

Rationale: 

The cost-
effectiveness of 
the VTHPA 
appears to be 
high, with a 
lower cost per 
participant than 
for traditional 
volunteering 
activities in the 
programme. 
When adjusted 
for inflation, 
these activities 
are still cost-
effective. Note: 
as no 
implementation 
data were 
available at the 
time of the 
evaluation, the 
analysis is based 
on the planned 
budget and 
should be 
interpreted with 
caution. 
Assessment: 
Undetermined (~) 

Rationale: 

Cost-
effectiveness 
cannot be reliably 
assessed based on 
existing evidence. 
In terms of cost, 
they are more 
expensive than 
solidarity projects 
or VTHPA, but, 
at around half the 
cost, they remain 
cheaper than 
volunteering 
projects. 
Comparisons 
with other 
programmes or 

133 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Action 

Anticipated 
output 

Anticipated 
results/impact 

Costs 

Benefits 

Insurance 

Volunteers are 
insured for the 
duration of 
their activity 

Support and 
protection for 
volunteers, 
access to 
necessary care 
and coverage for 
unforeseen 
incidents 

Actual budget: 
EUR 14 125 014.00; 
approximately 
EUR 7 000 000 per 
year 

69% (N=2 488) 
of surveyed 
participants were 
satisfied with the 
European 
Solidarity Corps 
insurance. 

Training and 
evaluation 
cycle 

Planned budget: 
EUR 49 504 475.00 

Actual budget: 
EUR 17 318 888.69 

Cost per participant: 
EUR 531 

Number of 
participants: 
32 611 

Among surveyed 
volunteers, 73% 
(N=2 765) were 
satisfied with 
pre-departure 
training and 
support 
received, while 
69% (N=2 802) 
were satisfied 
with the task-
related training. 

Cost-
effectiveness 
assessment 

subsequent 
programmes are 
not possible as 
this strand has 
been 
discontinued. 
Assessment: 
Undetermined (~) 

Rationale: 

It is difficult to 
make a full 
assessment of 
cost-effectiveness 
as data on costs 
saved are not 
available. 
However, at 
EUR 7 million 
per year for a 
programme that 
had far fewer 
participants than 
the subsequent 
one, the cost-
effectiveness of 
the insurance 
seems relatively 
low compared 
with the current 
programme, 
especially when 
inflation is taken 
into account. 
Assessment: 
Undetermined (~) 

Rationale: 

Cost-
effectiveness 
cannot be reliably 
assessed based on 
existing evidence. 
At around 
EUR 531 per 
participant, the 
cost of training 
appears 
reasonable 
considering the 
overall cost of 
participation per 
participant. 

134 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.  Annex V. Stakeholder consultation – synopsis report  

7.1.  Introduction  

This annex presents an overview of the work carried out and conclusions reached during the 
interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps and the final evaluation of the 
2018-2020  European  Solidarity  Corps.  It  covers  three  types  of  stakeholder  consultation 
activities: public consultations, surveys and interviews. In line with  the requirements of the 
terms of reference and the Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox, the annex: 
(i) provides an overview of the consultation strategy; (ii) explains the implementation of each 
consultation activity carried out and its consistency 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.  

7.2.  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 set out 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 the consultation strategy, the relevant principles and steps for 
stakeholder  consultation  set  out  in  the  Commission’s  Better  Regulation  Guidelines  were 
followed. The main steps in the stakeholder consultation included:  

•  designing the consultation strategy;  

• 

• 

conducting the consultation work;  

informing policymaking through the preparation of 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 
categories of stakeholders consulted, the detailed approach to each method and the results are 
presented  in  the  following  sections.  The  study  team  triangulated  the  results  of  the  various 
consultations with the results of other data collection and analysis activities. 

Table 1. Stakeholder consultation activities – overview 

CONSULTATION 
ACTIVITY  

Public consultation  

TARGET GROUPS  

DATE  

•  programme participants  
•  other relevant stakeholders such as 
management  and  implementation 
authorities, 
bodies, 

national 

13 November 2023 to 
5 February 2024  

135 

 
 
international  organisations  and 
networks  
•  general public  

•  participating organisations  
•  participating individuals  
•  European Commission DGs  
•  EACEA  
•  National Agencies  
•  external experts/evaluators  
•  national authorities  
•  EU bodies  
• 

international  organisations  and 
NGOs  

•  other 

stakeholders 

(SALTOs, 

RAY, etc.)  

August 2023 to April 2024  

•  survey of individual participants  
•  survey of individual applicants  
•  survey 
of 

participating 

25 January 2024 to 28 February 
2024  

organisations  

Interview 
programme  

Surveys  

Source: evaluation team. 

These  different  types  of  stakeholder  consultations  were  complementary.  While  large-scale 
surveys of participating organisations and individual volunteers of this programme provided 
robust evidence on its effectiveness and efficiency, interviews with participants, managing and 
implementing  bodies,  and  external  experts  and  organisations  also  served  to  collect  data  on 
relevance and coherence. The survey of individual European Solidarity Corps applicants was 
mainly  used  to  provide  data  for  the  counterfactual  analysis  (see  Annex  3).  The  public 
consultation, which covered all evaluation criteria, enabled not only participants but also other 
stakeholders and the general public to provide their views on the programme.  

While the study produced separate evaluations of the 2018-2020 and 2021-2027 periods of the 
European  Solidarity  Corps  programme,  the  following  sections  summarise  the  results  of  the 
consultation  at  the  level  of  the  overall  programme  and  are  forward-looking.  The  separate 
evaluations in the final report take into account the specific findings for each evaluation period, 
based on not only consultations but also additional data collection and analysis methods.  

7.3.  Key results of consultation activities  

7.3.1.   Summarised results of the public consultation  

The public consultation  aimed to  collect  information, expertise and views from  programme 
participants,  stakeholders  and  the  general  public.  An  integrated  questionnaire  covering  the 
European Solidarity Corps was developed by the evaluation team. The public consultation was 

136 

 
 
available on the 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  Commission  and  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  National 
Agencies.  

The questions asked in the public consultation focused on the evaluation of the programme and 
its  future.  The  low  number  of  responses  received  is  attributed  to  the  limited  scope  of  the 
consultation and the small size of the initiative.  

The  public  consultation,  which  also  covered  the  final  evaluation  of  the  EU Aid  Volunteers 
initiatives, received a total of 673 responses. Of these, 264 (39%) were from non-governmental 
organisations,  230  (34%)  from  EU  citizens,  50  (7%)  from  non-EU  citizens,  35  (5%)  from 
public  authorities  and  18  (3%)  from  business  associations.  9  responses  came  from 
institutions,  7  from  companies/businesses,  4  from  environmental 
academic/research 
organisations, 2 from consumer organisations and 1 from a trade union. The highest numbers 
of  contributions  came  from  Germany  (96),  Romania  (90),  France  (75),  Türkiye  (57),  Spain 
(46), Italy (39), Austria (26), Belgium (24) and Denmark (22).  

The questionnaire was designed around several response paths to provide both representatives 
of  organisations  and  individual  respondents  different  sets  of  questions  depending  on  their 
participation  in  the  programmes  and  level  of  familiarity  with  it.  Representatives  of 
organisations  which  did  not  participate  in  the  programmes  but  who  indicated  at  least  some 
degree  of  familiarity  with  them  received  additional  questions  (unrelated  to  participation). 
Among  organisations,  89%  (350  out  of  393)  indicated  that  they  had  participated  in  the 
European Solidarity Corps while among individuals, 62% (174 out of 280) had participated. 
As  regards  familiarity,  312  respondents  from  organisations  indicated  that  they  were  very 
familiar with the European Solidarity Corps, while 68 were familiar and 11 were somewhat 
familiar with the programme (2 were not familiar).  

Responses to closed questions on the five evaluation criteria form 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 (e.g. on the 
coherence  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  programme)  were  summarised  and  analysed 
qualitatively to complement the quantitative analysis.  

Relevance: Individuals and respondents representing organisations held positive views of 
the relevance of the programme’s activities and priorities. 87% (582 out of 671) agreed that 
solidarity  activities  address  community  or  societal  challenges,  while  92%  (614  out  of  670) 
believed they had a positive impact on young people’s development. In response to open-ended 
questions, respondents emphasised in particular the importance of the programme in improving 
young people’s civic skills and instilling the notion of solidarity by actively involving them in 
local  communities  and  broadening  their  world  view.  Among  the  horizontal  programme 
priorities, respondents considered inclusion and diversity as highly relevant (69%; 464 out of 
668), followed by participation in democratic life (58%; 388 out of 664), the green transition 
(56%; 374 out of 668) and the digital transformation (31%; 207 out of 666). As regards further 
development of the priorities, the most common suggestions were to include a focus on mental 

137 

 
 
health and well-being and increase efforts on inclusion and diversity. Respondents also called 
for clearer explanations and practical implementation of the digital transformation, and specific 
action on climate change and sustainable living practices.  

As regards recent challenges that affected the programme, 15% of individuals (26 out of 
173) and 57% of organisations (193 out of 341) responded that the COVID-19 pandemic had 
affected their participation in the programme. Of these, organisations most frequently reported 
that their project had been postponed (109); that their project methodology and activities had 
changed (106); that their project outcomes had changed (104); that they had to carry out part 
of their project online (103); or that not all participants could take part (100). Organisations 
were very satisfied with the support provided by the National Agencies in this context (97 out 
of 190 organisations rated it 10 out of 10). In addition, 10% (17 out of 171) of individuals and 
32% (109 out of 342) of organisations had been affected by Russia’s war of aggression against 
Ukraine, while 31% (52 out of 170) of individuals reported that the rising prices of goods and 
services in recent years had affected their participation in the programme.  

Coherence:  Respondents  representing  organisations  expressed  mixed  opinions  on  a 
potential integration of the programme into Erasmus+. 46% (175 out of 381) answered that 
keeping the European Solidarity Corps separate from other EU programmes offers advantages, 
while 32% (123) thought that it would be more beneficial to integrate it into a larger programme 
like Erasmus+. 22% (83) of respondents selected ‘Don’t know / No opinion’. In response to an 
open-ended follow-up question about the reasons for these positions, some respondents argued 
that keeping the European Solidarity Corps separate would maintain the unique character of 
the programme and allow for focused objectives on youth engagement, social inclusion and 
solidarity,  with  dedicated  funding,  easier  monitoring  and  management,  and  clarity  in 
implementation. Others suggested that merging the two programmes could increase visibility 
and reach more young people and organisations while allowing for economies of scale, greater 
budgetary flexibility for National Agencies, more coherent rules and greater synergies between 
different types of actions.  

Effectiveness:  Individuals  and  respondents  representing  organisations  assessed  the 
impact of the programme on different stakeholder groups very positively. 96% (538) of 
all respondents (N=559) agreed or strongly agreed that the programme has a positive impact 
on the lives and values of the communities and social groups involved. The areas of highest 
positive impact identified by individuals were: improved foreign language skills (88 out of 
169 respondents selected ‘10 (high impact)’ on a scale from 1 to 10); better understanding of 
diversity in society (86 out of 168); increased self-empowerment and self-esteem (82 out of 
168); increased motivation for further involvement in solidarity activities (78 out of 168); and 
better  awareness  of  the  European  project  and  common  European  values  (73  out  of  169). 
Among organisations, 97% (335 out of 345) indicated that the European Solidarity Corps had 
a positive impact on their organisation to some or to a large or very large extent, while 91% 
(315  out  of  346)  of  respondents  replied  that  the  programme  increased  their  organisation’s 
capacity to operate at the EU or international levels.  

When asked about the inclusivity of the European Solidarity Corps, 75% (420 out of 559) 
of all respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the programme facilitates the participation of 

138 

 
 
people  with  fewer  opportunities.  14%  (77)  neither  agreed  nor  disagreed,  while  9%  (50) 
disagreed  or  strongly  disagreed.  2%  (12)  selected  ‘Don’t  know  /  No  opinion’.  Among  the 
suggestions for how the programme could further improve access and participation of people 
with fewer opportunities, respondents most frequently mentioned the need for increased budget 
and financial support, simplification of procedures and tools, and targeted communication and 
outreach.  

Efficiency: Respondents provided a modest assessment of the benefits versus the costs of 
participation.  While  62%  (214  out  of  346)  of  organisations  considered  that  the  benefits 
outweighed  the  costs,  60%  (206  out  of  341)  of  organisations  and  45%  (77  out  of  171)  of 
individuals felt that their participation required a lot of effort, and 41% (142 out of 346) of 
organisations and 24% (41 out of 173) of individuals felt that the financial support received 
was insufficient. Information about the programme was found to be comprehensive by 75% 
(260 out of 345) of organisations and 57% (98 out of 171) of individuals, while 73% (252 out 
of 343) of organisations  and 43% (74 out  of 172) of individuals considered it easy to  find. 
Overall,  individuals  found  the  application  process  on  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  portal 
user-friendly (103 out of 173). Among organisations, 67% (229 out of 340) found the grant 
application  process  user-friendly;  51%  (175  out  of  346)  found  the  accreditation  application 
process user-friendly; and 49% (169 out of 344) found the guidance and support tools user-
friendly.  

Overall,  organisations  considered  the  2021-2027  programme  to  be  an  improvement 
compared with the 2018-2020 programme (57%; 220 out of 387). 52% (200 out of 386) of 
respondents reported that the programme’s visibility had improved, while 48% (184 out of 384) 
considered it to be more accessible to organisations and individuals, and 43% (167 out of 365) 
reported  a  reduced  administrative  burden  for  organisations.  Among  the  aspects  of  the 
programme  that  could  be  further  improved,  respondents  most  frequently  mentioned  better 
accessibility and usability of the programme’s systems and platforms; improved guidance and 
training;  and  the  need  for  more  publicity  and  communication  to  increase  the  programme’s 
visibility.  

EU added value: A small majority of individuals and organisations (51%; 285 out of 556) 
indicated they would not be able to find and participate in alternative programmes with 
similar  objectives  if  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  did  not  exist.  Of  the  23%  (142)  of 
respondents  who  indicated  that  they  would  be  able  to  find  alternative  programmes,  106 
indicated  that  these  would  be  at  international/European  level,  while  82  indicated  that  they 
would be at national level. Compared with other national, European or international initiatives, 
the  distinctive  added  value  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  most  frequently  cited  by 
individuals  and  organisations  (N=556)  was  providing  opportunities  for  international 
volunteering (indicated by 424 respondents) and helping participants to improve their personal 
or  professional  skills  (indicated  by  423  respondents)  as  .  These  were  followed  by  the 
accessibility  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  volunteering  and  solidarity  activities  (403 
respondents)  and  the  programme’s  promotion  of  exchanges  between  different  cultures  and 
countries  (401  respondents).  In  response  to  an  open-ended  follow-up  question,  respondents 
highlighted  the  inclusivity  of  the  programme  and  its  unique  focus  on  youth  engagement, 

139 

 
 
solidarity  and  community  impact,  as  well  as  the  strong  support  framework  and  financial 
support provided.  

In addition to the open-text comments addressed in the report, four position papers on the 
European  Solidarity  Corps  programme  were  received.  One  focused  on  improving  the 
conditions for volunteering by introducing an ‘EU Volunteer’ status and a ‘Quality Charter’ 
for volunteering, as well as promoting and supporting capacity building among organisations. 
The second highlighted challenges in different aspects of the programme, such as accessibility, 
funding and support, with specific recommendations for volunteering, solidarity projects and 
the  humanitarian  aid  strand  of  the  programme.  Two  submissions  focused  on  inclusion  and 
diversity:  one  gave  recommendations  for  improving  accessibility,  funding  and  monitoring 
practices  and  the  other  outlined  problematic  areas  and  made  recommendations  for  better 
inclusion of participants with disabilities.  

7.3.2.   Summarised  results  of  the  survey  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps 

programme: 

The study team implemented three surveys covering:  

o 

 individual participants  

o 

 individual applicants  

o  participating organisations.  

The  initial  survey  questionnaires  were  developed  based  on  the  evaluation  questions, 
consultations with the Commission and previous surveys. During the second interim phase, the 
evaluation  team  finalised  the  survey  questionnaires  based  on    a  pilot  survey  with  selected 
stakeholders and additional feedback from the DG EAC and the Interservice Group.  

The surveys were launched in January and February 2024 and closed at the end of February 
2024.  The  contracting  authority  provided  the  study  team  with  the  contact  details  of  all 
stakeholders who were then contacted directly with personal invitations to the survey via the 
Alchemer surveying tool. 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.  

Table 2. Main statistics on implementation of the surveys 

140 

 
 
TARGET 
GROUP 

SURVEY 
LAUNCH 
DATE 

SURVEY 
CLOSURE 
DATE 

NUMBER OF 
INVITATIONS 
SENT OUT 

NUMBER 
OF 
RESPONSES 
RECEIVED 

RESPONSE 
RATE* 

European 
Solidarity 
Corps 
organisations 

European 
Solidarity 
Corps 
individuals  – 
participants 

European 
Solidarity 
Corps 
individuals  – 
applicants 

25 January 
2024 

12 February 
2024 

5 939 

68 495 

13 February 
2024 

28 February 
2024 

64 392 

partial: 328 
complete: 978 
total: 1 306 

partial: 2 721 
complete: 
7 834 
total: 10 555 

partial: 2 078 
complete: 
3 915 
total: 5 993 

16.4% 

11.4% 

6.1% 

NUMBER 
OF 
RESPONSES 
INCLUDED 
IN THE 
ANALYSIS 
AFTER 
CLEANING 

partial: 111 
complete: 977 
total: 1 088 

participants: 
partial: 2 160 
complete: 
8 513 
total: 10 673 

applicants: 
partial: 619 
complete: 
2 660 
total: 3 279 

*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: evaluation team.  

The data collected from the three surveys was 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  Microsoft  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  those  aspects  where 
participants’ opinions were of high importance. All findings from the surveys were included in 
the  final  report  of  the  evaluation.  The  following  sections  summarise  the  findings  from  the 
survey data of European Solidarity Corps participants (individuals and organisations). Survey 
data from European Solidarity Corps applicants were used to inform the counterfactual analysis 
(see Annex 3).  

Relevance: Most organisations agreed that there was a good match between their needs and 
the skills of the volunteers (75%; 488 out of 648) and believed that the programme was 
also relevant to the needs of the communities involved (85%; 752 out of 887). Similarly, 

141 

 
 
individual volunteers felt that the programme was relevant for addressing young people’s 
development (93%; 7 696 out of 8 309) and societal challenges (80%; 6 650 out of 8 311). 
However, volunteers’ assessment of the relevance of their individual tasks was more modest 
(65%; 4 809 out of 7 351, ranked them as relevant).  

Respondents  considered  the  four  horizontal  priorities  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps 
relevant to current societal needs, particularly inclusion and diversity (66%, or 797 out of 
1 076, considered them ‘highly relevant’); participation in democratic life (57%; 606 out of 
1 070); and the green transition (56%; 603 out of 1 073). The digital transformation was seen 
as somewhat  less relevant  (32%;  345 out  of 1 070). Individual  participants  were also  asked 
about annual thematic and specific priorities. Among these, they considered ‘Preservation 
of cultural heritage’ (47%; 3 865 out of 8 260) and ‘Bridging the intergenerational and social 
divide’ (50%; 4 123 out of 8 250) most relevant, while ‘Prevention, promotion and support in 
the field of health’ was perceived as least relevant (35%; 2 851 out of 8 228).  

Organisations and individual volunteers recognised the flexible and timely support they 
received during various challenges that affected their participation in the programme. 
The majority considered that the programme provided sufficient support during the COVID-
19 pandemic (1 969 out of 2 536 organisations; 1 969 out of 2 536 individuals); during Russia’s 
war of aggression against Ukraine (472 out of 642 organisations; 472 out of 642 individuals); 
and during unforeseen events or crises in host countries (235 out of 366 organisations; 235 out 
of 366 individuals).  

Coherence: To gather views on the internal coherence of the programme and the alignment 
between  its  different  activities,  the  survey  programme  asked  organisations  about  their 
experience  with  traineeships  and  jobs,  which  were  only  offered  during  the  2018-2020 
programme  period.  Organisations  that  had  participated  (in  a  supporting  or  host  role)  in 
traineeships and jobs under the programme gave mixed reviews to the experience . 78% (43 
out of 55) considered the difference between traineeships/jobs and volunteering to have been 
clear; 61% (33 out of 54) found that it was easy for organisations to participate; and 64% (35 
out of 55) found that they were attractive for young people. Of the organisations surveyed that 
had not participated in traineeships and jobs, 36% (304 out of 837) cited a lack of relevance of 
such activities to their organisation as a reason for not participating in the strand, while 35% 
(297)  did  not  know  about  traineeships  and  jobs.  19%  (162)  cited  insufficient  financial 
incentives offered by the programme, while 5% (44) indicated that there were better traineeship 
or job programmes for young people in their country.  

Effectiveness: Individuals  and organisations  assessed the impact of the programme on 
different stakeholder groups very positively. The areas of highest positive impact reported 
by individuals were: improved foreign language skills (91%; 7 677 out of 8 447); teamwork 
(90%; 7 561 out of 8 407); and ability to cooperate with people from different backgrounds 
(89%;  7 485  out  of  8 434).  Individual  participants  also  became  more  involved  in  social, 
solidarity or civic activities after taking part in the programme: 70% (6 280 out of 8 972) had 
recently participated in such activities, compared with 55% (4 935 out of 8 972) at the time of 
application.  

142 

 
 
Organisations  reported  that  their  participation  contributed  to  improving  their  diversity  and 
inclusion practices (78%; 757 out of 971) and project management (76%; 736 out of 970), and 
led to new partnerships (64%; 626 out of 972) and expanded international networks (62%; 601 
out  of  967).  The  programme  has  enabled  and  encouraged  participating  organisations  to 
explore  similar  volunteering  and  solidarity  activities  outside  the  European  Solidarity 
Corps, including at international level. 55% (525 out of 963) reported that their organisation 
continued to be involved in similar volunteering and solidarity activities after participating in 
the programme, while 52% (500 out of 967) of organisations reported that they participated in 
more activities at EU or international level.  

The Quality Label has received very positive feedback from organisations. They consider 
that it promotes the delivery of high-quality solidarity and volunteering activities (71%; 694 
out  of 974) and supports the safety  and well-being  of volunteers (68%;  666 out  of 974). In 
addition, 66% (639 out of 968) of the organisations surveyed felt that the certification process 
motivated them to continuously evaluate and improve their activities.  

As for the impact of the programme at local level, 81% (6 795 out of 8 405) of volunteers 
and 85% (752 out of 887) of organisations felt that the programme met important needs of the 
communities and social groups involved. In addition, participating organisations reported that 
the work of volunteers contributed to a positive attitude towards the EU in the communities 
(81%; 717 out of 884), promoted openness to new cultures (84%; 748 out of 886) and provided 
services or activities that would not otherwise be available (73%; 648 out of 883).  

Efficiency: Participating organisations gave relatively low ratings to the financial aspects 
of the programme. 43% (434 out of 1 005) thought that the financial support received was 
sufficient to cover their participation costs, while 36% (360 out of 1 000) considered the unit 
cost  rates  as  sufficient.  Funding  has  overall  been  sufficient  for  individual  participants 
(74%; 6 222 out of 8 390).  

Participation in the European Solidarity Corps has not been viewed as burdensome by 
most organisations and individuals. Most volunteers (66%; 5 560 out of 8 393) and around 
half of organisations (49%; 499 out of 1 009) deemed the various administrative requirements 
to be reasonable (31% (315) of organisations and 13% (1 098) of individuals neither agreed 
nor  disagreed).  Most  individuals  felt  that  the  benefits  of  participating  outweighed  the  costs 
(74%; 6 170 out of 8 350) and that the time between applying and starting their activity was 
reasonable (82%; 6 863 out of 8 383).  

Participating organisations gave a positive assessment of the Quality Label application 
process  and  the  project  application  process.  63%  of  them  (537  out  of  857)  found  the 
information provided to Quality Label applicants clear and easy to understand, and 51% (439 
out of 859) found the guidance and support tools easy to use. On the project application process, 
60%  of  participating  organisations  (608  out  of  1 018)  found  the  information  provided  to 
applicants clear and easy to understand, and 50% (509 out of 1 019) found the guidance and 
support  tools  easy  to  use.  However,  62%  (535  out  of  858)  said  that  the  Quality  Label 
application required significant effort on the part of their organisation, and 49% (499 out of 
1 010)  agreed  with  this  statement  on  the  project  application  process.  Participating 

143 

 
 
organisations had mixed views on the tools and procedures used to recruit and manage 
volunteers. 39% (399 out of 1 015) found it easy to recruit volunteers through the European 
Solidarity Corps portal, and 49% (492 out of 1 010) found the time needed for this process 
acceptable.  The  Beneficiary  Module  and  the  Mobility  Tool+    received  low  rates  for  user-
friendliness, with only 36% (329 out of 922) and 37% (31 out of 86) respectively confirming 
that they were easy to use.  

improvements,  especially  simplified 
Experienced  organisations  reported  several 
procedures  for  project  proposals,  implementation  and  reporting,  compared  with  the 
2018-2020  period.  A  total  of  51%  (363  out  of  717)  confirmed  that  the  programme  has 
simplified the process of preparing and submitting project proposals, while 40% (288 out of 
712) noted that the project implementation and reporting processes had been streamlined. The 
simplification of project funding  mechanisms was acknowledged by 45% (319 out  of 709), 
while 40% (286 out of 713) noted the increased visibility of the programme.  

EU added value: The programme has significant added value in providing opportunities 
for  volunteering  and  solidarity  activities  for  individuals  and  organisations.  Among 
individuals, 37% (3 382 out of 9 073) stated that they would not have participated in a similar 
activity without the European Solidarity Corps, while 25% (2 245) expressed uncertainty. For 
47% (493 out of 1 051) of the organisations, no alternative sources of funding were available 
for the projects in which they took part, and 70% (754 out of 1 069) would not have taken part 
in similar activities without the support of the programme.  

7.4.  Comparison of the results of consultation activities  

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

144 

 
 
 
 
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 

Respondents  had  positive views  of 
the  relevance  of  the  programme’s 
activities and priorities. 

Organisations  reported  a  good  match 
between  their  needs  and  the  skills  of 
volunteers. 

Respondents strongly believed that 
solidarity 
addressed 
activities 
societal  needs  and  had  a  positive 
people’s 
on 
impact 
development. 

young 

horizontal 

Among 
programme 
priorities,  respondents  considered 
inclusion  and  diversity  as  most 
relevant,  while 
digital 
transformation  was  perceived  as 
less relevant. 

the 

Participating  organisations  were 
very  satisfied  with  the  support 
provided  by  the  programme  in  the 
context 
the  COVID-19 
pandemic. 

of 

Individual participants and organisations 
strongly  believed  that  the  programme 
was relevant to addressing societal needs 
and young people’s development. 

the 

Respondents 
four 
considered 
horizontal  priorities  of  the  European 
Solidarity  Corps  relevant  to  current 
societal needs, particularly inclusion and 
diversity. The digital transformation was 
seen as less relevant. 

and 

Organisations 
individual 
participants  recognised  the  flexible  and 
timely  support  they  received  during 
various  challenges  that  affected  their 
participation in the programme. 

Respondents 
representing 
organisations had mixed views on a 
potential 
the 
integration 
programme into Erasmus+. 

of 

Organisations  provided 
a  modest 
assessment of their experience with the 
traineeships and jobs strand, which was 
discontinued in 2021. 

Non-participating  organisations  cited  a 
lack  of  relevance  and  awareness  of  the 
strand  as  key  reasons  for  not  having 
taken part. 

Relevance 

Coherence 

external 

Agencies, 
and 

participating 
National 
organisations 
experts 
perceive the programme as highly relevant 
to the needs of its participants and wider 
communities  as  it  offers  a  variety  of 
formats and themes for participation. 

National stakeholders highlighted the role 
of the programme in promoting solidarity, 
especially 
and 
minority  groups.  However,  they  also 
noted challenges in reaching and targeting 
young people with fewer opportunities. 

among  marginalised 

National  stakeholders  agreed  that  the 
flexibility  of  the  programme's  priorities 
was  necessary  to  respond  effectively  to 
societal challenges. 

High 

High 

Low 

general, 

management 

In 
and 
implementation bodies found the rationale 
for  delegation  between  directly  and 
indirectly  managed  actions  within  the 
programme clear. 

High 

High 

Low 

Stakeholders interviewed from all groups 
generally  perceived  the  programme  as 
consistent with other initiatives, including 
the Erasmus+ programme. They noted that 
there are possibilities for better exploiting 
synergies and avoiding duplications. 

145 

 
 
 
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 

Participating  organisations  and  National 
Agencies  had  mixed  views  on 
the 
potential  integration  of  the  programme 
into Erasmus+. 

Experts  and  participating  organisations 
expressed concerns about the alignment of 
the  newly  integrated  humanitarian  aid 
strand with the youth strand. 

Individuals 
assessed 
programme  on 
positively. 

the 

and 

organisations 
impact  of 
the 
themselves  very 

Effectiveness 

Participating organisations reported 
highly  positive  impacts  on  their 
organisations,  including  on  their 
capacity  to  operate  at  EU  and 
international levels. 

Overall,  respondents  believed  that 
the  programme 
the 
participation  of  people  with  fewer 
opportunities. 

facilitated 

impact  of 

Individuals  and  organisations  assessed 
the 
the  programme  on 
themselves very positively, including in 
improving organisational capacities and 
practices,  and  enabling  participation  in 
similar 
the 
programme. 

activities  outside  of 

The Quality Label received very positive 
feedback 
for 
promoting  high-quality  activities  and 
supporting volunteers’ well-being. 

organisations 

from 

volunteers, 

In  addition  to  the  positive  impact  of  the 
programme  on  individual  organisations 
participating 
and 
organisations,  National  Agencies  and 
external 
the 
programme's  contribution  to  promoting 
community building and addressing local 
issues. 

emphasised 

experts 

National  stakeholders  stressed  that  post-
pandemic  budget  cuts  had  affected  the 
visibility and outreach of the programme. 

High 

High 

Low 

Individuals  and  organisations  believed 
that  the  programme  was  effective  in 
addressing 
local 
communities  and  promoted  European 
values. 

needs 

the 

of 

Efficiency 

Organisations and individuals gave 
a  modest  assessment  of  the  costs 
and benefits of their participation. 

Organisations  generally  expressed 
positive  opinions  on 
the  grant 
application  process  but  expressed 

organisations 

Participating 
gave 
relatively  low  ratings  to  the  financial 
aspects  of  the  programme.  Funding  for 
individuals has been overall sufficient. 

National 

Agencies 

Several 
and 
participating  organisations  described  IT 
systems and reporting tools as a key area 
in need of further improvement. 

High 

High 

Low 

146 

 
 
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 

mixed opinions on accreditation and 
guidance and support tools. 

Financial  support  was  considered 
a  minority  of 
sufficient  by 
organisations and individuals. 

Overall,  organisations  considered 
the  system  of  the  integrated  2021-
an 
2027 
improvement  compared  with  the 
2018-2020 programme. 

programme 

to  be 

EU added value 

Most individuals and organisations 
indicated they would not be able to 
find  and  participate  in  alternative 
programmes with similar objectives 
if the programme did not exist. 

to 

opportunities 
volunteering 

for 
Providing 
and 
international 
helping  participants 
improve 
their personal or professional skills 
were  most  frequently  cited  by 
individuals and organisations as the 
distinctive  added  value  of 
the 
programme  compared  with  other 
initiatives. 

Participation in the European Solidarity 
Corps  is  not  viewed  as  burdensome  by 
most organisations and individuals. 

Several  participating  organisations  and 
National  Agencies  raised  concerns  about 
the programme’s budget. 

Participating  organisations  gave  a 
positive assessment of the Quality Label 
application  process  and  the  project 
application process. 

Participating  organisations  had  mixed 
views on the tools and procedures used 
to recruit and manage volunteers. 

improvements, 

reported 
Experienced  organisations 
in  particular 
several 
simplifications 
to  project  proposal, 
implementation and reporting, compared 
with the 2018-2020 period. 

individuals  and  organisations 
Most 
believe  that  the  programme  has  an 
important  added  value  in  providing 
opportunities 
for  volunteering  and 
solidarity  activities  for  individuals  and 
organisations  that  would  otherwise  not 
be available. 

Some  National  Agencies  also  noted  that 
the  efficiency  of  current  programme 
management is not sufficient with regard 
to 
cooperation  between 
stakeholders and the quality of support. 

tools, 

IT 

National 

Several 
and 
organisations described challenges related 
to health insurance for volunteers abroad. 

Agencies 

and 

authorities 
National  Agencies 
interviewed  described  their  cooperation 
with each other and with the Commission 
as efficient. 

Organisations,  National  Agencies  and 
external experts noted that one of the key 
aspects  that  distinguishes  the  European 
Solidarity  Corps  from  other  initiatives  is 
its unique blend of opportunities focused 
on youth empowerment. 

Interviewees 
the 
highlighted 
European Solidarity Corps stands out for 
enabling  the  involvement  of  individuals 
with fewer opportunities. 

that 

The  programme’s  funding  levels,  clear 
structure  and  accreditation  and  support 
mechanisms were seen by external experts 
as an added value compared with national 
schemes. 

High 

High 

Low 

147 

 
 
 
148