COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF REGIONS on the ex post evaluation of the Rights, Equality, Citizenship (REC) programme (second part), the ex post evaluation of the Europe for Citizens (EfC) programme and the interim evaluation of the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV) programme
Date: 2025-06-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: EU national, EU programme, European citizenship, civil society, equal treatment, fundamental rights, gender equality, human rights, participatory democracy

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 3.6.2025  SWD(2025) 133 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF REGIONS on the ex post evaluation of the Rights, Equality, Citizenship (REC) programme (second part), the ex post evaluation of the Europe for Citizens (EfC) programme and the interim evaluation of the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV) programme {COM(2025) 266 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

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

1.1.  Purpose and scope of the evaluation ....................................................................................... 2 

1.2.  Methodology framework and data limitations ........................................................................ 3 

2.  What was the expected outcome of the intervention? ............................................................. 5 

2.1.  Description of the interventions and their objectives .............................................................. 5 

2.2.  Intervention logics ................................................................................................................... 8 

2.3.  Points of comparison ............................................................................................................. 15 

3.  How has the situation evolved over the evaluation period? .................................................. 16 

3.1.  Rights, Equality and Citizenship implementation ................................................................. 16 

3.2.  Europe for Citizens implementation ..................................................................................... 19 

3.3.  Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values implementation ......................................................... 24 

4.  Evaluation findings (analytical part) ..................................................................................... 28 

4.1.  To what extent was the intervention successful and why? .................................................... 28 

4.1.1. 

4.1.2. 

4.1.3. 

Effectiveness ................................................................................................................. 28 

Efficiency ..................................................................................................................... 35 

Coherence ..................................................................................................................... 38 

4.2.  How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? ........................................... 41 

4.3.  Is the intervention still relevant? ........................................................................................... 43 

5.  What are the conclusions and lessons learned? ..................................................................... 48 

5.1.  Rights, Equality and Citizenship programme........................................................................ 48 

5.2.  Europe for Citizens programme ............................................................................................ 51 

5.3.  Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme................................................................ 53 

5.4.  CERV: operational findings and lessons learned .................................................................. 55 

Annex I. Procedural Information ................................................................................................... 57 

Annex II. Methodology and Analytical models used ..................................................................... 60 

Annex III. Evaluation matrix ......................................................................................................... 81 

Annex IV. Overview of benefits and costs, simplification and burden reduction ....................... 116 

Annex V. Stakeholders consultation - Synopsis report ................................................................ 135 

Annex VI: State of play in the policy areas of CERV ................................................................. 147 

Table of abbreviations .................................................................................................................. 154 

1 

 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  Staff  Working  Document  (SWD)  presents  the  results  of  the  ex post  evaluation  of  the 
Rights, Equality and Citizenship (REC) programme, the ex post evaluation of the Europe for 
Citizens (EfC) programme as well as the interim evaluation of the Citizens, Equality, Rights 
and  Values  (CERV)  programme.  The  evaluation  is  subject  to  a  report  to  the  European 
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of 
the Regions. 

1.1. Purpose and scope of the evaluation 

Two  successive  generations  of  EU  programmes  have  furthered  the  goal  of  protecting  and 
promoting the rights and values enshrined in the EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental 
Rights of the European Union: the 2014-2020 REC and EfC programmes, and the 2021-2027 
CERV programme. Taking over the baton from its two predecessors, the CERV programme 
builds upon the results they delivered. 

The  Rights,  Equality  and  Citizenship  (REC)  programme  aimed  to  contribute  to  the  further 
development of an area where equality and the rights of persons, as enshrined in the EU Treaty, 
the Charter and international human rights conventions, are promoted and protected. In parallel, 
the Europe for Citizens (EfC) programme supported initiatives to strengthen remembrance of 
recent  European  history  and  to  enhance  civic  participation  at  EU  level.  Since  2021,  the 
Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV) programme has sought to support and develop 
open, democratic, equal, inclusive and rights-based societies founded on the rule of law. This 
includes  a  vibrant  and  empowered  civil  society,  encouraging  democratic,  civic  and  social 
participation, and cultivating the rich diversity of European society, based on common values, 
history and memory. 

Considering their legal bases requirements1 and the links between the three programmes, the 
Commission carried out a joint evaluation with three components: (1) the ex post evaluation of 
the REC programme, assessing its longer-term impact and sustainability effects, based on the 
results of the first part of the ex post evaluation2 completed in 2022; (2) the ex post evaluation 
of  the  EfC  programme,  assessing  the  results  achieved,  and  its  long-term  impact  and 
sustainability  effects; and  (3)  the interim evaluation of the CERV programme, assessing  its 
preliminary achievements. 

The first part of the ex post evaluation of the REC programme aimed to report to the European 
Parliament and the Council as provided for by the programme’s Regulation. Considering that 
a  significant  number  of  projects  were  still  ongoing,  the  first  part  of  the  ex post  evaluation 
assessed  the  preliminary  achievements  of  the  programme,  which  fed  into  the  design  of  the 
activities of the CERV programme. This Staff Working Document presents the findings of the 
second part of the ex post evaluation; it focuses on the long-term impacts and sustainability of 
the effects of the REC programme. 

1 EU Regulation No 1381/2013 of 17 December 2013, EU Regulation No 390/2014 of 14 April 2014, and EU Regulation No 2021/692 of 
28 April 2021. 
2 COM/2022/118 final. 

2 

 
 
 
Backward-looking, the evaluation assesses to what extent the respective activities and expected 
outcomes achieved these three programmes’ objectives, against the effectiveness, efficiency, 
coherence, EU added value, and relevance criteria. The evaluation also assesses the synergies 
between the three programmes and the value added of the new programme architecture. In a 
forward-looking  perspective,  the  evaluation  provides  lessons  learned  for  the  ongoing 
implementation of the CERV programme as well as the following funding cycle. 

In  terms  of  scope,  the  ex post  evaluations  of  the  REC  and  EfC  programmes  cover  the 
implementation from 1 January 2014 until 31 December 2020 and all activities that have taken 
place  in  all  participating  countries  during  that  time.  The  interim  evaluation  of  the  CERV 
programme covers the implementation period from 1 January 2021 until 31 December 2023, 
and  all  activities  taking  place  in  all  participating  countries  during  that  time,  namely  all  EU 
Member States and associated non-EU countries. 

1.2. Methodology framework and data limitations 

This evaluation – supported by an external study (hereafter the ‘supporting study’)3 – combines 
and triangulates qualitative and quantitative data sources and methods; it  is underpinned by 
extensive desk research4. It was carried out by the European Commission’s Directorate-General 
for Justice and Consumers (DG JUST). 

The evaluation takes stock as well of the preceding impact assessment5 to analyse a possible 
proposal for a European Culture, Rights and Values programme (2018), and acknowledges the 
REC  interim6  (2018),  the  first  part  of  the  REC  ex post  (2022)  and  the  EfC  interim7  (2018) 
evaluations. A wide range of stakeholders was consulted, including EU Member States that are 
also  members  of  the  relevant  Programme  Committees,  programmes’  applicants  and 
beneficiaries,  expert  groups,  agencies,  the  programmes’  contact  points,  civil  society 
organisations and the public. Overall, more than 1 000 stakeholders provided feedback during 
the  entire  consultation  process8.  Dedicated  methods  and  tools  were  used  to  conduct  the 
consultations:  a  questionnaire-based  online  public  consultation9,  interviews,  focus  groups, 
deliberative  workshops,  and  targeted  surveys.  They  complemented  data  and  information 
collected through other methods, such as the desk research and case studies. 

Four main data quality challenges were identified and mitigated: 

•  Limited data comparability: the REC data analysis for the years 2014 and 2015 presents 
caveats related to challenges in retrieving data from obsolete corporate tools as well as 
possible different approaches to text mining in the first part of the ex post evaluation. 
Considerable  time  was  dedicated  to  build  an  updated  dataset  and  to  clarify  the 
approaches used in analysing data. 

•  Overemphasis  on  experiences  with  ongoing  programme:  interviewees  who  were 
recurrent beneficiaries from REC, EfC and CERV programmes tended to focus their 
feedback  on  CERV.  The  number  of  interviews  carried  out  on  REC  and  EfC  was 

3 The term ‘evaluation’ refers to the Commission Staff Working Document, while the term ‘supporting study’ refers to the study carried out 
by  external  experts  to  support  the  evaluation.  The  supporting  study  was  carried  out  by  a  consortium  led  by  Tetra  Tech  International 
Development (hereinafter ‘the Contractor’) and was coordinated by the Commission’s Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, with 
the support of an ISSG including a range of Commission Directorates-General. 
4 The overall approach is detailed in Annex II. 
5 SWD(2018) 290 final. 
6 SWD/2018/358 final. 
7 SWD/2018/086 final. 
8 See the stakeholders’ consultations synopsis report in Annex V. 
9 Public consultation on the rights, equality, citizenship, and values programmes (REC, EfC and CERV) – evaluation report. 

3 

 
 
sufficient  to  mitigate  this  limitation  and  acquire  the  information  needed  for  a 
comprehensive assessment of each programme. 

•  Limited  participation  by  national  stakeholders  in  deliberative  workshops:  despite 
significant efforts in reaching out, it was not possible to engage national stakeholders 
from  four  Member  States  as  initially  planned10.  However,  findings  remain  robust  as 
these Member States were represented in other consultation activities. 

•  Smaller number of expert interviews to validate results: a lower number of experts than 
initially  planned  responded  to  requests  for  consultation.  However,  findings  were 
reviewed by a sufficient number and variety of both independent and Commission’s 
experts. 

10 Deliberative workshops with national stakeholders were planned in 10 EU Member States: Austria, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, 
Latvia, Poland, Romania, and Sweden. There were no registrations for Town Twinning and Networks of Towns workshops in Austria, Ireland, 
Romania, and Sweden; there were no registrations for EU Remembrance workshops in Ireland and Sweden. 

4 

 
 
2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

This chapter is organised in three parts. Section 2.1 describes the context and rationale for the 
three programmes at the time of their preparation, Section 2.2 depicts the intervention logics, 
and Section 2.3 explains the approach to establish the points of comparison. 

2.1. Description of the interventions and their objectives 

Rights, Equality and Citizenship programme 

The Rights, Equality and Citizenship (REC) programme11 was established in 2014 as a new 
programme  merging  the  2007-2013  Daphne  III  programme,  the  Fundamental  Rights  and 
Citizenship programme and two of the policy areas of the Progress programme, namely anti-
discrimination and gender equality. 

The 2011 impact assessment12 preceding the REC programme identified the following main 
drivers and challenges: 

• 

• 

• 

insufficient knowledge of the EU acquis and of EU policies by the persons who derive 
rights from it; 
insufficient  knowledge  of  the  EU  acquis  and  of  EU  policies  by  the  relevant 
practitioners,  leading  to  inconsistent  and  insufficient  application  of  EU  law  and 
policies; 
insufficient cooperation and exchange of information at transnational level and lack of 
mutual trust between authorities, such as judicial authorities; 

•  need for concrete information, evidence, research and good practices concerning the 
situation  and  the  needs  on  the  ground,  in  order  to  feed  to  the  development  of  EU 
legislation and policies. 

Moreover, the economic crisis had lowered the confidence that European governments were 
going to address issues of discrimination with the same level of funding and sense of priority. 
The  REC  programme  was  to  address  these  drivers  and  challenges  as  a  custom  funding 
programme at EU level with as general objective to contribute to the further development of 
an area where equality and the rights of persons as enshrined in the Treaty on the European 
Union, in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in the Charter of Fundamental 
Rights and in the international human rights conventions to which the Union has acceded, were 
promoted, protected and effectively implemented. This general objective was to be achieved 
through nine specific objectives: 

1.  to  promote  the  effective  implementation  of  the  principle  of  non-discrimination  on 
grounds  of  sex,  racial  or  ethnic  origin,  religion  or  belief,  disability,  age  or  sexual 
orientation, and to respect the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds provided 
for in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (RDIS); 
2.  to prevent and combat racism, xenophobia, homophobia and other forms of intolerance 

(RRAC); 

11 Regulation (EU) No 1381/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a Rights, Equality and 
Citizenship Programme for the period 2014 to 2020. 
12 SEC(2011) 1364 final. 

5 

 
 
 
3.  to promote and protect the rights of persons with disabilities (RDIB); 
4.  to promote equality between women and men and to advance gender mainstreaming 

(RGEN); 

5.  to prevent and combat all forms of violence against children, young people and women, 
as well as violence against other groups at risk, in particular groups at risk of violence 
in close relationships, and to protect victims of such violence (RDAP); 

6.  to promote and protect the rights of the child (RCHI); 
7.  to contribute to ensuring the highest level of protection of privacy and personal data 

(RDAT); 

8.  to promote and enhance the exercise of rights deriving from citizenship of the Union 

(RCIT); 

9.  to  enable  individuals  in  their  capacity  as  consumers  or  entrepreneurs  in  the  internal 
market to enforce their rights deriving from Union law, having regard to the projects 
funded under the consumer programme (RCON). 

training  activities,  mutual 

The programme was to finance different types of actions, such as analytical and monitoring 
activities, 
learning,  cooperation,  awareness  raising  and 
dissemination activities, information and dissemination activities, as well as support for EU 
level  actors  and  non-governmental  organisations  (NGOs)  whose  activities  contribute  to  the 
implementation  of  the  objectives  of  the  programme.  Funding  was  provided  through  action 
grants, operating grants13 and procurement contracts, of which the latter covered activities such 
as studies and evaluations, conferences and campaigns. 
In terms of geographical coverage, all EU Member States, Iceland and Serbia were eligible to 
participate  in  the  programme14.  Liechtenstein  was  eligible  for  the  specific  objectives  RDIS, 
RRAC, RDIB and RGEN15. 

The REC programme was implemented by the European Commission’s Directorate-General 
for Justice and Consumers via direct management, with the collaboration of the Directorate-
General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (DG EMPL) as well as the Directorate-
General for Communication (DG COMM), the Directorate-General Statistical Authority of the 
European Union (DG ESTAT), and the Directorate-General for Digital Services (DIGIT). 

Europe for Citizens programme 

Since  the  Maastricht  Treaty  was  adopted  in  1993  introducing  the  concept  of  European 
citizenship, the EU recognised the need to bring itself closer to citizens and to enable them to 
fully participate in building the EU project, while emphasising its common and shared values. 
The Europe for Citizens (EfC) programme was one of the instruments to achieve this political 
objective. 

The  first  fully-fledged  citizenship  programme16  under  the  name  ‘Europe  for  Citizens’  was 
implemented  from  2007  to  2013,  following  the  Community  Action  Programme17,  which 
awarded grants in the field of active European citizenship from 2004 to 2006. It was followed 

13 Action grants directly funded specific activities, while operating grants provided co-financing to CSOs and similar bodies working on the 
specific objectives of the programme to cover their operating costs. 
14 This includes the United Kingdom, which was a Member State until its official withdrawal from the EU on 31 January 2020. 
15 https://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/programmes-2014-2020/rec/index_en.htm. 
16 Decision N° 1904/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 establishing for the period 2007 to 2013 
the programme 'Europe for Citizens' to promote active European citizenship. 
17 2004/100/EC: Council Decision of 26 January 2004 establishing a Community action programme to promote active European citizenship 
(civic participation). 

6 

 
 
by the second iteration of the programme, which was established18 for the period 2014-2020, 
and which aimed to bring the Union closer to its citizens. The programme was to achieve this 
by  contributing  to  citizens’  understanding  of  the  Union,  its  history  and  diversity,  and  by 
fostering European citizenship and improving conditions for civic and democratic participation 
at Union level. 

The EfC programme had two specific objectives, which translated into a two-strand approach 
to funding: 

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

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

The  programme  supported  a  wide  range  of  activities  and  organisations  promoting  active 
European citizenship through the involvement of individual citizens. The two strands of the 
programme  were  complemented  by  a  cross-cutting  horizontal  action  for  analysis, 
dissemination and use of the projects’ results. The programme had two funding mechanisms: 
action  grants  and  operating  grants.  Action  grants  provided  for  projects  within  both  strands. 
Operating  grants  funded  European  public  policy  research  organisations  (think  tanks)  and 
European civil society organisations (CSOs). 

Besides the 27 EU Member States and the United Kingdom, which was a Member State until 
its official withdrawal from the EU on 31 January 2020, the EfC programme was implemented 
in  six  other  participating  partners:  Albania,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Montenegro,  North 
Macedonia, Serbia, and Kosovo*. 

The programme was implemented by the European Commission via direct management. It was 
initially managed by DG COMM, then by DG HOME19; as of 1 January 2020, the programme 
was transferred to DG JUST20. Implementation was delegated21 to the Education, Audiovisual 
and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) for the whole period. 

Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme 

The  Citizens,  Equality,  Rights  and  Values  (CERV)  funding  programme  is  the  only  EU 
programme whose main objective is to specifically seek to protect and promote the rights and 
values enshrined in the Treaties and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights to sustain open, 
rights-based, democratic, equal and inclusive societies based on the rule of law. 

Established22 for the period 2021-2027 as a merge of the previous REC and EfC programmes, 
the CERV programme received, thanks to the will of the European Parliament also supported 

18 Council Regulation (EU) No 390/2014 of 14 April 2014 establishing the ‘Europe for Citizens’ programme for the period 2014-2020. 
* This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on the  Kosovo 
declaration of independence. 
19  Decision  of  the  President  of  the  European  Commission  of  1.11.2014  on  the  organisation  of  responsibilities  of  the  Members  of  the 
Commission, C(2014) 9000. 
20 Decision of the President of the European Commission of 1 December 2019 on the organisation of responsibilities of the Members of the 
Commission, P(2019) 1. 
21 C(2013) 9189 of 18 December 2013. 
22 Regulation (EU) 2021/692 of the European Parliament and the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing the Citizens, Equality, Rights and 
Values Programme and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1381/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EU) 
No 390/2014. 

7 

 
 
by the Council and the Commission, a much bigger envelope (EUR 1.5 billion) than what was 
initially proposed (EUR 641 million). An important feature of the future CERV programme 
was support to CSOs allowing them to perform their activities independently. This led to the 
creation of the Union values strand, which aims at supporting CSOs active in the protection 
and promotion of EU rights and values, including at grassroots level. 

The programme has four strands: 

•  Union values – to protect and promote Union values; 
•  Equality, rights and gender equality – to promote rights, non-discrimination, equality 
(including  gender  equality),  and  advancing  gender  and  non-discrimination 
mainstreaming; 

•  Citizens’  engagement  and  participation  –  to  promote  citizens  engagement  and 
participation  in  the  democratic  life  of  the  Union,  exchanges  between  citizens  of 
different Member States, and raising awareness of the common European history; 
•  Daphne  –  to  fight  violence,  including  gender-based  violence  and  violence  against 

children. 

The specific objectives corresponding to the four strands outlined above are underpinned by 
the general objective as set out in the programme Regulation to ‘protect and promote rights and 
values as enshrined in the Treaties, the Charter and the applicable international human rights 
conventions, in particular by supporting CSOs and other stakeholders active at local, regional, 
national  and  transnational  level,  and  by  encouraging  civic  and  democratic  participation,  in 
order  to  sustain  and  further  develop  open,  rights-based,  democratic,  equal  and  inclusive 
societies which are based on the rule of law.’ 

The programme applies in all EU Member States. The Union values strand is only open to the 
EU  Member  States,  while  the  other  three  strands  are  open  to  non-EU  countries  which  are 
associated  to  the  programme.  By  November  2024,  the  following  non-EU  partners  were 
participating in the CERV programme: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Serbia and 
Ukraine. 

The programme is implemented through grants, procurement, as well as indirect management 
actions  implemented  with  the  support  of  international  organisations.  Along  with  traditional 
open  calls  for  proposals,  by  means  of  which  grants  are  awarded  for  projects  to  beneficiary 
organisations,  the  programme  also  provides  for  financial  support  to  third  parties23  (or  re-
granting to grassroots organisations via intermediaries). 

The funding is predominantly directly managed by the Commission (DG JUST) (in particular, 
the  equality,  rights  and  gender  equality  strand,  and  the  Daphne  strand),  with  delegation  to 
EACEA24 for the implementation of the calls for proposals under the Union values strand and 
the citizens’ engagement and participation strand. Funding  for disability under the  equality, 
rights  and  gender  equality  strand  and  under  the  Union  values  strand  is  co-delegated  to  DG 
EMPL. Funding for the European Citizens’ Initiative is co-delegated to the Secretariat-General. 

23 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2024 on the financial rules applicable 
to the general budget of the Union (recast), Article 207. 
24 C(2022) 5057 final of 22.7.2022. 

8 

 
 
2.2. Intervention logics 

The intervention logic diagram for the REC programme (Figure 1) illustrates the drivers 
of the programme and how the programme expected to tackle the different needs. In the short 
term, through the use of action grants, operating grants and procurement, the programme aimed 
to  support  analytical  activities,  training  activities,  mutual  learning,  cooperation,  awareness 
raising and dissemination activities. The programme also planned to support main actors who, 
through their activities, contributed to the implementation of the objectives of the programme. 
With the help of these concrete outputs, the programme was expected to achieve the long-term 
results shown in the intervention logic diagram and, as a consequence, fulfil the general and 
specific objectives of the programme. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1 - Intervention logic of the REC programme 

10 

 
 
 
The  intervention  logic  of  the  EfC  programme  (Figure  2)  illustrates  the  inputs,  outputs, 
outcomes and impacts which it intended to reach in order to meet the target groups’ needs. The 
intervention logic also displays the causal links between the drivers and challenges, objectives, 
input, activities, output, outcomes and impact. The needs were considered in the light of the 
evolving policy and socio-economic context related social challenges, such as the COVID-19 
pandemic.  The  inputs  refer  to  the  resources  committed  to  implement  the  activities  and  to 
produce the planned outputs. The programme’s Regulation envisaged four types of activities, 
ranging  from  mutual  learning  and  cooperation  activities,  structural  support  to  specific 
organisations, analytical  activities, as well as awareness-raising and dissemination activities 
designed to use and further increase the value of the results of the supported initiatives and to 
highlight good practices. 

11 

 
 
Figure 2 - Intervention logic of the EfC programme 

12 

 
 
 
The intervention  logic for the CERV programme (Figure 3)  summarises  the causal  links 
between  needs,  objectives,  inputs,  activities,  outputs,  results,  impacts,  external  factors  and 
other EU policies. For ease of understanding, the intervention logic also includes problems, 
drivers and assumptions. It is based on the following underlying assumptions: 

•  concentrating funding in a single architecture increases efficiency; 
•  awareness-raising  leads  to  appropriation  of  knowledge,  knowledge  leads  to  more 

positive perceptions, action, engagement; 

•  cooperation and exchange create critical mass in the dissemination of results. 

As with any intervention, the impact is expected to be greater if there is coherence with other 
EU policies or other actors in the same space, e.g. other programmes and funds with similar 
objectives, and there are external factors which could not have been predicted which have to 
be contended with (COVID-19 and Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine). 

13 

 
 
Figure 3 - Intervention logic of the CERV programme 

14 

 
 
 
 
2.3. Points of comparison 

The ex post evaluation of the REC programme used the 2011 impact assessment25 and the 
2015  ex post  evaluation  of  the  three  predecessor  programmes26  as  points  of  comparison  for 
measuring  achievements.  In  addition,  the  REC  Regulation27  set  out  performance  indicators 
which served as a basis for monitoring and evaluating the achievement of the programme’s 
specific  objectives.  The  first  part  of  the  ex post  evaluation  provided  an  overview  of  the 
programme’s achievements based on contracts and grant agreements signed until 31 December 
2020. As, at that time, a considerable number of projects were still ongoing (more than 40%) 
or were still to be awarded through the 2020 calls for proposals, the current report completes 
the  previous  one,  including  by  analysing  the  contracts  and  grant  agreements  signed  as  of 
1 January 2021. Annex II.2 presents the points of comparison for both the general and specific 
objectives (see Table 3). 

The ex post evaluation of the EfC programme assessed the EfC performance starting from 
the situation described in the interim evaluation28 carried out in 2018. The Regulation did not 
provide  for  any  indicator  for  the  general  objective;  hence,  the  evaluation  used  as  point  of 
comparison the percentage of EU citizens feeling European based on Eurobarometer surveys 
and measured throughout the programming period29. As regards the two specific objectives, the 
evaluation referred to the performance-related indicators provided for in the Regulation. The 
values of these indicators were measured through programme monitoring data as well as data 
extracted from final reports of grant beneficiaries. Annex II.2 presents the points of comparison 
for both the general and specific objectives (see Table 4). 

The interim evaluation of the CERV programme used as points of comparison the scenarios 
outlined  by  the  2018  impact  assessment  that  accompanied  the  proposal  for  a  Regulation 
establishing a Rights and Values programme30. The main aim driving the proposed scenario 
was simplification and further exploitation of the potential of the four funding programmes to 
promote  EU  values  and  increase  EU  added  value,  namely  the  REC  programme,  the  EfC 
programme, the Creative Europe programme, and the Justice programme. The scenario merged 
the REC, EfC, and Creative Europe programme into the ‘European Culture, Rights and Values 
programme’ while maintaining the Justice programme separate. Ultimately, two programmes 
(REC and EfC) were merged into the CERV programme, with the Creative Europe programme 
remaining  separate.  Additionally,  the  interim  evaluation  referred  to  the  performance 
monitoring framework established for the CERV programme as per the requirements of the 
Regulation31,  and  its  set  of  indicators.  Annex  II.2  presents  the  points  of  comparison  for  the 
programme’s objectives (see Table 5).

25 SEC(2011) 1364 Final. 
26  European  Commission  (2015),  Ex post evaluation  of  five  programmes implemented  under  the 2007-2013  financial perspective  –  Final 
Report. 
27 Regulation (EU) No 1381/2013, Article 14. 
28 SWD/2018/086 final. 
29 Standard Eurobarometer survey’s question ‘Do you feel like an EU citizen?’  
30 SWD/2018/290 final. 
31 EU Regulation No 2021/692, Article 16. 

15 

 
 
 
3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? 

This chapter presents the progress made during the period covered by the ex post as well as the 
interim evaluations compared to the baselines. 

3.1. Rights, Equality and Citizenship implementation 

The REC programme was allocated a budget of EUR 439 473 000 for the period 2014 to 2020. 
The annual budget increased from EUR 54.16 m in 2014 to EUR 67.91 m in 2020. The biggest 
share  of  the  programme’s  budget  (almost  26%)  was  allocated  to  the  specific  objective  to 
prevent violence (Daphne, RDAP). The second largest budget allocation (22%) was dedicated 
to promoting non-discrimination (RDIS). 

Figure 4 - Planned funding, shares by specific objective (2014-2020) (%) 

Source: First part ex post evaluation of the REC programme (Annual Work Programmes 2014-2020) 

Figure  5  presents  the  total  of  funding  requested  through  grant  applications  and  shows  per 
specific objective  the split between the budget  requested by unsuccessful  proposals  and the 
budget granted to successful ones. 

16 

 
 
 
 
Figure  5  -  Funding  requested  in  applications  and  funding  committed  via  grants  by  specific 
objective (2016-2020) (million EUR) 

Source: Data on funding requested is based on the first part ex post evaluation (for 2016-2020). Data on commitments is an 
elaboration of data based on ABAC (August 2024). Data on 2014-2015 RDIB applications not available. 

Over the implementation period of the REC programme, 81 calls for proposals were planned 
for which at least 4 903 applications32 were submitted, resulting in the award of 950 grants 
(745  action  grants,  175  operating  grants,  and  30  direct  grants).  In  addition,  492 
procurement contracts were signed. 

Success rates varied across specific objectives33. The three specific objectives with the highest 
number of applications (RDAP, RDIS and RRAC) had success rates of respectively 16%, 20% 
and 12%. RCHI and RCIT had success rates of respectively 23% and 14%.  The RDAT and 
RGEN  specific  objectives  included  both  restricted  and  unrestricted34  calls,  hence  overall 
success rates are not available. 

For procurement contracts, the highest number was dedicated to the specific objective RDIS, 
followed by the specific objective RDIB. The 79 unassigned contracts served the programme’s 
general procurement needs. 

32 As noted in the interim evaluation, and first part ex post evaluation, data on the number of applications submitted under the SO RDIB for 
the years 2014 and 2015 was not available. 
33 For the specific objective RDIB, the data for 2014-2015 was not available. 
34 For instance, the 2019 RDAT restricted call for proposals for National Data Protection Authorities. 

17 

 
 
 
Figure 6 - Number of procurement contracts signed by specific objective (2014-2020) 

Source: Elaboration of data based on ABAC (August 2024). 

The REC  programme  geographically  covered the  entire European Union, with  coordinators 
and/or  beneficiaries  from  all  Member  States.  While  most  grants  awarded  had  a  coordinator 
from Italy, the highest budget was committed in Belgium. The Member States with the lowest 
number  of  coordinators  were  Luxembourg  and  Denmark.  In  addition,  few  grants  were  also 
awarded in Iceland and Serbia. 

Figure  7  -  Distribution  of  grants  awarded  and  budget  committed  (2014-2020),  by  country  of 
coordinator (EUR million) (%) 

Source: Elaboration of data based on ABAC (August 2024). 

Shifting the focus from the geographical coverage to the type of activities funded by the REC 
programme, training (including capacity building) was clearly the predominant activity in more 
than half of the funded projects as of 2016, followed by analytical and monitoring activities, 

18 

 
 
 
and  awareness-raising  and  dissemination  activities  (see  Figure  9).  The  projects  marked  as 
‘other’  count  for  6%  of  the  total  and  included  activities  supporting  the  target  groups  and 
stakeholders. 

Figure 8 - Number of grants awarded, by activity type (2014-2020) 

Source: Interim evaluation (2014-2015, n=213), first part ex post evaluation (2016-2020, n=604), elaborations on project 
documents (n=21). 

Analysis of a sample of 550 projects identified 207 cases of cross-border cooperation (38%), 
with a peak in 2017 (58 cases). In addition, in the period between 2016 and 2020, a total of 157 
transnational networks were created, of which one third in 2017. 

3.2. Europe for Citizens implementation 

The EfC programme was initially allocated an overall budget of  EUR 185.5 million EUR35. 
The  programme  funded  activities  under  the  two  strands  –  with  approximately  20%  of  the 
budget  allocated  to  the  European  remembrance  strand  and  approximately  60%  to  the 
democratic  engagement  and  civic  participation  strand  –  and  a  cross-cutting  ‘valorisation’ 
activity  (approximately  10%  of  the  budget).  The  remaining  10%  of  the  total  budget  was 
allocated  to  the  programme  management,  covering  EACEA  administrative  expenditure. 
Valorisation  grants  to  exploit  cross-cutting  opportunities  and  learning  included  grants 
contributing to the cost of providing National Contact Points (NCPs)36. 

The  figure  below  presents  an  overview  of  budget  implementation  over  the  lifetime  of  the 
programme.  Annual  work  programmes  accounted  for  EUR 165.1  million  initially  planned, 
while EUR 175 million were committed (which accounts for the budgetary modifications) and 
EUR 168.4 million paid. 

35 During implementation, there were two modifications that increased the budget, first by EUR 2.25 million in 2014 and again by EUR 6.9 
million in 2020. 
36 National structures receiving operating grants under the horizontal action of the programme. By the end of its implementation period, the 
programme had 30 NCPs (incl. 2 participating countries). 

19 

 
 
 
Figure 9 - Programme budget (planned, committed, paid) (2014-2020) (EUR million) 

Legend: WP=as planned in the Annual Work Programme; CO=committed; PAY=actual payments. Source: elaboration based 
on monitoring data (2024). 

Over the implementation period of the EfC programme, 14 222 applications were submitted, 
resulting  in  the  award  of  2 529  grants  (2 462  action  grants  and  67  operating  grants), 
indicating  a  success  rate  of  ca.  17.8%  across  all  Member  States  and  programme  strands. 
Success  rates  varied  greatly,  ranging  from  only  6%  for  civil  society  projects  to  30%  for 
proposals in the first phase of town twinning (TT). 

Figure 10 - Number of submitted and selected projects by strand (2014-2020) 

Source: Elaboration from Europe for Citizens 2020 Report Europe for Citizens Programme Results. 

The number of grants awarded fluctuated over the years, peaking in 2019. 

20 

 
 
 
 
Figure 11 - Number of grants awarded, by year (2014-2020) 

Source: Elaboration based on monitoring data and annual results reports (2024). 

The  total  amount  spent  on  the  remembrance  actions  (Strand  1)  was  EUR 34.78  million. 
EUR 126.84  million  were  respectively  spent  on  democratic  engagement  (Strand  2)  and 
EUR 6.78 million on the cross-cutting horizontal action. 

Grants  were  awarded  in  all  27  Member  States.  The  lowest  number  of  grants  were  in 
Luxembourg (6), and the highest in Italy (320). As a percentage of all applications selected, 
Italy, Hungary and Slovakia stood out, respectively with 12.7%, 12.3% and 11.1% of the total. 

Figure 12 - Applications submitted and selected by EU Member State (2014-2020) (%) 

Source: Elaboration from Europe for Citizens 2020 Report Europe for Citizens Programme Results. 

During the lifetime of the programme, applications were received from participants in Albania, 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia and Kosovo. Taken together, 
applications from these participating countries accounted for 4.71% of all submitted and 3.57% 
of all selected  applications. More than half of the submitted and selected applications from 
non-EU countries were from Serbia. Grants were also awarded in the United Kingdom. 

21 

 
 
 
Overall,  the  programme  exceeded  almost  all  targets  established  for  the  core  performance 
indicators,  as  detailed  in  Table  4  (Annex  II.2).  Over  the  lifetime  of  the  programme,  EfC 
beneficiaries  estimated  to  had  involved  over  9.3  million  direct  participants37  across  both 
strands, with 28% of the direct participants reportedly engaged in civil society projects (CIV) 
and  18%  in  remembrance  projects  (REM).  Over  half  (54%)  of  the  direct  participants  were 
reportedly involved through the operating grants (CIV-OG). 

Figure 13 - Total direct participants across strands (2014-2020) (%) 

Source: Elaboration based on monitoring data and final project reports (2024). 

The  programme  achieved  a  balanced  representation  of  male  and  female  participants  in 
activities within both its strands: 50% (CIV), 55% (CIV-OG) and 56% (REM). Almost half the 
estimated direct participants were aged under 30. Notably, the remembrance activities attracted 
the highest number of younger participants (70%) as shown below. 

Figure 14 - Age of participants disaggregated by strand (2014-2020) (%) 

Source: Elaboration based on monitoring data (2024). 

Over the lifetime of the programme, beneficiaries of all EfC actions estimated to had reached 
388 103 406 indirect participants38 across the EU. As shown in the figure below, the combined 
reach of the operating grants in the civil society and remembrance strands (CIV-OG and REM-
OG)  was  the  most  significant,  reportedly  accounting  for  over  three  quarters  of  persons 
indirectly reached by the programme. 

37 It is important to note that data are based on estimates by beneficiaries themselves in final project reports, and that beneficiaries may have 
not consistently indicated the expected impact and potential direct and indirect reach of their projects. 
38 Ibid. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 15 - Number of indirect participants (2014-2020) 

Source: Elaboration based on monitoring data and final project reports (2024). 

At programme level, 70% of projects included a transnational partnership (i.e. having at least 
two  participating  organisations  from  different  countries).  The  percentage  of  transnational 
partnerships was the highest in civil society projects (CIV). 

Figure 16 - Number of transnational partnerships disaggregated by strand (2014-2020) 

Source: Elaboration based on monitoring data (2024). 

The number of unique participating organisations, applying as coordinator, was 5 895 across 
TT, NT, CIV, CIV-OG and REM actions. The percentage of first-time applicants increased 
over the years, reaching 66% in 2019. 

Figure 17 - First-time applicants per year 

Source: Elaboration from Programme performance statement, DB2021. 

23 

 
 
 
 
3.3. Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values implementation 

The programme is progressing well towards the milestones and targets linked to its objectives. 
In terms of the core performance indicators on number of people reached by project activities 
as set out in the programme Regulation, all milestones have not only been met but exceeded, 
and often by a significant amount (see Table 5, Annex II.2). 

The projects awarded in 2021-2023 are expected to reach out to at least 44 million people39: 

•  People expected to be reached by training activities: 563 215; 
•  People expected to be reached by mutual learning and exchange of good practices 

activities: 4 471 197; 

•  People expected to be reached by awareness-raising, information and dissemination 

activities: 39 352 938. 

The number of CSOs reached by support and capacity building activities is also on track to 
meet  its  targets  in  all four strands.  Between 2021 and 2023,  3 033  CSOs  were reached  by 
support and capacity building activities across all Member States. Most  CSOs were reached 
under Strand 1 – Union values (n=1 266), with a notable increase in 2023, which reflects the 
number of third parties reached through the calls for intermediaries (financial support to third 
parties). 

Figure 18 - CSOs reached by support and capacity building activities by strand and year 

Source: Elaboration based on monitoring data (June 2024). 

39 These figures need to be taken with caution because they are estimates at the application stage and can be overstated by applicants. Figures 
will need to be confirmed after finalisation of the projects. 

24 

 
 
 
 
The  number  of  transnational  networks  and  initiatives  focusing  on  European  memory  and 
heritage  as  a  result  of  programme  intervention  is  the  only  core  performance  indicator  that 
shows progress below the 2024 milestone (399 compared with the milestone of 1 000). To be 
noted, however, that due to the cut-off date for data collection for this evaluation, the 2023 data 
for this indicator was incomplete. 

Indicators related to the general objectives of the programme also point to positive results, 
except for awareness of the rule of law, where progress has remained slow (see Annex II.2). 
However,  some  of  these  indicators  assume  causality  between  the  programme’s  effects  and 
Eurobarometer results, even though many factors are likely to play a role (not least the potential 
for political changes in the EU until 2027) rather than the CERV programme alone. 

Indicators linked to the specific objectives of the programme show promising results in 
terms  of metrics intended to  measure changes in the behaviour, perceptions and practice of 
participants (who are target groups of projects) (see Annex II.2). 

The data below presents the state of play of the  physical implementation of the programme 
over the period 2021-2023. 

1 093 grant agreements were signed, and EUR 335 859 932.03 were committed, of which 
almost half (49%) under the Union values strand. 

The  average  size  of  a  grant  was  EUR 311 877.32,  while  the  average  number  of  project 
partners in a consortium was 5. 

The application success rate of the programme overall was circa 31%, highest under the 
citizens’  engagement  and  participation  strand  (58%),  indicating  that  the  funding  allocation 
under this strand is most effectively meeting the needs on the ground. The Union values strand 
also  demonstrated  a  relatively  high  success  rate  (48%),  largely  due  to  the  specific  types  of 
actions  funded,  such  as  operating  grants  to  strategic  European  networks  and  calls  to 
intermediaries  for  re-granting  to  grassroot  organisations.  Nevertheless,  while  the  limited 
number of applications due to the specificity of these calls contributes to a higher success rate, 
it does not imply that the funding is sufficient to fully address the needs on the ground. 
The success rates under the equality, rights and gender equality strand and the Daphne strand 
were markedly lower, at 13% and 20%, respectively. These were also the two strands with the 
highest proportions of rejected proposals scoring above the 70-point threshold (71% and 54%, 
respectively),  because  these  two  strands  cover  a  number  of  key  EU  policies  but  have, 
proportionally,  a  rather  limited  budget.  Consequently,  many  excellent  project  applications 
(sometimes even with a score of 95/100) could not be funded due to the budget limitations. 

25 

 
 
 
Figure 19 - Number of applications and grants awarded by strand – action grants (2021-2023) 

Source: Elaboration based on monitoring data (June 2024). 

The largest proportion of budget committed went to CSOs (77%, EUR 258 709 334.97), which 
is in line with what would have been expected at mid-term in the programme. 

Figure 20 - Budget committed by type of beneficiary (2021-2023) 

Source: Elaboration based on monitoring data (June 2024). 

The  type  of  activities  most  frequently  granted  was  mutual  learning  and  exchange  of  good 
practice  activities  (n=526),  followed  by  awareness-raising,  information  and  dissemination 
activities (n=173), and training activities (n=124). There was a smaller number of analytical 
and monitoring activities granted (n=23) and 9 ICT tools. 

In 2021-2023, altogether EUR 42 733 641 were committed for 206 procurement activities. 
The type of activities most frequently contracted (procurement) was ICT tools (n=82), followed 
by  awareness-raising,  information  and  dissemination  activities  (n=58),  mutual  learning  and 
exchange of good practice activities (n=32), analytical and monitoring activities (n=28) and 
training activities (n=6). 

10 indirect management actions with international organisations were implemented for a 
total amount of EUR 4 425 000. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The type of activities most frequently used under indirect management actions was awareness-
raising, information and dissemination activities (n=6), followed by analytical and monitoring 
activities (n=4). No other types of activities were implemented. 

Until November 2024, 23 participating States had established a NCP. 

Overall,  organisations  participating  to  projects  funded  by  the  CERV  programme  (n=4 232) 
came from 41 countries, covering all EU Member States (including the Overseas Countries and 
Territories of Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten) and 11 non-EU countries (Albania, Bosnia 
and  Herzegovina,  Moldova,  Montenegro,  Morocco,  North  Macedonia,  Norway,  Serbia, 
Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom). Participants from non-eligible countries took 
part in projects, but did not receive EU funding40. 

Figure 21 – Organisations participating CERV-funded projects by country (map) 

Source: Elaboration based on monitoring data (May 2024). Figures include both project coordinators (i.e. beneficiaries) and 
partners (i.e. participants). Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten are not included in this map with <5 participants each. 

40 Apart from international organisations. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

This  chapter  is  structured  in  three  parts:  Section  4.1  assesses  the  three  programmes’ 
performance through their effectiveness, efficiency41 and coherence; Section 4.2 identifies their 
EU added value; and Section 4.3 analyses their relevance. The overall analytical approach is 
detailed in Annex II.  

4.1. To what extent was the intervention successful and why? 

4.1.1.  Effectiveness 

Rights, Equality and Citizenship programme 

Evidence suggests that the REC programme has been effective in meeting its  objectives 
even though, as noted in the first part of the ex post evaluation, the REC programme lacked a 
robust  monitoring  framework  that  would  allow  the  assessment  of  the  achievement  of  its 
specific objectives against a baseline. 

The programme effectively reached out to a diverse range of organisations, including public 
authorities, CSOs, and research entities, ensuring that broad stakeholder groups benefited from 
its  initiatives.  These  included  those  focused  on  non-discrimination,  gender  equality,  child 
protection,  and  the  prevention  of  racism  and  violence,  while  indirectly  encompassing  all 
individuals in the EU subject to discrimination, intolerance, or violence. While target groups 
were  generally  well-distributed  across  the  specific  objectives,  certain  groups  were  more 
frequently linked with specific goals, indicating a flexible and adaptive approach within the 
REC programme to meet diverse needs and contexts effectively. 

The number of grants and procurement contracts funded, as well as the proportion of the budget 
committed to the different specific objectives, highlight that the REC programme contributed 
the  most  to  the  specific  objectives  RDAP  and  RDIS.  Together,  these  specific  objectives 
received more than 50% of programme funding, while the specific objectives on RCIT, RCON 
and RDAT only accounted for 8% of the REC funding altogether. This (uneven) distribution 
of funding is broadly in line with the allocations as planned under the annual work programmes. 
However, the evaluation results clearly showed that most projects funded under the REC 
programme contributed to multiple specific objectives and not only to the one for which the 
funding  had  been  received.  Over  70%  of  REC  beneficiaries  stated  that  their  projects  had 
contributed to the specific objectives RRAC and RGEN, even though these specific objectives 
only received respectively 13% and 8% of the funding (cf. figure below). In addition, 93% of 
REC beneficiaries reported that their activities had contributed to RDIS. 

41 An overview of costs and benefits and of the programmes’ potential for savings is presented in Annex IV. 

28 

 
 
 
Figure 22 - Extent to which funded activities contributed to REC specific objectives 

Source: targeted survey of beneficiaries (2024). 

In line with the specific objectives of the programme, one of the main achievements of the REC 
programme  is  the  number  of  structural  coordination  mechanisms  set  up  with  all 
stakeholders, including Roma, on the implementation of the  national roma integration 
strategies  (specific  objective  RDIS):  this  number  rose  from  zero  in  2013  to  one  in  all  27 
Member States by 202342. In addition, for RGEN, the female employment rate43 went up from 
62.4% to 66.2% by the end of the programme, while the gender pay gap44 decreased to 12.3%. 
However, it is not possible to establish causality, also considering that multiple factors beyond 
the REC programme may have contributed to the progress reflected in these indicators. For 
RDIB45, funding through procurement contributed to the organisation of the access city awards, 
the  European  day  of  persons  with  disabilities  and  awareness-raising  workshops  in  Member 
States, while action grants contributed to the implementation of the European Disability Card 
in the Member States. 

For  RDAP,  the  percentage  of  people  that  consider  domestic  violence  against  women 
unacceptable46 rose substantially from 84% to 96% in 2016. Nonetheless, the existing evidence 
does not allow the extraction of the REC contribution on its own as again multiple factors might 
have contributed. 

42 See Annex II.2, Table 3. 
43 Eurostat, ‘Employment and activity by sex and age - annual data’, https://doi.org/10.2908/LFSI_EMP_A. 
44 Eurostat, ‘Gender pay gap in unadjusted form’, https://doi.org/10.2908/SDG_05_20. 
45 RDIB was the second most funded specific objective across all procurement contracts (cf. Figure 7). 
46 Special Eurobarometer 449: Gender-based violence, doi:10.2838/009088. 

29 

 
 
Most  projects  reported  as  key  results  ‘support  and  empowerment  for  target  groups  and 
stakeholder engagement’ and increased knowledge and awareness’ (cf. figure below). These 
results are in line with the outputs and results described in the programme’s intervention logic. 

Figure 23 - Key results reported in technical reports of grants in % (n=550) 

Source:  First  part  ex post  evaluation  (for  2016-2020,  n=211)  and  text  mining  of  final  reports  (projects  closed  between  1 
January 2021 and 31 December 2023, n=339). 

From  2016  to  2020,  a  total  of  350 000  persons  were  reached  through  mutual  learning  and 
exchange of good practices activities and in addition, more than 2.3 million people participated 
in training activities. 

The REC programme has shown long-term results beyond the period 2014-2020. Some of the 
best examples are the numerous tools and mechanisms for cross-border cooperation and 
transnational  networks  that  have  been  created  (see  Section  3.1).  Thanks  to  REC  funding, 
stakeholders were able to work across the EU and to build long-term relationships to promote 
and  implement  their  strategies  over  the  longer-term.  Moreover,  stakeholders  consulted  also 
confirmed that the types of activities funded tend to produce longer-term effects (e.g. increased 
knowledge and awareness following training and awareness-raising activities). 

During the implementation period, the programme had to deal with external factors, with the 
COVID-19 pandemic had the largest impact. Even though it was necessary to adjust timelines 
and  shift  project  activities  to  online  platforms,  the  pandemic  did  not  appear  to  impact  the 
effectiveness  of  the  funded  projects,  also  thanks  to  the  measures  taken  by  the  Commission 
(such as flexibility in extending the duration of grant agreements). Moreover, on the positive 
side, the pandemic did encourage beneficiaries to make better use of digital technologies and 
collaborate  online.  An  additional  external  factor  was  the  perceived  hostility  towards  CSOs, 
which was a factor identified in the public consultation and led e.g. to difficulties in securing 
co-financing. 

The programme covered all Member States, with a high demand for funding in Belgium, 
Italy, Spain and Greece47. While the high number of applications and funding from Belgium 
can  be  explained  by  the  high  concentration  of  EU  level  CSOs  based  in  Brussels,  Italy  was 
prominent  through  its  significant  number  of  applications  and  amount  of  funding  requested, 
indicating strong awareness and mobilisation efforts. 

Overall,  stakeholders  were  satisfied  with  how  calls  were  publicised  and  information 
disseminated. However, a large proportion of beneficiaries considered the REC programme 

47 See Figure 8 under Section 3.1 and Annex II.2, Table 3. 

30 

 
 
 
not  as  well  known  in  some  countries  as  it  should  have  been.  Especially  smaller,  grassroots 
organisations  faced  challenges  in  accessing  information  about  funding  opportunities, 
suggesting  the  need  for  better  outreach  and  support.  Nevertheless,  the  evaluation  results 
showed that the programme has been effective in addressing a diverse range of target groups, 
including public authorities, CSOs and research entities. 

Europe for Citizens programme 

The  EfC  programme  achieved  its  general  and  specific  objectives.  The  Programme 
Performance Statement referenced  the percentage of EU citizens feeling European as  a key 
indicator for the achievement of the general objective to contribute to citizens’ understanding 
of the Union, its history and diversity, to foster European citizenship and to improve conditions 
for  civic  and  democratic  participation  at  Union  level.  The  target  was  for  this  percentage  to 
remain  stable  at  59%.  While  if  it  is  not  possible  to  establish  causality,  as  shown  below, 
Eurobarometer data indicates that the percentage of EU citizens feeling European increased 
from 63% at the inception of the programme in 2014 to reach 72% in the spring of 2023, i.e. 
three years after the end of the programme. 

Figure 24 - Feeling of being a citizen of the EU (% of respondents) 

Source: Elaboration from Eurobarometer 2014-2023 (EB 99 p. 26 EB 97 EB 95 p. 29 p. 27 EB 92 p.14 EB 91 p.36 EB 90 p.33 
EB 89 p.36 EB 88 p.39 EB 87 p. 38 EB 86 p.32 EB 85 p. 38 EB 84 p. 32 EB 83 p. 17 EB 82 p. 29 EB 81 p. 7 EB 80 p. 30 EB 
79 p. 23). 

Following the performance-related indicators set by Regulation 390/201448, the programme’s 
beneficiaries estimated that over 9.3 million participants were directly involved in activities 
across both its strands, and 388 million people were involved across the EU overall (cf. figures 
13  and  15).  Considered  in  relation  to  the  overall  population  in  the  EU  in  2020,  which  was 
estimated at 447.7 million, these numbers are significant although the estimate should be made 
cautiously because of the caveats concerning the quality of the reporting on participant numbers 
and  the  difficulty  of  accounting  for  possible  duplicates.  The  programme  also  supported  the 
implementation of over 2 500 projects across the EU and 14 707 participating organisations 
across all actions. It is therefore reasonable to argue that the programme might have contributed 
at least to some extent to the progress recorded in the Eurobarometer’s citizenship survey over 
the years. 

The programme exceeded the targets set for the core performance indicators, as summarised in 
Table  4  (Annex  II.2).  Beneficiaries  considered  that  the  specific  objectives  had  been  met 
successfully and that their projects had achieved their expected results. A third of respondents 
to  the  public  consultation  recognised  that  the  programme  had  been  successful  in  raising 
awareness of the common history and values of the EU and in increasing participation in civic 
and democratic life. The existence of separate strands for remembrance and civil society 

48 Regulation (EU) No 390/2014 of 14 April 2014, Article 15 and Annex III. 

31 

 
 
 
activities was helpful in providing distinct and separate contributions to achieving the general 
and specific objectives. 

The EfC programme supported projects which generated results with potential for long-
term impacts. Its networking value (i.e. the facilitation of cooperation on an international scale 
across  the  EU,  the  creation  of  networks  in  niche  thematic  areas  and  the  exchange  of  best 
practices  with  like-minded  organisations),  low  administrative  burden,  inclusivity  (i.e.  the 
opportunity  for  CSOs  of  all  sizes  to  participate  and  the  direct  inclusion  of  EU  citizens  in 
activities) and broad thematic scope were success factors which enhanced long-term impact. 
Qualitative  insights  and  quantitative  data  drawn  from  consultation  activities  pointed  to  the 
sustainability  of  the actions  funded under the programme. Several  examples of the ways in 
which activities continued after the end of a project or generated an impact beyond the project’s 
expected  results  were  identified,  e.g.  the  development  of  policy  initiatives  at  local  level  to 
provide more assistance for NGOs working with vulnerable groups, and the creation of regional 
stakeholder dialogue platforms. 

The most significant unexpected effects on the programme were linked to the COVID-19 
pandemic,  which  resulted  in  projects  facing  delays  or  significant  challenges  to  their 
implementation. For instance, there was a limit to the extent to which town-twinning projects 
could  adapt  to  travel  bans.  However,  this  did  not  necessarily  affect  outcomes  because 
beneficiaries adapted quickly and, in the case of the REC programme, the measures taken by 
the  Commission  were  effective.  There  were  beneficial  side-effects  from  the  accelerated 
digitalisation imposed by the pandemic, which led to some CSOs reaching out through virtual 
tools to more people than planned. 

The programme was mainly visible to larger, well-networked eligible organisations with 
a strong focus on seeking funding opportunities. While beneficiaries were satisfied with the 
amount of information available, they highlighted ways in which they thought the programme 
could  have  been  more  proactively  promoted,  e.g.  through  social  and  interactive  media. 
Nonetheless, the programme successfully attracted a growing number of first-time applicants 
over the years (cf. Figure 17), which indicates that potential applicants, including local CSOs 
and authorities, had been or had become aware of the programme. 

Grants were awarded to beneficiaries in all Member States (cf. Figure 12). Several factors 
might have contributed to the distribution of funds across Member States,  such as differing 
needs and the possibility of national funds being more widely available in some Member States 
than others. 

Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme 

At mid-term, the CERV programme is on track to achieving its objectives. The projects 
and their proposed activities and outputs are in line with the types of action envisaged by the 
programme across all strands. Moreover, the programme has already surpassed most of its 
indicator targets. Based on the evidence collected, it is likely that the outcomes envisaged in 
the intervention logic will be achieved, even though it is still too early to make any definitive 
judgements. 

32 

 
There is a strong indication that the selected projects align with the objectives of calls49 and 
thus  contribute  to  programme  results.  Based  on  the  evidence  collected  for  this  evaluation, 
awarded projects were in line with EU policy priorities, addressed a real need in the field, 
were  based  on  well-established  methodologies  and  strong  partnerships  established  in 
advance, had a strong EU dimension and offered EU added value50, and planned realistic 
and sustainable results51. There was consensus across all stakeholders consulted that the re-
granting mechanisms in the strands of Union values and Daphne addressed important needs in 
the civil society sector. 

At the same time, the evidence collected also showed that the need for increased EU funding 
dedicated to values, rights, and citizenship, remains unaddressed. The shortage of resources 
allocated to these critical areas may limit the ability to fulfil the CERV objectives. 

External factors, such as COVID-19, Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, Brexit52, and 
specific national contexts, have had a limited effect on the programme overall. While COVID-
19 led to delays in the implementation of some projects, this does not appear to have had any 
effect on the CERV programme as such. Moreover, COVID-19 and Russia’s war of aggression 
against Ukraine have been reflected in the 2021-2022 and 2023-2025 work programmes, thus 
maintaining the programme’s relevance. 

The  programme’s  visibility  mainly  relies  on  the  CERV  NCPs  and  information  webinars. 
Information is also shared via several other channels, which reach out to potential applicants 
throughout the EU, even where no NCP has yet been appointed, such as a DG JUST newsletter 
launched in 2019, the EU Funding & Tenders portal, call for proposals information sessions 
and others. The programme does appear to be moderately well known in EU Member States, 
but mainly by larger organisations with international networks or in major cities. The efforts 
of NCPs to increase the visibility of the programme and stakeholder engagement were widely 
appreciated; however, the evidence highlighted the scope for improving awareness about the 
CERV programme, particularly  outside the strict confinements of its own target  groups, to 
attract  potentially  new  target  groups  and  improve  the  digital  and  innovation  aspects  of  the 
programme. 

The  programme  covers  all  EU  Member  States  and  a  number  of  non-EU  countries  that 
opted to participate in the programme on a voluntary basis. The geographical balance has 
also improved under the CERV programme with a higher proportion of projects in eastern 
Europe,  than  under  the  predecessor  programmes.  While  geographical  balance  is  not  an 
objective of the programme per se, evidence collected for this evaluation denoted that a ‘fair’ 
representation in terms of number of beneficiaries had been accomplished in Austria, Ireland 
and Italy, while in terms of EU contribution, in Belgium, Finland, and Spain. Evidence showed 
an underrepresentation of larger EU Member States mainly in western Europe and the Nordic 
countries  (apart  from  Finland  as  regards  EU  contribution),  while  in  16  EU  Member  States 
there has been an over-representation, most pronounced in Cyprus and Malta. 

49 High proportion of proportion of rejected proposals scoring above the 70-point threshold (‘fundable proposals’) (up to 71% of fundable 
proposals are rejected because of the insufficient funding available) highlight a limited risk of projects being granted that did not meet the 
objective of the calls. 
50 Beneficiaries interviewed and surveyed considered the EU dimension of the programme a key strength and motivator for them to apply to 
work across multiple EU Member States. Sometimes working across Europe and on promoting and implementing EU strategies was only 
possible through funding under the CERV programme. 
51 Frequently the first grant awarded was a stepping stone into further developing methodologies and approaches for the project(s) that followed 
and helped to consolidate organisations’ networks. 
52 Several interviewees regretted that the UK had not chosen to negotiate participation in the CERV programme. 

33 

 
 
Considering these findings, it does not appear that the absence of NCPs in Belgium, Bulgaria, 
Ireland, Malta, Hungary and Poland has had an impact  on geographical  balance during the 
2021-2023 period, taking into account the presence of other information channels that target 
potential  applicants.  Nonetheless,  Poland 
that  showed  an 
underrepresentation, and it cannot be known what impact having a NCP might have had given 
all  the  other  factors  likely  to  be  at  work  in  influencing  the  number  of  applicants  and 
beneficiaries. Overall, NCPs and the services that they provide to potential applicants are a 
key strength of the programme. 

the  only  country 

is 

Moreover, evidence collected did not identify any imbalances as regards target groups. 

The  CERV  programme  demonstrates  a  strong  commitment  to  mainstreaming  gender 
equality  and  promoting  a  more  inclusive  and  equitable  approach  to  its  activities.  As 
mandated by the Regulation, the programme promotes gender equality and non-discrimination 
in  all  activities.  To  ensure  effective  implementation,  the  programme  has  integrated  gender 
equality into its calls for proposals and evaluation methodology53. Applicants are required to 
demonstrate how they will respect and monitor gender equality during project implementation, 
and contracted experts are trained on the gender equality tracking methodology. 

This  approach  has  contributed  to  capacity  building  among  experts  and  improved  data 
collection, including sex-disaggregated data. The information sessions and a publicly available 
Q&A  document  provide  guidance  on  incorporating  a  gender  perspective  into  proposals. 
Furthermore, each project  financed through grants  is  also  assessed  and scored  based  on its 
contribution to gender equality. 

Nevertheless,  despite  the  significant  training  efforts  undertaken  to  support  applicants  and 
beneficiaries, as well as to provide guidance on integrating a gender perspective, a significant 
number  of  beneficiaries  continued  to  find  including  the  gender  perspective  a  challenge, 
oftentimes due to misunderstanding of this requirement as a ‘tick-box’ or ‘academic’ exercise. 
Comparisons between the gender scores54 of the CERV programme and equivalent EU funding 
programmes55 shows that the CERV programme, of the total programme funding available, 
has the largest proportion of funding dedicated to projects that specifically aim to promote and 
advance gender equality, which is in line with the programme’s objectives. Overall, between 
2021-2023, every fourth euro of financing from grants under CERV contributed strongly 
to  gender  equality;  additionally,  about  half  of  all  the  grants  funded  projects  closely 
intertwined with the promotion of gender equality56. 

53 Applicants must demonstrate how they will respect and monitor gender equality during project implementation, and contracted experts are 
trained on tracking gender equality related expenditures, as part of the Commission’s work to mainstream gender equality in the EU budget. 
This approach has contributed to capacity building among experts and improved data collection, including sex-disaggregated data. 
54 Gender scores are assigned to project proposals as part of the Commission’s work to mainstream gender equality in the EU budget. 
55 The AMIF, the Creative Europe programme, the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+), Erasmus+, Horizon Europe, the Justice programme, 
the LIFE programme. 
56  Between  2021-2023,  around  23%  of  CERV  funding  provided  via  grants  received  a  score  of  2,  based  on  the  gender  mainstreaming 
methodology adopted by the European Commission, while 53% of funding received a score of 1. The methodology is based on a four-point 
scoring system, which builds on the OECD-DAC gender equality policy marker. Score 2 indicates interventions whose principal objective is 
to improve gender equality. Score 1 indicates interventions having gender equality as an important and deliberate objective but not as the main 
reason for the intervention. Data source: European Commission budget performance data. 

34 

 
 
 
 
4.1.2.  Efficiency 

Rights, Equality and Citizenship programme 

The REC Regulation set a budget of EUR 439 476 000 for the period 2014-2020, with yearly 
amounts set out in the work programmes. By August 2024, 91% of the budget committed had 
been spent on grants and procurement. With outstanding payments of several grants that ended 
in 2024, this percentage will likely further increase. 

Despite the COVID-19  pandemic,  most beneficiaries confirmed that they spent  the funding 
they were awarded as planned. Nevertheless, the pandemic was still the most frequently cited 
factor impacting expenditures. On the one hand, it reduced of the travel and subsistence budget, 
while on the other hand it sometimes increased the internal costs of projects e.g. due to the (no 
cost) project extensions awarded or to unplanned costs linked to the shift to online seminars 
and podcasts. 

Most  beneficiaries  were  satisfied  with  the  timeliness  of  information  on  calls,  the  eligibility 
criteria, the selection process and the received feedback. The introduction of the eGrants portal 
in 2016 led to mixed reactions: while some appreciated the ease of use, others faced technical 
difficulties and missed a direct contact person to clarify and solve issues. 

The  current  evaluation  confirmed  the  results  of  the  first  ex post  evaluation  that  small 
organisations,  such  as  civil  society  and  grassroots  organisations,  while  being  in  an  ideal 
position to provide very relevant field expertise, struggled with securing the required 20% level 
of co-financing. 

Stakeholders considered the application time-consuming and both the application and reporting 
burdensome. Some of the feedback received concerned unnecessary repetition in reporting and 
changes to the reporting requirements during the implementation period. A few interviewees 
proposed  a  shift  towards  a  more  results-oriented  approach,  which  has  been  tackled  in  the 
meantime under the CERV programme with the lump sum funding. In addition, the number of 
yearly deliverables, deemed as excessively high by beneficiaries, has also been reduced under 
the CERV. 

Despite  the  highlighted  administrative  burden  of  the  application  and  reporting  process,  the 
benefits of the REC programme clearly outweighed the costs to beneficiaries. Not only is there 
an interest in continuing to apply for funding, but for many recurrent applicants, the programme 
filled a real gap, providing independent funding, and in many cases no other funding could 
have covered the themes and types of activities funded. 

Europe for Citizens programme 

Regulation 390/2014 set the budget of the EfC programme at EUR 185 468 000. The budget 
was increased twice during the implementation period: in 2014 by EUR 2.25 million57; and, in 
2020 by EUR 6.9 million58. Except for 2014 and 2020, programme expenditure remained stable 
over the years and in line with the plans made in the respective work programmes (cf. Figure 
9). 

57 No amendment to the initial work programme 2014 as the increase was less than 20% (i.e. flexibility clause). The increase concerned 1) the 
adoption of an additional amount of EUR 2 000 000 by the budgetary authority and, 2) the transfer of an amount of EUR 250 000 from the 
cancelled preparatory action ‘European Civil Society House’ to the budget line ‘Europe for Citizens’ programme. 
58 Amendment C(2020) 8649 of the initial work programme, December 2020. 

35 

 
 
Success rates varied greatly, with a high number of good quality proposals that could not be 
funded  (cf.  Figure  10).  The  benefits  of  the  EfC  programme  outweighed  the  costs  to 
beneficiaries, with most beneficiary organisations successfully absorbing the awarded funding; 
those  that  experienced  difficulties  absorbing  the  funds  did  so  because  of  the  extraordinary 
circumstances  that  arose  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  The  qualitative  feedback  from 
beneficiaries  did  not  identify  any  significant  barriers  to  applying  for  funding  relating  to 
language, capacity, relevance, awareness of the programme or other factors. Nearly all the EfC 
beneficiaries consulted considered the application process to be clear, accessible, simple, and 
straightforward. It is important to note however that the programme was already using lump 
sum funding when it was not relying on the eGrants system (as the REC programme did from 
2016 onwards). The transition to the eGrants system may have presented challenges for some 
EfC  beneficiaries,  leading  them  to  perceive  that  the  previous  procedures  were  simpler  in 
comparison. 

The  simplifications  which  had  taken  place  over  the  successive  iterations  of  the 
programme  improved  accessibility  to  CSOs  of  all  types  and  sizes.  The  programme  was 
sufficiently known to attract new applicants every year, as also indicated by the increase in the 
number of first-time applicants (cf. Figure 17). With regard to financial aspects, the use of lump 
sums and unit costs was a successful feature of the programme. 

Although  it  was  challenging  for  some  smaller  or  grassroots  CSOs,  the  co-financing 
requirement  was  accepted  as  necessary  and  conducive  to  the  leveraging  of  additional 
funds. Most beneficiaries did not face any specific difficulties in raising the additional funds 
from local authorities, foundations and banks depending on the project. The advance payment 
increases  from  40%  to  50%  in  2019  and  to  60%  in  2020  made  it  even  easier  for  smaller 
organisations to access the programme.  

Consultation activities gathered limited feedback to suggest that the programme could have 
been implemented in a more efficient way. The programme’s funding generated worthy results, 
which contributed to its objectives and the wider EU policy goals and priorities. The evaluation 
did,  however,  identify  a  few  instances  in  which  the  administrative  burden  could  have  been 
reduced even further, e.g. through more guidance. 

Communication  between  the  Commission  and  beneficiaries  was  open  and  clear.  The 
selection  process  was  considered  generally  fair  and  transparent,  and  it  was  noted  that  the 
Commission  provided  appropriate  feedback  on  the  outcomes.  In  general,  the  reporting 
requirements were considered to have been clear, straightforward and simple even though 
less experienced beneficiary organisations would have appreciated more substantial guidance 
and training on reporting requirements and forms. The Civil Dialogue Group, a specific feature 
of the EfC programme, provided meaningful inputs. 

Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme 

The analysis of the efficiency criterion confirmed that,  to date, the benefits of the  CERV 
programme  outweigh  the  costs,  which  beneficiaries  bear  due  to  participation  in  the 
programme59. 

The main benefits of the funding were directly project-related (i.e. the ability to implement 
the desired approach), but also in terms of increased networking and collaboration with 

59 Such as costs to prepare an application. 

36 

 
 
partners in other countries, and enhanced visibility and recognition of the organisation 
because it received EU funding. Based on the evidence collected through the supporting study, 
the opportunity to test innovative approaches to address societal challenges, involving new 
types  of  stakeholders,  and  benefiting  their  target  groups  through  greater  capacity  and 
recognition of advocacy actions were also found to be important benefits of the funding. 

However,  the  ‘cost-of-living’  crisis  meant  for  many  beneficiaries  that  the  benefits  of  the 
funding  were  significantly  reduced,  with  many  struggling  to  maintain previously  planned 
project budgets and, in some cases, having to adjust the range of planned activities. 

The main effects of the new implementation features60 introduced by the Commission under 
the  CERV  programme  have  been  improved  predictability,  reduced  administrative  burden, 
strengthened programme monitoring61, and included more grassroots and smaller organisations 
through re-granting mechanisms62. 

Figure 25 - Impact of innovation on the monitoring burden 

Source: targeted survey of beneficiaries (2024). 

One  exception  to  this  overall  simplification  and  burden  reduction  are  unit  costs.  Their 
introduction at Commission corporate level appears to have added complexity, especially as 
they do not reflect the actual costs of activities and raise challenging limitations on travel costs. 

The  application  process  of  the  programme  is  timely63,  with  information  about  the  calls 
reaching  applicants  when  they  need  it.  For  project  beneficiaries,  the  main  costs  of  the 
programme have been associated with the staff time and resources required to invest in 
the application process, with large variability between smaller organisations, who perceived 
these  costs  to  be  a  lot  higher,  and  larger  organisations  with  professionalised  bid  teams,  for 
whom these costs appeared to pose less of a challenge. There administrative burden has been 
identified  as a risk  for very small projects (such as town twinning), including  due to  the 
challenges of using the eGrants system, which can deter from applying when the effort required 
to apply is higher than the relatively limited grant amount expected. 

60 Multiannual work programmes, lump sums, re-granting mechanism, programme performance monitoring framework. 
61 A programme performance monitoring framework is in place and there are dedicated data collection tools for collecting indicators on outputs 
and outcomes. 
62 All stakeholders consulted for the evaluation confirmed that the introduction of re-granting to third parties (i.e. financial support to third 
parties) has  helped  to  improve accessibility  to EU  funding  for  small  and grassroot organisations  through  simplified  application  processes 
facilitated by intermediaries. 
63 Corporate metrics such as time to inform and time to grant showed that the average timeframes were all far below the mandated deadlines 
(e.g. time to inform = 156 days on average against the mandated 183 days; time to grant = 228 days on average against the mandated 275 
days). 

37 

 
 
 
While satisfaction with the feedback received from the Commission on applications was high, 
there  appears to  be room  for  improving  consistency in  the level  of detail provided, and  for 
making  clearer  what  the  Commission  expects  from  applications.  For  example,  some 
respondents suggested to improve clarity on terminology and methodology used as well as to 
introduce more specific examples and best practices to follow. 

On  the  approach  to  reporting,  notable  improvements  were  made  in  the  clarity  of  the 
reporting requirements compared with the REC programme. For example, reducing the 
reporting requirements has enabled projects to be more result oriented. 

The  limited  inefficiencies  found  related  to  reporting  requirements  for  operating  grant 
beneficiaries. The timing of reports did not always align with their financial year, leading to 
requests  for  extensions.  This  was  often  due  to  the  fact  that  the  required  data  were  not  yet 
available at the scheduled reporting time, as it was dependent on the beneficiary’s financial 
year-end closure. The reporting template was designed for project-based reporting, which may 
not be considered suitable by all beneficiaries. 

The process of requesting budgetary amendments was also highlighted as burdensome. 
Data  collection  through  the  EU  Survey  on  Justice,  Rights  and  Values64  -  one  of  the 
programme’s  monitoring  tools  specifically  developed  to  collect  data  and  feedback  from 
participants at events organised by CERV-funded projects - was also criticised for its lack of 
relevance for target groups, its length, and the requirement to collect equality data, which some 
beneficiaries  found  problematic  and  ‘impossible’  to  collect  in  the  context  of  dissemination 
activities65. 

Additionally,  the  evaluation  identified  the  eGrants  system’s  lack  of  user-friendliness  and 
technical issues as an important factor impacting the efficiency of the programme. Although 
the system was revised recently, its effectiveness could not be assessed within the scope of this 
evaluation. 

Finally, the small number of ICT tools contracted and granted, compared with other types of 
activities  funded  indicates  that  there  is  scope  to  make  even  better  use  of  digitalisation 
opportunities at project level. 

4.1.3.  Coherence 

Rights, Equality and Citizenship programme 

The  evaluation  confirmed  the  findings  from  the  first  part  of  the  ex post  evaluation  that  the 
objectives  and  interventions  of  the  REC  programme  were  coherent  with  wider  EU 
policies and priorities. This was ensured through the nature of REC programming where the 
priorities  of  the  call  for  proposals  were  led  by  specific  strategic  developments  and 
Commission’s priorities. The programme contributed to the EU justice agenda for 202066 by 
funding  activities  that  focused  on  prevention,  protection  and  victim  support,  including 
awareness-raising among the general public, training of professionals and capacity building of 
organisations and structures working on these issues. 

64 See details about the survey in Annex II.1. 
65 The survey was adapted in September 2024 based on previous feedback from beneficiaries. The new version includes a new introductory 
page informing respondents about the purpose of the survey and its key features, advanced privacy options, a shorter and simpler questionnaire, 
improved data collection on gender identity (including a ‘prefer not to say’ option) and upgraded user guide for project coordinators. 
66 The EU Justice Agenda for 2020 - Strengthening Trust, Mobility and Growth within the Union, COM/2014/0144 final. 

38 

 
 
The  programme  contributed  to  the  LGBTIQ+  equality  strategies  by  funding  activities  to 
empower LGBTIQ+ people, support victims of hate crime and promote their rights. In support 
of the 2010-2020 European disability strategy67, activities were funded to support people with 
disabilities and promote their rights. The programme also funded activities to support Roma 
people and promote their inclusion and rights, thereby contributing to the EU framework for 
national Roma integration strategies68. 

The  programme  contributed  to  the  gender  equality  strategy  2020-2025  and  the  2016-2019 
strategic engagement for gender  equality69  by funding  activities to  improve equal  economic 
independence, reconciliation of professional and private life, reducing the gender pay gap but 
also by funding activities aimed at ending gender-based violence. The contribution of the REC 
programme  to  promote  equality  between  women  and  men  and  to  advance  gender 
mainstreaming was not only addressed through the specific objective RGEN, but also through 
calls under the specific objectives RCIT, RDIS and RDAP. In addition, gender mainstreaming 
and  the  promotion  of  gender  equality  were  integrated  in  the  programme  design:  gender 
mainstreaming and the promotion of gender equality needed to be integrated and evaluated in 
all funded projects, ensuring that the gender equality perspective could be part of the design, 
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the activities. 

The  REC  programme mainly contributed to  the new Commission  priorities70 established by 
President von der Leyen for the period 2019-2024 ‘Promoting our European way of life’ and 
‘A new push for European democracy’, while to a lesser extent also to the ‘European Green 
Deal’, ‘a Europe fit for the Digital Age’ and ‘A stronger Europe in the world’ priorities. 

The REC  programme  complemented  other EU funding instruments,  of which  the following 
were the most  frequently used by beneficiaries: Erasmus+,  the Justice programme, Horizon 
2020,  Asylum,  Migration  and  Integration  Fund  (AMIF),  ESF,  Creative  Europe  and  the 
European Regional Development Fund. Coherence was ensured through the different stages of 
the  programme:  from  the  objectives  set  by  the Regulation,  through  implementation  (annual 
work programmes), and until the project kick-off. 77% of beneficiaries71 that received REC 
funding  were  positive  that  the  programme  was  well  aligned  with  other  EU  funding 
programmes. 

About a third of REC beneficiaries consulted for this evaluation declared that they had received 
funding  from  other  sources,  e.g.  from  United  Nations’  agencies  or  the  Visegrad  Fund72. 
Beneficiaries did not report any lack of coherence or overlaps with these funding sources or 
with national, regional or local funds. 

Europe for Citizens programme 

The EfC programme was coherent with EU policies and priorities. The evaluation found 
that the programme was aligned with the Commission’s priorities for 2014-2020, but it also 
demonstrated flexibility to priorities of the new Commission as established by President von 
der Leyen for the period 2019-202473. Projects funded under the programme addressed critical 

67 European disability strategy 2010-2020: A Renewed Commitment to a Barrier-Free Europe, COM/2010/0636 final. 
68 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52011DC0173. 
69 Strategic engagement for gender equality 2016-2019, available at: https://op.europa.eu/s/zZzJ. 
70 A Union that strives for more. My agenda for Europe. Political guidelines for the next European Commission 2019-2024 
71 Survey of REC, EfC, and CERV beneficiaries. 
72 https://www.visegradfund.org/. 
73 The 2019 report highlighted that civil society projects covered five of the six new priorities. See: European Commission: European Education 
and Culture Executive Agency, Europe for citizens – Report 2019, Publications Office, 2020, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/648401. 

39 

 
 
issues such as fake news, media literacy, and e-democracy, thus aligning with EU priorities. 
Many addressed solidarity and social inclusion, the use of digital tools to enhance democratic 
engagement, the upholding of EU values; overall, all projects sought to encourage a stronger 
democratic  participation.  During  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  increased  digitalisation  further 
underscored  this  alignment.  The  annual  work  programmes  consistently  recommended  to 
potential beneficiaries the proactive use of social media with the aim of reaching out especially 
to younger generations, which paid off, as indicated by the high number of participants aged 
under  30  in  the  programme  overall  (cf.  Figure  15).  The  programme  facilitated  bottom-up 
activities contributing to key EU priorities. The priorities it addressed included climate change, 
the European Green Deal, fundamental rights, gender equality, promoting active citizenship 
and understanding of EU values. The programme supported the European Citizens’ Initiative 
(ECI),  a  unique  transnational  instrument  enabling  EU  citizens  to  engage  directly  in  the 
legislative  process,  in  line  with  the  EU  goal  of  enhancing  participatory  democracy.  The 
programme complemented other EU programmes such as Erasmus+, Creative Europe, and 
the European Social Fund, supporting unique activities that enhanced its distinct contribution 
to  EU  goals.  Synergies  between  these  programmes  were  exploited  on  the  ground,  notably 
through  the  occasional,  informal  cooperation  of  national  structures  such  as  EfC  NCPs,  the 
Creative Europe Desks and Erasmus+ National Agencies. Feedback from beneficiaries showed 
that, despite its smaller budget, the programme’s features effectively promoted networking and 
created  new  opportunities  for  synergies.  This  was  especially  valuable  for  enhancing  cross-
border cooperation, facilitating educational and cultural exchanges through other programmes 
such as Erasmus+, and advancing bilateral partnerships with twinned organisations. The focus 
on  cultural  heritage  and  remembrance  activities  aligned  with  initiatives  such  as  the 
European  Year  of  Cultural  Heritage  (2018),  thus  highlighting  its  role  in  promoting  a 
shared European identity. These efforts collectively contributed to the EU overarching goals 
of fostering democratic participation, social cohesion, and informed citizenship. 

Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme 

The  CERV  programme  occupies  a  unique  niche  within  the  EU  policy  and  funding 
landscape, addressing gaps where other funding is not available, as confirmed by beneficiaries 
and  the  public  consultation.  The  CERV  programme  offers  advantages  that  cannot  all  be 
found in other programmes, such as pan-EU coverage, a comprehensive range of themes, 
the possibility to secure independent sources of financing, a specific focus on EU values, 
grants of a significant size, operating grants and re-granting mechanisms. What emerges 
clearly overall is that the CERV programme occupies what would otherwise be a largely 
empty space in the values and rights funding landscape. 

Nevertheless, as the funding gap is significant, beneficiaries, if they can, also use other sources 
of  funding,  such  as  the  Visegrad  Fund.  For  some  specific  topics,  beneficiaries  seek  to 
complement funding under the CERV programme with funding from other EU programmes, 
such as Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe or with governmental funding (at national, regional and 
local level)74. 

In  terms  of  internal  coherence  across  strands,  no  specific  issues  have  arisen.  Beneficiaries 
appear comfortable with the single architecture that has replaced the predecessor programmes 
and do not find the division of themes across the strands to be an issue. The new programme 
architecture of the CERV programme – bringing EU funding in the areas of values, rights and 
citizenship under one single programme – was considered to foster coherence and synergies 

74 Based on results of beneficiary survey.  

40 

 
 
between  different  policy  priorities  and  was  found  to  have  contributed  to  a  more  holistic 
approach to addressing societal challenges and promoting EU values. 

Programme implementation is  coherent with the  EU’s  international  commitments and 
objectives, including the UN Sustainable Development Goals75. International commitments 
are systematically cross-referenced in calls. Results76 in EU budget performance measurement 
show only limited green budgeting on horizontal green priorities so far – which is also due to 
the nature of the programme – but there are nevertheless several projects with a climate change 
dimension. 

4.2. How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? 

Rights, Equality and Citizenship programme 

The  evidence  confirmed  that  the  results  of  the  REC  programme  could  only  have  been 
achieved by action at EU level. 

The programme contributed to the consistent and coherent implementation of EU law and 
wide  public  awareness  about  the  rights  deriving  from  it.  As  already  detailed  above, 
increased knowledge and awareness was one of the main results reported by beneficiaries in 
their final reports (cf. Figure 23). 

In  addition, the REC  programme  contributed to  developing mutual trust among Member 
States  and  improving  cross-border  cooperation,  as  clearly  exemplified  by  the  157 
transnational  networks  created  between  2016  and  2020.  The  transnational  nature  of  the 
programme  allowed  organisations  to  apply  with  consortia  composed  of  organisations  from 
different  Member  States,  but  also  to  implement  activities  with  participants  coming  from 
different Member States. This was already highlighted in the first part of the ex post evaluation 
as one of the results that could not have been achieved exclusively through national funds. 

The  programme  also  helped  to  prepare  and  disseminate  best  practice  and  to  create 
minimum  standards,  practical  tools  and  solutions  that  addressed  cross-border  or  EU-
wide  challenges.  A  large  proportion  of  beneficiaries  reported  the  exchange  and  transfer  of 
good practices and mutual learning, as well as the development of research tools and analyses 
as a result in their final reports. The outputs of these activities continued to be used after the 
project had ended. 

By providing independent  funding, the programme enabled sensitive topics  to  be  addressed 
that  would  not  have  been  funded  at  national  level.  Nearly  all  beneficiaries  interviewed 
confirmed  that  if  the  programme  had  not  been  sustained,  national  governments  would 
have been unlikely to fill the gap. The programme increased the capacity of a wide range of 
key civil society players and human rights organisations. Several operating grant beneficiaries 
(e.g. EU networks) highlighted that REC funding had been fundamental to their organisation, 
and that they would not have been able to remain operational without REC. 

Europe for Citizens programme 

It is likely that the impacts identified through the EfC programme would not have been 
achieved without the programme’s specific EU-level support. Without the EfC programme, 

75 https://sdgs.un.org/goals. 
76 Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Programme - Performance - European Commission, 

41 

 
 
many beneficiaries would have struggled to implement projects on a similar scale or with the 
same impact. 

The interim evaluation77 already found that the programme demonstrated clear added value at 
the EU level both in the aggregate effect of its impact on participants and its complementarity 
with other EU funding instruments and policy initiatives. Importantly, there was very strong 
evidence that the programme was overall unique given that funding at national or regional level 
to achieve the same or similar objectives were at best very limited. These conclusions were 
confirmed by the evidence generated for this evaluation78. 

The programme particularly responded to the CSOs challenges related to a lack of funding for 
work  areas  critical  to  European  citizenship.  It  was  crucial  for  activities  requiring  cross-
border  cooperation  and  a  broader  European  perspective,  as  no  similar  national  or 
regional schemes could match the programme’s scope and scale. The programme funded 
activities  that  involved  citizens  and  organisations  from  multiple  participating  countries, 
fostering a sense of European identity and belonging. It therefore continued to fill what would 
otherwise have been a gap and created a level playing field enabling an equal access to the 
programme to all, except some smaller organisations. 

These outcomes were quantifiable through the number of projects spanning multiple countries 
and  the  scale  of  cross-border  collaboration  achieved.  The  programme’s  ability  to  bridge 
national differences and promote a cohesive European approach was instrumental in addressing 
the varied challenges faced at the national level. At programme level, 70% of projects included 
a transnational partnership79 (cf. Figure 16). 

By facilitating cross-border partnerships and the exchange of best practices, the programme 
enabled CSOs of all sizes to engage in more inclusive and effective activities. This support was 
crucial in enhancing the capacity of organisations to operate on a larger scale or beyond their 
usual mandate. While most beneficiaries did not always consider the EfC funding to be critical, 
it  was  nevertheless  instrumental  in  helping  them  achieve  more  than  they  could  have  done 
without  it.  The  programme  enabled  organisations  to  carry  out  specific  projects  and  reach 
broader audiences, particularly in areas where national or regional funding options have been 
limited. In some cases, the funding was essential for the survival of organisations operating in 
challenging funding landscapes. 

The  programme  particularly  emphasised  transnational  and  cross-border  cooperation,  with 
significant focus on creating networks in niche thematic areas and promoting direct inclusion 
of  EU  citizens  in  activities.  This  approach  addressed  the  varied  challenges  across  Member 
States by enhancing participation and dialogue at the EU level, thereby contributing to a more 
balanced and inclusive civic space. 

Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme 

In the absence in many EU Member States of public funds in the thematic areas covered by the 
CERV programme, CERV funding remains a major contributor to civil society work in 

77 SWD/2018/086 final, 
78 Most respondents (64%) to the survey of beneficiaries considered that the EU involvement was either fully or largely crucial to achieving 
the results of the programme. The survey of unsuccessful applicants revealed the impact of not receiving EfC funding, showing that the most 
common result was project cancellation, affecting 33% of respondents. This underscores the critical role that the programme played in project 
viability. The public consultation confirmed these findings. 
79 The percentage of transnational partnerships was the highest in civil society projects (CIV), 85%, and respectively 69% (TT), 70% (NT) 
and 69% (REM) in the other actions. 

42 

 
 
these areas. The programme adds value over and above that created by Member States acting 
alone. 

Figure 26 - Importance of action at EU level 

Source: Elaboration from public consultation (2024). 

Most stakeholders consulted considered the funding of transnational projects addressing rights 
and societal challenges in Member States to be minimal to non-existent. Moreover, political 
challenges were found to be an obstacle for many CSOs to obtain national funds in the area of 
equality and non-discrimination, as well as combating violence against women. Based on the 
evidence collected through the supporting study, this is mainly due to national governments’ 
general lack of interest in these areas, as well as to political decisions or a national focus not 
interested in a cross-border dimension driving the selection of beneficiaries, including for EU 
funds under shared management. In this context, the opportunity to obtain direct funding 
from  the  Commission  was  underlined  as  a  major  contributor  to  fairness  and 
independence. 

The evidence gathered suggests that in the absence of the CERV programme a negative effect 
would likely be observed, possibly impacting the already shrinking civic space throughout the 
EU  and  significantly  slowing  down  progress  towards  gender  equality  and  equality  overall. 
Feedback  from  stakeholders  and  experts  further  confirmed  that  a  discontinuation  of  CERV 
funding would contribute to a further decline in the sense of European citizenship and identity, 
more barriers for persons with disabilities, an increase in violence against children, a rise in 
extremism and radicalism, and further divisions. 

4.3. Is the intervention still relevant? 

Rights, Equality and Citizenship programme 

The  REC  programme  remained  relevant  by  effectively  addressing  both  existing  and 
emerging  needs  within  the  EU,  including  persistent  societal  challenges,  such  as 
discrimination  against  LGBTIQ+  people,  Roma,  persons  with  disabilities,  and  older 
people. Issues such as hate crimes, hate speech, and violence against women and children, 
which have arisen in specific contexts such as the online environment and the COVID-19 
pandemic, were also at the core of the programme. 

The pace of progress80 to achieve full equality and fundamental rights across the EU emphasise 
the continued relevance of the programme’s objectives, while the high application rates under 

80 For instance, the special Eurobarometer 535 revealed that discrimination remains widespread, with 42% of respondents agreeing to this 
statement on the grounds of religion or beliefs, 45% based on age, 49% based on disability, and 54% regarding the ground of sexual orientation. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
various  specific  objectives  confirmed  the  strong  demand  for  support.  The  flexible 
programming, through the annual work programmes, ensured that the REC programme could 
respond to the dynamic socio-political landscape within the EU and remained relevant to the 
evolving needs of stakeholders and citizens81. 

The COVID-19 pandemic required the programme to show flexibility as regards procedures, 
timelines and activities. Beneficiaries were very positive about how the related challenges were 
handled and the fact that project progress was ensured. Beneficiaries felt that the programme 
was  also  responsive  to  political  factors  and,  to  a  lesser  extent,  economic  factors.  As  for 
challenges,  inflation  and  limitations  in  eligibility  criteria,  particularly  concerning  non-EU 
countries, were noted as significant issues. 

The REC programme effectively targeted marginalised and vulnerable groups, such as 
victims of violence, ethnic minorities, and children, in line with the critical challenges facing 
EU society. The programme demonstrated considerable relevance to its beneficiaries, as 
the  funding  matched  their  strategic  goals,  avoiding  the  need  for  disproportionate 
adjustments  to  their  activities.  The  focus  on  capacity  building,  knowledge  sharing,  and 
structural support effectively addressed their requirements. As an example, many beneficiaries 
of  operating  grants  noted  that  the  capacity-building  efforts  supported  their  organisational 
development  and  long-term  stability.  Also,  many  beneficiaries  highlighted  that  the  funding 
enabled them to undertake projects they would otherwise not have been able to execute. This 
funding  often  served  as  a  foundation  for  further  project  development  and  methodological 
advancements. Finally, the programme facilitated the growth and consolidation of networks, 
crucial for enhancing the impact of activities and fostering international collaboration. 

Some areas of improvement suggested by beneficiaries were more attention to intersectionality 
in  addressing  gender  and  social  inclusion  issues;  greater  focus  on  emerging  issues  such  as 
disinformation, mental health and early childhood development, as well as inclusion of non-
EU countries to enhance international cooperation. 

Europe for Citizens programme 

The alignment with broader EU policy goals and priorities, and the fostering of a sense 
of  European  identity  that  were  achieved  by  the  EfC  programme  remain  relevant 
objectives. By supporting the ECI, the programme enhanced democratic life, enabling citizens 
to  influence  EU  policies.  The  Commission’s  efforts  to  raise  awareness  and  improve  ECI 
accessibility demonstrated a practical approach to citizen empowerment. The programme also 
encouraged civic participation through grassroots initiatives, fostering a sense of belonging and 
mutual understanding among Europeans and providing platforms for meaningful dialogue and 
action  on  common  issues.  Town-twinning  activities  promoted  cross-border  interactions  and 
cultural exchanges, fostering European identity and ongoing dialogue on integration and shared 
values,  while  projects  on  European  remembrance  contributed  to  a  shared  understanding  of 
European history. 

The  EfC  programme  was  relevant  to  its  final  beneficiaries,  and  mostly  addressed  the 
needs and target groups in thematic areas that remain relevant today82. The programme’s 

See: https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2972. In this context, it should be noted that EU legislation covers these grounds only in 
certain areas of life. 
81 This was also supported by feedback from REC beneficiaries, where 75% stated that the thematic focus of the calls was appropriate and 
68% agreed that the REC programme met the main needs and target groups in the thematic areas in which they worked. 
82 95% of EfC funding recipients who completed the survey considered that this was the case. 

44 

 
 
structure supported a broad range of initiatives in line with the needs and priorities of CSOs, 
allowing them flexibility to tailor projects to specific thematic areas. 

The  beneficiaries’  primary  focus  on  citizen  engagement  and  participation  highlighted  the 
relevance of the programme, given its focus on citizens. CSOs were also a key target, reflecting 
the programme’s commitment to fostering open dialogue and collaboration, which is crucial 
for achieving EU policy goals. Public authorities were targeted for advocacy, enhancing the 
programme’s relevance by promoting effective dialogue between civil society and decision-
makers. The inclusion of vulnerable groups also demonstrated the programme’s dedication to 
addressing inequalities and incorporating marginalised voices into the democratic process. 

Figure 27 - ‘Who is your target audience?’ (%) 

Source: targeted survey of beneficiaries (2024). 

There was a consensus among beneficiaries that the programme’s priorities had aligned 
well  with  the  greatest  needs  in  Member  States  relating  to  civic  engagement  and 
remembrance.  A  significant  proportion  of  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  also 
considered that the programme’s objectives were still relevant to the current challenges and 
needs in their Member States83. The continuation of projects funded by the programme further 
highlighted its relevance, as a significant proportion of recipients received funding for projects 
that built on earlier initiatives and previous results. This indicates that the programme’s support 
was in line with past needs and priorities, ensuring that funding remained relevant over time. 

Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme 

The  CERV  programme  remains  relevant,  given  its  objectives  as  set  out  in  Regulation 
2021/69284. The evidence gathered for this evaluation confirms the gaps identified in the 
impact  assessment.  The  EU  is  facing  significant  challenges  related  to  equality,  rights,  and 
democracy. Despite progress in some areas, many EU citizens still experience discrimination, 
violence,  and  inequality.  The  COVID-19  pandemic  and  Russia’s  war  of  aggression  against 
Ukraine have amplified these issues, particularly affecting vulnerable groups such as children, 
people with  disabilities, and women (cf. Annex  VI). Overall, these challenges  highlight the 
need  for  increased  efforts  to  promote  equality,  rights,  and  democracy  in  the  EU,  including 
greater support for civil society and awareness-raising initiatives. 

83 This concerned around two thirds of respondents to the public consultation. While it is not possible to say whether they felt this way during 
the life of the programme, it would be plausible to assume that this was the case. 
84 Regulation (EU) No 2021/692 of 28 April 2021, Article 2. 

45 

 
 
 
The  evidence  points  to  a  very  strong  alignment  between  the  needs  of  the  target 
stakeholders,  including  of  CSOs,  and  the  actions  funded  under  the  programme,  thus 
contributing to the EU’s capacity to respond to the above-mentioned challenges. This not only 
responds directly to beneficiary organisations’ missions and strategies, but also it allows them 
to reach new target groups. The EU-wide dimension was also considered to respond to CSOs’ 
ambitions and needs to pursue projects involving multiple countries to increase learning and 
impact. 

Figure 28 - To what extent does funding under the programme align with the core needs of your 
organisation? (%) 

Source: targeted survey of beneficiaries (2024). 

Beneficiaries  emphasised  that  CERV  funding  (as  well  as  funding  under  the  predecessor 
programmes) had been instrumental in addressing key priorities and initiatives that were crucial 
for the growth and sustainability of their organisation. The funding enabled them to implement 
projects that they would not have been able to implement otherwise, and these projects often 
created a basis (in terms of approaches and materials) for further project work. 

The  thematic  focus  of  the  calls  published  so  far,  has  been  relevant  to  most  stakeholders 
consulted in this evaluation; it is one of the key strengths of the programme. These included, 
for example, such topics as capacity building and awareness on the EU Charter of Fundamental 
Rights;  fighting  against  any  form  of  intolerance,  racism,  xenophobia,  discrimination;  equal 
participation and representation of women and men in political and economic decision-making 
and  tackling  gender  stereotypes;  promoting  democratic  participation  through  debating  the 
future of Europe and many others. 

However, some gaps remain. These mainly focus on the greater inclusion of themes related to 
climate change and energy, intersectionality, service provision, disinformation, and war crimes 
and victim support. 

The programme was also relevant to its final beneficiaries, ‘citizens’ being the most frequently 
identified group among those who benefited from it. 

46 

 
 
Figure 29 - Who is your target audience? 

Source: targeted survey of beneficiaries (2024). 

The programme has already demonstrated its flexibility in adapting to changing needs, both in 
terms of processes and procedures to respond to the COVID-19 public health restrictions, to 
the consequences of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine as well as thematically. 

The CERV programme responds to Article 2 of the Treaty of the European Union, which states 
that ‘the Union is  founded on the values of respect  for human dignity, freedom  democracy, 
equality,  the  rule  of  law  and  the  respect  for  human  rights,  including  the  rights  of  persons 
belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society where 
pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and 
men  prevail.’  It  addresses  needs  relevant  to  the  EU  priority:  ‘A  new  push  for  European 
democracy’85, and supports a wide range of policy initiatives relevant to several of its specific 
objectives86. 

There  remains  scope  to  further  capitalise  on  opportunities  brought  about  by 
digitalisation. The programme’s approach evolved to correspond to the pace of digitalisation, 
which is included in the broad definitions for funding provision. However, these aspects do not 
appear to have yet generated interest or capacity to respond to the opportunities presented, as 
only a small number of ICT tools were funded thus far.

85 The European Commission’s priorities, available at: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024_en. 
86 Specific objective 1: Strengthen rule of law in the Union; specific objective 2: Strengthened application of fundamental rights; specific 
objective 3: Improved framework to protect democracy in the European Union; specific objective 5: High level of personal data protection 
achieved throughout the EU and EU data protection promoted as a global model; specific objective 6: Eliminate inequalities and discrimination 
and promote equality for all. 

47 

 
 
 
 
5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

This  chapter  is  organised  in  two  parts.  Following  a  brief  overview  focusing  on  the  joint 
assessment  of  the  three  programmes,  conclusions  and  lessons  learned  are  presented  by 
programme  and  structured  according  to  the  evaluation  criteria  of  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
coherence, EU added value and relevance; they refer to findings presented under the previous 
chapter. Conclusions are robust, as they are based on findings demonstrated by multiple sources 
and objectively verifiable evidence. 

Overall,  the  EfC  and  REC  programmes  achieved  their  objectives  while  the  CERV 
programme  is  also  making  good  progress  towards  its  objectives.  The  objectives  of  the 
CERV programme remain highly relevant. As of now, there is no reason not to carry forward 
the  general  and  specific  objectives  of  the  CERV  strands  or  to  change  the  objectives,  the 
approach to the strands or the redistribution of themes across strands. The new features of the 
CERV programme have produced efficiency gains for the Commission and beneficiaries. 
These features have already reflected lessons learned from the EfC and REC programmes about 
the need for simplification and introduced changes being implemented across EU programmes. 
The application and reporting process under the CERV programme compares favourably with 
the REC programme but has added complexity for smaller organisations, such as towns and 
municipalities compared to the EfC programme (also due to the introduction of the eGrants 
system). Re-granting mechanisms have led to the CERV programme being more inclusive than 
the REC programme by allowing the programme to reach smaller and grassroots organisations. 
The  EfC,  REC  and  CERV  programmes  have  all  been  coherent  and  complementary  in  their 
objectives with other EU funding programmes. The three programmes all filled roles in the 
funding  landscape  that  Member  States  would  in  general  not  have  had  the  capacity  to 
fulfil. The CERV programme, like its predecessors, offers clear added value. It is  for many 
CSOs, their only possible source of funding in this area as was the case under REC and the 
EfC. Based on the evidence collected through the supporting study, there is little likelihood 
of Member States to step in in the absence of the CERV programme; direct management 
is crucial for ensuring transparency, fairness and independence. There is a clear need for the 
CERV programme to continue because the challenges these programmes were set up to 
address persist and, in some cases, have got worst, e.g. the increasing polarisation of society, 
the rise in populism and extremism, and the threat to EU values.  The needs that the EfC, REC 
and CERV programmes were set up to address are therefore still very present and seem likely 
to persist over the remainder of this multiannual financial framework and beyond. 

5.1. Rights, Equality and Citizenship programme 

Effectiveness 

The  REC  programme  achieved  its  general  and  specific  objectives.  The  nine  specific 
objectives were funded in line with plans established in the annual work programmes and the 
ones  that  received  the  highest  amount  of  funding  were  also  the  ones  where  beneficiaries 
confirmed  that  their  activities  had  most  contributed.  The  programme  covered  all  Member 
States, with a higher concentration of funding in a number of (larger) Member States (e.g. IT, 
ES, BE). The programme effectively addressed a diverse range of target groups, ensuring 
that varied populations benefited from its initiatives. Key results were achieved in the area 
of  support  and  empowerment  of  target  groups  and  stakeholder  engagement,  followed  by 

48 

 
 
increased knowledge and engagement of target groups. The programme reached a high number 
of persons, of which more than 2.3 million persons through training activities alone. The REC 
programme had long-lasting effects, such as the creation of long-term relations between 
relevant  stakeholders,  increased  awareness  among  target  groups  about  the  support 
available  and  increased  internal  capacity  within  organisations  that  received  REC 
funding.  In  addition,  the  project  outputs  of  the REC-funded  projects  were  long-lasting  and 
used beyond the end of the funding e.g. training materials continued to be  used, and online 
platforms established during REC projects continued to operate. 

The lack of a robust monitoring framework to allow a more systematic and efficient assessment 
of the effectiveness of the programme was addressed under CERV through e.g. the streamlining 
of indicators and the introduction of dedicated data collection tools. 

Efficiency 

The benefits of the REC programme outweighed the costs to beneficiaries, although many 
beneficiaries highlighted that the administrative burden of the application and reporting process 
had  been  high.  Funding  distributed  through  the  programme  was  largely  spent  as  planned. 
Funding  recipients  absorbed  91%  of  the  budget  committed  to  grants  and  procurement;  this 
percentage is likely to further increase when all projects are closed. The most cited external 
factor impacting on costs was the COVID-19 pandemic, although both leading to higher costs 
(longer  project  duration  leading  to  more  personnel  costs)  and  cost  savings  (events  being 
organised online, reducing travel, subsistence and organisational costs). 

Building on initial lessons learned under REC, the CERV programme introduced lump 
sum  funding  to  further  reduce  the  administrative  burden  as  well  as  re-granting 
mechanisms to increase funding’s accessibility for smaller organisations. 

Coherence 

There wase a high degree of coherence between the objectives and interventions of the 
REC programme and EU policies and priorities, as well as other EU funding instruments. 
The  priorities  of  the  call  for  proposals  were  led  by  the  strategic  developments  and  the  EC 
priorities. The programme contributed to several major EU strategies, such as the EU justice 
agenda for 2020, by funding activities focused on prevention, protection and support of victims 
including awareness-raising amongst the general public, training of professionals and capacity 
building  of  organisations  and  structures  working  on  these  issues.  The  programme  also 
successfully  contributed  to  the  EU  framework  for  national  Roma  integration  strategies  by 
funding activities to support Roma people and promote their inclusion and rights. Finally, the 
programme not only addressed gender mainstreaming and promotion of gender equality in one 
of its specific objectives, but it also integrated them in the programme design. 

The  evaluation  found  no  evidence  of  overlaps  in  the  funding  of  activities  despite  some 
similarities noted between the REC programme and other EU funding instruments (e.g. similar 
objectives, or similar types of activities that can be funded). Beneficiaries reported synergies 
with projects funded by other EU sources, e.g. under Erasmus+, Horizon 2020, ESF, AMIF. 

EU added value 

The  REC  programme  offered  clear  EU  added  value  as  it  promoted  different  rights 
derived from Union law and their related policies, often filling gaps existing at national 
level.  It  was  inherently  transnational  due  to  the  way  it  was  set  up.  The  programme’s 
specific objectives all aimed to promote different rights derived from Union law. Moreover, 
the programme allowed organisations to apply from different Member States as a consortium 

49 

 
and allowed for the implementation of activities with a transnational nature. As a result, the 
REC  programme  generated  transnational  results,  notably  the  increased  awareness  and 
understanding of the rights and policies covered by the programme, creating or strengthening 
cross-border cooperation and partnerships, as well as creating best practices and tools that were 
used across different Member States. 

The results of the REC programme could only have been achieved by action at EU level 
and it would have been unlikely that national governments filled the gap if REC funding 
had  not  existed  in  their  Member  State.  REC  funding  was  fundamental  for  many  of  the 
beneficiary organisations, who would not have otherwise been able to remain operational in 
the same way. This is in line with the findings of the first part ex post evaluation that identified 
REC  funding  as  an  important  source  of  financing  for  the  beneficiaries,  whether  public  or 
private, to implement pilot projects and to support organisations working with target groups 
that would not have been otherwise available through national resources. 

The learning from the REC programme justified the continuation of funding actions with 
high EU added value in the area of rights, equality and citizenship, namely activities that 
aim  to  create  or  strengthen  cross-border  cooperation  (such  as  establishing  transnational 
networks), activities that focus on mutual learning or setting up best practices or tools for EU-
wide challenges, as well as activities that aim to strengthen the coherent application of EU law 
or that aim to increase the public awareness of their rights. 

Relevance 

The  evaluation  confirmed  the  findings  from  the  first  part  ex post  evaluation  that  the  REC 
programme continued to be relevant to the (changing) needs of stakeholders and citizens 
in the EU.  The programme addressed  persistent  societal  challenges, such as  discrimination 
against  LGBTIQ+  people,  Roma,  persons  with  disabilities,  and  elderly  individuals.  Clear 
examples of how the REC programme made a difference are the European Disability Card and 
the creation of national Roma contact points. Issues like hate crimes, hate speech, and violence 
against women and children, which had risen in certain contexts like the online environment 
and the COVID-19 pandemic, were also focal points of the programme. The pace of progress 
to achieve full equality and fundamental rights across the EU underscored the continued 
relevance of the programme’s objectives. Faced with external factors such as the COVID-
19 pandemic, the programme showed its flexibility by adjusting its procedures, timelines and 
activities. 

The  REC  programme  effectively  targeted  marginalised  and  vulnerable  groups,  such  as 
victims  of  violence,  ethnic  minorities,  and  children,  aligning  with  the  critical  societal 
challenges faced within the EU. Actions and priorities were aligned to beneficiaries’ diverse 
needs.  The  strong  demand  for  support  was  confirmed  by  the  high  application  rates  under 
various specific objectives. The programme’s focus on capacity building, knowledge sharing, 
and structural support effectively addressed the requirements of its beneficiaries and provided 
long-lasting  results,  beyond  the  end  of  the  projects.  REC  provided  funding  that  matched 
beneficiaries’  strategic  goals,  avoiding  the  need  for  disproportionate  adjustments  to  their 
activities. 

Some areas of improvement suggested by beneficiaries were more attention to intersectionality 
in  addressing  gender  and  social  inclusion  issues;  greater  focus  on  emerging  issues  like 
disinformation,  mental  health  and  early  childhood  development  and  inclusion  of  non-EU 
countries to enhance international cooperation. 

50 

 
5.2. Europe for Citizens programme 

Effectiveness 

The EfC programme achieved its general and specific objectives; it largely exceeded the 
targets  referenced  in  the  key  performance  indicators.  However,  the  achievement  of  the 
objectives is likely to have been uneven as applicants from some Member States were markedly 
more  successful  than  others  in  tapping  into  this  funding.  The  EfC  programme  supported 
projects  which  generated  results  with  potential  for  long-term  impacts,  such  as:  (i) 
opportunity for young people to engage with the EU; (ii) increased fundraising and operational 
capacity of participating organisations; (iii) creation of sustainable outputs and project results 
which can be re-used and disseminated; and, (iv) contribution to sharing knowledge, raising 
awareness and empowering stakeholders dealing with specific topics under the thematic scope 
of the programme. Networking, the low administrative burden, inclusivity and the broad 
thematic scope were the programme’s success factors. Nevertheless, the programme was 
mainly  visible  to  larger,  well-networked  eligible  organisations  with  a  strong  focus  on 
seeking funding opportunities. While actual beneficiaries were satisfied with the amount of 
information available to  them, they highlighted ways in which they thought the programme 
could have been promoted more proactively, e.g. through social media and using interactive 
media. The strengths of the programme included the fact of targeting ‘ordinary’ citizens, 
multiannual priorities and the NCPs. Stakeholders consulted for this evaluation considered 
the  aim  of  reaching  through  a  high  number  of  participants  from  different  backgrounds  and 
social groups and noted a good mix of beneficiaries and target groups. Multiannual priorities 
benefited the stability of the programme. 

Efficiency 

The benefits of the EfC programme outweighed the costs to beneficiaries despite the high 
level  of  rejection  of  quality  proposals  relative  to  the  funds  available.  The  simplification 
measures improved accessibility to CSOs of all types and sizes. Although it was challenging 
for some smaller or grassroots CSOs, the co-financing requirement was accepted as necessary 
and conducive to the leveraging of additional funds. The application and reporting processes 
did not cause any undue burden and were one of the strengths of the programme as they 
allowed  for  the  inclusion  of  smaller  organisations  and  towns/municipalities  –  target  groups 
which were found to consider EU funding processes too complex otherwise. The programme’s 
management  was positively assessed and contributed to the effective implementation of the 
programme. 

Coherence 

The EfC programme was coherent with wider EU policies and priorities. Projects funded 
under the programme addressed critical issues such as fake news, media literacy, and e-
democracy,  aligning  with  the  EU  priorities.  During  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  increased 
digitalisation  further  underscored  this  alignment.  The  programme  facilitated  bottom-up 
discussions and activities around significant EU priorities and complemented other EU 
programmes. The priorities it addressed included climate change, the European Green Deal, 
fundamental rights, and gender equality, promoting active citizenship and understanding of EU 
values. The programme complemented other EU programmes such as Erasmus+, Creative 
Europe, and the European Social Fund, supporting unique activities that enhanced its distinct 
contribution  to  EU  goals.  The  focus  on  cultural  heritage  and  remembrance  activities 
aligned  with  initiatives  like  the  European  Year  of  Cultural  Heritage,  highlighting  the 
programme’s  role  in  promoting  a  shared  European  identity.  These  efforts  collectively 

51 

 
contributed to the EU overarching goals of fostering democratic participation, social cohesion, 
and informed citizenship. 

EU added value 

It is likely that the impacts identified through the EfC programme would not have been 
achieved  without  the  programme’s  specific  EU-level  support.  The  programme  provided 
added value by funding cross-border activities that other funding mechanisms, particularly at 
national  or  regional  levels,  could  not  support.  This  was  evident  in  its  backing  of  European 
remembrance and democratic engagement, which were crucial for fostering European cultural 
diversity, promoting civic participation, and encouraging mutual understanding across borders. 
These  goals  aligned  closely  with  the  EU  broader  political  agenda  and  societal  needs, 
demonstrating  a  clear  need  for  EU  intervention.  Without  the  EfC  programme,  many 
beneficiaries would have struggled to implement projects on a similar scale or with the 
same  impact.  For  instance,  the  programme  enabled  organisations  to  conduct  projects  that 
spanned multiple countries, a feat they could not have achieved with purely national or regional 
funding.  The  programme’s  funding  was  crucial  for  activities  requiring  cross-border 
cooperation  and  a  broader  European  perspective,  as  no  similar  national  or  regional 
schemes could match the programme’s scope and scale. It complemented other EU funding 
sources,  creating  valuable  synergies  without  overlap  and  enhancing  the  overall  impact  and 
reach of funded activities. The EfC programme contributed to establishing a level playing field 
across  national  levels  by  addressing  diverse  challenges  through  its  transnational  and  cross-
border  approach  and  supporting  the  implementation  of  activities  in  all  EU  Member  States. 
However,  there  were  large  discrepancies  between  the  national  coverage  achieved  in  the 
different Member States. While the initial objective of the programme’s management was to 
achieve a uniform coverage across the EU, during the implementation it became apparent that 
the appetite to participate in the programme varied across the Member State, which explains 
the discrepancy (and suggests that it was out of the control of the programme’s management). 
The programme funded activities that involved citizens and organisations from multiple 
participating countries, fostering a sense of European identity and belonging. This cross-
border dimension was crucial for activities such as remembrance projects, town-twinning, and 
pan-European  networks,  which  helped  broaden  perspectives  and  enhance  mutual 
understanding across Europe. The EfC programme’s ability to bridge national differences and 
promote a cohesive European approach was instrumental in addressing the varied challenges 
faced at the national level. 

Relevance 

The alignment with broader EU policy goals and priorities, and the fostering of a sense 
of  European  identity  that  were  achieved  by  the  EfC  programme  remain  relevant 
objectives. The programme fostered a sense of European identity through civic engagement 
activities  and  projects  focused  on  European  remembrance,  contributing  to  a  shared 
understanding of European history. The European Commission’s efforts to raise awareness and 
improve ECI’s accessibility demonstrated a practical approach to citizen empowerment. The 
programme also encouraged civic participation through grassroots initiatives, fostering a sense 
of  belonging  and  mutual  understanding  among  Europeans  and  providing  platforms  for 
meaningful dialogue and action on common issues. Town-twinning activities promoted cross-
border interactions and cultural exchanges, fostering European identity and ongoing dialogue 
on integration and shared values.  The programme was relevant to its final  beneficiaries, 
and mostly addressed the needs and target groups in thematic areas that remain relevant 
today.  Activities  under  various  strands  directly  contributed  to  enhancing  citizens’ 

52 

 
understanding  of  the  Union’s  history  and  diversity,  fostering  European  citizenship,  and 
promoting  civic  and  democratic  participation  at  the  EU  level.  The  programme’s  structure 
supported  a  broad  range  of  initiatives  that  aligned  with  the  needs  and  priorities  of  CSOs, 
allowing them flexibility to tailor projects to specific thematic areas. 

5.3. Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme 

Effectiveness 

The  CERV  programme  is  progressing  well  towards  its  objectives,  with  most  results 
recorded  over  the  2021-2023  period  far  surpassing  the  milestones  and  targets  set  in  the 
programme  performance  monitoring  framework,  in  particular,  in  relation  to  the  number  of 
people expected to be reached. Between 2021 and 2023, 3 033 CSOs were reached by support 
and  capacity  building  activities  across  all  Member  States.  And  overall,  projects  awarded  in 
2021-2023 are expected to engage at least 44 million people. Projects are contributing to 
programme results in a sustainable way. While it is too early at mid-term to make definitive 
judgements on the programme’s success and impact, the high degree of competition, the high 
level of continuity of projects, as well as a close alignment between call documents and EU 
priorities hint at the fact that projects are contributing sustainably to achieving the programme’s 
objectives.  There  was  consensus  across  all  stakeholders  consulted,  that  the  re-granting 
mechanisms under CERV addressed important needs in the civil society sector. 

The very high ratio of quality projects is to the benefit of the fulfilment of policy objectives. 
However,  a  funding  gap  on  the  strands  for  equality,  rights  and  gender  equality,  and  for 
combating violence against women and children is present and may limit the ability to fulfil 
the objectives of these CERV strands. 

The  geographical  balance  has  improved  under  the  CERV  programme  with  a  higher 
proportion of projects in Eastern Europe, if compared to the predecessor programmes. 

NCPs and the services that they provide to potential applicants are a key strength of the 
programme. Nevertheless, their delay in appointment or absence in some EU Member States 
has not led to an underrepresentation of beneficiaries from those Member States so far. 

The programme has made a strong contribution to promoting gender equality. This is 
linked  to  financial  contributions,  with  every  fourth  euro  of  financing  from  grants  having 
contributed  strongly  to  gender  equality.  Around  half  of  the  grants  funded  projects  closely 
intertwined with the promotion of gender equality. 

External factors, such as COVID-19, Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, and specific 
national contexts, have had a limited effect on the programme. 

Efficiency 

The  benefits  of  the  CERV  programme  outweigh  the  costs  to  beneficiaries,  which  are 
predominantly linked to the time and human resources required of applicants to invest in the 
application process, with large variability in the extent to which these costs were experienced 
between smaller organisations with limited capacity and a lower level of professionalisation of 
fundraising  (compared  with  larger  organisations  with  dedicated  bid  teams).  By  contrast, 
reporting generally did not appear to generate any significant costs and compared favourably 
to other EU funding programmes. 

The main benefits of the programme are directly project-related (i.e. the opportunity to 
implement  a  desired  approach)  but  there  are  also  broader  and  societal  benefits.  Broader 

53 

 
benefits include increased networking and collaboration across the EU, and enhanced visibility 
and recognition of organisations which have received CERV funding. Based on the evidence 
collected through the supporting study, societal benefits come from providing the opportunity 
to test innovative approaches to address societal challenges, expand target groups of projects, 
and improve organisations’ capacity for advocacy actions. However, the cost-of-living crisis 
has  led  to  a  drop  in  programme  benefits  experienced  by  beneficiaries,  as  planned  project 
budgets were difficult to maintain, and planned activities needed to be reduced. 

The new features introduced under the CERV programme have significantly improved the 
predictability of the programme and programme monitoring, and significantly reduced 
the  administrative  and  reporting  burden,  thus  enhancing  simplification.  These  new 
features  have  included  multiannual  work  programmes,  lump  sums  and  the  streamlining  of 
indicators.  Reducing  the  reporting  burden  has,  for  example,  allowed  a  greater  results-
orientation of projects. The introduction of unit costs at Commission level, however, appears 
to have added complexity, exacerbated by the fact that these unit cots do not reflect the actual 
costs of activities and impose unrealistic limitations on travel costs. The implementation of the 
monitoring  framework,  including  dedicated  data  collection  tools,  is  a  clear  improvement 
compared  with  the  two  predecessor  programmes.  The  introduction  of  re-granting 
mechanisms, a novel approach in this policy area, has helped to improve accessibility of the 
programme  for  smaller,  less  experienced  beneficiaries  through  simplified  application 
processes facilitated by intermediaries. 

Several  adjustments  could  support  greater  efficiency  and  improve  the  programme’s  overall 
effectiveness,  including  a  more  user-friendly  eGrants  system  and  more  encouragement  to 
exploit digital tools; and a more streamlined EU Survey on Justice, Rights and Values, which 
is the Commission already revised in parallel to this evaluation. 

Coherence 

The  CERV  programme  occupies  a  space  in  the  CSO  funding  landscape  that  would 
otherwise be vacant. Its comprehensive range of themes, pan-EU coverage, specific focus on 
EU values, grants of a significant size, operating grants and re-granting mechanisms, all make 
the  programme  an  essential  source  of  funding  for  organisations  promoting  EU  values  and 
rights. One of the key advantages of the CERV programme is its ability to provide independent 
sources of financing, allowing organisations to maintain their autonomy and pursue their goals 
without undue influence. Nevertheless, as the funding gap is significant, beneficiaries, if they 
can, also use other sources of funding, such as, for example, the Visegrad Fund or other EU 
programmes, if they intersect with the CERV programme’s topics and if synergies are possible. 

On the internal coherence, the move to the single architecture with work plans and call planning 
under  a  single  umbrella  has  worked  satisfactorily.  Potential  applicants  and  beneficiaries 
generally understand the concept of strands, appreciate having a ‘one-stop’ shop and consider 
that this has led to greater coordination at EU level. 

EU added value 

CERV is very often the only source of funding available to CSOs working in the areas it 
covers. EU funding plays a major role in supporting civil society across the EU, and the CERV 
programme is achieving results that can only be achieved by action at EU level. Member States 
are not now and are not likely to step in to fund work on rights and EU values to any significant 
extent,  if  at  all.  In  some  cases,  there  are  national  funds  available,  but  the  decision-making 
process is perceived often to be subject to political influence or to take a narrow national focus. 

54 

 
The  effects  of  having  no  CERV  programme  would  be  negative  and  likely  impact  the 
already shrinking civic space in the EU. Respect for the rule of law, fundamental rights and 
democratic  dialogue,  gender  equality  and  disability  rights  would  also  be  affected.  Violence 
against  children,  extremism  and  radicalism  would  be  likely  to  rise.  The  sense  of  being  a 
European  citizen  would  weaken.  These  conclusions  are  strongly  supported  by  the  evidence 
from consultation of stakeholders and experts as well as desk research on relevant trends across 
the EU Member States. 

Relevance 

The programme remains relevant in view of its objectives  as set out in the Regulation. 
Recent evidence confirms the gaps identified in the impact assessment as regards citizens 
identifying as being European, their awareness of recent history, participation in political and 
social  activities,  the  level  of  awareness  and  respect  of  the  rule  of  law,  democracy  and 
fundamental  rights  in  many  EU  countries,  the  persistence  of  gender  gaps,  continued 
discrimination on the basis of gender identity, race or ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious 
background, etc., as well as violence against women and children. Many of these gaps have 
been  further  amplified  by  challenges  such  as  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and  the  economic 
downturn that followed, as well as Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. 

There  is  a  very  strong  alignment  between  the  needs  of  the  target  stakeholders  and  the 
actions funded under the programme, not only in terms of the actions responding directly to 
beneficiary organisations’ missions and strategies, but also allowing them to pursue EU added 
value  by  implementing  projects  across  multiple  EU  Member  States.  The  programme 
addresses important needs of CSOs working across the EU, thus contributing to the EU’s 
capacity to respond to the above-mentioned challenges. It has allowed the implementation of 
projects  for  which  no  comparable  funding  (in  terms  of  grant  size  and  EU-wide  dimension) 
would have been available otherwise. 

The programme has already demonstrated flexibility to adapt to changing needs, both in 
terms of processes and procedures to respond to the COVID-19 public health restrictions, to 
consequences from Russia’s was of aggression against Ukraine as well as thematically. 

5.4. CERV: operational findings and lessons learned 

Based on the conclusions of the interim evaluation, some areas for improvements or follow-up 
could be addressed through the current implementation of the CERV programme. 

The programme showed an excellent performance over the 2021-2023 period, with most results 
significantly exceeding the milestones and targets. It may be necessary to reassess and revise 
the targets set in the programme performance monitoring framework to better reflect the 
programme’s actual capacity and impact. 

The  re-granting  mechanisms  demonstrated  their  effectiveness  in  addressing  critical  needs 
within the civil society sector and for the programme target groups. Besides the continuation 
of this scheme, it may be worthwhile considering its potential expansion and scaling up to 
further support the sector and generate an even greater impact. 

The CERV programme has already reached a large number of people. However, it is primarily 
well-known among larger organisations with EU-wide networks, suggesting that its reach and 
recognition  could  be  improved  among  a  broader  audience.  To  address  this,  implementing 
more targeted communication measures could help increase the programme’s visibility 
and awareness beyond its current scope. 

55 

 
The  programme’s  significant  contribution  to  promoting  gender  equality  is  a  notable 
achievement. This success could be highlighted as a best practice and showcased as a model 
for  other  programmes  to  follow,  demonstrating  effective  ways  to  promote  and  advance 
gender equality – and equality overall – through strategic funding and initiatives. 

There remains scope to further capitalise on opportunities brought on by digitalisation 
at activity level. Despite the possibility provided by the work programmes, these elements do 
not appear to have yet generated interest or capacity to respond to the opportunities presented, 
with only a small number of ICT tools funded thus far compared with other types of activities. 

56 

 
 
ANNEX I. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

Lead DG, DECIDE Planning/CWP 

This evaluation was included in the Commission’s agenda planning system (PLAN/2023/1854) and carried out in compliance with the Article 15(4) of the 
EfC Regulation 390/201487, Article 13(4) of the REC Regulation 1381/201388, and Article 17 of the CERV Regulation 2021/69289. In line with the Better 
Regulation Guidelines90, it assesses the extent to which the three programmes were effective, efficient and coherent, provided EU added value and remained 
relevant to tackle present needs. 

The evaluation was carried out by the Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers (DG JUST) in collaboration with the European Education and Culture 
Executive Agency (EACEA). 

DG JUST carried out the ex post evaluation of the REC programme based on a two-step approach to both fulfil the requirements of the Regulation and 
carry a meaningful, cost-effective evaluation exercise. The first part of the ex post evaluation was completed in March 202291; it provided an overview of 
the funding distribution and assessed the preliminary achievements of the programme, which fed into the design of the activities of the CERV programme. 
The second part instead focused on assessing long-term impact and sustainability. The structure and timeframe of the evaluation were agreed with the 
Secretariat-General and Legal Service. Agreement was re-confirmed by the dedicated Inter-Service Support Group supporting the evaluation during its 
meeting92 of 4 October 2024. 

Organisation and timing 

DG JUST prepared the evaluation roadmap, the stakeholder consultation strategy and the technical specifications for the supporting study contract. The 
documents were submitted for feedback and approval to the dedicated Inter-Service Steering Group (ISSG). 

87 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AJOL_2014_115_R_0002. 
88 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1381/oj. 
89 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/692/oj. 
90 https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en. 
91 COM/2022/118 final. 
92 Ares(2024)7361942. 

57 

 
 
 
The ISSG was established in June 2023 following the invitation sent on 25 May 2023 to the following DGs: BUDG, HOME, COMM, SANTE, RTD, 
DIGIT, EAC, EMPL, ESTAT, CNECT, REGIO, ENV, REFORM, INTPA, NEAR, the Secretariat-General, the Legal Service and the European External 
Action Service. The group met five times (see below ‘Evidence, sources and quality’). 

DG JUST conducted the external supporting study with external experts between 5 December 2023 – 18 November 2024. The ISSG was consulted on the 
supporting study report (inception, interim, final and synopsis reports) during the dedicated meetings and through a dedicated online collaborative space. 
The  relevant  evaluation  documents  (evaluation  roadmap,  call  for  evidence,  open  public  consultation)  were  published  on  the  Europa  ‘Have  your  Say’ 
dedicated page for stakeholders’ feedback and consultation respectively between 22 August 2023 and 19 September 2023 for the call for evidence, and 
between 4 April 2024 and 27 June 2024 for the public consultation. 

DG JUST concluded the evaluation in 2025 with issuing a Commission Report and a stakeholders consultations synopsis report. 

Exceptions to the Better Regulation Guidelines 

The Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines were followed to carry out the evaluation without deviations. 

Evidence, sources and quality 

The  table  below  summarises  the  successive  steps  of  the  evaluation.  An  external  supporting  study  was  carried  out  a  consortium  led  by  Tetra  Tech 
International Development, with a contract duration of 50 weeks. The study applied a mix of evaluation methods including desk research, online public 
consultation, surveys, focus groups, workshops and interviews with stakeholders, EU officials and Member States’ representatives. The ISSG concluded 
that the study was conducted in line with the technical specifications and the agreed inception report. The study used relevant qualitative and quantitative 
sources and methods, although data had some specific caveats (discussed in Section 1.3 and Annex II). The analysis and conclusions are sound, and the 
methodological framework and its limitations are clearly outlined. 

Table 1: Evaluation timeline 

Steps/tasks 
Preparation (March 2023 – November 2023) 
Draft the evaluation roadmap and the consultation strategy 
Set up the ISSG and draft the supporting study technical specifications (ToR) 
ISSG meeting to discuss the ToR and the consultation strategy 
Tendering procedure 
Roadmap publication  
Call for Evidence 

58 

Timing 

March – May 2023 
May – June 2023 
22 June 2023 
July – November 2023 
August 2023 
22 August 2023 – 19 September 
2023 

 
Evaluation supporting study (December 2023 – November 2024) 
Signature of the contract 
Kick-off meeting 
Inception meeting (ISSG) 
Online public consultation 
Interim meeting (ISSG) 
Validation workshop  
Final report meeting (ISSG) 
Finalisation of the supporting study 
Report and Staff Working Document (November 2024 – June 2025) 
Draft Report, SWD and Synopsis report 
ISSG meeting on Report and SWD 
Prepare and launch the Inter-Services Consultation package 
Revision and presentation to College of final Report  
Transmission of the Commission report to the European Parliament, the Council, the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 
(Interinstitutional Database, Europa, etc.) 

5 December 2023 
11 January 2024 
14 February 2024 
4 April 2024 – 27 June 2024 
5 July 2024 
19 September 2024 
4 October 2024 
October – November 2024 

November – December 2024 
22 January 2025 
February 2025 
May 2025 
June 2025 

Source: DG JUST 

Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) 

The evaluation was not scrutinised by the RSB.

59 

 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

This annex provides an overview – complementary to Chapter 1 – of the methodology adopted to carry out this evaluation. It details data collection methods 
and tools used, as well as the limitations to the reliability of the analysis carried out. 

II.1 Methods and tools 

This Staff Working Document builds on data collected and findings obtained through the supporting study carried out by the contractors. The study provided 
an evidence-based assessment of the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the three programmes. An intervention logic 
was  designed  or  reviewed  for  evaluating  each  programme.  The  supporting  study  comprised  of  a  mixed-methods  approach  utilising  quantitative  and 
qualitative data collection tools and was underpinned by extensive desk research. Five case studies were also conducted for the interim evaluation of the 
CERV programme. The figure below presents and overview of the study’s methodology. 

Figure 30. Overview of study methodology 

The following sections provide an overview of the methods used in the supporting study. 

60 

 
 
 
 
Study desk-based research (secondary data collection) 

The desk research encompassed a wide range of available, relevant documents at policy, programme and project level for all three programmes. The policy 
review was based on policy-specific reports as well as political and policy documents to support the assessment of coherence and complementarity of the 
programmes with EU policies or other funding programmes with similar objectives. The review also helped to show interlinks between the programmes 
and their wider policy context. At programme level, programming documents for all three programmes were reviewed to support the analysis of questions 
under effectiveness, efficiency, and relevance, as well as to contribute to collecting and aggregating data on specific indicators listed for each programme. 
Additionally, the study also conducted a literature review to identify any available studies on the effects of the programmes (based on a relevant selection 
of academic and grey literature databases and search engines). Furthermore, the study prepared data from the special programme’s Eurobarometers93. For 
project-level documents, an automated text mining approach was used to extract relevant data from proposals and final reports as follows: 

•  For REC – Text mining was carried out on a sample of 339 final reports of grants funded in 2020 to extract information on the results reported, 
based on a typology of results developed as part of the first part ex post evaluation. The results were added to the text mining carried out by the first 
part ex post evaluation on a sample of 211 grant reports. In addition, text mining was carried out on the sample of final reports, to extract information 
on the main target groups reached. 

•  For EfC – Text mining was carried out on a large sample of final reports of action grants to identify impacts such as policy initiatives following-up 
on  activities  supported  by  the  programme  at  the  local  or  European  level,  examples  of  collaboration  between  beneficiaries  in  similar  events  or 
projects, and examples of transfer of good practices. 

•  For CERV – Text mining was carried out to extract the number of people reached by training and mutual learning and exchange of good practices 
activities in final reports, to allow for a comparison with number of people estimated in Part C data94. Text mining also served to conduct a qualitative 
analysis of evaluator feedback on 1 284 proposals to assess commonalities between the four gender scores as part of case study 1. 

The desk review also included project-level data collection, including: grant data, procurement data, Part C data, results of the EU Survey on Justice, Rights 
and Values95. 

93 Eurobarometer 514 and Eurobarometer 552. The series of surveys aims to give a snapshot of EU citizens’ perception of the values promoted by the EU funding programmes related to rights and values (the Citizens, Equality, Rights 
and Values programme and the justice programme) and their awareness of the different instruments used to promote and protect rights and values. The Eurobarometer survey is one of the tools set up by the performance monitoring 
framework of the 2021-2027 programme. 
94 Between 2021 and the beginning of 2024, the Commission collected data on the (estimated) number of people reached by activities organised by the CERV-funded projects through the ‘Part C form’ annexed to the application form 
submitted by applicants. 
95 Mandatory event survey for CERV beneficiaries to distribute among event participants, officially kicked-off in September 2022. The survey is one of the tools set up by the performance monitoring framework of the 2021-2027 
programme. 

61 

 
 
 
 
Study fieldwork activities (primary data collection) 

This task comprised the stakeholder consultation activities conducted for the evaluation. A broad range of stakeholders were reached through the various 
consultation  activities,  covering  a  wide  geographical  scope,  showing  views  of  all  stakeholder  groups  directly  affected  by  or  having  an  interest  in  the 
programme. The consultation activities are summarised below and analysed in the stakeholders’ consultation synopsis report (Annex V).  

For the quantitative data collection, the study included five consultation exercises and surveys – a public consultation, a targeted survey of beneficiaries, 
a targeted survey of unsuccessful applicants, a survey of NCPs, and a beneficiary survey on costs. A sixth survey was conducted as part of case study 3 of 
recipients of funding via intermediaries (so-called third-party beneficiaries).  

Online public consultation 

The  online  public  consultation  aimed  to  strengthen  the  evidence  base  for  the  evaluation  of  the  three  programmes  by  gathering  the  views  of  relevant 
stakeholders on the programmes’ effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, and EU added value. It was launched on 4 April 2024 and was open for 
12 weeks (closing on 27 June 2024). The questionnaire – including closed and open questions – was published on the dedicated “Have your say” webpage 
of the European Commission. Respondents were also invited to submit position papers at the end of the survey. A total of 53 responses were received. The 
factual summary report can be consulted on the dedicated “Have your say” webpage. As indicated in the summary report, responses to the consultation 
cannot be considered as a representative sample of the views of the EU population.  

Targeted survey of beneficiaries 

The survey of beneficiaries was shared with all EfC project coordinators for the entire programming period 2014-2020, all REC project coordinators for 
whom  contact  details  were  available  for  the  same  period,  and  all  CERV  project  coordinators  who  had  received  funding  from  1 January  2021  until 
31 December 2023. It was hosted on the EU Survey platform. To limit the burden on respondents, each contact only received an invitation to participate in 
one of the surveys by deduplicating beneficiaries and unsuccessful applicants of the three programmes. The questionnaires were translated into all EU-27 
official languages, as well as Albanian, Bosnian, Macedonian, and Serbian, to reflect the languages used in non-EU countries that were eligible for the 
Europe for Citizens programme. The survey was launched on 5 March and closed on 26 March 2024. It was shared with 2 583 beneficiaries in total (EfC 
= 1 480, REC = 427, CERV = 676) and received 421 responses, thus achieving a 16% response rate. The response rate and number of respondents was 
considered sufficient to have produced valid results. Respondents came from all EU-27 Member States, as well as Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North 
Macedonia, Serbia, and the United Kingdom. The survey enabled the collection of data suitable for statistical analysis such as on recurrent beneficiaries.   

62 

 
 
 
Targeted survey of unsuccessful applicants 

The survey of unsuccessful applicants was launched on 4 March and closed on 25 March 2024 for those who had unsuccessfully applied for REC96 and 
CERV. To collect responses from unsuccessful applicants of the EfC programme, the survey was re-launched on 6 May and closed on 24 May. It was 
hosted on the EU Survey platform. After deduplication to include only organisations that had never received a REC/EfC/CERV grant before, the survey 
was shared with 4 664 unsuccessful applicants in total (EfC = 1 641, REC = 1 029, CERV = 1 994) and received 343 responses, thus achieving a 7% 
response rate. The response rate and the number of respondents was considered sufficient for having produced valid results, particularly considering the 
challenge  of  engaging  unsuccessful  applicants,  for  whom  the  time  investment  in  responding  to  a  survey  about  programmes  that  they  had  not  been  a 
beneficiary of could reasonably be assumed to be inefficient. Respondents came from all EU-27 Member States, as well as Israel, Kenya, Montenegro, 
Mozambique, Norway, Serbia, and Tanzania97. 

Survey of NCPs 

A dedicated survey targeted all NCPs for EfC and CERV in 21 EU Member States98. The survey opened on 13 March 2024 and closed on 19 April 2024, 
and it was hosted on the EU Survey platform. Overall, 14 NCPs responded to the survey. The survey did not ask about the country in which they were 
based to ensure anonymity of responses. 

Beneficiary survey on costs 

A short survey targeted at CERV beneficiaries sought to collect data on average costs of activities. It received 97 responses from beneficiaries in 19 EU 
Member States99. However, findings were treated with a great level of caution because the evaluation could not check the methodology that respondents 
applied when providing their estimates. This is the reason why the analysis by country of the indicator on average costs of actions (cf. 4.1.2 Efficiency, 
CERV programme) only included findings related to countries with four or more responses. 

Survey of third-party beneficiaries 

A targeted survey of third-party beneficiaries (beneficiaries of grants re-granted through intermediaries under the CERV programme) was conducted as 
part of case study 2 on simplification efforts. Overall, 212 respondents participated in the survey from 10 EU Member States (Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, 
Denmark,  Greece,  Hungary,  Lithuania,  Poland,  Slovenia  and  Spain).  The  response  rate  and  number  of  respondents  was  considered  sufficient  to  have 

96 As of 1 March 2019 to comply with GDPR requirements. 
97 An analysis of open comments on the reasons for failed applications confirmed that applicants from non-EU countries were aware – at least ex post – that their applications had not been eligible. 
98 Including all established CERV NCPs at the time of carrying out the consultation activity.  
99 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Spain. 

63 

 
 
produced valid results. 66% of respondents (147 of 212) reported that they would describe their organisation as a ‘grassroot organisation’, with organisations 
working in the fields of democracy, equality, fundamental rights, human rights and rule of law. 

The qualitative data collection involved interviews with beneficiaries (n=227 across all three programmes), focus groups with NCPs (n=15, EfC and 
CERV  only),  focus  groups  with  Programme  Committee  Members  (n=13  across  all  three  programmes)  as  well  as  44  deliberative  workshops  with  EU 
networks, national stakeholders and citizens (n=229, CERV only). 

Interviews with beneficiaries (and other stakeholders) 

The  supporting  study  conducted  227  interviews  with  beneficiaries  across  all  three  programmes  (EfC  =  80,  REC  =  50,  CERV  =  97).  The  sample  of 
interviewees covered all EU-27 Member States across the three programmes, based on project coordinators’ countries, as well as Serbia100. The sample 
aimed for a proportionate approach to balance types of grants, types of beneficiaries per programme, strands, grant size, years when grant agreements were 
signed, recurring beneficiaries. Interview guides were tailored to each programme and grant type. The interviews were organised in five waves, each lasting 
two weeks. During the first wave, interview guides were piloted on a sample of 40 interviews. Following the pilot, the guides were further refined before 
deploying to a team of national researchers to conduct interviews in all EU-27 Member States and Serbia. 

Additionally, the supporting study conducted six expert interviews covering thematically the four strands of CERV. These included independent experts as 
well as two members of the European Cooperation Network and the EU Network on children’s rights101. The aim of these interviews was to validate early 
results and conclusions, particularly as regards relevance and EU added value of the CERV programme. 

Finally, a total of 11 interviews were conducted by the study team with European Commission (9) and EACEA (2) officials. 

Focus groups with NCPs 

Two online focus groups with NCPs were conducted on 21 March 2024 and 4 April 2024. NCPs from 10 EU Member States were invited to participate, 
namely Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, France, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, and Sweden. They were selected based on geographical balance, 
country size, type of organisation, and whether NCPs were part of the previous EfC network. Overall, NCPs from eight EU Member States participated in 
the focus groups102. 

100 Serbia was included due to organisations based in this country having led more than 10 projects under the EfC. 
101 Requests sent out to over 30 interviewees did not yield a response beyond the representatives of these two networks. 
102 Estonia, France, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Portugal, Romani, Sweden. 

64 

 
 
 
 
Focus groups with Programme Committee Members 

Three online focus groups with 13 Programme Committee Members were held on 5 April 2024 (REC), 10 April 2024 (EfC), and 26 March and 9 April 
2024 (CERV). Only one former REC Programme Committee Member attended the focus group (Finland). In terms of former EfC Programme Committee 
Members, three were consulted via the focus group (Finland, Malta) and one finally via a short interview (Greece). There were nine participants in the two 
focus groups with  CERV Programme Committee Members, two of which were also former EfC  and REC  Programme Committee Members  (Austria, 
Croatia, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Romania, Slovenia, Spain). 

Deliberative workshops 

The study team conducted 44 deliberative online workshops103 with stakeholders and citizens focusing on Strand 2 and Strand 3 of the CERV programme. 

The workshops with EU networks and national stakeholders aimed to collect  insights on: (1) the most pressing needs that organisations faced in their 
country and the EU more broadly, (2) the national and EU funding landscape for organisations working in specific policy areas, (3) stakeholder perceptions 
of  CERV  in  terms  of  the  clarity  of  the  set-up  and  requirements,  eligibility,  satisfaction  with  topic  areas  covered  and  activities  funded,  suitability  of 
programme objectives, and gaps, (4) the design of an ‘ideal’ EU funding programme. Out of the 40 EU networks invited to the four workshops on children’s 
rights,  disability,  gender  equality,  and  non-discrimination,  17  participated.  Out  of  the  300  national  stakeholders  contacted,  65  participated  in  the  20 
deliberative online workshops on citizens’ engagement and participation, covering 6 EU Member States in total104. 

The workshops with citizens aimed to understand  their general interests in the topic areas, previous participation in events (if any), preferred types of 
activities,  as  well  as  views  on  selected  CERV  projects  that  were  presented  in  the  workshops.  Insights  on  citizens’  preferred  ways  of  receiving 
communication about EU-funded projects were also collected. The 30 online workshops focused on three thematic areas: EU Remembrance, citizens’ 
engagement and town twinning / networks of towns. Invitations to register for the workshops were shared on relevant social media groups (in particular, 
those  bringing  together  residents  of  local  areas),  as  well  as  through  national  stakeholders  who  participated  in  other  workshops.  Citizens  were  offered 
EUR 30 (or equivalent) as an incentive for their participation, in the form of a gift voucher to a popular online shopping platform in their country. Overall, 
164 stakeholders were consulted in 10 EU Member States105. 

103 The aim of all workshops was to arrive at as much of a unified view from each discussion as possible. While there was a general tendency for participants to agree with one another, or elaborate on each other’s points, moderators 
made a point of reflecting the discussions back at participants to ensure that consensus views were collected. Any differences in opinions were also noted, as were discussions about disagreements and the arguments that ultimately 
led to consensus in each workshop. 
104 France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, and Poland. Despite several efforts to engage stakeholders from Austria, Ireland, Romania and Sweden, there were no registrations for the workshops on town twinning and networks of 
towns in these four countries, and no registrations for the EU Remembrance workshops in Ireland and Sweden. 
105 Austria, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Romania, and Sweden. 

65 

 
 
 
Case studies 

The five thematic case studies explored and provided additional in-depth qualitative and quantitative evidence illustrating CERV topical issues. While each 
drew on findings from the main data collection activities conducted in the supporting study, for three case studies, additional data collection was conducted. 
Table 2 below provides an overview of the case studies’ themes and methodology. 

Case study 
Case  study  1:  Gender  equality  perspective  and 
(prospective)  impacts  on  gender  equality  at  the  level  of 
the CERV programme and its activities 

Table 2. Overview of the thematic case studies 

Methodology 
Document  review  of  relevant  programme  and  policy  documents;  findings  from  main  data  collection  activities;  four 
interviews  with  evaluators  of  CERV  project  proposals  about  their  experience  of  applying  the  gender  mainstreaming 
methodology; in-depth review of 120 out of 1 284 project proposals, which were sample proportionately by gender score 
and  strand  (17 under  Union  values,  38 under  Equality, rights  and  gender  equality,  41  under  Citizens’  engagement  and 
participation, 24 under Daphne); expert review of call documents of calls for proposals to promote gender equality (2022, 
2024) and calls for proposals to prevent and combat gender-based violence and violence against children (2022, 2023 and 
2024); in-depth review of all remaining call documents published under the 2021-2022 and 2023-2024 work programmes 
that are available on the Funding and Tenders portal; qualitative analysis of evaluator feedback on 1 284 project proposals 
to assess commonalities between the four gender scores, which was conducted using text mining and manual cross-checks; 
in-depth review of final project reports for which gender scores were available (n=101) as regards reported results and 
impact. 

Case study 2: Effects generated by simplification efforts  Review  of  legislative  and  regulatory  documents,  programme  reports,  evaluation  studies;  feedback  from  stakeholders, 

Case  study  3:  Adaptability  and  suitability  of  the  CERV 
programme to respond to the (possibly combined) impacts 
of COVID-19 pandemic and new digital technologies 
Case study 4: Support to CSOs engaged in Union values 
strand and effects of promoting EU values 

Case study 5: Synergies with other funding programmes 
Financial data 

including beneficiaries, EU officials, collected as part of the main data collection activities. 
Desk research of programme and project documents; results from stakeholder feedback collected as part of the main data 
collection activities. 

Findings  from  main  data  collection  activities;  three  interviews  with  beneficiaries  of  the  calls  for  proposals  to  promote 
CSOs’ awareness of capacity building and implementation of the  EU Charter of Fundamental  Rights (i.e.  CHAR-LITI 
calls); survey of third-party beneficiaries. 
Findings from main data collection activities; mapping exercise of 12 EU programmes and 13 non-EU funds. 

The key challenges related to REC programme’s data comparability are presented in Section 1.2 of this Staff Working Document. This annex provides a 
complementary methodological discussion on data limitations and explains the mitigation measures undertaken. 

Significant efforts were made to provide an accurate picture of the information on the state of play and indicators of the REC programme. The dataset used 
to analyse data for the first part ex post evaluation needed to be completed with grant agreements that could not be included at that time. The dataset was 
complemented with data from the Commission’s Accrual-based Accounting (ABAC) system so to update the most important indicators. As a result, some 

66 

 
indicators provide a full picture of implementation across the 2014-2020 period (covering all grants and procurement funded), while other indicators are 
still based on a subset of grants. However, this ‘sample’ approach is considered appropriate for the indicators to which they relate. 

In addition, limitations exist with regard to comparability of the findings resulting from the data from the text mining carried out on final reports for the 
first part ex post evaluation, and for this evaluation. This relates to the key results and number of target groups reached through different activities. While 
the same categories were used for the text mining as in the first part ex post evaluation, a detailed methodology used for the text mining carried out as part 
of the first part ex post evaluation was not available. Hence both exercises may have searched for a different set of terms under each category. While the 
data on the key results reported were of a similar proportion and magnitude for both evaluations (and therefore have been combined, but should be treated 
with suitable caution nevertheless), the results of the extraction of target groups reached by activities were of a different magnitude. Consequently, they 
have been reported on by evaluation question. 

Finally, the following limitations arise in relation to 2014 and 2015 REC grant data due to the phase-out of the Commission’s application system Priamos: 

(1) it was not possible to verify data on 331 applications, which was missing the information on the year applications were submitted. As a result, 
comparison of the number of applications and grants awarded (by annual work programme, per year) could not be provided for the full period 2014-
2020. However, this information is available for 2016 onwards. 

(2) the data on the number of applications and the amount requested under the specific objective RDIB (to promote and protect the rights of persons 
with disabilities) is incomplete, as the number of applications for 2014-2015 was not available. As a result, success rates for this specific objective 
could not be calculated (unlike for the other specific objectives). 

(3) data on the country of the coordinator was not available for 135 grants. Therefore, the analysis shows the distribution of grants awarded and budget 
committed by coordinator country for 815 of the 950 REC grants awarded. This also meant that the success rate by country could not be calculated, 
both for this reason and because, as noted above, the data on the number of applications is incomplete as well. 

Data analysis and triangulation 

Data analysis included both qualitative and quantitative methods based on the data collected in relation to each evaluation question. The results stemming 
from  the  various  data  collection  activities  and  analysis  were  triangulated  to  develop  robust  answers  to  the  evaluation  questions.  Several  triangulation 
methods were used, including: triangulation of different types of data, data collection tools, types of stakeholders as well as data sources. Triangulation was 
carried out for each evaluation question separately. 

Finally, the supporting study team organised a validation workshop with DG JUST and EACEA aiming at discussing the draft conclusions and lessons 
learned. 

67 

 
 
II.2 Points of comparison 

The points of comparison presented in the tables below were established based on core performance indicators established by the respective regulations, 
previous evaluations and impact assessments as well as performance monitoring frameworks. Explanations are included under Section 2.3. 

Indicator  

Table 3. REC programme: objectives, indicators and points of comparison106 

Points of 
comparison 
(baseline) 

Points of 
comparison 
(target per year, 
2020) 

Achievement by end of programme 

General and specific objectives (SO)107 
Female employment rate 20-64 age group (also SO 4) 
Employment rate of people with disabilities (also SO 3) 
The gender pay gap (also SO 4) 
The percentage of women among non-executive directors 
on boards of listed companies (also SO 4) 
The number of Member States that set up structural 
coordination mechanisms with all stakeholders, including 
Roma, on the implementation of the National Roma 
Integration Strategies (SO 1) 
Percentage of Europeans who consider themselves as 
‘well’ or ‘very well’ informed of the rights they enjoy as 
EU citizens (SO 8) 
Percentage of people that consider domestic violence 
against women unacceptable (SO 5) 
Consumer and retailer awareness of rights and 
obligations (SO 9) 
The perception of consumers of being protected (SO 9) 

62.4% (2012) 
48.5% (2013) 
16.8% (2013) 
16.2% (2011) 

0 (2013) 

71% 
55% 
14% 
40% 

26 

66.2% (2020)108 
50.7% (2020)109 
12.3% (2021)110 
36.3% (2023)111 

27 (2023) 

32% (2010) 
42% (2015) 

51% 

60% (2024) 

84% (2010)112 

100% 

96% (2016)113 

36% (2011) 

31.5% (2022)114 

64% (2011) 

75% 

76% (2022)115 

106 The table presents the set of indicators provided by Article 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1381/2013 as well as a list of impact indicators used for annual Programme Performance Statement exercises. 
107 Significant selection of indicators based on those reported in the last Programme Performance Statement. See list of specific objectives and related acronyms under Section 2.1. 
108 ESTAT database (code LFSI_EMP_A). 
109 European Disability Expertise. 
110 ESTAT database (code earn_gr_gpgr2). 
111 EIGE gender statistics database. 
112 Special Eurobarometer 344 (2010): Survey 3 on perceptions of domestic violence against women. 
113 Special Eurobarometer 449: Gender-based violence, p. 6 and 16. 
114 Consumers condition survey [Q14. Imagine you receive two books by post that you had not ordered, together with a EUR 20 invoice for the goods. Are you obliged to pay the invoice? - % giving correct answer - Percentage]. 
115 Consumers condition survey [Q3. How strongly do you agree or disagree …In general, retailers and service providers respect your rights as a consumer Agree (strongly agree + agree) (%)]. 

68 

 
 
 
Applications and awards (all specific objectives) 
Number of applications and grants related to each 
specific objective 

0 

Geographical coverage of the activities funded by the 
programme (i.e. number of grants awarded by Member 
State)117 

0% 

100% of the 
participating 
countries 

Budget allocation and distribution (all specific objectives) 
0 
Level of funding requested by applicants in relation to 
each specific objective118 

Level of funding granted in relation to each specific 
objective (i.e. funding committed to grants) 

0 

116 Data on applications submitted in 2014 and 2015 not fully available. 
117 Data on country of coordinator available for 815 out of 950 awarded grants. 
118 Data on funding requested in applications received in 2014 and 2015 not available by SO. 

69 

RCHI = 364 / 82 
RCIT = 184 / 26 
RCON = 0 
RDAP = 1 793 / 294 
RDAT = 43 / 26 
RDIB = 50 / 64116 
RDIS = 1 202 / 238 
RGEN = 126 / 86 
RRAC = 1 141 / 134 
100% of the participating countries. 
Most awarded actions had a coordinator from Italy (128 grants awarded), 
followed by Belgium (106), Greece (57) and Spain (50). Other countries which 
were coordinators of many awarded grants (between 30 and 41 awarded grants) 
included: Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, France, the Netherlands and Hungary). 
The countries with the least grants awarded to a coordinator included Iceland (2), 
Denmark (3) and Serbia (4).  

RCHI = 121 282 165.82 
RCIT = 51 800 047.90 
RCON = 0 
RDAP = 602 507 355.08 
RDAT = 12 882 806.10 
RDIB = 3 057 680.32 
RDIS = 288 289 703.09 
RGEN = 113 729 208.57 
RRAC = 465 895 521.89 
RCHI = 25 589 639 
RCIT = 7 048 894 
RCON = 0 
RDAP = 111 624 288 
RDAT = 6 261 141 
RDIB = 21 745 435 
RDIS = 63 463 953 
RGEN = 32 588 567 
RRAC = 51 618 603  

 
 
 
 
 
Common indicators to the programme 
Number and percentage of persons in a target group 
reached by the awareness-raising activities funded by the 
programme 
Number of stakeholders participating in, inter alia, 
training activities, exchanges, study visits, workshops 
and seminars funded by the programme120 
Improvement in the level of knowledge of Union law and 
policies and, where applicable, of rights, values and 
principles underpinning the Union, in the groups 
participating in activities funded by the programme 
compared with the entire target group121 
Number of cases, activities, and outputs of cross-border 
cooperation122 
Participants’ assessment of the activities in which they 
participated and of their (expected) sustainability 

0 

0 

NA 

0 

NA 

Number and percentage not available119.  

1 973 154 

Reported as key result by 57% of the funded projects (sample-based).  

207 (i.e. number of projects that reported the creation of mechanisms or tools for 
cross-border cooperation sustained after the end of the project in their reports) 
Beneficiaries interviewed for the evaluation elaborated on the longer-term 
impacts that resulted from their participation in REC-funded projects. They 
highlighted several significant outcomes. 

Indicator 

Points of comparison 
(baseline) 

Points of comparison 
(target 2020) 

Achievement by end of programme 

Table 4. EfC programme: objectives, indicators and points of comparison 

General objective: To contribute to citizens’ understanding of the Union, its history and diversity, to foster European citizenship and to improve conditions for civic and democratic 
participation at Union level. 
Percentage of EU citizens feeling European123 
Specific objective 1 (Strand 1: European Remembrance): To raise awareness of remembrance, the common history and values of the Union and the Union’s aim, namely to promote 
peace, the values of the Union and the well-being of its peoples, by stimulating debate, reflection and the development of networks. 
Number of participants who are directly involved124 
Number of persons indirectly reached by the programme125 

1 724 932 (2014-2020) 
>60 million (2014-2020) 

100 000 beneficiaries 
202 500 beneficiaries 

70% (2020), 72% (2023) 

100 000 
150 000 

Stable at 59% 

59% 

119 While the beneficiaries’ final reports (i.e. annex 3 – Indicators to the Technical Report) indicate the different types of tools used or events organised to raise awareness and disseminate information, the information on the actual 
people reached is not provided per tool/event. 
120 Covers 580 projects, out of 637 funded in the period 2016-2020. Information is based on data reported in annex to grant beneficiaries’ technical reports. Differences with indicators on number of people reached are due to the 
categories of stakeholders included. 
121 Text mining collected data on: increased compliance with EU Treaties and charters, and increased knowledge and awareness of stakeholders and beneficiaries. Sample of 550 grants funded between 2016-2020. 
122 Covers 580 projects funded in the period 2016-2020. Information is based on data reported in annex to grant beneficiaries’ technical reports. 
123 Standard Eurobarometer survey’s question ‘Do you feel like an EU citizen?’ 
124 Estimate based on project final reports. 
125 Ibid. 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Number of projects 
Quality of the project applications and the degree to which the results of 
selected projects can be further used, transferred. 

31 

36 

40 (average per year, 2014-2020) 

a.  Lowest score obtained by a retained project. 
b.  Number of events organised. 

a. 80 
b. 50 
40% 

a. 83.2 
b. 95 
-5% < 40% < 5% 

a. 80 
b. 245 (2019)126 
61% (average, 2014-2020) 

Percentage of first-time applicants 
Specific objective 2 (Strand 2: Democratic and civic engagement): To encourage the democratic and civic participation of citizens at Union level, by developing citizens’ 
understanding of the Union policymaking-process and promoting opportunities for societal and intercultural engagement and volunteering at Union level. 
Number of participants who are directly involved127 
7 647 859 (2014-2020) 
Number of persons indirectly reached by the programme128 
>300 million (2014-2020) 
2 378  
Number of participating organisations 
70% 
Perception of the Union and its institutions by the beneficiaries 
82 (Civil society projects) 
Quality of project applications (lowest score obtained by a retained 
71 (Town twinning) 
project) 
81 (Networks of towns) 
61% (average, 2014-2020) 
6 (average number of partners per project)130 

100 000 beneficiaries  
202 500 beneficiaries 
1 700 
77%  
74 

1 000 000 
1 000 000 
1 000 
77%129 
71 

-5% < 40% < 5% 
At least 2  

40% 
1.3 

Percentage of first-time applicants 
Number of transnational partnerships including different types of 
stakeholders  
Number of networks of twinned towns 
Number and quality of policy initiatives following-up on activities 
supported by the programme at the local or European level 
Geographical coverage of the activities 

41 
0 

a.  Number of Member States with appropriate national coverage 

a. 0 

(NC)131 

b.  Submitting as a lead partner 
c.  Selected as a lead partner 
d.  Submitting as co-partner 
e.  Selected as co-partner  

b. 13 
c. 12 
d. 18 
e. 15 

36 
2  

a. 25 

b. 25 
c. 28 
d. 28 
e. 28 

42 
Several examples available (based on qualitative 
analysis of a sample of project reports) 

a. Large discrepancies observed132 

b. 28 
c. 28 
d. 28 
e. 28 

126 Figure from the Europe for Citizens Programme Statement DB2021. 
127 Estimate based on project final reports. 
128 Ibid. 
129 Source: Eurobarometer number 92 - Autumn 2019. 
130 Data available only on the type of organisation for the applicants. 
131 The NC is calculated as a percentage of projects submitted (or selected) per Member State as a lead partner (or co-partner) divided by the percentage of its population in the total population of the EU. Geographical coverage at EU 
level is the number of Member States for which 90% < NC < 110%. 
132 Large discrepancies between the NC achieved in the different Member States. Ideal NC as per the methodology used in the Programme  Performance Statement has only been achieved in a handful of Member States, for  both 
applications submitted and selected. In 16 Member States the number of selected applications was significant in relation to their population rate, which indicates an impressive coverage in Malta and Slovakia in particular. 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5. CERV programme: objectives, core performance indicators and points of comparison 

Indicator  

Points of comparison 
(baseline) 

Points of comparison (target 
2027) 

Achievement 2021-
2023 

0 
0 
0 
0 

80 871 
26 493 
2 014 291 
6 300 

Objective 1: Protect and promote Union values 
People reached133 by training activities134 
People reached by mutual learning and exchange of good practices activities135 
People reached by awareness-raising, information and dissemination activities136 
CSOs reached by support and capacity building activities137 
Objective 2: Promote rights, non-discrimination, equality, including gender equality, and advance gender and non-discrimination mainstreaming 
People reached by training activities 
People reached by mutual learning and exchange of good practices activities 
People reached by awareness-raising, information and dissemination activities 
CSOs reached by support and capacity building activities 
Objective 3: Promote citizens engagement and participation in the democratic life of the Union and exchanges between citizens of different Member States and to raise 
awareness of the common European history (Citizens’ engagement and participation strand) 
People reached by training activities 
People reached by mutual learning and exchange of good practices activities 
People reached by awareness-raising, information and dissemination activities 
CSOs reached by support and capacity building activities 
Transnational networks and initiatives focusing on European memory and heritage as a 
result of programme intervention 
Objective 4: Fight violence, including gender-based violence (Daphne strand) 
People reached by training activities 

5 975138 
3 132 968 
354 782 
1 109 
399139 

84 181 
2 034 111 
589 266 
2 372 
1 500 

298 434 
1 107 278 
24 058 197 
1 266 

143 854 
194 485 
10 613 026 
327 

31 852 
10 434 
793 347 
847 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

114 952 

0 
0 
0 
0 

39 499 

0 

133 Values for all indicators on people reached are based on data from eGrants, namely Part C, as presented in beneficiaries’ applications. Values cover all projects awarded by 15 January 2024 (n=1 117). The numbers were derived 
using the data point ‘Activity Type’ and relevant gender data points (male / female / nonbinary). 
134 For training activities, the analysis does not cover estimates presented in applications under the calls 2023-CITIZENS-CIV and 2023-CITIZENS-TOWN-TT. 
135 For mutual learning activities, the analysis does not cover estimates presented in applications under the calls 2023-CITIZENS-REM, 2023-CITIZENS-CIV and 2023-CITIZENS-TOWN-TT. 
136 For awareness-raising activities, the analysis does not include estimates presented in applications under the calls 2023-CITIZENS-CIV and 2023-CITIZENS-TOWN-TT. It is noteworthy that the number of people reached by 
awareness-raising, information and dissemination activities may be very difficult for beneficiaries to estimate; the analysis identified 36 projects that were considered to constitute ‘extreme’ estimates of over 1 million people reached. 
These 36 projects were excluded from the analysis. 
137 For all objectives, the indicator provides an overview of civil society organisations that are beneficiaries of a grant. The total number of civil society organisations was calculated by counting all coordinators / participants in all 
projects funded by all calls (even if they received EUR 0.00 contribution). Civil society organisations were categorised as entities that are not for profit and are not a public body, international organisation, international organisation 
of European interest, higher education institution, or a research organisation. The data covers projects that were closed or signed by 31 December 2023, and therefore excludes the following calls: CERV-2023-EQUAL, CERV-2023-
CITIZENS-CIV, CERV-2023-CITIZENS-REM, CERV-2023-CITIZENS-TOWN-TT, and CERV-2023-CHAR-LITI. 
138 The assessment only included one call in 2023 (Network of Towns). Of note, projects under calls in 2021 and 2022 were all coded under ‘mutual learning and exchange of good practices’ activities. 
139 339 transnational networks, 60 transnational initiatives. 

72 

 
 
 
People reached by mutual learning and exchange of good practices activities 
People reached by awareness-raising, information and dissemination activities 
CSOs reached by support and capacity building activities 

0 
0 
0 

12 940 
983 821 
1 120 

36 466 
4 326 933 
331 

CERV programme: progress towards result, impact and context indicators 

I. Progress towards general objectives against baselines 

The general objective of the programme is to protect and promote rights and values as enshrined in the Treaties, the Charter and the applicable international human rights conventions, in 
particular by supporting CSOs and other stakeholders active at local, regional, national and transnational level, and by encouraging civic and democratic participation, in order to sustain 
and further develop open, rights-based, democratic, equal and inclusive societies which are based on the rule of law. 

Indicator 1: Number of Member States having a Contact Point 

•  Target 2027: 27 

•  Baseline: 0 

•  Results: 14 (2021), 18 (2022), 19 (2023)140 

•  Overall assessment: Achievement of this indicator will depend on the remaining Member States’ impetus for establishing NCPs. 

Indicator 2: Citizens satisfied with how democracy works in the European Union 

•  Target 2027: Increase (unspecified) in those who reported being ‘satisfied’ with how democracy worked in their country. 

•  Baseline: 41% (EU Survey on Justice, Rights and Values – event survey, 2022), 54% (Eurobarometer 2019). 

•  Results: 40% (event survey, Q3 2023), 57% (Eurobarometer spring 2024). 

•  Overall assessment: Barring any significant political changes in EU Member States until 2027 that could put citizens’ satisfaction with how democracy works at risk, this 

indicator is on track to increase by 2027. 

Indicator 3: Feeling like a citizen of the European Union 

•  Target 2027: Increase (unspecified) in those who reported ‘yes, definitely’ or ‘yes, to some extent’ about feeling like a citizen of the EU. 

•  Baseline: 87% (EU Survey on Justice, Rights and Values – event survey, 2022), 70% (Eurobarometer 2022). 

•  Results: 86% (event survey, Q3 2023), 74% (Eurobarometer spring 2024). 

•  Overall assessment: In terms of the event survey, this indicator is on track to achieve an increase by 2027. As regards the Eurobarometer, there  has been a 4-percentage point 

increase in 2024 against the baseline, which allows for the assumption that an increase in this indicator by 2027 might be achieved. 

140 As of May 2024, there were 21 NCPs in 20 EU Member States and in Serbia. 

73 

 
 
 
Indicator 4: Respect of the core values of the EU 

•  Target 2027: Increase (unspecified) in those who ‘totally agreed’ or ‘tended to agree’ that the core values of the EU, such as fundamental rights, democracy and rule of law were 

well protected in their country. 

•  Baseline: 61% (EU Survey on Justice, Rights and Values – event survey, 2022), 64% (Eurobarometer 2022). 

•  Results: 61% (event survey, Q3 2023), 65% (Special Programme Eurobarometer 2021), 66% (Special Programme Eurobarometer 2024). 

•  Overall assessment: Barring any significant political changes in EU Member States until 2027 that could negatively affect citizens’ perceptions of the respect of core values of 

the EU in their country, this indicator is on track to increase by 2027. It has already increased vis-à-vis the 2022 baseline. 

Indicator 5a: Awareness of the rule of law among the general public – in their own country 

•  Target 2027: Decrease (unspecified) in those who feel not very well informed or not at all informed about the rule of law in their own country. 

•  Baseline: 15% (EU Survey on Justice, Rights and Values – event survey, 2022), 45% (Special Programme Eurobarometer, 2021). 

•  Results: 18% (event survey, Q3 2023), 45% (Special Programme Eurobarometer 2024). 

•  Overall assessment: It may prove challenging to achieve the desired decrease given that the results thus far indicate an increase of 3 percentage points in the event survey, and 

no change as regards the special programme Eurobarometer. 

Indicator 5b: Awareness of the rule of law among the general public – in the EU 

•  Target 2027: Decrease (unspecified) in those who feel not very well informed or not at all informed about the rule of law in other EU Member States. 

•  Baseline: 39% (EU Survey on Justice, Rights and Values – event survey, 2022), 68% (Special Programme Eurobarometer, 2021). 

•  Results: 40% (event survey, Q3 2023), 68% (Special Programme Eurobarometer 2024). 

•  Overall assessment: It may prove challenging to achieve the desired decrease given that the results thus far indicate an increase of 1 percentage point in the event survey, and 

no change as regards the special programme Eurobarometer. 

II. Progress towards specific objectives against baselines (per individual strand) 

The programme has the following specific objectives, which correspond to the strands: 

a) 

b) 

c) 

to protect and promote Union values (Union values strand); 

to promote rights, non-discrimination and equality, including gender equality, and to advance gender mainstreaming and the mainstreaming of non-discrimination (equality, rights 
and gender equality strand); 

to promote citizens’ engagement and participation in the democratic life of the Union and exchanges between citizens of different Member States, and to raise awareness of their 
common European history (citizens’ engagement and participation strand); 

d) 

to fight violence, including gender-based violence (Daphne strand). 

74 

 
Indicator data are collected at the impact level on the change in event participants’ perception, behaviour, and practice for each specific objective via the EU Survey on Justice, Rights 
and Values (event survey). 

3.3.3.1. Union values strand 

Indicator 1: Change in participants’ behaviour 

•  Target 2027: Increase (unspecified) of those who reported ‘yes, definitely’ or ‘yes, to some extent’ that they were likely to react differently when confronted with the topic / a 

similar situation / issue / case. 

•  Baseline: 86% (cumulative, all strands) 

•  Results: 84% (event survey, Q3 2023) 

Indicator 2: Change in participants’ perception 

•  Target 2027: Increase (unspecified) of those who reported ‘yes, definitely’ or ‘yes, to some extent’ that their perception on the topic had changed. 

•  Baseline: 85% (cumulative, all strands) 

•  Results: 84% (event survey, Q3 2023) 

Indicator 3: Change in participants’ practice 

•  Target 2027: Increase (unspecified) of those who reported ‘yes, definitely’ or ‘yes, to some extent’ that they would use what they learned in their everyday life / work. 

•  Baseline: Baseline to be set 93% (cumulative, all strands) 

•  Results: 84% (event survey, Q3 2023) 

3.3.3.2. Equality, rights and gender equality strand 

Indicator 1: Change in participants’ behaviour 

•  Target 2027: Increase (unspecified) of those who reported ‘yes, definitely’ or ‘yes, to some extent’ that they were likely to react differently when confronted with the topic / a 

similar situation / issue / case. 

•  Baseline: 86% (cumulative, all strands) 

•  Results: 80% (event survey, Q3 2023) 

Indicator 2: Change in participants’ perception 

•  Target 2027: Increase (unspecified) of those who reported ‘yes, definitely’ or ‘yes, to some extent’ that their perception on the topic had changed. 

•  Baseline: 85% (cumulative, all strands) 

•  Results: 84% (event survey, Q3 2023) 

Indicator 3: Change in participants’ practice 

75 

 
•  Target 2027: Increase (unspecified) of those who reported ‘yes, definitely’ or ‘yes, to some extent’ that they would use what they learned in their everyday life / work. 

•  Baseline: 93% (cumulative, all strands) 

•  Results: 92% (event survey, Q3 2023) 

Indicator 4: Awareness of the General Data Protection Regulation 

•  Target 2027: Unspecified 

•  Baseline: 91% (event survey) and 67% (EB 2019) 

•  Results: 67% for women and 65% for men (event survey), 74% for men and 69% for women (Special Programme Eurobarometer 2024) 

•  Overall assessment: The indicator for the event survey is significantly below the baseline for both men and women (by 24 percentage points for women and 26 percentage 
points for men). However, the indicator for the special programme Eurobarometer is above the baseline for both men and women (an increase by 7 percentage points for men 
and 2 percentage points for women). 

Indicator 5: Awareness of rights as an EU citizen 

•  Target 2027: Unspecified increase 

•  Baseline: 87% (event survey), 57% (Special Programme Eurobarometer) 

•  Results: 84% (event survey), 64% men and 58% women (Special Programme Eurobarometer 2024) 

•  Overall assessment: The indicator for the event survey against the baseline appears on track to being reached. The indicator for the special programme Eurobarometer against 

the baseline shows increases of 7 percentage points for men and 1 percentage point for women. 

3.3.3.3. Citizens’ engagement and participation 

Indicator 1: Change in participants’ behaviour 

•  Target 2027: Increase (unspecified) of those who reported ‘yes, definitely’ or ‘yes, to some extent’ that they were likely to react differently when confronted with the topic / a 

similar situation / issue / case. 

•  Baseline: 86% (cumulative, all strands) 

•  Results: 81% (event survey, Q3 2023) 

Indicator 2: Change in participants’ perception 

•  Target 2027: Increase (unspecified) of those who reported ‘yes, definitely’ or ‘yes, to some extent’ that their perception on the topic had changed. 

•  Baseline: 85% (cumulative, all strands) 

•  Results: 82% (event survey, Q3 2023) 

Indicator 3: Change in participants’ practice 

76 

 
•  Target 2027: Increase (unspecified) of those who reported ‘yes, definitely’ or ‘yes, to some extent’ that they would use what they learned in their everyday life / work. 

•  Baseline: 93% (cumulative, all strands) 

•  Results: 87% (event survey, Q3 2023) 

Indicator 4: Citizens’ engagement in civic activities, at local, national or European levels 

•  Target 2027: Unspecified 

•  Baseline: 59% (event survey), 25.8% (EB 2021) 

•  Results: 25% -78% on all items (event survey), 8%-21% for men and 9%-16% for women (special programme Eurobarometer 2024) 

•  Overall assessment: The indicator of the event survey was above the baseline for several items 

Indicator 5: Citizens’ awareness of the common history 

•  Target 2027: Unspecified 

•  Baseline: 95% (event survey), 78% (EB 2021) 

•  Results: 91% (event survey), 79% for men and 75% for women (special programme Eurobarometer 2024) 

•  Overall assessment: The indicator for the event survey is below the baseline by 4 percentage points. As regards the indicator for the  special programme Eurobarometer, it is 

above the baseline for men by 1 percentage point, but below the baseline by 3 percentage points for women. 

Indicator 6: Citizens’ understanding of how the EU works 

•  Target 2027: Unspecified 

•  Baseline: 95% (event survey), 78% (EB 2021) 

•  Results: 91% (event survey), 79% for men and 75% for women (special programme Eurobarometer 2024) 

•  Overall assessment: The indicator for the event survey is below the baseline by 4 percentage points. As regards the indicator for the  special programme Eurobarometer, it is 

above the baseline for men by 1 percentage point, but below the baseline by 3 percentage points for women. 

Indicator 7: Citizens’ perception on democratic participation ‘my voice counts’ in the EU 

•  Target 2027: Unspecified 

•  Baseline: 68% (event survey), 42% (EB 2020) 

•  Results: 67% (event survey), 48% for men and 47% for women (EB 2024) 

•  Overall assessment: The indicator for the event survey is below the baseline by 1 percentage point. As regards the indicator for the Eurobarometer, it is above the baseline by 6 

percentage points for men and 5 percentage points for women. 

77 

 
3.3.3.4. Daphne 

Indicator 1: Change in participants’ behaviour 

•  Target 2027: Increase (unspecified) of those who reported ‘yes, definitely’ or ‘yes, to some extent’ that they were likely to react differently when confronted with the topic / a 

similar situation / issue / case. 

•  Baseline: 86% (cumulative, all strands) 

•  Results: 87% (event survey, Q3 2023) 

Indicator 2: Change in participants perception 

•  Target 2027: Increase (unspecified) of those who reported ‘yes, definitely’ or ‘yes, to some extent’ that their perception on the topic had changed. 

•  Baseline: 85% (cumulative, all strands) 

•  Results: 89% (event survey, Q3 2023) 

Indicator 3: Change in participants practice 

•  Target 2027: Increase (unspecified) of those who reported ‘yes, definitely’ or ‘yes, to some extent’ that they would use what they learned in their everyday life / work. 

•  Baseline: 93% (cumulative, all strands) 

•  Results: 96% (event survey, Q3 2023) 

Indicator 4 (also for the Equality, rights and gender equality strand): Percentage of EU citizens reporting having personally felt discriminated against or harassed within the 
previous 12 months in DG JUST area of competence 

•  Target 2027: Unspecified 

•  Baseline: 17% (EB 2019) 

•  Results: 18% of men and 24% of women who reported having personally felt discriminated against (EB 2023). 

•  Overall assessment: Both proportions are above the baseline of 17% set in 2019, by 1 percentage point for men, and 7 percentage points for women. 

III. Progress towards specific objectives against baselines (all strands together) 

Indicator 1: Awareness of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights 

•  Target 2027: Unspecified 

•  Baseline: 90% (event survey), 42% (EB 2019) 

•  Results: 87% (event survey), 65% men and 60% women (special programme Eurobarometer 2024) 

78 

 
•  Overall assessment: The indicator for the event survey against the baseline appears on track to being reached. The indicator for the special programme Eurobarometer against 

the baseline shows increases of 23 percentage points for men and 18 percentage point for women. 

Indicator 2: Knowledge of EU legislation to promote and protect values 

•  Target 2027: Unspecified 

•  Baseline: 66% (event survey), 75% (EB 2021) 

•  Results: 79% (lowest value) – 88% (highest value) on all items listed (event survey), 70%  - 79% men on all items listed, and 69%-74% women on all items listed (special 

programme Eurobarometer 2024) 

•  Overall assessment: The indicator for the event survey against the baseline has been surpassed on all items. The indicator for the special programme Eurobarometer against the 

baseline is below the baseline on the several items. 

Indicator 3: Knowledge of awareness-raising actions to promote and protect EU values 

•  Target 2027: Unspecified 

•  Baseline: 31% (event survey), 43% (EB 2021) 

•  Results: 58% (lowest value) – 74% (highest value) on all items listed (event survey), 32%  - 54% men on all items listed, and 31%-53% women on all items listed (special 

programme Eurobarometer 2024) 

•  Overall assessment: The indicator for the event survey against the baseline has been surpassed on all items. The indicator for the special programme Eurobarometer against the 

baseline is above the baseline on the several items. 

Indicator 4: Knowledge of EU tools and initiatives to promote and protect EU values 

•  Target 2027: Unspecified 

•  Baseline: 39% (event survey), 48% (EB 2021) 

•  Results: 68% (lowest value) – 60% (highest value) on all items listed (event survey), 51% - 31% men on all items listed, and 49%-27% women on all items listed (special 

programme Eurobarometer 2024) 

•  Overall assessment: The indicator for the event survey against the baseline has been surpassed on all items. The indicator for the special programme Eurobarometer against the 

baseline is above the baseline on the several items. 

Indicator 5: Knowledge of EU funding to promote and protect EU values 

•  Target 2027: Unspecified 

•  Baseline: 64% (event survey), 31% (EB 2021) 

•  Results: 62% who replied that they had heard about the programme and knew or did not know what it was (event survey), 37% for men and 35% for women (special programme 

Eurobarometer 2024). 

79 

 
•  Overall assessment: The indicator of the event survey is 2 percentage points below the baseline. The indicator for the special programme Eurobarometer is above the baseline 

– by 6 percentage points for men and 4 percentage points for women. 

80 

 
ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX 

The evaluation design relied on four evaluation matrices (see tables below) built along the five Better Regulation Guidelines’ evaluation criteria 
that guided the evaluation process. Based on the programmes’ intervention logics and the supporting study technical specifications, the matrices 
feature the key research questions, indicators and related judgement criteria. The data sources are included in the table. 

Additional to the three evaluation matrices designed to assess each programme, a fourth cross-cutting analytical framework was developed to 
evaluate the synergies between the different programmes and programming strands. With the additional framework it was possible to explore the 
added value of bringing  all strands  within the  architecture of the CERV  programme,  and supported the identification of lessons learned.  The 
analytical framework was developed and structured as an evaluation matrix with evaluation questions, sub-questions and judgement criteria under 
each  evaluation  criteria.  This  structured  the  analysis  and  ensured  its  comprehensiveness.  The  indicators  informing  the  evaluation  questions 
consisted of the findings from  the evaluation  of the REC,  EfC and CERV programmes  (based on the answers to  the respective programmes’ 
evaluations’  questions  in  line  with  the  three  separate  matrices  drafted  for  each  of  the  programmes).  Individual  responses  to  the  cross-cutting 
analytical  framework  were  not  drafted  to  avoid  duplication  but  directly  informed  the  overall  conclusion  of  the  evaluation  and  supported  the 
identification of lessons learned across all evaluation criteria as relevant. 

Evaluation questions matrix of the REC programme 

Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that…) 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

Effectiveness  

1.  To what extent did the 
REC programme 
contribute to promoting 
and protecting equality 
and fundamental rights 
as enshrined in EU 
primary law? 

1.1  How successful has the 
REC programme been 
in achieving its 
objectives? 

The SOs were achieved and contributed 
equally to the achievement of the 
programme’s general objective of effectively 
promoting and protecting equality and 
fundamental rights. 

Evidence from EQ1 on contribution of 
actions to achieving specific objectives and 
on achievement of specific objectives 

Desk research 
Open public consultation 
Surveys 
Interviews with beneficiaries 

It is possible to identify reasons why the 
specific objectives have been achieved to a 
greater or lesser extent, thus contributing to a 
greater or less extent to fulfilment of the 
general objective. 

81 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

2.  What are the most 

relevant long-lasting 
effects of the REC 
programme, and why? 

2.1 What are the key long-
term results and impacts, and 
for what reasons can these 
effects be considered long-
lasting? 

2.2. What are the actions 
funded under the programme 
that produced the long-term 
effects? 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

Scoping interviews 
Open public consultation 
Surveys 
Interviews with beneficiaries 
Interviews with beneficiaries 

Improvement in the level of knowledge of 
Union law and policies and, where 
applicable, of rights, values and principles 
underpinning the Union 

Achievement of the target that all Member 
States set up structural coordination 
mechanisms with all stakeholders, including 
Roma, on the implementation of the 
National Roma Integration Strategies 

Achievement of targets / Rising and 
sustained improvement in programme 
indicators listed in DG Annual Activity 
Reports and Statements  

Appropriate geographical balance 
throughout the life of the programme 

Stakeholders’ perceptions that long-lasting 
results have been achieved, i.e. the 
understanding of rights, the protection of 
rights and the prevention of various forms of 
harm and abuse have improved, and the 
achievements have been sustained or have 
continued since the end of the programme 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that…) 

EU Citizens’ rights have been effectively 
promoted, protected and implemented (as 
per general objective) through achievement 
of the specific objectives (as per EQ1), the 
effects are still discernible and are likely to 
continue, i.e. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

implementation of the principle of 
non-discrimination on grounds of 
sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion 
or belief, disability, age or sexual 
orientation has been promoted; 
racism, xenophobia, homophobic 
and other forms of intolerance have 
been combated; 
the rights of persons with 
disabilities have been promoted and 
protected; 
equality between women and men 
has been promoted and gender 
mainstreaming has been advanced; 
all forms of violence against 
children, young people and women, 
violence against other groups at risk 
have been prevented and combated; 
the rights of the children have been 
promoted and protected; 
a contribution has been made to 
ensuring the highest level of 
protection of privacy and personal 
data; 
the exercise of European citizenship 
rights has been promoted and 
enhanced 

82 

 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

3.  Were there any 
unexpected or 
unintended factors that 
occurred in the 
implementation period, 
and which drove or 
hindered progress?  

Example of indicators  

Sources 

Evidence of any unexpected or unintended 
external factors which drove or hindered 
progress in relation to the implementation of 
the programme 

Stakeholder perception of any unexpected 
or unintended external factors that occurred, 
and which drove or hindered progress 

Scoping interviews 
Desk research 
Open public consultation 
Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 

Interviews with beneficiaries 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that…) 

- 

the rights of individuals and 
entrepreneurs as consumers have 
been enforced. 

The achievement of the REC objectives was 
positively or negatively affected by external 
factors, such as: 

factors 

External 
international, 
national  political  and  economic 
contexts  (inter  alia  policies  which 
restricted  or  opened  up  the  civic 
space, the COVID-19 pandemic and 
its  economic  consequences  and  the 
Russia’s  war  of  aggression  against 
Ukraine) were barriers to achieving 
the  specific  objectives  /  created  a 
more  favourable  environment  than 
expected. 

4.  How evenly were the 
effects distributed 
across the different 
target groups and 
participating countries? 

4.1 How can the variation in 
the programme’s effects 
across target groups and 
Member States be 
explained? 

The dissemination of information, 
applications and awards were distributed 
evenly across the different participating 
countries. 

Number of applications and grant awards by 
country, by year, action v operating grants, 
correlated with share of funding by type of 
beneficiary, target groups, specific objective 

Scoping interviews 
Desk research 
Open public consultation 
Interviews with beneficiaries 

The dissemination of information, 
applications and awards were distributed 
evenly across the different target groups. 

Where there are variations between target 
groups and/or countries, it is possible to 
identify (internal and external) reasons.  

Number of procurement contracts awarded 
by year, specific objective, and type and 
results of those procurement contracts 

Success rates by specific objective (and the 
groups they target) and by country 

Stakeholder perceptions of reasons for 
country-by-country variations legal context, 
developments in civic space 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that…) 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

Efficiency 

5.  Have the effects of the 
programme been 
achieved at initially 
expected costs or were 
these costs different?  

6.  To what extent were the 

administrative costs of 
the programme 
justified, given the 
effects it achieved? 

5.1 What could explain the 
differences (if any)? 

The programme budget was fully committed 
and paid out. 

The actions under the programme were 
completed at the same or a lower cost than 
expected. 

Underspending and/or overspending applied 
to certain types of action, certain specific 
objectives, or certain periods of 
implementation. 

There were factors in the internal and 
external environment which resulted in 
costs being different from what had been 
expected. 

Processes for application are efficient 
(timely, robust, transparent): 
-Deadlines for submission were reasonable; 
-evaluation processes were robust, incl. 
transparency selection process; 
-the length of time between submission and 
award was proportionate; 
-the time between grant award and grant 
signature was proportionate. 

Application process did not impose a 
disproportionate burden. 

Monitoring and reporting requirements did 
not impose a disproportionate burden. 

84 

programme budget amount planned by year 
and budget outturn (by year, by specific 
objective and type of action) 

Budget data from actions clustered by type 
of action and if relevant by Member State 

Scoping interviews 
Desk research, including 
analysis of indicators 
Open public consultation 
Surveys 
Interviews with beneficiaries 

Stakeholder perception of planning and 
management at programme and 
action/participating organisation level, 
support received from the Commission, 
including the possibility for reallocating 
funds 

Stakeholder perceptions of reasons for 
variability 

Qualitative data on management and control 
costs (e.g. internal audit, European Court of 
Auditors reports and performance audits) 

Data/ stakeholder views on submission 
periods, time to inform, time to grant, time 
to pay and trends 

Stakeholder perceptions of management and 
control costs, time periods and 
administrative costs (by size and type of 
organisation) for applicants of submitting 
applications and reporting and monitoring 

Scoping interviews 
Desk research 
Open public consultation 
Surveys 
Interviews with beneficiaries 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that…) 

The administrative burden was proportionate 
for all sizes of projects and types of 
organisation applying. 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

7.  Could the programme 

have been implemented 
in a more efficient 
way? 

7.1 To what extent were any 
previously proposed 
simplification measures 
applied? 

There were areas in programme (project 
management, application and selection 
process, co-financing rate) where there are 
opportunities for efficiency gains (i.e. 
outputs and outcomes could have been 
achieved at a lower cost). 

Data from internal audits, European Court of 
Auditor Reports, performance audits, part 1 
of this evaluation on potential for efficiency 
gains 

Stakeholder perceptions of efficiency gains 
from simplification measures  

Scoping interviews 
Desk research 
Open public consultation 
Surveys 
Interviews with beneficiaries 

Factors adversely or positively influencing 
efficiency could have been tackled more 
appropriately / expeditiously. 

Better communication would have resulted 
in higher quality applications and better 
geographic balance. 

The introduction in 2014 of risk assessment 
for final payments reduced the 
administrative burden on the Commission 
and beneficiaries and overall reduced 
payment delays. 

Migration to a more paperless system part-
way through the programme reduced costs to 
the greatest extent possible. 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that…) 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

Relevance 

8.  How well did the 

original objectives of 
the programme still 
correspond to the needs 
within the EU? 

JC 8.1: the specific objectives of the REC 
programme addressed the needs of the EU. 

Scoping interviews 
Desk research 
Open public consultation 
Surveys 
Interviews with beneficiaries 

Application levels relative to the themes of 
calls for proposals by specific objective, 
year and country 

Number and percentage of persons in a 
target group reached by the awareness-
raising activities funded by the programme. 

Number of stakeholders participating in, 
inter alia, training activities, exchanges, 
study visits, workshops and seminars 
funded by the programme by topic 

Improvement in the level of knowledge of 
Union law and policies and, where 
applicable, of rights, values and principles 
underpinning the Union, in the groups 
participating in activities funded by the 
programme compared with the entire target 
group Stakeholder perceptions that the 
needs initially identified persist (and the 
extent to which it is true of all) 

JC 8.2: The REC programme evolved to 
adapt to the emergence of new needs. 

Stakeholder  perceptions  of  new  needs  and 
the extent to which the programme adapted 
to them 

Scoping interviews 
Desk research 
Open public consultation 
Surveys 
Interviews with beneficiaries 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

9.  How relevant was the 
programme to its 
beneficiaries? 

9.1 What are the key lessons 
learned? 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that…) 

JC 9.1: The types of action, e.g. improving 
the knowledge base, sharing best practices 
through mutual learning, capacity building 
and structural support for specific 
organisational structures, and the priorities 
implemented under the programme were 
appropriate for the needs of the final 
beneficiaries. 

JC 9.2: The beneficiaries of funding did not 
adapt their activities and priorities 
disproportionately in order to obtain the 
funding. 

JC 9.3: The mix of beneficiaries in consortia 
and partnerships was appropriate. 

JC 9.4: The ways in which the programme 
was not relevant to its final beneficiaries 
provide lessons to be learned for the future.  

Coherence 

10.  To what extent was the 
programme coherent 
with wider EU policies 
and priorities? 

10.1  Which  synergies 
and/or 
complementarities 
(if 
any) could be identified 
between the programme 
EU 
other 
and 
instruments? 

The programme contributed to the priorities 
of the European Commission in the period 
2014-2020, notably the social priorities of 
the Europe 2020 agenda, and to the green 
and digital transitions which were priorities 
from 2020 
The REC programme contributed to: 

• the EU justice agenda for 2020; 
• the 2016-2020 strategic engagement for 

gender equality; 

• the 2010-2020 European disability 

strategy; 

87 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

from 

satisfaction 

Data 
participants  and/or  groups 
activities under the programme 

surveys 
of 
reached  by 

Stakeholder  perceptions  as  to  whether  the 
types  of  action  funded  by  the  programme 
were those best suited and were delivered in a 
way that best suited the organisations and the 
needs they were seeking to meet and the target 
groups they address, and the extent to which 
this was the case irrespective of the size or the 
institutional 
public  or  non-governmental 
nature of those beneficiaries 

Documentary evidence of planned synergies 
and  complementarities  between  the  REC 
programme objectives and other EU policies 
and priorities. 

perception 

Stakeholder 
coherence 
between the REC programme objectives and 
other EU policies and priorities 

of 

Scoping interviews 
Desk research 
Open public consultation 
Surveys 
Interviews with beneficiaries 

Scoping interviews 
Desk research 
Open public consultation 
Surveys 
Interviews with beneficiaries 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that…) 

• the list of actions by the Commission to 

advance LGBTI equality; 

• the EU framework for national Roma 

integration strategies. 

The European Commission/the programme 
developed synergies and was complementary 
with other EU funds with similar objectives, 
such as the Justice programme, the 
Consumer programme, EASI, and other 
programmes in the areas of employment and 
social affairs (ESF and ERDF); home affairs 
(ESF-BV and ESF-Police); health and 
consumer protection; education, training, 
youth and sport; the information society; 
enlargement (notably IPA II) 
The European Commission/the programme 
developed synergies and was complementary 
with the European Institute for Gender 
Equality (EIGE) and the Agency for 
Fundamental Rights (FRA), and other 
national and international actors in the areas 
covered by the programme. 

EU Added value 

11.  Could the identified 

impacts have been 
achieved without the 
programme? 

The following added value impacts could 
not have been achieved without the 
programme: 

• 

consistent and coherent 
implementation of Union law; 
•  wide public awareness about the 
rights deriving from Union law; 

Number of cases, activities, and outputs of 
cross-border cooperation 

Evidence of implementation of EU law, 
dissemination of best practice (e.g. peer 
review reports), standard and tools, best 
practice in communication/visibility 

Stakeholder perception that only a 
programme of this kind can deliver such 
impacts evenly across all Member States, 

Desk research 
Surveys 
Open public consultation 
Interviews with beneficiaries 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that…) 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

either in the absolute or in order to fill gaps 
in what is available at national level 

• 

•  mutual trust among participating 
countries and improved cross-
border cooperation; 
developing and disseminating best 
practices; 
creating standards, practical tools 
and solutions that address EU-wide 
challenges. 

• 

12.  Considering that the 

initial problem and its 
causes varied across the 
national levels, to what 
extent did the 
programme help 
establish a level playing 
field? 

12.1 Which were the most 
significant 
transnational/cross-border 
aspects the programme 
tackled? Could these be 
quantified? 

The programme reduced gaps across 
Member States in the extent of the problems 
identified in the Impact Assessment 
preceding the REC existed across the 
Member States, i.e. 

• 

• 

insufficient or inconsistent 
implementation of certain rights 
across the Union, and 
lack of awareness about certain 
Union legislation both by citizens 
and public authorities. 

The programme helped rectify imbalances in 
the civic space. 

It is possible to identify certain aspects or 
themes of transnational/cross-border 
cooperation that received particular 
emphasis.  

Desk research 
Surveys 
Open public consultation 
Interviews with beneficiaries 

Stakeholders’ perception that the 
programme has helped achieving a level 
playing field. 

Evidence of best practices, standards, 
practical tools and solutions that address 
EU-wide challenges 

Evidence of funding for innovation and 
transnational actions 

Evidence of increased mutual trust among 
participating countries and cross-border 
cooperation 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation questions matrix of the EfC programme 

Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that …) 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

Effectiveness  

1.  What are the most 

relevant long-lasting 
effects of the EfC 
programme, and why? 

1.1  To what extent can be 

the actions funded under 
the programme be 
considered sustainable? 

Project activities and/or cross-border 
collaboration and/or networks continued 
after the end of the programme either within 
CERV or in other ways. 

1.2  To what extent have the 
effects of the EfC 
continued in the period 
2021-2023  

Over the life of the programme, there was an 
increase, which had since continued or been 
maintained in: 

o 

o 

o 

a sense of EU citizenship 
(belonging to the EU); 
increased participation in civic 
life; 
increased participation in 
democratic life. 

It is possible to discern success factors. 

2.  How successful has the 
EfC programme been in 
achieving its objectives? 

2.1  To what extent has the 

programme achieved its 
objectives and what 
were key success 
factors? 

It is possible to make a quantitative or 
qualitative assessment of the extent to which 
the programme contributed to its objectives 
(raising awareness of remembrance, 

90 

•  Data on recurrent beneficiaries 
•  Examples of collaboration between 

beneficiaries in similar events/projects 
after initial event/activities/projects 
•  Examples of transfer of good practice 
•  Data from peer reviews 
•  Quality of the project applications and 
the degree to which the results of 
selected projects can be further 
used/transferred 

•  Number and quality of policy 

initiatives following-up on activities 
supported by the programme at the 
local or European level 
•  Data from Eurobarometer 

Stakeholder perceptions of long-term results 
and the reasons for that 

Participants’ assessment of the activities in 
which they participated and of their 
(expected) sustainability (if available from 
Surveys carried out at the time) 

Mapping of the effects/results achieved and 
assessment in how far these correspond to 
the initial objectives. 

Interviews with beneficiaries 
Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 

Targeted survey of NCPs 
Desk research 
Public consultation 

Desk research 
Interviews with beneficiaries 
Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 

Targeted survey of NCPs 
Public consultation 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that …) 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

common history and values, and democratic 
and civic participation). 

It is possible to differentiate between the 
strands in the quantitative or qualitative 
assessment of the extent to which the 
programme contributed to its objectives. 

Performance against targets in numbers of 
persons reached directly or indirectly by 
objective/strand 

Performance against targets in number of 
participating organisations/towns 

The horizontal aspect of the programme led 
to valorisation and transferability of results 
with long-term impact. 

Performance against targets in number of 
transnational partnerships and diversity of 
participants in those partnerships 

It is possible to identify (internal and 
external) factors that contributed particularly 
strongly to the achievement of the 
objectives. 

The number of first-time applicants by 
Member State 

Perceptions of the stakeholders on the 
effectiveness of the programme overall and 
by strand, and the impact of funded projects 
and success factors 

Target groups’ perception that they feel 
more aware of the EU after being involved 
in projects, and that they understand better 
the Union history and diversity and/or want 
to be more involved in civic society (if data 
were collected at the time of participation). 

Number and quality of policy initiatives 
following-up on activities supported by the 
programme at the local or European level 

3.  Were there any 
unexpected or 
unintended effects that 
occurred, and which 
drove or hindered 

It is possible to identify factors that led to 
some actions exceeding or falling short of 
expectations / failing to achieve their 
objectives in unforeseen / unforeseeable 
ways. 

Data from final project technical reports and 
DG JUST/EACEA activity reports on 
unexpected or unintended effects and the 
drivers for these 

Desk research 
Interviews with beneficiaries 
Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 

Stakeholders’ perception of unexpected or 
unintended effects, and the drivers 

Targeted survey of NCPs 
Public consultation 

91 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

progress? What can 
explain these effects? 

4.  How evenly were the 
effects distributed 
across the different 
target groups and 
participating countries? 

4.1 How can the variation 
in the programme’s 
effects across target 
groups and Member 
States be explained? 

5.  How effectively did the 

structure of the 
programme and the 
types of supported 
actions – particularly, 
town-twinning and 
networks of towns, 
remembrance activities 
and civil society 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

Data on geographical coverage of the 
activities relative to the number of people 
directly and indirectly involved correlated 
with target groups data (where available) 
and total population, and by strand and type 
of action 

Desk research 
Interviews with beneficiaries 
Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 

Targeted survey of NCPs 
Public consultation 

Eurobarometer and other Surveys data 
(where available) on increases in in the 
level of civic participation and participation 
in democratic life (including elections to the 
European Parliament) across all the target 
groups. 

Number of applications by country and by 
year, and success rates by country 

Stakeholder perceptions of reasons for 
differences across target groups and 
Member States 

Stakeholders’ perceptions that the structure 
of the programme was well understood and 
clearly distinguished between the objectives 
and types of actions, so that it was possible 
to differentiate between the relative 
contributions to each objective and this 
demarcation was a success factor 

Desk research 
Interviews with beneficiaries 
Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 

Targeted survey of NCPs 
Public consultation 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that …) 

There are patterns to explain some factors, 
but others are the result of specific national 
contexts. 

There are lessons to be learned from the 
implications of these factors for progress. 

There is evidence of the extent to which the 
effects were distributed evenly across the 
different target groups and participating 
countries. 

The findings of the mid-term evaluation that 
there were only minor variations, except in 
the case of the geographical balance of town 
twinning, are confirmed. 

Dissemination of information about the 
programme was even across the Member 
States and appropriately targeted to groups 
under-represented in applications or award. 

Where there are variations between target 
groups and/or countries, it is possible to 
identify (internal and external) reasons.  

The structure of the programme, i.e. the 
structural separation between town twinning 
and networks or towns, and the existence of 
separate strands for remembrance and civil 
society activities was helpful in achieving 
distinct, distinguishable, at least qualitatively 
measurable, and logically separate 
contributions to achieving the general and 
specific objectives. 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

projects – contribute to 
achieving the general 
and specific objectives? 

Efficiency 

6.  To what extent has the 
programme been cost-
effective? 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

Desk research 
Interviews with beneficiaries 

Project cost data, including average costs 
per person per comparable type of activity 
(subject to suitable cost data being 
available) 

Stakeholder explanations for discrepancies 
(if any) between the budget allocated to the 
programme and the budget used (e.g. 
insufficient quality of proposals or 
absorption capacity) 

Stakeholder explanations for differences in 
cost structure that go beyond different price 
levels in different countries, and for under- 
or overspending 

Stakeholder perceptions of the benefits of 
funding recurring or continuing projects 

Stakeholder perceptions that the programme 
has been cost-effective 

Stakeholder perceptions that there were no 
significant barriers to applying 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that …) 

Compared to the previous programming 
period, actions/measures became clearer and 
more focused. 

The finding of the mid-term evaluation that 
Town Twinning and Networks of Towns 
should be merged is not confirmed. 

The outputs were delivered with or at less 
than the allocated budget. 

The resources and costs allocated to the 
actions were sufficient, available on time 
and reasonable when compared to the 
outputs. 

The cost structures across funded projects 
were broadly comparable. 

The costs and benefits were comparable to 
similar projects funded from other sources. 

There were no issues of underspending or 
overspending. 

The advantages of funding recurring 
projects or continuation of projects 
outweigh the disadvantages of funding a 
wider group of beneficiaries. 

There were no significant barriers to 
applying for funding relating to language, 
capacity, relevance, awareness of the 
programme or other factors. 

93 

 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

7.  How efficient was the 
governance of the 
programme? 

8.  Could the programme 

have been implemented 
in a more efficient 
way? 

8.1 To what extent were any 
previously proposed 
simplification measures 
applied? 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that …) 

The European Commission had sufficient 
human and financial resources (inputs) to 
achieve programme management objectives. 

The management and control system 
established for the implementation of the 
programme was appropriate for delivery of 
the outputs and achieving the outcomes. 

The programme Committee contributed to 
effective governance at a reasonable cost. 

The Civil Dialogue achieved its objectives 
of encouraging exchanges of experiences 
and good practices, contributing to the 
dissemination of the programme’s results, 
and monitoring and discussing discusses 
policy developments in related fields of the 
programme at a reasonable cost. 

There were areas in programme and project 
management where outputs and outcomes 
could have been achieved at a lower cost. 

Factors adversely or positively influencing 
efficiency could have been tackled more 
appropriately / expeditiously. 

Better communication would have resulted 
in higher quality applications and better 
geographic balance. 

The administrative burden of applying and 
reporting was appropriate. 

94 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

Minutes of the meetings of the programme 
Committee and the Civil Dialogue Group 

EC stakeholder perception that they had 
adequate financial and human resources 
available to manage the programme 
efficient 

Desk research 
Interviews with beneficiaries 
Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 

Targeted survey of NCPs 
Public consultation 

Stakeholder perceptions of the adequacy of 
the resources for programme management 
and of the management and control system 

Stakeholder perceptions of good planning 
and organisation, including financial 
planning 

Stakeholder perceptions of the value of the 
contributions of the programme Committee 

Stakeholder perceptions that the Civil 
Dialogue achieved its objectives and did so 
efficiently. 

Indicators on time taken to evaluate and 
award projects, and sign grant agreements 

Answer to EQ7 

Evidence of good planning and 
organisation, especially financial planning 

Evidence of anticipation of any over or 
underspending in order to take prompt 
corrective steps 

Stakeholder perceptions of the efficiency of 
programme management and of the level of 
administrative burden 

Stakeholder perceptions of the use in 
specific contexts of lump sums and unit 
costs 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

Relevance 

9.  How did the objectives 
of the programme 
correspond to wider EU 
policy goals and 
priorities? 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

Stakeholder perceptions of the 
appropriateness of the level of the unit costs 

Stakeholder recommendations for further 
improvements 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that …) 

The time taken to evaluate project 
applications and to sign grant agreements 
was appropriate. 

The use of unit costs for European 
Remembrance, Networks of Towns and 
Civil Society Projects achieved the intended 
simplification. 

Lump sums for preparatory activities for 
European Remembrance and Civil Society 
Projects and for town twinning achieved the 
intended simplification. 

The objectives of the programme were 
appropriate to achieving the wider policy 
goals identified in Regulation 390/2014, e.g. 

Perception of the Union and its institutions 
by the beneficiaries 

- 

- 

- 

exercise of the right to participate in 
the democratic life of the Union and 
the Union’s institutions; 
open, transparent and regular 
dialogue with representative 
associations and civil society;  
‘Europe 2020 – A strategy for 
smart, sustainable and inclusive 
growth’, aiming to deliver growth, 
employment, productivity and 
social cohesion. 

Perception of stakeholders that: 

- 

- 

the programme contributed to: 

greater participation in democratic 
and civic life 

-  more dialogue with civil society 

- 

to social cohesion 

Desk research 
Interviews with beneficiaries 
Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 
Public consultation 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

10.  How relevant was the 
programme to its final 
beneficiaries? 

10.1  What  are 
lessons learned? 

the  key 

Coherence 

11.  To what extent was the 
programme coherent 
with wider EU policies 
and priorities? 

11.1. Which synergies 
and/or complementarities (if 
any) could be identified 
between the programme and 
other EU instruments? 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

Desk research 
Interviews with beneficiaries 
Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 
Public consultation 
Focus group with Programme 
Committee Members 

Number of applications received under each 
strand 

Types of activities funded by year 

Stakeholders’ perception that their needs 
have been met and they did not have to 
adapt their objectives, policies or project in 
order to fit the priorities of the programme 

Stakeholders’ perceptions that all consortia 
and partnerships were well structured, i.e. 
based on existing relationship, active 
contributions by all partners, and were not 
put together solely for presenting a proposal 

Evidence of synergies and 
complementarities developed by design 
between the EfC programme objectives and 
other EU policies and priorities 

Desk research 
Interviews with beneficiaries 
Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 

Evidence that overlaps and duplication with 
other programmes, notably the Rights 
Equality and Citizenship programme, 
Erasmus+ and Creative Europe’s Culture 
sub-programme was avoided by design 

Focus group with Programme 
Committee Members 

Public consultation 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that …) 

The types of action, e.g. improving the 
knowledge base, sharing best practices 
through mutual learning, capacity building 
and structural support for specific 
organisational structures, and the thematic 
priorities implemented under the 
programme were appropriate for the needs 
of the final beneficiaries. 

The beneficiaries of funding did not adapt 
their activities and priorities 
disproportionately in order to obtain the 
funding. 

The mix of beneficiaries in consortia and 
partnerships was appropriate. 

The ways in which the programme was not 
relevant to its final beneficiaries provide 
lessons to be learned for the future. 

The programme contributed to the priorities 
of the European Commission in the period 
2014-2020, notably the social priorities of 
the Europe 2020 agenda, and to the green 
and digital transitions which were priorities 
from 2020. 

The programme developed synergies with 
policies in the areas of especially education, 
vocational training and youth, sport, culture 
and the audiovisual sector, fundamental 
rights and freedoms, social inclusion, 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

EU Added value 

12.  Could the identified 

impacts have been 
achieved without the 
programme? 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

Stakeholder perception of coherence 
between the programme objectives and 
other EU policies and priorities 

Stakeholder perception of the likelihood of 
the impact of the programme having been 
achieved (or at least not to the same extent) 
without the Programme (or with less 
funding) 

Desk research 
Interviews with beneficiaries 
Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 
Public consultation 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that …) 

gender equality, combating discrimination, 
research and innovation, information 
society, enlargement and the external action 
of the Union, and via NCPs with 
implementation mechanisms such as 
Creative Europe Desks, Erasmus+ National 
Agencies, Europe Direct Information 
Centres, Eurodesk information centres etc. 

Direct overlap between the EfC and other 
funding programmes, notably the Rights 
Equality and Citizenship programme, 
Erasmus+ and Creative Europe’s Culture 
sub-programme in terms of content, 
objectives and target groups was minimal. 

It would not have been possible to bring 
Europe closer to its citizens, enhance the 
sense of belonging or understanding of the 
Union, its history and diversity or increase 
participation in civic and democratic life to 
the same extent without the actions under 
the programme. 

There were no national or transnational 
programmes that could have fulfilled the 
role of the EfC. 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that …) 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

13.  If the initial problem 
and its causes varied 
across the national 
levels, did the 
Programme help 
establish a level playing 
field? 

13.1  Which  were  the 
most 
significant 
transnational/cross-
border 
Programme 
Could 
quantified? 

the 
tackled? 
be 

aspects 

these 

The Programme reduced gaps across 
Member States in the extent of the problems 
identified in the Impact Assessment 
preceding the EfC existed across the 
Member States, i.e. 

Qualitative date from final technical report 
on civil society capacity building 

Geographic balance of numbers of people 
directly and indirectly involved in EfC 
programmes and numbers of projects 

Desk research 
Interviews with beneficiaries 
Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 
Public consultation 

- 

- 

civil society’s capacity to 
participate in the EU policy making 
process; 
opportunities for individual citizens 
to participate in debates and 
discussions on EU-related issues. 

Data available (either existing or collected as 
part of this study) to assess qualitatively or 
quantitatively the most significant 
transnational/cross-border aspect of the 
Programme 

The Programme helped rectify imbalances in 
the civic space. 

It is possible to identify certain aspects or 
themes of transnational/cross-border 
cooperation that received particular 
emphasis. 

Stakeholder perceptions based where 
possible on an assessment of the 
quantitative and qualitative data on the 
Programme results that the Programme has 
helped achieve a level playing field and 
counter a shrinking civic space 

Stakeholder perception that mutual trust 
among participating countries and cross-
border cooperation have increased as a 
result of the Programme  

98 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation questions matrix of the CERV programme 

Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that …) 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

Effectiveness  

1.  How successful has the 
programme been in 
progressing towards its 
objectives? 

1.1 How likely is it that the 
projects funded by the 
programme so far promote 
EU values and contribute to 
supporting CSOs working in 
the field? 

The projects, and their proposed 
activities/outputs, are aligned with the type 
of action envisaged by the programme across 
all strands, i.e. they fall within one of the 12 
categories listed in Annex I of the 
Regulation. 

The programme is on track to meet its 
indicator targets. 

Promotion of EU values and support for 
CSOs working in the field are cross-cutting 
themes in calls across all strands. 

Awarded projects are 

• 
• 
• 

• 

• 

• 

in line with EU policy priorities; 
address a real need in the field; 
based on well-established 
methodologies; 
(where relevant) are based on strong 
partnerships established in advance; 
have a strong EU dimension and 
offer EU added value; 
plan realistic and sustainable results. 

99 

Statistical trends and data analysis insights 
from an aggregate overview by strand of the 
quantitative and qualitative indicators on 
outputs and results collected under EQ2 

Desk research 
Interviews with beneficiaries 
Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 

Case study 4 

Analysis of evaluation of applications and 
successful projects 

Stakeholder perceptions of the trends and 
insights from the aggregate of quantitative 
indicators is an indication of success in 
achieving the objectives by strand and from 
an overall programme perspective 

Perceptions of relevant stakeholders from 
their own work in the field of the progress 
being made and the likelihood of the projects 
funded so far contributing to supporting 
CSOs 

Empirical evidence from studies, conference 
presentations etc. of activities that 
contributed to achieve the general 
objectives: 

• 

• 

ensuring protection and 
promotion of rights and values, 
sustaining and further developing 
open, rights-based, democratic, 
equal and inclusive societies 
which are based on the rule of 
law 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that …) 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

2.  What have the 

quantitative and 
qualitative effects of the 
programme been? – 
answer provided under 
EQ1 

2.1 Are there any significant 
differences compared to 
what was expected when 
designing the programme? 

2.2 What are the effects of 
the novelties introduced? 

2.3 How likely is it that the 
actions implemented so far 
will generate long-term 
effects? 

There is data available to measure the 
quantitative outputs of the first three years of 
the programme. 

Data on outputs suggest that milestones for 
2024 are likely to be achieved without any 
significant deviations. 

It is likely the outcomes envisaged in the 
Intervention Logics will be achieved. 

Planning has been facilitated for both 
beneficiaries and DG JUST/EACEA by 
having multiannual work programmes. 

Lump sums and unit costs are making it 
easier for beneficiaries to concentrate on 
achieving objectives. 

The indicators are well suited to measuring 
effects. 

Projects are more results-oriented than in the 
past. 

The cascade grants system is making EU 
funding more available to smaller/grassroots 
organisations. 

• 

supporting civil society and 
encouraging people’s democratic, 
civic and social participation 

Data on outputs of the programme and of 
projects, i.e. numbers of people, organisation 
and action types taking into account success 
rates and geographical balance141, and 
funding distribution by type of beneficiary 
(where available: disaggregated by sex, age, 
disability or other axes of differentiation 
relevant for the purpose of the evaluation, 
such as sexual orientation, race and 
ethnicity, religion). 

Desk research 
Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 

Focus group with Programme 
Committee Members 
Interviews with beneficiaries 
Survey of NCPs 
Focus group with NCPs 
Deliberative workshops 
Case study 2 

Qualitative data on outcomes from indicators 
on changes in awareness etc. and behaviour 
(where available: disaggregated by sex, age, 
disability or other axes of differentiation 
relevant for the purpose of the evaluation, 
such as sexual orientation, race and 
ethnicity, religion). 

Percentage of projects that are a continuation 
of previously funded projects / Percentage of 
beneficiaries that are recurrent beneficiaries 
and/or in recurring consortia 

Projects and consortia are operating along a 
continuum designed to produce long-term 
impacts. 

Data on whether indicators for which there 
are milestones in performance statements are 
on track 

141 While geographic balance will be part of the analysis, the main qualitative assessment of this priority for the programme will come under EQ 7. 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that …) 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

Empirical examples of actions which are 
likely to generate long-term effects 

Empirical examples of high-quality 
dissemination and communication plans 

Stakeholders’ perception that effects have 
been achieved and that projects are more 
results-oriented, including the perception of 
whether effects are likely to be long term  

Assessments in documentary evidence 
(Commission reports and other studies) of 
external factors which drove or hindered 
progress in relation to the implementation of 
the programme 

Stakeholder perceptions of any external 
factors that occurred, and which drove /are 
driving or hindered / are hindering progress 

Desk research 
Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 

Interviews with beneficiaries 

Stakeholder perceptions of areas where the 
effectiveness of targeting has improved and 
this is the result of changes resulting from 
better management after merger of EfC and 
REC and has been derived from economies 
of scale 

Mid-term and ex post 

evaluations of REC and 
EfC 
Desk research 
Survey of beneficiaries 
Interviews with beneficiaries 
Case study 2 

3.  What external factors 
have affected progress 
towards the objectives 
and how are they linked 
to the programme? 

4.  Compared to its 

predecessors, how 
effectively has the 
programme targeted 
policy objectives and 
beneficiaries? 

4.1 Which aspects were 
better addressed? 

4.2 How effectively has it 
addressed programme 
management and 
economies of scale? 

Factors such as COVID-19, the Russia’s war 
of aggression against Ukraine, Brexit, 
specific national contexts (changes of 
government, the halt to signature of grant 
agreements with Hungary, introduction of 
Member State policies inimical to EU 
values, other specific national contexts) have 
affected progress towards all or some 
objectives.  

The programme and the themes it is 
targeting have a clearer link with policy 
objectives142 than its predecessors. 

The programme and the way in which it is 
being implemented is more targeted than its 
predecessors. 

It is clear which beneficiary groups are being 
targeted by different strands and themes 

142 - a vibrant and empowered civil society; - encouraging people’s democratic, civic and social participation; - cultivating the rich diversity of European society on the basis of our common values, history and memory; 

- open, transparent and regular dialogue with civil society; - giving citizen and representative associations the opportunity to make known and publicly exchange their views in all areas of Union action. 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that …) 

Some aspects of the targeting are more 
successful than others. 

The economies of scale resulting from the 
merger of the EfC and REC are identifiable 
are being optimised and have led to 
improved targeting.  

5.  How effective have the 

5.1 How can the 

communication 
activities been in 
informing stakeholders 
about and engaging 
them in the programme 
and in increasing the 
programme’s visibility? 

communication activities 
be adapted to increase 
stakeholder engagement 
and the programme’s 
visibility? 

The communication activities of DG JUST, 
EACEA and the Contact Points have been 
successful in informing stakeholders about 
the programme. 

Correlation between first-time applicants and 
first-time transnational partnerships and 
communication activities, e.g. central info 
sessions, social media, work of NCPs 

Delays in appointing Contact Points in some 
Member States / the absence of Contact 
Points in some Member State has not been 
detrimental to the programme’s visibility. 

Stakeholder perception that the clarity or 
intensity of communication, the type of 
communication and media is appropriate / 
needs to be adapted 

Desk research 
Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 

Targeted survey of NCPs 
Interviews with beneficiaries 
Focus group with NCPs 
Focus group with Programme 
Committee Members 

6.1 To what extent are those 
actions sustainable? 

6.  To what extent have the 
actions funded under 
the programme so far 
responded to the needs 
of the target 
stakeholders? 

There are improvements to be made in the 
means of communication and stakeholder 
engagement, e.g. in the exchanges & 
dissemination of good practices amongst 
beneficiaries and potential applicants; in 
networking among Contact Points; in the 
type and distribution of communication 
tools, and the use of social media.  

Target stakeholders identify with the needs 
the actions funded under the programme are 
designed to address. 

Target stakeholders have not needed to adapt 
what they see as relevant priorities in order 
to fit the requirements of the programme. 

102 

Number of projects that are not in line with 
the core business of the beneficiary out of the 
total number of funded projects (business 
opportunity) 
Absorption capacity by policy priority/strand, 
i.e. the ratios between number of applicants, 
number of successful applicants, quality of 
applications (as reflected in average scores) 
and funding available per priority/strand 

Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 

Interviews with beneficiaries 
Case study 4 
Focus group with NCPs 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that …) 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

7.  How evenly were the 
effects distributed 
across the different 
target groups and 
participating countries? 

7.1 How can the variation in 
the programme’s effects 
across target groups and 
Member States be 
explained? 

There is evidence of the extent to which the 
effects were distributed evenly across the 
different target groups and participating 
countries. 

Stakeholder perceptions that the types of 
action funded are appropriate for the 
objectives of the target stakeholders  

Results of the statistical analysis under EQ2 

Documentary evidence from reports and 
studies of reasons for variability 

Dissemination of information about the 
programme was even across the Member 
States and appropriately targeted to groups 
under-represented in applications or award. 

Stakeholder perceptions of reasons for 
variability in the actions of DG JUST and 
EACEA and in the national and 
international environment 

Where there are variations between the 
effects by target groups and/or countries, it is 
possible to identify (internal and external) 
reasons. 

Desk research 
Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 

Targeted survey of NCPs 
Interviews with beneficiaries 
Focus group with NCPs 
Focus group with Programme 
Committee Members 

8.  How effective has the 
programme been in 
terms of promoting 
gender equality? 

8.1 What is the (prospective) 
impact of the programme on 
gender equality? 

8.2  How  effectively  has 
been 
gender 
equality 
the 
mainstreamed 
programme 
and 
implementation? 

in 
design 

The introduction of the requirement to 
include a gender perspective in all proposals 
has been well complied with across all 
strands and themes. 

There are aspects of gender equality where 
the programme is expected to have a more 
significant impact. 

There are no unintended negative effects on 
gender equality143. 

The gender score in EC budget measurement 
of horizontal priorities compares favourably 
with equivalent funding programmes. 

Disaggregated data under EQ2, including on 
gender identity and diversity where available 
Degree to which the programme has 
promoted implementation of the gender 
equality strategy 
Data on gender mainstreaming in projects 

Gender balance in consultation of experts 
and stakeholders 

Annual gender scores in EU budget 
management 

Stakeholder perceptions of the extent to 
which the programme is advancing gender 

Case study 1 
Desk research 

143 In accordance with the requirement of the Regulation 2021/692. 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that …) 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

equality, and strengths and weakness of its 
gender equality promotion 

Contribution to implementation of EC gender 
equality strategy 2020-2025 & equal 
representation of women, men in EP post-
2024; design, development, monitoring of 
national, regional, local = representation 
policies; increased capacity of CSO’s at all 
levels, notably women’s organisations, and 
media; cooperation, networking, information 
exchange across EU of information between 
Member State governments, local, regional 
authorities, associations, equality bodies, 
CSOs (notably women’s), media, academics. 

Awareness raising & training of 
professionals; changed attitudes & 
behaviours; identification with progressive 
gender portrayal & positive messaging.  

Efficiency 

9.  What are the costs and 

benefits of the 
programme for the 
different stakeholders? 

There are quantitative or qualitative data on 
the costs and benefits for different 
stakeholders. 

Budget amount planned by year and by 
specific objective 

Share of funding by type of beneficiary 

Average costs of actions are similar for 
groups of countries with similar cost 
structures. 

Level of funding requested by applicants 
and granted in relation to each specific 
objective 

Average cost of an awareness-raising, 
information and dissemination activity (by 
country and specific objective) 

Desk research 
Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 
Targeted survey of 

unsuccessful applicants 
Survey on costs (beneficiaries) 
Interviews with beneficiaries 
Focus group with NCPs 
Focus group with Programme 
Committee Members 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that …) 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

There are identifiable reasons and lessons to 
be learned from variability in costs and 
benefits across stakeholders. 

Average cost of a mutual learning and 
exchange of good practices activity (by 
country and specific objective) 

Average cost of a training activity (by 
country and specific objective) 

Average cost of one person trained (by 
country and specific objective) 

Average cost of one person/day/training (by 
country and specific objective) 

Stakeholder perception that the programme 
has been cost-effective for each type of 
stakeholder 

Stakeholder perceptions of reasons for cost 
variations 

Documentary evidence of factors 
influencing efficiency 

Stakeholder perceptions of factors 
influencing efficiency 

Desk research 
Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 

Interviews with beneficiaries 
Deliberative workshops 
Focus group with NCPs 
Focus group with Programme 
Committee Members 

10.  To what extent have 

internal or external 
factors influenced the 
efficiency to generate 
results? 

Internal factors likely to affect costs and 
benefits, e.g. delays in appointing Contact 
Points (which may also be the result of 
external factors), the halt to signature of 
grant agreements with Hungary, start-up 
problems with the new IT platform. 

External factors which may be affecting 
costs and benefits, e.g. digitalisation, 
COVID-19, the Russia’s war of aggression 
against Ukraine, Brexit, specific national 
contexts (changes of government, 
introduction of Member State policies 
inimical to EU values, other specific national 
contexts) have affected progress towards all 
or some objectives.  

105 

 
 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that …) 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

Desk research 
Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 
Targeted survey of 

unsuccessful applicants 
Interviews with beneficiaries 
Focus group with NCPs 
Focus group with Programme 
Committee Members 

Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 
Targeted survey of 

unsuccessful applicants 
Interviews with beneficiaries 
Focus group with NCPs 
Focus group with Programme 
Committee Members 

Deliberative workshops 

11.  Have any inefficiencies 

been identified? 

There is scope for reducing costs without 
any loss of benefit and for increasing 
benefits at the same cost. 

Documentary evidence from internal audit 
reports, performance audits and European 
Court of Auditor reports 

12.  How timely and 

efficient is the 
programme’s 
administrative process, 
including for reporting 
and monitoring? 

The opportunities of digitalisation are not 
being optimised at programme or project 
level. 

The administrative burden is proportionate 
for all size of project and organisation. 

Deadlines for submission are reasonable, 
evaluation processes are robust, the length 
of time between submission and award is 
proportionate, the time between grant award 
and grant signature is proportionate. 

Monitoring and reporting requirements do 
not impose a disproportionate burden on 
any size of project or organisations. 

Indicators on ICT tools (see EQ2) 

Stakeholder perceptions of potential for 
efficiency gains: 

- in the use of human and/or financial 
resources 

- optimising the use of ICT tools 

Data on: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

extent to which call planning schedules 
were respected 

time allowed for submission (and 
timing relative to holiday periods) 

time to award 

time to conclude grant agreement 

time to pay 

Stakeholder perception of time 
allowed/taken for processes from 
publication of call to grant agreement, and 
of payment processes 

Stakeholder perception of monitoring and 
report requirements 

Stakeholder perceptions of Funding and 
Tenders portal 

Stakeholder perceptions of eGrants system 

106 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that …) 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

13.  To what extent did 

simplification measures 
proposed under the 
previous and current 
programmes generate 
an added value? 

14.  Is there any scope for 

further simplification in 
the management of the 
programme?  

14.1 How can the 
programme management be 
further simplified, 
considering existing 
financial rules, to alleviate 
administrative burden on 
the Commission and on the 
applicants/beneficiaries? 

Relevance 

15.  To what the extent is 

the programme still 
relevant in view of its 
objectives? 

15.1 To what extent was the 
thematic focus of the calls 
published so far relevant to 
interested stakeholders? 

15.2 To what extent has the 
programme integrated 
lessons learned from its 
predecessors? 

Answers provided under EQs 9-12 and case study 2 

Answers provided under EQs 9-12 and case study 2 

The needs identified at the time the 
programme was adopted have not changed. 

Data on calls for proposals by theme and 
year (and specific objective) 

The needs identified at the time the 
programme was adopted were appropriate. 

Documentary evidence of a needs 
assessment (e.g. Impact Assessment, 
studies) 

The programme has already demonstrated 
flexibility to adapt to changing needs. 

Findings on relevance from the evaluations 
of the predecessor programmes 

The thematic focus of the calls so far was 
appropriate for the needs interested 
stakeholders aim to meet. 

Stakeholder perceptions that the programme 
is addressing needs that should be priorities 
for achieving its objectives 

Desk research 
Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 
Public consultation 
Interviews with beneficiaries 
Focus group with NCPs 
Focus group with Programme 
Committee Members 

Deliberative workshops 
Expert interviews 

The findings on relevance of the mid-term 
evaluation of EfC and the interim and the 
first part of the ex post evaluation of the 
REC programme (as summarised in the 

Stakeholder perceptions that the themes 
addressed in the calls so far are suitable for 
meeting the needs they seek to address 

107 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

16.1 Are the needs 
addressed by the 
programme relevant to the 
EU priorities?  

16.  To what extent do the 
needs addressed by the 
programme continue to 
require action at EU 
level? 

Answer provided under 
EQ15 and EQs 22-23 

17.  How relevant are the 

groups targeted by the 
programme? 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that …) 

introduction to this bid) were taken into 
account in the design of the programme. 

There is an ongoing need for action at EU 
level to protect and promote rights and 
values as enshrined in the EU Treaties and 
the EU Charter by supporting CSOs and 
other stakeholders and encouraging civic 
and democratic participation. 

Targeting these needs is appropriate in the 
light of the EU’s broader objectives of 
nurturing and sustaining a rights-based, 
equal, open, pluralist, inclusive and 
democratic society. 

Targeting these needs is also consistent with 
the digital and green transitions. 

The programme is prioritising target groups 
appropriate to the achievement of its 
objectives. 

All target groups are equally relevant and 
no groups are being left out. 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

Stakeholders’ perceptions that the findings 
of the evaluations of the predecessor 
programme have been taken into account 

Data on needs identified under EQ15 

Desk research 

Stakeholder perceptions EU action is 
needed to address the needs addressed by 
the programme 

Stakeholder perceptions of a correlation 
between the needs addressed by the 
programme and achieving the objectives of 
EU priorities 

Data from Regulations, IA and calls on 
target groups by strand and objective 

Stakeholder perceptions that the programme 
is addressing the most appropriate target 
group per strand 

Stakeholder perceptions of the balance 
across target groups and possible gaps 

Desk research 
Interviews with beneficiaries 
Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 

Focus group with Programme 
Committee Members 

Expert interviews 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that …) 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

18.  Is the programme likely 
to continue being 
relevant for EU citizens 
in the near future? – 
answer provided under 
EQ15 

Coherence 

19.  To what extent is the 
programme still 
coherent with other EU 
and national policies 
and funding 
programmes that have 
similar objectives? 

18.1 Since its introduction, 
how well adapted is the 
programme to the pace of 
progress generated by 
digital technologies? 

The need to reach out to EU citizens to 
promote EU values and support civil society 
in promoting citizen engagement with EU 
values, civic and democratic life is unlikely 
to change in the next two-to-three years. 

The programme has been able to keep up 
with the pace of digitalisation in its 
programme and communication platforms 
and tools, and in encouraging digitally 
advanced actions. 

The programme complements or has 
developed synergies with EU policies such 
as the Justice programme, the AMIF, the 
Internal Security Fund, the European 
Regional Development Fund, the Creative 
Europe programme and Erasmus+; the 
European Social Fund+; and Horizon 
Europe, in particular its Cluster 2 on 
Culture. 

The programme complements or has 
developed synergies with the policies and 
funding programme of major international 
and national foundations promoting 
citizens’ rights, democracy and/or providing 
structural support to civil society (e.g. 
International Foundation for Better 
Governance, Stefan Batory Foundations), 
other international and national 
government-backed funds (e.g. Nordic 
Council of Ministers, the Visegrad Fund, 

109 

Evidence of long-term results which will 
continue to be relevant to EU citizens in the 
future 

Stakeholder perceptions that the programme 
will continue to be relevant for EU citizens 
in the near future. 

Desk research 
Interviews with beneficiaries 
Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 

Focus group with Programme 
Committee Members 

Expert interviews 

Examples that digital technologies are well 
integrated in the programme. 

Documentary evidence of a structured 
approach to avoiding overlaps and 
duplication with other policies and funding 
programmes 

Stakeholder perception of a structured 
approach to or de facto avoidance of 
overlaps and duplication with other policies 
and funding programmes 

Stakeholder perception that the CERV 
programme aligns well with how other 
funding programmes see needs developing 
and that it occupies an appropriate place in 
the landscape 

Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 
Targeted survey of 

unsuccessful applicants 

Targeted survey of NCPs 
Focus group with Programme 
Committee Members 

Public consultation 
Case study 5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

20.  To what extent have the 

various components of 
the programme 
generated synergies 
and/or compensated 
possible trade-offs 
amongst them?  

21.  To what extent is the 
programme coherent 
with international 
commitments and 
objectives, including 
the Sustainable 
Development Goals? 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that …) 

Europe, EEA/Norway Grants Active 
Citizens Fund, Franco-German Citizens 
Fund).  

Example of indicators  

Sources 

EACEA/DG  JUST  have  policies  and 
practices for maximising complementarities 
the  CERV 
strands  of 
between 
programme. 

the 

Where  there  is  a  possibility  of  overlap 
between strands or calls, EACEA/DG JUST 
have  mechanisms  in  place  for  avoiding 
these, including via trade-offs across them. 

Documentary evidence of a structured 
approach to synergies and 
complementarities across strands and calls 

Stakeholder perceptions of coherence 
between the components of the programme 

EC stakeholder perceptions that any trade-
offs are equitable and benefit the 
programme 

Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 

Interviews with beneficiaries 
Desk research 

programme calls take into account 
international agreements and standards 
relevant to the thematic topic, e.g. the UN 
Convention on the Rights of the Child. 

Stakeholder perceptions that calls take all 
appropriate international agreements and 
standards into account and do not include 
any that are not relevant 

Desk research 
Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 

Interviews with beneficiaries 

The programme is achieving satisfactory 
results in EU budget performance 
measurement on the horizontal priorities on 
green budgeting (climate mainstreaming, 
biodiversity mainstreaming, clean air) and 
climate change. 

The programme is achieving satisfactory 
performance on Sustainable Development 
Goals 4, 5, 8, 10, 16 and 17 as required by 
EU performance budgeting. 

EU budget performance scoring on climate 
change and SDGs relative to other citizen-
oriented programmes, e.g. ESF, Erasmus+, 
Creative Europe 

Stakeholder perceptions of alignment 
between the programme and the Sustainable 
Development Goals 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that …) 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

EU Added value 

22.  Are the subsidiarity 

arguments put forward 
in the prior impact 
assessment still valid? 

22.1 
In the absence of 
EU level action, to what 
extent would Member 
States have the ability or 
possibility to put in place 
appropriate measures? 
22.2  What is the 
additional value resulting 
from the programme 
compared to what could 
have been reasonably 
achieved (in terms of 
efficiency and 
effectiveness) by Member 
States acting alone? 

Only some Member States have the same 
level of political will, financial capacity and 
administrative capacity to provide funding 
to achieve the same objectives as exists at 
EU level at both national and transnational 
level. 

Only some Member States are achieving 
similar results from equivalent funding 
programmes but that added value is 
unevenly spread across the EU and cannot 
therefore compensate to action at EU level 
to level the playing field. 

Examples of actions that could not have 
been funded / obtained the same results 
without this programme 

Stakeholder perceptions of the ability of 
Member States to achieve comparable 
results across the EU at the same level of 
effectiveness and efficiency 

Examples of additional value in relation to 
the programme compared to what could 
have been reasonably achieved (in terms of 
efficiency and effectiveness) by Member 
States acting alone 

Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 

Interviews with beneficiaries 
Deliberative workshops 
Public consultation 

23.  What would be the 

most likely 
consequences of 
stopping the 
programme? 

23.1 What would be the 
most likely consequences of 
not proposing a follow-up 
programme under the next 
MFF? 

There are reasons to conclude that if the 
programme were either halted now or no 
follow-up were proposed under the next 
MFF, the following would occur in some or 
many Member States: 

Evidence from preceding EQs 

Stakeholder perceptions, including 
perceptions of the extent to which there 
might be other funders who would step in to 
fill any gap left by CERV 

Public consultation 
Targeted survey of 
beneficiaries 

Interviews with beneficiaries 
Deliberative workshops 
Expert interviews 

• 

• 

• 

the civic space would shrink 
significantly;  
respect for the rule of law, 
fundamental rights & democratic 
dialogue, transparency & good 
governance would decline 
significantly; 
equality, reduced discrimination & 
improved responses to racism & 
xenophobia, inc. hate speech & hate 
crime, both on- and offline, with 

111 

 
 
  
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence 
that …) 

Example of indicators  

Sources 

particular attention having been 
given to addressing the 
vulnerabilities of specific groups & 
communities particularly affected 
by discrimination, would be 
achieved more slowly or go into 
reverse; 
civic and democratic participation 
would develop significantly more 
slowly or go into reverse; 
the understanding of EU, its origins, 
purpose, diversity, achievements, 
values and of the importance of 
mutual understanding and tolerance 
Increased awareness, attitudinal 
change would be significantly 
undermined; 
early detection, prevention of 
violence, and strengthened victim 
protection and support would 
progress more slowly or go into 
reverse. 

• 

• 

• 

The long-term impacts of actions under this 
programme and its predecessors would 
weaken without a supportive environment  

112 

 
Cross-cutting evaluation questions matrix 

Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence that …) 

Indicators  

Effectiveness  

To what extent are there 
differences in the extent to which 
the policy objectives have been / 
are being achieved and why? 

To what extent in the light of the conclusions 
from the evaluations of the REC, the EfC and 
CERV should the general and specific policy 
objectives of any future programme be 
modified? 

The general objectives of the CERV programme can be carried 
forward to a future programme without any changes. 

The specific objectives of the CERV strands can be carried 
forward to a future programme without any changes or 
redistribution across strands. 

Findings and conclusions on the 
effectiveness of the REC, the EfC 
and CERV programmes based on 
the answers to the respective 
programmes’ evaluations’ questions. 

Efficiency 

To what extent has the new 
programme architecture 
produced efficiency gains? 

To what extent did simplification measures 
proposed under the previous and current 
programmes reduce costs and increase 
benefits? 

How efficiently has the CERV programme 
used human and financial resources 
compared with REC and EfC? 

The accompanying ex post evaluation of the EfC has 
demonstrated the added value of lump sums and unit costs. 

The introduction of lump sums for actions under the equality, 
rights and gender equality strand, the Citizens’ engagement and 
participation strand, the Daphne strand and for actions funding 
programme Contact Points is producing efficiency gains for the 
European Commission and beneficiaries. 

Findings and conclusions on the 
efficiency of the REC, the EfC and 
CERV programmes based on the 
answers to the respective 
programmes’ evaluations’ 
questions. 

Has the Commission achieved economies of 
scale as a result of the new architecture? 

The streamlining of the number of indicators has not led to any 
loss of efficiency (or effectiveness). 

The programmes had sufficient human and financial resources 
(inputs) to achieve their objectives. 

A single architecture has simplified and streamlined 
management of the programme.  

113 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence that …) 

Indicators  

Relevance 

To what extent did bringing all 
strands within the architecture of 
the CERV programme increase 
the relevance of the programme 
in view of its objectives? 

To what extent has the CERV programme 
integrated lessons about needs from its 
predecessors? 

The findings on relevance of the mid-term evaluation of EfC 
and the interim and the first part of the ex post evaluation of the 
REC were taken into account in the design of the programme. 

To what extent is the CERV programme more 
relevant to the needs of the targeted groups 
than its predecessors? 

To what extent are there currently unmet or 
likely emerging needs that should be taken 
into account in any future programme 

The CERV programme is now more closely aligned to the 
needs of the stakeholders than its predecessors. 

There are gaps in the needs coverage of the programme by 
theme or target group. 

Findings and conclusions on the 
relevance of the REC, the EfC and 
CERV programmes based on the 
answers to the respective 
programmes’ evaluations’ 
questions. 

Coherence 

How well have the synergies 
between the programmes been 
exploited, increasing the 
coherence of EU action under 
CERV?  

To what extent are the strands of the CERV 
programme more coherent now than when 
EfC and REC were two separate programmes 
and there was no Values strand? 

To what extent did the novelties under CERV 
contribute to greater coherence 

Findings and conclusions on the 
coherence of the REC, the EfC and 
CERV programmes based on the 
answers to the respective 
programmes’ evaluations’ 
questions. 

The programme has eliminated the overlaps in certain areas that 
merging the EfC and REC was designed to avoid. 

The new CERV programme architecture has: 

- improved performance, 

- lowered costs, 

- reduced burdens, 

- led to simplification, 

- facilitated automation/digitalisation. 

The novelties (e.g. cascading grants and use of an external 
comms agency, new IT systems for application) are all 
contributing to greater internal coherence. 

Value Added  

What is the added value resulting 
from the new programme 
architecture? 

To what extent has bundling equality, rights 
and values funding in a single programme led 
to better results than was achieved by the 
predecessor programme merging the EfC and 

Having a single programme has produced results (outcomes) that 
Member States acting alone could not have achieved even more 
effectively and efficiently than the previous programmes. 

Findings and conclusions on the EU 
added value of the REC, the EfC 
and CERV programmes based on 
the answers to the respective 

114 

 
 
  
Evaluation question 

Sub-question 

Judgement criteria (There is evidence that …) 

Indicators  

REC into one programme and adding a 
Values strand 

To what extent did the novelties under CERV 
add value 

The novelties (e.g. cascading grants and use of an external 
comms agency, new IT systems for application, expansion of the 
use of lump sums, unit costs) are increasing the effectiveness, 
efficiency, relevance and coherence of the programme. 

programmes’ evaluations’ 
questions. 

115 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS, SIMPLIFICATION AND BURDEN REDUCTION 

1.  REC PROGRAMME 

1.1.  Overview of costs and benefits 

Overview of costs and benefits identified in the study – REC programme 

Citizens/Consumers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

Other programme 
beneficiaries 

Quantitativ
e 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Direct 
compliance 
costs 
(administrativ
e costs) 

One-off 
(application) 

One-off 
(managemen
t and 
reporting) 

Direct benefits  One-off 
(budget 
committed)
145 

It is estimated that it takes an average of 41 man-days to complete the application (based on data 
provided by project coordinators for nine projects), and cost an average of EUR 53 508 (based on 
estimates provided by five beneficiaries)144. 

No quantitative or qualitative data available on the cost to beneficiaries of the management of 
awarded grants and related reporting to the EC.  

EUR 16.4 
million 

Budget 
committed 
to private 
non-profit 
organisation
s 

EUR 61.5 
million 

EUR 229.5 
million 

Budget 
committed 
to public 
bodies 

Budget 
committe
d to 
beneficiar
y type 
‘Other not 
for profit 
organisati
on’ 

144 First part ex post evaluation REC programme. 
145 This estimate is based in the following: % share of the budget committed by beneficiary type was based on analysis across 846 grants (of the 950 funded) funded in 2014-2020. This % share was then calculated over 
the total amount committed in the period 2014-2020 (EUR 409.8 million). 

. 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Citizens/Consumers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

Other programme 
beneficiaries 

Quantitativ
e 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

EUR 57.4 
million 

Budget 
committe
d to 
Higher 
education 
institution
s 
Budget 
committe
d to 
research 
organisati
ons 
No quantification possible. Direct benefits as reported by beneficiaries (businesses, public 
institutions, CSOs and other types of beneficiaries): 
availability of independent funding; 
strengthening the capacity of civil society across the EU; 
increasing cross-border cooperation; 
increased visibility and awareness on the different rights covered by the programme; 
empowerment and support to wide range of target groups. 

EUR 45.1 
million 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

Recurrent 

Indirect 
benefits 

One-off 

No 
quantitative 
data 
available on 
the 
recurrent 
benefits of 
the 
programme 
to citizens. 

EUR 409.8 
million 

Direct benefits as reported 
by beneficiaries: 

- 

- 

increased visibility 
and awareness on 
the different rights 
covered by the 
programme; 
increased/improve
d support provision 
to wide range of 
target groups. 

Total REC committed 
budget benefiting target 
groups146 

Recurrent 

n/a; only 
data 

146 This committed budget is also included under direct benefits, in relation to the different types of beneficiaries. 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Citizens/Consumers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

Other programme 
beneficiaries 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitativ
e 

available on 
economic 
benefits of 
improved 
gender 
equality in 
the EU – 
EUR 1.95 – 
EUR 3.15 
trillion by 
2050147 

1.2.  Simplification and burden reduction 

Simplification and burden reduction already achieved – REC programme 

Citizens/Consumers 

Businesses 

Administration 

Other programme beneficiaries 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Not applicable 

the 

Digitalisation 
of 
application 
process 
the 
through 
use of eGrants 

quantitative 
No 
data  available  on 
burden 
reduction 
for applicants 

to 

led 

Digitalisation 
has 
resource 
savings 
paper 
postal costs 

in 
and 

quantitative 
No 
data  available  on 
burden 
reduction 
for applicants  

147 Economic Benefits of Gender Equality in the European Union | European Institute for Gender Equality (europa.eu). 

118 

to 

led 

Digitalisation 
has 
resource 
savings 
paper 
postal costs 

in 
and 

Digitalisation  has  led 
to  resource  savings  in 
paper and postal costs 

No 
quantitative 
data  available 
burden 
on 
for 
reduction 
applicants  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 9: Potential simplification and burden reduction – REC programme 

Citizens/Consumers 

Businesses 

Administration 

Other programme beneficiaries 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Simplification of application requirements & better guidance on use of eGrant portal 

One-off 

Quantitative data not available. A significant proportion of beneficiaries and non-successful applicants still raised 
concerns about the heavy administrative burden related to the application process, in part due to the complexity of 
the application, terminology used, annual applications of the OGs, and difficulties in using the eGrant system. A 
few CSO beneficiaries noted that a two-step application process would allow for a preliminary evaluation, 
reducing the number of full applications that need detailed review and enabling organisations to focus on more 
promising opportunities (i.e. more likely to be successful). However, no cost effectiveness analysis was carried 
out on this option.  

Simplifying financial reporting and providing clearer guidance on performance indicators 

Recurrent 

Quantitative data not available. Beneficiaries surveyed and interviewed noted that streamlined processes and clear 
instructions would reduce the administrative burden and enhance the accuracy and timeliness of reports. 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.  EfC PROGRAMME 

2.1.  Overview of costs and benefits 

Overview of costs and benefits identified in the study – EfC programme 

Citizens/Consumers 

Businesses148 

Administrations149 

Other programme 
beneficiaries150 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative  Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative  Comment 

One-off 
(application) 

One-off 
(management 
and 
reporting) 

Direct 
benefits 

One-off 

Recurrent 

No quantitative data. Qualitative data suggests that the application costs can be estimated up to 
1-2  FTE  for  1  month  for  the  coordinator  organisation  and  ad hoc  support  by  partner 
organisations as applicable. 
Estimates for the different groups based on mean and median project funding committed, 
assuming up to 10% of budget is spent on management and reporting (qualitative data): 

•  For public bodies – mean = 31 589, median = 25 000 
•  For orgs representing local authorities – mean = 38 738, median = 25 000 
•  For other types – mean = EUR 58 117, median = 25 0000 

Total budget committed151 to: 

•  Remembrance actions and Operating grants: 

EUR 35 600 585 

•  Civil society actions and Operating grants: 

EUR 132 878 049 

No quantification possible. Direct benefits as reported by beneficiaries, public 
institutions, CSOs and other types of beneficiaries): 

• 

• 

• 

• 

ability to implement desired approaches 

increased networking with partners and outreach to new stakeholders 

enhanced visibility at national and EU level 

prestige and enhanced credibility in front of other donors 

148 n/a – Not beneficiaries under the EfC programme. 
149 Local, regional public bodies and federations / associations of local authorities, and twinning committees. 
150 CSOs, Think tanks, Research Institutes. 
151 This committed budget is also included under direct benefits, in relation to the different types of beneficiaries. 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Citizens/Consumers 

Businesses148 

Administrations149 

Other programme 
beneficiaries150 

• 

• 

• 

testing of new approaches to address societal challenges 

greater capacity for advocacy actions 

sustainability of organisations 

Recurrent 

Indirect 
benefits 

One-off 

Direct 
participants 
in 
Remembrance 
strand 

Direct 
participants 
in Civil 
society strand 

Raised awareness of 
remembrance, the 
common history and 
values of the Union 
and the Union’s aim 
for 1 724 932152 
citizens between 2014 
– 2020  

Encouraged the 
democratic and civic 
participation of 
7 647 859153 citizens 
between 2014 - 2020 
Total budget 
committed benefiting 
target groups154: 

•  Remembrance 
actions and 
Operating 
grants: 
EUR 35 600 
585 

•  Civil society 

actions and 
Operating 
grants: 

152 This is an estimate based on project final reports. 
153 This is an estimate based on project final reports. 
154 This committed budget is also included under direct benefits, in relation to the different types of beneficiaries. 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Citizens/Consumers 

Businesses148 

Administrations149 

Other programme 
beneficiaries150 

EUR 132 878 
049 

>60 million155 between 
2014 - 2020 

>300 million156 
between 2014 - 2020 

Indirect 
participants 
in 
Remembrance 
strand 

Indirect 
participants 
in Civil 
society strand 

2.2.  Simplification and burden reduction 

Simplification and burden reduction already achieved – EfC programme 

Citizens/Consumers 

Businesses 

Administration 

Other 
beneficiaries 

programme 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

n/a 

led 

Use  of 
lump 
sums  and  unit 
costs 
to 
reduction of the 
administrative 
burden 

n/a 

Creation  of  a 
finance 
single 
replacing 
unit 

155 This is an estimate based on project final reports. 
156 This is an estimate based on project final reports. 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

led 

Use  of 
lump 
sums  and  unit 
costs 
to 
reduction of the 
administrative 
burden 

n/a 

Creation  of  a 
finance 
single 
replacing 
unit 

122 

n/a 

led 

Use  of 
lump 
sums  and  unit 
costs 
to 
reduction of the 
administrative 
burden 

n/a 

Creation  of  a 
finance 
single 
replacing 
unit 

led 

Use  of 
lump 
sums  and  unit 
costs 
to 
reduction of the 
administrative 
burden 

Creation  of  a 
finance 
single 
replacing 
unit 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the  embedding 
of 
finance 
officers in each 
policy 
implementation 
unit  at  EACEA 
improved 
programme 
management 

the  embedding 
of 
finance 
officers in each 
policy 
implementation 
unit  at  EACEA 
improved 
programme 
management 

the  embedding 
of 
finance 
officers in each 
policy 
implementation 
unit  at  EACEA 
improved 
programme 
management 

the  embedding 
of 
finance 
officers in each 
policy 
implementation 
unit  at  EACEA 
improved 
programme 
management 

Table 12: Potential simplification and burden reduction – EfC programme 

Citizens/Consumers 

Businesses 

Administration 

Other programme beneficiaries 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Simplification of application process & use Funding and Tenders Portal 

One-off 

Quantitative data not available. Qualitative data suggest some dissatisfaction, while small, remained as regards the 
ease of using the application system and the ease of using the Funding and Tenders Portal. 

Simplification of financial reporting and providing clearer guidance on performance indicators 

Recurrent 

While most beneficiaries had no particular difficulty collecting the data and matching it to the indicators, 
newcomers and less experienced organisations struggled to provide the estimates they had been expected to make 
on the participant data. 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  CERV PROGRAMME 

3.1.  Overview of costs and benefits 

Overview of costs and benefits identified in the study – CERV programme 

Citizens/Consumers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

Other programme beneficiaries 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Direct compliance 
costs (administrative 
costs) 

One-off 

No quantitative or qualitative data available on application costs. 

One-off 

approx. 

EUR 10 299 

approx. 

EUR 5 047 

Reporting costs 
– estimated 
based on survey 
feedback that up 
to 10% of 
project budget is 
spent on 
reporting, with 
average project 
budget ca. 
EUR 102 987 

Reporting 
costs – 
estimated 
based on 
survey 
feedback that 
up to 10% of 
project 
budget is 
spent on 
reporting, 
with average 
project 
budget ca. 
EUR 50 468 

124 

1-2 FTE for 1 
month 

approx. 

EUR 30 173 

Application 
costs – estimate 
based on 
qualitative data; 
only available 
for CSOs 

Reporting costs 
CSOs – 
estimated based 
on survey 
feedback that up 
to 10% of 
project budget is 
spent on 
reporting, with 
average project 
budget ca. 
EUR 301 727 

approx. 

EUR 19 477 

Reporting costs 
Research 
organisations – 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Citizens/Consumers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

Other programme beneficiaries 

estimated based 
on survey 
feedback that up 
to 10% of 
project budget is 
spent on 
reporting, with 
average project 
budget ca. 
EUR 194 766 

Reporting costs 
Higher 
education 
institutions – 
estimated based 
on survey 
feedback that up 
to 10% of 
project budget is 
spent on 
reporting, with 
average project 
budget ca. 
EUR 207 344 

Reporting costs 
International 
organisations – 
estimated based 
on survey 
feedback that up 
to 10% of 
project budget is 
spent on 

approx. 

EUR 20 735 

approx. 

EUR 39 663 

125 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Citizens/Consumers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

Other programme beneficiaries 

Direct benefits 

One-off 

EUR 6 102 
144.91 

Budget 
committed to 
private non-
profit 
organisations 

EUR 28 762 
064.00 

Budget 
committed to 
public bodies 

EUR 258 709 
334.97 

EUR 14 096 
265.00 

EUR 26 456 
015.00 

EUR 1 734 
108.73 

reporting, with 
average project 
budget ca. 
EUR 396 627 
Budget 
committed to 
CSOs 

Budget 
committed to 
Higher 
education 
institutions 
Budget 
committed to 
research 
organisations 
Budget 
committed to 
international 
organisations 

Recurrent 

No quantification possible. Direct benefits as reported by beneficiaries (businesses, public 
institutions, CSOs and other types of beneficiaries): 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

ability to implement desired approaches 

increased networking with partners and outreach to new stakeholders 

enhanced visibility at national and EU level 

prestige and enhanced credibility in front of other donors 

testing of new approaches to address societal challenges 

greater capacity for advocacy actions 

sustainability of organisations 

126 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Citizens/Consumers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

Other programme beneficiaries 

ca. EUR 309 
million 

Improved 
awareness of 
policy areas 
covered by 
CERV among 
an estimated 
39 160 000 EU 
citizens: 89% of 
surveyed 
participants 
reported 
increased 
awareness about 
policy areas 
addressed 
through project 
activities; an 
estimated 44 
million people 
have been 
reached or 
engaged through 
the programme 

Increased 
knowledge 
about the policy 
areas covered 
by CERV 
among an 
estimated 
38 280 000 EU 
citizens: 87% of 
surveyed 

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Citizens/Consumers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

Other programme beneficiaries 

participants 
reported 
increased 
knowledge 
about the policy 
areas addressed 
through project 
activities; an 
estimated 44 
million people 
have been 
reached or 
engaged through 
the programme 

Increased skills 
related to 
policy areas 
covered by 
CERV among 
an estimated 
31 120 000 EU 
citizens: 73% of 
surveyed 
participants 
reported 
increased skills 
related to policy 
areas addressed 
through project 
activities; an 
estimated 44 
million people 
have been 
reached or 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Citizens/Consumers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

Other programme beneficiaries 

engaged through 
the programme 

Increased 
cooperation 
among an 
estimated 
35 640 000 EU 
citizens: 81% of 
surveyed 
participants 
reported 
improved 
cooperation as a 
result of project 
activities; an 
estimated 44 
million people 
have been 
reached or 
engaged through 
the programme 

Change in 
behaviour 
among an 
estimated 
36 960 000 EU 
citizens: 84% of 
surveyed 
participants 
reported a 
change in 
behaviour as a 
result of 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Citizens/Consumers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

Other programme beneficiaries 

participation in 
project 
activities; an 
estimated 44 
million people 
have been 
reached or 
engaged through 
the programme 

Change in 
practice among 
an estimated 
40 480 000 EU 
citizens: 92% of 
surveyed 
participants 
reported a 
change in 
participants’ 
practice as a 
result of 
participation in 
project 
activities; an 
estimated 44 
million people 
have been 
reached or 
engaged through 
the programme 

Recurrent 

n/a; only data 
available on 
economic 

Civil society 
strengthened – 
governments 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Citizens/Consumers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

Other programme beneficiaries 

benefits of 
improved 
gender 
equality in the 
EU – 
EUR 1.95 – 
EUR 3.15 
trillion by 
2050157 

held to account, 
promotion of 
voices of local 
and marginalised 
communities, 
rule of law 
strengthened, 
respect of 
fundamental 
rights improved, 
service 
provision for 
vulnerable 
groups 
improved, 
transparency and 
data improved.  

3.2.  Simplification and burden reduction 

Simplification and burden reduction already achieved – CERV programme 

Citizens/Consumers 

Businesses 

Administration 

Other programme beneficiaries 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Multiannual work programmes 

Recurrent 

n/a 

Predictability of the 
programme has 

n/a 

Predictability of the 
programme has 

n/a 

Predictability of the 
programme has 
improved, 

157 Economic Benefits of Gender Equality in the European Union | European Institute for Gender Equality (europa.eu). 

131 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Streamlining of programme performance indicators 

One-off 

n/a 

improved, facilitating 
planning 

improved, facilitating 
planning 

n/a 

There are less 
indicators to reflect in 
application and 
reporting forms, which 
might constitute time 
savings, albeit no 
evidence to 
substantiate this 
assumption 

n/a 

There are less 
indicators to reflect in 
application and 
reporting forms, which 
might constitute time 
savings, albeit no 
evidence to 
substantiate this 
assumption 

Digitalisation of the application process through the use of eGrants 

One-off 

n/a 

Digitalisation has led 
to resource savings in 
paper and postal costs 

n/a 

Digitalisation has led 
to resource savings in 
paper and postal costs 

n/a 

Reduction in threshold of applications to be selected from 80 to 70 points 

Recurrent 

n/a 

n/a 

There may be less of a 
deadweight cost of 
submitting 
unsuccessful 
applications under 
Strands 1 and 3 albeit 

n/a 

There may be less of a 
deadweight cost of 
submitting 
unsuccessful 
applications under 
Strands 1 and 3, albeit 

132 

facilitating planning 
for CSOs, research 
organisations, 
higher education 
institutions, and 
international 
organisations 

There are less 
indicators to reflect 
in application and 
reporting forms, 
which might 
constitute time 
savings, albeit no 
evidence to 
substantiate this 
assumption 

Digitalisation has 
led to resource 
savings in paper and 
postal costs 

There may be less of 
a deadweight cost of 
submitting 
unsuccessful 
applications under 
Strands 1 and 3, 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
lack of evidence to 
substantiate this 
assumption; 
oversubscription, 
particularly under 
Strands 2 and 4 
continues to create a 
large deadweight cost 
to the sector.  

lack of evidence to 
substantiate this 
assumption; 
oversubscription, 
particularly under 
Strands 2 and 4 
continues to create a 
large deadweight cost 
to the sector. 

albeit lack of 
evidence to 
substantiate this 
assumption; 
oversubscription, 
particularly under 
Strands 2 and 4 
continues to create a 
large deadweight 
cost to the sector. 

Table 15: Potential simplification and burden reduction – CERV programme 

Citizens/Consumers 

Businesses 

Administration 

Other beneficiaries 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Limiting repetitive elements in applications and reporting forms 

One-off 

ca.  1  FTE  for  2 
days 

This assumption 
is based on 
qualitative 
feedback that 
removing 
repetitive 
elements could 
reduce 
complexity and 
improve the 
application and 
reporting 
experience 

ca.  1  FTE  for  2 
days 

ca. 1 FTE for 2 
days 

This assumption is 
based on qualitative 
feedback that 
removing repetitive 
elements could reduce 
complexity and 
improve the 
application and 
reporting experience 

This assumption is 
based on 
qualitative 
feedback that 
removing repetitive 
elements could 
reduce complexity 
and improve the 
application and 
reporting 
experience 

Providing flexibility in reporting for beneficiaries of operating grants to align with their financial year 

133 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Recurrent 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

ca. 0.5 FTE for 1 
day 

This concerns 
operating grants 
beneficiaries - 
assumption is 
based on the 
estimated time that 
it takes to request 
extensions and 
correspondence 
with the 
Commission on 
reporting delays 

134 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT 

Contents 

1. 

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

2.  OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSULTATION .......................................................................... 2 

3.  CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES AND METHODOLOGY ................................................. 2 

4.  RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... 4 

4.1. Call for evidence .......................................................................................................................... 4 

4.2. Targeted survey of beneficiaries: ................................................................................................. 4 

4.3. Targeted survey of unsuccessful applicants: ............................................................................... 6 

4.4. Targeted survey of third-party beneficiaries:............................................................................... 6 

4.5. Interviews with beneficiaries: ...................................................................................................... 7 

4.5.1. 

Interviews with  EfC beneficiaries: ......................................................................................... 7 

4.5.2. 

Interviews with REC beneficiaries: ........................................................................................ 7 

4.5.3. 

Interviews with CERV beneficiaries:...................................................................................... 8 

4.6. Focus groups with Programme Committee Members: ................................................................ 9 

4.7. Consultations with EfC and CERV NCPs: .................................................................................. 9 

4.8. Deliberative workshops with stakeholders and citizens ............................................................ 10 

4.9. Public consultation .................................................................................................................... 11 

4.10. Expert interviews ..................................................................................................................... 11 

135 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

Two  successive generations  of  EU  programmes have  pursued  the  goal  of protecting  and  promoting the 
rights  and  values  enshrined  in  the  EU Treaties  and  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights:  the  2014-2020 
‘Rights, Equality and Citizenship’ (REC) and ‘Europe for Citizens’ (EfC) programmes, and the 2021-2027 
‘Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values’ (CERV) programme. The REC programme aimed to contribute to 
the further development of an area where equality and the rights of persons, as enshrined in the EU Treaty, 
the Charter and international human rights conventions, are promoted and protected. In parallel, the EfC 
programme  supported  initiatives  to  strengthen remembrance  of recent  European  history and to  enhance 
civic participation at EU level. Since 2021, the CERV programme has sought to support and develop open, 
democratic,  equal, inclusive  and  rights-based  societies  based  on  the  rule  of  law.  In  this  context, and  as 
required by legislation158, the European Commission conducted an evaluation in three parts: 

(1) an ex post evaluation of the 2014-2020 of the REC programme, assessing its longer-term impact and 
sustainability effects, based on the results of the first part of the ex post evaluation completed in 2022159; 

(2) an ex post evaluation of the 2014-2020 EfC programme, assessing the results achieved, and its long-
term impact and sustainability effects; 

(3) an interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 CERV programme, assessing its preliminary achievements. 

The combined ex post and interim evaluation of the three programmes aimed to identify how the current 
programme (CERV) took account of lessons learned under its predecessors, and how results can be used 
for further improvement and to feed into the next funding cycle. 

2.  OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSULTATION 

The purpose of the consultation was to strengthen the evidence base for the evaluation by gathering the 
views  of  all  relevant  stakeholders  on  the  REC,  EfC  and  CERV  programmes’  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
relevance, coherence, and EU added value. 

3.  CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES AND METHODOLOGY 

The stakeholder consultation was conducted using a mixed-methods approach. The Commission conducted 
a  call  for  evidence  feedback  process  open  to  the  public  and  stakeholders. The  stakeholder  consultation 
included six surveys – a targeted survey of beneficiaries, a targeted survey of unsuccessful applicants, a 
survey of NCPs, a beneficiary survey on costs, a survey of ‘third-party beneficiaries’, meaning recipients 
of CERV funding via intermediaries (the re-granting mechanism), as well as a public consultation open to 
the public and stakeholders. The qualitative data collection involved interviews with beneficiaries, focus 
groups  with  NCPs  for  EfC  and  CERV,  focus groups with  Programme  Committee  Members of all  three 
programmes, and deliberative workshops with EU networks, national stakeholders, and citizens, as well as 
six  expert  interviews.  Over  1 000  stakeholders  were  consulted  in  total.  In  addition,  the  CERV  interim 
evaluation included five case studies160. 

As  outlined  in  the  consultation  strategy  published  on  the  ‘Have  your  say’  website  of  the  European 
Commission161, stakeholders consulted during the evaluation included: 

• 

• 

target groups of funded activities: the public, participants in funded activities. 

applicants and beneficiaries of the funding programmes: EU networks, platforms and professional 
associations  (including  the  European  Network  of  Equality  Bodies);  CSOs;  foundations;  public 

158 EU Regulation No 1381/2013 of 17 December 2013, EU Regulation No 390/2014 of 14 April 2014, and EU Regulation No 2021/692 of 28 April 
2021. 
159 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the 
Regions assessing the implementation and achievements of the 2014 – 2020 rights, equality and citizenship programme. 
160 1. Gender equality perspective and (prospective) impacts on gender equality at the level of the CERV programme and its activities; 2. Effects 
generated by simplification efforts; 3. Adaptability and suitability of the CERV programme to respond to the (possibly combined) impacts of the 
COVID-19  pandemic  and  new  digital  technologies;  4.  Support  to  civil  society  organisations  engaged  in  Union  values  strand  and  effects  of 
promoting EU values; 5. Synergies with other funding programmes. 
161 Call for Evidence (europa.eu). 

136 

 
 
 
 
authorities;  private  and  public  universities  and  other  research  organisations  active  in  the  fields 
covered by the programmes; private companies; international organisations. 

•  other  influential  actors:  EU  Member  States  that  are  also  members  of  the  relevant  Programme 
Committees; expert groups assisting the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Justice 
and  Consumers;  agencies  (e.g.  the  European  Education  and  Culture  Executive Agency,  the  EU 
Agency for Fundamental Rights); European Commission services and other relevant mechanisms 
responsible for the complementary instruments; CERV and EfC NCPs. 

Details of the consultation activities by funding programme are outlined below: 

REC programme 
Public consultation 

Survey of beneficiaries 

Survey of unsuccessful 
applicants 
Interviews with 
beneficiaries 

Focus group with 
Programme Committee 
Members 
EfC programme 
Public consultation 

Survey of beneficiaries 

Survey of unsuccessful 
applicants 
Survey of NCPs 
Interviews with 
beneficiaries 

Focus group with NCPs 

Focus group with 
Programme Committee 
Members 
CERV programme 
Public consultation 

Survey of beneficiaries 

Survey of unsuccessful 
applicants 
Survey of NCPs 
Survey of beneficiaries on 
costs 

Details 
27 respondents familiar with REC, and 12 respondents had received 
REC funding; 6 general questions and 20 expert questions addressing 
all evaluation criteria. 
133 relevant responses from beneficiaries of REC to questions covering all 
evaluation criteria.  
79 responses from unsuccessful applicants of REC to questions 
covering relevance, efficiency, coherence and added value.  
50 interviews covering 20 Member States (except Croatia, Czechia, 
Denmark, Estonia, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovakia), with balanced 
representation by type of grant and specific objective. 15 recurring 
beneficiaries in CERV.  
2 focus group participants from Finland and Slovenia. 

Details 
24 respondents familiar with EfC, and three respondents had received 
EfC funding; 6 general questions, 20 expert questions addressing all 
evaluation criteria. 
235 relevant responses from beneficiaries of EfC to questions covering 
all evaluation criteria. 
67 relevant responses from unsuccessful applicants of EfC to questions 
covering relevance, efficiency, coherence and added value.  
14 survey responses. 
80 interviews across 24 EU Member States (except Cyprus, Estonia, 
Luxembourg) and Serbia, with balanced representation by type of grant 
and strand. 21 recurring beneficiaries in CERV.  
9 focus group participants from five EU Member States (Estonia, 
France, Latvia, Romania and Sweden). 
4 focus group participants from Croatia, Greece, Finland, Malta. 

Details 
39 respondents familiar with CERV, and 19 respondents had received 
CERV funding; 6 general questions, 20 expert questions addressing all 
evaluation criteria. 
272 relevant responses from beneficiaries of CERV to questions 
covering all evaluation criteria.  
285 relevant responses from unsuccessful applicants of CERV to 
questions covering relevance, efficiency, coherence and added value.  
14 survey responses. 
97 survey responses from 19 EU Member States (Austria, Belgium, 
Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, 
Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak 
Republic, Slovenia and Spain). 

137 

 
212 responses from 10 EU Member States (Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, 
Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia and Spain). 
97 interviews across 26 EU Member States (except Latvia), balanced 
representation by type of grant and strand, including recipients of 
contribution agreements (n=3). 
15 focus group participants from 8 EU Member States (Estonia, France, 
Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania and Sweden). 
10 focus group participants from Austria, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, 
France, Germany, Greece, Romania, Slovenia and Spain. 

14 EU networks working on policy areas under Strand 2 – Equality, 
rights and gender equality. 
65 national stakeholders working in thematic areas under Strand 3 – 
Citizens’ engagement and participation from France, Greece, Hungary, 
Italy, Latvia, Poland. 
164 citizens consulted on Strand 3 – Citizens’ engagement and 
participation thematic areas from Austria, France, Greece, Hungary, 
Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Romania and Sweden.  
6 expert interviews covering all four strands, which included 
independent experts working in the policy areas covered by the strands, 
as well as members of the European Cooperation Network and the EU 
Network for children’s rights. 
4 interviews as part of case study on gender mainstreaming. 

Survey of third-party 
beneficiaries 
Interviews with 
beneficiaries 

Focus group with NCPs 

Focus group with 
Programme Committee 
Members 
Deliberative workshops 

Expert interviews 

Interviews with evaluators 
of CERV applications 

4.  RESULTS 

4.1. 

Call for evidence 

There  were  21  contributions  to  the  Commission’s  call  for  evidence,  which  ran  from  22 August-
19 September 2023. Feedback came from CSOs, EU networks and CERV NCPs. Eight contributions that 
did not comply with the European Commission’s rules for publishing feedback and were removed. 

The feedback confirmed the essential contribution of the programme to supporting democracy and citizens 
across Europe and addressing the shrinking civic space and challenges to rule of law across Europe. It also 
confirmed the new programme architecture being viewed as ‘solid and meaningful’ with the four CERV 
strands. The evidence collected fed into answers on relevance and EU added value of the CERV programme. 

Main points for consideration included the reinstatement of the Civil Dialogue Group, allowing for the co-
financing  of events in  non-EU  countries, increasing  the  lump  sum to  account  for  rises in cost-of-living 
expenses, as well as simplifying application processes, and increasing budgets for certain calls to allow for 
the achievements of expected impacts. Further simplification of the application process was also advocated. 

4.2. 

Targeted survey of beneficiaries 

Overall, 421 beneficiaries responded to the targeted survey. They came from all EU-27 Member States, as 
well as Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Serbia, and the United Kingdom. As the figure 
below shows, CSOs and public authorities together accounted for almost two thirds of the responses (64%). 

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A: What type of organisation do you represent? (%) (n=412) 

Just over a quarter of respondents had been beneficiaries of either the EfC or the CERV programme (26%, 
110 and 108 of 421, respectively). 17% (70 of 421) had been beneficiaries of both EfC and CERV; 11% (48 
of 421) had been beneficiaries of both, REC and CERV; 11% (46 of 421) had been beneficiaries of all three 
programmes, and 9% (39 of 421) just of the REC programme. 

A significant number of beneficiaries in all three programmes were recurrent beneficiaries of action grants. 

Feedback collected through the targeted survey of beneficiaries fed into all evaluation criteria of all three 
evaluations, and – by way of summary – was as follows: 

Funding received under the programmes generally aligned with the core needs of organisations, but 69% 
of action grant beneficiaries indicated this to be the case ‘to a large extent’ compared with 42% of operating 
grant beneficiaries. Most respondents (73%) reported that if they had received funding more than once, this 
was for a project or projects which were a continuation of an earlier project ‘to a large extent’ or ‘to some 
extent’. Most respondents (57%) also indicated that the project or projects for which they had received 
funding continued ‘to a large extent’ or ‘to some extent’ without Commission funding after it had ceased, 
although some noted in open comments that they had continued with less capacity and range than with EU 
funding. 

Most respondents reported that their projects had achieved or were achieving their projected outcomes and 
results  ‘fully’ or ‘to a  large  extent’  across  all three  programmes.  In  terms  of  developing synergies  with 
projects funded by other EU sources, most (58%) reported that they had done this, particularly with projects 
funded under Erasmus+, Horizon Europe, and the European Social Fund, as well as AMIF and the European 
Parliament. 

Most  respondents  (55%)  indicated that  they  had  integrated  good  practices  from  other  REC/EfC/CERV-
funded projects in another country: one fifth (22%) indicated that they had not done so. Innovations under 
CERV  were  rated  highly  by  most respondents  (over 70%),  e.g.  the  publication of  call  schedules,  fewer 
indicators, and lump sums. Less satisfaction was reported about unit costs. On the re-granting mechanism, 
48%  reported  that  they  ‘did  not  know’  how  to  answer  this  question.  It  is  likely  that  this  is  due  to  this 
mechanism only concerning a small proportion of CERV beneficiaries. 

The vast majority of respondents (over 80%) reported that the three programmes had addressed appropriate 
needs and were likely to have a lasting impact. Most respondents (over 70%) also reported that they had 
contributed  to  the  sustainability  of  organisations  and/or  projects  and  were  well  aligned  with  other  EU 
funding programmes. Most respondents reported that they thought that the results of the programmes could 
only have been achieved by EU action ‘fully’ or ‘to a large extent’. For REC, this was the case for 79% of 

139 

 
 
respondents, for EfC – 73%, and for CERV – 74%. EU funding was considered an ‘essential’ or ‘major 
contributor’ to a functioning civil society, relative to other sources of funding, by 68% of respondents. 

Survey of beneficiaries on costs: 

Results  from  this  short  survey  are  to  be  treated  with  caution,  as  there  was  no  way  to  confirm  the 
methodology that respondents applied when providing their estimates of average costs of activities in 
2021,  2022  and  2023.  However,  it  emerged  that  the  average  among  spent  on  one  awareness-raising, 
information and dissemination activity was EUR 8 842, for one mutual learning and exchange of good 
practice activity – EUR 10 597, for one training activity – EUR 8 842, and of one person trained per day 
– EUR 388. 

4.3. 

Targeted survey of unsuccessful applicants 

Overall, 343 unsuccessful applicants responded to the survey from all EU-27 Member States, as well as 
Israel, Kenya, Montenegro, Mozambique, Norway, Serbia, and Tanzania. An analysis of open comments 
on the reasons for failed applications confirmed that applicants from non-EU countries (other than Serbia)162 
were aware – at least ex post – that their applications had not been eligible. Almost half the respondents 
were CSOs / NGOs working at national, local, or regional levels (49%, 162 of 332), followed by CSOs / 
NGOs working at international, transnational, or pan-European levels (16%, 53 of 332). The programme 
for which applicants had most frequently applied unsuccessfully was CERV (indicated 65% of the time), 
followed by REC (indicated 19% of the time) and EfC (indicated 15% of the time). 

Feedback  collected  from  the  targeted  survey  of  unsuccessful  applicants  mainly  fed  into  the  evaluation 
criteria efficiency, coherence and EU added value in the evaluations of all three programmes, and – by way 
of summary – was as follows. There were mixed responses on the usefulness of the feedback received on 
applications. Around one third of respondents indicated that it had been ‘very useful’ for the CERV and 
REC programmes, while 19% indicated the same for EfC. It was considered ‘partially useful’ by around 
one third of respondents under all three programmes. The feedback was considered ‘not very useful’ or ‘not 
useful at all’ by a third of respondents replying on the EfC, a quarter replying on CERV and 16% replying 
on REC. Unsuccessful applicants reported mixed effects of not having received REC/EfC/CERV funding 
on projects, depending on the programme. Under REC, respondents noted that 40% of the projects were 
cancelled, while 27% of respondents noted they reapplied and 8% stated they found other funding. Under 
CERV and the EfC, slightly lower proportions cancelled their projects (38% and 33%, respectively) and 
most  projects  either  reapplied  (27%  and  25%,  respectively)  or  found  other  funding  (8%  and  13%, 
respectively). Respondents who indicated that their project had received support from other funds most 
frequently mentioned that these came from foundations or CSOs (32% in the case of REC and CERV, 23% 
in the case of EfC). EU funds were also frequently indicated by a third of EfC beneficiaries, as were national 
funds  by  CERV  beneficiaries  (23%).  Local  and  regional  funds  were  mentioned  by  about  a  fifth  of 
respondents across all three programmes. Most unsuccessful applicants (74%) reported that they would 
consider applying for funding under CERV in the future, and one fifth (20%) reported that they were ‘not 
sure’. 

4.4. 

Targeted survey of third-party beneficiaries 

Overall, 212 respondents participated in the survey of third-party beneficiaries (i.e. beneficiaries of grants 
re-granted through intermediaries under the CERV programme). They came from 10 EU Member States163, 
with most from Poland (25%, 52 of 212), Bulgaria (21%, 45 of 212), and Greece (17%, 36 of 212). 69% of 
respondents (147 of 212) reported that they would describe their organisation as a ‘grassroot organisation’; 
86% of respondents indicated that they worked with ‘vulnerable groups’, with most covering at least 2-4 
such groups including older people, LGBTIQ+ people, migrants and refugees, people living in poverty, 
people with disabilities, Roma communities, women, young people and children. 

162 Serbia is eligible to participate in the CERV programme under all strands apart from the Union values strand as of 1 January 2023. 
163 Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia, and Spain. 

140 

 
 
Feedback collected from the targeted survey of third-party beneficiaries mainly fed into an accompanying 
case study on support provided to  CSOs, and the evaluation criteria effectiveness, EU added value and 
relevance. By way of summary, this feedback was as follows: 

•  97% of respondents considered the funding they had received through the re-granting mechanism 

‘essential’ and ‘important’ relative to all other funding sources; 

•  82% indicated that this funding had allowed them to achieve results that they would not have been 
able to achieve otherwise (16% responded ‘don’t know’ likely accounting for projects only having 
recently started); 

•  96% strongly agreed or agreed that the funding had enhanced their capacity to deliver projects, 

programmes and initiatives; 

•  90%  strongly  agreed  or  agreed  that  the  funding  had  strengthened  their  sustainability  as  an 

organisation; 

•  91%  indicated  that  the  funding  had  enhanced  their  capacity  for  outreach,  engagement  and 

promotion of participatory processes; 

•  most respondents (74%) indicated that they rated the usefulness of the capacity-building activities 

that they had participated in (organised by intermediaries) as very useful and useful. 

4.5. 

Interviews with beneficiaries 

4.5.1. 

Interviews with EfC beneficiaries 

80 interviews were conducted with former EfC beneficiaries across 24 EU Member States (except Cyprus, 
Estonia, Luxembourg), and Serbia, with a balanced representation by type of grant received and strand. 
There were 21 recurring beneficiaries in CERV. Evidence from the interviews fed into all evaluation criteria 
of the EfC ex post evaluation, and – by way of summary – was as follows: 

•  Visibility:  The  EfC  had  been  well  known  to  larger  organisations  with  prior  experience  of  EU 
funding. Some beneficiaries perceived the promotion of the EfC to have been limited beneficiaries; 
this was found potentially to have caused a barrier to first-time applicants or smaller organisations. 
•  Relevance: There was a consensus among beneficiaries that the programme’s priorities had aligned 
well with the greatest needs in the Member States relating to civic engagement and remembrance. 
•  Application process: Beneficiaries had welcomed the simplifications which had taken place over 
the successive iterations of the programme, although there was some limited negative feedback that 
certain aspects of the application process had become overcomplicated. 

•  Selection process: The selection process was reported as fair and transparent overall, and it was 
noted that appropriate feedback had been given on the outcomes in most cases, though many would 
have liked to see more detail provided on the areas for improvement. 

•  Approach to financing: Beneficiaries had welcomed the introduction of lump sums and unit costs, 
since it had facilitated the cost reporting and simplified the project management processes. Several 
beneficiaries advised that a reduced co-financing rate for smaller CSOs would have enabled better 
access to the programme. 

•  Results:  Results  reported  with  potential  for  long-term  impacts,  included  the  establishment  of 
lasting  cooperation  of  stakeholders,  citizens  and  networks  of  CSOs  across  the  EU,  increased 
fundraising  and  operational  capacity  of  participating  organisations,  and  critical  funding  for 
organisations which received an operating grant and the creation of sustainable outputs and project 
results (such as media, training materials, development of ‘train the trainers’ approaches) which 
can be re-used and disseminated. 

•  Flexibility: The programme was considered to have been flexible enough to respond to unexpected 

global challenges, such as COVID-19 and digitalisation. 

•  Added value: The funding received from the EfC programme had been an important support to 
their  operations,  but  the  majority  did  not  see  it  as  having  been  critical.  However,  the  feedback 

141 

 
highlighted that the funding allowed beneficiaries to achieve more than they would have been able 
to otherwise. 

4.5.2. 

Interviews with REC beneficiaries 

50 interviews were conducted with former REC beneficiaries covering 20 Member States (except Croatia, 
Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovakia), with a balanced representation by type of 
grant received and specific objective. There were 15 recurring beneficiaries in CERV. Evidence from the 
interviews fed into all evaluation criteria of the ex post evaluation of REC. 

Interviews with former beneficiaries of the REC programme confirmed the findings of the first part ex post 
evaluation, adding further nuance and examples of long-term effects of beneficiaries’ projects: 

•  Awareness: As regards general awareness of the programme, beneficiaries had mixed opinions on 
the extent to which the programme had been well-advertised in their sectors at the time but reported 
notable improvements around communication of DG JUST funding opportunities, particularly as 
regards the CERV programme. This was also attributed to the newly established NCPs. 

•  Flexibility:  Former  beneficiaries  were  generally  satisfied  with  the  programme’s  flexibility, 
particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which required significant adjustments in 
terms of project activities and timelines. 

•  Administrative burden: This was considered to have been an important cost component of the 
programme, with interviewees generally reporting that the application and reporting processes had 
been very burdensome and time-consuming. However, former beneficiaries still emphasised that 
the benefits of the programme had outweighed the cost. 

•  Results & impacts: Beneficiaries generally noted that they had met the objectives of their projects, 
or even overachieved. The main challenge identified for implementation was COVID19 and the 
resulting travel restrictions. The main long-term project impacts identified included the creation of 
lasting relations with relevant stakeholders, increased awareness of the project outcomes among 
policy makers, increased awareness about the project topics among target groups, increased internal 
capacity (operating grants), as well as the continued existence and access to project outputs. 

•  Overlaps: Beneficiaries did not note any overlap in REC priorities and topics compared with other 
funds. The exception was the Daphne strand where some thematic similarities were noted compared 
with the Justice programme. 

•  Added value of REC:  Lastly, there were strong opinions about the EU being a very important 
funding  source,  especially  for  national  or  European  civil  society  organisation,  and  that  the 
implementation of beneficiaries’ projects would not have been possible without REC funding. 

4.5.3. 

Interviews with CERV beneficiaries 

97 interviews were conducted with CERV beneficiaries across 26 EU Member States (except Latvia), with 
a balanced representation by type of grant received and strand, including three recipients of contribution 
agreements. Evidence from the interviews fed into all evaluation criteria of the interim evaluation of CERV. 
The  feedback  overwhelmingly  confirmed  that  the  CERV  programme  was  unique,  much  needed  and 
welcomed by beneficiaries, and compared with the two predecessor programmes, progress was noted in 
several areas: 

•  Visibility: The CERV programme was generally considered well-known and well-communicated 
among  larger  organisations;  positive  views  on  communication  were  mainly  linked  to  the 
establishment of NCPs. However, beneficiaries noted that the CERV programme had not managed 
to build a community around the programme (yet) that would regularly meet, exchange ideas, and 
shape programme developments. 

•  Predictability:  The  two-year  work  programmes  were  found  to  have  improved  predictability  in 
anticipating calls, but beneficiaries noted that not all policy areas were covered by calls in all years, 
leading to long gaps for organisations to be able to reapply if unsuccessful. 

142 

 
•  Gender  mainstreaming:  While  there  was  consensus  that  the  increased  gender  mainstreaming 
requirements were a positive development, some beneficiaries found them challenging and would 
have appreciated more guidance on this topic. 

• 

Indicators: While recurrent beneficiaries from REC appreciated the reduced number of indicators, 
those from the EfC found that the reporting process had become more complex. 

•  Lump sums and unit costs: While lump sums were generally welcomed for their flexibility and 
simplified financial reporting, some beneficiaries felt that they incentivised ‘inventing events that 
do not need to exist’. By contrast, unit costs garnered predominantly negative feedback, as they 
were found to complicate cooperation with project partners and internal accounting processes and 
were deemed inappropriately low compared with market prices. 

•  Re-granting  mechanism:  Both  intermediaries  (action  grants)  and  those  operating  grant 
beneficiaries who used re-granting noted that they had very much welcomed this development. It 
was  deemed  to  provide  access  to  EU  funds  for  small  organisations  that  might  have  otherwise 
abstained  from  applying  directly  to  the  Commission  for  fear  of  facing  high  competition  and 
administrative burden. Suggestions for improvement included more peer learning. 

4.6. 

Focus groups with Programme Committee Members 

Three  online  focus  groups  were  conducted  with  13  Programme  Committee  Members  of  all  three 
programmes. Findings from these particularly fed into the evaluation criteria effectiveness, EU added value 
and  relevance  of  the  ex post  evaluation  of  the  EfC  and  interim  evaluation  of  CERV.  Given  the  limited 
feedback from REC Programme Committee Members, to ensure confidentiality of responses, these were 
excluded from the analysis. By way of summary, the evidence was as follows: 

•  Former  EfC  Programme  Committee  Members  and  CERV  Programme  Committee  Members 
generally felt that there had been sufficient communication with the Commission, however, the 
latter  noted  that  earlier  receipt  of  documents  would  (have)  enabled  greater  consultation  with 
national stakeholders and thus more detailed feedback on drafts of work programmes. 

•  The EfC was considered to have been a popular programme, particularly the Remembrance and 
Town Twinning and Networks of Towns strands. Scope to improve communication about CERV 
was noted, particularly its visibility and visual identity, which could be aided by a logo. NCPs were 
considered a key strength of the CERV programme for improving awareness at national and local 
levels. 

•  While under the EfC, the Town Twinning and Networks of Towns strand was deemed to have been 
undervalued given its popularity and accessibility to small municipalities. Under CERV, Strand 2 
– Equality, rights and gender equality was felt to require a significant increase in budget to account 
for the number and seriousness of policy areas covered. 

•  Former  EfC  Programme  Committee  Members  noted  that  programme  implementation  had  been 
successful overall but emphasised that lump sums and co-financing requirements might have been 
ill-suited or overly burdensome for small organisations. 

•  As regards CERV, Programme Committee Members noted further scope to improve the programme 
architecture  in  terms  of  coherence  and  streamlining  of  the  structure,  to  make  it  easier  for  new 
applicants  to  navigate  the  programme.  Other  CERV  developments,  such  as  the  re-granting 
mechanism,  were  considered  positive  in  expanding  the  programme’s  reach  to  grassroot 
organisations, while the two-year work programmes were felt to have improved predictability of 
the programme overall. 

•  Former EfC Programme Committee Members noted similarities between EfC, Creative Europe and 
Erasmus+, but emphasised that the EfC had supported very specific types of activities and that 
there  were  no  overlaps  between  the  programmes.  Similarly,  CERV  Programme  Committee 
Members  called  the  CERV  programme  ‘unique’  in  its  priorities  and  types  of  activities  funded. 
However, they felt that the similarity of topics covered by AMIF, ESF+ and Erasmus+ warranted 
further exploration of synergies between these programmes. 

143 

 
4.7. 

Consultations with EfC and CERV NCPs 

A survey of NCPs was conducted, which garnered 14 responses. Respondents were not asked about the 
country  in  which  they  were  based  to  ensure  anonymity.  Additionally,  two  online  focus  groups  were 
conducted that were joined by NCPs based in 8 EU Member States, namely Estonia, France, Italy, Latvia, 
Netherlands, Portugal, Romania and Sweden. Evidence from the survey and focus groups with NCPs fed 
into answers to all evaluation criteria for both the ex post evaluation of EfC and the interim evaluation of 
CERV. By way of summary, the evidence presents as follows: 

•  Compared with the EfC, which participants felt had managed to achieve wide recognition among 
NGOs  and  municipalities,  the  CERV  programme  was  felt  to  still  require  extensive 
communication efforts to achieve the same popularity. 

•  Communication activities have centred on digital and social media communication, as well as 
direct outreach. This last was considered crucial to reach new organisations with less experience in 
EU funds, particularly in remote regions. 

•  Questions  from  potential  applicants  mainly  centred  on  the  financial  aspects  of  application 
processes  and  came  from  organisations  with  less  experience  with  EU  funding  and  writing 
proposals. 

•  There  was  consensus  that  the  Commission  has  been  very  supportive  and  had  an  adequate 
infrastructure in place to address any questions quickly and usefully, although more access to data 
would be welcomed to allow NCPs to have better insights into the functioning of the programme 
in their country to aid targeted outreach and support to unsuccessful applicants. 

•  Specific  barriers  to  increasing  the  number  and  quality  of  applications  included  guidance 
documents being predominantly in English, limited knowledge and capacity of small organisations 
and municipalities to develop quality proposals, the reputation of the CERV application  process 
being  burdensome  and  complex,  as  well  as  technological  barriers  in  using  the  EU  Funding  & 
Tenders Portal. 

• 

Innovations under CERV were felt to have been welcomed by all interested parties for improving 
accessibility to small organisations (re-granting mechanism), reduced monitoring burden, greater 
focus on results reporting, predictability of the programme, and improved gender equality. 

4.8. 

Deliberative workshops with stakeholders and citizens 

44 deliberative workshops were conducted with stakeholders and citizens which fed into the EU added 
value,  relevance  and  effectiveness  assessment  of  the  CERV  programme.  The  stakeholders  consulted 
included  EU  networks  (specifically  working  within  the  policy  areas  covered  by  Strand  2  of  CERV  – 
Equality, rights and gender equality) and national stakeholders working in the areas covered by Strand 3 of 
CERV – Citizens’ engagement and participation. Citizens were also consulted on the topics covered by 
Strand 3. Overall, 14 EU networks, 65 national stakeholders and 164 citizens participated in the deliberative 
workshops – stakeholders and citizens came from Austria, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Ireland, Latvia, France, 
Poland, Romania, and Sweden. 

There was consensus among participants that the CERV programme and EU funding more broadly bring 
significant added value, especially considering the lack of national funding opportunities of similar value. 
While ‘more is always better’, participants generally considered CERV is already an ideal EU programme 
in terms of the type and amount of the funding opportunities. However, the programme was considered less 
ideal with regard to the application process due to the high burden it placed on applicants, in particular for 
smaller and grassroot organisations. There was also consensus that there was a great need for the CERV 
programme to continue and grow in funding available to address pressing societal needs. 

Citizens  also  perceived  that  the  CERV  programme  had  a  clear  added  value  as  it  addressed  gaps  at  the 
national level – most found that their national governments would not fund the types of projects funded by 
CERV, or at least not to the same extent and certainly not on a transnational scale. They also found that the 
CERV programme provided for more ‘objective’ projects in the sense of not being politically motivated or 
driven by national interests. They considered the thematic areas covered under Strand 3 to be important and 

144 

 
complementary  but  gave  mixed  responses  as  to  which  they  considered  the  most  important.  However, 
overall, civic engagement was rated as most important followed by town twinning projects as these were 
felt to engage citizens more directly and to have a more important impact in encouraging civic engagement, 
promoting democratic values, and strengthening the social fabric of their communities. 

4.9. 

Public consultation 

The public consultation was launched on 4 April 2024 on the  ‘Have your say’ website of the European 
Commission164 and was open for 12 weeks (closing on 27 June 2024). The purpose of the consultation was 
to strengthen the evidence base for the evaluation of the REC, EfC and CERV programmes by gathering 
the views of relevant stakeholders on the programmes’ effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, and 
EU added value. 

Overall,  53  contributions  to  the survey  were  received  from  stakeholders  in  16  EU  Member  States. The 
largest proportion was from Belgium (26%, 14 of 53), followed by Italy (13%, 7 of 53), and Germany (11%, 
6 of 53). More than half the respondents submitted their contributions as NGOs (55%, 29 of 53), followed 
by 21% (11 of 53) as EU citizens and 13% (7 of 53) as public authorities. 

There  were  40  contributions  to  the  ‘expert  part’  of  the  consultation,  where  respondents  were  asked  to 
provide more detailed answers about the programmes – 34 respondents who contributed as an organisation, 
and six respondents who contributed as EU citizens. Most respondents were familiar with the programmes: 
98%  (39  of  40)  with  CERV,  68%  (27  of  40)  with  REC,  and  60%  (24  of  40)  with  the  EfC.  Seventeen 
respondents, consisting of 15 NGOs, one business association, and one EU citizen, submitted a total of nine 
unique position papers in support of their contribution to the public consultation. Two of the position papers 
were submitted multiple times. 

By way of summary, the key findings were: 

Most respondents were ‘to a great extent’ or ‘to some extent’ aware of EU funding provided for the policy 
areas covered by the three programmes. 94% agreed that activities targeting gender-based violence and 
violence against children, young people and other groups were highly beneficial, followed by combating 
all forms of discrimination (91%), gender equality (89%), non-discrimination (89%), citizens’ rights and 
the rights of persons with disabilities (89%), children’s rights (89%), data protection (85%), democratic 
participation (83%), consumer rights (79%) and EU funding for activities on EU Remembrance 64%.Most 
respondents thought that the programmes contributed to the objectives of: citizens cooperating better with 
one another across borders (72%, 38 of 53); citizens feeling that they belong to the European Union (66%, 
35  of  53);  citizens  being  more  aware  of  gender-based  violence  (72%,  38  of  53);  promote  a  better 
understanding of EU citizens’ rights (73%, 39 of 53). 

There  were  high  levels  of  agreement  that  the  three  programmes  had  contributed  to  achieving  their 
objectives, and that there was sufficient funding available from the programmes to support the types of 
activities  in  which  respondents’  organisations  were  interested.  This  confirmed  the  effectiveness  and 
efficiency of the programmes. Large proportions of respondents also indicated that the objectives of the 
programmes remained relevant – in the case of CERV, the objective concerning a more democratic EU, 
respect for the rule of law, fundamental rights, and democratic dialogue was unanimously deemed relevant. 

If  CERV  funding  were  to  cease,  the  potential  consequences,  as  perceived  by  respondents,  painted  a 
concerning picture. A significant majority agreed that the civil space would shrink further or that progress 
towards gender equality would slow (88%), and that the sense of European citizenship and identity would 
decline (91%). 

Overall, the position papers reflected a consensus on the importance of a coordinated, flexible, and inclusive 
approach  to  funding  and  supporting  democratic  values  and  rights  within  the  CERV  programme.  The 
position papers generally shared a consensus on the importance of the CERV programme and its role in 
supporting  civil  society  and  fundamental  rights.  A  summary  report  was  published  on  the  European 
Commission ‘Have your say’ webpage165 in August 2024. 

164 Public consultation (europa.eu). 
165 Ibid. 

145 

 
 
4.10. 

Expert interviews 

Six expert interviews were conducted pertaining to each of the four strands of the CERV programme. These 
interviews confirmed the conclusions and lessons learned as regards the relevance and EU added value of 
the programme. 

146 

 
ANNEX VI: STATE OF PLAY IN THE POLICY AREAS OF CERV 

Equality, rights, discrimination and violence 

European  societies  continue  to  face  challenges  such  as  discrimination166,  violence,  and 
inequality. The COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine have 
exacerbated  these  issues,  particularly  affecting  vulnerable  groups  like  children,  people 
with disabilities, and women. The pandemic has led to  increased domestic violence167, 
digital  inequality168,  and mental  health  concerns169170,  while  the  war  has  resulted  in  a 
surge  in  trafficking  and  sexual  violence  against  girls  and  young  women  entering  EU 
Member States in need of protection171. As revealed by a 2023 Special Eurobarometer172, 
discrimination remains widespread, with 42% of respondents agreeing to this statement 
on the grounds of religion or belief, 45% based on age, 49% based on disability, and 54% 
regarding the ground of sexual orientation. 

The pandemic also worsened gender equality in Europe, with employment for women 
reduced by 2.2 million across the EU during the first wave. Work-life balance conflicts 
were heightened, especially for women  with young children aged 0-5 years, and online 
schooling represented a new form of unpaid care for parents, especially women, with a 
study by the European Institute for Gender Equality showing that mothers had to deal with 
interruptions by children more often than fathers while teleworking173. 

Structural  inequalities  between  men  and  women  still  persist  in  the  EU174175,  as 
evidenced by the substantial gender gaps in employment (10.2p.p. in 2023), pay (12.7% in 
2022) and pension retributions (25.4% (age 20-64) in 2023)176. Eurostat data show that, in 
the  EU,  care  responsibilities  keep  some  7.7  million  women  out  of  the  labour  market, 
compared with just 450 000 men. This has, with negative consequences on female labour 
market participation, work and progression, pay and pensions and even in the autonomy 
of life-choices such as, in worst cases, their ability to terminate abusive relationships. 

Racism  –  including  anti-Roma,  anti-black  and  anti-Muslim  racism,  antisemitism, 
LGBTIQ-phobia  and  other  forms  of  intolerance  are  still  deeply  anchored  in  the 

166 EUR-Lex - 52021DC0819 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu). 
167 EIGE (2021), The Covid-19 pandemic and intimate partner violence against women in the EU. Available at: The Covid-19 pandemic 
and intimate partner violence against women in the EU | European Institute for Gender Equality (europa.eu). 
168  Imran,  A.  (2023).  Why  addressing  digital  inequality  should  be  a  priority.  The  Electronic  Journal  of  Information  Systems  in 
Developing  Countries,  89(3),  e12255.  Available  at:  Why  addressing  digital  inequality  should  be  a  priority  -  Imran  -  2023  -  THE 
ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES - Wiley Online Library. 
169 Sorrentino A, Sulla F, Santamato M, di Furia M, Toto GA, Monacis L. Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Affected Cyberbullying and 
Cybervictimisation  Prevalence  among  Children  and  Adolescents?  A  Systematic  Review.  Int  J  Environ  Res  Public  Health.  2023 
May 15;20(10):5825. Available at: Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Affected Cyberbullying and Cybervictimization Prevalence among 
Children and Adolescents? A Systematic Review - PMC (nih.gov). 
170 WHO (2022), Mental Health and COVID-19: Early evidence of the pandemic’s impact. Available at: WHO-2019-nCoV-Sci-Brief-
Mental-health-2022.1-eng.pdf. 
171 UNHCR, Ukraine Situation. Available at: Ukraine situation | Global Focus (unhcr.org). 
172 European Commission, Directorate-General for Communication, ‘Special Eurobarometer 493: Discrimination in the EU (including 
LGBTI)’, version v1.00, 2019, accessed 2024-09-12, http://data.europa.eu/88u/dataset/S2251_91_4_493_ENG. 
173 EIGE (2021), Covid-19 derails gender equality gains. Available at: Covid-19 derails gender equality gains | European Institute for 
Gender Equality (europa.eu). 
174 The gap is even bigger for women belonging to specific groups such as Roma women. According to the FRA Roma Survey 2021, 
the gender employment gap for Roma has reached on average 31 percentage points, compared to 27 percentage points in 2016. 
175 According to the European Disability Forum, women with disabilities have less access to full-time employment compared to men 
with  disabilities,  women  without  disabilities,  and  men  with  disabilities;  EDF-recommendations-on-employment-of-women-with-
disabilities-September-2022-final.pdf (edf-feph.org). 
176 Eurostat: lfsi_emp_a; sdg_05_20; ilc_pnp13. 

147 

 
 
 
European society177178179180. Overall, hate speech and hate crime have been steadily on 
the rise in the past decade181, exacerbated by the spread of digital tools and social media. 

Children are facing obstacles in the fulfilment of their rights, and recent crises have 
aggravated pre-existing gaps and challenges in child protection systems. Offline, 13% to 
29%  of  children  (15-years  old)  in  different  Member  States  reported  being  frequently 
bullied. 13% of 12-16-years-olds in the EU have received unwanted sexual requests online 
multiple times182. 

As shown in a 2023 Eurobarometer183, 49% of respondents think that discrimination based 
on  disability  is  widespread.  While  individuals’  awareness  of  their  data  protection 
rights has increased, an understanding of what this means in practice is still lacking184. 

33% of women in the EU have experienced physical and/or sexual violence185186. It is 
estimated  that  2%  of  LGBTIQ+  persons  in  the  EU  have  been  actually  submitted  to 
‘conversion  practices’  and  5%  have  been  offered  conversion,  although  the  real  figures 
could be much higher. 

EU citizenship, EU values and citizens’ participation 

There  are  still  significant  proportions  of  EU  citizens  who  do  not  identify  as  being 
European and do not feel like citizens of the EU. 

177 EU survey on immigrants and descendants of immigrants | European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (europa.eu). 
178https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2017-eu-minorities-survey-muslims-selected-findings_en.pdf 
Jewish People’s Experiences and Perceptions of Antisemitism – EU Survey of Jewish People (europa.eu). 
179 In Germany, hate crimes against Muslims people or institutions increased by 140% in 2023 over 2022. 
180 LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-2025, UNESCO, Out in the open: education sector responses to violence based on sexual orientation 
and gender identity/expression (2016); NESET II, How to prevent and tackle bullying and school violence (2016). 
181 See for example, Judit Bayer and Petra Bárd, ‘Hate speech and hate crime in the EU and the evaluation of online content regulation 
approaches’,  European  Parliament,  2020.  Data  produced  by  the  EU  funded  project  ‘European  Observatory  on  Online 
Hate’, https://eooh.eu/. 
182 The State of Children in the European Union 2024 | UNICEF European https://www.unicef.org/eu/stories/state-children-european-
union-2024Union. 
183 Discrimination in the European Union - December 2023 - - Eurobarometer survey (europa.eu). 
184 GDPR in practice – Experiences of data protection authorities, FRA report of 11 June. 
2024: GDPR in practice – Experiences of data protection authorities | European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (europa.eu). 
185 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and social Committee and 
the Committee of the Regions, ‘A Union of Equality: Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025’; European Union Agency for Fundamental 
Rights (FRA), ‘Violence against women: an EU-wide survey’, 2014. 
186 Crime, safety and victims’ rights – Fundamental Rights Survey | European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (europa.eu). 

148 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 31: In general, how much do you identify yourself as being European? (%) 

Source: Special Eurobarometer on Values and Identities of EU citizens 

Attitudes  towards  EU  values  –  while  generally  positive  across  the  EU  –  show  large 
discrepancies among the EU-27 Member States. 

149 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 32: What is your attitude to EU values? (EU-27, %) 

Source: Special Eurobarometer on Values and Identities of EU citizens 

There are still significant proportions of EU citizens unaware of the recent history that 
their  country  shares  with  other  European  countries,  and  we  note  pronounced 
differences  between  the  EU-27  Member  States  in  that  regard.  Disinformation  and 
historical  revisionism  are  ripe  online,  exploiting  vulnerabilities  and  specific  target 
groups within European societies. Moreover, Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine 
has  further  highlighted  how  manipulation  of  historical  events  can  be  used  as  a  tool  for 
foreign  interference  to  achieve  strategic  objectives.  It  underscored  the  need  for 
preservation  of  historical  accuracy,  critical  reflection  on  the  past,  and  transmission  of 
memory  to  future  generations  to  counter  hostile  revisionist  narratives  and  pre-empt  a 
repetition of past mistakes. 

While  there  are  no  recent  data  available  on  Holocaust  awareness  among  EU  citizens 
specifically, 2018 Eurobarometer data showed that 1 in 20 Europeans had never heard of 
the Holocaust, and only 43% of Europeans thought it was sufficiently taught in schools. A 
recent  UNESCO  report187  further  highlighted  the  extent  of  Holocaust  denial  and 
distortion  on  social  media,  with  highly  concerning  statistics:  Holocaust  denial  or 
distortion was present on all online platforms and nearly half (49%) of all content on public 
Telegram channels that discussed the Holocaust either denied or distorted its history. 

Citizens’ participation in political and social activities remains limited. Between 2021 
and 2024, there was a notable drop in those who declared that they voted in local, national 
or European elections. 

Figure 33: Did you participate in the voting for local, national or European elections? (EU-
27) (%) 

Source: Special Programme Eurobarometer 2021 & 2024 

187  UNESCO  ((2022),  History  under  attack:  Holocaust  denial  and  distortion  on  social  media.  Available  at:  History  under  attack: 
Holocaust denial and distortion on social media - UNESCO Digital Library. 

150 

 
 
 
 
Moreover, participation in other aspects of political and civic life, such as getting involved 
in  trade  unions,  political  movements  or  parties,  NGOs  and  CSOs,  posting  opinions  on 
online social networks, obtaining information on current issues on online social networks, 
and taking part in volunteering activities or local community projects has remained low. 

As  regards  awareness  of  their  rights  derived  through  EU  citizenship,  an  analysis  of 
Eurobarometer data188 shows that, in 2024, 39% of respondents did not know about their 
rights an EU citizen. 

Figure 34: Are you aware of your rights as an EU citizen189? (%) 

Source: Eurobarometer European Citizenship - May 2024 

As  noted  in  the  2024  Eurobarometer  report190,  around  four  in  ten  EU  citizens  are 
dissatisfied with the way democracy works in their country and in the EU, and one third 

188 European Citizenship-May 2024- European barometer survey report (europa.eu) (European citizenship - Publications Office of the 
EU). 
189 The values of ‘No, not really’ and ‘No, definitely not’ have been combined to ‘No’. 
190 Standard Eurobarometer 101 - spring 2024 - Europeans’ opinions about the European Union priorities (europa.eu). 

151 

 
 
 
feel that the EU’s core values, such as fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law, 
were not well protected in their country. 

Figure 35: On the whole, are you satisfied on how the democracy works in your country 
(EU-27) (2004-2024) (%) 

Source: Eurobarometer 

Women and young people also remain under-represented in political decision-making (the 
Fundamental Rights Report 2024)191. Lack of representation represents a significant missed 
opportunity  and  is  not  conducive  to  ensuring  that  fundamental  rights  violations  are 
properly addressed, if and/when they occur. 

Civil society 

Moreover, the situation of civil society – whose meaningful participation in public affairs 
is crucial for the full implementation of core values of the EU, is uneven across the EU. In 
12  Member  States,  it  is  classified  as  ‘narrow’,  and  in  three  Member  States,  as 
‘obstructed’192. Moreover, CSOs in the EU continued to face verbal attacks by politicians 
and  third  parties,  and  even  government  officials,  as  noted  in  the  2023  FRA  update  on 
‘Protecting  civil  society’193.  Attacks  by  third  parties  and  excessive  state  interference 
continue  to  threaten  the  civil  society  space,  as  do  threats  and  direct  attacks  against 
journalists, which affect media freedom in some EU Member States194. 

191 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2024), Fundamental Rights Report 2024. Available at: Fundamental Rights Report 
― 2023 (europa.eu). 
192 CIVICUS monitor. 
193 European Agency for Fundamental Rights (2023), Protecting Civil Society. Available at: Protecting civil society – Update 2023 | 
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (europa.eu). 
194  Safety  of  Journalists  Platform  and  Council  of  Europe  (2024),  Press  Freedom  in  Europe:  Time  to  Turn  the  Tide.  Available  at: 
1680aeb373 (coe.int). 

152 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 36: Have you experienced any of the following? (EU-27) (%) 

Source: FRA Civic space consultation in 2023 

153 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS 

Term or acronym 

Meaning  

ABAC 

AGs 

AMIF 

CERV 

CIV 

CIV-OG 

CSOs 

DB 

Accrual-Based Accounting 

Action Grants 

Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund 

Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values 

Civil Society (projects) 

Civil Society Organisations and Think Tank 
Operating Grants  

Civil Society Organisations 

Budget discharge (décharge budgétaire) 

DG BUDG 

Directorate-General for Budget 

DG CNECT 

DG COMM 

DG DIGIT 

DG EAC 

DG EMPL 

DG ENV 

DG ESTAT 

DG HOME 

DG INTPA 

DG JUST 

DG NEAR 

Directorate-General for Communication Networks, 
Content and Technology 

Directorate-General for Communication 

Directorate-General for Digital Services 

Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and 
Culture 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs 
and Inclusion 

Directorate-General for Environment 

Directorate-General Statistical Authority of the 
European Union 

Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs 

Directorate-General for International Partnerships 

Directorate-General for Justice & Consumers 

Directorate-General for European Neighbourhood and 
Enlargement Negotiations 

154 

 
DG REFORM 

Directorate-General for Structural Reform Support 

DG REGIO 

DG RTD 

DG SANTE 

EACEA 

EC 

ECI 

EfC 

ESF 

EU 

ISSG 

Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy 

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 

Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety 

Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive 
Agency  

European Commission 

European Citizens’ Initiatives 

Europe for Citizens 

European Social Fund  

European Union 

Inter-Service Steering Group 

LGBTIQ+ 

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex and 
Queer (persons) 

MFF 

NC 

NGOs 

NT 

OGs 

RCHI 

RCIT 

RCON 

RDAP 

RDAT 

RDIB 

RDIS 

Multiannual Financial Framework 

National Coverage 

Non-governmental Organisations 

Networks of Towns  

Operating Grants 

Promote the rights of child 

Promote the rights deriving by EU citizenship 

Enforce consumer rights 

Prevent violence against children, young people, 
women, and other groups at risk 

Ensure the highest level of data protection 

Promote the right of persons with disabilities 

Promote non-discrimination 

155 

 
REC 

REM 

Rights, Equality and Citizenship 

Remembrance (projects) 

REM-OG 

Remembrance Operating Grants 

RGEN 

RRAC 

RSB 

SO 

SWD 

ToR 

TT 

Promote equality between women and men and 
gender mainstreaming 

Prevent and combat racism, xenophobia, homophobia 
and other forms of intolerance 

Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

Specific Objectives 

Staff Working Document 

Terms of Reference 

Town Twinning  

156