REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the ex post evaluation of the Rights, Equality and 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  COM(2025) 266 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the ex post evaluation of the Rights, Equality and 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 {SWD(2025) 133 final}  
 
 
1.  Introduction 

This report presents the findings of the evaluation1 carried out by the European Commission 
and consists of three components: 

(1) the ex post evaluation of the Rights, Equality and Citizenship (REC) programme2, assessing 
its longer-term impact and sustainability effects, on the basis of the results of the first part of 
the ex post evaluation3 completed in 2022; 

(2) the ex post evaluation of the Europe for Citizens (EfC) programme4, assessing the results 
achieved, and its long-term impact and sustainability effects; 

(3) the interim evaluation of the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV) programme5, 
assessing its preliminary achievements. 

In line with the Better Regulation guidelines6, the evaluation assesses these three programmes 
against the effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, EU-added-value and relevance criteria. 

The REC programme aimed7 to contribute to the further development of an area where equality 
and the rights of persons – as enshrined in the Treaty on European Union (TEU), in the Treaty 
on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of 
the  European  Union  and  international  human  rights  conventions  to  which  the  Union  has 
acceded  –  are  promoted,  protected  and  effectively  implemented.  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 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. 

The evaluation is based on evidence gathered through a supporting study carried out by external 
experts8. It takes stock of the preceding impact assessment9 to analyse a possible proposal for 
a  European  culture,  rights  and  values  programme,  and  it  acknowledges  the  REC  interim10 
evaluation,  the  first  part  of  the  REC  ex post  evaluation  and  the  EfC  interim11  evaluation. 
Specifically, the interim evaluation of the CERV programme also draws on the findings of the 
second part of the ex post evaluation of the 2014-2020 REC programme as well as the ex post 
evaluation of the EfC programme12. 

1 See Commission staff working document accompanying the report. 
2 Regulation (EU) No 1381/2013 of 17 December 2013. 
3 Considering that a significant number of projects were still ongoing in 2021, the first part of the ex post evaluation of the REC programme 
(COM/2022/118  final)  provided an overview of  the  funding distribution  and assessed preliminary  achievements. This  report presents  the 
second part of the ex post evaluation and focuses on the long-term impacts and sustainability of the effects of the programme. 
4 Regulation (EU) No 390/2014 of 14 April 2014. 
5 Regulation (EU) No 2021/692 of 28 April 2021. 
6 Better regulation: guidelines and toolbox. 
7 Regulation (EU) No 1381/2013, Art. 3. 
8 Some data quality challenges were identified, particularly with regard to the data availability and analysis for the REC programme, and 
mitigated as far as possible to produce robust findings. 
9 SWD(2018) 290 final. 
10 SWD/2018/358 final. 
11 SWD/2018/086 final. 
12 While the data collection activities for the ex post evaluations of the REC (second part) and EfC programmes on one side and the interim 
evaluation of the CERV programme on the other side were carried out in parallel, the overall evaluation exercise was designed and planned 
as to allow for the findings of the two ex post evaluations to feed the analysis of the interim one.  

1 

 
 
 
The  ex post  evaluations  of  the  REC  and  EfC  programmes  cover  the  implementation  period 
from  1 January  2014  to  31 December  2020  and  all  activities  in  all  participating  countries13 
during that time. The interim evaluation of the CERV programme covers the implementation 
period  from  1 January  2021  to  31 December  2023  and  all  activities  in  all  participating 
countries14 during that time. 

A wide range of stakeholders was consulted, including EU Member States that are members of 
the relevant programme committees, programme applicants and beneficiaries, expert groups, 
agencies, programme contact points, civil society organisations and the public. Overall, more 
than 1 000 stakeholders provided feedback during the entire consultation process15. 

This  report  summarises  the  evaluation’s  key  findings.  It  makes  observations  and  points  out 
areas for improvement that the Commission could consider for the current programming period 
and for the next funding cycle. 

2.  Key evaluation findings 

The  EfC  and  REC  programmes  have  been  effective  in  achieving  their  objectives.  Lessons 
learned from these programmes, including on simplifying procedures for efficiency gains for 
the European Commission and  for beneficiaries, and on visibility, have been translated into 
improvements under the CERV programme. Also, in view of these improvements, it can be 
concluded  that  this  programme  is  on  track  to  achieving  its  objectives.  The  evaluation  also 
concluded that there is a proven need for a programme addressing the issues covered by the 
CERV programme. The key findings presented below are structured along the five evaluation 
criteria, with each criterion addressed for each programme. 

2.1. Effectiveness 

Rights, Equality and Citizenship programme 

The REC programme was effective in meeting its objectives. It effectively reached out to a 
diverse range of organisations, including public authorities, civil society organisations (CSOs) 
and  research  entities,  ensuring  that  broad  stakeholder  groups  benefited  from  its  initiatives. 
These 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 well-distributed across the 
specific objectives, certain groups were more frequently linked with specific goals, indicating 
a flexible and adaptive approach within the programme to effectively meet diverse needs and 
contexts. 

The number of grants and procurement contracts funded, as well as the proportion of the budget 
committed to the nine specific objectives, highlight that the REC programme contributed the 
most to promoting the effective implementation of the principle of non-discrimination and to 
preventing and combating all forms of violence against children, young people, women and 
other  at-risk  groups,  as  per  the  plans  under  the  annual  work  programmes.  However,  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. 

13 All EU Member States, Iceland and Serbia were eligible to participate in the REC programme, while Liechtenstein was eligible for some 
specific objectives only. In addition to all EU Member States, the EfC programme was implemented in six other participating partners: Albania, 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia and Kosovo*. 
* This designation is without prejudice to positions of status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo 
declaration of independence. 
14 The CERV programme applies in all EU Member States. In November 2024,  participating partners also included: Albania, Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, Kosovo, Serbia and Ukraine. 
15 Depending on the identified stakeholder group, dedicated methods and tools were used to conduct the consultations: a questionnaire-based 
online public consultation, 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. 

2 

 
 
 
In  line  with  the  specific  objectives,  one  of  the  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  strategies16.  In  addition,  the female 
employment rate in the EU17 went up from 62.4% to 66.2% by the end of the programme, the 
gender pay gap18  in  the EU  decreased to  12.3%, and the percentage of people that consider 
domestic violence against women unacceptable19 rose from 84% to 96%. These are all positive 
results. 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  the 
corresponding  indicators.  REC  funding  contributed  to  the  organisation  of  the  access  city 
awards,  the  European  day  of  persons  with  disabilities  and  awareness-raising  workshops  in 
Member States, and to implementing the European Disability Card in the Member States. 

The  REC  programme  has  shown  long-term  results  beyond  the  2014-2020  period. 
Numerous  tools  and  mechanisms  for  cross-border  cooperation  and  transnational 
networks were created. Thanks to REC funding, stakeholders were able to work across the 
EU and build long-term relationships to promote and implement their strategies over the longer 
term.  Moreover,  the  types  of  activities  funded  tended  to  produce  longer-term  effects  (e.g. 
increased knowledge and awareness  as a result of training and awareness-raising activities). 
Between 2016 and 2020, more than 2.3 million people participated in training activities. 

The programme had to deal with external factors, with the COVID-19 pandemic having 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).  On  the  positive  side,  the  pandemic  did  encourage 
beneficiaries to make better use of digital technologies and collaborate online. 

The  programme  covered  all  Member  States,  with  the  highest  number  of  projects 
implemented  by  organisations  in  Italy,  Belgium,  Greece  and  Spain.  Overall,  stakeholders 
were  satisfied  with  how  calls  were  publicised  and  information  disseminated.  However, 
smaller,  grassroots  organisations  faced  challenges  in  accessing  information  about  funding 
opportunities, suggesting the need for better outreach and support. 

Europe for Citizens programme 

The EfC programme achieved its general and specific objectives. While it is not possible 
to establish causality, Eurobarometer data indicates that the percentage of EU citizens feeling 
European20 increased from 63% in 2014 to reach 72% in 2023, well beyond the programme’s 
target of 59%. In line with the performance-related indicators set by Regulation 390/201421, 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. 
These  numbers  are  significant,  but  the  estimate  should  be  made  cautiously  because  of  the 
caveats concerning the quality of the reporting on participant numbers. 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 
citizenship survey over the years. 

16 This number rose from zero in 2013 to one in all 27 Member States by 2023. 
17 Eurostat, ‘Employment and activity by sex and age - annual data’, https://doi.org/10.2908/LFSI_EMP_A. 
18 Eurostat, ‘Gender pay gap in unadjusted form by NACE Rev. 2 activity’, https://doi.org/10.2908/EARN_GR_GPGR2.   
19 Special Eurobarometer 449: Gender-based violence, doi:10.2838/009088. 
20 Indicator used as a proxy for the contribution 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. 
21 Regulation (EU) No 390/2014 of 14 April 2014, Article 15 and Annex III. 

3 

 
 
 
Beneficiaries considered that their projects had achieved their expected results. A third of the 
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  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  value22,  low  administrative  burden,  inclusivity  and  broad 
thematic scope were success factors which enhanced long-term impact. 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 non-governmental organisations  working with vulnerable 
groups, and the creation of regional stakeholder dialogue platforms. 

The most significant unexpected effects on the programme related to the COVID-19 pandemic, 
which  resulted  in  projects  facing  delays  or  significant  challenges  to  their  implementation. 
However, this did not necessarily affect outcomes because beneficiaries adapted quickly and, 
as 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. 

Grants were awarded to beneficiaries in all Member States. The programme was mainly 
visible  to  larger,  well-networked  eligible  organisations  with  a  strong  focus  on  seeking 
funding opportunities. Beneficiaries 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 (peaking at 66% in 2019), which indicates that potential applicants had been or 
had become aware of the programme. 

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 
indicators’ 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 
judgement. 

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 value23, and planned realistic and sustainable results24. 
There was consensus across all stakeholders consulted that the re-granting mechanisms in the 
areas 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 

22 i.e. facilitating international cooperation across the EU, creating networks in niche thematic areas and exchanging best practice with like-
minded organisations. 
23 Beneficiaries interviewed and surveyed considered the EU dimension of the programme a key strength and motivating factor 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. 
24 The first grant awarded was often a stepping stone into further developing methodologies and approaches for the project(s) that followed, 
and helped to consolidate organisations’ networks. 

4 

 
 
 
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, Brexit25 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 programmes26, thus 
maintaining the programme’s relevance. 

The programme’s visibility mainly  relies  on the  CERV  national  contact  points  (NCPs) and 
information webinars. Information is also shared via several other channels27, which reach out 
to potential applicants throughout the EU. 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. 

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 programmes28. 

The  CERV  programme  demonstrates  a  strong  commitment  to  mainstreaming  gender 
equality  and  promoting  a  more  inclusive  and  equitable  approach  to  its  activities.  To 
ensure effective implementation, and based on practices already started under its predecessor 
programmes, the programme has integrated gender equality  into its  calls  for proposals  and 
evaluation methodology2930. Furthermore, each project financed through grants is also assessed 
and scored based on its contribution to gender equality. Nevertheless, despite the significant 
training  and  guidance  efforts,  a  considerable  number  of  beneficiaries  continued  to  find 
including the gender perspective a challenge. Comparisons between the gender scores31 of the 
CERV programme and equivalent EU funding programmes32 shows that the CERV programme 
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. Between 2021-
2023, every fourth euro of CERV financing from grants contributed strongly to gender 

25 Several interviewees regretted that the UK had chosen not to negotiate participation in the CERV programme. 
26 Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine was emphasised in the 2023-2025 CERV work programme, particularly in calls for proposals 
on European remembrance (i.e. noting the challenge of historical distortion and revisionism), on children’s rights (i.e. mental health) and 
gender-based  violence and violence against children  (i.e.  support  to victims  of  war crimes).  The emphasis on  ‘solidarity’ under  Strand  3 
(citizens’ engagement and participation) can also be considered as a response to both Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and COVID-
19. 
27 Such as a DG JUST newsletter launched in 2019, the EU Funding & Tenders portal, call for proposals information sessions, etc. 
28 Considering these findings, the absence of NCPs in Belgium, Bulgaria, Ireland, Malta, Hungary and Poland does not appear to have had 
an  impact  on  geographical  balance  in  2021-2023,  taking  into  account  the  presence  of  other  information  channels  that  targeted  potential 
applicants. 
29 Applicants must demonstrate how they will respect and monitor gender equality during project implementation, and experts contracted to 
support  the  evaluation  of  proposals  are  trained  on  tracking  expenditure  related  to  gender  equality,  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. 
30 Information sessions and Q&A documents provide guidance on incorporating a gender perspective into proposals. 
31 Gender scores are assigned to project proposals as part of the Commission’s work to mainstream gender equality in the EU budget. 
32 The asylum, migration and integration fund (AMIF), the creative Europe programme, the European social fund plus (ESF+), Erasmus+, 
Horizon Europe, the justice programme, the LIFE programme. 

5 

 
 
 
equality; additionally, about half of all the grants funded projects closely intertwined with the 
promotion of gender equality33. 

2.2. Efficiency 

Rights, Equality and Citizenship programme 

The REC Regulation set a budget of EUR 439 476 000 for 2014-2020, with yearly amounts set 
out in the work programmes. By August 2024, 91% of the committed budget had been spent 
on  grants  and  procurement34.  Despite  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  beneficiaries  confirmed 
spending the funding they were awarded as planned, even though the pandemic was still the 
most frequently cited factor impacting expenditures. On the one hand, it reduced 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  feedback  they  received.  The  introduction  of  the 
eGrants portal in 2016 led to mixed reactions: while some appreciated the ease of use, others 
faced technical difficulties. The current evaluation confirmed the results of the first part of the 
ex post evaluation that small organisations, such as civil society and grassroots organisations, 
struggled with securing the required 20% level of co-financing. Stakeholders considered both 
the  application  and  reporting  burdensome35.  Stakeholders  proposed  a  shift  towards  a  more 
results-oriented  approach,  which  was  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 million, and in 
2020 by EUR 6.9 million. Except for 2014 and 2020, programme expenditure remained stable 
over the years and in line with the plans made in the respective work programmes. 

Success rates varied greatly36, with a high number of good quality proposals that could not be 
funded. The benefits of the EfC programme outweighed the costs to beneficiaries, with 
most  beneficiaries  successfully  absorbing  the  funding  they  were  awarded;  those  that 
experienced difficulties absorbing the funds did so because of the extraordinary circumstances 
that  arose  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  Nearly  all  the  EfC  beneficiaries  consulted 
considered  the  application  process  to  be  clear,  accessible,  simple  and  straightforward.  It  is 

33  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. 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 With payments still outstanding of several grants that ended in 2024, this percentage is likely to further increase. 
35  Some  of  the  feedback  received  concerned  unnecessary  repetition  in  reporting  and  changes  to  the  reporting  requirements  during  the 
implementation period. 
36 Ranging from only 6% for civil society projects to 30% for proposals in the first phase of Town Twinning. 

6 

 
 
 
 
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). For 
some EfC beneficiaries, the transition to the eGrants system may have presented challenges, 
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 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. 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. 

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 borne by beneficiaries due to their participation. 

The main benefits of the funding were directly project related (i.e. the ability to implement 
the  desired  approach),  but  also  related  to  increased  networking  and  collaboration  with 
partners in other countries, and enhanced visibility and recognition of the organisation 
because it received EU funding. The opportunity to test innovative approaches to address 
societal  challenges,  involving  new  types  of  stakeholders  and  benefiting  their  target  groups 
through greater capacity development, were also found to be important benefits of the funding. 
However,  the  cost-of-living  crisis  meant  that  the  benefits  of  the  funding  were  significantly 
reduced, with many beneficiaries struggling to maintain the planned project budgets and, in 
some cases, having to adjust the range of planned activities. 
The main effects of the  new implementation  features37 introduced by the Commission 
under the CERV programme have improved predictability, cut red tape, strengthened 
programme  monitoring38  and  included  more  grassroots  and  smaller  organisations 
through re-granting mechanisms39. One exception to this overall simplification and cutting of 
red tape are unit costs. Their introduction at Commission corporate level appears to have added 

37 Multiannual work programmes, lump sums, re-granting mechanism, programme performance monitoring framework. 
38 A programme performance monitoring framework is in place and there are dedicated data collection tools for collecting indicators on outputs 
and outcomes. 
39 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 grassroots organisations through simplified application processes 
facilitated by 'intermediaries'. 

7 

 
 
 
complexity, especially as they do not reflect the actual costs of activities and raise challenging 
limitations on travel costs. 

The application process is timely, 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. The 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 applicants from applying when the effort required to apply is higher 
than the relatively limited grant amount expected. 

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 applications40. 

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 results oriented. 

The  limited  inefficiencies  found  related  to  reporting  requirements  for  operating  grant 
beneficiaries41. The process of requesting budgetary amendments was also highlighted as 
burdensome. Data collection through the EU Survey on Justice, Rights and Values – one of 
the  programme’s  monitoring  tools  –  was  also  criticised  for  its  lack  of  relevance  for  target 
groups, its length, and the requirement to collect equality data42. 

The evaluation also identified the eGrants system’s lack of user-friendliness and technical 
issues as an important factor impacting the efficiency of the programme43. 

Finally,  the  small  number  of  information  and  communications  technology  (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. 

2.3. 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 
priorities. The programme funded 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.  It  empowered 
LGBTIQ+ people, supported victims of hate crime and promoted their rights. Activities were 
funded to support people with disabilities and promote their rights, and to support Roma people 
and  promote  their  inclusion  and  rights.  The  programme  also  funded  activities  to  improve 
equality  through  economic  independence,  reconciling  professional  and  private  life  and 

40 For example, applicants suggested improving clarity on the terminology and methodology used and introducing more specific examples and 
best practices to follow. 
41 The timing of reports did not always align with the beneficiaries’ financial years, leading to requests for extensions. This was often due to 
the fact that the required data was not yet available at the scheduled reporting time, because it was dependent on the beneficiary’s financial 
year-end closure. The reporting template was also designed for project-based reporting, which may not be considered suitable by all types of 
beneficiaries. 
42 The survey was adapted in September 2024 on the basis of previous feedback from beneficiaries. 
43 Although the system was recently revised, its effectiveness could not be assessed within the scope of this evaluation. 

8 

 
 
 
reducing  the  gender  pay  gap,  but  also  activities  aimed  at  ending  gender-based  violence.  In 
addition, gender mainstreaming and the promotion of gender equality were integrated into the 
programme design: they had to be integrated and evaluated in all projects funded, ensuring that 
gender equality could be part of the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the 
activities. 

The REC programme also contributed to the new Commission priorities44 set by President von 
der Leyen for 2019-2024. 

The  REC  programme  complemented  other  EU  funding  instruments45.  Coherence  was 
ensured through the different stages of the programme’s lifecycle: from the objectives set by 
the Regulation, through implementation (annual work programmes), and until project kick-off. 
About a third of REC beneficiaries consulted for this evaluation declared that they had received 
funding from other sources46. 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.  As  with  the  REC 
programme, the evaluation found that the EfC programme was aligned with the Commission’s 
priorities for 2014-2020, but also demonstrated flexibility to adapt to the priorities of the new 
Commission  for  2019-2024.  Projects  funded  under  the  programme  addressed  critical  issues 
such  as  fake  news,  media  literacy  and  e-democracy.  Many  addressed  solidarity  and  social 
inclusion, the use of digital tools to enhance democratic engagement, and the upholding of EU 
values. Overall, all projects sought to encourage 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 (i.e. 
almost  half  of  the  estimated  direct  participants).  The  programme  facilitated  bottom-up 
activities contributing to key EU priorities. 

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 
programmes47, supporting unique activities that enhanced its distinct contribution to EU goals. 
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 the programme’s role in promoting a shared European 
identity. 

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 

44 A Union that strives for more. My agenda for Europe. Political guidelines for the next European Commission 2019-2024 
45 Such as: Erasmus+, the justice programme, Horizon 2020, AMIF, ESF, creative Europe and the European regional development fund. 
46 e.g. from United Nations’ agencies or the Visegrad fund. 
47 Such as Erasmus+,  creative Europe and the European  social fund. 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. 

9 

 
 
 
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). 

In  terms  of  internal  coherence  across  the  four  programme  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 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 Goals. International commitments are 
systematically cross-referenced in calls. Results 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. 

2.4. EU added value 

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. 

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  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.  The  outputs  of  these  activities 
continued to be used after the projects 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 
highlighted that REC funding had been fundamental to their organisation, and that they would 
not have been able to remain operational otherwise. 

Europe for Citizens programme 

10 

 
 
It is likely that the impacts identified through the EfC programme would not have been 
achieved  without  the  programme’s  specific  EU-level  support.  Many beneficiaries  would 
have struggled to implement projects on a similar scale or with the same impact. 

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 national level. At programme level, 70% of projects included a 
transnational partnership. By facilitating cross-border partnerships and the exchange of best 
practice, 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. 

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

Most  stakeholders  consulted  considered  the  public  funding  for  transnational  projects 
addressing  rights  and  societal  challenges  in  Member  States  to  be  minimal  to  non-existent. 
Many CSOs also faced challenges to obtain national funds in the areas of equality and non-
discrimination, and combating violence against women. 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  also  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. 

2.5. Relevance 

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 

11 

 
 
discrimination  against  LGBTIQ+  people,  Roma,  persons  with  disabilities  and  older 
people. Issues such as hate crime, 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 progress48 to achieve full equality and fundamental rights across the EU emphasises 
the continued relevance of the programme’s objectives, while the high application rates under 
various  specific  objectives  confirmed  the  strong  demand  for  support.  The  flexible 
programming ensured that the REC programme could respond to the dynamic socio-political 
landscape within the EU and remain relevant to the evolving needs of stakeholders and citizens. 

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  beneficiaries’  requirements49.  The  programme  also 
helped networks grow and consolidate, which was crucial for widening the activities’ impact 
and fostering international collaboration. 

Some  beneficiaries  suggested  the  following  areas  of  improvement:  more  attention  to 
intersectionality in addressing gender and social inclusion issues; a greater focus on emerging 
issues  such  as  disinformation,  mental  health  and  early  childhood  development,  and  the 
inclusion of non-EU countries for better 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 today. The programme’s structure 

48 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. 
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. 
49 For example, many beneficiaries of operating grants noted that capacity-building efforts supported their organisational development and 
long-term sustainability. Many beneficiaries also highlighted that the funding enabled them to undertake projects that they would otherwise 
not have been able to perform. This funding often served as a foundation for further project development and methodological advancements. 

12 

 
 
 
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. 

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 objectives were still relevant to the current challenges and needs 
in  their  Member  States.  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 
2021/69250. 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. 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. 

The  evidence  points  to  a  very  strong  alignment  between  the  needs  of  the  target 
stakeholders,  including  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 it also 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. 

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 organisations. The funding enabled them to implement 
projects that they would not have been able to implement otherwise, and these projects often 
created a basis for further project work51. 

The  thematic  focus  of  the  calls52  published  between  2021  and  2023  was  relevant  to  most 
stakeholders  consulted  for  this  evaluation:  it  is  one  of  the  key  strengths  of  the  programme. 
However, some gaps remain, mainly concerning greater inclusion of themes related to climate 

50 Regulation (EU) No 2021/692 of 28 April 2021, Article 2. 
51 In terms of approaches and materials. 
52 These included, for example, such topics as capacity building and awareness of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; fighting against any 
form  of  intolerance,  racism,  xenophobia  and  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. 

13 

 
 
 
change and energy, intersectionality, service provision, disinformation, 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. 

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 and 
the consequences of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, as well as thematically. 

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. 

3.  Conclusions and lessons learned 

3.1. Conclusions 

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. Based on the findings of this evaluation, 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. 

Both  the  EfC  and  REC  programmes  supported  projects  which  generated  results  with 
potential for long-term impacts53. A significant number of beneficiaries in both programmes 
were also recurrent beneficiaries of action grants under the CERV programme. 

Between  2021  and  2023,  the  CERV  programme  reached  3 033  CSOs  with  support  and 
capacity building activities across all Member States. Overall, projects awarded in 2021-2023 
are  expected  to  engage  at  least  44  million  people.  The  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 project continuity and the close alignment between call documents and EU priorities 
hint  at  the  fact  that  projects  are  contributing  sustainably  to  achieving  the  programme’s 
objectives. 

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. 

Although the predecessor programmes already covered all Member States, the geographical 
balance has improved under the CERV programme, with a higher proportion of projects in 
Eastern Europe. NCPs and the services that they provide to potential applicants are a key 
strength of the programme. Nevertheless, their delayed appointment or even their absence in 
some  EU  Member  States  has  not  led  to  an  underrepresentation  of  beneficiaries  from  those 
Member States so far. Visibility of the programme is still limited, with the programme mainly 
well-known among larger organisations with EU-wide networks. 

The  CERV  programme  has  made  a  strong  contribution  to promoting  gender  equality, 
with  good  practices  that  could  be  highlighted  as  a  model  to  follow  to  promote  gender 

53  Such  as:  the  opportunity  for  young  people  to  engage  with  the  EU;  increased  fundraising  and  operational  capacity  of  participating 
organisations; creation of sustainable outputs and project results which can be re-used and disseminated; and contribution to knowledge sharing 
and awareness raising on specific topics under the thematic scope of the programmes. 

14 

 
 
 
equality – and equality overall – through strategic funding and initiatives. 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. Nevertheless, the evidence pointed to the need to pay more 
attention to intersectionality in addressing gender and social inclusion issues. 

External factors, such as COVID-19, Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, and specific 
national contexts, have had a limited effect  on the CERV programme. COVID-19 impacted 
both  EfC-  and  REC-funded  project  activities;  even  though  the  pandemic  made  adjustments 
necessary,  it  also  encouraged  beneficiaries  to  make  better  use  of  digital  technologies  and 
collaborate online. 

The  new  features  of  the  CERV  programme  have  produced  efficiency  gains  for  the 
Commission  and  beneficiaries,  by  improving  predictability,  strengthening  monitoring, 
and reducing administrative and reporting burden. 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). The CERV programme 
introduced lump-sum funding to further reduce the administrative burden. The introduction of 
unit  costs  at  Commission  corporate  level,  however,  appears  to  have  added  complexity, 
exacerbated by  the fact  that  these  unit costs do  not  reflect the actual costs of  activities and 
impose  unrealistic  limitations  on  travel  costs.  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 lack of a robust monitoring 
framework  for  the  REC  programme  was  addressed  under  the  CERV  programme  by 
streamlining indicators and introducing dedicated data collection tools. 

The main benefits of the CERV programme are directly project related (i.e. the opportunity 
to  implement  a  desired  approach)  but  there  are  also  broader  and  societal  benefits. These 
include  increased  networking  and  collaboration  across  the  EU,  enhanced  visibility  and 
recognition of organisations that receive CERV funding, and the opportunity to test innovative 
approaches  to  address  societal  challenges,  expand  project  target  groups  and  improve 
organisations’ capacities. 

The EfC, REC and CERV programmes have all been coherent  with wider EU policies 
and priorities and complementary in their objectives with other EU funding programmes. 
It is likely that the impacts identified through the EfC and REC programmes would not have 
been  achieved  without  specific  EU-level  support:  beneficiaries  would  have  struggled  to 
implement projects on a similar scale or with the same impact. 

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 still significant, beneficiaries also 
use  other  sources  of  funding  if  they  intersect  with  the  CERV  programme’s  topics  and  if 
synergies are possible. 

15 

 
 
The three programmes all filled roles in the funding landscape that Member States would 
in general not have had the capacity to fulfil. 

The EfC and REC programmes’ funding was crucial for activities requiring cross-border 
cooperation and a broader European perspective, as no similar national or regional schemes 
could  match  the  programmes’  scope  and  scale.  The  EfC  programme  funded  activities  that 
involved citizens and organisations from multiple participating countries, fostering a sense of 
European identity and belonging. 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, and creating 
best practices and tools that were used across different Member States. 

The CERV programme, like its predecessors, provides clear added value. For many CSOs, it is 
their only possible source of funding in this area. 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 
supported by the evidence collected for this evaluation54. 

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 worse e.g. the 
increasing polarisation of society, the rise in populism and extremism, and the threat to EU 
values. Many of these gaps have been further amplified by challenges such as the COVID-19 
pandemic and the economic downturn that followed. 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. 

3.2. 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. 

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. 

Finally, 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 

54 Mainly sourced through consultation of stakeholders and experts, and desk research on relevant trends across the EU Member States. 

16 

 
 
 
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. 

17