COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ programme and final evaluation of the 2014-2020 Erasmus+ programme Accompanying the document Report from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ programme and final evaluation of the 2014-2020 Erasmus+ programme
Date: 2025-07-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, cooperation in the field of education, education, education policy, sport, vocational training, youth policy

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 15.7.2025  SWD(2025) 186 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  Interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ programme and final evaluation of the 2014-2020 Erasmus+ programme  Accompanying the document Report from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ programme and final evaluation of the 2014-2020 Erasmus+ programme {COM(2025) 395 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 4 

1.1 

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION/FITNESS CHECK ....................................... 4 

1.1.1  REGULATORY AND LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATIONS .................................................... 4 

1.1.2  EVALUATION CRITERIA AND FOCUS AREA .................................................................... 4 

1.1.3  METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES............................................................................ 5 

1.1.4  CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS IN DATA ANALYSIS ................................................... 6 

2.  What was the expected outcome of the intervention? ............................................ 7 

2.1  DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVENTION AND ITS OBJECTIVES ....................................... 7 

2.2  MAIN CHANGES INTRODUCED IN THE 2021-2027 PROGRAMMING PERIOD ............... 16 

2.3 

POINT(S) OF COMPARISON ........................................................................................... 17 

3.  How has the situation evolved over the evaluation period? ................................ 18 

3.1  CURRENT STATE OF PLAY ............................................................................................ 18 

4.  Evaluation findings (analytical part) ..................................................................... 25 

4.1.  To what extent was the intervention successful and why? .................................. 25 

4.1.1  EFFECTIVENESS ............................................................................................................ 25 

4.1.1.1 DEGREE OF ACHIEVEMENT OF INTERVENTION LOGIC AGAINST KEY INDICATORS . 26 

4.1.1.2 IMPACT AT INDIVIDUAL LEVEL .................................................................................... 37 

4.1.1.3 IMPACT AT LEVEL OF ORGANISATIONS ....................................................................... 45 

4.1.1.4 SYSTEM AND POLICY IMPACT ...................................................................................... 50 

4.1.1.5 EFFECTIVENESS OF INCLUSION MEASURES ................................................................ 56 

4.1.1.6 EFFECTIVENESS OF PRIORITIES’ IMPLEMENTATION ................................................. 59 

4.1.1.7 VISIBILITY AND DISSEMINATION OF RESULTS ............................................................ 63 

4.1.1.8 EXTERNAL INFLUENCING FACTORS OVER BOTH PROGRAMMING PERIODS ............. 64 

4.1.2  EFFICIENCY ................................................................................................................... 67 

4.1.2.1 SIZE OF BUDGET ............................................................................................................ 67 

4.1.2.2 IMPLEMENTATION MODES AND USER-FRIENDLINESS ................................................ 72 

4.1.2.3 EFFICIENCY GAINS AND SIMPLIFICATION ................................................................... 76 

4.1.2.4 COST-EFFECTIVENESS .................................................................................................. 79 

4.1.2.5 MONITORING MECHANISMS......................................................................................... 88 

4.1.2.6 ANTI-FRAUD MEASURES ............................................................................................... 90 

4.1.3  COHERENCE .................................................................................................................. 91 

 
 
 
 
4.1.3.1 INTERNAL COHERENCE ............................................................................................... 91 

4.1.3.2 EXTERNAL COHERENCE ............................................................................................... 94 

4.2.  How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? ....................... 102 

4.2.1  EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE AS COMPARED TO WHAT COULD BE ACHIEVED AT 
REGIONAL, NATIONAL OR OTHER INTERNATIONAL LEVEL ................................................. 102 

4.2.2  EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE OF ERASMUS+ 2021-2027 COMPARED TO WHAT WAS 
ACHIEVED BY ERASMUS+ 2014-2020 .................................................................................... 106 

4.2.3  EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE AS COMPARED TO WHAT WOULD BE THE MOST LIKELY 
CONSEQUENCES OF DISCONTINUING THE PROGRAMME ...................................................... 107 

4.2.4  CONTRIBUTION TO ‘EUROPEANNESS’ ....................................................................... 108 

4.2.5  INTERNATIONAL ADDED VALUE................................................................................. 110 

4.3.  Is the intervention still relevant? ......................................................................... 111 

4.3.1  RELEVANCE OF PROGRAMME OBJECTIVES AND PRIORITIES .................................. 111 

4.3.2  RELEVANCE TO EMERGING NEEDS FOR SKILLS AND GROWTH ............................... 113 

4.3.3  RELEVANCE TO SOCIO-ECONOMIC NEEDS OF INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANISATIONS 121 

5.  What are the conclusions and lessons learned? .................................................. 124 

5.1  CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................. 124 

5.2 

LESSONS LEARNED ..................................................................................................... 133 

5.2.1.  PROGRAMME ACTIVITIES .......................................................................................... 133 

5.2.2.  MONITORING AND EVALUATION ARRANGEMENTS .................................................. 135 

Annex I:   Procedural Information .............................................................................. 139 

Annex II. Methodology and Analytical models used .................................................. 143 

Annex  III.  Evaluation  matrix  and,  where  relevant,  Details  on  answers  to  the 
evaluation questions (by criterion) ...................................................................... 154 

Annex IV. Overview of benefits and costs and Table on simplification and burden 
reduction ................................................................................................................. 170 

Annex V. Stakeholders consultation - Synopsis report .............................................. 185 

Annex VI. Complementary information on the intervention logics of Erasmus+ 2014-
2020 and Erasmus+ 2021-2027 ............................................................................. 211 

Annex VII. Overview of indicators .............................................................................. 218 

Annex  VIII.  Overview  of  Continued  and  Discontinued  Actions  between  Erasmus+ 
2014-2020 and Erasmus+ 2021-2027 .................................................................... 223 

 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

Accreditation 

Process to ensure that the organisations wishing to receive funding under 
an Action of the Erasmus+ programme comply with a set of qualitative 
standards or pre-requisites laid down by the European Commission for 
that Action 

Adult education 

All forms of non-vocational adult education, whether of a formal, non-
formal or informal nature 

Adult learner 

Any adult who, having completed or being no longer involved in initial 
education or training, returns to some forms of non-vocational continuing 
learning (formal, non-formal or informal). For the purpose of the 
Erasmus+ projects, educational staff (teachers, trainers, educators, 
academic and youth staff, etc.) in any of the Erasmus+ sector cannot be 
considered as adult learners in adult education.  

Basic skills 

Literacy, mathematics, science and technology; these skills are included in 
the key competences. 

Blended mobility 

Combination of physical mobility and a virtual component, facilitating 
collaborative online learning exchange/teamwork 

ECHE (Erasmus Charter 
for Higher Education) 

Informal learning 

International  

An accreditation granted by the European Commission giving the 
possibility to higher education institutions from EU Member States and 
third countries associated to the programme to be eligible to apply and 
participate in learning mobility and cooperation activities under 
Erasmus+. The Charter outlines the fundamental principles an institution 
should adhere to in organising and implementing high quality mobility 
and cooperation.  

Learning resulting from daily activities and experiences which is not 
organised or structured in terms of objectives, time or learning support; it may 
be unintentional from the learner’s perspective. 

In the context of Erasmus+, relates to any action involving at least one EU 
Member State or third country associated to the programme and at least 
one third country not associated to the programme. 

Learning mobility 

Moving physically to a country other than the country of residence, in 
order to undertake study, training or non-formal, or informal learning.  

Newcomer organisation 

Any participating organisation that has not previously received support in 
a given type of action supported by this programme or its predecessor 
programme either as a coordinator or a partner.  

National Agency (NA) 

A body in charge of managing the implementation of the programme at 
national level in a Member State or in a third country associated to the 
programme. One or more National Agencies may exist in each country. 

Non-formal learning 

Learning which takes place through planned learning activities where 
some form of learning support is present, but which is not part of the 
formal education and training system. 

Participant with fewer 
opportunities 

People with fewer opportunities means people who, for economic, social, 
cultural, geographical or health reasons, a migrant background, or for 

 
 
reasons such as disability and educational difficulties or for any other 
reasons, including those that can give rise to discrimination under article 
21 of the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union, face 
obstacles that prevent them from having effective access to opportunities 
under the programme. 

Support, Advanced Learning and Training Opportunities 
Resource centers aiming at improving the quality and impact of the 
Erasmus+ programme through providing resources, expertise and training 
to National Agencies in specific areas. 

A person who, on either a professional or a voluntary basis, is involved in 
education, training or non-formal learning at all levels. Includes 
professors, teachers (including pre-school teachers), trainers, school 
leaders, youth workers, sport staff, early childhood education and care 
staff, non-educational staff and other practitioners involved on a regular 
basis in promoting learning. 

SALTO 

Staff 

TCA (Transnational 
Cooperation activities / 
Training and Cooperation 
Activities)  

Support activities implemented by the National Agencies aiming to 
improve the implementation of the programme in qualitative terms and to 
make it more strategic by building closer links with the relevant elements 
of policy development. The wording ‘Transnational Cooperation 
Activities’ has changed to ‘Training and Cooperation Activities’ in the 
2021-2027 programme 

Third countries not 
associated to the 
programme 

Transnational 

Transversal (soft; life) 
skills 

Vocational Education and 
Training (VET) 

Countries which do not participate fully in the Erasmus+ programme, but 
which may take part (as partners or applicants) in certain Actions of the 
programme. The list of third countries not associated to the programme is 
set out in the Programme Guide  

In the context of Erasmus+, relates, unless otherwise indicated, to any 
activity involving at least two EU Member States and third countries 
associated to the programme 

Include the ability to think critically, be curious and creative, to take 
initiative, to solve problems and work collaboratively, to be able to 
communicate efficiently in a multicultural and interdisciplinary 
environment, to be able to adapt to context and to cope with stress and 
uncertainty. These skills are part of the key competences. 

Vocational education and training is to be understood as the education and 
training which aims to equip young people and adults with knowledge, 
skills and competences required in particular occupations or more broadly 
on the labour market. It may be provided in formal and in non-formal 
settings, at all levels of the European Qualifications Framework (EQF), 
including tertiary level, if applicable.  

Vocational education and 
training (VET) learner 

A person enrolled in an initial or continuous vocational education and 
training programme or a person who has recently graduated or obtained a 
qualification from such a programme. 

Young people 

Youth worker 

In the context of the Erasmus+ programme, individuals aged between 13 
and 30. 

A professional or a volunteer involved in non-formal learning who 
supports young people in their personal socio-educational, and 
professional development. 

 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation/fitness check 

Erasmus+  is  the  European  Union  programme  in  the  fields  of  education  and  training, 
youth and sport. It is one of the EU’s most visible success stories. The 2021-2027 programme 
generation builds on the achievements of its 37 years of existence and on the success of the 
2014-2020  programme,  keeping  substantial  stability  and  continuity  in  the  structure  and 
management mode of the programme compared to the 2014-2020 programme.  

This evaluation is carried out in line with Article 24(2) of Regulation (EU) 2021/817 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council (hereinafter ‘the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ Regulation)1, 
which establishes ‘once sufficient information about the implementation of the Programme is 
available,  but  no  later  than 31 December 2024,  the  Commission  shall  perform  an  interim 
evaluation  of  the  Programme.  That  interim  evaluation  shall  be  accompanied  by  a  final 
evaluation  of  the 2014-2020  Programme,  which  shall  feed  into  the  interim  evaluation’. 
Therefore, this evaluation report covers actions in the period 2014-2020 (final evaluation) and 
2021-2023  (interim  evaluation)  in  all  Member  States,  third  countries  associated  to  the 
programme and third countries not associated to the programme 2.  

The  baseline  for  the  final  evaluation  of  Erasmus+  2014-2020  is  the  mid-term  evaluation 
performed in 20173, while the impact assessment for the 2021-2027 period4 is the baseline for 
the interim evaluation of Erasmus+ 2021-2027. In total, the period 2014-2020 corresponds to 
a total budget of EUR 16.2 billion, while the period 2021-2023 to EUR 10 billion.  

1.1.1  Regulatory and legislative considerations 

As foreseen by Article 24(4) of the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ Regulation, the Commission may on 
the basis of the evaluation put forward a legislative proposal to amend the Regulation. While 
this is not deemed necessary based on the results, it nevertheless provides an opportunity to 
revise budgetary allocations between actions for the final two years of the programme, taking 
into account priorities that were not foreseen at the time of the adoption in 2021. 

1.1.2  Evaluation criteria and focus area 

The evaluation assesses the performance of the programme against the five evaluation criteria 
established  in  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines  and  Toolbox.  In  line  with  the  2021-2027 
Erasmus+  Regulation,  the  interim  evaluation  of  Erasmus+  2021-2027  assesses  ‘the  overall 
effectiveness and performance of the Programme, including as regards new initiatives and the 
delivery of inclusion and simplification measures’. The evaluation also assesses the flexibility 
and agility of the programme to react to unexpected contextual elements such as the COVID-
19  pandemic  (final  and  interim  evaluation),  the  Russian  invasion  of  Ukraine  (interim 
evaluation), rising inflation (interim evaluation), and looks at particular areas highlighted in the 
2021-2027 Erasmus+ Regulation recitals, such as the progress of institutions financed under 
Jean Monnet Actions towards delivering on the programme objectives (interim evaluation).  

1  Regulation  (EU)  2021/817  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  May  2021  establishing 
Erasmus+: the Union Programme for education and training, youth and sport and repealing Regulation (EU) No 
1288/2013 (OJ L 189, 28.5.2021, p. 1). 
2 https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/programme-guide/part-a/eligible-countries  
3 SWD(2018) 40 of 31 January 2018. 
4 SWD(2018) 277 of 30 May 2018. 

4 

 
 
Both the final and the interim evaluations assess the performance of the different (key) actions, 
with higher focus on the activities implemented under key action 1 (KA1, learning mobility) 
and  key  action  2  (KA2,  cooperation  among  organisations)  under  indirect  management 
(approximately 80% of the programme budget of each programming period). They also cover 
the extent to which findings and conclusions differ across the programme fields (education 
and  training-  including  higher  education,  vocational  education  and  training  (VET),  school 
education and adult education - youth and sport), across the different target levels (individual, 
organisational and systemic), key actions and objectives under each programming period.  

The  actions  that  were  discontinued  during  the  2014-2020  programming  period  or  in  the 
transition  to  the  2021-2027  programme  are  only  covered  to  determine  whether  their 
discontinuation determined any loss in terms of EU added value.  

1.1.3  Methodology and data sources 

This Staff Working Document (SWD) on the interim evaluation of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 and 
final evaluation of the predecessor programme has been carried out in line with the Call for 
evidence published in  July  2022 5. It  draws mainly,  among  other sources 6, on the National 
Reports submitted by the Member States and third countries associated to the programme on 
the implementation and impact of Erasmus+ in their respective territories in accordance with 
Article  24(3)  of  the  2021-2027  Erasmus+  Regulation,  and  the  support  study  conducted  by 
ICF  S.A,  (hereinafter  ICF),  under  contract  with  the  European  Commission,  Directorate-
General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (DG EAC) 7. The final report delivered by 
ICF  provides  answers  to  all  evaluation  questions8  defined  in  the  Terms  of  Reference  and 
related  to  the  five  evaluation  criteria.  The  final  report  of  the  contractor  contains  also 
recommendations addressed to the Commission.  

The support study used a broad set of data collection and analytical techniques, drawing on 
both primary and secondary data collection:  

•  Analysis  of  programme  data,  of  project  samples,  a  review  of  approximately  1 500 
reports, scientific papers and programme documentation, and a social media analysis;  

•  a public consultation gathering more than 1200 responses and 64 position papers;  
• 

targeted consultation addressing key stakeholders (more than 250 interviews; 44 case 
studies; surveys to implementing bodies, more than 1 800 project assessors, more than 
50 000 beneficiaries and 5 000 non-beneficiaries; 5 workshops);  
three  meta-analyses 9,  summarizing  the  conclusions  of  scientific  studies  looking  at 
individual  level  impacts  linked  to  the  programme’s  participation,  around  skills 
development, employability and values.  

• 

A counterfactual analysis was also run to assess the effects of participation across beneficiary 
organisations  and  individuals  compared  to  non-participants  (control  groups),  or  before/after 
participation. Moreover, a behavioural analysis was carried out to explore why some learners 

5 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/  
6 Annex II. Methodology and Analytical models used. 
7 See annex I Procedural information. 
8 See annex III for evaluation questions. 
9 The meta-analysis is a popular approach in research for synthesizing data across studies. It has also been used in 
the  field  of  study  abroad  (see,  for  instance,  Di  Pietro,  G.  (2022)  "Studying  Abroad  and  Earnings:  A  Meta-
Analysis", Journal of Economic Surveys, 36(4), 1096-1129). 

5 

 
 
and young people 10 participate in Erasmus+ while others do not, and to shed light on the factors 
that hinder participation.  

1.1.4  Challenges and limitations in data analysis 

Several challenges affected the scope and precision of the evaluation. 

For  the  final  evaluation  of  Erasmus+  2014-2020,  data  were  available  for  the  majority  of 
projects,  which  had  already  been  completed.  However,  8%  of  projects  under  direct 
management were still ongoing at the time of analysis. The overall impact of these projects 
could not yet be fully assessed, though the final dataset for indirect management was nearly 
complete. 

For the interim evaluation of Erasmus+ 2021-2027, several limitations were noted, particularly 
regarding incomplete data for 2023. Some recently launched initiatives—such as sport mobility 
(first call in 2023) and the DiscoverEU inclusion action (launched in 2022)—could not yet be 
fully  assessed.  Additionally,  a  large  proportion  of  ongoing  projects,  especially  large-scale 
partnerships with durations of up to 48 months, remained at an early stage, limiting the ability 
to measure their long-term impact. As of the evaluation cut-off date, 46% of indirectly managed 
projects and 82% of directly managed projects initiated during 2021-2023 were still in progress. 
Moreover, one key challenge in the interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ programme 
stems from the recent adoption of its monitoring and evaluation framework. The Commission 
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2710 11, adopted on 13 September 2023, introduced additional 
indicators to improve the measurement of the programme’s various dimensions. However, at 
the time of this evaluation, the necessary mechanisms, tools, and methodologies outlined in the 
accompanying  SWD12  were  not  yet  fully  operational.  This  limited  the  completeness  of 
monitoring data, making it difficult to assess certain aspects of the programme in a systematic 
way. 

A major limitation, affecting both the final evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020 and the interim 
evaluation of Erasmus+ 2021-2027, relates to challenges in survey-based and counterfactual 
analyses. Survey respondents were recruited differently depending on their status: beneficiaries 
were  selected  from  programme  contact  databases,  while  non-beneficiaries  were  reached 
through social media campaigns. This approach introduced potential comparability issues since 
the  two  groups  may  differ  in  demographics,  engagement  levels,  or  motivations  for 
participation.  Additionally,  since  only  limited  background  characteristics  were  available  in 
programme dashboards, it was difficult to determine to what extent the responses reflected the 
broader Erasmus+ participant population.   

The  counterfactual  analysis,  which  aimed  to  compare  beneficiaries  and  non-beneficiaries, 
controlled for several characteristics. However, the smaller sample size of the non-beneficiary 
group limited its effectiveness in fully accounting for all relevant factors. Although the analysis 
found positive links between Erasmus+ participation and skills, employability, and behavioural 
changes, it could not confirm a direct cause-and-effect relationship. 

Despite these challenges, survey data remains crucial for evaluating Erasmus+, given the lack 
of ability to track individual programme participants over time using  administrative data on 

10 The experiment addressed higher education students, VET learners and young people (youth mobility). 
11  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2023/2710  of  13  September  2023  supplementing  Regulation  (EU) 
2021/817 of the European Parliament and of the Council with provisions on the establishment of a monitoring and 
evaluation framework for the Erasmus+ programme, OJ L 2023/2710, 5.12.2023.  
12 SWD(2023) 296 of 13 September 2023. 

6 

 
 
key post-participation outcomes, such as employment rates, wages, and career progression after 
learning mobility. Consequently, self-reported assessments continue to be the most widely used 
method to gauge the programme’s impact across its various dimensions. 

A  possible  improvement  for  future  evaluations  could  be  to  explore,  in  collaboration  with 
Member  States,  the  feasibility  of  using  unique  identifiers  for  programme  participants.  This 
would allow them to  be identified in  administrative datasets,  which could then complement 
survey findings and enhance reliability. Such an approach could improve the ability to track 
long-term outcomes, such as employment trends and career progression, beyond self-reported 
data. 

To address outlined limitations, the evaluation integrates findings from multiple data sources 
and cross-references results to provide a balanced and comprehensive assessment. The  final 
evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020 has been instrumental in informing the interim evaluation 
of  Erasmus+  2021-2027,  particularly  in  areas  where  strong  continuity  exists  between 
programme generations, such as learning mobility. 

This SWD provides a separate assessment for the final evaluation of the 2014-2020 programme 
and  the  interim  evaluation  of  the  2021-2027  programme  for  the  bulk  of  the  evaluation 
questions.  Given the high  degree of  continuity between the two programme periods, a joint 
analytical  approach  was  adopted  for  (external)  coherence,  EU  added  value,  and  relevance 
criteria. However, also for these aspects, the report highlights key differences between the two 
periods and new developments. This evaluation ultimately serves as a critical tool for assessing 
the impact, effectiveness, and future direction of Erasmus+, ensuring that it continues to shape 
education, training, youth, and sport policies in Europe and beyond for the remainder of this 
programme period and beyond 2027. 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1 Description of the intervention and its objectives 

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 

The 2014-2020 Erasmus+ programme was established under Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 
of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council 13  (hereinafter  ‘the  20214-2020  Erasmus+ 
Regulation’)  as  a  result  of  the  integration  of  all  previously  existing  EU  programmes 
implemented during the period 2007-2013 in the fields of education, training, youth and sport: 
Lifelong  Learning14,  Youth  in  Action,  Erasmus  Mundus,  Edulink,  Tempus,  Alfa  and 
Preparatory  Actions  in  Sport.  Erasmus+  2014-2020  had  an  overall  indicative  financial 
envelope  of  EUR  14.774  billion15  under  Heading  1  (Sustainable  growth)  and  of  EUR  1.68 
billion under Heading 4 (EU as global player) of the EU budget. 

•  Challenges and needs 

Through cooperation in  formal, informal  and non-formal learning, the programme aimed to 
address  the following  challenges:  economic recovery and high  youth  unemployment;  skills' 
mismatches,  low  employability  and  education  poverty;  global  competition  for  talents; 

13  Regulation  (EU)  No  1288/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  December  2013 
establishing 'Erasmus+': the Union programme for education, training, youth and sport and repealing Decisions 
No 1719/2006/EC, No 1720/2006/EC and No 1298/2008/EC, OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 50. 
14 Life-Long Learning was itself composed of 6 sub-programmes including Erasmus, Comenius, Grundtvig, Jean 
Monnet and Leonardo Da Vinci. 
15 Article 18(1) of the 2014-2020 Erasmus+ Regulation. 

7 

 
 
Information and Communication Technology potential and digital divide; social exclusion and 
intolerance;  lack  of  trust  in  the  EU  and  low  participation  in  democratic  life;  threats  to  the 
integrity of sport and, more generally, to common European values.  

•  Objectives 

The  general  objectives  of  Erasmus+  2014-202016  were  to  contribute  to  the  Europe  2020 
strategy for growth and jobs, including the headline education targets 17, as well as the strategic 
framework for European cooperation in education and training (‘ET 2020’), including related 
benchmarks. The programme also aimed to contribute to achieving the overall objectives of the 
renewed framework for European cooperation in the youth field (2010-2018); to developing 
the European dimension in sport, in particular grassroots sport, in line with the Union work 
plan  for  sport;  to  promote  the  sustainable  development  of  partner  countries  in  the  field  of 
higher education, as well as to promoting European values in accordance with Article 2 of the 
Treaty on European Union. 
The specific objectives 18 were structured under the headings of (1) education and training, (2) 
youth and (3) sport, in view of tackling:  

• 

• 
• 
• 

the improvement of the level of key competences and skills, with particular regard to their 
relevance for the labour market and their contribution to a cohesive society;  
the promotion of participation in democratic life in Europe and active citizenship in youth;  
the improvement of quality of youth work and enhanced cooperation in youth 
the  improvement  of  quality,  innovation,  excellence  (including  in  European  studies)  and 
internationalisation  at  the  level  of  organisations  and  staff/practitioners  in  education  and 
training fields;  

•  support  to  the  modernisation  of  education  and  training  systems,  in  particular  through 

• 

• 

evidence-based policy cooperation;  
the  enhancement  of  the  European/international  dimension  of  its  sectors,  including  with 
partner countries in complementarity with the Union's external action;  
the promotion of the Union's linguistic diversity and intercultural awareness, in particular 
in education and training;  

•  cross-border threats to the integrity of sport; support to good governance in sport and dual 

careers of athletes; and  
the promotion of voluntary activities in sport. 

• 

•  Programme design 

For simplification purposes, following the conclusions of the Impact Assessment for Erasmus+ 
2014-2020 19, the programme was based on three cross-cutting key actions. These key actions 
apply to all education and training sectors (higher education, vocational education and training 
(VET), school education and adult education) and to the youth field. This integrated approach 
does not apply to the two stand-alone strands for sport and for European integration studies 
(‘Jean Monnet’). The 2014-2020 programme, therefore, had the following architecture: 

•  Key  Action  1:  Learning  mobility  of  individuals:  opportunities  for  students,  trainees, 
apprentices,  young  people  and  volunteers,  as  well  as  for  professors,  teachers,  trainers, 

16 Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013. 
17 In EU average: rate of early school leavers below 10%; at least 40% of people aged 30–34 having completed 
Higher education. 
18 Articles 5, 11 and 16 of the Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013. 
19 Erasmus+ Impact Assessment, Commission Staff Working Paper, SEC(2011) 1402 of 23.11.2011. 

8 

 
 
youth workers, staff of educational institutions and civil society organisations to undertake 
a learning and/or professional experience in another country. 

•  Key  Action  2:  Cooperation  for  innovation  and  the  exchange  of  good  practices: 
transnational  or  international  projects  promoting  cooperation,  innovation,  exchange  of 
experience  and  know-how  between  different  types  of  organisations  and  institutions 
involved in education, training and youth or in other relevant fields. 

• 

•  Key Action 3: Support for policy reform: actions supporting national authorities and 
stakeholders in defining and implementing new and better coordinated policies in the field 
of education, training and youth. 
Jean Monnet activities: actions aimed at improving the quality of teaching on European 
integration studies, as well as projects and operating grants aimed at promoting discussion, 
reflection on EU issues and enhancing knowledge about the EU and its functioning. 
Sport: cooperation projects, events, studies and other initiatives aimed at implementing 
EU strategies and priorities in the field of sport. 

• 

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 relied on management modes inherited from predecessor programmes, 
involving,  as  main  implementing  bodies,  the  European  Commission,  the  Education, 
Audiovisual  and  Culture  Executive  Agency  (EACEA)  and 
the  National  Agencies 
(implementing a large share of the budget through indirect management). No direct support is 
given  to  individual  beneficiaries 20.  All  support  is  channelled  through  participating 
organisations, which distribute it to individual learners or practitioners. 

In 2019, Serbia joined Erasmus+ as a fully-fledged programme country after 2 years and a half 
of preparatory measures. Therefore, at the end of the programming period,  Erasmus+ 2014-
2020  was  implemented  in  34  countries:  27  EU  Member  States,  3  EFTA  Countries 
(Liechtenstein,  Iceland  and  Norway),  3  candidate  countries  (North  Macedonia,  Türkiye  and 
Serbia),  and  the  United  Kingdom.  In  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  withdrawal 
agreement between the EU and UK 21, Erasmus+ 2014-2020 continued being implemented in 
relation  to  the  UK,  or  entities  and  persons  established  in  the  UK  as  if  the  UK  remained  a 
Member State, without disruption until the closure of the programme 22.  

A graphic representation of the intervention logic of the 2014-2020 programme is summarized 
in the picture below, while a more detailed description of its inputs is given in Annex VI. 

20 Students, trainees, apprentices, pupils, adult learners, young people, volunteers, professors, teachers, trainers, 
youth workers, professionals of organisations active in the fields of education, training and youth. 
21 Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European 
Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ L 29, 31.1.2020, p. 7). 
22 See also 2020 Erasmus+ Programme Guide, p. 22 (https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2021-
09/erasmus_programme_guide_2020_v3_en.pdf).  

9 

 
 
Erasmus+ 2014-2020 - Intervention logic 

10 

 
 
 
Articles 165 and 166 23 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union define the EU 
mandate  in  the  education,  training,  youth  and  sport  areas,  as  follows:  develop  a  European 
dimension  in  education,  encourage  learning  mobility,  stimulate  cooperation  between 
organisations, develop exchange of good practices, encourage the participation of young people 
in  democratic  life,  develop  a  European  dimension  in  sport,  foster  cooperation  with  third 
countries. This sets the scope for the intervention logic of the programme.  

While long-term impacts were not directly measured through programme data, the Erasmus+ 
intervention logic foresees that the programme could contribute to various long-term outcomes 
in education, training, youth, and sport. 

At  the  individual  level,  the  programme  aimed  to  bring  positive  changes  at  both  learners 
(students,  trainees,  apprentices,  young  people)  and  staff/practitioners  (teachers,  trainers, 
youth  workers).  Erasmus+  could  support  higher  education  completion  rates  and  smoother 
transitions to further education. Participants may have experienced better career progression, 
potentially  benefiting  from  increased  employability  and  a  stronger  commitment  to  active 
citizenship. The programme was also seen as having the potential to promote multilingualism 
and intercultural understanding, fostering skills that may have long-term benefits for mobility 
and international collaboration. 

At  the  organisational  level,  the  transnational  cooperation  opportunities  offered  by  the 
Erasmus+  aimed  at  helping  develop  sustainable  institutional  partnerships,  improve  teaching 
quality,  quality  of  youth  work,  and  strengthen  networks  between  educational  institutions, 
businesses,  and  policy  actors.  Over 
the 
internationalisation  of  education  and  training  and  encourage  the  adoption  of  innovative 
teaching and learning methods. 

these  outcomes  may  contribute 

time, 

to 

At the system level, Erasmus+ aimed to strengthen policy coordination in education, training, 
youth, and sport. The programme also aimed at generating stronger awareness about key policy 
challenges  in  education  and  training,  youth  and  sport;  enhancing  mutual  learning  and  good 
practice  exchanges  among  policy  makers  and  key  stakeholders;  supporting  research  and 
training  about  the  EU.  It  was  also  hoped  that  its  influence  could  extend  beyond  education, 
contributing  to  broader  objectives  such  as  social  inclusion,  equality,  and  democratic 
participation. 

Overall, Erasmus+ 2014-2020 aligned with EU strategic objectives, particularly in education, 
training,  and  youth  policy,  as  outlined  in  the  Europe  2020  strategy  and  other  European 
priorities. By fostering mobility, cooperation, and innovation, Erasmus+ was expected to help 
lay the foundation for stronger education systems, a more engaged youth, and a more cohesive 
European society. 

Spill-over between intervention levels were also expected. For instance, it was hoped that the 
mobility  of  learners  and  staff  could  –  in  addition  to  individual-level  results  –  improve  the 
performance  of  the  organisations.  Also,  the  performance  of  individual  organisations  could 
benefit  from  European  cooperation  in  the  fields  of  the  programme,  including  through  its 
modernising effects on national systems and reforms. 

23 These articles set the scope for EU intervention in Education, training, youth and sport: develop a European 
dimension  in  education,  encourage  learning  mobility,  stimulate  cooperation  between  organisations,  develop 
exchange of good practices, encourage the participation of young people in democratic life, develop a European 
dimension in sport, foster cooperation with third countries. 

11 

 
 
However, several external factors exist in the areas of the programme intervention, consisting 
e.g.  of  Member  States’  policy  making  and  spending.  This  makes  it  challenging  to  clearly 
attribute and quantify the specific effects and changes the programme aimed to achieved.  

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 
The 2021-2027 programme is established under Regulation (EU) 2021/817. The programme 
has  a  budget  of  EUR 26.526  billion 24,  complemented  by  about  EUR 2.1 billion  from  EU 
external  cooperation  instruments  (IPA  III  and  NDICI-Global  Europe).  The  programme 
provides  learning  mobility  opportunities  abroad  for  people  of  all  ages  and  invests  in 
cooperation and policy development in the fields of education and training, youth and sport.  

•  Challenges and needs 

The  2021-2027  Erasmus+  programme  emerged  in  response  to  Europe's  evolving  socio-
economic landscape. That context showed the importance of investing in lifelong learning to 
equip  individuals  with  the  necessary  knowledge,  skills  and  competences,  including 
languages, and invest in digital literacy and other forward-looking fields (e.g. climate change, 
clean energy, artificial intelligence, robotics, data analysis, arts/design), with the objective to 
foster resilience and employability, contributing to economic growth and cohesion.  

The impact assessment of the Commission’s proposal for Erasmus+ 2021-2027 identified the 
need to address the Europe-wide trends of limited participation in democratic life and the 
low levels of knowledge and awareness of European matters that have an impact on the lives 
of  all  European  citizens.  By  leveraging  the  pivotal  role  of  education,  the  programme  aimed  to 
bolster EU values such as freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination, fostering social cohesion.  

The impact assessment also identified the need to make Erasmus+ more inclusive, by reaching 
out more and better to people of different ages and from diverse cultural, social and economic 
backgrounds. To close the so-called ‘inclusion gap’, the programme had to tackle the various 
categories of obstacles hindering access to its learning opportunities, simplify access to funding 
and  broaden  societal  participation.  The  programme  also  needed  to  be  more  accessible  for 
newcomers with little or no experience, to organisations with smaller capacity, but also for new 
types  of  organisations  such  as  in  regions,  rural  or  deprived  areas,  people  with  disabilities  and 
community-based grassroots organisations that work directly with disadvantaged learners of all ages. 

Against  a  background  of  global  challenges  and  climate  change,  the  2021-2027  programme 
generation seeks to make economies and lifestyles more sustainable; formal, non-formal and 
informal education are  key to  foster  environmental awareness  and promote  behavioural 
changes towards a greener society. Additionally, high-quality digital education, digital tools 
and platforms, educators with digital skills are essential for European societies to adapt to the 
digital transition. The 2021-2027 Erasmus+ programme endeavours to address also these needs.  

The impact assessment also stressed that international mobility and cooperation with non-
associated  third  countries  –  in  particular  enlargement,  neighbourhood,  industrialised  and 
emerging countries - should be intensified, to better support institutions and organisations in 
Europe in facing the challenges of globalisation. To do so, ensuring synergies with the Union's 
external  instruments  to  pursue  the  goals  of  its  external  actions  was  highlighted  as  key  to 
contribute to human and institutional development in third countries, including in developing 
countries,  and  to  engage  with  their  young  people,  as  an  essential  element  to  building  more 

24  As  established  in  2021-2027  Erasmus+  Regulation,  the  financial  envelope  for  the  implementation  of  the 
Programme  for  the  period  from  2021  to  2027  was  set  at  EUR 24.574  billion  (Article  17(1)),  increased  by  an 
additional allocation of EUR 1.7 billion in constant 2018 prices (Article 17(2)). The latter amount is estimated at 
amounting to EUR 1.951 billion in current prices, for a total amount of EUR 26.526 billion.  

12 

 
 
resilient societies and enhancing trust between cultures. Keeping stability and continuity in 
the overall structure and management mode of the new programme compared to its predecessor 
was another recommendation.  

Based  on  the  findings  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  2014-2020  programme  and 
stakeholders’  consultations,  a  number  of  improvements  were  put  forward  to  address  the 
following challenges:  

•  Closing the knowledge, skills and competences gap;  
•  Making Erasmus+ more inclusive (inclusion gap); 
•  Limited participation in democratic life and sense of European identity; 
•  Limited opportunities for and access to cooperation between organisations from 

different countries; 
Insufficient scope and volume of international (non-EU) mobility and cooperation; 

• 
•  Simplify the access to the programme and reduce burden on beneficiaries;  
•  Foster synergies with other funding instruments. 

•  Objectives 

The general objective 25 of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 is to support, through lifelong learning, the 
educational, professional and personal development of people in education, training, youth and 
sport, in Europe and beyond, thereby contributing to sustainable growth, quality jobs and social 
cohesion, to driving innovation, and to strengthening European identity and active citizenship.  

The programme also has three specific objectives, each addressing specific fields:  

•  Specific  objective  1  in  the  field  of  education  and  training  (including  higher 
education, VET, school education and adult education): to promote learning mobility 
of  individuals  and  groups,  as  well  as  cooperation,  quality,  inclusion  and  equity, 
excellence, creativity and innovation at the level of organisations and policies. 

•  Specific objective 2 in the field of youth: to promote non-formal and informal learning 
mobility and active participation among young people, as well as cooperation, quality, 
inclusion, creativity and innovation at the level of organisations and policies. 

•  Specific objective 3 in the field of sport: to promote learning mobility of sport staff, 
as well as cooperation, quality, inclusion, creativity and innovation at the level of sport 
organisations and sport policies. 

The  delivery  on  the  programme  objectives  is  ensured  through  four  horizontal  priorities 
encompassing all programme actions: inclusion and diversity; environment and fight against 
climate change; digital transformation; and participation and civic engagement.  

The  2021-2027  Erasmus+  programme  was  designed  to  be  a  key  instrument  for  building  a 
European  Education  Area,  supporting  the  implementation  of  the  European  strategic 

25 Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2021/817. 

13 

 
 
 
cooperation  in  the  field  of  education  and  training  (ET  2030),  with  its  underlying  sectoral 
agendas (in higher education, VET, school education and adult education), and delivering on 
the European Skills Agenda for sustainable competitiveness, social fairness and resilience. It 
supports Europe’s digital strategy and the Digital Education Action Plan, and the European 
Green  Deal.  In  addition,  the  programme  is  a  crucial  contributor  to  advancing  youth  policy 
cooperation  under  the  European  Union  Youth  Strategy  2019-2027  and  to  developing  the 
European dimension in sport in line with the EU Work Plans for Sport.  

The 2021-2027 programme also addresses challenges identified in the findings of the mid-term 
evaluation  of  the  2014-2020  programme  and  in  stakeholders’  consultations.  It  helps  equip 
Europeans  with  the  necessary  skills  for  an  increasingly  mobile,  multicultural  and  digital 
society;  increases  the  inclusivity  of  and  the  accessibility  to  the  programme;  provides  more 
opportunities  for  participation  in  democratic  life;  increases  the  scope  and  volume  of 
international (non-EU) learning mobility and cooperation; fosters synergies with other funding 
instruments. In line with the impact assessment of the Commission’s proposal for the 2021-
2027  Erasmus+  programme,  the  current  programme  has  kept  stability  and  continuity  of  the 
2014-2020 programme in its overall structure with three key actions and its management mode. 
The current programme has also integrated sport actions in this structure.  

•  Programme design 

The 2021-2027 programme is implemented under both direct and indirect management in 
33 countries, i.e. 27 EU Member States, three EEA/EFTA countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein, 
Norway) and three candidate countries (North Macedonia, Türkiye and Serbia). The actions 
implemented under indirect management are largely entrusted to National Agencies (NAs)26 
designated by National Authorities in each Member State and third country associated to the 
programme,  while  those  under  direct  management  are  implemented  by  the  European 
Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) and by the European Commission. The 
programme is designed as followed: 

•  Key action 1 (KA1) Learning mobility; 
•  Key action 2 (KA2) Cooperation among organisations and institutions; 
•  Key action 3 (KA3) Support to policy development and cooperation; 
•  Jean  Monnet  Actions:  aiming  to  support  teaching,  learning,  research  and  debates  on 
the  EU’s  future  challenges  and 
including  on 

integration  matters, 

European 
opportunities.  

The programme is designed to address the individual, organisational and systemic/ policy 
levels, in terms of actions, final target groups and short-term results respectively through KA1, 
2  and  3  as  well  as  Jean  Monnet  Actions.  This  logic  is  also  reflected  in  the  programme 
management  and  implementing  modes.  The  actions  expected  to  deliver  most  results  at 
individual level, such as learning mobility, and requiring closer monitoring of organisations in 
the national context are implemented under indirect management. Large-scale actions aiming 
to produce systemic and policy effects, at national and European level, are mainly implemented 
through direct management. 

The diagram below provides a graphic representation of the intervention logic, summarizing 
the main inputs, outputs, results and impact as well as their relations: 

26 https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/contacts/national-agencies 

14 

 
 
 
15 

 
 
A more detailed description of inputs, outputs, results and impacts in provided in Annex VI. 

For this interim evaluation, the focus will be on inputs, outputs and short-term results, where 
data  is  already  available  at  this  stage  of  the  programming  period.  The  results  of  the  final 
evaluation of 2014-2020 and the interim evaluation of 2021-2027 will inform the development 
of  the  final  evaluation  of  2021-2027.  Further  details  are  provided  in  section  5.2  ‘Lessons 
Learned’.  

In  continuity  with  the  2014-2020  programme,  potential  spill-over  effects  can  be  identified 
between the programme actions. For instance, learning mobility activities (KA1) of students, 
teachers,  trainers,  and  other  staff  could,  in  addition  to  individual-level  results,  can  lead  to 
improvements in the performance of the institutions. This is due to the fact that mobility actions 
are not contracted at the individual level, but at the level of their institution. 

Similarly,  while  the  cooperation  projects  (KA2)  are  focussing  on  the  cooperation  between 
institutions and having effects at that level, the individuals that participate in the projects will 
also  indirectly  develop  a  set  of  skills  and  competences.  The  policy  support  activities  and 
projects (KA3) can lead to concrete follow-up through pilots at the grassroots levels.  

Finally, several external factors exist in the areas of the programme intervention, consisting of 
e.g. Member States’ policy making and spending. This makes it challenging to clearly attribute 
and quantify the specific effects and changes it aimed to achieved.  

2.2 Main changes introduced in the 2021-2027 programming period 

The  changes  introduced  in  the  2021-2027  programme,  most  of  them  resulting  from  lessons 
drawn from the mid-term evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020, mainly consisted in:  

•  Reducing the number of specific objectives from 13 to 3;  
•  Establishing four overarching implementation priorities across its actions and fields, to 

increase consistency in the delivery of programme objectives;  

•  Embedding all programme fields, including sport, in the three key actions, to pursue the 

programme objectives in a more streamlined manner;  

•  Rearranging  the  programme  actions  among  the  three  key  actions,  linking  them  with 

more clarity to the changes that the programme aims to trigger;  

•  Several flagship actions were introduced (such as the European Universities initiative, 
and the Centres of Vocational Excellence), certain actions were renamed or moved from 
one key action to another, while very few actions were discontinued in the transition 
from the 2014-2020 programme 27);  

•  Providing more flexible formats (e.g. group and blended mobility);  
•  Reinforcing the international dimension, extending it to a wider number of actions.  

Furthermore, ‘DiscoverEU’ has become part of the Erasmus+ programme 2021-2027, building 
on the experience of the DiscoverEU initiative, launched as a preparatory action in 2018 (see 
Annex VIII for a more complete overview). 

A number of simplification measures were introduced at various levels: 

a) for beneficiaries:  

27 The European Voluntary Service was discontinued from Erasmus+ since the entry into force of the European 
Solidarity Corps (ESC) programme in 2018. 

16 

 
 
• 

introduction of the small-scale partnership (lower grants, flexible formats, simplified 
administrative requirements), an action specifically designed to increase accessibility 
for small and newcomer organisations; 

•  simplified  funding  rules  for  cooperation  projects,  providing  organisations  the 

• 

• 

possibility to apply for a single lump sum for implementing their projects; 
introduction  of  the  accreditation  scheme  (‘Erasmus  Accreditation’)  for  mobility 
projects in VET, school education, adult education, and youth 28 to simplify accessibility 
to funding and reduce the administrative requirements for recurrent beneficiaries;  
revamped  IT  architecture,  including  for  the  implementing  bodies,  with  the 
introduction of the ‘single entry point’ for IT applications; 

b) for participants:  

•  digitalised and simplified implementation, in particular through the European Student 

Card Initiative; 

c) for National Agencies:  

• 

introduction of multi-annual programming, shorter and more targeted annual reporting 
(‘yearly reports’) and more user-friendly format for feedback; 

•  simplified  contractual  requirements  (‘contribution  agreements’),  with  increased 
flexibility  for  the  management  of  the  funds  and  a  single  share  for  transfers  between 
actions/sectors);  

•  digitalisation  of  contractual,  payment  and  amendment  procedures,  use  of  digital 

signatures;  

d) for  other bodies supporting  the implementation of the  programme (national  VET  teams, 
SALTO  Resource  Centres,  Eurodesk,  National  Support  Services  for  eTwinning  and  the 
Electronic Platform for Adult Learning in Europe (EPALE)):  

• 

introduction of lump sum, simplified contractual arrangements. 

2.3 Point(s) of comparison  

The main point of comparison for the interim evaluation is the impact assessment carried out 
for Erasmus+ 2021-2027. For the final evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020, the main points of 
comparison are the findings of its mid-term evaluation and of the long-term impact of its seven 
predecessor  programmes  from  the  period  2007-2013  (ex-post  evaluation) 29.  The  baseline 
scenario for the 2021-2027 programme was to maintain the status quo of the 2014-2020 programme, 
which had achieved good results and was on track in achieving its performance indicators 30.  

At the end of the 2014-2020 programming period more than 6 million individuals, learners 
and staff, had taken part in learning mobility 31, in addition many more people benefited from 
cooperation projects involving almost 140 000 organisations. Despite the good achievements, 
the programme was unable to meet the high demand, with only a minority of young people32 
benefitting from an Erasmus+ experience. Findings of the previous evaluation highlighted that 

28 Already existing for Higher education. In VET, during the 2014-2020 programme, organisations could apply 
for  the  ‘Erasmus+  VET  Mobility  Charter’  for  simplified  access  to  certain  VET  mobility  actions,  such  as 
ErasmusPro. In the current programme, this Charter has been replaced by the ‘Erasmus Accreditation’.  
29 https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/resources/documents.evaluations_en 
30 At the time of the mid-term evaluation, in the period 2014-2016 (without taking into account fully 2016 data), 
the programme had already benefited over 1.4 million learners and 400 000 staff/practitioners. 
31 Mobilities counted by call year. To be noted that thousands of projects have been impacted by COVID-19 in 
2020. More details in Erasmus+ Annual Report 2020, Erasmus+ annual report 2020 - Publications Office of the 
EU (europa.eu).  
32 4% of young people living in Europe at the time of the impact assessment. 

17 

 
 
learning mobility activities would have benefitted from more volume and scope, in order to 
provide  individuals  with  the  right  set  of  knowledge,  skills  and  competences  to  support 
employment  and  foster  social  cohesion.  To  tackle  such  challenges,  Erasmus+  2021-2027 
introduced new opportunities for school pupils, adult learners, young people and sport staff. 

The mid-term evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020 underlined the capacity of the programme in 
reaching out to disadvantaged young people (11.5% of the total number of participants at the 
moment of that evaluation 33); however, it pointed out the need to further widen the access to 
the  programme,  reaching  out  to  more  people  with  fewer  opportunities  and  facilitating  the 
participation of smaller-sized organisation. The design of the 2021-2027 programme took these 
needs into account introducing measures to increase outreach and participation for individuals 
with fewer opportunities and of newcomer and low-resourced organisations.  

The  2014-2020  programme  introduced  opportunities  for  international  mobility  and 
cooperation, but these were limited in scope (only available for higher education and youth) 
and  in  volume.  Erasmus+  2021-2027  has  consolidated  its  international  actions,  including 
activities  open  to  the  rest  of  the  world;  first  through  reinforced  higher  education  mobility 
to/from third countries non associated to Erasmus+, outgoing mobility towards third countries 
for VET learners and staff, and dedicated scholarships for excellent students worldwide. The 
capacity building actions were extended to the VET and sport fields, while continuing in the 
higher education and youth fields.   

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

3.1 Current state of play 

This  chapter  describes  the  state  of  play  in  implementing  both  programme  generations, 
explaining, both legally and on the ground, the situation of the period under evaluation.  

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 
Erasmus+ 2014-2020 had an overall indicative financial envelope of EUR 14.774 billion under 
Heading 1 (Sustainable growth) of the EU budget, complemented by EUR 1.68 billion under 
Heading 4 (EU as global player) and the European Development Fund (EDF), as opposed to a 
total budget of slightly more than a total of EUR 9 billion allocated to its predecessors over 
2007-2013  (+40%).  The  overall  indicative  financial  envelope  was  then  modified  to 
EUR 14 543  billion  in  current  prices,  following  the  entry  into  force  of  Regulation  (EU) 
2018/1475 establishing the European Solidarity Corps 34.  

Budget heading 
MFF Heading 1 (billion EUR) 
MFF Heading 4 (billion EUR) 
Total (billion EUR) 

Amount (billion EUR) 
14.5 
1.7 35 
16.2 

33 With the youth actions being the most successful in this regard, reaching out to 31% of participants with fewer 
opportunities. 
34 Regulation (EU) 2018/1475 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 October 2018 laying down the 
legal framework of the European Solidarity Corps and amending Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013, Regulation (EU) 
No 1293/2013 and Decision No 1313/2013/EU (OJ L 250, 4.10.2018, p. 1). Article 26 of this Regulation modified 
Article 18(1) of the 2014-2020 Erasmus+ Regulation. 
35 Coming from different external cooperation instruments funding Erasmus+ 2014-2020 under Heading 4 (i.e. 
i) Development  Cooperation  Instrument  (DCI),  ii)  the  European  Neighbourhood  Instrument  (ENI),  iii)  the 
Partnership  Instrument  for  cooperation  with  third  countries  (PI),  and  iv)  the  Instrument  for  Pre-accession 
Assistance (IPA)) as well as from the European Development Fund (EDF). 

18 

 
 
The budget profile of the 2014-2020 Erasmus+ programme was strongly backloaded, growing 
at a regular, though not even, rhythm year-over-year, with a sharp increase in the last year of 
the programming period. 

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 financial envelope per year (billion EUR) 

Source: Erasmus+ annual report 2020 

The  legal  framework  of  the  2014-2020  programme  was  modified  in  2018  following  the 
adoption of the European Solidarity Corps legal basis. As a result, Article 13 and Article 18, 
paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, of the 2014-2020 Erasmus+ Regulation were amended through Article 
26 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1475. This implied the following changes: 

• 

• 
• 

the volunteering activities implemented through the European Voluntary Service were 
discontinued from Erasmus+ in view of implementation under the European Solidarity 
Corps,  
the overall indicative financial envelope was lowered to EUR 14.5 billion,  
the share of allocations across sectors and actions were further adjusted.  

Table 2  -- Key data of Erasmus+ 2014-202036 

KA1 

KA2 

KA3 

JMA 

Sport 

Total 

123 519 

25 313 

8 828 

1 909 

1 366 

160 935 

11 058 

5 359 

494 

95 070 

56 953 

9 395 

327 

993 

274 

17 512 

2 831 

136 15537 

Number of contracted 
projects 
Contracted grants (in 
million EUR) 
Number of distinct 
organisations 

Number of participants 

5 182 902 

997 594 

442 163 

N/A 

N/A 

6 622 659 

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 has been monitored through a set of indicators, established in Annex I of 
the 2014-2020 Regulation, measuring the level of achievement of the programme towards its 
general  and  specific  objectives.  Table  A  in  Annex  VII  of  this  SWD  shows  their  level  of 
achievement at the end of the programming period, reported, in most cases, against yearly non-
cumulative targets in line with the corporate guidelines for the 2014-2020 programming period 
(see section 4.1 for their assessment).  

The overall completion rate of Erasmus+ 2014-2020 projects at the time of this evaluation is 
99.4%, while the remaining projects are still in progress and due to submit their final report. 

36 Programme monitoring data, frozen on 5 January 2024 to reflect the state of play for the period under evaluation. 
Data are based on Call year.  
37 Number of distinct organisations across all key actions. It does not correspond to the sum of the number of 
distinct organisations per key action. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
The cumulative implementation rates at the time of the evaluation were 100.9% for Erasmus+ 
2014-2020 commitments and 97.25% for payments. 

Out  of  the  total  number  of  2014-2020  contracted  projects,  147 594  projects  (92%)  were 
implemented  under  indirect  management,  for  total  grants  of  EUR  14  billion.  77%  of  the 
Erasmus+  funded  projects  have  supported  learning  mobility  under  KA138  and  16%  have 
supported cooperation between organisations between 2014 and 2020 under KA239. 

Support to learning mobility is the core business of Erasmus+. In the 2014-2020 programme, 
the  programme  benefited  over  6.6  million  participants,  out  of  which  more  than  720 000 
(around 10%) were with fewer opportunities/disadvantaged background or had special 
needs across the three key actions. 80% were learners and 20% were educators and staff.  

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 exerted unprecedented pressure on education 
and training systems, impacted thousands of Erasmus+ projects and affected most mobilities 
funded under 2019 and 2020 calls, as well as some under 2018 call. In 2020, the impact of the 
pandemic  on  learning  mobilities  resulted  in  a  60%  decrease  compared  with  previous  years 
(average 2016-2019). A decrease of 85% was observed also in terms of activities undertaken 
under KA2 in 2020, compared to the average number of activities in the period 2016-2019. 

Between  2014  and  2020,  26 488  projects  were  supported  under  KA2,  involving  more  than 
59 000 distinct organisations. At the end of the programming period, the success rate 40 for 
learning  mobility  actions  in  the  VET,  school  education,  adult  education  and  youth  sectors 
settled in average around 47%, with youth and school education being the fields registering the 
lower success rates (respectively 33% and 39% in 2019 and 30% and 32% in 2020). In the VET 
field, 89% of learning mobility projects were funded outside the VET mobility Charter system 
(assimilated to the accreditation system) with a success rate of 47% in 2020. The table below 
provides  an  overview  of  the  success  rates  recorded  in  the  last  two  years  of  programme 
implementation for actions funded under KA2 (direct and indirect management), KA3 (indirect 
management),  as  well  as  for  Jean  Monnet  and  Sport  activities,  showing  an  overall 
oversubscription also across these actions. 

38 The figure includes Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree projects under direct management.  
39 The remaining 7% being KA3 projects and projects funded under Jean Monnet Actions.  
40  Success  rate  is  calculated  based  on  the  number  of  contracted  projects  over  the  number  of  received  project 
proposals. In the case of KA1 activities based on accreditation/charter system (i.e. higher education student and 
staff mobility (KA103) and VET learners and staff mobility with VET mobility charter (KA116)), the success rate 
is  calculated  based  on  the  number  of participants  in  contracted  projects  over participants  in  submitted  project 
proposals, and not on the number of projects. Consequently, given their non-competitive character both KA103 
and KA116 are excluded from success rate calculations.  

20 

 
 
Table 3 - Erasmus+ 2014-2020 Success rate 41 

Key Action 

Management mode 

FIELD 

2019 

2020 

KA2 

KA3 
Jean Monnet activities 
Sport activities 

Indirect  

Direct 
Indirect42 
Direct 
Direct 

HED 

VET 

SCH 

ADU 

YOUTH 

Various sectors 

YOUTH 
 HED 
 Sport 

38% 

31% 

44% 

39% 

18% 

21% 

33% 
22% 
34% 

34% 

27% 

36% 

30% 

17% 

19% 

31% 
25% 
28% 

Source: Erasmus+ annual reports 2014-2020 -statistical annexes. 

In the period 2014-2020 43, organisations from third countries - associated and not associated 
to the programme - participated either as coordinators or partners in 42 800 projects, with a 
total  contracted  grant  amount  of  EUR  1.45  billion.  In  2019,  after  two  years  and  half  of 
preparatory  measures,  Serbia  joined  Iceland,  Liechtenstein,  North  Macedonia,  Norway  and 
Türkiye as fully fledged associated country. This brought the number of participating countries 
to  34  (including  UK).  By  the  end  of  the  programming  period,  organisations  from  these  six 
associated third countries participated either as coordinators or partners in 34 307 projects, with 
a total grant amount exceeding EUR 1.17 billion. In total, third countries (both associated and 
non-associated)  hosted  471 106  learning  mobilities  funded  by  the  2014-2020  programme, 
while 734 761 participants (learners and staff) originating from these countries benefitted from 
an  Erasmus+  mobility.  Out  of  these  numbers,  the  six  associated  third  countries  counted  for 
338 061 incoming mobilities and 501 765 outgoing learning mobilities.  

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 

The total financial envelope allocated to Erasmus+ in the MFF agreement for 2021-2027 is set 
at EUR 26.5 billion 44, with an additional indicative envelope of EUR 2.1 billion allocated from 
External  Cooperation  Instruments  (IPA  III  and  NDICI-Global  Europe)  via  a  Multiannual 
Indicative programme 45.  

Budget Headings 
MFF Headings 2 (billion EUR) 
MFF Headings 6 (billion EUR) 
Total (billion EUR) 

2021-2027 

26.5 
2.1 
28.6 

As  in  the  2014-2020  programming  period,  the  budget  profile  of  Erasmus+  2021-2027  is 
strongly backloaded, growing at a regular, though not even, rhythm year-over-year, with an 
expected sharp increase in the last year of the programming period. Considering the 2021-2027 
programme’s profile, the Commission proposed a frontloading of EUR 100 million from 2027 
to 2023 (voted in the EU budget for 2023), to support projects facilitating the integration of 

41 The data for HE and VET do not include accredited projects funded under KA103 and KA116. 
42 Most part of the KA3 activities under direct management are  not awarded through open calls for proposals, 
therefore success rate is not applicable. 
43 Data before 2020 includes also UK participation in the Erasmus+ programme. 
44 See footnote 24, p. 12.  
45 Based on the MFF mid-term review agreed in 2024, the indicative financial envelope allocated to Erasmus+ 
from the External Cooperation Instruments goes form EUR 2.2 billion to EUR 2.1 billion (https://international-
partnerships.ec.europa.eu/document/download/1d7e2bec-d688-49a1-bcfb-a67ba667514d_en?filename=ad-mip-
2024-c2024-7509-erasmus-annex_en.pdf).  

21 

 
 
people fleeing the war in Ukraine into their new learning environments, as well as activities 
supporting organisations, learners, and staff in Ukraine 46.  

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 financial programming per year (billion EUR) 

Source: Erasmus+ annual report 202347 

The legal framework of the 2021-2027 programme was complemented as follows: 

•  Commission  Implementing  Decision  (EU)  2021/1877  of  22  October  2021  on  the 
framework  of  inclusion  measures  of  the  Erasmus+  and  European  Solidarity  Corps 
programmes 2021-2027 48. It aims to support an easier access to funding for a wider range 
of organisations and to better reach out to more participants with fewer opportunities. The 
Commission  also  published  implementation  guidelines  on  the  Erasmus+  and  European 
Solidarity  Corps  inclusion  and  diversity  strategy 49,  to  further  support  the  inclusion 
dimension of the programme and help address the potential barriers hindering access to 
Erasmus+ opportunities, either as a stand-alone factor or in combination among them: i) 
disabilities, ii) health problems, iii) barriers linked to education and training systems, iv) 
cultural  differences,  v)  social  barriers,  vi)  economic  barriers,  vii)  barriers  linked  to 
discrimination, viii) geographical barriers. The list is not exhaustive and aims to provide a 
reference in taking action, with a view to increasing accessibility and outreach to people 
with fewer opportunities. 

•  The  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2023/2710  on  the  Monitoring  and 
Evaluation  Framework  of  Erasmus+,  adopted  in  September  2023.  This  Delegated  Act 
supplemented  the  15  indicators  established  in  Annex  II  of  the  2021-2027  Erasmus+ 
Regulation with an additional set of 12 indicators to allow a more accurate measurement of 
the programme outputs, results and impacts (see tables B and C in Annex VII of this SWD 
for a complete overview and level of achievement of all programme indicators and section 
4.1 for their assessment). 

Table 6 - Key data 2021-2023 50 

Erasmus+ 2021-2023 

KA1 

KA2 

KA3 

JMA 

Total 

https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/news/reviewed-erasmus-2023-budget-brings-overall-eu443-billion-to-

46 
support-the-education-sectors-with-specific-support-for-ukrainian-learners-and-staff 
47 Solid bars represent the composition of the budget as endorsed in the relevant annual work programmes. “Other 
fund  sources”  includes  top-up  fines  and  top-ups  brought by  the budget  authority  to  the  annual EU  budget  for 
Erasmus+. Dashed bars represent the estimated projection of the budget for the upcoming years, in line with the 
programme budget profile. They only include the MFF plans. 
48 OJ L 378, 26.10.2021, p. 15.  
49  Implementation  guidelines  -  Erasmus+  and  European  Solidarity  Corps  Inclusion  and  Diversity  Strategy  - 
Erasmus+ (europa.eu) 
50 Programme monitoring data, frozen on 5 January 2024 to reflect the state of play for the period under evaluation. 
Data are based on Call years.  

22 

 
 
 
 
Number of contracted projects 
Contracted grants (in million EUR) 
Number of distinct organisations 

58 240 
5 876 
56 448 

11 812 
3 559 
26 638 

886 
146 
826 

1 080 
175 
708 

72 018 
9 757 
77 671 

Approximately 72 000 projects have been contracted in the period 2021-2023, which represent 
a slight increase (5%) in yearly number compared to the 2014-2020 average51. Out of the total 
number of projects contracted in 2021-2023, 68 009 (94.4 %) were implemented under indirect 
management, for total grants of close to EUR 7.5 billion. 

In  the  period  2021-2023,  more  than  14 00052  organisations  were  awarded  with  the  newly 
introduced ‘Erasmus Accreditation’ in the VET, school education, adult education and youth 
sectors 53, equal to 26.6 % of the distinct organisations participating in KA1 activities in these 
sectors. In total, 25 726 accredited projects have been contracted in the VET, school education, 
adult  education  and  youth  sectors  in  the  period  2021-2023,  against  19 033  non-accredited 
projects in these sectors.  

Most  programme  actions  are  oversubscribed,  whether  in  support  of  learning  mobility 
opportunities  or  of  cooperation  projects.  Demand  for  mobility  in  accredited  projects  has 
increased  in  all  fields  between  2021  and  2023.  In  particular,  the  demand  for  mobilities  in 
accredited projects for schools has  almost doubled from 2021 to 2022 (from 1 949 received 
projects in 2021 to 3 426 in 2022) and more than doubled from 2022 to 2023 (6 988 received 
projects in 2023). 

The average success rate54 of KA2 was 18%, for actions under indirect management in 2023, 
while for KA2 actions under direct management it was 23%. 

Between 2021 and 2023, more than 81% of the Erasmus+ funded projects have supported 
learning  mobility  and  16%  have  supported  cooperation  between  organisations, 
corresponding  respectively  to  60%  and  36%  of  contracted  grants 55.  In  the  2021-2027 
programming period, at the time of the interim evaluation (i.e. without taking into account fully 

51 http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/about/statistics_en  
52 The first Call of the Erasmus Accreditation (KA120 and KA150) took place in 2020 to allow organisation to be 
able  to  submit  grant  requests  for  accredited  projects  in  2021  Call  year.  In  the  youth  sector,  the  Erasmus 
Accreditation (KA150) is not applicable for Youth participation activities (KA154). 
53 Higher education institutions applying to mobility projects need to hold an Erasmus charter for higher education 
(ECHE), which is the equivalent for higher education of the Erasmus Accreditation. This measure is in place since 
the previous programme generations.  
54 The success rate is calculated based on the number of contracted projects over the number of received project 
proposals. 
55  The  remaining  3%  (1 966  projects)  being  KA3  projects  and  projects  funded  under  Jean  Monnet  Actions, 
corresponding in total to 3.3% of contracted grants (EUR 321 million).  

23 

 
 
 
2023  data  –  cut-off  date  31  December  2023),  the  programme  had  already  benefited  over 
1.6 million  participants 56,  out  of  which  more  than  245 000  (15.2%)  were  with  fewer 
opportunities. 77% were learners and 22% were educators and staff 57. 

The COVID-19 pandemic seriously impacted the first years of implementation of the 2021-
2027 programme. Throughout 2021 all mobility activities continued to be affected. A number 
of  mitigating  measures  addressing  the  restrictions  of  physical  mobility  were  adopted  and 
flexibility  was  applied  both  in  the  implementation  and  in  the  eligibility  of  costs  within  the 
applicable legal frameworks. In 2021, to compensate for the sharp decrease in mobility demand, 
the main programme focus shifted to cooperation partnerships.  It is  estimated that, in 2021, 
COVID-19 pandemic entailed a 36% decrease of learning mobility compared with the average 
over the period 2016-2019. In 2022, the programme strived for a gradual return to a regular 
implementation, notably in terms of learning mobilities, shifting the focus of the programme 
from cooperation partnerships back to the mobility projects, and a return to pre-pandemic levels 
with more than 1.2 million mobilities 58 across all sectors.  

Between 2021 and 2023, 11 812 projects have been supported under KA2, involving more 
than 28 000 distinct organisations and contracting over EUR 3.5 billion. Around 20% of 
Erasmus+ total granted amount (approx. EUR 546 million) went to newcomer organisations, 
i.e. organisations that had not  participated in  any given Erasmus+ action  in  the predecessor 
programme. 

In the period 2021-2023, organisations from third countries - associated and not associated to 
the programme - participated either as coordinators or partners in 12 790 projects, with a total 
contracted grant  amount of EUR 690 million. Organisations from  associated third countries 
participated  either  as  coordinators  or  partners  in  10 609  projects,  with  a  total  grant  amount 
exceeding  EUR  557 million.  In  total,  third  countries  (both  associated  and  non-associated) 
hosted  118 280  learning  mobilities  funded  by  the  2021-2027  programme,  while  141 549 
participants (learners and staff) originating from these countries benefitted from an Erasmus+ 
mobility during the 2021-2023 period. Out of these numbers, the six third countries associated 
to  the  programme  count  for  82 442  incoming  mobilities  and  109 861  outgoing  learning 
mobilities.  

56 Data refer to actual participants (completed mobilities). 
57 Data at cut-off date of 31.12.2023 extracted by call year. To be noted that some categories of participants have 
“unassigned” label, therefore the total of learners and staff does not sum up to 100%. 
58 Learning mobilities in 2022 calendar year. 

24 

 
 
 
 
4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

This  chapter presents  evaluation  findings  for both  programme generations  according to  five 
evaluation criteria – effectiveness, efficiency, coherence relevance and European added value.  

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

4.1.1  Effectiveness 

The  assessment  of  the  effectiveness  of  Erasmus+  is  overall  positive  for  both  programming 
periods. This assessment has looked into the extent to which:  

•  The  programme  ensured  that  learners  and  staff,  including  people  with  fewer 

opportunities, had access to and benefitted from its activities;  

•  Spill-over, sustainable or unintended effects took place;  
•  Results were disseminated and exploited; 
•  The implementation of priorities was effective; 
•  The response to external factors, such as COVID-19 pandemic, was effective. 

An  analysis  of  the  level  of  achievement  of  outputs  and  results,  as  well  as  of  impacts  at 
organisational and system level, is provided separately for the 2014-2020 final and 2021-2027 
interim evaluations of Erasmus+. Impacts at individual level are, however, analysed jointly, 
given the strong continuity of the design of most of the actions, and an important coexistence 
of activities, funded by the two programming periods, but running in parallel in the first years 
of implementation of the current programme due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. 
Where applicable, differences are highlighted each time within the text. A distinct analysis is 
also  provided  when  major  changes  in  the  programme  implementation  impose  a  clear 
breakdown, as it is the case e.g. of inclusion measures.   

The  evidence  presented  across  the  individual,  organisational,  and  system  levels  suggests  a 
generally  positive  direction  of  impact,  indicating  effectiveness  of  the  interventions  and 
activities examined. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution, as they are not 
conclusive due to limitations in the scope and quality of the available data. 

The  evaluation  assesses  the  stronger  continuity  that  has  featured  both  programme 
generations (‘evolution not revolution’) as a strength. The overall needs, priorities and types 
of  actions  funded  under  Erasmus+  have  not  changed  radically  over  the  two  programming 
periods.  Based  on  the  collected  evidence,  exposure  to  and  participation  in  similar  types  of 
interventions  over  time  is  likely  to  achieve  stronger  results  and  impacts  especially  at 
organisational and system levels due to the build-up of experience. Although it is too early to 
make any assumption on the impact of the 2021-2027 programme, it can be anticipated that the 
impacts of the 2014-2020 programme will carry on with the current programme, likely in a 
more positive and sustainable manner.  

Across  both  programme  generations  very  few  unintended  effects 59  were  observed,  which 
were predominantly positive. These include e.g. i) the increased healthy competition among 
the  institutions  to  form  partnerships  to  participate  in  the  programme  activities  and  be  more 
prominent on the international stage; ii) the attraction of more learners to those institutions that 

59 Finding based on stakeholder perception data only, such as key informant interviews and case study on Pilot 
PoVE Water, CIV Water (NL). 

25 

 
 
carry  out  programme  activities,  iii)  the  accelerated  digitalisation  of  activities  funded  by  the 
programme in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

4.1.1.1 Degree of achievement of intervention logic against key indicators 

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 

The  2014-2020  programme  has  been  effective  in  achieving  the  expected  outputs  and 
results measured against its objectives.  In line with the intervention logic, outputs can be 
summarised based on their level of intervention:  

i) 
ii) 
iii) 

individual level,  
organisational level, and  
system level.  

The table below provides a simplified overview of the degree of achievement of outputs and 
results from  the intervention logic  presented in  the previous  chapter, and the corresponding 
evidence  used  to  assess  such  achievements.  The  green  shading  means  that  the  degree  of 
achievement  is  on  track/attained,  while  yellow  indicates  that  the  achievement  is  somewhat 
lagging behind, yet not to a major extent. The overview table contains no red shading, which 
would have signalled significant underachievement. 

Table 7 - Overview of the degree of achievement of outputs and results from the 2014-2020 
intervention logic  

Achievement of outputs  

Evidence 

Mobilities for learners 

Mobilities for staff 

Quantitative 
and qualitative 

Quantitative 
and qualitative 

IL 
Level 
I
N
D
I
V
I
D
U
A
L

Small-scale cooperation 
projects 

Qualitative 
evidence 

Large scale cooperation 
projects 
Organisation 
participation  
Policy outputs (support 
tools, experimentation 
activities) 

Jean Monnet activities 

Qualitative 
evidence 
Quantitative 
evidence 

Qualitative 
evidence 

Quantitative 
and qualitative 

•  Outputs 

O
R
G
A
N
I
S
A
T
I
O
N
A
L

S
Y
S
T
E
M

Achievement of results  

Evidence 

Improved skills, knowledge, and 
competences  

Quantitative 
and qualitative 

Changes in attitude, personal 
development, motivation  

Quantitative 
and qualitative 

Quality improvements at 
organisation level (new curricula, 
new practices, better recognition, 
new methods of youth work, etc.) 

Quantitative 
and qualitative 

Stronger international networks 
with other organisations, 
businesses, international, etc.  

Quantitative 
and qualitative 

No short-term results expected in the intervention 
logic  

Research on EU studies, learning 
and teaching about the EU  

Quantitative 
evidence 

Since 2014, the programme reached in total more than 6.6 million participants across its 
three key actions, funding more than  6.2 million  learning mobilities60. The performance 
indicators established in the legal basis of the programme were reported against yearly non-
cumulative  targets,  therefore  no  final  (cumulative)  target  was  established  for  the  whole 
programming period.  

60 Under KA1 and KA2, the latter refers to pupils under the School exchange partnerships. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
At level of outputs, performance indicators were generally on track and performing well 
until Call years 2019 and 2020. During 2019-2020 Call years, results were heavily affected 
by the COVID-19 pandemic in particular with regards to the number of participants (see also 
section 4.1.1.8). As a result, quantitative indicators measuring the number of learners (pupils, 
students, trainees and young people) participating in the programme show 2020 achievements 
slightly  below  targets  at  the  end  of  the  programming  period  (617 000  participants,  against 
667 000 expected participants). In 2020, a lower number of participants was experienced in the 
higher  education  (350 000  students  versus  a  target  of  412 000),  and  youth  sectors  (117 000 
young people against a target of 124 000), while the number of VET learners (150 000) was 
higher compared to the target (131 000).  

Most of the types of actions funded in the 2014-2020 programming period continued in the 
2021-2027  period.  In  the  youth  sector,  the  European  Voluntary  Service  (EVS)  supported 
around 54 000 volunteers until 2018 61. Although the Erasmus+ 2014-2020 mid-term evaluation 
considered  the  EVS  effective,  the  action  was  discontinued  as  a  ‘brand’  and  removed  from 
Erasmus+ in 2019, when volunteering activities started being supported under the European 
Solidarity Corps. 

By end of the programming period, the programme reached a total of 720 000 participants 
with  fewer  opportunities,  special  needs  or  disadvantaged  background  across  applicable 
fields and actions. This number fell short of the target in 2020, with 43 000 participants against 
a  target  of  77 000,  mostly  due  to  the  impact  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  The  youth  field 
performed particularly well and above targets all along the programme implementation, with a 
slight  decline  registered  in  2019  (from  44 000  in  2018  to  39 000  participants  in  2019)  and 
underachievement  in  2020  (19 000  participants  against  a  target  of  37 000).  The  decrease  in 
2019 and 2020 is mostly due to COVID-19 (mobility periods take place between one and three 
years  after  project  starts),  with  projects  end  dates  extended  for  2019/2020  calls  to  allow 
postponed mobility periods to take place. In the case of youth, the decrease is also related to 
the creation of the European Solidarity Corps, and the consequent discontinuation of EVS from 
Erasmus+ as from Call 2019. 

The Erasmus+ Student Loan Guarantee Facility62 had an initial target to provide by 2020 
some 200 000 students with access to EU-guaranteed loans for studying abroad. By the end of 
2017, only 428 students had opted to take part in the scheme, with the majority of them coming 
from Spain 63. The action proved effective in supporting the needs of disadvantaged students 
who were willing to go abroad for a full master’s programme 64, but it never attracted enough 
financial intermediaries offering student loans for studying abroad nor a sufficient number of 
beneficiaries 65.  The  Facility  was  discontinued  in  the  2021-2027  programming  period  as  a 

61 EVS was covered under Erasmus+  2014-2020 under KA105 (mobility projects for young people and youth 
workers) until 2017. In 2017, KA135 Strategic EVS was launched and in 2018, in preparation of the European 
Solidarity Corps, volunteering was moved from KA105 to KA125 Volunteering projects. 
62 The facility aimed at fostering higher education student degree mobility among programme countries by easing 
access to student loans for students enrolling in a master’s programme abroad. 
63 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/444828c6-7151-11e9-9f05-01aa75ed71a1/language-en  
64  The  “social  inclusion”  dimension  of  the  EU-guaranteed  loans  is  supported  by  the  “2018  annual  report  on 
beneficiaries of the Erasmus+ Master Loans and summary of developments 2015-2018: summary report” (which 
is  already 
(https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
section  on  SLGF 
/publication/444828c6-7151-11e9-9f05-01aa75ed71a1). 
65 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Combined evaluation of 
Erasmus+ and predecessor programmes – Final report – Evaluation of the student loan guarantee facility (Volume 
2), Publications Office, 2017, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/2    

the  1st 

referred 

to 

in 

27 

 
 
stand-alone pilot initiative for transnational student mobility because it failed to gain significant 
traction with financial institutions for this purpose. 

The  total  number  of  staff  involved  in  education  and  training  and  youth  organisations 
participating in learning mobility was over 1 million (against a baseline of 89 000 for all 
sectors). Across the different sectors, the number of staff mobility steadily increased since 2017 
until 2019, and remained overall stable in 2020. Between 2017 and 2019, the highest increase 
was registered in the school (+69%) and the adult education sectors, which doubled the number 
of mobilities 66. At the end of the programming period, the achievement is well above the 
target set for 2020 (136 000), with 203 000 staff mobilities across all sectors.  

Also, the 2020 targets set for the international credit mobility in higher education have been 
largely surpassed, both in terms of students receiving support to study in non-associated third 
country (25 000 against a target of 3 900) and of students from non-associated third countries 
to study in a programme country (37 000 against a target of 15 000).  

The organisation participations were measured for all expected  outputs, across all key 
actions, Jean Monnet activities and Sport, considering also the number of projects. The 
number  of  organisations’  participations  in  2020  was  82 000  for  actions  under  indirect 
management  and  3 000  for  those  under  direct  management,  while  the  total  number  of 
organisations’  participations  largely  exceeded  550 000  during  the  whole  programming 
period 67.  In  addition,  specific  indicators  were  measuring  the  participation  of  organisations 
from non-associated third countries in the higher education and youth fields with regards to the 
international  dimension  of  the  programme.  These  indicators  slightly  deviate  from  the 
expected  targets.  The  one  addressing  the  youth  field  shows  a  decrease  in  2018,  due  to  the 
discontinuation  of  EVS  from  Erasmus+  and  consequent  adjustment  of  the  final  target. 
However, as from 2019, the number of partner countries organisation participations increased, 
allowing  to  achieve  and  surpass  the  target  set  for  2020  (almost  7 000  youth  organisations 
involved in international mobility and cooperation versus a 2020 target of 6 000). The indicator 
addressing higher education lags slightly behind (partner country Higher Education institutions 
involved in mobility and cooperation actions, achieving 1 235 participations against a target of 
1 300), with general stability across the programming period.  

System  level  outputs  didn’t  have  any  specific  indicator  for  their  measurement.  This  is 
because most of these actions were operating grants awarded to identified beneficiaries through 
non-competitive procedures 68. These outputs include for example yearly operating grants to 
seven  institutions  designated  in  the  2014-2020  Erasmus+  Regulation 69  pursuing  an  aim  of 
European  interest  under  Jean  Monnet  activities  (total  contracted  grants:  close  to  EUR 162 
million).  Other  activities  supporting  the  transparency  and  recognition  of  skills  and 
qualifications or the EU policy agenda on education and training in the context of the Open 
Method  of  Coordination  (e.g.  dialogue  with  stakeholders,  evidence-based  activities)  were 
provided through national allocations, which by end of 2020 were equal to around EUR 237 

66 Yearly progress is displayed in 2022 PPS data (ps_db2023_erasmus_h2.pdf). 
67 See footnote 48. No target was established for this indicator. 
68  Grants  can  be  awarded  to  bodies  considered  as  de  jure monopoly  on  the  basis  of  Article  198(c) of  the  EU 
Financial Regulation (FR), to bodies identified as beneficiaries in the basic act on the basis of Article 198(d) FR, 
or  to  bodies  designated  by  national  authorities  on  the  basis  of  Article  198(f)  FR  for  actions  with  specific 
characteristics that require a particular type of body on account of its technical competence, its high degree of 
specialisation or its administrative power. 
69  Article 10(c) of  the 2014-2020 Erasmus+ regulation. These institutions  are:  i)  the European  University Institute of 
Florence; ii) the College of Europe (Bruges and Natolin campuses); iii) the European Institute of Public Administration 
(EIPA), Maastricht; iv) the Academy of European Law, Trier; v) the European Agency for Development in Special Needs 
Education, Odense; vi) the International Centre for European Training (CIFE), Nice.  

28 

 
 
million  contracted  grants.  The  few  system  level  outputs  based  on  open  calls  for  proposals 
included experimentation actions aiming to fund initiatives for policy innovation (around 300 
projects, involving over 2 500 organisations, for close to EUR 177 million contracted grants) 
and the action European Youth Together (37 projects, involving 391 organisations, for close to 
EUR 15 million contracted grants).  

•  Results  

The  programme  managed  to  achieve  the  expected  results,  in  line  with  its  logic  of 
intervention. At individual level, four programme indicators (2 for education and training and 
2 for youth) track quantitatively the programme performance in relation to improved language 
skills  and  key  competences,  linked  respectively  with  specific  objectives  5  and  7  of  the 
programme 70. Results at the end of the period are very positive, surpassing the set targets (80%) 
across all fields, with 96% of participants declaring having increased their key competences. 
Strong performance is observed also through the indicator measuring the increase in language 
skills  across programme fields (96%  achievement  in  higher-education  and 95% in  the VET 
field), contributing to the programme specific objective of improving teaching and learning of 
languages and promoting the Union’s linguistic diversity.  

Targets  on  the  percentage  of  participants  that  have  received  certificates,  diplomas  or 
other  formal  recognitions  in  higher  education,  VET  and  youth  sectors  have  all  been 
achieved or significantly surpassed (100% of participants in higher education, 91% in VET 
and in youth), contributing to improve recognition of knowledge, skills and competences and 
related  specific  objective.  In  the  youth  field,  in  particular,  data  recorded  along  the  year  of 
programme implementation reflect the increasing take up of Youthpass from 77% in 2014 
to 91% in 2020 71, the recognition tool for non-formal and informal learning. Youthpass was 
launched  in  2007  under  Youth  in  Action,  one  of  the  predecessor  programmes  of  Erasmus+ 
2014-2020, and in the course of Erasmus+ 2014-2020 issued more than 800 000 certificates 72. 
Stakeholders’ views also speak to the strong accomplishments of the programme on attitudes, 
personal development and motivation of participants, as confirmed by programme monitoring 
data: 95% of participants in youth actions consider having reached their expectations in terms 
of personal development; over 83% of programme participants consider having improved their 
learning competences, and 94% of staff participants in VET, school and adult education are 
more motivated to develop their professional skills 73.  

The  achievement  of  the  expected  results  at  organisational  level 74  is  confirmed  by 
quantitative  evidence 75  and  corroborated  by  studies 76.  82%  of  staff  in  VET,  school,  adult 

70 Specific Objective 1(a) on the improvement of the level of key competences and skills, Articles 5, 11 of the 
Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013. The data feeding both indicators were collected through surveys submitted by 
mobility  participants  at  the  end  of  the  mobility  period  as  part  of  the  project  final  report.71  Yearly  progress  is 
available in the 2022 Programme Performance Statement (ps_db2023_erasmus_h2.pdf)  
71 Yearly progress is available in the 2022 Programme Performance Statement (ps_db2023_erasmus_h2.pdf)  
72 https://www.youthpass.eu/en/about-youthpass/statistics/  
73 Data from participants reports submitted by participants in learning mobility as part of the project final reports. 
74 These include the spreading of stronger organisational networks, the development of quality youth work, and 
new methods of youth work, as well as in the area of new governance practices in sport.  
75 Based on the logic of the programme, the participation of E&T and youth staff in learning mobility activities is 
expected to provide benefit also at organisational level (see section 2.1). Participant reports (survey) are collected 
under the projects’ final report as part of the regular monitoring of the Programme.  
76 Quantitative evidence refers to programme monitoring data (participants reports submitted by E&T and youth 
staff  at  the  end  of  the  mobility  period),  and  to  the  network  analysis  and  the  socio-economic  actors’  survey 
conducted as part of the support study by the external evaluator. Among studies in the mentioned areas:  RAY 

29 

 
 
 
education  and  youth  declare  having  experienced  or  developed  new  learning/teaching 
techniques during their learning mobility, with youth staff reporting the highest share (89%), 
while 86% of staff in the same sectors have extended their professional network or built-up 
new contacts. Organisations’ capacity grew following the participation of their staff in learning 
mobilities: according to respondents to the survey of socio-economic actors, the participation 
in  the  programme  contributed  to  develop  the  capacity  for  international  cooperation  of  their 
organisations and to develop new learning and teaching approaches and tools 77.  

The  connection  with  businesses  also  increased  during  the  programming  period.  The 
number of strategic partnership projects involving companies or businesses has increased along 
the years, reaching  the  highest  participation  towards the end  of the programming  period, in 
particular  in  the  VET  field  (over  2 400  businesses  out  of  6 700  across  all  sectors).  The 
Knowledge  Alliances  (KA2)  aimed  at  bringing  higher  education  institutions  and  business 
together to collaborate on subjects of common interest. Based on the result of a recent study 
these activities proved effective to strengthen intersectoral cooperation 78, as they acted as first-
time enablers for organisations to experience university-business cooperation, or as supporting 
mechanisms for organisations with prior intersectoral experience. SMEs were involved in 148 
out of the 160 projects supported by the Knowledge Alliances, while NGOs/associations/social 
enterprises were present in 84 projects. 

Under the Sport sector, the programme aimed to tackle cross-border threats to the integrity of 
sport, support good governance in sport and dual careers of athletes, and promote voluntary 
activities  in  sport.  By  2020,  the  programme  achieved  the  75%  targets  to  address  these 
objectives, measured as the share of participants who used the results of cross-border projects 
to combat threats to sport, to improve good governance and dual careers, supporting athletes 
who have both their sport career and another professional or educational path at the same time. 
This  target  (75%) was also achieved  for the share  of participants  using  the results of cross-
border projects to enhance social inclusion, equal opportunities and participation rates. 

Evidence collected from stakeholders signal a strong performance of the programme with 
regard  to  research  and  teaching  about  the  EU.  These  insights  are  further  corroborated 

– 

A 

to 

sport 

good 

report 

model 

“Sport 

practices” 

identifying 

diplomacy: 

CAP (2019). “Research project on competence development and capacity building of youth workers and youth 
leaders”  (https://www.researchyouth.net/projects/cap/);  RAY  MON  (2022).  “Research-based  Analysis  on 
Monitoring of Erasmus+ Youth in Action – Comparative Research Report – 2014-2020: Effects and outcomes of 
the  Erasmus+  Youth  in  Action  Programme”  (https://researchyouth.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/RAY-
(2018) 
MON_Research-Report-20142020.pdf); 
(https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/0efc09a6-025e-11e8-b8f5-01aa75ed71a1). “Study on the 
European 
(2022) 
(https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/28433); Outputs produced by the Erasmus+ funded project Good Governance 
in  Sport:  https://www.eusport.org/goodgovernance/GGS_outputs).  European  Commission:  Directorate-General 
for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Kirdulytė, G., Abozeid, O., Abraham, E., Buitrago, H. et al., Assessment 
of the instruments, deliverables, results and impact of university business cooperation – Final report. Publications 
Office of the European Union, 2024 (https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/514543). 
77 Annex V of ICF support study. 79% of respondents to the survey considered that the result of development of 
the capacity of their organisation for international cooperation was fully met, and 16% considered it was met at 
some extent; while 64% considered that the result of developing new learning and teaching approaches and tools 
was fully met for their organisations, while 27% considered that it was met to some extent.  
78 European Commission: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Kirdulytė, G., Abozeid, 
O., Abraham, E., Buitrago, H. et al., Assessment of the instruments, deliverables, results and impact of university 
business 
the  European  Union,  2024, 
report.  Publications  Office  of 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/514543 

Commission” 

cooperation 

European 

–  Final 

the 

30 

 
 
through  reports  studying  the  impact  of  Erasmus+  between  2014  and  2020 79.  In  particular, 
432 000  students  received  training  through  Jean  Monnet  activities  by  2020,  surpassing  the 
expected target (360 000), contributing to the achievement of the specific objective of promoting 
excellence in teaching and research activities in European integration worldwide.  

•  Impacts 

The  2014-2020  programme  generation  didn’t  include  any  indicator  measuring  the  expected 
impacts  at  individual  and  organisational  level.  System  level  impact  was  measured  through 
indicators addressing the Europe 2020 headline education target and mobility benchmarks, both 
discussed in section 4.1.1.4 below.  

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 

The programme is on track for achieving the expected outputs and results in the current 
programming period 80, particularly regarding the volume of mobilities (despite the negative 
impact of the COVID-19 pandemic), the improvement in participants’ skills and competences, 
the  influence  of  Erasmus+  on  policy,  and  improvements  in  the  practices  of  participating 
organisations. Due to the continued impact of the pandemic in the first years of implementation, 
the 2021-2027 programme had a relatively slow start, but at mid-term it is on track to meet 
targets  and  expectations  (see  tables  B  and  C  of  Annex  VII,  providing  the  overview  of  the 
achievement level for all legal basis and delegated indicators at the end of 2023). 

The level of achievement of outputs and results has been measured through quantitative 
evidence, such as programme monitoring data and programme indicators as set in Annex II of 
the  2021-2027  Erasmus+  Regulation  and  in  the  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU) 
2023/2710, and triangulated with qualitative evidence. The table below provides a simplified 
overview of the degree of achievement of outputs and results from the intervention logic, and 
the corresponding evidence used to assess them. The green shading means that the achievement 
is on track/attained, while the yellow shading indicates that, at the moment of the evaluation, 
the achievement is somewhat lagging behind.  

Table 8 - Overview of the degree of achievement of outputs and results from the 2021-2027 
intervention logic 

Achievement of outputs 

Evidence 

Achievement of results 

Evidence 

Mobilities for learners 

Mobilities for staff 

Quantitative 
and qualitative  K
A
Quantitative 
1
and qualitative 

Improved skills, knowledge, and 
competences (individual level) 
Changes in attitude, personal 
development, values, motivation 
(individual level) 

Quantitative 
and qualitative 

Quantitative 
and qualitative 

Partnerships for cooperation 
(small scale-partnerships and 
cooperation partnerships) 

Organisations (participation, 
newcomers) 

Qualitative 
evidence  K
A
2

Quantitative 
evidence 

Quality improvements at 
organisation level (new 
curricula, new practices, 
capacity-building, high-quality 
practices, etc.) 

Qualitative 
evidence 

79  Erasmus+  Annual  Reports  2014-2020,  the  Combined  evaluation  of  Erasmus+  and  predecessor  programmes 
(2018); Erasmus+ National Agency Lithuania (2019) “Longitudinal study on the impact and sustainability of the 
Erasmus+ Programme key action 1 mobility projects for school education staff”; European Commission (2019). 
“Erasmus+ higher education impact study”. 
80 Key achievements and detailed progress against targets of core performance indicators are published yearly in 
the 
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-
Statement: 
budget/performance-and-reporting/programme-performance-statements/erasmus-performance_en  

Performance 

Programme 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
Achievement of outputs 

Evidence 

Achievement of results 

Evidence 

Capacity building projects and 
large-scale partnerships 

Qualitative 
evidence 

Stronger international networks 
with other organisations, 
businesses, international, etc. 

Qualitative 
evidence 

Online platforms and tools for 
virtual cooperation 

Quantitative 
evidence 

Policy outputs (support tools to 
policy development, measures 
for high quality programme 
implementation, policy 
experimentations) 

Qualitative 
evidence 

K
A
3

No short-term result is expected from KA3 
activities, given their systemic and policy character 

Jean Monnet Actions 

Quantitative 
and qualitative 

J
M
A

Research on EU studies, 
learning and teaching about the 
EU (at individual and 
institutional level) 

Quantitative 
evidence 

•  Outputs 

KA1 outputs are mainly measured at level of number of mobilities of learners and staff. The 
reporting on programme indicators takes into account the number of contracted mobility under 
each Call year, standing at respectively 2 566 000 and 680 360 for learners and staff at the end 
of  2023,  which  are  overall  on  track  with  the  yearly  milestones.  The  overall  (cumulative) 
achievement (3 246 360) is already at 40% of the target set for the end of the programming 
period (8 215 900). Out of this number, by end of 2023, around 1.6 million mobilities were 
completed (1 271 042 learners and 369 205 staff). Only some fields fall slightly behind targets 
e.g. adult education learners and staff, VET learners and youth staff. The number of participants 
in virtual learning activities (blended mobilities) is also on track, with an 80% progress in 2023 
against the final 2027 target. At level of KA1 activities, the 2023 target concerning the share 
of activities addressing climate objectives has been fully met for E&T, and sport and largely 
surpassed for youth (86% against 16% target). The share of KA1 activities addressing digital 
transformation was instead 14% in 2023, against a final target of 20% 81.  

KA1 projects and accreditations are functional to ensure that individuals can benefit from 
learning  mobility  activities  across  the  relevant  sectors.  At  the  cut-off  date  of  the  interim 
evaluation, one fourth of distinct organisations taking part in KA1 had received an Erasmus 
Accreditation in the relevant fields. The school education sector is the one benefitting the most 
from this novelty, given the increasing number of Erasmus Accreditation awarded from 2020 
(2 344) to 2022 (3 113). In 2023, the number of accredited projects doubled the number of non-
accredited ones (12 236 against 5 812 non-accredited ones), with 96% of accredited projects 
funded  in  the  VET,  school  and  adult  education  sectors 82.  The  award  of  the  Erasmus 
accreditation  confirms  that  the  applicant  organisation  has  set  up  a  plan  (‘Erasmus  Plan’)  to 
implement high quality mobility activities as part of a wider effort to develop their organisation, 
consequently  the  scheme  is  also  supposed  to  contribute  to  the  expected  impacts  at  the 
organisational level of the programme intervention logic.  

Quantitative  indicators  tracking  KA2  outputs  concern  mainly  the  number  of  organisations, 
including  newcomer  organisations,  involved  in  projects  as  well  as  the  share  of  projects 

81 Indicator introduced through the  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2710 on the Monitoring and 
Evaluation Framework, for which no yearly milestones or sectoral targets are foreseen. 
82 Non final data, set at the cut-off date of the interim evaluation (end 2023). 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
addressing the programme horizontal priorities83 (see also 4.1.1.6). Overall, these indicators are 
performing well, in particular in terms of organisation participations and of number of 
small-scale partnerships (5 894, with 44% progress towards the final 2027 target), an action 
specifically designed to increase accessibility for small and newcomer organisations. The total 
number of newcomer organisations in KA1 and KA2 shows positive evolutions, in particular 
under KA1. The number of newcomer organisations participating in KA1 both in 2022 and in 
2023 is about three times (around 9 000 per year) as those participating in 2021 (around 3 000). 
This may be partly due to the start of new actions in 2022 (e.g. DiscoverEU inclusion action) 
and  2023  (Sport  mobility)  but  also  a  sign  of  increased  accessibility  of  the  programme.  For 
further supporting the measurement of this dimension, an indicator measuring the number of 
less  experienced  organisations  was  introduced  in  2023,  providing  more  comprehensive 
insights on the programme accessibility after the very first participation in a given action as 
well as on its capacity to accompany organisations in their growth. The achievement for 2023 
(first  year of measurement)  is  positive and  encouraging; however, it is  necessary to  see the 
progress in the following years for a more comprehensive assessment.  

No specific output indicator is linked to Capacity building projects (funded under Heading 6 
of  the  budget),  beyond  those  already  mentioned  with  regards  to  KA2  organisations  and 
horizontal priorities. Under Call years 2021-2023, 560 projects have been contracted, involving 
2 889 distinct organisations, out of which 78% were from not-associated third countries84. In 
total, 26% of contracted projects were coordinated by organisations from third countries not 
associated to the programme.  

No specific indicators are set for KA3 outputs, other than the number of organisations 
involved (on track with 47% progress against the 2027 target). This is because most of these 
activities  are  based  on  grant  allocations  awarded  to  identified  beneficiaries  through  non-
competitive  procedures.  programme  data  analysis  shows  a  sufficiently  satisfying  uptake  of 
Training  and  Cooperation  Activities  (TCA)  in  the  youth  field  (more  than  1 000  activities 
planned between 2021 and 2022 85), despite the challenges in the first years of the programme 
implementation  due  to  COVID-19 86.  Networks,  such  as  the  SALTOs,  register  a  strong 
appreciation well-evidenced through consultations activities.   

indicators.  However,  qualitative  evidence  collected 

Lastly, Jean Monnet Actions do not have quantitative output targets associated with them 
through  programme 
through 
consultation activities indicate that the activities are generally on track. The newly launched 
actions in the school and VET fields encountered some initial difficulties in the number and 
quality of proposals in the first years of the on-going programme. This was due to the combined 
effect of COVID-19 pandemic as well as to issues linked to a lack of capacity and capability in 
preparing  applications  within  schools,  and  to  legal  issues  limiting  the  capacity  for  public 
schools to sign grant agreements. Despite these challenges, the Teacher Training activities and 
Schools Networks received sufficient applications to fully utilise the available budgets, while 

83  One  legal  basis  indicator  addressing  climate  objectives,  complemented  by  three  delegated  act  indicators 
addressing the inclusion, digital and participation priorities. All four indicators are tracked in same way through 
data in KA2 application forms. 
84 Depending on the sectors and the call, these organisations come from Western Balkans, East neighbourhood, South 
Mediterranean, Asia, Central Asia, Middle East, Pacific, Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean.  
85 Source: Erasmus+ Annual Reports 2021-2022. 
86 Response to COVID-19 pandemic required the extension of the eligibility period of TCAs funds (from 18 to 24 
months) made available under 2020 and 2021 Call years. This implied the postponement of many activities and 
difficulties for National Agencies to plan new activities with the funds made available under KA3 in the first years 
of the programme implementation (see also section 4.1.2.2). 

33 

 
 
Learning EU Initiative has seen a significant increase in applications in 2024, leading to the 
full utilisation of the total budget available, supporting 94 projects.  

Under  Jean  Monnet  Actions,  Erasmus+  provides  operating  grants  to  seven  institutions 
designated  in  the  Regulation  and  pursuing  an  aim  of  European  interest87.  Under  the  2023 
Erasmus+ Annual Work Programme the total allocation was around EUR 41 million. These 
operating  grants  make  it  possible  for  them  to  deliver  their  teaching,  training,  research  and 
dissemination activities focused on the EU.  

•  Results  

The achievement of the expected results is, at mid-term, generally on track. At individual 
level, short-term results are tracked through surveys (participant reports) submitted by mobility 
participants at the end of their mobility period. A range of quantitative indicators signal the 
good  performance  of  the  programme  regarding  improved  skills,  knowledge,  and 
competences. Based on programme monitoring data, 77.2% of participants in learning mobility 
have  declared  having  improved  their  foreign  language  competences,  73.5%  have  increased 
cultural awareness and expression, while 79.4% have improved their personal and social skills 
(organisational  skills,  capacity  to  reach  decision,  learning  to  learn…)  and  64.3%  their 
entrepreneurship capacity. 

Four  result  indicators  were  introduced  in  September  2023  through  Commission  Delegated 
Regulation  (EU)  2023/2710  to  track  participants’  behavioural  change  and  learning 
outcomes linked to the four horizontal priorities of the programme. Therefore, their tracking 
and reporting started only recently. Such indicators do not have yearly milestones; however, 
they seem in most cases to progress well towards the target set at the end of the programming 
period. Following this interim evaluation, targets can be revised and yearly milestones for the 
second part of the programming period can be set up for a more accurate follow-up of progress.  

In the 2021-2027 programme, the number of KA1 participants with fewer opportunities is 
measured  at  level  of  results,  as  an  outcome  following  the  implementation  of  strategies  and 
measures  to  enhance  the  inclusivity  of  the  programme.  In  2023,  the  relevant  legal  basis 
indicator  signals  a  48%  progress  against  the  cumulative  target  set  for  2027,  with  445 635 
participants  with  fewer  opportunities  across  all  fields  (see  also  4.1.1.5  regarding  the 
effectiveness of inclusion measures). 

Regarding KA2, key results across all small- and large-scale partnerships actions are tracked 
as share of organisations and institutions that consider they have developed high-quality 
practices following their participation in KA2 activities. Preliminary data seem to point out to 
a positive performance with a 96% 88 achievement in 2022, versus a 65% yearly target. Data on 
this indicator are collected through final reports, therefore there is no sufficient critical mass 
yet  to  draw  firm  conclusions  on  the  performance  of  this  indicator  against  the  final  target. 
Additional feedback is provided through case studies, showing that through participation in 
KA2,  teachers  benefit  from  observing  and  learning  from  other  school  practices,  while 
among  learners  there  were  improvements  in  participation  and  motivation,  and  both  learned 

87 In accordance with Article 8(c) of the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ Regulation, the programme provides support to the 
following institutions pursuing an aim of European interest: the European University Institute, Florence, including 
its School of Transnational Governance; the College of Europe (Bruges and Natolin campuses); the European Institute 
of Public Administration, Maastricht; the Academy of European Law, Trier; the European Agency for Special Needs 
and Inclusive Education, Odense; and the International Centre for European Training, Nice. 
88  96%  for  Education  and  Training  fields  and  97%  in  the  Youth  field  in  2022.  2023  data  not  available  at  the 
moment  of  the  evaluation,  since  they  are  collected  at  final  report  stage.  Source:  Programme  Performance 
Statement. 

34 

 
 
from  knowledge  sharing 89.  In  the  adult  education  field,  the  main  effects  from  KA2 
participation  include  improved  networking  opportunities  and  new  approaches  to 
training 90.  In  the  youth  sector,  the  case  studies  also  highlight  positive  effects  of  Capacity 
building  projects,  for  both  staff  and  young  people,  such  as  improved  self-confidence  and 
social skills and enhanced cultural awareness 91.  

The  expected  result  in  terms  of  increased  response  to  green  transition,  increased  digital 
capacity  and  the  readiness  of  organisations  and  institutions  is  not  tracked  by  specific 
indicators. However, programme data show that 260 KA2 projects, for total contracted grants 
of  over  EUR  79  million,  focused  on  the  sectoral  priority  ‘supporting  digital  and  green 
capabilities  of  organisation/institutions’,  in  particular  in  the  higher  education  field.  Positive 
qualitative  feedback  was  also  collected  through  case  studies 92:  interviewed  organisations 
reported  how  new  methods  of  approaching  digital  transformation  and  green  transition  have 
been  embedded  in  their  organisational  policies  and  practices,  increasing  capabilities  and 
readiness  of  the  organisations.  Participation  in  Erasmus+  has  facilitated  the  embedding  of 
digital  transformation  and  green  transition  in  higher  education  institutions’  activities, 
programmes  and  policies;  improvements  in  digital  capacity  and  readiness  have  also  been 
observed, contributing to the resilience of organisations to future challenges.  

The results achieved by virtual cooperation platforms implemented under KA2 are measured 
in relation to the number of users benefitting from these online communities, which is on track 
for  the  European  School  Education  Platform  (ESEP)  (previously  the  School  Education 
Gateway) but, mid-term, have fallen slightly short for EPALE. The funding of online platforms 
appears effective in the establishment and support of extended communities of practitioners, and 
crucial in building strong networks, including as an entry door to the programme to build initial 
international cooperation 93.  

No short-term results are expected from KA3 activities, given their systemic and policy 
character. Therefore, no result indicator is set for these activities. 

Regarding Jean Monnet Actions, data on results are mainly collected through final reports94. 
However, given the long duration of these projects (36 months) very few data are available at 
the moment. Other applicable indicators concern the introduction of teaching programmes: 828 
modules and chairs and 101 Centre of Excellence (multi-disciplinary hubs) were awarded in 
the field of EU studies worldwide under the 2021-2023 Calls. However, since none of these 
indicators are established in the legal basis, no associated target exists.  

The JMA higher education strand is widely viewed by consulted stakeholders as a well-
established  initiative  with  recognition  in  academic  circles.  In  particular,  their  role  in 
improving cross-sectoral cooperation, fostering dialogue between academia and policy-makers, 
promoting civic participation and citizenship education, creating international networks, and 

89  Case  studies  Istituto  comprensivo  Manzoni-Radice  (SCH,  IT),  I  Liceum  Ogólnokształcące  im.  Henryka 
Sienkiewicza w Kędzierzynie-Koźlu (SCH, PL), Pädagogische Hochschule Freiburg (SCH, DE), Primary school 
Anton Skala (SCH, RS). 
90 Case studies Afeji Hauts-de-France (ADU, FR), Społeczny Instytut Ekologiczny (ADU, PL), Asociația Sprijin+ 
(ADU, RO). 
91 Case studies Društvo ustvarjalcev Taka Tuka (YOU, SI), E29 (formely, Ifjúsági Nomád Klub) (YOU, HU). 
92 Asociatia Sprijin+” (ADU, RO); Universidad de Sevilla (HED, ES); Univerza v Mariboru (HED, SI). 
93 Case study I Liceum Ogólnokształcące im. Henryka Sienkiewicza w Kędzierzynie-Koźlu (SCH, PL). 
94 For all JMA: i) number of teaching hours, ii) number of students involved in the action; only for Learning EU 
and Teacher training actions in the school and VET fields: i) number of teachers involved in the action, and ii) 
success rate in learning test/assessment about the EU (%).  

35 

 
 
promoting teaching and learning about the EU 95  is appreciated. Given the early stage of the 
JMA  in  the  school  and  VET  sectors,  it  is  not  possible  to  draw  firm  conclusions  on  their 
effectiveness, although the beneficiaries consulted for the case studies 96 reported some early 
success and good prospects for the future, such as:   

•  Some effective results at the learner, professional and organisational levels;  
•  Project  outputs  were  considered  superior  (in  terms  of  depth  and  scope)  compared  to 
conventional approaches available within their country (e.g. through civic education, 
history classes);  

•  Suggestions that it would not have been possible to carry out the same activities and 

outputs without the JMAs in schools.  

In general,  looking at  qualitative  and opinion-based  findings,  results regarding  international 
networks and improvements in organisational practices, teaching and research on EU-related 
studies  and  teaching  and  learning  about  the  EU  are  deemed  strong  by  stakeholders,  and 
evidence from the literature review supports such views 97.  

•  Impacts 

At level of impacts, the intervention logic of the 2021-2027 programme is operationalised 
through 4 impact indicators, addressing the three levels of intervention of the programme. At 
individual level, benefit for participants is measured by two impact indicators concerning i) the 
share  of  participants  that  consider  they  have  benefited  from  their  participation  in  learning 
mobility activities, and ii) those who have increased their European sense of belonging after 
participation  in  KA1  activities  (both  applicable  in  the  same  way  across  all  sectors).  Both 
indicators refer directly to the general objective of the 2021-2027 programme, with respect to 
addressing educational, professional and personal development of people in education, training, 
youth  and  sport  and  to  strengthening  European  identity.  For  both  indicators,  the  level  of 
achievement at the cut-off date of the evaluation is surpassing the milestones set for 2023 
in all fields, being promising in view of meeting the final target. In particular, the results for 
the  sport  mobility  emerge  very  positively  at  the  very  first  measurement  of  this  new  action, 
respectively 99% of participants have benefitted from their mobility and 95% consider 
they have increased their sense of belonging.  

The indicators measuring the programme impact at organisational and system/policy level were 
introduced through the delegated act on the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework in 2023: i) 
increased  capacity  of  organisations;  ii)  contribution  to  policy  development,  strategies  and 
cooperation  in  education  and  training,  youth  and  sport.  Both  address  the  three  specific 
objectives  of  the  programme  with  regards  to  the  promotion  of  i.a.  cooperation,  quality, 

95 These included interviews at EU (Commission services, EU delegations) and national level; Case studies with 
Scuola  superiore  di  studi  universitari  e  di  perfezionamento  Sant'Anna  (JMA,  IT),  Alma  Mater  Studiorum  - 
Università di Bologna (JMA, IT), College of Europe (JMA, BE and PL), European University Institute (JMA, IT), 
European Institute of Public Administration (JMA, NL). 
96  Relevant  case  studies  and  their  action  types  are  Casa  do  Professor  (JMA,  PT)  -  Teacher  Training  Action, 
Profilirana Prirodo-Matematicheska Gimnazia Akademik Ivan Tsenov (JMA, BG) - Learning EU Initiatives, and 
Istituto Statale d'Arte - Liceo artistico "Edgardo Mannucci" (JMA, IT) - Network for Schools. 
97  See,  for  example,  Erasmus+  Annual  Reports  2021-2023,  and  the  European  Parliament  report  on  the 
implementation  of  the  Erasmus+  programme  2021-2027  (2023);  European  Commission  (2023).  “Study  on 
Learning  Mobility”;  DAAD 
-  Elements  of  Successful 
(2022)  “Erasmus+  Cooperation  Projects 
Internationalisation”; Epos (2022) “Impact van Erasmus+ en eTwinning op scholen”. 

36 

 
 
inclusion at level of organisations and policy, and are measured through a qualitative analysis 
respectively in sections 4.1.1.3 and 4.1.1.4 98.   

4.1.1.2 Impact at individual level  

KA1 activities are generally reported positively for both learner and staff mobilities in 
both programming periods 99 and identified as affective across the different sectors100.  

Programme  monitoring  data,  collected  from  participants’  reports  at  the  end  of  the  mobility 
period,  show  a  positive  constant  trend  across  both  programme  generations  in  terms  of 
satisfaction  of  the  participants  (both  learners  and  staff)  with  their  mobility  experience,  as 
displayed in the chart below. The satisfaction level only dropped slightly in 2020, affected by 
the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Participants (learners and staff) declaring their satisfaction with the Erasmus+ mobility  

Source: Participants’ surveys Indicator dashboard. The data is displayed per mobility start year. The yellow 
dots illustrate the number of replies (participants’ reports) submitted at the end of the mobility at project 
final report stage (in total: 3.9 million responses for participants from Call years 2014-2020 and 611 874 
from Calls 2021-2023). Submission of participants’ reports is not compulsory for all actions, consequently 
the number of responses for the 2014-2020 programme is lower than the number of participants.  

•  Learners  

Across both programming periods, participation in Erasmus+ is associated with several types 
of  outcomes:  problem-solving  skills;  sense  of  initiative  and  entrepreneurship;  sense  of 
European identity; positive feelings towards the EU; digital competence; confidence in their 
efforts  in  education,  training  or  work;  perception  that  employers  value  transnational 
educational and mobility experiences; completion of studies/other activity101.  

As stated in section 1.1.4, some limitations were experienced in the data analysis, affecting the 
establishment of direct cause-and-effect relationship. Despite these methodological challenges, 
a review of these outcomes across both programming periods was carried out through multiple 
data  sources:  programme  monitoring  data,  surveys,  case  studies,  research  papers,  meta-
analyses, national reports.  

▪  European values  

Just  over  two  thirds  of  respondents  to  the  Eurobarometer  carried  out  in  2017  agree  that 
European programmes and initiatives such as Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps 

98 As required by the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework of the 2021-2027 programme, an assessment on both 
indicators is provided in ‘narrative’ only. 
99 The main focus of this analysis is on 2014-2020 programme. A minority of the data collected in the period 
2021-2023 may pertain to the 2021-2027 activities, however this is not considered an issue as most of the actions 
under assessment continued across the two programming periods. Because of this, a split would not be feasible. 
100 Based on Stakeholders’ perceptions and NA/EACEA survey. 
101 Findings based on stakeholder perception data and supported by surveys with limited contrafactual analysis. 

37 

 
 
 
make them feel more European (67%). For young people participating in Erasmus+ 2014-
2020,  youth  projects  functioned  as  ‘eye-openers’,  deepened  existing  knowledge  on 
participation  and  citizenship,  and  encouraged  to  follow  up  on  social  or  political  topics, 
contributing to the development of skills important for participation and active citizenship 102. 
In particular, the participation in the Youth dialogue 103 is noted for its effects on participants 
in  terms  of  active  citizenship,  participation  in  civil  society  and  democratic  life,  ranking  the 
highest in the survey run by the RAY research network (53% of response, compared to the 
average of 33% for other youth actions) 104, results confirmed in the beneficiary survey run by 
ICF105. Furthermore, based on a survey carried by DAAD in 2023 on over 19 000 alumni from 
the  period  2014-2019,  the  intention  of  former  mobility  participants  to  take  part  in  2024 
European election is quite high, with 85 % of respondents confirming their intention to vote 106. 

Box 1 – Example from National reports 
Spain:  The  data  suggest  that  the  [2014-2020]  Erasmus+  programme  has  had  a  considerable  impact  on  the 
formation of a stronger European identity and the promotion of multiculturalism, especially in the youth field, 
where the figures are particularly striking, reaching up to 80%, which reinforces the findings from the RAY 
research network surveys, highlighting the importance of non-formal education in strengthening these aspects. 
Participants  not  only  acquire  academic  and  professional  skills,  but  also  develop  a  greater  awareness  and 
appreciation of cultural diversity and European common values. The positive trend in all categories can be 
attributed to the structure of the Erasmus+ programme, which encourages mobility, cultural exchange, and 
international cooperation. These elements are essential for building a more united and supportive Europe. 

▪  Skills and competences 

Learners participating  in the  programme since 2014 and surveyed by the external  evaluator 
reported that their mobility experience helped them acquire or improve professional skills in 
teamwork,  sector  or  field  specific  skills,  planning  and  organisational  skills,  analytical  and 
problem-solving skills, innovative and entrepreneurial skills, with shares generally above 70% 
across  target  groups 107.  On  average,  80%  of  respondents  across  higher  education  students, 
VET  learners,  adult  learners  and  young  people  reported  positive  results  regarding  the 
acquisition of ‘planning and organisational skills’. The teamwork skills received the highest 
level of appreciation from young people participating in youth activities (93%) and positive 
feedback  from  at  least  80%  of  other  target  groups.  The  acquisition  of  innovative  and 
entrepreneurial skills had the most diversified feedback, from 59% of HE students reporting 
positive outcomes (the only result below 70%) to 74% of young people with the highest share.  

Survey results for learners identifying themselves as having fewer opportunities are overall 
very similar, with some perceived differences within the different target groups. VET learners 

102 RAY research study on long-term effects of Erasmus+ Youth in Actions on participation and citizenship (RAY 
LTE):  https://www.researchyouth.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/RAY-LTE-FTA_20210324-research-report-
clean.pdf  
103 KA3, ‘Dialogue between young people and policy makers’ also called ‘Structured dialogue’ before 2018. 
104 RAY-MON, Comparative research report. Effects and outcomes of the Erasmus+ Youth in action programme 
(https://researchyouth.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/RAY-MON_Research-Report-20142020.pdf ).  
105 Finding to be read in the light of the limitations indicated in section 1.1.4. 
106  DAAD  (2024),  Erasmus+:  Wirkung  der  Studierendenmobilität  (https://eu.daad.de/news/de/86030-erasmus-
wirkung-der-studierendenmobilitaet/).  
107 Beneficiary survey for learners run by ICF (findings to be read in the light of the caveats indicated in section 
1.1.4). Results are based on a total of responses “strongly agreeing” or “rather agreeing” to these statements from 
a total of 16 740 participants in higher education, 5 255 in VET, 2 479 in youth, and 90 in adult education, out of 
which  the  following declared  themselves  as  having  fewer opportunities:  48,7%  in  higher  education, 59,9%  in 
VET, 69,3% in youth, and 61,1% in adult education. Survey run on programme participants with mobility start 
years  between  2014  and  2023  (inclusive).  The  feedback  reported  in  this  section  is  only  based  on  programme 
participants (no comparison is done with non-participants). The question was not asked to school pupils.  

38 

 
 
are  on  average  slightly  more  positive  compared  to  their  peers  with  fewer  opportunities.  On 
average,  both  young  people  and  students  with  fewer  opportunities  perceive  more  benefits 
compared to their peers, in particular regarding analytical and problem-solving skills, followed 
by sector- or field specific skills.  

When  breaking  down  this  survey  results  by  perceived  barriers,  learners  declaring  to  face 
cultural or economic barriers, and to a certain extent those facing geographic barriers, perceive 
a  higher  benefit  from  the  participation  in  the  programme,  in  terms  of  acquisition  of  skills, 
compared to those facing other types of barriers, in particular health problems. However, as 
stated in section 1.1.4, given the differences in sample size of the different target groups, it is 
not possible to generalise these results to the entire programme for either programming period. 
Furthermore,  the  high  share  of  respondents  identifying  themselves  as  having  fewer 
opportunities  (around  50%  of  the  sample)  limits  their  representativeness  compared  to  the 
programme population over both programming periods (around 10% in 2014-2020, and 15% 
by  end  2023) 108.  Therefore,  these  results  can  only  be  indicative  of  achieved  outcomes,  not 
allowing to claim causal links or to draw firm conclusions.  

Examples of the range and types of effects of programme participation on people with fewer 
opportunities109  include,  for  example,  becoming  more  proactive  and  engaged  as  a  result  of 
project  activities,  acquiring  new  competences  and  skills,  and  progressing  further  in  their 
education  and  career  paths.  Similarly,  several  countries  report  positive  effects  in  terms  of 
personal  development 110,  skills  enhancement 111  and  career  prospect 112  for  disadvantages 
participants, although comprehensive data on the specific impact of Erasmus+ on participants 
with fewer opportunities is limited in most cases.  

The beneficiary survey for learners shows positive results also for school pupils, with 70% or 
more indicating an improved the range of competences (see chart below) following a mobility 
experience,  with  similar  shares  both  for  pupils  with  fewer  opportunities  and  for  all  other 
pupils 113. A recent study in the school sector in Germany shows that participation in Erasmus+ 
seems to benefit those who have less favourable learning profiles and less opportunities for e.g. 
extracurricular  school  settings  or  to  participate  in  ‘classic’  privately  organised  international 
mobility  abroad.  In  particular,  the  study  highlights  that  participation  in  Erasmus+  benefits 
pupils from non-academic track school types, as well as those who receive less support from 
their parents on school matters, giving them the opportunity to be involved in outbound learning 
mobility 114. 

108 This can be explained by the different way of collecting data on participants with fewer opportunities in the 
survey (self-reported data from each respondent), compared to the programme (data entered by the beneficiary 
organisations at mobility level).  
109 Case studies: Pädagogische Hochschule Freiburg (SCH, DE), Oktatási és Szakértő Bt. Hungary. E29 (YOU, 
HU), Youth wiki (Youth, CY, FR, MT). Findings based on stakeholders’ perceptions. 
110 10 national reports mention increased self-confidence, autonomy and motivation as frequently cited benefits 
for disadvantaged participants (AT, BG, DE, EL, ES, FI, IE, LV, MT, RO). 
111 19 national reports mention improvements in language skills, intercultural competence and digital literacy as 
commonly reported benefits for people with fewer opportunities (AT, BEnl, BG, CZ, CY, DE, ES, FR, HR, IT, 
LI, LV, LT, LU, NO, PL, PT, RO, SK). 
112 21 national reports indicate enhanced employability and clearer career aspirations as benefits, particularly in 
the VET sector for disadvantaged participants (AT, BEnl, CZ, CY, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, HR, LI, LT, LU, MT, 
NL, PL, PT, RO, RS, SE, TR). 
113 Also for this target group, the results from this survey have to be read taking into account the caveats indicated 
above and in section 1.1.4. 
114 S. Hornberg, M. Becker, N. Sonnenburg, M. Peitz, C. Schreiber (2025). Lernmobilität in Europa 
(https://erasmusplus.schule/fileadmin/Dateien/Bilder/Dossiers/Politische_Papiere/2025_Hornberg_et_al_Zusam
menfassung_Studie_Lernmobilitaeten_Europa.pdf). 

39 

 
 
Share of pupils participating in the programme who agreed that their stay abroad helped them in: 

Source: Beneficiary survey for learners (school pupils) run by ICF. Results are based on responses from 560 
programme participants (pupils), out of which 46.30% (=259) declaring themselves as having fewer opportunities 

The  collected  evidence  demonstrates  a  number  of  sustained  effects  from  participation  in 
learning mobility.  The counterfactual analysis  comparing  participants  over both  programme 
generations  and  non-participants 115  highlighted 
the  following  correlations  between 
participation in learning mobility and a series of outcomes: 

•  For  higher  education  students,  participation  in  learning  mobility  across  both 
programme generations is associated with the increased likelihood of having a sense 
of  EU  identity  and  believing  that  employers  in  their  sector  value  the  mobility 
experience. 

•  For  VET  learners,  positive  association  is  found  with  the  increased  likelihoods  of 
moving  to  another  EU  country  permanently  to  study/work,  finding  a  job  within  3 
months  and  completing  studies/other  activity.  A  positive  association  was  also 
observed regarding digital competences but only for learners taking part in physical 
(not blended) mobility. 

•  For school pupils, a positive association was found with individual’s problem-solving 
and  autonomy  skills,  and  civic  competences.  A  correlation  was  found  between  an 
increase  of  individual’s  likelihoods  of  future  involvement  in  civic/volunteering 
activities,  and  the  reduced  likelihood  of  believing  that  they  will  achieve  poor 
performance  in  education/training  regardless  of  the  efforts  they  put  in  (reduced 
pessimism). 

•  For  adult  learners,  participation  in  Erasmus+  2021-2027116  is  correlated  with  the 
increased  likelihood  of  reporting  that  the  learning  organisation  facilitates  social 
contacts and believing that employers in their sector value the mobility experience. 
•  For  young  people,  participation  in  the  programme  is  found  to  have  increased  the 
individual’s social and civic competences. Participation in DiscoverEU (2021-2027) 
is  associated  with  an  increased  sense  of  initiative  and  entrepreneurship;  similarly, 
participation  in  the  Youth  Dialogue  (2014-2020)  is  positively  associated  with 
increased  problem  solving  and  autonomy  of  participants,  as  well  as  with  active 
citizenship and involvement in democratic life, in line with the objectives of the action. 
Participation  in  the  European  Voluntary  Service  (2014-2020)  was  found  to  be 
associated with an increased sense of initiative and entrepreneurship, positive feeling 

115 Analysis based on the beneficiary survey for learners carried out by ICF (see 1.1.4 for related caveats) 
116 Mobility of adult learners was only implemented in the 2021-2027 Programme. 

40 

 
 
 
towards  the  EU  and  a  positive  association  with  increased  cultural  awareness  and 
expression.  

At level of mobility entailing cooperation with non-associated third countries, participants in 
Erasmus  Mundus  Joint  Master  Degrees  benefitted  from  high-quality  education  and 
international exposure, which enriched their educational and professional experiences; students 
gained valuable skills in their respective fields, becoming more open-minded and independent. 
According to a recent Erasmus Mundus Graduate Impact Study 90% of surveyed alumni stated 
high  satisfaction 117,  consistently  reporting  individual  impact  in  five  key  areas,  such 
intercultural competencies, improved career prospects, personal growth, more positive attitudes 
towards Europe and the EU, and deeper subject matter expertise.   

▪  Academic performance 

Participation  in  2014-2020  Erasmus+  student  mobility  is  reported  as  enriching 
academically, socially, personally, and in terms of the employability development 118. The 
periods spent abroad have a positive impact on openness to the world and on social cohesion, 
with more students who identify themselves as global citizens, Europeans and EU citizens after 
their stays abroad 119. The meta-analysis carried out by the external evaluator on the topic ‘skills 
development’  took  into  account  19  research  papers  looking  at  sample  populations  that 
participated  in  study  abroad  anywhere  from  2007  up  to  and  including  2020.  The  analysis 
measured  three  outcome  type  covered  in  all  the  19  studies:  i)  academic  achievement,  ii) 
language skills, and iii) intercultural cognitive competence. 46% of the outcomes reported in 
the  studies  included  in  this  meta-analysis  suggest  a  positive  and  statistically  significant 
relationship between participating in international student mobility and educational attainment 
or skills formation 120, providing reasonable evidence that participating in Erasmus+ improves 
language skills and possibly also cultural intelligence 121. Out of the 19 studies included in the 
meta-analysis, five 122 use sample populations directly referred to the 2014-2020 programme. 

117 The study analysed the experience of 3 different cohorts of EMJMD graduates. In the GIS 2022/23, graduates 
from cohorts 2012/13, 2017/18 and 2021/22 were invited to participate by e-mail and 3.396 of them completed 
the survey. To enhance representativity, the data were weighted to reflect the overall distribution of gender, region, 
field of study, and cohort. This edition of the survey included relevant topics, such as the impact of the COVID-
19 pandemic on studies and entry into the labour market. 90% of respondents reported high levels of satisfaction. 
118 European Commission (2019). “Erasmus+ higher education impact study” 
119 ESN, 2022, ESNsurvey. Understanding the Experience & Needs of Exchange Students in Challenging Times, 
Bruxelles. 
120 The meta-analysis carried out on the topic ‘skills development’ pooled independent variables (i.e. output types 
used in the analysis) from the 19 eligible studies (for 80 coefficients in total). These coefficients were analysed to 
determine whether they were statistically significant, and if so, whether they had a positive or negative effect. A 
result was considered to be statistically significant if it met the criteria of p<=0.05. 43 out of the 80 estimates 
suggest a positive and significant association, 33 are not statistically significant, and 4 are negative.  
121 Within the considered outcomes, 51 out of 80 coefficients were specific to language skills (60% of which are 
statistically  significant  and  positive),  13  to  cultural  intelligence  (92%  of  which  are  positive  and  statistically 
significant), and 16 on academic achievement (which are largely not statistically significant, and those that are 
significant are mixed between positive and negative results, with 3-3 cases each). The low number of coefficients 
reported for academic achievement supports the documented challenges for researchers in the availability of data 
that can be used to evaluate the impact of Erasmus+ and study abroad on academic achievement. 
122 Among these, two studies report a positive correlation between Erasmus+ participation and improvement of 
second-language proficiency (Kaya, F. 2021) and cultural cognitive competence (Mckay et al. 2022). However, 
they both rely on non-contrafactual methodology, thus not allowing to claim causal-impact.  
Kaya, F. (2021). Language Proficiency Development and Study Abroad Experience: A Study on EFL Learners. 
GIST Education and Learning Research Journal, 23, 33 58.  
Mckay,  S.,  Lannegrand,  L.,  Skues,  J.,  Wise,  L.  (2022).  International  experience  and  cultural  intelligence 
development:  A  longitudinal  assessment  of  Australian  and  French  exchange  students.  International  Journal  of 
Intercultural Relations, 91, 56-69.  

41 

 
 
Among these, a recent paper 123 explores academic performance, showing that participation in 
Erasmus+ learning mobility does not delay graduation at the home university and, in addition, 
it has a positive and significant impact on undergraduates’ final degree mark. In particular, 
participation in Erasmus+ learning mobility improves graduation results for undergraduate 
students  in  scientific  and  technical  fields  (STEM)  and  for  those  who  apply  for  the 
Erasmus+  grant  in  the  first  year  of  their  studies,  for  whom  it  was  also  observed  a 
reduction  in  time  to  graduation.  The  paper  makes  use  of  administrative  records  from  the 
University of Bologna, the second-largest public university in Italy, through a counterfactual 
methodology, allowing to claim causal-link 124.  

▪  Employability and career prospects 

National  reports  indicate  positive  and  lasting  effects  of  Erasmus+  participation  at  the 
individual  level,  without  making  major  distinctions  between  programme  generations. 
Enhanced  employability 125  and  career  prospects  were  highlighted  in  25  reports 126. 
Improved soft skills, such as intercultural competence, language proficiency and adaptability, 
were  indicated  in  all  reports.  Increased  European  identity  and  active  citizenship  were 
mentioned  in  21  reports 127.  Regarding  aspects  of  future  career  prospects,  88%  of  learners 
surveyed by the external evaluator  believe that employers valued the personal  skills  gained 
through the mobility experience 128. More than 70% of learners who participated in mobility 
activities in different programme fields since 2014 agreed that their stay abroad had improved 
their opportunities for future employment (both for those survey respondents who identified 
themselves as participants with fewer opportunities129 and for all other learners). 

See 

123 Granato, S., Mazzarella, G., Schnepf, S. V., and Havari, E. (2021).  Study Abroad Programmes and Students' 
Academic Performance: Evidence from Erasmus Applications, IZA Discussion Papers, No. 14651, Institute of 
Labor Economics (IZA), Bonn. 
124 The paper exploits the allocation mechanism used by the university to select participants in Student mobility 
in  a  fuzzy  regression  discontinuity  design,  which  allowed  to  tackle  the  bias  deriving  from  selection  into  the 
Erasmus+ programme and to estimate its causal impact on short-term outcomes. It uses rich administrative data 
on students’ applications to the Erasmus+ programme matched with administrative records on their performance 
at university (information on time to degree completion and final graduation mark), becoming the first study that 
uses administrative data on Erasmus+ applications and students’ outcomes at graduation. 
125 
Education, 
content/uploads/2021/05/EENEE_AR36.pdf 
126 AT, BEnl, BG, CZ, CY, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, IT, LI, LT, LU, MT, NL, NO, PT, RO, RS, SE, TR. 
127 AT, BEde, BEnl, CZ, CY, DE, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, IT, LI, LT, LU, PL, PT, RO, RS, SE, TR. 
128 Beneficiary survey for learners run by ICF (see section 1.1.4 for related caveats).. Results are based on a total 
of 16 740 respondents in higher education, 5 255 in VET, 2 479 in youth, and 90 in adult education. The question 
was not asked to school pupils. 
129  The  respondents  to  this  survey  self-declared  themselves  as  facing  physical,  economic,  social,  cultural  or 
geographical  barriers  and  therefore  were  considered  as  participants  with  fewer  opportunities  in  the  analysis. 
However,  as  previously  explained,  the  data  do  not  correspond  to  the  monitoring  data  which  are  collected  at 
programme level on participants with fewer opportunities.  

https://eenee.eu/wp-

Economics 

European 

network 

Experts 

on 

of 

42 

 
 
Share of participants by field who agreed that their stay abroad helped them improve 
opportunities for future employment 

Source: Beneficiary survey for learners run by ICF. Results based on a total of responses “strongly agreeing” 
or “rather agreeing” to these statements from 16 740 respondents in higher education, 5 255 in VET, 2 479 in 
youth, and 90 in adult education, out of which the following declared themselves as having fewer opportunities: 
48,7% in higher education, 59,9% in VET, 69,3% in youth, and 61,1% in adult education. The question was not 
asked to school pupils. 

Studies  looking  at  the  effects  of  Erasmus+  on  labour  market  outcomes  struggle  to  find 
definitive answers to this question. The meta-analysis carried out by the external evaluator on 
the  topic  ‘employability’  aimed  to  measure  the  outcomes  ‘employment  success’  and 
‘employment quality’. However, out of the 11 research papers filling in the criteria for inclusion 
in the analysis, only five included samples participating in student mobility in the first years of 
Erasmus+  2014-2020 130  Around  a  quarter  of  outcomes  contained  in  the  11  primary  studies 
included  in  this  meta-analysis  are  positive  and  significant  (i.e.  have  a  positive  statistically 
significant effect), but methodologies and research design are heterogeneous and cannot firmly 
identify impacts 131, the extensiveness of the mobility period addressed in the papers doesn’t 
allow a clear link with the intervention. The few research papers referring directly to the period 
2014-2020  note  that  the  participation  in  the  programme  improves  employment  prospects  at 

A 

in 

Higher 

Research 

Analysis. 

Matching 

Sensitivity 

130 Crãciun D., Orosz K., Proteasa, V. (2020) Does  Erasmus Mobility Increase Employability? Using  Register 
Data to Investigate the Labour Market Outcomes of University Graduates in European Higher Education Area. 
Challenges for a New Decade. 
Croce,  G.,  Ghignoni,  E.  (2024).  The  Multifaceted  Impact  of  Erasmus  Programme  on  the  School‑to‑Work 
Education; 
Transition: 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-024-09774-x  
Iriondo,  I.  (2020).  Evaluation  of  the  impact  of  Erasmus  study  mobility  on  salaries  and  employment  of  recent 
graduates in Spain. Studies in higher education, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1582011  
Van Mol C., Caarls K., Souto Otero M (2021).  International student mobility and labour market outcomes: an 
investigation  of  the  role  of  level  of  study,  type  of  mobility,  and  international  prestige  hierarchies.  Higher 
Education, 82, 1145–1171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734 020 00532 3  
Wiers Jenssen J., Støren L.A. (2020). International student mobility and the transition from higher education to 
work in Norway. Higher Education, 82, 1119–1143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734 020 00564 9 
131 Annex VI of ICF study. Estimates are considered to be statically significant if p<=0.05. Out of the 48 estimates 
considered in this analysis, a positive significant effect was identified in only 10 cases, representing 21% of the 
estimates.  Heterogeneity  in  the  results  was  noted  when  breaking  down  the  findings  by  geographical  scope  – 
namely, the relevant sending country. The highest number of estimates is found in studies that analysed southern 
European countries, with Italy resulting in 21 estimates out of 48. This  can be  due by the fact that the  Italian 
National  Institute  of  Statistics  runs  a  survey  on  recent  graduates,  which  includes  their  professional  path  and 
whether  they  participate  in  mobility  schemes.  D’Hombres  (2020)  argues  that  the  employability  outcomes  of 
mobile  students  across  the  EU  can  be  influenced  by  labour  market  conditions  in  their  home  countries,  where 
differences in education systems and labour market demands contribute to this variation. For example, in highly 
saturated  job  markets  with high youth  unemployment  rates,  and/or  a high  number  of  graduates,  the  signalling 
effect of ISM can be comparatively more important. 

43 

 
 
 
least in the short term, as well as the quality of job, and has a positive long-term effect on the 
participants' ability to find a job abroad. The wages of participants are persistently higher than 
those of non-participants,  while graduates coming from  less educated families,  lower social 
classes,  and  regions  with  high  youth  unemployment  rate  also  benefit  from  the  Erasmus+ 
experience  (Croce,  G.,  Ghignoni,  E.  (2024)).  Positive  impact  on  the  prospects  of  recent 
graduates who undertook a learning mobility was found in the medium term in Spain, noting 
salaries  that  were  10-12%  higher  than  those  who  had  not  participated  in  the  programme 
(Iriondo, I. (2020)).  

•  Staff  

The  evidence  collected  through  the  beneficiary  survey  for  staff  carried  out  by  the  external 
evaluator132  suggests  that  participation  in  the  Erasmus+  programme  over  both  programme 
generations  is  associated  with  an  increase  in  the  following  outcomes  for  staff  members  of 
beneficiary organisations: 

•  continued  exchange  with  international  networks  (development  of  other  projects, 
exchange of information related to their profession, keeping abreast of developments in 
the professional community);  
transnational  partnerships  (having  a  clear  strategy  for  the  development  of  an 
international network or international activities, cooperation and network size);  

• 

•  quality of work;  
•  removing  barriers  to  (participation  in)  teacher/staff  mobility  and  international 

cooperation.  

In particular: 

•  For  higher  education  staff,  significant  correlations  with  Erasmus+  participation  is 
noted in several areas, particularly in continued exchange with international networks 
(e.g.  social  media,  professional  information)  and  in  relation  to  transnational 
partnerships. 

•  For  VET  staff,  positive  correlation  is  noted  in  the  continued  exchange  with 
international networks, including social media and project development, with multiple 
outcomes achieving statistical significance as well as in areas related to transnational 
partnerships and the removal of perceived barriers to international cooperation. 

•  For  school  education  staff  positive  association  is  noted  between  Erasmus+ 
participation  and  various  forms  of  continued  exchange,  incl.  keeping  abreast  of 
professional developments. 

•  For adult education staff and sport staff 133, fewer significant correlation overall is 
noted, though for sport staff some positive effects are reported in continued exchange 
with international networks.  

•  For youth workers, improvements are reported in the quality of youth work, while also 
benefiting  from  significant  advancements  in  continued  exchange  with  international 
networks, particularly regarding the development of projects. 

Sustained effects for staff from participation in the programme are also noted. 78% of school 
education staff surveyed in the beneficiary survey maintains contact with individuals they had 

132 Findings to be read in the light of the caveats indicated in section 1.1.4. 
133  The  sample  used  for  the  survey  addressing  sport  staff  is  largely  based  on  participants  in  the  2014-2020 
programme (at level of KA2 collaborative partnerships), therefore these outcomes are more likely to be attributed 
to the 2014-2020 programme. 

44 

 
 
met abroad134. The international experience often contributes to career advancements: 35% of 
staff agreed or strongly agreed that their international experience helped them achieve a new 
function  or  level  of  seniority  (reported  by  60%  of  staff  in  the  sport  sector,  35%  in  higher 
education, 34% in adult education, 28% in VET and 25% in school education).  

Box 2 - Sustained effects on staff from case studies 
The  primary  school  ‘Anton  Skala’  (Serbia)  was  the  first  Balkan  school  to  open  a  department  for  the 
upbringing  and  education  of  children  with  mild,  moderate  mental  retardation  and  autism.  Its  staff  has 
extensive  experience  in  teaching,  understanding  and  knowledge  of  sensory  and  cognitive  specifics  of 
children with intellectual disabilities and autism. According to the school, further participation in Erasmus+ 
since  2019,  the  work  of  teachers  had  improved  by  applying  various  digital  applications  aimed  at  the 
development of cognitive, emotional, social, and motor skills in students. These were adapted and further 
developed following the example of the institutions they visited during the programme activities.  

TAKA TUKA EV is a Slovenian NGO, established in 2002, specialized in working with hearing impaired 
children and youth in the field of theatre. Practitioners, including highly experienced teachers and specialists 
in  special  pedagogy,  highlighted  how  the  programme  has  allowed  them  to  gain  knowledge  and  new 
perspectives  in  youth  development  and  to  promote  new  teaching  methods  in  hearing  impaired  children 
education within their teaching activity. Additionally, they emphasised the value of international experience 
and network opportunities in their personal and professional growth. The organisation has coordinated five 
Capacity  building  projects  in  the  field  of  youth  (respectively  3  and  2  in  the  2014-2020  and  2021-2027 
periods). 

Based  on  programme  monitoring  data  of  the  period  2014-2020,  on  average  84%  of  staff 
participating in learning mobility indicated they had improved skills needed for their current 
jobs, with the highest share among school staff (86%). Improvement of career opportunities are 
reported by 60% of staff with no major differences across sectors.  

4.1.1.3 Impact at level of organisations  

Over  both  programme  generations  organisational  benefits  as  contribution  to  increased 
cooperation,  internationalisation,  improved  practices  of  beneficiary  organisations.  The 
continuity  of  the  intervention,  and  the  repeated  participation  of  organisations  over  both 
programme generations,  makes it challenging  to  clearly attribute  effects  to one or the other 
programme cycle. For this reason, in some cases, only differences and trends can be identified. 
However,  as  impactful  effects  are  rather  generated  following  a  prolongated  action  made  of 
several components, it is more likely that long-term effects are rather to be attributed to the 
2014-2020 programme. 

Progress at organisational level is positive across both programme generations, as measured 
both  quantitatively  (where  possible)  and  qualitatively.  A  large  majority  of  beneficiary 
organisations  (81%)  responding  to  the  survey  targeting  socio-economic  actors 135  stated  that 
their  objectives  were  fully  met,  with  an  additional  17%  stating  that  they  were  met  to  some 
extent. None of the respondent organisations reported that their objectives were not met at all.  

134 This question was only asked in the survey for School education staff. Question: ‘do you keep in touch with 
the people you met during your stay abroad, and if so, how often do you keep in touch? The share is based on 
3 158 respondents (Erasmus+ participants) in school education. 
135 Annex V of ICF study. Non-contrafactual survey, registering a total of 1 550 valid responses.  

45 

 
 
 
A common feature at the basis of the intervention logic of both programme generations is the 
expected spill-over effects136 at the different levels of programme intervention. Several can be 
identified at organisational level. It is observed that repeated participation by organisations 
in Erasmus+ can facilitate organisational  learning, by which organisations increase their 
capacity  and  make  it  easier  to  absorb  positive  effects  of  participation,  especially  if  partner 
organisations also remain the same. Data on repeated organisation pairs 137 signals that from 
2021 to 2022, 24% of organisations sent mobilities to each other more than once, and that 5% 
of organisation pairs continued collaboration from the 2014-2020 programme throughout the 
2021-2023 period. Stakeholders’ consultations highlight that participation in Erasmus+ actions, 
including  the  interaction  with  peers  or  staff  in  other  organisations,  affects  the  teaching  or 
learning methods, resulting in spillovers effects both on the organisation they are active in and 
on the learning of those in their classroom. This is in line with the results of the survey of socio-
economic actors, where 64% of beneficiary organisations responding to the survey stated that 
the activities in  which they participated  contributed to  achieving new learning  and teaching 
approaches. 

At the organisational level, the programme's effects across both programming periods are 
considered  sustained.  54%  of  staff  surveyed  in  the  beneficiary  survey  run  by  the  external 
evaluator indicated that the benefits of their international experiences in their organisations are 
still in place, with only 15% indicating that these benefits were no longer in place138. Almost 
80%  of  the  beneficiary  organisations  responding  to  the  survey  of  socio-economic  actors 
consider that participation in the programme fully facilitated the creation of new partnerships 
and the development of capacity for transnational cooperation 139.  

National  reports  also  highlight  that  common  benefits  for  organisations  include  enhanced 
internationalisation, improved teaching practices and expanded networks in all countries. 
Organisational  impacts  like  internationalisation  strategies  and  improved  teaching  practices 
show  potential  for  sustainability,  but  require  ongoing  commitment,  as  reported  in  16 
countries 140.  

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 
As defined in the 2014-2020 intervention logic, the opportunities offered by the programme 
could help develop long-lasting partnerships and better quality of teaching/learning methods 
and youth work, and strengthen networks and cooperation with businesses/policy actors and 
contribute  to  the  internationalisation  of  organisations.  The  2014-2020  programme  did  not 
include any impact indicator at level of organisations, so no targets are established.  

Stakeholder insights and evidence from the literature speak to the strong accomplishments of 
quality improvements in the organisations participating in the programme reporting the 
establishment  of  organisational  networks 141.  In  higher  education,  KA2  strategic 

136 Under Erasmus+ specific objectives are expected to deliver results at more than one level of intervention and 
across more than one key action. As a result of these ‘spill-over effects’ mobility of staff (individual level) can 
e.g.  support  the  development  of  better  organisational  practices,  thus  influencing  the  organisational  level  (see 
section 2.1 for both programming periods). 
137 Network Analysis carried out as part of ICF study. 
138 Beneficiary survey for learners run by ICF (see section 1.1.4 for related caveats). Question: Are the immediate 
benefits  of  participating  in  the  mobility  activity  still  in  place?  Replies  based  on  a  total  of  26 332  Erasmus+ 
participants across all target groups.  
139 Survey of socio-economic actors, annex V of ICF study report.  
140 AT, BEnl, CY, DE, DK, ES, FI, IE, IT, LT, MT, NL, NO, PT, SE, SK. 
141  European  Commission  (2019).  “Erasmus+  higher  education  impact  study”;  DAAD  (2022)  “Erasmus+ 
Cooperation  Projects—Elements  of  Successful  Internationalisation”;  Epos  (2022)  “Impact  van  Erasmus+  en 

46 

 
 
 
partnerships have helped institutions increase their cooperation with actors outside of higher 
education  and  establish  new  cooperations 142.  This  is  considered  key  for  the  initiation  and 
expansion  of  robust,  topic-related  international  networks,  which  is  instrumental  to  broad 
internationalisation of higher education institutions 143. Strategic partnerships have also enabled 
higher  education  institutions  to  develop  innovative  teaching  and  curricula,  to  be  more 
interdisciplinary,  more  accessible  and  digital  and  to  better  deliver  on  labour  market  needs. 
Knowledge Alliances are found successful in their aim of building  innovation capacities in 
HEIs  and  businesses,  through  cooperation  and  knowledge  flow 144  and  to  support  the 
development and implementation of innovative learning and teaching methods as well as the 
incorporation of inter-disciplinary approaches 145. The strategic partnerships have proved at all 
educational levels to be a very important flywheel to introduce or consolidate methodologies 
and practices which characterize the scope of the coordinating institute’s educational offering. 
For  coordinating  institutions,  KA2  projects  often  provided  the  trigger  for  new  projects, 
encouraging the involvement of a large number of different subjects, giving the opportunity to 
create lasting synergetic networks 146. Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters Degree significantly 
enhanced  international  cooperation  among  higher  education  institutions  worldwide, 
leading to new partnerships and strengthening existing ones, facilitating joint research projects. 
Positive changes are observed also in learning and teaching methods. 

Case studies also show that increased internationalisation and more opportunities for research 
collaboration  are  among  the  main  benefits  of  participation  in  KA2  for  higher  education 
institutions, while for staff they include improvements in learning and knowledge sharing 147. 
In  the  VET  field,  KA2  activities  are  seen  as  essential  to  build  the  international  profile  of 
organisations, and that they facilitate improvements in methodologies and practices of staff and 
practitioners 148.  In  the  youth  field,  participation  in  Erasmus+  tends  to  increase  practices  of 
youth  organisations  in  the  provision  of  non-formal  education,  improve  their  processes  of 
recognition  and  validation  of  competences  of  young  people,  foster  knowledge  transfer  and 
implementation  of good practices  within the organisation 149. In the sport sector, key effects 
identified  in  case  studies  include  the  professionalisation  of  organisations,  improvement  in 
technical skills and knowledge sharing 150. 

eTwinning  op  scholen”;  European  Commission  (2018).  Study  on  the  impact  of  Erasmus+  higher  education 
partnerships  and  knowledge  alliances  at  local,  national  and  European  levels  on  key  higher  education  policy 
priorities – Final report (https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/87791). 
142 European Commission (2019). “Erasmus+ higher education impact study”. 
143 DAAD (2022) “Erasmus+ Cooperation Projects — Elements of Successful Internationalisation”. 
144  For  HEIs  this  took  form  of  thorough  knowledge  innovation  (i.e.,  by  developing,  deepening,  or  expanding 
expertise and research) and experience with innovative teaching; for business this was achieved by stimulating a 
better  understanding  of  the  functioning  of  HEIs  and  through  a  greater  accessibility  to  knowledge.  European 
Commission  (2024),  Assessment  of  the  instruments,  deliverables,  results  and  impact  of  university  business 
cooperation – Final report (https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/514543).  
145 European Commission: Joint Research Centre, Esparza Masana, R. and Woolford, J., European universities 
and knowledge alliances within their territorial innovation ecosystems, Publications Office of the European Union, 
2023, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/429140  
146 INDIRE (2020), Innovation in Erasmus+ Strategic Partnerships - A second study on the impact (https://2014-
2020.erasmusplus.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/erasmus_summary_q3_WEB.pdf) 
147 Case studies Univerza v Mariboru (HED, SI), TU Berlin - ENHANCE Alliance (HED, DE), Universidad de 
Sevilla (HED, ES), CHARM-EU, University of Barcelona (HED). 
148 Case studies FH Joanneum (VET, AT), Chambre de Métiers et de l'Artisanat Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (VET, 
FR), Kauno technologijų mokymo centras (VET, LT), Pilot PoVE Water, CIV Water (VET, NL).  
149 RAY MON Research report, 2021 (based on data collected in 2019 and 2020), https://researchyouth.net/wp-
content/uploads/2021/04/RAY-MON_Research-Report-20192020.pdf 
150 Case studies European Hockey Federation (SPO, BE), EuropeActive (SPO, BE), European Young  Women 
Programme, FIA (SPO, FR). 

47 

 
 
Monitoring  data  from  2014-2020  participants’  reports  show  the  contribution  of  KA1  staff 
mobility to reinforced transnational cooperation. 83% of participants in staff mobility reported 
reinforced  cooperation  with  the partner organisation as  a result of the  mobility, with  higher 
education staff reporting the highest share (88%), followed by VET staff (84%). In the VET 
sector,  staff  mobility  contributed  to  strengthen  cooperation  of  the  sending  institution  with 
players in the labour market, as reported by 67% of VET staff. Similar results are noted at level 
of stakeholders in civil society, where reinforced cooperation was stated respectively by 66% 
and 62% of youth and adult education staff.  

While there is evidence that the cooperation opportunities fostered by the programme supported 
effectively the creation of new partnerships, contributed to reinforce them and to bring forward 
internationalisation strategies, based on the collected evidence it is not possible to quantify the 
extent to which these partnerships lasted over time. Although only 5% of organisation pairs 
participating in the 2014-2020 programme continued collaboration in the same format in the 
2021-2023 period, this share cannot give a precise measure of the duration and sustainability 
of partnerships, as these may continue or evolve beyond programme participation.  

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 
Expected organisational level impacts of the 2021-2027 programme concern increased capacity 
of  educational  institutions  by  fostering  internationalisation,  long-lasting  partnerships,  the 
progressive adoption of  innovative teaching  and  learning methods and tools, adaptability  of 
twin transition. 

The  development  of  organisational  networks  and  increased  internationalisation  are  deemed 
strong by stakeholders, and evidence from the literature review supports such views 151. KA2 
Cooperation partnerships were ranked by NAs/EACEA survey respondents among the top three 
most effective actions for organisations and staff. The Small-scale partnerships are viewed as 
very  effective  in  the  school  and  adult  education  fields,  particularly  for  organisations  and 
learners. In the school sector, participation in Small-scale partnerships is reported to enhance 
motivation for professional skill development, enrich professional and cultural awareness, and 
strengthening the sense of belonging to the educational community 152 

In continuity with the previous programme, and as likely results of participating in the same 
type  of  action  under  both  programme  generations,  consulted  HEIs  report  increased 
internationalisation  and  visibility  and  research  collaboration  opportunities  as  the  main 
organisational  benefits  of  KA2  participation 153.  In  the  higher  education  field,  European 
Universities  alliances  are  ranked  as  the  most  effective  action  for  organisations  and  systems 
across all of Erasmus+ activities in the NAs/EACEA survey. Similar views were expressed in 
the  public  consultation  with  76%  of  respondents  representing  the  higher  education  sector 
agreeing  that  European  Universities  alliances  highly  contribute  to  support  excellence, 
creativity, and innovation at the level of organisations and policies. In the VET field, 61% of 
VET  respondents  of  the  public  consultation  agreed  that  Centres  of  Vocational  Excellence 
highly  contribute  to  support  excellence,  creativity,  and  innovation  at  the  level  of 
organisations  and  policies.  Respondents  to  the  NAs/EACEA  survey  ranked  it  as  the  most 
effective VET action. Also in the case of VET institutions, organisations participating in KA2 

151  See  Erasmus+  annual  reports  2021-2023,  the  European  Parliament  report  on  the  implementation  of  the 
Erasmus+ programme 2021-2027 (2023); European Commission (2023) “Study on Learning Mobility”; RIA-AE 
(2024), Transnational analysis of the impact of Erasmus+ on the Adult Education Sector. 
152 Istituto Comprensivo Manzoni-Radice (SCH, IT). 
153  Case  studies Univerza v Mariboru (HED, SI), TU  Berlin  -  ENHANCE  Alliance (HED,  DE), Universidad de 
Sevilla (HED, ES), CHARM-EU, University of Barcelona (HED, ES). These organisations have taken part in KA2 
projects in both programming period highlighting the same type of feedback on the effectiveness of KA2 activities. 

48 

 
 
report  similar  feedback,  highlighting  the  importance  of  KA2  activities  to  build  their 
international profile, and facilitate improvements in methodologies and practices adopted by 
their staff 154. The Erasmus Accreditation is reported to have positive effects at organisational 
level  as  it  provides  institutions  with  a  structured  framework  for  continuous  improvement, 
facilitating  long-term  planning,  ensuring  sustained  educational  excellence  and  international 
collaboration 155. 

The Commission’s Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2710 introduced a new impact indicator 
for the 2021-2027 programme to assess, from a qualitative point of view, the increased capacity 
of  organisations.  This  indicator  links  to  the  three  specific  objectives  of  the  2021-2027 
programme,  addressing  the  promotion  of  cooperation,  quality,  inclusion  and  innovation  at 
level of organisations. Consulted stakeholders indicate overall positive effects on organisation 
capacity linked to participation in the programme, with qualitative findings summarized in the 
box below156. Although  at  this stage no quantification can be done, progress  is  noted in the 
improvements  of  practices  and  cooperation  as  direct  and  indirect  consequence  of 
participation in projects, especially when participation in the programme was repeated over 
time and continued over both programmes. This makes it very challenging to clearly attribute 
effects to either the previous or the on-going programme. 

Box 3 - Findings on the increased capacity of organisations 
The  programme  increased  the  capacity  of  organisations  through  access  to  and  application  of  innovative 
teaching methods and technologies, development of technological infrastructure, a strengthened capacity 
for staff to participate in new projects and cooperate with other organisations, improved staff expertise and 
skills, development of new tools, increased leadership skills and strategic planning157. 

Factors  contributing  to  improved  capacity-building  through  project  activities158  are  collaborative 
workshops,  resource  support,  broadening  of  networks,  fostering  collaboration,  a  culture  of  continuous 
learning and knowledge sharing. For example, under the European Universities alliance ENHANCE, partner 
higher education institutions enhanced their capacity and capabilities and raised excellence and innovation 
levels  by  pooling  expertise,  knowledge,  and  resources,  including  equipment  and  joint  support  services, 
combining complementary strengths not available at any single institution, to the benefit of their students, 
staff and communities. The University of Sevilla reports a similar experience, highlighting that the strong 
transnational  alliances  established  following  the  participation  in  Erasmus+,  facilitated  the  exchange  of 
knowledge, resources, and best practices among universities across Europe. This also resulted in enhancing 
the quality and scope of the research projects that the university has secured under Horizon Europe.159 

154 Case studies FH Joanneum (VET, AT), Chambre de Métiers et de l'Artisanat Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (VET, 
FR),  Vegova  Ljubljana  (VET,  SI),  Pilot  PoVE  Water,  CIV  Water  (VET,  NL).  With  exception  of  Vegova 
Ljubljana,  all  these  organisations  have  participated  in  KA2  activities  in  both  programme  generations.  Their 
feedback did not highlight any major difference in the experienced effects. 
155 Case study BHAK/BHAS Oberpullendorf (SCH, AT), Primary school Anton Skala (SCH, RS), Chambre de 
Métiers et de l'Artisanat Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (VET, FR), Bildungsdirektion Steiermark, Board of Education 
of Styria (AT). 
156 Findings largely based on stakeholders’ perception data. 
157  Case  studies:  Istituto  Comprensivo  Manzoni-Radice  (SCH,  IT);  Primary  school  Anton  Skala  (SCH,  RS); 
Pädagogische  Hochschule  Freiburg  (SCH,  DE);  I  Liceum  Ogólnokształcące  im.  Henryka  Sienkiewicza  w 
Kędzierzynie-Koźlu  (SCH,  PL);  European  Hockey  Federation  (SPO,  BE);  EuropeActive  (SPO,  BE);  FH 
Joanneum (VET, AT); Chambre de Métiers et de l'Artisanat Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (VET, FR); E29 (formerly, 
Ifjúsági  Nomád  Klub)  (YOU,  HU);  Agenzija  Zghazagh  (YOU,  MT);  Profilirana  Prirodo-Matematicheska 
Gimnazia Akademik Ivan Tsenov (JMA, BG); College of Europe (JMA,  BE and PL); CHARM-EU, University of 
Barcelona (HED, ES); key informant interviews with NEOs, SALTOs, and EU Delegations, third country organisations. 
158  Case  studies:  TU  Berlin  -  ENHANCE  Alliance  (HED,  DE);  European  Hockey  Federation  (SPO,  BE); 
EuropeActive (SPO, BE); Chambre de Métiers et de l'Artisanat Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (VET, FR); Agenzija Zghazagh 
(YOU,  MT);  Profilirana  Prirodo-Matematicheska  Gimnazia  Akademik  Ivan  Tsenov  (JMA,  BG);  Key  informant 
interviews with NEOs, SALTOs, and EU Delegations; Commission services/Agencies, six stakeholder organisations. 
159 See Case studies on TU Berlin – ENHANCE alliance (HED, DE) and University of Sevilla (HED, ES). 

49 

 
 
In  the  school  education  field,  the  ‘Good  Practice’  label  awarded  at  stage  of  final  report  assessment  is 
highlighted as an example of the programme boosting motivation to further boost capacity, experience and 
confidence160. Moreover, interviewed EU Delegations highlighted significant institutional impacts in Latin 
America, contributing to academic diplomacy and regional integration in higher education. Latin American 
universities are forming consortia, which build trust and foster collaboration.  

The  organisations  participating  in  the  programme  also  raised  capacity  of  other  organisations,  including 
through  network-building,  knowledge-exchange,  training,  and  curriculum  development 161.  In  the  school 
education field, for example, the ICSE academy, funded in 2021 under the Erasmus+ Teacher Academies 
and bringing together 13 higher education institutions, 13 policymaking organisations and 65 schools, offers 
job  shadowing  summer  schools  and  a  workshop  series,  which  contribute  to  capacity  building  of  the 
educational work force. Through this work, the academy has disseminated innovative teacher approaches in 
STEM education and built capacity within the organisation hosting the ICSE Academy itself. 

Points of improvement were mentioned by a few stakeholders, which mainly noted the limited capacity for 
many organisations to engage with the process of applying for and running projects, and suggested grants 
to  invest  in  support  for  organisational  operations  (operating  grants)  to  improve  project  applications, 
utilisation of EU funding, and the sustainability of project results 162. 

4.1.1.4 System and policy impact 

Over both programme generations, system and policy level impact is defined as a contribution 
to  support  policy  cooperation  in  programme  fields  to  influence  improvements  of  national 
education, training, youth and sport systems. The findings analysed under this chapter are in 
large part based on programme monitoring data, consultation activities and literature review. 

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 
Erasmus+  2014-2020  aimed  to  contribute  to  the  Europe  2020  headline  target  in 
education 163, namely (a) higher education attainment and (b) tackling early school leaving. As 
also observed in the mid-term evaluation, the contribution of the programme to their evolution 
is indirect, putting in question the testability and plausibility of these indicators with regards 
to  the  programme  intervention  (see  also  section  4.1.2.5).  Nevertheless,  the  programme 
contributes to the achievement of both targets, reaching a high number of learners via KA1 and 
KA2 164, increasing their attitude towards education/training165. Such a positive attitude can 
be analysed as a precursor of education retention and as reducing the risk of dropouts. 

Early school leavers or people not attracted by higher education are more likely to be found 
among disadvantaged people. At this level, the programme has performed well in non-formal 
and  informal  learning,  putting  inclusion  at  the  heart  of  youth  activities.  In  addition,  the 
identification  of  the  KA2  priorities  particularly  relevant  in  the  national  context  by  National 

160 Case study: I Liceum Ogólnokształcące im. Henryka Sienkiewicza w Kędzierzynie-Koźlu (SCH, PL). 
161 Case studies: College of Europe (JMA, BE and PL), Pädagogische Hochschule Freiburg (SCH, DE); European 
University Institute (JMA, IT); Regional Capacity for Adult Learning and Education, EAEA (ADU, BE). 
162 Case studies: Agenzija Zghazagh (YOU, MT); Afeji Hauts-de-France (ADU, FR); Youth for exchange and 
understanding international (YOU, BE); Casa do Professor (JMA,  PT); CHARM-EU, University of Barcelona 
(HED,  ES);  Bildungsdirektion  Steiermark,  Board  of  Education  of  Styria  (SCH,  AT);  Pilot  PoVE  Water,  CIV 
Water (VET, NL). 
163 The Europe 2020 strategy aimed to reduce early school-leaving rates to a level below 10% (9.9% in 2020) and 
to enable at least 40% of 30-34 years-old to have completed tertiary or equivalent education by 2020 (40.3% in 
2019). (see: 04c88d0b-17af-cf7e-7e78-331a67f3fcd5).  
164 Mobility of pupils was implemented under KA2 in the 2014-2020 programme. 
165  Based  on  the  Erasmus+  higher  education  impact  study  (2019:  https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/162060), 
around 80% of participants in their first cycle reported that they plan to continue their studies to the next level –
in  particular  those  students  who  experienced  greater  impact  of  mobility  on  their  studies  (acquisition  of 
competences relevant to study, experience of new teaching methods, etc.) were more likely to want to continue to 
a higher educational level.  

50 

 
 
 
Agencies helped raise the attention of potential applicants  on areas with higher needs.  As a 
result, in the 2014-2020 period, approximately EUR 672 million  were contracted to support 
close to 9 000 projects addressing the topic of early school leaving.  

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 improved attractiveness of participating higher education institutions, by 
adding  value  to  their  academic  offer  and  the  exposure  to  innovative  learning/teaching 
methods166. According to consulted stakeholders, the association with a prestigious brand like 
‘Jean  Monnet’  increased  the  prestige  of  beneficiary  universities,  while  engaging  in  Jean 
Monnet projects enhanced the depth and quality of studies, improving academic outcomes and 
practical skills development 167. This effect continues over time, as a result of the continuation 
of the action in the 2021-2027 period. 

The  programme  has  strived  to  support  initiatives  with  high  transformational  impact  for 
education and training systems to further increase attractiveness of higher education institutions 
and the quality of the educational offer, including for a more systemic approach to learning 
mobility.  In  2019  and  2020,  Erasmus+  tested  the  European  Universities  Initiative168 
through two calls for proposals, paving the way for its full rollout under Erasmus+ 2021-2027. 
The initiative aims  to  boost  the transformation  of European higher  education  to  enhance its 
quality,  inclusion,  digitalisation  and  attractiveness  through  deeper  cooperation  between 
institutions,  their  students  and  staff.  The  key  achievements  of  the  European  Universities 
alliances selected under the pilot calls include the involvement of a diverse spectrum of HEIs, 
the  presentation  of  common  long-term  strategies  on  education,  with  links  to  research  and 
innovation, the offer of student-centred and flexible curricula, which marked their aspiration 
for a systemic, structural and sustainable impact 169. 

Indirect  influence  can  be  attributed  also  to  the  achievement  of  other  ET2020  European 
benchmarks170 mentioned in the general objectives of the programme, with no possibility to 
establish a causal link on the basis of available evidence. Based on the Education and Training 
Monitor 2019, employment rate of recent graduates was at 81,6% against a target of 82%, with 
improvements compared to the state of play of the mid-term evaluation (77%). In contrast, the 
progress towards the EU target on underachievement in basic skills was at 20% against an EU 
target  of  15% 171.  Both  topics  were  addressed  by  the  programme  with  over  10 000  projects 
addressing  labour  market  issues  and  youth  unemployment  and  more  than  6 000  tackled  the 
overcoming skills mismatching and basic skills.  

Furthermore,  by  2020,  around  8 300  projects  tackled  specifically  improving  quality  and 
efficiency of education and training systems, including the quality of youth work, sometimes 
influencing policy changes with the integration of innovative educational practices into national 
systems. In Slovenia, Erasmus+ 2014-2020 has influenced the understanding of youth policy 
by solidifying a horizontal youth policy approach and becoming an important driver for policy 

166  European  Commission:  Directorate-General  for  Education,  Youth,  Sport  and  Culture, Erasmus+  higher 
education impact study – Final report, Publications Office, 2018 (https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/162060). 
167 Case study on Scuola superiore di studi universitari e di perfezionamento Sant'Anna (JMA, IT).  
168 The initiative was announced in the European Council conclusions of 14 December 2017. 
169 SWD accompanying the Communication on achieving the European Education Area by 2025 (SWD(2020) 
212 final). 
170 Council conclusions on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training ("ET 2020") 
of 12 May 2009. The strategy had the four strategic objectives: 1. Making lifelong learning and mobility a reality; 
2. Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training; 3. Promoting equity, social cohesion and active 
citizenship;  4.  Enhancing  creativity  and  innovation,  including  entrepreneurship,  at  all  levels  of  education  and 
training (https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/107622.pdf). 
171 
training-monitor.pdf  

https://education.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document-library-docs/volume-1-2019-education-and-

51 

 
 
making 172. It triggered initiatives pursuing professionalisation and recognition of youth work 
as an occupational qualification, promotion and comprehension of learning mobility, becoming 
the tool for renewing policy mechanisms, testing new ideas and innovative approaches. 

Box 4 - Influence of regional and national policies through policy experimentations 
The policy experimentation ‘Novice Educator Support and Training’ (NEST), funded under KA3 2020 Call, 
was  implemented  by  a  transnational  consortium  of  15  partner  organisations.  The  project  aimed  to  design, 
implement, evaluate and propose a system of new adaptive mentoring for novice teachers in disadvantaged 
schools. Informed by the NEST project, the government of Catalonia tapped into ESF+ funding to up-scale an 
induction program for novice teachers in the region. This innovative programme called “Sensei” was designed to 
provide high-quality support to novice teachers during their first year in the profession, leveraging on the results 
of NEST’s implementation across regions. The findings from the NEST evaluation informed the development and 
content of the Sensei program's mentor training. In Romania, the NEST results were used to feed in the Law of 
Education that was enacted in September 2023, which ensures mentoring is at the core of the teaching career. 
Local  authorities  in  Bulgaria  are  currently  exploring  the  possibility  of  up-taking  components  of  the  NEST 
mentoring approach. 

Spill-over  effects  can  be  observed  at  the  system-level,  or  through  cross-action  and  cross-
sectoral lens. These spillover effects are only identified through  qualitative sources, such as 
key  informant  interviews  and  case  studies,  and  hence  rather  constitute  ‘perceptions’  of 
spillovers by a range of stakeholders.  In some cases, their effects  last over time influencing 
future projects under the successor programme of Erasmus+ 2014-2020, showing the added 
value of a continued intervention across programming period to generate stronger effects. For 
example,  the  European  Universities  initiative,  piloted  under  the  2014-2020  programme  and 
fully rolled out in the 2021-2027 programme, influences national policy and legislation with 
benefits for the entire higher education sector, notably to enable more conducive environments 
for  seamless  transnational  cooperation,  including  to  cater  for  simplified  processes  for 
establishing  joint  educational  programmes  and  degrees173.  In  Spain,  European  transnational 
cooperation  under  the  alliances  led  to  legislative  progress  in  relation  to  degrees  and 
accreditation174. Other examples include the involvement of public employment services and 
social services in adult education, and the expansion of an established ecosystem of Centres of 
Vocational Excellence into a third country not associated to the programme (South Africa). 

Box 5 - Examples of spill-over effects  
The KA3 project Regional Capacity for Adult Learning and Education (RegALE)175, awarded under the Social 
inclusion 2020 Call, aimed to strengthen the networks of adult education organisations and create synergies with 
regional  and  local  authorities.  Spill-over  effects  beyond  the  project’s  remit  were  achieved  by  influencing  EU 
policy initiatives on individual learning accounts (ILA) and micro-credentials, a strengthened collaboration and 
visibility  of  stakeholders  through  better  inter-ministerial  collaboration,  and  better  informed  regional  network, 
allowing  for  more  shared  information  among  different  actors  involved  in  adult  education  provision,  more 
opportunities for future projects, collaboration, or synergies. 

The  Pilot  Platform  of  Vocational  Excellence  Water  (Pilot  PoVE  Water176),  a  2-year  project  from  the  2019 
Centres of Vocational Excellence pilot call, and the following PoVE Water Scale-Up177 from the 2021 Call, led 

172 Staff Working Document on the results of the open method of coordination in the youth field 2010-2018, p. 50 
(SWD(2018) 168). 
173 Gunn, A. (2020). The European Universities Initiative: A Study of Alliance Formation in Higher Education. 
In:  Curaj,  A.,  Deca,  L.,  Pricopie,  R.  (eds)  European  Higher  Education  Area:  Challenges  for  a  New  Decade. 
Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56316-5_2  
174 See Case study on EdLab project (HED, ES). 
175 
See also case study on the ‘RegALE’ project (ADU, BE). 
176  https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/projects/search/details/612632-EPP-1-2019-1-NL-EPPKA2-SSA-P.  See 
also Case study on the PoVE project (VET, NL)  
177 https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/projects/search/details/101055851  

https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/projects/search/details/621444-EPP-1-2020-1-BE-EPPKA3-IPI-SOC-IN. 

52 

 
 
by CIV Water (Netherlands), aimed to support innovation for water education by developing a  regional water 
skills ecosystem and better align the education programmes with needs of the labour market. In particular, the 
Scale-Up project has supported the expansion of regional collaborations to a national context in the Netherlands, 
and supported the expansion by a new partnership in a third country not associated with the programme (South 
Africa).  In  the  Netherlands,  a  supportive  policy  environment  has  been  created  at  the  national  level  through  a 
memorandum of understanding signed with the Ministry of Education and department of water and sanitation. In 
Latvia, government resources have been redirected from 10 VET schools to three, which has allowed significant 
investments in facilities, equipment and tools in support of the Latvian water sector, as well as developing a new 
curriculum in the sector in collaboration with employers in the water sector.  

In the youth field, the Youth Wiki178 is recognized for supporting evidence-based policy making 
by  providing  knowledge  and  expertise  for  policy  design  and  implementation  across  both 
programme  generations.  Interviewed  organisations179  acknowledge  its  contribution  to  youth 
policy awareness and advocacy at systemic level, promoting cooperation among ministries, and 
advocating for the integration of youth concerns across various policy areas, aligning with EU 
strategies. In Cyprus, for example, it has created a culture of knowledge and evidence-based 
policy supporting the mainstreaming of youth policy across other policy fields. 

The influence of the programme on national education policies and practices is mentioned in 
19  national  reports 180.  Although  the  reports  do  not  highlight  any  distinction  between  both 
programme generations, it can be reasonably assumed that these effects can be attributed to the 
2014-2020 programme. Contributions to modernisation and internationalisation of education 
systems  were  noted  in  most  countries 181.  However,  21  reports 182  indicate  limited  systemic 
impacts due to the scale of the programme or challenges in translating project-level successes 
into broader national  systemic change. Systemic  impacts  on national  policies and education 
systems  are  evident,  but  their  longevity  is  less  certain  and  requires  continued  support,  as 
reported in most countries 183. 

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 
System level impact is measured against a new indicator established in Commission Delegated 
Regulation (EU) 2023/2710. This indicator measures in a qualitative manner, the programme 
contribution to policy development, strategies and cooperation in education and training, 
youth and sport, linking directly to the three specific objectives (promote cooperation, quality, 
inclusion, excellence, creativity, innovation at level of policy) 184. Consultation activities show 
positive  contributions  to  policy  development,  strategies  and  cooperation,  highlighting 
contributions  to  quality  assurance,  political  priorities,  degree  recognition,  and  cooperation 
between education and the labour market, among others.  

178 https://national-policies.eacea.ec.europa.eu/youthwiki  
179 CS on Youth Wiki (YOU, MT, FR, CY). 
180 BEfr, BEnl, CY, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, IT, LT, LU, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, SK. 
181 AT, BEde, BEnl, BG, CZ, CY, DE, DK, EE, EL, FI, FR, IE, IT, LV, LT, MT, PL, RO, SE, SI, SK, IS, NO, 
RS, TR. 
182 BEde, BG, CZ, CY, DE, DK, EE, FI, FR, IE, IT, LI, LT, LU, NL, PL, RO, RS, SE, SI, SK. 
183 Mentioned in all reports except BEde, BEfr and LU. 
184 The following policy areas are specified in the  SWD(2023) 296 regarding the metadata of this indicator: i) 
contributing  to  building  the  European  Education  Area;  ii)  contributing  to  the  European  Skills  Agenda;  iii) 
advancing youth policy cooperation under the European Youth Strategy; iv) achieving advanced and developed 
policies and strategies in the fields of education, training, youth and sport, including contributing to policy sectoral 
agendas  in  these  fields;  v)  increased  dialogue  and  cooperation  among  stakeholders;  vii)  increased  policy 
cooperation between countries; and viii) development of a European dimension in Sport. At interim stage, the 
measurement  is  mainly  based  on  qualitative  elements,  based  on  consultation  activities,  literature  review  or 
programme monitoring data. 

53 

 
 
The study supporting the mid-term evaluation of the European Education Area stresses the role 
of Erasmus+ as key for its achievement 185. Erasmus+ 2021-2027 was indeed shaped to be a 
key  component  of  building  the  European  Education  Area,  to  contribute  to  the  European 
Skills Agenda, in line with the European Pillar of Social Rights. Erasmus+ flagships actions, 
such  as  the  European  Universities,  the  Centres  of  Vocational  Excellence  and  the  Erasmus+ 
Teacher  Academies  are  key  to  achieve  the  European  Education  Area  and  contribute  to  the 
European  Skills  Agenda.  The  Commission’s  communication  on  a  European  strategy  for 
universities186 called to have at least 60 alliances gathering 500 universities by mid-2024 and 
EUR  626  million  under  the  2022  and  2023  Calls187;  this  goal  has  been  reached  and  even 
exceeded;  by  mid-2024, 65  European  Universities  alliances  were  operational  and  supported 
under Erasmus+, encompassing more than 570 higher education institutions from 35 countries, 
taking transnational cooperation to a different level and forging a novel understanding of the 
way  higher  education  institutions  can  work  together  across  borders,  with  long-term  vision 
going beyond regular cooperation settings. In school education, close to 30 Erasmus+ Teacher 
Academies are already funded under Erasmus+ for EUR 37.5 million contracted grants (the 
initial  objective  set  up  in  policy  documents  was  to  support  25  academies  by  2025 188)  and 
contribute to tackling some of the most relevant issues in the teacher community. In the VET 
field, the Centres of Vocational Excellence are  pillars of excellent vocational education and 
training  in  Europe,  showing  added  value  with  a  growing  number  of  projects  and  networks 
created. The Erasmus+ programme provides funding for 100 Centres of Vocational Excellence 
for the period 2021-2027 189; 41 have already been funded by end 2023. Currently, about 1 100 
organisations,  VET  providers,  higher  education 
trade 
organisations, businesses, public authorities, etc. participate in the ongoing projects, for a total 
allocation of EUR 148 million under 2021-2023 Calls 190. Erasmus+ also supports 13 (out 14) 
actions  of  the  European  Digital  Education  Action  Plan  (DEAP),  which  from  its  side  also 
contributes to the achievement of the European Education Area. 

institutions,  social  partners, 

Through  its  international  dimension,  Erasmus+  also  contributes  to  the  delivery  of  the  EU’s 
Global Gateway strategy191. Launched in 2021, the Global Gateway is the EU’s values-based 
offer to partner countries across the world, aimed to fund investments in five priority areas: 
digital,  climate  and  energy,  transport,  health,  education  and  research.  By  contributing  to  a 
skilled workforce, knowledge sharing and quality higher education and vocational education 
and training in third countries, Erasmus+ assists the implementation of the Global Gateway and 
its investment objectives. For example, the most recent Erasmus+ calls for capacity building 
actions in higher education and VET (KA2) make a direct reference to the Global Gateway, 
aligning  with  its  investment  priorities.  In  addition,  since  2023,  Erasmus+  calls  for  capacity 

185 Study not published yet.  
186  COM(2022)  16  final  (Commission  Communication  on  a  European  strategy  for  universities  -  European 
Education Area (europa.eu))  
187 To this it should be added a total funding allocation of EUR 180 million under the 2019 and 2020 pilot Calls. 
188  Commission’s  Communication  on  achieving  the  European  Education  Area  by  2025,  COM(2020)625  final 
(EUR-Lex - 52020DC0625 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 
189 The Communication on Labour and skills shortages (COM(2024) 131 of 20 March 2024) called to co-
finance more Centres of Vocational Excellence with a target of at least 100 projects by 2027, to support 
European and regional development, innovation and smart specialisation strategies.  
190 Under the 2019 and 2020 Calls the total funding was EUR 34 million. 
191 Global Gateway - European Commission  

54 

 
 
building in VET underline the priority to the projects that contribute to A new Agenda for the 
Mediterranean 192 and its Economic and Investment Plan 193. 

Case studies carried out by the external evaluator highlight the contributions of Erasmus+ to 
the  objectives  of  the  European  Education  Area  for  example  in  terms  of  contributing  to 
developing a Blueprint for a European degree outlining a vision and objectives for a common 
European framework for the design and delivery of joint degree programmes and the award of 
joint degrees matching a set of common European criteria194 as well as to the European Skills 
Agenda through the Centres of Vocational Excellence, witnessing spill-over effects 195.  

Box 6 –EdLab project (European Degree Label institutional laboratory) supporting the development of a 
European degree (label)196  
The policy experimentation project EdLab, funded under KA3 (2022 Call year), aimed to test European criteria 
for a European degree (label), providing recommendations towards a possible European degree. As part of this 
project,  significant  contributions  were  made  by  26  higher  education  institutions  involved  in  four  European 
Universities alliances (the ARQUS, ENLIGHT, EUTOPIA and SEA-EU alliances). EdLab, as well as the other 
five policy experimentation projects 197 supporting the development of a European degree (label), have collectively 
contributed to fostering an environment more conducive to legislative changes at the national level through close 
collaboration with national authorities (ministries), higher education stakeholders, students’ unions, and Quality 
Assurance agencies, also showcasing the role of the European Universities alliances in driving progress for the 
entire  higher  education  sector.  The  collective  effort  of  these  policy  experimentation  projects  has  prompted 
systemic shifts and cultural changes paving the way towards a possible European degree. 

University  policy  and  strategy  were  adapted  in  a  number  of  institutions  as  a  result  of 
participation  in  the  programme,  for  example  by  integrating  horizontal  priorities  into  the 
educational programme and policy for example on sustainability through whole-institutional 
approaches or adapting the inclusion and diversity policy and programmes based on learnings 
from  other  institutions 198.  The  programme  has  generated  policy  recommendations  and 
fostered policy learning in a number of actions, including by mapping reports on LGBTIQ+ 
discrimination,  an  e-learning  training  platform  for  VET  teachers,  policy  workshops  and 
conferences,  and  integration  of  policy  briefs  to  translate  research  findings  into  educational 
offerings 199. 

Areas  for  improvement  identified  by  consulted  stakeholders  are  the  need  for  strengthened 
connections between project  outcomes  and policy formulation 200, the need for national  and 
European  legislation  and  funding  systems  that  allows  for  an  effective  European  Education 
Area, notably when it comes to removing barriers to transnational cooperation 201.  

As for youth policy agenda, the evaluation of the European Union Youth Strategy (EUYS) 202 
defines  Erasmus+  as  a  key  programme  that  contributes  to  achieving  its  objectives  and 

192  Joint  Communication  on  Renewed  partnership  with  the  Southern  Neighbourhood  -  A  new  Agenda  for  the 
Mediterranean, JOIN/2021/2 final. 
193  Joint  Staff  Working  Document:  Renewed  Partnership  with  the  Southern  Neighbourhood  Economic  and 
Investment Plan for the Southern Neighbours - European Commission. 
194 Case study CHARM-EU, University of Barcelona (HED, ES). 
195 Case study Pilot PoVE Water, CIV Water (VET, NL). 
196 Case study EdLab, University of Granada (HED, ES).  
197 These are i) ED-AFFICHE; ii) ETIKETA; iii) FOCI; iv) JEDI; v) SMARTT.  
198 Case studies: Universidad de Sevilla (HED, ES); Satakunnan ammattikorkeakoulu (HED, FI); key informant 
interviews with representatives from 19 countries.  
199  Case  studies  AKMI  Anonimi  Ekpaideftiki  Etairia  (VET,  EL);  College  of  Europe  (JMA,  BE  and  PL);  key 
informant interviews with European stakeholder organisations. 
200 Based on key informant interviews with 5 respondents from Commission services. 
201 Case study CHARM-EU, University of Barcelona (HED, ES). 
202 SWD(2024) 90 final of 11 April 2024. 

55 

 
 
advancing  youth  policy  cooperation  and  concludes  that  Erasmus+  is  key  to  support  its 
implementation at EU level. It underscores the very clear relationship with Erasmus+, stating 
that,  together  with  the  European  Solidarity  Corps,  Erasmus+  is  the  main  and  best-known 
instrument for the EUYS and that ‘funding opportunities have become better focused and more 
strategic, e.g. as concerns new actions such as Youth Participation Activities, and the renewed 
Youth  Worker  Mobility  action  under  Erasmus+’.  Erasmus+  contributes  to  the  strategy  also 
through the participation of third countries in the programme, with the EUYS evaluation stating 
that this ‘demonstrates the international reach of the EUYS’.  

Within the EU sport policy agenda, Erasmus+ is instrumental in strengthening the European 
dimension of sport and in advancing EU sport policy by addressing the policy objectives set 
in  the  2021-2024  EU  Work  Plan  for  sport 203,  in  particular  as  it  comes  to  protecting  the 
integrity and values of sport, promoting its socio-economic and sustainable dimensions, and 
encouraging participation in health-enhancing physical activity. Erasmus+ cooperation projects 
and the newly established staff mobility have supported the policy objectives set in this Work 
Plan through targeted actions aligned with  its priorities. This is confirmed in Commission’s 
report on the implementation and relevance of the European Union Work Plan for Sport 2021-
2024, which states that Erasmus+ actions provide a substantial basis for furthering European 
cooperation 204.  In  particular,  the  initiative  HealthyLifestyle4All  (2021  to  2023)  further 
supported EU sport policy priorities, while linking sport and active lifestyles with health, food 
and other EU policies in a holistic approach aimed at promoting well-being.  

Support to the development of sectoral policy agenda, to dialogue and cooperation among 
stakeholders  and  to  evidence-based  policy  cooperation  between  countries  is  mainly 
through  KA3  activities  managed  under  direct  management,  with  almost 
provided 
EUR 144 million distributed across the different strands in the 2021-2023 period (data 2023 is 
still partial).  

At mid-term, based on available evidence, the progress of the 2021-2027 programme towards 
contributing to EU policy development, strategies and cooperation in education and training, 
youth  and  sport  is  satisfying  and  in  line  with  the  expectations.  Although  no  clear-cut 
quantification can be provided, and the assessment is mainly based on qualitative evidence, the 
level of contribution is estimated as high. 

4.1.1.5 Effectiveness of inclusion measures 

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 

The 2014-2020 Erasmus+ programme aimed at promoting equity and inclusion by facilitating 
the access to participants with disadvantaged backgrounds and fewer opportunities compared 
to  their  peers.  In  the  youth  field,  an  Inclusion  and  Diversity  Strategy  was  designed  in 
cooperation  with  the  SALTO  Inclusion  and  the  SALTO  Cultural  diversity  as  a  common 
framework to support the participation and inclusion of young people with fewer opportunities 
in Erasmus+. Since 2014, the strategy was rolled out through continuous follow-up, with an 
Inclusion and Diversity Steering Group meeting twice a year. Furthermore, it was consolidated 
at national level by national inclusion strategies, based on specific country needs. A number of 
promotion tools were developed to highlight the support offered by Erasmus+ when working 
with young people with fewer opportunities or when tackling inclusion and diversity in projects.  

203 Resolution of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within 
the Council on the European Union Work Plan for Sport, OJ C 419, 4.12.2020, p. 1. 
204 COM(2024) 73 of 14 February 2024.  

56 

 
 
However, the 2014-2020 programme did not have a harmonised approach to inclusion themes. 
SALTO resource centres were active in the youth field only. The VET and youth sectors were 
using the definition ‘fewer opportunities’, while the higher education sector was rather referring 
to ‘disadvantaged background’. Neither of these definitions was used in the school and adult 
education sectors, since the programme only supported staff mobility. Only the definition of 
‘special needs’, with related financial support, was applied across all sectors. 

The average share of participants with fewer opportunities or special needs reached out in the 
youth sector at the end of 2014-2020 was equal to 29%, against 7% in VET and 6% in higher 
education 205. This marks the success of the youth inclusion strategy considered ‘instrumental 
in providing a conceptual understanding of inclusion and diversity having served as a key factor 
both in improving inclusion in youth work and in developing a common operational framework 
for initiatives, approaches and activities 206’. Similarly, Commission’s evaluation on SALTO 
resource  centres  carried  out  in  2023  found  the  SALTO  I&D  and  the  Inclusion  &  Diversity 
Strategy effective in promoting inclusion and diversity in Erasmus+ 207.  

When  looking  at  the  programme  as  a  whole,  the  share  of  participants  with  fewer 
opportunities/special  needs/disadvantaged  background  has  evolved  positively  across  years, 
going from 10% in 2014 to 14% in 2020 (average around 10%). Based on NAs’ yearly reports, 
between  2015-2020,  the  proportion  of  NAs  implementing  activities  to  foster  the  inclusion 
dimension of the  programme  increased  from  38% to  78%, while  almost  all  NAs  conducted 
horizonal activities to support ‘equity and inclusion’, in particular, focusing on newly arrived 
migrants, asylum seekers and refugees208. Furthermore, around 170 Transnational Cooperation 
Activities  (TCA)  were  organised  around  these  themes  since  the  start  of  the  programming 
period.  As  part  of  Erasmus+  Online  Linguistic  Support  (OLS) 209,  the  initiative  ‘OLS  for 
refugees’ was launched in 2016 and offered up to 100 000 online language courses between 
2016  and  2019  to  newly  arrived  refugees  supporting  them  through  the  acquisition  of  new 
languages skills. 

This  strengthened  focus  on  social  inclusion  themes  since  2016  led  to  funding  over  31 000 
projects,  corresponding  to  more  than  EUR  2  billion  contracted  grants  under  indirect 
management across the three key actions. Between  2016 and 2020, a specific call on social 
inclusion  and  common  values  was  published  on  a  yearly  basis  under  KA3,  supporting  178 
projects for total grants of EUR 78 million 210. 

Overall, Erasmus+ 2014-2020 managed to strengthen the participation of young people with 
special  needs  or  fewer  opportunities  in  Erasmus+  projects  and  to  develop  inclusion-related 
support instruments for Erasmus+ applicants and beneficiaries, but there was a need for further 
expansion of access and inclusiveness of these categories. Moreover, the approach remained 
sectoral, with the youth sector being the most equipped to address inclusion challenges.  

in 

(2021), 

the  Erasmus+  programme 

205 The average share of staff mobility participants in the school and adult education sector was 1%. 
206  European  Parliament 
Inclusion  measures 
(https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/694225/EPRS_STU(2021)694225_EN.pdf)  
207  European  Commission:  Directorate-General  for  Education,  Youth,  Sport  and  Culture,  Assessment  of  the 
existing Support, Advanced Learning and Training Opportunities (SALTO) structures’ effectiveness, relevance 
and  EU  added  value  –  Final 
the  European  Union,  2023, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/649859  
208  See  e.g.  the  projects  supporting  ICAM  -  Including  children  affected  by  migration  funded  since  2016 
(https://school-education.ec.europa.eu/en/discover/resources/icam-including-children-affected-migration).  
209  OLS  promotes  language  learning  and  linguistic  diversity. It  allows  Erasmus+  participants  to  improve  their 
knowledge of the language in which they will work, study or volunteer abroad, and measure their progress between 
the start and the end of their mobility period. 
210 See example of successful project in box 5, section 4.1.1.4. 

report,  Publications  Office  of 

(2014-2020) 

57 

 
 
Erasmus+ 2021-2027 

Programme data shows that the share of participants with fewer opportunities 211 has increased 
during the 2021-2023 period compared to the previous programme. In 2023, around 15% of 
participants in KA1 were individuals with fewer opportunities, vs. around 10% in the 2014-
2020  period.  47%  of  respondents  to  the  NAs/EACEA  survey 212  considered  that  the  rate  of 
participation  of people with  fewer opportunities in  Erasmus+ is  higher or at  least  similar to 
other comparable initiatives.  

Despite  this  progress,  challenges  remain  for  the  participation  of  people  with  fewer 
opportunities, with differences among countries and sectors reported in the 26 national reports 
that note a general increase in their participation 213.  

According  to  national  reports,  additional  funding  and  ‘top  ups’  for  participants  with  fewer 
opportunities are widely implemented; however, their effectiveness varies depending on the 
cost of living in the host country 214. While this indicates a recognition of financial barriers, it 
also suggests that a more nuanced and targeted approach to the provision of  supplementary 
financial support may be needed. 

Box 7 – Examples from National reports 

Romania:  ‘In  the  new  Erasmus+  programme  cycle  2021-2023,  progress  has  been  made  in  Romania  in 
involving disadvantaged groups. In the school environment, the school inspectors responsible for European 
education projects confirm that the projects carried out have largely, and very largely, included the following 
target  groups:  participants  from  rural  and/or  remote/isolated  areas  (76%);  socioeconomically  disadvantaged 
participants (from poor families, Roma) (76%); and participants at risk of dropping out of school (53%). The 
participation  of  people  with  special  needs/disability  (23%),  and  those  from  refugee,  migrant  and  asylum-
seeking families (35%), was relatively lower, requiring a careful approach in subsequent programmes.’ 

Czechia: ‘The first effects of the Framework of Inclusion Measures and of the Inclusion and Diversity Strategy 
were evaluated. [The] current programme attracts [a] wider range of organisations. There is a clear strategy to 
reach  out  participants  with  fewer  opportunities,  and  very  effective  measures  have  been put  in  place  by  the 
National Agency.’ 

Most public consultation respondents highlighted the success of the programme in enabling the 
participation of individuals facing cultural, social, and economic barriers. On the other hand, a 
significant  portion  of  respondents  expressed  uncertainty  or  had  no  opinion  regarding  the 
programme's  ability  to  include  individuals  dealing  with  health  issues  and  challenges  within 
education and training systems. Key informants interviewed expressed the view that remaining 
challenges  relate  to  insufficient  funds  to  address  the  often  complex  need  for  more  targeted 
forms of support as well as the need to further clarify the definition of ‘fewer opportunities’ 215.  

211 Article 2(25) of the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ regulation establishes that ‘people with fewer opportunities’ means 
people who, for economic, social, cultural, geographical or health reasons, due to their migrant background, or for 
reasons such as disability or educational difficulties or for any other reason, including a reason that could give rise 
to discrimination under Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, face obstacles 
that prevent them from having effective access to opportunities under the Programme’. See also section 3.1 of this 
SWD  (changes  in  the  legal  framework  of  the  2021-2027  programme)  regarding  the  approach  defined  in  the 
framework of inclusion measures adopted in 2021.  
212 NAs/EACEA survey, annex III of ICF study. Q22: ‘When considering the monitoring data available in your 
sector, how do you judge the level of participation of people with fewer opportunities in Erasmus+?’. 
213 AT, BEfr, BEnl, CZ, CY, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, IE, IS, LI, LV, LU, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, RS, SE, SI, SK, TR. 
214 AT, BEfr, BEnl, CY, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, HR, IT, LU, PL, PT, RS, TR. 
215 Key informant interviews at European (stakeholder organisations, SALTO Resource Centres, Commission’s 
services) and national level (representatives from 21 countries). In national interviews, stakeholders in around a 
third  of  the  countries  selected  for  interviews  report  a  broader  understanding  of  this  group,  encompassing 

58 

 
 
 
 
Overall,  Erasmus+  has  progressively  placed  more  emphasis  on  inclusion,  moving  from  the 
sectoral  approach  of  the  2014-2020  programme  to  a  structured  and  uniform  approach 
implemented across all fields. The framework of inclusion measures, adopted in 2021, and its 
implementation  guidelines 216  provided  a  shared  definition  across  sectors  and  target  groups, 
specific  related  inclusion  objectives,  a  set  of  measures  to  ensure  broad  accessibility  and 
guidance  to  National  Agencies.  This  strategy  includes  additional  funding  provided  to 
participants  with  fewer  opportunities  in  form  of  top-up,  the  requirement  for  all  National 
Agencies  to  develop  inclusion  plans  and  for  the  SALTO  Resource  Centres 217  to  share 
knowledge and evidence on promoting inclusion and diversity. 

4.1.1.6 Effectiveness of priorities’ implementation 

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 

Two  of  the  European  Commission’s  2014-2019  priorities,  targeting  economic  and  labour 
market outcomes, lie at the heart of the 2014-2020 Erasmus+ programme (‘A new boost for 
jobs,  growth  and  investment’  and  ‘A  deeper  and  fairer  internal  market  with  a  strengthened 
industrial base’). These priorities are reflected in the core of the outputs, results, and impacts 
defined in the 2014-2020 programme’s intervention logic. The programme contributed to them 
by engaging participants in learning mobilities that may facilitate future labour mobility and 
support building skills, contributing to positive labour market outcomes for participants. This 
has  ensured  full  alignment  also  to  the  2019-2024  EU  priority  ‘an  economy  that  works  for 
people’. 

Three remaining priorities, targeting the digital market, climate change, and EU civil rights and 
rule of law 218, are indirectly covered in the objectives of the programme and in its intervention 
logic, through activities aiming to improve skills and competences, and to address research and 
teaching  about  the  EU.  In  the  2014-2020  programme,  the  focus  on  digital  skills  was  more 
limited and mainly covered in the higher education sector 219, there was also no mainstreamed 
focus on the environment and climate change.  

Attention  to  environmental  themes  appeared  more  restricted  to  specific  actions,  addressed 
mainly in the youth sector. From 2014 to 2018, 4 226 projects tackled the topics ‘environment 
and climate change’ and ‘green skills’, funded in majority (76%) under KA1 and in the youth 
sector (71%). In the last two years of the programme, when the European Green Deal was set 
as one of the EU political priorities, the number of projects addressing these topics increased 
to 3 087. A similar pattern was followed for digital skills. Between 2014 and 2020, 13% of 
funded projects tackled the topic ‘ICT - new technologies - digital competences’, with 38% of 
which being funded in the last two years of the programme implementation.  In parallel, the 
attention on digital skills increased towards the end of the programming period with additional 

socioeconomic factors, geographical location, and social backgrounds, beyond traditional definitions focused on 
disabilities. 
216 See also section 3.1.  
217 Since 2022, a new SALTO Resource Centre for Inclusion and Diversity in education and training is hosted by 
the Croatian NA (https://saltoinclusion.eu/). The resource centre acts in coordination with the SALTO youth I&D 
to  support  NAs  and  organisations  across  Europe  in  the  implementation  of  Erasmus+  projects  that  focus  on 
inclusion and diversity.  
218 ‘A connected digital single market’, ‘A resilient Energy Union with a forward-looking climate change policy’, 
‘An area of Justice and Fundamental Rights based on mutual trust’. 
219 See the 2018 and 2019 Annual Work Programmes as part of KA1 mobilities in the higher education field called 
“traineeships in digital skills”, and as one of the priorities or outcomes mentioned in the strategic partnerships in 
the field of education and training and youth, and the knowledge and sector skills alliances. 

59 

 
 
funds  (EUR  10  million  under  Calls  2018  and  2019)  made  available  from  Horizon  2020  to 
further boost traineeships in digital skills for higher education students and recent graduates. 

The programme also paid attention to democracy and civil rights priorities leveraging on its 
objectives. Learning and teaching about the EU and cultures within the EU was specifically on 
the  agenda,  as  well  as  improved  solidarity,  especially  in  the  youth  sector  and  through  the 
European  Voluntary  Service.  Topics  related  to  EU  citizenship,  youth  participation,  human 
rights and rule of law were addressed in close to 22 000 projects (around 15% of 2014-2020 
funded projects), the majority of which was under KA1 (78%) and in the youth sector (54%). 
This has ensured that the 2019-2024 priority ‘Promoting our European way of life’ was well 
addressed by the programme. 

The  priority  related  to  migration  policy220  was  indirectly  addressed,  by  supporting  the 
integration  of  newly  arriving  immigrants,  promoting  multicultural  dialogue  and  combating 
radicalisation. As a response to the tragic terrorist events occurred in 2015 and in line with the 
Communication on preventing radicalisation adopted in June 2016 221, Erasmus+ mobilised to 
further strengthen the role of education, training and youth systems in promoting fundamental 
values, such as freedom of expression, respect of diversity and non-discrimination, reflecting 
the objectives and challenges addressed by the Paris Declaration in the implementation of all 
three key actions of the programme, as well as in the actions in the field of Sport.  

During the 2014-2020 period, the international dimension was covered through actions in the 
youth and higher education fields. These actions contributed to the 2014-2019 priority ‘Europe 
as a stronger global actor’ as well as to the economic and labour market priorities, and later on 
to the EU 2019-2024 priority ‘A stronger Europe in the world’.  

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 reflects very well the EU’s political priorities for the 2019-2024 period 
in its structure and actions. The four horizontal priorities, introduced in Erasmus+ 2021-2027, 
can  be  well  mapped  against  four  of  the  six  2019-2024  EU  political  priorities.  The  share  of 
grants allocated to each of these EU priorities are monitored in programme tools. On top of 
this,  the  share  of  KA2  projects  addressing  each  horizontal  priority  and  KA1  activities 
supporting  the  green  and  digital  priorities  is  measured  through  legal  base  or  Delegated  Act 
indicators.  Moreover,  all  horizontal  priorities  are  mapped  in  the  intervention  logic,  and  the 
extent to which participants (self-report to) have improved their understanding of or changed 
their behaviour regarding these topics  is  regularly monitored through  programme  indicators 
(e.g.  whether  participants  are  more  interested  in  ‘active  participation  in  democratic  life  and 
civic society’). The priority ‘A stronger Europe in the world’ is reflected in the international 
dimension  of  the  programme  through  actions  supporting  public  diplomacy,  institutional 
cooperation  and  people-to-people  contacts,  while  ‘an  economy  that  works  for  people’  is 
reflected  at  level  of  expected  results  (increased  skills  and  competences)  and  impact  (better 
employability and career prospects). 

According to NAs/EACEA, the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ programme has been highly effective in 
promoting horizontal priorities, with 85% considering it to have transformative effects (31% 
strongly and 54% partially agreed) 222. 

220 ‘Towards a new policy on migration’. 
221 COM(2016) 379 final. 
222 Survey of NAs/EACEA, annex III of ICF study.  

60 

 
 
The programme demonstrated a positive impact on promoting inclusion and diversity. Over 
half of participants in the 2021-2023 period self-declared to be more committed to working on 
inclusion and diversity issues as a result of their mobility experience, and 70% having learned 
about  inclusion  and  diversity  issues  during  their  mobility 223.  Increases  in  participants’ 
awareness and behaviour change are noted between 2021 and 2023. Stakeholders’ feedback 224 
confirms the positive perception on the effectiveness of the programme performance for this 
priority.  National  reports  indicate  progress  in  implementing  this  priority,  seen  as  the  most 
successful one in 19 reports225, in particular with regards to the increased participation of people 
with fewer opportunities and disadvantaged groups. 

The  programme  has  also  shown  a  positive  impact  on  digital  transformation.  29%  of 
participants in the 2021-2023 period reported to have changed their behaviour and to be willing 
to use more digital technologies in their studies/work after their mobility experience as a result 
of their mobility226 (+4% between 2021 (26%) and 2023 (30%)). In the period 2021-2023, close 
to 45 000 mobility participants opted for a Digital Opportunity Traineeships (DOT). Around 
30 200 learners completed this kind of mobility, with the large majority coming from the higher 
education sector (around 26 300). In addition, around 14 700 staff of different education sectors 
have chosen to have a training/course/job shadowing with a focus on developing their digital 
skills and competences. Stakeholders’ feedback provides positive views of the programme's 
effectiveness  on  digital  transformation,  with  77%  of  public  consultation  respondents  either 
strongly agreeing or agreeing on the good performance of the programme for this priority and 
72% of NAs/EACEA survey respondents agreeing on the transformative effects at system level 
of the programme thanks to this priority 227. However, National reports identify mixed progress 
in the implementation of the digital transformation priority 228. Although the transformation was 
accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic 229, 16 reports indicated that  further development  is 
needed in this area, especially with regard to the enhancement of digital skills 230. 

The  milestones  set  for  the  activities  supporting  the  green  transition  priority  are  mostly 
achieved or on track. Specifically, the 2023 target for KA2 has been exceeded (in terms of the 
proportion of activities addressing climate change). The targets were also met for three out of 
four milestones in the sport and youth sectors except for the KA1 sport, which was launched in 
2023 only. Finally, DiscoverEU emerges for its contribution to the green transition priority by 
offering young people the chance to explore Europe through sustainable travel, with a total of 
179 209 passes. 

Progress  is  observed  with  the  increasing  share  of  green  travel,  with  around  one  third  of 
mobilities using green transport, representing a 25% rise between 2021 and 2023. Stakeholders 
identified  insufficient  financial  support  and  additional  time  and  costs  associated  with  green 
travel as some of the challenges involved in making greener travel decisions 231. Further, around 

223 Annex I Technical Annex, ICF study. Data reporting on delegated act result indicators on horizontal priorities. 
224 Public consultation, NA/EACEA survey and key informant interview. 
225 BEnl, CY, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FR, IE, IS, IT, LU, LV, NO, PL, PT, RO, RS, SI, TR. 
226 Erasmus+ monitoring data, 2021-2023 participants’ reports, N=569 241. 
227  NAs/EACEA  survey,  annex  III  of  ICF  study.  Question:  ‘To  what  extent  has  Erasmus+  2021-2027  had  a 
transformative effect at system level particularly with respect to the four horizontal priorities of  the programme 
listed below?’ 
228 18 reports: AT, BEnl, CY, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, MT, NL, NO, PT, RO. 
229 7 reports: AT, CY, EL, ES, FR, IT, PT. 
230 BEnl, CY, DE, DK, ES, IE, IT, LT, LV, LU, MT, NL, SE, SI, SK, TR. 
231 Some public consultation respondents mentioned the inadequate top-up related to green transport, as travelling 
by means other than plane usually entailed additional time and costs. Suggestions such as having an interrail pass 
to  travel  with  a  train  everywhere  in  Europe  for  a  certain  period,  emission  compensations,  and  having  more 
meetings online were given as examples of how to achieve progress in this field. 

61 

 
 
half  of  participants  in  learning  mobility  activities  declared  increased  knowledge  and 
behavioural  change  related  to  environmental  awareness  and  sustainability  following  their 
participation 232. 

Stakeholders’  feedback  on  the  programme's  contribution  to  this  priority  is  mixed.  Public 
consultation respondents were uncertain about the performance of the programme with regard 
to reducing its carbon footprint (47% strongly agreed or agreed on this). NAs/EACEA were 
more positive in this respect, with 72% agreeing or partially agreeing that the programme is 
performing well in supporting the green transition priority (20% strongly, and 52% partially 
agreed). In the national reports, some innovative approaches were indicated in 10 countries233, 
while 7 reports234 recommend implementing strategies to evaluate the effectiveness of the green 
travel top-up and assess its impact on promoting environmentally friendly travel.  

Finally,  the  programme  has  demonstrated  a  positive  impact  in  supporting  participation  in 
democratic life and civic engagement, with approximately half of the participants showing 
increased  knowledge  about  democratic  values  and  willingness  to  engage  more  actively  in 
democratic  processes.  These  positive  outcomes  have  increased  between  2021  and  2023. 
Stakeholder feedback is positive on programme's role in promoting democratic values. 88% of 
respondents to the public consultation agreed or strongly agreed that the programme performed 
well in promoting common EU values and strengthened European identity, and 75% affirmed 
the  same  about  fostering  active  citizenship  and  participation  in  democratic  life.  68%  of 
respondents  to  the  NAs/EACEA  survey  also  agreed  and  partially  agreed  on  the  good 
performance of the programme in this respect235.  

Positive impact of Erasmus+ on building a European identity and engagement was confirmed 
in  21  national  reports236.  However,  there  was  less  concrete  evidence  of  increased  civic 
participation  in  13 reports237.  The new format of Youth Participation  Activities, launched in 
2021 under the youth chapter and designated as one of the flagship initiatives of the European 
Year of Youth (EYY) in 2022, has particularly boosted young people to engage and make their 
voices heard, empowering them to become active citizens, and raising their awareness about 
EU common values and fundamental rights. The action saw a significant budget reinforcement 
in  the  framework  of  the  EYY  (from  EUR  17  million  in  2021  to  EUR  30  million  in  2022, 
maintained  also  in  2023)  and  supported  over  500  youth-led  initiatives,  boosting  civic, 
economic,  social,  cultural  and  political  participation  of  over  100 000  participants, 
operationalising the “Engage” core area of the EU Youth Strategy.   

232  Based  on  Programme  monitoring  data  collected  through  participants’  reports,  50%  of  participants  learnt  about 
environmental issues during their mobility and 46% reported to have changed their habits to become more sustainable as a 
result of their mobility experience (2021-2023, N=546 938). This ranged from 38% amongst higher education participants 
to 75% of VET participants. On both delegated act indicators, the proportion of participants indicating increased awareness 
and behavioural change increased between 2021 and 2023.  
233 AT, BEnl, CY, DE, ES, FR, IT, MT, NL, PL. 
234 AT, CY, DE, DK, IE, MT, NL. 
235 In their contribution to the public consultation, the European Student Network (The Student Perspective to the 
Erasmus+  2021-2027  Mid-term  Evaluation  |  Erasmus  Student  Network  (esn.org)).  points  to  the  long-lasting 
challenge  of  facilitating  the  interaction  between  international  students  and  local  communities  during  mobility 
experiences, as one of the aspects of civic engagement. Data from the XIVth edition of the ESN survey (reported 
in 2022) showed that, on average, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, only 8% of students engaged in 
volunteering activities during their mobility. The share of students volunteering during mobility has only slightly 
increased to 10% according to the ESN survey XV. 
236 AT, BEnl, BG, CY, CZ, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, LI, LU, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, SI, RS, TR. 
237 BEde, BEfr, DE, DK, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, MT, SE, SI, SK. 

62 

 
 
Overall,  the  2021-2027  programme  is  achieving  significant  effects  among  participants  in 
supporting  the  political  priorities  ‘promoting  our  European  way  of  life’,  ‘a  new  push  for 
European democracy’, and ‘a Europe fit for the digital age’. For political priorities outlined in 
the  European  green  deal,  the  programme  is  making  progress,  though  challenges  remain 
regarding the use of green transport and the programme’s carbon footprint. 

4.1.1.7 Visibility and dissemination of results 

This  section  analyses  jointly  both  programming  periods,  highlighting  differences  or  trends,  where 
needed. This approach is required by the strong continuity of the intervention, with limited changes 
between programme generations, reflected in feedback from stakeholders and national reports.  

Erasmus+  is  very  well-know,  and  it  has  become  “undoubtedly  one  of  the  most  successful 
European  brands”238.  The  Flash  Eurobarometer  on  Youth  and  Democracy  conducted  in 
2022239  shows  that  Erasmus+  opportunities  are  very  well-known,  with  50%  of  the  surveyed 
young  people  confirming  their  awareness  of  Erasmus+  student  mobility  across  all  Member 
States.  Young  people  showed  awareness  of  Erasmus+  youth  exchanges  (33%),  mobility 
opportunities  for  pupils  (30%)  and  apprentices  (20%),  as  well  as  of  DiscoverEU  (12%). 
Collected  evidence  shows  a  comparable  pattern  to  what  was  observed  during  the  mid-term 
evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020240, confirming that Erasmus+ 2021-2027 perception and 
reputation are positive 241.  

However,  despite  its  success,  there  are  still  challenges  in  communicating  the  programme's 
broader range of funding opportunities to the general public. Many people still associate the 
programme  with  higher  education,  and  only  expert  audiences  are  fully  aware  of  its  various 
components and opportunities; this suggests room for improvement to  further increase the 
visibility of the programme beyond the higher education sector, e.g. through communication 
tools and initiatives tailored to specific target groups. 

20 national reports242 noted that, while awareness of the programme is generally high within 
education  and  training  sectors,  public  awareness  beyond  direct  beneficiaries  remains  often 
limited. Consulted stakeholders 243 recognised the challenges given by the need to reach diverse 
audiences and target groups. The communication endeavour is particularly challenging when 
it comes to JMAs or sectoral actions such as eTwinning, EPALE or DiscoverEU, which often 
do not use Erasmus+ brand, as shown by the social media analysis.  

In both programming periods the Erasmus+ Projects Results Platform is a central pillar of 
the programme's dissemination and exploitation activities, offering a comprehensive overview 
of all projects funded under the current programme and its predecessor 244. The platform has 
been  revamped  at  the  start  of  the  2021-2027  period  to  enhance  its  functionalities  and  user-
friendliness. Respondents  to  the  NAs/EACEA  survey expressed rather positive views on its 

of 

on 

the 

the 

Erasmus+ 

2021-2027 

programme 

238  Report 
implementation 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2023-0413_EN.html  
239 https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2282  
240 Combined evaluation of Erasmus+ and predecessor programmes:  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/3d783015-228d-11e8-ac73-01aa75ed71a1/language-en  
241 Positive stakeholder views are also supported by the results of the social media analysis run  by the external 
evaluator. Between August 2021 and January 2024, over 91% of the reviewed 71 182 posts were classified as 
expressing a positive sentiment. 
242 BEde, BEnl, BG, CY, DE, DK, EE, FR, IE, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, RS, SI. 
243 National Agencies, national stakeholder organisations and case studies participants. 
244 The platform includes projects funding under the period 2014-2020 and 2021-2027, as well as a selection of 
projects funded under the previous programmes (LifeLong Learning, Youth in Action, Culture 2007-2013, etc.). 

(2023), 

63 

 
 
effectiveness, also in providing inspiration to potential applicants. Key informant interviews at 
European  and national  level  confirmed  an increasing  emphasis  on effectively  disseminating 
programme results; nevertheless, recurrent criticism points at the lack of sufficient financial 
resources for effective communication and dissemination. 

NAs/EACEA feedback on Erasmus+ Projects Results Platform 

Source: NAs/EACEA survey 

During  both  programming  periods,  National  Agencies  have  carried  out  across  participating 
countries  a  wide  range  of  dissemination  activities,  ranging  from  social  media  campaign, 
dedicated  websites,  information  events,  seminars,  publications,  engagement  of  Erasmus+ 
ambassadors  and  alumni  networks,  as  regularly  reported  in  their  yearly  reports 245  and 
confirmed  by  the  national  reports246.  Despite  the  shared  and  multi-layered  effort,  evidence 
shows that the uptake and sustainability of project results remain limited. National reports 
from  31  countries 247  emphasise  the  need  for  improved  communication  strategies,  broader 
outreach,  and  more  effective  dissemination  of  project  results  to  maximise  impact  beyond 
immediate beneficiaries. Reports from 28 countries248 highlight insufficient resources for long-
term dissemination activities and the importance of providing enhanced support, resources and 
guidance to help beneficiaries maximise the impact and sustainability of their project outcomes. 

4.1.1.8 External influencing factors over both programming periods 

During  both  programme generations, the implementation  of Erasmus+  has  been  affected by 
several  large-scale  external  factors,  which  had  a  significant  impact,  both  at  individual  and 
organisational levels, in one case (Covid-19) coming across both programming periods.  

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 

During Erasmus+ 2014-2020 implementation period, the 2015 terrorist attacks on one hand 
and the refugee crises of those years on the other hand represented external factors triggering a 
stronger  focus  of  the  programme  on  the  promotion  of  tolerance,  non-discrimination,  social 
inclusion  and  on  the  prevention  of  radicalisation  leading  to  violent  extremisms.  The 
implementation of the March 2015 Paris Declaration, incorporated in the new priority areas 
under ET2020, was transposed as cross-cutting priority and reflected in Erasmus+ call 2016, 

245  Analysis  of  2015-2020  and  2021-2022  NAs  yearly  reports  show  a  very  high  level  of  compliance  of  the 
standards set for dissemination and exploitation - between 92% and 98% across the observed period. 
246 For instance, France reported over 1 900 ErasmusDays events taking place in 2023 at national, regional and 
department 
(https://agence.erasmusplus.fr/wp-
including 
content/uploads/2023/12/Bilan-2023-2.pdf ). 
247 All countries who submitted their national report on programme implementation, except Liechtenstein. 
248 All countries, except LI, RS, SI, and TR. 

territories 

overseas 

levels, 

and 

64 

 
 
 
demonstrating the flexibility of the programme in addressing specific rising policy priorities 
through its actions.  

In the same programming period, the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European 
Union also impacted the programme, although the country remained a programme country until 
the end of the programming period. With over 23 000 participations of UK organisations and 
over 190 000 learners and staff249 from UK undertaking learning mobility periods abroad, the 
country was primary beneficiary of Erasmus+. In accordance with the Withdrawal Agreement, 
all  project  activities  financed  through  the  2014-2020  programme  could  continue  as  planned 
until their completion, in some cases well beyond 2020. Thanks to this transitory phase, the 
participation  of  UK  organisations  in  the  programme  remained  quite  stable,  showing  a  slow 
decline in the years following the referendum (from 3 400 to 3 000 participations between 2016 
and 2020). However, programme data indicate a significant decrease of both UK outbound and 
inbound mobilities of higher education students and staff 250.  

Erasmus+ higher education student and staff mobilities 

Source: Erasmus+ annual reports 2019-2021. Statistical annexes. Count of mobilities per mobility start year 

Brexit,  and  the  resulting  withdrawal  of  the  United  Kingdom  from  Erasmus+,  triggered  the 
decision of the UK government to launch in 2021 the Turing scheme, with a budget of around 
EUR 130 million  per year, as domestic alternative for students  in  universities, colleges and 
schools to go in study and work placements abroad. However, the Turing scheme has a much 
narrower scope than Erasmus+251, not fully replacing benefits and partnerships that Erasmus+ offered. 
Brexit provided a “real-life experiment” of what stopping Erasmus+ may mean for a country and how 
much a replacement national scheme may cost (see 4.2.3).  

The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant effect on learning mobility activities, in particular 
on the last year of implementation of the 2014-2020 programme and on-going activities from 
previous  call  years.  In  2020,  the  number  of  mobilities  declined  sharply,  but  in  2021,  the 
programme started to recover, and by 2022, it had returned to pre-pandemic levels 252. 

249 Programme monitoring data, covering the period 2014-2020. 
250  Erasmus+  annual  reports  2019,  2020,  2021  -  Statistical  annex  (https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/431386); 
(https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/038079); (https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/63555). 
251 The Turing scheme does not include dedicated actions in the fields of youth and sport,  provisions for staff 
placements or funding for incoming student mobility. 
252 Di Pietro, G., and Perez-Encinas (2024) "The effects of COVID-19 on international student credit mobility: a 
gravity model approach", Education Economics (https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2023.2297151). 

65 

 
 
 
COVID-19 impact on Erasmus+ learning mobilities 

Source: Erasmus+ annual report 2022, total count of mobility periods started per month in KA1 

The 2014-2020 programme reacted promptly to the outbreak of the pandemic adopting specific 
measures  to  support  mobility  participants  in  facing  the  immediate  consequences  of  the 
containment measured adopted at national levels 253. As an immediate response to the impact 
of the pandemic, two extraordinary Calls were published in 2020 under KA2, the Partnerships 
for Digital Education Readiness and the Partnerships for Creativity, aiming to support fields 
highly  impacted  by  the  pandemic.  Both  Calls  reached  over  210 000  estimated  participants 
through over 1 200 projects via funding of almost EUR 225 million (against an allocation of 
EUR 100 million for each call)  254. 

Nevertheless, the pandemic still had a lasting impact on the Programme. Many projects were 
postponed,  and  parts  of  their  activities  were  shifted  online.  Some  project  participants  also 
experienced  restrained  involvement  due  to  the  pandemic,  72%  of  public  consultation 
respondents reported that their projects were affected in some way 255. Evidence from National 
Agencies’ yearly reports and national reports 256 corroborates the extensive adverse effects of 
the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 

The start of the 2021-2027 programme was heavily affected by Covid-19 pandemic with 2021 
mobility continuing being severely impacted. Mitigating measures, including higher flexibility 
in both the implementation and the management of the programme (e.g. extended eligibility 
period for programme activities, higher threshold for the budgetary transfer between actions 
by  NAs)  and  a  stronger  focus  on  KA2  remained  in  place  until  2022,  when  the  programme 
strived for a gradual return to a regular implementation and to pre-pandemic mobility levels.   

253 https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/coronavirus-impact  
254 The Partnerships for Digital Education Readiness aimed at enhancing online, distance and blended learning - 
including  supporting  teachers  and  trainers,  and  safeguarding  inclusiveness  of  digital  learning  opportunities  in 
schools. The Call addressed the higher education, VET and school education sectors, funding 630 projects and 
reaching an estimated number of 111 126 participants (overall grants: almost EUR 132 million). The Partnerships 
for  Creativity  aimed  at  developing  skills  and  competences  that  encourage  creativity,  quality,  innovation  and 
recognition of youth work (targeting the school education, adult education and youth sectors). This activity funded 
572 projects reaching an estimated number of 99 781 participants (overall grant: approximately EUR 92.5 million). 
255 Public consultation report, annex II of ICF study. (Respondents N=1,092). 
256 All national reports mention substantial decreases in mobility activities, especially in 2020 and 2021, due to 
travel restrictions and safety concerns; 25 countries report adapting by implementing virtual or blended mobility 
options to maintain some level of transnational/international exchange (AT, BEnl, BG, CY, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, 
EL, HR, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, TR). 

66 

 
 
 
Rising  inflation  also  negatively  affected  the  first  years  of  the  programme  implementation, 
leading  many  participants  and  organisations  to  adjust  their  activities  to  accommodate  price 
increases257. In contrast, the impact of Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine was lower, 
as reflected by the results of the public consultation, the analysis of National Agencies’ yearly 
reports and of national reports. The programme adapted to face this challenge and mobilised to 
provide support to people fleeing from Ukraine. The 2023 Annual Work programme included 
a frontload of EUR 100 million from the 2027 annual budget to reinforce and focus on projects 
aiming at addressing the consequences of the war.  

Facing these challenges, the programme responded through digitalisation, online collaboration, 
and  the  development  of  new  formats  such  as  blended  mobilities;  it  adjusted  the  rates  of 
individual support for 2023 call for proposals to cushion inflation, it refocused project activities 
and opened mobility schemes to incoming participants from Ukraine in all fields of education 
and training.  

The programme’s response to these unexpected and disruptive events is viewed positively 
by stakeholders. Evidence collected shows that the programme responded and adapted well, 
demonstrating a high  degree of  responsiveness  and resilience. This  is  especially  the case in 
relation to the COVID-19 pandemic: respondents to the public consultation considered that the 
support provided by the sending organisation or programme bodies was excellent or good. 15 
national reports 258 noted, as long-term implications of such large-scale external factors, how 
the programme improved its abilities in responding and adapting in challenging circumstances, 
building on experiences both from the pandemic and the war in Ukraine. Only the programme 
response  to  the  inflation  surge  seems  to  have  been  less  effective,  as  some  consulted 
stakeholders highlighted that Erasmus+ grants were not sufficiently rapidly adjusted to rising 
inflation rates, resulting in insufficient budget provision at the beneficiary organisation’s level 
and increased financial uncertainty. 

4.1.2  Efficiency 

The overall assessment of the efficiency of Erasmus+ 2014-2020 and of Erasmus+ 2021-2027, 
is positive. The analysis is based on five evaluation questions that cover the following areas: 

• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 

the size of the budget,  
the efficiency of implementation and management modes,  
the efficiency gains through the simplification measures adopted in the transition to the 
current programme, 
the cost-effectiveness of the main types of actions,  
the efficiency of monitoring arrangements,  
the efficiency of measures to identify and prevent fraud and irregularities. 

4.1.2.1 Size of budget 

This section analyses the extent to which the size of the budget of Erasmus+ 2014-2020 and 
Erasmus+ 2021-2027 was/is appropriate and proportionate for the achievement of their objectives, 
as well as the appropriateness of budget distribution and absorption rates under each programme.  

257  47%  of  public  consultation  respondents  (N=329)  from  organisations  reported  that  they  had  to  revise  their 
project budget internally due to inflation (annex II of ICF study).  
258 AT, BEde, BEfr, BEnl, BG, CZ, EE, HR, IE, IT, LV, HU, PL, PT, RO. 

67 

 
 
Erasmus+ 2014-2020 

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 had an overall indicative financial envelope of EUR 14.774 billion under 
Heading 1 (Sustainable growth) of the EU budget, complemented by EUR 1.68 billion under 
Heading  4 (EU as global  player) and  EDF. The  programme budget  was  distributed through 
smaller annual allocations at the start of the programme period (e.g. 10% in 2014, 11% in 2015 
respectively)  and  then  increased  over  time,  with  20%  of  the  total  programme  budget  being 
allocated in 2020. Article 18(2) of the 2014-2020 Erasmus+ Regulation sets specific targets for 
the distribution of funds by sector, with variances allowed for individual years.  

At the end of the programming period, the funding share of all sectors has been in line with the 
final allocation shares set in the afore mentioned Article 18(2) and amended following the entry 
into force of the European Solidarity Corps Regulation 259.  

Actions under indirect management accounted for around 77% of the programme budget. To 
support optimal budget absorption in indirect management, flexibility rules were in place to 
allow National Agencies to transfer amounts between key actions and within education and 
training  sectors  according  to  rules  and  ceilings  established  in  the  delegation  agreements 
between the Commission and each National Agency. This allowed to have absorption close to 
full.  

Only for the Student Loan Guarantee Facility, the commitments made were lower (-0.76%) 
than the target  level  set  by the 2014-2020 Erasmus+ Regulation  throughout  the programme 
lifespan 260. Despite effectiveness in supporting disadvantaged students, it didn’t attract enough 
financial intermediaries offering student loans for studying abroad nor a sufficient number of 
beneficiaries. The Facility was discontinued in the 2021-2027 programming period.  

At  the  end  of  the  programming  period,  the  programme  funded  around  160 000  projects, 
contracting  approximately  EUR 17.5 billion,  which  is  higher  than  the  indicative  financial 
envelope indicated in the 2014-2020 Regulation. This is due to the contributions to Erasmus+ 
budget from the non-EU countries participating in the programme and to the internal assigned 
revenues which are added to the EU budget on annual basis.  

Source: EAC monitoring data, Program results dashboard, data frozen at 5 January 2024. The label ‘cross-
sectoral’ applies to actions covering more than one sector (mainly KA3 activities) 

259 Article 26 of the European Solidarity Corps Regulation, adopted in 2018, amended Article 18, paragraphs 1, 2 
and 3, of the 2014-2020 Erasmus+ Regulation with regards to the indicative overall financial envelope, and the 
allocation shares for education and training sectors, the youth sector, the  Student Loan Guarantee Facility, the 
administrative expenditure and cooperation projects.  
260 The allocation share for the Student Loan Guarantee Facility was lowered from 3.5% to 1.5% of the overall 
indicative financial envelope. 

68 

 
 
 
The  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  2014-2020  programme  deemed  the  programme  financial 
envelope not sufficient to fully satisfy demand.  Although the 2014-2020 programme budget 
was 40% higher than its predecessors’, a large share of the public, and many National Agencies 
consulted in the context of the mid-term evaluation of the 2014-2020 programme, viewed the 
resources allocated as insufficient for most of the sectors. Based on programme monitoring 
data, it is estimated that, overall, it would have been possible to grant around EUR 8.9 
billion to more than 44 000 good project proposals scoring above threshold but rejected 
for lack of funds (of which EUR 3.5 billion to 33 000 projects under indirect management and 
EUR 5.4 billion to over 11 000 projects under direct management). 

Despite the increased annual allocations in the second part of the programming period, 
the  programme  has  not  been  able  to  fully  satisfy  the  demand,  resulting  in  low  success 
rates  (see  section  3.1).  The  national  co-funding  (EUR  174.4  million  from  2014  to  2020) 
provided to funds for grant support by 13 countries for activities under indirect management 
and allocated entirely to KA1 is indicative of the insufficiency of programme budget to meet 
the  demand  for  learning  mobility261.  Furthermore,  in  countries  with  very  high  demand  like 
Poland, Erasmus+ country allocation was complemented by ESF funds managed by the Polish 
National Agency (close to EUR 220 million for the period 2014-2020). 

Youth actions (8% of contracted grants) were among those with the lowest success rate 262. 
In 2014, KA1 youth success rate was close to 50%, but it dropped to between 35% and 30% 
during the remaining part of the programming period; in KA2, the success rate was constantly 
below 20%, with the lowest peak in 2015 (11%) and reaching 17% in 2020; in KA3 (Youth 
dialogue – indirect management) the success rate was on average around 30% throughout the 
programming period. Similarly, mobility activities in school education registered a quite low 
and decreasing success rate, going from 39% in 2019 to 32% in 2020. In the 2014-2020 period 
KA1 mobility in the school sector included staff mobility only. Therefore, this share gives a 
quite clear idea of the level of demand for learning mobility from teachers and school staff.  

The available budget has shown largely insufficient for Jean Monnet activities and Sport 
actions, which counted for the lowest shares both at level of allocation and contracted grants 
(2%  for  Jean  Monnet  activities  and  1%  for  Sport),  against  high  demand  throughout  the 
programming period. For Jean Monnet activities, the success rate went from 43% in 2014 to 
25% in 2020, with the lowest peak in 2019 (19%), showing an increasing demand over time. 
For Sport, the success rate slightly improved thanks to the increasing yearly budget allocation, 
going from 9% in 2014 to 28% in 2020. 

The highest share of contracted grants accounted for the higher education sector, with the great 
majority (81%, EUR 7 billion) granted to learning mobility activities. The design of the higher 
education intra-European mobility activities, based on non-competitive grant requests, does not 
allow to establish a success rate comparable to the other sectors. In VET, only 11% of mobility 
projects were implemented by organisations holding a VET Mobility Charter, accounting for 
19% of grants contracted for VET mobility (around EUR 455 million). The majority of VET 
mobility projects were non-accredited (EUR 1.9 billion), with a success rate of around 50% 
across the programming period, but 47% in 2020. Conversely, KA2 VET actions under indirect 
management had the lowest success rate among E&T sectors (from 28% in 2017 to 27% in 

261 The allocation of national co-funding by country authorities to top up Erasmus+ funds for grant support is not 
compulsory.  Their  input  into  programme  tools  is  also  not  performed  systematically  by  National  Agencies, 
therefore  the  amount  declared  may  not  be  fully  representative  of  the  actual  magnitude  of  additional  national 
resources topping up Erasmus+ budget. 
262  Success  rate  is  calculated  based  on  the  number  of  contracted  projects  over  the  number of  received  project 
proposals.  

69 

 
 
2020), followed by the adult education sector, from 35% in 2017 to 30% on 2020, with the 
yearly allocated envelope being better able to meet demand across years (16% success rate in 2020). 

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 
There is a general appreciation for the budget increase of the current programme (+82,8% for 
Heading 2 budget, compared to the 2014-2020 programme), and the opportunities it provides 
to fund more projects. This appreciation also includes the budget envelope from the external 
policy instruments, which compared to the 2014-2020 programming period, has increased by 
23.5%. 

Budget Headings 

2014-2020 

2021-2027 

Increase in nominal terms 

MFF Headings 1 or 2 (billion EUR) 

MFF Headings 4 or 6 (billion EUR) 

Total (billion EUR) 

14.5 
1.7263 

16.2 

26.5 

2.1 

28.6 

82.8% 

23.5% 

76.5% 

Although the programme budget profile is distributed through smaller annual allocations at the 
start of the programme period (10% in 2021, 13% in 2022, 14% in 2023264) with an increase in 
the following years, the yearly budget is still not sufficient to address the demand leading to 
concerns about the programme’s ability to fully meet its objectives. These views from various 
stakeholders are confirmed by the analysis of national reports, with 13 reports 265 raising that 
point. 82% of public consultation respondents agreed from ‘a very large’ to a ‘large’ extent that 
increasing  the  overall  programme  budget  had  to  be  addressed  to  maximise  the  impact  of  a 
possible successor programme to Erasmus+ 266. Key national-level informants from 25 Member 
States  and  third  countries  associated  to  the  programme  reported  that,  despite  its  increase  in 
recent  years,  the  programme  budget  is  still  not  sufficient  to  meet  demand 267.  Demand  for 
mobility  in  accredited  projects  for  schools  has  doubled  from  2021  to  2022  and  more  than 
doubled from 2022 to 2023, while the average success rate of KA2 was 17% for actions under 
indirect management in 2023. Around 72 000 projects have been granted in the period 2021-
2023 for a total of EUR 9.8 billion budget. Programme monitoring data show that it would 
have been possible to grant more than EUR 5 billion of additional budget to more than 
29 400 additional quality proposals scoring above the quality threshold but rejected for 
lack of funds (of which EUR 2.2 billion to 3 800 quality proposals under direct management 
and EUR 2.9 billion to 25 600 quality proposals under indirect management).  

In  the  period  2021-2023,  six  countries  have  provided  national  co-funding  for  programme 
implementation in indirect management for a total of around EUR 140 million, almost entirely 
used to support KA1 mobility grants. This amount is more than three times higher to the total 
national  co-funding  provided  in  the  first  three  years  of  the  2014-2020  programme 
(EUR 43 million for the period 2014-2016), showing commitment from country authorities to 
satisfy the greater demand.  

263 Coming from five external cooperation instruments funding Erasmus+ 2014-2020. 
264 In line with the financial programming for the whole period (MFF 2021-2027). 
265 BG, CZ, CY, DE, ES, EL, HR, IT, MT, NL, PT, TR. 
266 Annex II Public consultation report. Question “To what extent do you think the following aspects need to be 
addressed to maximise the impact of any successor to Erasmus+?” (respondents well or partly familiar with the 
programme  (N=1,231)).  Other  aspects  where  respondents  expressed  agreement  to  a  large  or  very  large  extent 
were: i) simplifying the administrative requirements to access funding (82%); ii) increasing the level of individual 
grants (76%); iii) providing better access to people with fewer opportunities (74%), iv) increasing the opportunity 
for international mobility and international cooperation with countries outside Europe (74%). 
267 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, 
Italy, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Türkiye.  

70 

 
 
KA1 is by far the largest of the key actions in funding terms (with approximately 50% of the 
total programme budget in 2021-2023). Compared to the 2014-2020 programme, the relative 
weight of KA2 has slightly increased in the earlier stages of the 2021-2027 programme due to 
the  impact  of  COVID-19  pandemic  on  mobility  activities,  but  KA1  then  recovered  a 
significantly higher share. 

Similarly to the 2014-2020 Erasmus+ Regulation, the 2021-2027 programme Regulation sets 
specific  shares  for  the  distribution  of  funds  by  sector  and  field,  with  variances  allowed  for 
individual years. Around 73% of the programme budget has been implemented under indirect 
management between 2021 and 2023.  

The ICF study stated that ‘The general increase in funding available across the sectors and 
fields coupled with more emphasis to sectors and fields other than higher education emerges 
as a positive element of the current programme, to be strengthen’ and that school education 
emerges as an underfunded field 268. In addition, national level interviewees expressed concerns 
about budget proportionality across sectors such as adult education and VET, which face lower 
funding levels compared to higher education269. 

As part of the measures put in place to simplify the management of the programme, enhanced 
flexibility  rules  were  introduced  to  allow  National  Agencies  to  transfer  amounts  between 
different  budget  items  (entailing  an  increase  or  a  decrease  compared  to  the  initial  budget 
allocations) according to rules and ceilings established in the contribution agreements between 
the Commission and each National Agency.  The current programme shows larger values of 
transfers compared to the previous one, as an effect of the greater flexibility allowed under the 
current programme for indirectly managed actions. A standard 35% variation rule is applied to 
all  budget  headings  in  the  context  of  the  contribution  agreements  signed  between  the 
Commission  and  National  Agencies  (higher  than  the  standard  25%  variation  in  the 
Commission’s  contribution  agreement  template) 270.  Furthermore,  National  Agencies  can 
request a change in the budget allocation (increase or decrease) above the 35% threshold via 
an amendment procedure to the contribution agreement. Since 2021, numerous amendments to 
contribution agreements have been processed.  

In link with COVID-19 pandemic, data for 2021 show a generalised transfer of funding from 
KA1 mobility activities to KA2 cooperation activities across all sectors and fields. Data for 
2023  show  smaller  variations  in  absorption  rates  across  sectors  and  fields,  signalling  a 
normalisation of the activities (figures were not yet fully stabilised for 2023 at the moment of 
this  evaluation).  In  particular,  data  for  the  years  2022  and  2023,  show  considerable 
improvements  for  mobility  in  school  education,  which  in  2023  was  over  100%  absorption, 
despite initial difficulties (17.7% in 2021). The adult education sector showed difficulties in 
absorbing  the  full  allocation  of  funds  for  mobility  actions  at  the  beginning  of  the  current 
programme due to the inception of the new action for mobility of adult learners, but has shown 
considerable improvement since (moving from -44.12% in 2021 to -25.44% in 2023 271).  

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic makes the absorption rates for 2021-2023 more difficult 
to interpret. For example, under KA3, large shares of TCAs (in particular in the E&T sectors) 

268 ICF support study, p. 118. 
269 Synopsis report, Annex V. 
270 In 2021, a higher threshold of 50% was applied in the 2021 Contribution Agreement at the level of Erasmus+ 
key action sub-totals, as an exceptional measure introduced to respond to COVID-19 circumstances.  
271 Data not final as based on the cut-off date of 31 December 2023.  

71 

 
 
and DiscoverEU learning cycle funds 272 were transferred towards KA2. However, it is unclear 
whether and how much such transfers are an effect of the COVID-19 pandemic or reflect a 
structural  extra  allocation.  A  recalibration  of  funding  within  adult  education  (increasing 
funding for Cooperation Partnerships over mobilities) also seems advisable from the available 
data but this remains to be confirmed in the coming years. Together with a general appreciation 
of  the  flexibility  allowed  under  the  programme,  national-level  interviewees  from  18 
countries 273 expressed concerns about the distribution of funds across programme fields and 
key  actions,  arguing  that  some  sectors  are  disproportionately  funded  while  others  face 
significant budget constraints. Views on the adequacy of funds by sector vary across countries. 
Due to the very different national needs and priorities, it is difficult to have a more equitable 
budget  distribution  that  can  fulfil  the  expectations  of  stakeholders  across  all  sectors  and 
countries. Some countries suggest adjustments to funding indicators or reallocation of resources 
or even greater flexibility to better align with very different national needs.  

4.1.2.2 Implementation modes and user-friendliness 

The management, implementation and supervision of Erasmus+ requires a strong collaboration 
among a wide array of actors. The programme’s implementation structure has remained largely 
stable over the two programming periods.  The governance of the programme including  a 
division  of  responsibilities  among  the  Commission,  EACEA,  National  Authorities,  and 
National Agencies274 is well understood and considered efficient. Stability in the management 
roles  and  responsibilities  over  the  two  programming  periods  is  highly  appreciated  both  by 
managing  bodies  and  by  beneficiaries.  Roles  and  responsibilities  are  also  deemed  clearly 
defined, confirming that the arrangements applied in both programming periods are efficient 
and proportionate to the scale and complexity of Erasmus+.  

All national reports also praise the cooperation between the different actors involved in 
the implementation and supervision of the programme, citing efficient communication and 
collaboration. Stakeholders and beneficiaries alike value the Erasmus+ programme for effectively 
integrating both directly and indirectly managed actions in both programming periods.  

One of the programme’s key strengths is its dual approach, supporting shared European 
objectives through directly managed actions while aligning with national contexts via indirectly 
managed  projects.  In  most  participating  countries,  National  Agencies  play  a  pivotal  role, 
acting  as  interface  between  the  European  framework  provided  by  the  Erasmus+ 
programme  and  national  and  local  needs.  In  addition  to  manage  the  project  lifecycle  of 
indirectly managed actions, National Agencies are also entrusted with the implementation of a 
comprehensive set of support mechanisms, including tailored guidance to (potential) applicants 
and beneficiaries, the promotion of programme opportunities, including those managed under 
direct management, dissemination of project results, implementation of strategies and activities 
to foster the quality implementation of the programme. This wealth of activities is shaped on 
the basis of countries specificities, to ensure a more targeted implementation of the European 
priorities, taking into account the variety of stakeholders and target groups the programme aims 

272  Other  KA3  activities  under  indirect  management  (SALTO  Resource  Centres,  Eurodesk  and  national  VET 
teams) are not subject to transfers. In 2021, the implementation of the DiscoverEU learning cycle activities (new) 
was not compulsory, explaining the high share of transferred funds. As for TCA, to better respond to COVID-19 
pandemic, it was decided to extend the eligibility period for the implementation of these activities from 18 to 24 
months. Consequently, the transfer of 2021 and 2022 TCA funds to other actions was largely influenced by the 
postponement of the activities funded with 2020 budget. 
273  Austria,  Belgium,  Czechia,  Germany,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Latvia,  Malta,  Netherlands,  North  Macedonia, 
Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Türkiye. 
274 See also Annex VI. 

72 

 
 
to reach out. All national reports mention the work of National Agencies and the beneficiaries’ 
high level of satisfaction with their support, particularly in terms of knowledge and information 
sharing, and prompt assistance during project preparation and execution. For example, 80% of 
Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps participants were satisfied with the support received 
by National Agencies during COVID-19 pandemic, rating it as ‘good or ‘excellent’ 275.   

The  overall  information  flow  and  communication  among  the  actors  of  the  Erasmus+ 
ecosystem is assessed positively by the consulted stakeholders. The mode and frequency of 
communication are clearly defined and allow for an effective flow of information in most cases. 
The main area warranting attention relates to communication between the National Agencies 
and  EACEA.  In  2023,  a  Memorandum  of  Understanding  was  signed  between  EACEA  and 
National Agencies. Since December 2023, National Agencies have been given full access to 
data on selected projects under direct management via dedicated dashboards. These measures 
will probably show their effects in the coming years; therefore, their effectiveness should be 
assessed at later stage. 

Applicant  and  beneficiary  organisations  view  the  efficiency  and  clarity  of  programme 
communication in a positive way. Two-thirds of beneficiary organisations responding to the 
survey of Socio-economic actors 276 declared having received some form of support during the 
application  process,  with  82%  receiving  support  from  National  Agencies.  The  assistance 
provided  to  organisations  primarily  included  programme  guides  (67%),  information  days 
(65%), and helpline support, acknowledged by slightly over half of the organisations (57%). 
Data collected through the survey of expert assessors 277 indicates also overall satisfaction. 99% 
of surveyed  experts  stated  having  received guidance on assessing  applications  and projects, 
assessing the received guidance very or somewhat useful for their work, indicating an overall 
high-quality guidance system. 

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 

In the 2014-2020 programme, most of the administrative steps for the management of the 
project lifecycle were performed efficiently by National Agencies. With exception of Call 
years 2014 and 2020, which - for different reasons – presented a number of management and 
implementation challenges, the indicator ‘time to award’ 278 remained quite stable across years, 
with  an  average  of  132  days  across  the  programming  period.  Project  contracting 279  was 
performed  in  average  73  days  across  the  programming  period;  however,  this  indicator  was 
highly  impacted  by  the  complex  management  of  the  KA2  School  exchange  partnership, 
normally requiring more than 90 days to be finalised. 

Improvements  across  years  are  noted  at  level  of  executing  the  first  pre-financing 
payments  for  indirectly  managed  actions,  with  95%  of  timely  performed  pre-financings  in 
2019 (+6% compared to 2014) and a slight decrease to 92% in 2020 due to COVID-19 impact. 
In average, only 57% of final payments were performed within 60 days  deadline across the 
programming period; notable improvements are noted across years, passing from 40% of 2014 
Call to 64% of 2020 Call, while the average number of days for performing final payments 

275 Survey run by the Commission in May 2020, addressing  over 57 000 participants representing all types of 
mobility supported under Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps and corresponding to 40% of the estimated 
number  of  people  in  mobility  at  the  time  of  the  Covid-19  outbreak.  The  response  rate  21%  of  the  survey’s 
population 
https://erasmus-
plus.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2021-09/coronavirus-mobility-impact-results-may2020_en.pdf. 
276 Socio-economic actors’ survey, annex V of ICF study. 
277 Expert assessors’ survey, annex IV of ICF study. 
278 Number of calendar days between the project submission deadline and the grant award decision. 
279 ‘Time to contract’: number of calendar days between project award date and project contract date. 

programmes). 

participants 

(11 800 

over 

both 

73 

 
 
decreased from 113 days of 2014 Call to 68 of 2020 Call 280. Across the programming period, 
the average share of timely received final reports is 80%, which is considered satisfying.  

The  efficiency  of  the  implementation  modes  put  in  place  for  the  management  of  the 
programme,  and  of  their  coherence  in  the  programme  infrastructure,  can  also  be  measured 
against the distribution of staff in terms of full-time equivalents (FTEs) employed by the 
different  implementing  bodies.  In  the  period  2014-2020,  out  of  the  total  number  of  FTEs 
employed  by  NAs  and  EACEA281,  90%  worked  for  the  implementation  of  actions  under 
indirect  management,  which  appears  substantially  in  line  with  the  volume  of  budget  and 
number of projects implemented under direct and indirect management (92% of projects and 
77% of the budget concerned actions indirect management).  

Another key indicator of efficiency are the administrative and management expenditures. 
In  the  2014-2020,  the  administrative  costs  for  EACEA  represented  5%  of  the  operational 
budget  executed  under  direct  management,  while,  for  indirect  management,  the  EU 
contribution  to  NAs’  management  costs  (‘management  fees’)  represented  around  4%  of  the 
budget  entrusted  to  the  National  Agencies  for  the  implementation  of  indirectly  managed 
actions. The cost for the functioning of National Agencies tends to be higher in the first years 
of the programme, due to the need to hire and train staff, set up tools and internal procedures 
for the remaining part of programme implementation. The amount of management fees also 
tends to increase proportionally with the yearly increase of the entrusted budget. Nevertheless, 
the share of management fees has remained largely stable during the programming period, with 
a slightly decrease between 2014 (4.66%) and 2019 (4.46%). In 2020, the publication of two 
exceptional Calls to respond to the impact of COVID-19 pandemic, determined a slight increase 
at 4.60% to support these additional tasks, confirming in any case a general trend of stability.  

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 
2021-2023  data  indicates  improved  time  efficiency  for  most  the  administrative  steps 
required for the management of indirect management actions. In the 2021-2023 period, 
project awarding (‘time to award’) is performed in average 111 days (-21 days compared to the 
average of the previous programme), with improvements over years (average of 105 days in 
2023).  Under  2023  Call,  97%  of  pre-financing  payments  were  performed  on  time  (+5% 
compared to 2020 and +6% compared to 2021 Calls), with a reduction of the average number 
of days passed between grant agreement signature and first pre-financing (from 15 days in 2021 
to 10 in 2023 against 14 days in 2019). Regarding final payments, data for Call years 2021-
2023 show improvements compared to the 2014-2020 period. The percentage of final payments 
processed within the deadline stands at 79% for 2021 Call, 87% for 2022 Call and 75% for 
2023 Call, requiring an average of 50 days, which represents a remarkable reduction compared 
to the previous programming period. Improvements are also noted regarding the share of timely 
received final reports, which stands at 89% in 2023. However, this indicator should be assessed 
on a longer timeline to draw more reliable conclusions.  

The improved performance appears more evident in the light of the overall stability of the 
number of FTEs employed at the National Agencies between programming periods, with 
only a 3% increase compared to 2020 282. In parallel, the number of National Agencies entrusted 

280 Covid-19 impact can be seen in particular in the treatment of the payments related to 2019  and 2020 Calls, 
which – due to project duration – were processed between 2020 and 2023, overlapping with the start of the 2021-
2027 period. 
281 In 2020, the FTEs employed by EACEA were 272, while those employed by NAs were 2 363. 
282 FTEs employed by National Agencies have increased from 2 363 in 2020 to 2 430 in 2022 (+3%), while those 
employed by EACEA have increased from 272 in 2020 to an average of 296,6 (+8%) in the period 2021-2023 

74 

 
 
 
with the implementation of the programme, across the 33 participating countries, has decreased 
from 58 in 2020 (including UK) to 54 in 2024 due to the merging of the youth and E&T NAs 
in Austria, Liechtenstein and Cyprus. This implies more synergies in the implementation of the 
programme in these countries and a more efficient use of resources 283.  

Importantly, the share of payments made on time stands at a higher level as regards directly 
managed  actions,  as  presented  in  EACEA’s  Annual  Activity  Reports.  Overall,  the  term  for 
receiving pre-financing and final payments (for both directly and indirectly managed actions) 
was  considered  very  reasonable  or  somewhat  reasonable  respectively  by  55%  and  35%  of 
participants in the survey of socio-economic actors 284.  

The distribution of FTEs employed by NAs and EACEA has remained balanced and very 
close  to  the  previous  programming  period,  with  89%  of  the  FTEs  employed  by  National 
Agencies 285.  This  share  appears  in  line  with  the  budget  distribution  (73%  of  the  budget  is 
implemented under indirect management) and the number of projects contracted in the period 
2021-2023 (94.4% were under indirect management), considering also that as part of their tasks 
National Agencies deal with information activities at national level of directly managed actions, 
including promoting synergies with other funding instruments and the Seal of Excellence 286. 

For the 2021-2023 period, the administrative costs amount at 3% and 5%, respectively for 
direct  and  indirect  management.  Similarly  to  the  2014-2020  programme,  the  cost  for  the 
functioning of National Agencies is higher in the first years of the programme implementation. 
However, compared to the volume of the entrusted budget, the share of management fees has 
decreased  from  5.54%  in  2021  to  5%  in  2022  and  2023287,  with  further  decreases  in  the 
subsequent years up to the average shares of 2014-2020 programme 288. This shows substantial 
stability of the administrative expenditure between programming periods.     

A set of IT tools has been designed to support the actions managed by the National Agencies 
during  the  different  stages  of  the  project  lifecycle,  as  well  as  the  contractual  and  financial 
management of the National Agencies. These tools are accessible through a single-entry point 
and consist of five modules289. This set of tools is complemented by Commission’s corporate 

(see also Annex IV). The number of FTEs employed by EACEA have been calculated based on the Erasmus+ 
budget delegated to EACEA (significantly increased for the 2021-2027 MFF) according to the cost-benefit analysis set up 
by the Commission. Moreover, other new Erasmus+ actions not foreseen in the cost-benefit analysis were delegated to 
EACEA during the current MFF, without modification of the Specific Financial Statement. 
283  Financial  support  is  provided  to  National  Agencies  as  a  contribution  to  their  management  costs  for  the 
implementation  of  the  entrusted  budget  implementation  tasks  (‘management  fees’).  This  EU  contribution  is 
allocated at country level in the Erasmus+  Annual Work Programme and contracted to each National Agency 
separately via contribution agreements. In countries where more than one National Agency has been designated 
for the implementation of the programme, this EU contribution is split by the responsible National Authorities 
according to the number of National Agencies set up in their country. In line with Article 27 of the 2014-2020 
Erasmus+ regulation and Article 26 of the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ regulation the designation of National Agencies 
falls under the responsibility of National Authorities.  
284 Socio-economic actors’ survey, annex V of ICF study. 
285 The shares of FTEs distribution do not take into account the human resources at Commission’s level, devoted 
to  actions  implemented  directly  by  DG  EAC  as  well  as  those  allocated  to  few  other  actions  under  indirect 
management not entrusted to National Agencies (Cooperation with OECD, Council of Europe). 
286 The Seal of Excellence is awarded to flagship actions under direct management (European university alliances 
and Centres of vocational Excellence). 
287 The frontload of EUR 100 million from the 2027 annual budget to address the consequences of the war in 
Ukraine implied also a proportional increase of Management Fees in 2023 due to the additional tasks. 
288 4.68% in 2024 and 4.33% in 2025. 
289  i)  Project  Management  Module  (PMM),  ii)  Beneficiary  Module  (BM),  iii)  Assessment  Module  (AM),  iv) 
National Agencies’ Module (NAM) and the v) Qlik Sense Hub Dashboard.  

75 

 
 
tool  eGrants,  used  for  the  management,  monitoring  and  reporting  of  actions  under  direct 
management by EACEA.  

Evidence suggests that functional problems with some crucial parts of the IT landscape and the 
underlying infrastructure for indirect management actions have been experienced until the end 
of  2023.  This  is  echoed  in  the  European  Parliament’s  2023  Implementation  Report  on 
Erasmus+ 2021-2027290, which called for immediate corrective actions. The systems were not 
fully  developed  to  support  the  various  project  stages  at  the  beginning  of  the  programming 
period. Additionally, functional issues, such as errors, time-outs, and lack of communication 
between  systems,  hindered  data  collection  necessary  for  programme  monitoring  and 
management.  However,  efforts  have  been  made  to  address  the  most  pressing  issues  and 
improvements are observed more recently (early 2024), as shown by the number of signalled 
and resolved issues, which have dropped to lower numbers. Such efforts and corrective actions 
are to be continued. 

The onboarding to the corporate IT tool eGrants at EACEA, aiming at streamlining business 
processes across programmes managed at centralised level for the sake of simplification, also 
resulted  in  a  temporary  increase  of  workload  for  applicants  and  beneficiaries,  in  particular 
during  the  contracting  phase,  mostly  due  to  the  novelty  of  the  tool 291.  As  highlighted  by 
interviewees consulted for the recent evaluation of EACEA, the challenges resulting from the 
tool complexity affect in particular smaller organisations with lower grants. 

4.1.2.3 Efficiency gains and simplification 

The design of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 took into account the call for increased administrative 
simplification  to  make  it  easier  for  participants,  newcomers  and  smaller  or  low-capacity-
organisations to benefit from the programme. 

The  results  of  the  public  consultation  indicate  that  the  most  familiar  funding  mode  under 
Erasmus+ is still ‘actual cost’ (68%), followed closely by ‘unit costs’ (65%). Fewer respondents 
had  experience  with  lump  sum  contributions  (43%),  and  an  even  lower  share  had  used  a 
combination of unit costs and actual costs (37%) or lump sums and actual costs (22%). 55% 
indicated  that  actual  costs  provide  adequate  funding,  yet  the  majority  of  respondents  either 
‘strongly agreed’ or ‘somewhat agreed’ that unit costs are user-friendly (63%). Stakeholders 
appreciate the efficacy of unit costs and lump sum funding for adequacy of funding and user-
friendliness, confirming the appropriateness of transitioning away from the actual cost model. 

290 Report of the European Parliament's  Committee on Culture  and Education (A9-0413/2023) of 6 December 
2023 on the implementation of the Erasmus+ programme 2021-2027 (2023/2002(INI)). 
291 European Commission: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Study supporting the 
evaluation of CHAFEA, EACEA, EASME, ERCEA, INEA & REA 2017/2018-2021 – Final report – EACEA, 
Publications Office of the European Union, 2024 (https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/440417).  

76 

 
 
Public consultation feedback on funding models 

Source: Public consultation  

The  wider  introduction  of  the  lump  sum  funding  model  is  generally  appreciated  and 
brings important simplification (for instance, speeding up of award procedure for National 
Agencies292,  quicker  and  straightforward  resource  planning,  no  need  to  collect  and  submit 
supplier  invoices,  provide  payslips,  etc.)  for  both  contracting  authorities  (National 
Agencies/EACEA) and beneficiaries. Together the unit costs (KA1), which were already in use 
in the 2014-2020 programme, the use of lump sums in KA2 has considerably simplified the 
calculation  of  the  grant  amounts,  offering  greater  predictability  for  grant  beneficiaries, 
simplifying  reporting  requirements  and  reducing  administrative  burden  for  implementing 
bodies.  However,  it  is  too  early  to  fully  assess  the  adequacy  of  lump-sums  allocations  and 
provide a quantification of the efficiency gain, due to the incompleteness of data at this stage. 
No financing year has been closed yet and monitoring data is still insufficient, due to the length 
of the projects’ lifecycle.  

Views  expressed  in  interviews  and  in  position  papers  submitted  via  the  public  consultation 
confirm that the introduction of new types of smaller grants under the current programme is 
welcomed and that the  Erasmus Accreditation, introduced in  the fields  of school  education, 
VET,  adult  education  and  youth,  constitutes  another  important  area  of  simplification. 
Furthermore,  public  consultation  respondents  very  familiar  with  the  programme  either 
‘strongly  agreed’  or  ‘agreed’  that  the  user-friendliness  of  the  grant  application  to  the 
programme  has  improved  (64%);  the  management  of  the  programme  has  been  effectively 
simplified (61%); and the user-friendliness of the guidance and support tools (namely IT tools, 
Programme Guide, etc.) has generally improved over time (57%). 

292 The indicator ‘time to award’ has passed from an average of around 142 days for 2014-2020 KA2 actions to 
around 130 for KA2 actions in the period 2021-2023, reaching 115 days under Call 2023. Considering that the 
overall number of number FTEs employed at the NAs has remained stable across both programming periods (only 
a 3% increase), this improvement is likely to be (at least partially) attributed also to the simplification brought by 
the assessment of the new funding model, considering also the challenging start of the 2021-2027 programme. 

77 

 
 
 
According to consulted stakeholders, further areas for simplification and improvement related 
to funding modalities include: 

•  Simplification of grant agreements is needed, particularly for smaller-size grants, for 

which they appear to be disproportionately complex; 

•  Green top-up for individual mobilities is insufficient to cover the actual costs that green 

mobility entails; 

•  The administrative workload for the project submission under KA2 directly managed 

actions is too heavy for grassroots organisations with limited capacity. 

All national reports suggest that there have been some improvements in the efficiency of 
the programme’s management architecture; preliminary results of the legal base indicator 
monitoring the ‘share of organisations and institutions considering that procedures for taking 
part  in  the  programme  are  proportionate  and  simple’  are  promising  and  well  above  targets 
(settling  around  92%  across  sectors  in  2022 293).  However,  all  countries  participating  in  the 
programme describe challenges in the administration, implementation and reporting architecture. 

The  new  accreditation  scheme  is  assessed  very  favourably  across  most  (28)  national 
reports 294.  The  reports  acknowledge  its  role  in  significantly  streamlining  the  application 
process and programme management, facilitating long-term planning and financial security and 
increasing trust among (potential) partners. The simplification logic of accreditations is based 
on  avoiding  repetitive  procedures  that  do  not  bring  an  added  value  for  quality  of 
implementation. The approach is based on the experience of the 2014-2020 programme and its 
predecessors where accreditation schemes were present in some295, but not all fields.  

The most directly visible savings take place at application stage. Recurrent beneficiaries, 
which make up a large portion of Erasmus+ target groups, are accredited once and can then 
apply  for  funding  under  a  simplified  procedure,  which  does  not  require  repetition  of  the 
qualitative  part  of  the  assessment,  which  is  time-consuming  and  incurs  significant  costs  for 
payment of external assessors. In fact, grant requests for accredited projects are assessed by 
NA staff only, while applications for non-accredited project proposals are normally assessed 
by  2  external  expert  assessors,  this  translates  in  shorter  and  less  expensive  assessment 
procedures for non-accredited projects. It is estimated that the indicative savings for assessing 
accredited projects under 2021-2024 Calls is between EUR 1 million and  EUR 5 million 296. 
These estimated savings increase every year when accredited applicants use their accreditation 
to make a new simplified funding request, thus becoming higher and more visible in the second 
part of the programming period. In fact, an ‘Erasmus accreditation’ is assessed only once in the 
programming period (one-off cost), potentially generating several projects over 7 years. This 

293 Programme Performance Statement, EU core performance indicators table. 
294 AT, BEde, BEfr, BEnl, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IS, IT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PT, RO, RS, 
SE, SK, SI, TR. 
295 In higher education mobility (ECHE) and partly in VET mobility. 
296 This estimation is based on a total of 40 659 accredited projects (contracted at 24 February 2025) and 17 491 
organisations awarded with an Erasmus Accreditation in the period 2020-2023 (the accreditations issued in 2024 
are excluded from this calculation because they are issued at the end of year for the next call). The estimation is 
calculated by assuming that in absence of accreditations, all accredited projects would have to be evaluated at a 
cost ranging between evaluation cost for a non-accredited project application and an accreditation application. 
Indeed, accredited projects include applications of varying sizes from small simple projects with grants below 
EUR 60 000 to large consortia with high grants and hundreds of mobility activities. For example, the average 
grant for accredited projects contracted in the period 2021-2024 is slightly above EUR 70 000, while the one for 
non-accredited  projects  is  around  EUR   34 000.  Similarly,  the  number  of  learning  mobility  supported  by  the 
accredited projects (KA121 and KA151) contracted in the same period is more than the double of those facilitated 
by the corresponding type of non-accredited projects (KA122, KA152 and KA153).  

78 

 
 
generates savings, as without the scheme, the number of projects undergoing a full assessment 
process would be much higher than currently is.  

At level of beneficiary organisations, accredited organisations may gain indicatively about 70% 
time  to  prepare  a  grant  request  instead  of  submitting  a  full  application  form 297.  Despite  the 
incompleteness  of  2023  data  at  the  cut-off  date  of  the  evaluation,  the  number  of  accredited 
projects contracted under 2023 Call is three times compared to those contracted in 2021 (from 
4 567 in 2021 to 12 236 in 2023), while the number of non-accredited projects has remained 
quite stable (from 5 399 in 2021 to 5 812 in 2023) 298.  

Efficiency  gains  are  also  noted  at  level  of  performance  indicators  applied  to  the  selection 
procedure performed by NAs. The average time to award and notify selection results of non-
accredited  projects  in  VET,  school,  adult  education  and  youth  sectors  is  slightly  higher 
compared to accredited ones and is even bigger within E&T sectors, which include the highest 
proportion of accredited projects, compared to non-accredited one 299. 

4.1.2.4 Cost-effectiveness 

The cost-effectiveness  analysis  is conducted using a multi-step approach,  identifying  inputs 
and  benefits  (results  and  added  value)  and,  where  possible,  comparing  with  other  similar 
instruments. The analysis is carried out for the main actions, though to a different extent based 
on available data and evidence. However, due to the absence of monetised outcomes, a formal 
cost-benefit analysis could not be performed. The analysis should also be read in the light of 
the  caveats  described  in  section  1.1.4,  particularly  for  key  action  2,  key  action  3  and  Jean 
Monnet actions, where part of collected evidence is qualitative and based on perceptions.   

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 

•  Cost-effectiveness of key action 1  

Under  the  2014-2020  programme  the  average  cost  of 
learners’  mobility  was 
approximately  EUR 16  per  day,  while  the  average  daily  cost  of  staff  mobility  was 
EUR 180 (KA1, indirect management). Compared to the average cost highlighted in the mid-
term  evaluation  of  the  2014-2020  programme,  the  average  cost  per  day  has  remained  quite 
stable  in  second  part  of  the  programming  period  (from  EUR 16  per  day  in  2016  to  around 
EUR 17  per  day  in  2020),  while  for  staff,  the  daily  cost  has  increased  from  an  average  of 
EUR 171 in 2016 to EUR 204 in 2020. Notable differences among sectors can be observed, in 
particular, for staff mobilities, with an average daily cost ranging from EUR 230, in the adult 
and school education sectors, to EUR 102 in the youth field.  

297 This is calculated on the basis of structure of the grant request for accredited organisation (4 tables, out of which 
3 concern activities and costs, no textual information required) against the structure of a full application form for KA1 
proposals (27 free text questions, 9 tables out of which 8 concerning activities, participants and costs). 
298 Contracted accredited projects are as follows: 4 567 under Call year 2021, 7 923 under Call year 2022, and 12 236 in 
2023. Non-accredited projects were contracted as follows: 5 399 under Call year 2021, 7 822 in 2022, and 5 812 in 2023. 
299 On average, the results of non-accredited projects in VET, SCH, ADU and Youth require about +20 days to be 
notified compared to accredited ones, while the indicator ‘time to award’ presents a +4 days difference for non-
accredited projects. The difference is higher in the E&T sectors: in average, the award and results notification of 
non-accredited  projects  required  respectively  +9  and  +26  days  compared  to  accredited  ones.  This  difference 
reflects the time savings only partially because the National Agencies tend to wait with notifications to accredited 
projects until the non-accredited selection reaches a late stage and they are able to identify any leftover funds that 
should be transferred to accredited projects. The quicker notification of selection results is also confirmed by at 
least one Case study (E29 (formerly, Ifjúsági Nomád Klub) (YOU, HU)) 

79 

 
 
This difference between the average cost of staff and learners’ mobility is due to the shorter 
average duration of staff mobility (6.2 days) and the higher subsistence costs 300. Compared to 
the mid-term evaluation, between 2016 and 2020, the average grant per mobility has increased 
of 19% for learners and 20% staff, ending with an average grant of EUR 1 743 for learners and 
EUR 1 274 for staff in 2020 301.  

A benchmarking has been carried out against the funding for learning mobility provided by the 
Nordplus  programme  in  the  higher  education  sector  (students  and  teachers) 302.  The  average 
mobility grant provided by Nordplus for teachers in the academic year 2018/2019 amounted to 
EUR 610, with an average daily grant of EUR 119 for an average duration similar to Erasmus+, 
which is lower than the average grant provided by Erasmus+ for higher education staff in the 
same period (EUR 950, for an average duration of 5.2 days, EUR 184 per day). On the other 
hand, the daily cost of student mobilities appears higher under Nordplus (EUR 22.84 per day, 
average grant of EUR 1 176, and average duration of 51.5 days) compared to Erasmus+ (EUR 
12.17 per day, average grant of 1 880,64, average duration of 154.5 days). Close to 70% of the 
student mobility awarded under Nordplus in the same period had an average duration of 6.9 
days, with a daily grant of EUR 169.49, while only 28% of Nordplus student mobility had a 
comparable  average  duration  (151  days)  with  a  much  lower  daily  grant  of  EUR  7.78/day. 
Considering the proportion of grants for longer mobilities, the broader geographical scope, the 
volume  of  mobilities,  the  variety  of  activities  and  the  benefits  derived  in  terms  of  skills 
acquisition, Erasmus+ costs appear highly competitive.  

Box 8 - The Fulbright programme 303 

The Fulbright Program is an international academic exchange program administered by the US  Department of 
State in partnership with more than 160 countries worldwide. The Fulbright student program is open to U.S. and 
non-U.S. graduate students, graduating seniors, artists, and early-career professionals. The Fulbright also support 
Teacher  Exchanges  providing  opportunities  for  U.S.  and  international  educators  to  develop  their  educational 
practice. Colleges, universities, and research institutions, both in the United States and abroad, serve as hosts and 
share costs to support the academic and professional development of Fulbrighters.  

In the period 2018-2020, the Fulbright programme benefitted only around 28 000 grantees, both US citizens and 
foreign  grantees,  including  students,  research  scholars,  teacher  exchanges,  lecturing  scholars,  Hubert  H. 
Humphrey Program, seminars. The total funding for this period was  around EUR 1.2 billion. In the fiscal year 
2019-2020, teacher exchanges were 348, while students were 5 788. 

In the same period 2018-2020, Erasmus+ funded learning mobility activities of more than 2.3 million learners and 
staff (KA1) in the higher education, VET, school education, adult education and youth sectors, contracting more 
than EUR 5.7 billion. Out of this, only in the higher education sector, Erasmus+ supported more than 1.2 million 
students and staff, including from third countries not associated to the programme, contracting EUR 3.2 billion.  

300 Staff mobilities might be used mainly for the short-term, which may be easier to access mobilities (e.g. shorter 
absence from place of employment, family reasons…). Evidence is, however, insufficient to understand whether 
this is due to lack of awareness or more practical reasons). Another factor influencing the lower mobilities costs 
for learners is the large numbers of learner mobilities in higher education, which have relatively long duration and 
are relatively low cost (since they are designed to supplement other sources of funding/income). 
301 Differences with mid-term evaluation of the programme are also due to the incompleteness of the dataset used 
at that time regarding the number of completed mobility, which is likely to determine the difference in average 
cost for staff mobility. 
302 Nordplus offers mobility activities within three sub-programmes: Higher Education, Adult (informal, unformal, 
formal  adult  education  including  vocational  training),  Junior  (preschool,  school  up  to  upper  secondary  level 
including  vocational  training).  Higher  Education  being  the  largest  sub-programme  regarding  both  grants  and 
mobility followed by Junior. Cost per individual is only possible in Higher Education when it comes to individual 
mobility (for teachers and students). 
303 Source : ICF support study and Fulbright 2020 annual report: fulbrightar_2020_web.pdf 

80 

 
 
KA1 activities are consistently identified as the most effective actions targeting learners 
and staff across all fields, according to NA/EACEA survey304, with high performance at level 
of output and result indicators and no substantial areas of inefficiency, thanks also to the use 
of simplified cost (unit costs), providing predictability of cost coverage to final beneficiaries. 
Observed benefits  of participation  in  learning mobilities are described under section 4.1.1.2 
and touch a wide range of skills and competences. Although no quantification is possible, these 
benefits  can  contribute  to  build  more  skilled  labour  forces  and  more  cohesive  societies, 
providing  benefits  much  beyond  the  individuals  who  directly  benefit  from  them.  The 
competitiveness  of  the  cost  and  the  EU  added  value  generated  by  the  lack  of  comparable 
alternatives show the very high cost-effectiveness of KA1 learning mobilities. 

Differently from the other KA1 mobility actions, Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees 
(EMJMD) was implemented under direct management and partially funded, through external 
policy  instruments 305.  In  the  2014-2020  programming  period,  it  offered  to  over  17 000 
scholarship holders from all over the world the opportunity to take part in high-level integrated 
international  study  programmes.  In  total,  over  60 000  mobilities  took  place306.  The  average 
grant of mobility was EUR 74 per day (increasing from EUR 69 in the first two years of the 
programming period to EUR 96 in 2020), while the average grant per mobility amounted at 
EUR 12 500 307, which is higher than the average amount granted to students for international 
credit  mobility  (indirect  management)  (EUR  4 273.65).  The  available  evidence  (mainly 
qualitative)  suggests  that  the  action  delivered  positive  changes,  both  at  individual  and 
organisational  levels,  ranging  from  enhanced  competencies,  improved  career  prospects, 
personal  growth, more positive attitudes towards Europe and the EU, deeper subject  matter 
expertise  and  enhancing  international  cooperation  among  higher  education  institutions 
worldwide.  

•  Cost-effectiveness of key action 2  

By the end of the programming period, Erasmus+ had granted EUR 5.4 billion to over 
25 300 308 cooperation projects among organisations and institutions (KA2). As observed 
during the mid-term evaluation carried out in 2017, the variety of projects and activities funded 
under this key action, the difference between types and size of projects across sectors, as well 
as the differentiated budget items, makes the analysis more complex and prevents to generalise, 
contrarily  from  learning  mobility  activities.  Furthermore,  no  comparable  intervention  was 
identified for benchmarking project costs.  

304 Respondents to this survey were asked to identify the three most effective and least effective types of  action 
for learners, staff, organisations and systems per sector: higher education (n=28), VET (n=27), school education 
(n=32), adult education (n=26), youth (n=29), sport (n=19). 
305 An EMJMD is a high-level integrated international study programme, delivered by an international consortium 
of  HEIs  from  different  countries  and,  where  relevant,  other  educational  and/or  non-educational  partners  with 
specific expertise and interest in the study areas/professional domains covered by the joint programme. The action 
supports the following activities: i) the delivery of an EMJMD programme corresponding to 60, 90 or 120 ECTS 
credits,  organised  through  an  international  consortium  of  HEIs  including  the  participation  of  invited  scholars 
(guest lecturers) for teaching, training and/or research purposes; ii) the award of scholarships to excellent students 
worldwide for their participation in one of these EMJMD programmes. 
306 One scholarship holder takes part in several mobilities during the enrolment in the study programme,  apart 
from  the  fact  that  the  great  majority  of  them  are  recruited  from  a  different  country  than  the  one  where  the 
programme begins; therefore, the format is substantially different from learning mobility activities implemented 
under indirect management. 
307  The  average  grant  per  scholarship  for  the  overall  duration  of  the  EMJMD  study  programme  (normally  2 
academic years) amounts at EUR 25 000. 
308 The figure does not include projects funded under the Sport chapter. 

81 

 
 
Strategic  partnerships  (indirect  management)  were  the  main  KA2  action  type, 
representing 90% of KA2 contracted projects and 72% of contracted grants. The average grant 
of  Strategic  partnership  projects  ranged  between  EUR 190 000,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
programming period, to EUR 175 000 in 2020. Although the average grant per project varied 
quite importantly across sectors, programme data show a higher average grant in sectors such 
as higher education, VET and school education, lower ranges for adult education projects, and 
much  smaller  (but  increasing)  average  grants  in  the  youth  field.  The  number  of  contracted 
projects  increased  steadily  in  the  seven  years  of  programme  implementation  for  all  sectors 
involved.  The  low  success  rates,  ranging  from  17%  in  youth  to  36%  in  the  school  sector, 
demonstrate the high interest and the high demand for the action, which should be matched 
with the benefits generated for organisations and staff illustrated in sections 4.1.1.1. and 4.1.1.4.  

Knowledge Alliances were among the large-scale partnerships funded under KA2 since the 
beginning  of  the  2014-2020  programming  period  under  direct  management.  In  total,  160 
projects  involving  1 769  organisations  have  been  contracted  until  2020,  for  a  total  of  over 
EUR 147 million, and an average cost of around EUR 920 000. The yearly allocation to the 
action  was  increasing  from  year  to  year,  together  with  the  number  of  funded  projects  and 
average size of grants, showing the tendency to go towards bigger scale projects. The action 
only represented 1% of KA2 contracted projects and 3% of contracted grants, but contributed 
significantly to achieve programme objectives, particularly in boosting cooperation between 
universities and business. The cost-effectiveness analysis carried out for the action in a recent 
study309 shows that the number of countries and participating organisations had little impact on 
the size of the awarded grant, highlighting that the cost-effectiveness of the action should be 
analysed  in  terms  of  the  achieved  project  goals.  Most  projects  were  well  focused  on  the 
intended  goal  of 
innovative  and 
multidisciplinary  approaches  to  teaching  and  learning,  promotion  of  entrepreneurship  and 
knowledge  exchange,  highly  contributing  to  the  different  areas  of  university-business 
cooperation. On average, the funded projects obtained high evaluation score regardless of the 
size of the grant, suggesting their successful implementation.  

the  development  of  new 

the  action,  addressing 

Capacity building actions were implemented in the higher education and youth sectors under 
direct  management,  through  funds  from  external  cooperation  instruments.  The  action 
represents 7% of KA2 contracted projects and 17% of KA2 contracted grants, supporting in 
total 1 830 projects, with an average grant of EUR 190 000 in higher education and between 
44 000  and  135 000  in  youth.  The  action  provided  European  added  value  in  enhancing 
international cooperation in the fields of higher education and youth, promoting EU values and 
supporting the role of EU as global actor leveraging the role of education.  

Under KA2, the programme was also funding platforms to facilitate the online cooperation 
in the school and adult education sectors, such as eTwinning and EPALE. The cost for set-
up,  maintenance  and  community  management  amounted  at  EUR  15.5  million  for  the 
eTwinning platform and at EUR 9.7 million for EPALE for the whole 2014-2020 programming 
period,  generating  a  large  community  of  users  for  virtual  cooperation  across  Europe  and 
beyond.  The  relative  low  cost  of  this  collaborative  platform,  compared  with  the  increased 
functionalities  and  the  continuous  growth  in  terms  of  registered  users,  suggests  that  these 
activities  are  particularly  cost-effective.  The  eTwinning  community  continued  to  grow, 
reaching  towards  the  end  of  the  programming  period  an  overall  number  of  over  760 000 

309 European Commission: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Kirdulytė, G., Abozeid, 
O., Abraham, E., Buitrago, H. et al., Assessment of the instruments, deliverables, results and impact of university 
business 
the  European  Union,  2024, 
report.  Publications  Office  of 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/514543  

cooperation 

–  Final 

82 

 
 
registrants,  proving  how  the  platform  stepped  up  the  support  to  teachers  and  fostered 
exchanges. Similarly, in the last few years of programme implementation, EPALE developed 
further the discussion and exchange of good practice between stakeholders involved in areas 
such as basic skills, outreach and guidance as well as innovative teaching methods. The number 
of users continued growing reaching 61 000 by the end of 2019 310.   

Based on available (mainly qualitative) evidence, KA2 activities have been instrumental to 
contribute  to  programme  results  and  impacts  at  organisational  level,  supporting 
programme objectives on international cooperation with third countries in higher education and 
youth,  reinforcing  cooperation  with  business,  enhancing  internationalisation,  and  improving 
learning and teaching methods. The high demand and the lack of comparable interventions, 
both in terms of scope and types of activities covered, mark its European added value, showing 
a general cost-effectiveness. The funding model in place for KA2 activities, mostly based on 
unit  costs  and  real  costs,  led  to  some  inefficiencies  which  have  been  tackled  in  the  current 
programming  period  through  the  introduction  of  a  lump-sum  funding  model.  Other 
inefficiencies concern the complex mechanism of the School Exchange Partnership (KA229, 
indirect  management),  which  required  that  each  participating  organisation  involved  in  a 
selected  project  had  to  sign  a  separate  (mono-beneficiary)  grant  agreement.  The  action  was 
facilitating exchanges of school classroom and mobility of pupils, which in the 2021-2027 has 
been  moved  under  KA1,  thus  harmonising  the  format  of  the  KA2  school  cooperation 
partnership to those of the other sectors.   

•  Cost-effectiveness of key action 3  

KA3 includes a very diversified spectrum of actions and activities,  both in terms of outputs 
(e.g. transnational projects, networks, evidence-based activities), and funding mechanisms (e.g. 
open  calls  for  proposals,  calls  addressing  identified  beneficiaries,  public  procurements, 
contribution agreements with international organisations). This makes it challenging to perform 
an analysis at level of the key action and draw uniform conclusions. Because of these features, 
the analysis below only takes into account some of the main actions implemented under KA3, 
which can be representative of its costs and benefits.  

In total, EUR 494.5 million have been granted to KA3 activities, corresponding to around 
3% of the total contracted grants during the 2014-2020 programming period. 90% of KA3 
contracted grants went to activities under direct management, while one youth action ‘Youth 
dialogue’ was under indirect management. This activity granted around EUR 51.7 million to 
over  1 900  projects,  benefitting  around  442 000  young  people.  It  fostered  the  active 
participation of young people in democratic life in Europe, offering opportunities of interaction 
and dialogue with decision-makers on topics and themes aligned with those set in the EU Youth 
Strategy. The action had similar implementation and funding rules as learning mobility, making 
use of unit cost. The average daily cost per participant was around EUR 44, therefore higher 
than learning mobilities for learners under KA1. This was due to the shorter duration of the 
activities, which was on average 2-3 days (mostly participation in meetings, events, seminars, 
consultation activities or debates). Despite the limited budget, the action proved effective in 
supporting the programme (youth) objectives of fostering active citizenship and involvement in 
democratic  life,  benefitting  participants  in  terms  of  acquisition  of  soft  skills  (problem  solving, 
autonomy) beyond its objectives and generating high demand (31% success rate in 2020).   

310 The number of users continues growing in the current programming period reaching 139 000 at the end of 
2023, showing that this one-off cost continues producing benefit over time and beyond the programming period. 

83 

 
 
The  activities  implemented  by  means  of  open  calls  for  proposals  under  direct  management 
included  experimentation  actions  funding  initiatives  for  policy  innovation,  aimed  to 
develop  new  policies  or  prepare  their  implementation.  Under  this  heading,  the  programme 
contracted  36%  of  KA3  grants,  funding  around  300  projects  and  involving  over  2 500 
organisations.  More  than  half  of  the  projects  supported  under  this  heading  were  contracted 
under the Calls on social inclusion and common values, implemented between 2016 and 2020 
to  contribute  to  the  Paris  Declaration.  The  action  supported  180  projects,  involving  1 380 
organisations, for total grants of EUR 78 million, with the highest value of contracted grants in 
2020  (close  to  EUR  22  million).  Examples  from  funded  projects  show  effectiveness  in 
supporting  programme  objectives  and  deliver  systemic  impact,  influencing  EU  policy 
initiatives  (see  section  4.1.1.4,  box  5).  Similarly,  effective  contribution  to  the  delivery  of 
policy/systemic  impact  is  shown  by  policy  experimentation  activities 311,  supporting  the 
development of practices with impact on national education systems (see section 4.1.1.4, box 4).  

Another action implemented by means of open Calls for proposals (direct management) was 
European  Youth  Together.  The  action  aimed  at  creating  networks  promoting  regional 
partnerships  for  youth  organisations,  both  from  grassroot  to  large-scale  level,  to  share  their 
ideas about the EU, encourage wider civic participation and help foster a sense of European 
citizenship. 37 of such cross-border partnerships were supported by the programme, for a total 
grant of over EUR 14 million (average size in terms of grant around EUR 400 000). The number 
of applications raising from call to call between 2018 and 2020, showed the appreciation and 
high interest for this action. In line with the EU Youth Strategy 2019-2027 and the European 
Youth Goals, the action built or strengthened partnerships focusing on solidarity and inclusive 
democratic  participation  and  empowered  youth  organisations  by  supporting  new  innovative 
ways of cooperation.  

Around  48%  of  KA3  contracted  grants  (around  EUR  237  million)  was  awarded  through 
national allocations, with grants awarded through non-competitive procedures. These included 
activities  supporting  transparency  and  recognition  of  skills  and  qualifications,  which 
included support to e.g. the implementation of the EQF recommendation 312. The programme 
provided  grants  for  EQF  National  Coordination  Points  (“NCPs”),  with  a  total  multi-annual 
allocation of EUR 4.5 million under the 2018 Erasmus+ Annual Work Programme for three 
years implementation (national allocations to 38 countries, withing a range of EUR 39 000 and 
EUR 268 000). The average contracted amounts were within a range of EUR 20 000-60 000 
per  year/country,  representing  a  maximum  EU  co-financing  of  75 %  (requiring  a  national 
contribution of at least 25%). These grants are deemed adequate by the EQF evaluation, which 
reports the EU funding provided by Erasmus+ as often mentioned as a main source for activities 
for EQF implementation 313. An area of improvement lies in the use of real cost, which made 
the implementation burdensome for beneficiary organisations. 

Under KA3, Erasmus+ 2014-2020 also supported activities contributing to evidence-based 
policy knowledge and coordination in the E&T and Youth field, providing financial support 

311 These activities were normally led by high-level public authorities, involving field trials on policy measures in 
several countries, based on sound evaluation methods. Overall, 37 policy experimentations projects (EUR 58.8 
million) were funded in the period 2014-2020. 
312 Council Recommendation of 22 May 2017 on the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning 
and  repealing  the  recommendation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  April  2008  on  the 
establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning, OJ C 189 of 15.6.2017. 
313 Evaluation of the Council Recommendation of 22 May 2017 on the European Qualifications Framework for 
lifelong learning (SWD (2024) 141).  

84 

 
 
to  the  national  Eurydice  network  units314  and  the  Youth  Wiki  National  Correspondents 
Network 315.  The  funding  provided  for  these  activities  corresponds  to  about  6%  of  KA3 
contracted grants (EUR 31 million). Qualitative evidence suggests these actions are effective 
to  support  knowledge-based  policy  coordination  and  provided  European  added  value,  as 
without  programme  support  Member  States  alone  wouldn’t  be  able  to  support  tools  for 
knowledge sharing like the youth wiki.  

The collected evidence is not sufficient to express firm conclusions on the cost-effectiveness 
of  the  entirety  of  KA3.  However,  the  available  evidence  suggests  a  reasonable  cost-
effectiveness, given by the limited funding they represent coupled with significant system level 
benefits , support to policy objectives and fostering active citizenship. Consulted stakeholders 
perceive  them  as  delivering  high  added  value  due  to  their  role  in  supporting  EU  policy 
coordination in programme fields, implementation of EU tools, creation of networks, which 
could  not  be  achieved  without  the  programme  intervention.  The  challenges  related  to  these 
actions  rely  in  their  diversified  character,  which  generates  multiple  sub-actions  with  small 
budgetary envelopes and the use, in some cases, of real costs.  

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 

•  Cost-effectiveness of key action 1  

The  average  cost  of  learners’  mobilities  under  the  current  programme  (2021-2023)  is 
approximatively EUR 22 per day, while staff mobilities cost around EUR 215 per day. 
Similarly to the 2014-2020 programme, the higher cost of staff mobility is largely due to their 
shorter average duration and higher subsistence costs (shorter mobilities tend to have a higher 
average cost per day, moreover, by design of the actions, individual support for staff is often 
higher  than  the  corresponding  unit  costs  for  learners) 316.  The  short-term  benefits  of  staff 
mobilities extend beyond personal development,  as they also deliver immediate benefits for 
their  organisations,  colleagues  and  the  learners  they  engage  with.  Short-term  benefits  and 
impacts of learner mobilities primarily focus on development of skills and competences as well 
as employment prospects 317, although longer-term and higher-level benefits are expected from 
supporting  the development  of a more skilled, cohesive, innovative and competitive society 
through more skilled individuals.    

Despite  the  lack  of  directly  comparable  alternatives318,  the  unit  costs  of  learner  and  staff 
mobilities  appear  competitive  and  comparable  to  those  for  the  previous  programming 

each  national 

314 The goal of Eurydice network is to contribute towards a better mutual understanding of education systems in Europe 
through the production of country specific information, comparable country descriptions, indicators and comparative 
studies in the field of education and training (https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems).  
315 In line with the EU Youth Strategy and the objective of improving the knowledge on youth issues in Europe, 
Erasmus+ 2014-2020 provided an action grant to the structures of National correspondents ensuring the support 
needed to create and maintain a Youth Wiki tool on youth policies in Europe. The National correspondents are 
designated  by 
(https://national-
policies.eacea.ec.europa.eu/youthwiki).  
316  See  footnote  321.  The  design  of  staff  and  learners’  mobility  has  not  changed  much  between  programming 
periods, therefore the same explanation regarding the different duration and costs of between staff and learners’ 
mobility apply also to the 2021-2027 programme. 
317 Around half of the case studies provided evidence of short-term benefits for learners that were focused on the 
individual and this was consistent across all fields. 
318 Programmes taken into account for comparing learning mobility costs are CEEPUS, Visegrad Fund, Nordplus 
and  EEA  and  Norway  grants,  while  EU  added  value  has  been  compared  with  additional  15  programmes  as 
indicated in section 4.2.1. As noted in ICF support study, Erasmus+ presents a much more extensive coverage 
across  multiple  countries,  sectors,  fields,  target  groups  and  activities.  Other  programmes  tend  to  have  a  more 

a  participating 

authority, 

country 

located 

in 

85 

 
 
 
period, as estimated in the mid-term evaluation of the 2014-2020 programme and in the section 
above 319.  The  rising  inflation  and  increasing  costs  of  living  from  2021  have  led  to  an  8% 
increase in average grants value between 2021 and 2023, both for staff and learners mobilities 
across all fields320. Challenges linked to rising inflation are not unique to Erasmus+ and are not 
considered likely to have negatively affected the cost-effectiveness of KA1 activities compared 
to other similar programmes. Stakeholders suggest that further increasing both the ‘green top-
ups’ and the top-ups for participants facing fewer opportunities, could ensure a better coverage 
of these costs. These aspects could further improve the programme’s effectiveness with regards 
to its sustainability and inclusivity. 

Stakeholder  consultations  also  suggest  that  the  cost-effectiveness  of  mobility  activities  has 
improved between both programming periods. This is largely due to the accreditation scheme, 
which has simplified access to KA1 funding in all E&T sectors and youth, and reduced the cost 
and administrative burden for beneficiary organisations and implementing bodies. As indicated 
in section 4.1.2.2, the Erasmus Accreditation has produced savings related to the assessment of 
KA1 proposals estimated between EUR 1 and 5 million for the period 2021-2023, reducing of 
indicatively  70%  time  required  by  beneficiary  organisations  to  submit  grant  request.  These 
elements  together  with  the  benefits  yielded  as  organisational  growth  for  the  holding 
organisations and the implementation of high-quality mobility activities for learners and staff 
mark a very high cost-effectiveness. 

•  Cost-effectiveness of key action 2  

The  variety  of  KA2  outputs  makes  it  challenging  to  assess  costs  and  to  draw  meaningful 
comparisons  with  other  programmes.  Nevertheless,  the  analysis  suggests  a  positive  cost-
effectiveness  judgement.  Drawing  on  the  assessment  carried  out  under  the  effectiveness 
criterion,  Cooperation  Partnerships  are  viewed  as  effective  across  a  broad  spectrum  of 
stakeholders321, particularly in VET, school education, and sport. Small-scale partnerships are 
similarly viewed as effective, in particular in school education and youth. Data show a trend 
towards funding fewer projects, involving fewer organisations, with larger grants. This trend is 
more evident for Small-scale Partnerships in school education and youth, and for Cooperation 
Partnerships in youth and sport. Also, the demand for KA2 activities has exceeded the initial 
funding  allocated  in  the  2021-2023  period  (EUR  1.79  billion),  despite  the  20%  increase 
compared to the predecessor programme. 

The  introduction  of  the  lump  sum  model  was  positively  received  as  it  reduces  the 
administrative burden, however, some concerns are raised. Some national reports mention that 
this funding model encourages “application factories” to submit more proposals for financial 
gain 322,  and  stressed  the  importance  of  fraud  prevention  procedures  for  participating 

specific focus on particular sectors and/or geographies, and do not have the same broad scope as the Erasmus+ 
programme, which remains the largest programme of its kind in terms of  participant numbers and coverage of 
different  countries  and  sectors.  For  this  reason,  a  proper  benchmarking  analysis  can  only  be  done  with  a 
programme similar in scope and activities, such as the predecessor programme.  
319 Under 2021 Call, the average grant of both learners and staff mobility is slightly lower compared to those 
performed under 2020 Call (respectively -7% and -2%); however, both 2020 and 2021 Calls were heavily impacted 
by Covid-19, therefore this factor should be taken into account in the comparison both between these two years 
and the rest of the period. Furthermore, the number of completed mobility under 2022 and 2023 Calls is still very 
high, which doesn’t allow at the moment a more complete comparison with the 2014-2020 programme. 
320 Average grant value increasing from EUR 1 626 in 2021 to EUR 1,632 in 2022 and EUR 1 760 in 2023 per 
mobility for learners, and from EUR 1 245 in 2021 to EUR 1,318 in 2022 and EUR 1 341 for staff mobilities. 
321 Evidence from the NA/ECEA survey, key informant interviews, and case studies. 
322 AT, IE, NO. 

86 

 
 
countries 323.  Few  reports  indicate  that  the  use  of  the  lump  sum  model  has  introduced 
uncertainty regarding activity eligibility, justification and flexibility, potentially reducing its 
advantages,  with  further  clarifications  needed 324.  Further  simplifying  the  requirements  for 
application, implementation and reporting of actions under direct management could also allow 
wider participation of small organisations in the youth and sport field 325, improving the cost-
effectiveness of these activities.  

•  Cost-effectiveness of key action 3 

The cost-effectiveness analysis of KA3 is partial and mainly based on a qualitative analysis, 
due to the diversified character of the activities it supports (see also in Annex VI).  

Given their support and policy character, KA3 activities, predominantly institutionally 
focused, are perceived as more effective at system level (see also section 4.1.1.4), while their 
effectiveness appears lower or harder to assess at the level of individual participants. This also 
entails lower awareness from the majority of Erasmus+ stakeholders and citizens, as reflected 
in the public consultation, where the majority of respondents (62%) had no opinion or were 
uncertain  in  relation  to  their  cost-effectiveness,  and  only  one  third  of  respondents  (35%) 
considered them cost-effective 326. Evidence from case studies confirms that these activities are 
viewed positively in terms of effectiveness at system and policy level. In the youth sector, case 
studies suggest that KA3 projects have brought benefits in bringing learners and policy makers 
together, improved engagement  and participation,  and have led to  increased knowledge and 
skills.  Overall,  the  outputs  of  KA3  activities  have  helped  develop  and  shape  strategies  and 
policies at both organisational and systemic level, with consequent benefits on both levels 327. 

Based on views and experiences shared by stakeholders, a broader adoption of lump sum for 
the activities under indirect management could provide additional simplification. A shift from 
real cost to lump sum was applied to Eurodesk information centres, national VET teams and 
SALTO resource centres in 2022, while Training and Cooperation Activities (TCAs) are still 
implemented  with  real  cost.  While  evidence  is  still  preliminary,  the  adoption  of  simplified 
grants  seems  to  have  increased  the  cost-effectiveness  of  the  funded  activities,  reducing  the 
administrative burden for National Agencies.  

•  Cost-effectiveness of Jean Monnet Actions  

Also,  in  the  case  of  JMAs,  only  a  partial  cost-effectiveness  analysis  could  be  carried  out, 
mainly  based  on  qualitative  feedback  from  case  studies  and  interviews.  Furthermore,  no 
comparable  activities  funded  through  other  programmes  were  identified.  The  budget 
allocations for JMAs shows that the funding distribution across its different strands is similar 
to the previous programming period, while the qualitative evidence from interviews and case 
studies suggests that JMAs are generally perceived to be effective, thanks in particular to the 
solidly established higher education strand. JMAs are also deemed to yield European added 
value  in  terms  of  raising  awareness,  knowledge  and  understanding  of  the  EU  and  increase 
participation  in  democratic  processes,  both  within  Europe  and  beyond  (see  section  4.1.1.4). 
Despite  some  initial  difficulties,  the  new  actions  in  the  school  and  VET  fields  have  seen 

323 AT, DE, IE, LI, NO. 
324 DE, LV, NL. 
325 Highlighted in particular in the stakeholders’ workshop on the draft final report of ICF study of 9 July 2024. 
326 Out of 1 092 respondents to the public consultation, 35% agreed’ or ‘fully agreed’ that support policy reforms 
in the education, training, youth and sport sectors (KA3) are cost-effective.  
327 Case studies Youth for Exchange and Understanding International (YOU, BE), Edlab, Universidad de Granada 
(HED, ES), Youth Wiki (YOU, MT, FR, CY). 

87 

 
 
progressive improvements and show some initial positive results. The delivery mechanisms of 
these new  actions  could  be re-assessed once more data  is  available to  further improve their 
cost-effectiveness.  

4.1.2.5 Monitoring mechanisms  

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 

Stakeholders  consulted  for  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  Erasmus+  2014-2020  found  the 
monitoring framework of the previous programme overly complex and called for streamlining, 
particularly regarding the monitoring responsibilities of National Agencies for actions under 
indirect management (about 80% of the programme’s budget). Similarly, while acknowledging 
improvements compared to the predecessor programmes, various limitations were highlighted 
regarding  the  23  indicators  in  Annex  I  of  the  2014-2020  regulation.  These  limitations 
encompassed the inadequate coverage of specific actions, such as KA2, of the organisational 
level of the intervention 328 and difficulties to link the measurement of system level indicators 
to  the  interventions 329.  This  underscored  the  need  for  a  more  refined  and  comprehensive 
approach. 

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 

The  monitoring  framework  of  Erasmus+  2021-2027  has  seen  important  improvements 
compared to the previous programming period and appears overall appropriate, with clearly 
established  mechanisms,  tools  and  responsibilities  which  have  been  described  and  further 
clarified in the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework of Erasmus+ adopted in 2023. 

The  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Framework  took  into  account  the  scope  for  simplification 
identified in the interim evaluation of the 2014-2020 Erasmus+ programme, while addressing 
key areas aligned with the programme's intervention logic and the requirements established in 
Article 23 of the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ Regulation. The 15 indicators laid down in the 2021-
2027  Erasmus+  Regulation,  supplemented  with  12 additional  indicators  introduced  with  the 
Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2023/2710,  enabled  a  more  complete  overview  of 
programme performance. The newly introduced indicators allowed to cover in a uniform way 
aspects related to all Erasmus+ horizontal priorities, with a special focus on inclusion (in line 
with the Erasmus+ regulation) and improved the tracking of performance and impact of the 
programme  through  the  introduction  of  specific  results  and  impact  indicators330.  This 
represented  one  of  the  major  improvements  compared  to  the  monitoring  framework  of  the 
previous programme. A gap at level of formally established indicators is identified for Jean Monnet 
Actions, for which used indicators are not associated with yearly milestones or final targets.  

328 The only indicators addressing KA2 refer to the number of organisations and pupils participating in the School 
Exchange Partnerships (KA229).  
329 This is the case of the four indicators concerning i) Europe 2020 headline education target, which were based 
on  national  data  not  linked  with  Erasmus+  intervention,  and  ii)  Mobility  benchmark,  in line  with  the  Council 
conclusions on a benchmark for learning mobility to which Erasmus+ clearly contributed but that were supposed 
to include also data stemming from other interventions (see section 4.1.1.4). 
330 The additional output and result indicators are operationalised in the same way as the legal basis indicators 
they complement, i.e. on the basis of data from application forms, programme tools, and participants reports. As 
indicated in the SWD(2023) 296, reporting on the two additional impact indicators is planned in narrative only. 
Their measurement is carried out based on activities run by contractors in charge of the evaluations with additional 
data collected through ad hoc studies performed by the Commission or evaluations and studies run by the National 
Agencies  and  the  RAY  network  (Youth).  The  activities  described  in  section  5.2.2  also  aim  to  enhance  the 
measurement of these indicators in view of the final evaluation of the programme.  

88 

 
 
Overall, satisfaction in terms of the effectiveness of monitoring indicators and reporting 
is expressed by 71% of respondents to the NAs/EACEA survey, who agreed that the monitoring 
indicators defined in the current Erasmus+ legal framework ensure an effective measurement 
of the progress made in the implementation of the programme. This represents a considerable 
improvement (up from 30%) compared to the results of the same survey carried out for the 
mid-term evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020 331. At the same time, several National Agencies 
and some national reports 332 consider that the emphasis on quantitative outputs is still high, 
whilst qualitative information is used to a much lesser extent. This approach is considered to 
fall short of capturing the impact of the programme, particularly in the areas like behavioural 
change, development of soft skills and long-term influence on participants and organisations. 
The  meta-analyses  and  desk  research  carried  out  for  the  evaluation  confirmed  such  gaps. 
Quantitative  studies  making  use  of  counter-factual  methodology  for  the  analysis  of  the 
organisational and system-level  impacts  of Erasmus+ are scarce.  A research gap exists  also 
around  the  topic  of  EU  values,  where  no  research  paper  making  use  of  recent  datasets  and 
fitting with the required methodology could be found. This highlights the need of more targeted 
research  activities  to  ensure  improved  monitoring  and  evaluations  in  the  future,  based  on 
comparable cross-country analyses.  

Overall, the monitoring mechanisms of the current programme are effective when it comes 
to providing an up-to-date view of programme implementation to the Commission services, 
implementing  bodies  and  national  authorities,  but  also  to  the  general  public,  through  the 
recently launched data visualisation page on Europa. Furthermore, as part of their tasks under 
both programme generations, National Agencies implement a range of monitoring activities, 
combining project on-site visits, primary checks, financial audit and ongoing support to ensure 
project quality and compliance, as underlined in national reports. In parallel, National Agencies 
carry out evidence-based activities through surveys, studies and research concerning the fields 
under  their  responsibility.  In  the  youth  field,  these  activities  are  coordinated  under  a  single 
network  covering  all  National  Agencies  managing  the  youth  field  (RAY);  however,  with 
exception  of  a  recently  set  up  network  under  the  adult  education  sector 333,  no  similar 
coordination exists across National Agencies managing Education and Training sectors. 

Some areas for improvements for the 2021-2027 programme have been identified, namely: 

•  Continue the simplification effort in reporting and monitoring requirements, that are still 

perceived by stakeholders as workload-heavy and sometimes cumbersome;  

•  Further  strengthen  monitoring  mechanisms,  going  beyond  output  and  results  indicators, 
undertaking robust quantitative studies examining Erasmus+ long-term results and impacts 
at individual, organisational and system-level334;  

•  Ensure  stability  and  continuous  improvement  of  IT  landscape  used  for  actions  under 
indirect management (see also section 4.1.2.3). This emerges as one of the main issues that 
has  hindered  the  first  years  of  current  programme  implementation,  impacting  data 
collection, and increasing the administrative burden of National Agencies and beneficiaries; 
•  Better  utilise  the  wealth  of  monitoring  data  collected  and  integrate  feedback  into 

programme design and policymaking. 

331 Combined evaluation of Erasmus+ and predecessor programmes, Annex 4 Results of programme agencies survey. 
332 Seven reports (BEde, BEnl, BG, CY, EE, LU, PL) state that the current programme indicators are primarily 
financial and output-oriented, focusing on quantifiable results mostly. 
333 Research-based Impact Analysis of Erasmus+ Adult Education programmes (RiA-AE). 
334 Emerging from the NAs/EACEA survey, analysis of national reports and meta-analyses results.  

89 

 
 
4.1.2.6   Anti-fraud measures 

This  section  analyses  jointly  both  programming  periods,  highlighting  differences  or  trends,  where 
needed. This approach is required by the strong continuity of the intervention, with limited changes 
between programme generations, reflected in feedback from stakeholders and national reports.  

The mid-term evaluation of the 2014-2020 programme determined that the anti-fraud measures 
in place were robust for the most part, with the Commission’s anti-fraud strategy providing the 
overall framework for preventing and detecting fraud.  

National Agencies have clear guidelines335 on dealing with fraud and minimum requirements, 
with high compliance rates reported in their yearly reports, particularly as regards the follow-
up of identified cases of irregularity and fraud. 45% of respondents to the NAs/EACEA survey 
find the current anti-fraud measures appropriate for preventing and timely detecting suspicions 
of irregularity and fraud, while the remaining share considers them partially appropriate (47%) 
or  not  appropriate  (9%).  The  survey  also  revealed  some  concerns  and  suggestions  for 
improvement, identified in the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to create applications, 
multiple submissions from the same organization, and the new 'lump sum' grant scheme. To 
address these issues, respondents suggested improving the anti-plagiarism software available  
for  EACEA  and  National  Agencies,  providing  clearer  rules  and  guidelines,  and  increasing 
cooperation between National Agencies. They also suggested establishing a specialized working 
group to address fraud and provide enhanced guidance and training for National Agencies’ staff 336. 

The mid-term evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020 found that the number of fraudulent cases 
was very low compared to the total number of projects. This is coherent with the results of the 
NAs/EACEA  survey  carried  out  for  this  evaluation,  in  which  most  respondents  from  both 
EACEA and NAs indicate spotting suspicion of irregularity no more than once or twice a year 
(54%) or even never (29%).  

Overall, the review of statistics confirms that the number of fraud and irregularity cases remains 
low without much variation across the two programming periods. For actions under indirect 
management, there were no OLAF cases referred by the European Court of Auditors as a result 
of its audit sampling both for the period 2014-2020 and for 2021-2023. As for actions under 
direct management, the review of EACEA annual activity reports 2014-2022 reveals a small 
number of cases and recoveries. This holds also true to indirectly managed actions.  

The Commission has taken action to ensure that projects are carried out in line with the highest 
ethical standards and European values, and the applicable EU, international and national rules. 
Mechanisms framed by the EU Financial Regulation have been put in place to protect the EU 
values, including by adding new provisions in the Erasmus+ documents and grant agreements. 
In line with these provisions, National Agencies are tasked to ensure that indirect management 
beneficiaries commit to and ensure the respect of basic EU values (such as respect for human 
dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and human rights, including the rights 
of  minorities),  as  set  out  in  the  grant  agreement  as  from  2023 337.  EACEA  ensures  similar 
vigilance  to  protect  EU  budget  against  breaching  these  obligations.  Rigorous  monitoring 

335 NAs’ responsibilities and ways of dealing with fraud are defined in the ‘Guide for National Agencies implementing the 
Erasmus+  and  European  Solidarity  Corps  Programmes’,  annex  VI  of  the  Contribution  Agreement  signed  every  year 
between the Commission and each National Agencies. The document is not publicly available.  
336 A consultative National Agencies’ working group on risk management has been established in 2024 to discuss 
in co-creation mode the treatment of dubious cases in view of preventing fraud and irregularities. 
337  These  provisions  were  introduced  in  the  2023  Guide  for National  Agencies  (annex  VI  of  the  Contribution 
Agreement signed between the Commission and each National Agency).  

90 

 
 
procedures are implemented through checks and follow-ups on compliance with EU values. 
This includes regular audits and feedback from individual participants. An assessment of these 
measures should be carried out at a later stage, after more years of implementation and in the 
light of the recast of the Financial Regulation, adopted in 2024338.  

The efficiency of anti-fraud measures across both programming periods was covered also in 16 
national  reports,  with  7 339  considering  effective  the  anti-fraud  measures  in  place  and  8 340 
reporting  a  mixed  picture  and  bringing  examples  of  measures  of  success  and  remaining 
challenges.  Identified  challenges  include  the  need  for  more  efficient  cooperation  and 
information  sharing  at  transnational  and  national  level 341,  clearer  and  more  operational 
guidelines  including  for  risk  assessment,  inspections  and  controls 342,  and  improved  digital 
infrastructure 343.  

4.1.3  Coherence 

The assessment of the coherence of Erasmus+ is overall positive, both internally (compared to 
its  predecessor) and  externally (compared to  other interventions).  This  assessment has  been 
informed by 5 evaluation questions that looked into the extent to which: 

• 
the programme’s internal coherence improved compared to its predecessor; 
• 
the Erasmus+ objectives were consistent and mutually supportive across fields; 
•  synergies or duplications between fields and actions existed and were dealt with; 
• 
• 
•  Erasmus+  is  coherent  with  relevant  policies  and  programmes  and  complementary  to 
other interventions in the same fields at EU or national/international levels respectively; 
the evolution of external coherence between the two programming periods is positive. 

the structure of KA2 is appropriate and coherent; 
the actions complemented each other; 

• 

4.1.3.1 Internal Coherence 

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 

The  final  evaluation  of  Erasmus+  2014-2020  confirms  overall  the  findings  of  its  mid-term 
evaluation,  with  good  level  of  internal  coherence.  This  results  from  the  strong  learning 
dimension that informs all its activities at transnational level, in view of supporting better skills, 
competences  and  EU  values 
learning  mobility.  The  funding  addressing 
internationalisation of organisations and the support to policy development and cooperation in 
the  programme  fields  is  instrumental  to  the  objective  of  improving  E&T,  youth  and  sport 
systems,  for  the  benefit  of  individuals  and  the  entire  society.  From  this  point  of  view,  the 
programme overall architecture with its three levels of interventions appears logic and coherent 
for the delivery of its objectives.  

through 

338 The 2024 Financial Regulation recast introduced an explicit ground under the early detection and exclusion 
system for excluding entities from receiving EU funds if they have engaged in activities contrary to the values on 
which  the  EU  is  founded,  such  as  incitement  to  discrimination,  hatred,  or  violence  (Article  138(1)(c)(vi)  of 
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),  OJ  L  2024/2509,  23.9.2024. 
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2509/oj). 
339 CZ, MT, LT, PL, PT, RO, RS. 
340 BEnl, DE, ES, FI, FR, IS, IT, NO. CY report considers too early to assess the impact of these measures. 
341 ES, FI, FR, IT, PT. 
342 ES, FI, IT. 
343 FI, LT, NO. 

91 

 
 
Support  to  grassroot  sport  is  coherent  with  the  programme  objective  of  supporting  social 
inclusion through non formal learning with closer links with the youth sector. The sport sector 
was,  however,  the  only  one  not  directly  benefitting  from  an  individual  dimension,  and  not 
included in the key action system. Both gaps have been addressed in the 2021-2027 programme. 
Similarly, the separation of Jean Monnet activities from the key actions is found confusing and 
impractical by stakeholders, with suggestions to integrate them into the structure of key actions 344. 

The  level  of  cross-sectoral  cooperation  has  improved  throughout  the  programming 
period. The connection with businesses has increased, especially in the VET sector, while the 
adult education sector was the second – after VET – registering the higher level of participation 
of SMEs in KA2 indirectly managed actions 345. In line with their objectives, the Knowledge 
Alliances supported well the university business cooperation, while youth and adult education 
activities  strengthened ties with  NGOs and  organisations with  civic engagement.  Moreover, 
around  5 700  higher  education  institutions  participated  in  close  to  6 000  KA2  projects 
implemented under indirect management in sectors other than higher education.  

The pilots for the Centres of Vocational Excellence and the European Universities alliances, 
launched in the last two years of the programming period, have further reinforced this cross-
sectoral dimension. Their ambition to bring strong systemic and organisational impact in the 
higher education and VET systems, to enhance learning mobility, support the building of high-
quality skills and competences, boost internationalisation and long-term cooperation appears 
coherent the objectives of the programme and has positively contributed to their achievement.  

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 

The overall structure of the 2021-2027 programme has remained largely unchanged compared 
to its predecessor, with most actions being continued, simplified, or only slightly refined. Only 
few  actions  were  discontinued  or  newly  added 346,  thus  maintaining  a  stable  and  familiar 
framework  for  participants.  This  continuity  has  contributed  to  the  internal  coherence  of  the 
programme, which results improved compared to the 2014-2020 programme. Erasmus+ 2014-
2020 was the result of the merge of several programmes, which were consolidated into a single 
comprehensive structure. This merger required substantial adjustments and learning, resulting 
in initial challenges. In contrast, the changes introduced in Erasmus+ 2021-2027 (see section 
2.2)  contribute  to  a  more  streamlined  and  integrated  structure  with  a  higher  degree  of 
consistency and logical alignment with its objectives, facilitating smoother implementation and 
better stakeholder navigation (‘evolution not revolution’).  

This structure is generally viewed as coherent by stakeholders. Echoing the findings of the mid-
term evaluation of the 2014-2020 programme, the majority of respondents to the NAs/EACEA 
survey  (87%)  agreed  that  the  programme  has,  in  the  current  programming  period,  a  good 
internal coherence, that its architecture is coherent (74%), and its actions do not overlap with 
each other (73%). The objectives and intended effects of all actions are well thought through, 
each contributing to achieving objectives set out in the programme’s intervention logic.  

The programme architecture comprising of a mix of directly and indirectly managed actions, 
of three  levels  of intervention,  with specific opportunities for individuals, organisations and 
policy development and cooperation, is deemed sufficiently clear and consistent. The overall 
value of the Jean Monnet Actions is clearly recognised; however, as noted in the context of the 

344 Source: scoping interviews, workshop with National Agencies held in June 2023, workshop on draft final report 
held in July 2024. 
345 1 592 SMEs participated in 1 631 KA2 adult education projects, and 2 148 SMEs in 2 166 KA2 VET projects. 
346 See overview in Annex VII.  

92 

 
 
final evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020, their current separation from the key actions is found 
confusing, with suggestions to integrate them into the structure of key actions 347. 

The  current  Erasmus+  offer  is  considered  comprehensive  and  complementary.  Consulted 
stakeholders 348 generally agree that there are no patently missing actions. However, the wide 
scope and – to some extent inevitable – complexity of the programme can make it difficult for 
newcomers and less experienced organisations to grasp the full range of opportunities available. 

The current programme presents strong focus on cross-sectoral collaboration, which is seen 
in  line  with  the  programme’s  core  objectives  and  strengthening  its  internal  coherence.  The 
cooperation  between  the  higher  education  and  the  VET  sector  is  an  essential  part  of  the 
Alliances for Innovation, as embedded in the design of the action; cross-sectoral cooperation is 
fostered under the Centres of Vocational Excellence and the European Universities alliances349 
and encouraged in the other types of partnerships funded under Erasmus+. Knowledge flow 
and  cooperation  across  the  school  and  higher  education  sectors  takes  place  among  others 
through the newly established Jean Monnet Actions for the school and VET fields350. Cross-
sectoral cooperation occurs also frequently between the youth and sport sectors, considering 
target audiences often show similarities.  

The coherence and appropriateness of the structure of KA2 was also investigated. Results of 
the  NAs/EACEA  survey  and  key  informant  interviews  suggest  a  good  level  of  coherence 
between  KA2  and  the  rest  of  the  programme.  However,  while  it  is  appreciated  that  KA2 
provides distinct types of funding opportunities  under both direct  and indirect management, 
some stakeholders find that its scope has become overly broad, resulting in a loss of its prior 
focus on driving innovation. Further, as stated in section 4.1.1.3, the collected evidence doesn’t 
allow to affirm with certainty the extent to which the partnerships formed under the 2014-2020 
programme lasted over time, which may question KA2’s capacity to deliver longer-term results. 

While the role and place of KA2 show coherence with the programme intervention logic (i.e. 
deliver  change  at  institutional  and  organisational  level),  questions  arise  regarding  its  strong 
emphasis on producing tangible outputs in many actions (e.g. apps, websites, manuals, learning 
material). Projects have a specific contractual duration and often  grants are not sufficient to 
ensure the continuity of the results and their further dissemination after the end of the funding351. 
The  experienced  challenges  in  supporting  the  sustainability  of  these  tangible  outputs  across 
both  programming  periods,  as  well  as  stakeholders’352  views  on  an  excessive  focus  of  their 
requirement,  suggest  that,  in  many  instances,  the  collaboration  process  may  be  more 
important than the concrete outputs to meet programme objectives, as it can lead to the 

initiative 

347 Source: scoping interviews, workshop with National Agencies held in June 2023, workshop on draft final report 
held in July 2024. 
348 Source: workshop with National Agencies held in June 2023, NAs/EACEA survey, EU-level key informant 
interviews. 
349  European  Commission  (2025),  Report  on  the  outcomes  and  transformational  potential  of  the  European 
Universities 
(https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/db43f6ca-da14-11ef-be2a-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en), pp. 87-88: ‘European Universities alliances also engage with education and training 
institutions, university networks, research institutions, national and regional governments and public authorities, 
quality assurance bodies, businesses, SMEs, civil society organisations, various associations and other entities as 
associated partners’.  
350 JMA Schools Network and Teacher Training actions aiming to develop training modules and advanced tools 
for teachers. See also the case study on Istituto Statale d'Arte - Liceo artistico "Edgardo Mannucci" (IT).  
351  INDIRE  (2019),  Strategic  partnerships  for 
the 
(https://www.erasmusplus.it/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Erasmus-2-ENG-X-WEB.pdf)  
352 These views  were shared during the workshop with National Agencies staff of June  2023. In addition, the 
analysis of a sample of 180 projects across both programming periods, conducted by ICF as part of the external 
consultancy study, found that a good share of the project websites developed were no longer accessible. 

in  Erasmus+.  A  study  on 

innovation 

impact 

93 

 
 
establishment of an extended community of practitioners. This collateral benefit is crucial to 
build strong networks that can contribute to the development and implementation of policies in 
the fields covered by the programme, in line with the relevant expected result in the intervention 
logic. In that spirit, also the funding of online portals facilitating cooperation (i.e. the European 
School Education Platform, including eTwinning, EPALE, the European Youth Portal) under 
KA2 is logical and coherent.  

KA2  demand  remains  high  with  an  average  success  rate 353  for  KA2  actions  under  indirect 
management dropping from 38% in 2021 to 18% in 2023 (26% in 2022). This has to be seen 
against the background of the budget shift towards KA2 during the pandemic when mobilities 
could not be implemented. After the end of the pandemic, the budget has again been re-focussed 
on KA1 mobility activities since 2022.  

Based  on  the  feedback  collected  through  case  studies,  NAs/EACEA  survey,  key  informant 
interviews,  KA2  coherence  and  its  contribution  to  programme  objectives  could  be  further 
enhanced by: 
•  Fostering the participation of newcomer and small organisations: through e.g. limiting 
the  number  of  projects  per  organisation  also  for  actions  under  direct  management,  or 
allocating a share of the budget specifically to new organisations. 

•  Increasing the budget available for KA2 to satisfy the demand and ensure achievement 

of programme results. 

•  Introducing KA2 sport projects under indirect management: to contribute to further 
professionalisation and enable smaller sport organisations to apply at national level. 
•  Reconsidering  the  difference  in  lump  sum  size  between  KA220  (cooperation 
partnerships) and KA210 (small-scale partnerships) introducing intermediate grant size. 
•  Improve sustainability of KA2 project results, reflecting on support measures or funds 
provision to ensure lasting collaborations and sustained exploitation of developed results. 

4.1.3.2 External coherence 

Given  the  high  continuity  between  programmes,  most  of  the  analysis  pertaining  to  the  external 
coherence  is  carried  out  jointly  for  both  programming  periods,  while  highlighting  differences  or 
elements of evolution between the two programmes.  

The final evaluation of the 2014-2020 programme confirms the conclusions of its mid-term 
evaluation, noting high external coherence between Erasmus+ and other relevant EU policies 
and programmes (e.g. European Social Fund, Horizon 2020). Erasmus+ 2014-2020 had a clear 
and institutionalised position across EU interventions. The programme invested in individuals 
enrolled in all levels of formal education and in those participating in informal and non-formal 
education activities, it supported organisations active in education, training, youth and sport 
fields  and  promoted  policy  development  across  its  fields.  The  educational  dimension 
encompassing all its activities, the focus on strengthening skills and competences to support 
growth and jobs, as well as its transnational character marked a clear element of distinction 
with respect to other EU interventions investing in education at national or regional level with 
a  different  perspective.  This  determined  its  coherence  with  ESF  (strong  focus  on  labour 
market), ERDF (focus on infrastructures, and equipment and cooperation across borders in the 
case of Interreg), Horizon 2020 (focus on research dimension), ensuring complementarities of 
objectives (support to EU values, skills and competences contributing to better employability 
and  a  more  cohesive  society).  The  large-scale  actions  piloted  in  the  last  years  of  the 
programming  period,  i.e.  European  Universities  alliances  and  Centres  of  Vocational 

353 Success rate is calculated based on the number of projects contracted versus the number of projects received. 

94 

 
 
Excellence,  have  further  increased  coherence  with  other  EU  instruments,  strengthening 
programme support to innovation and smart specialisation strategies 354.  

At  policy  level,  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  Erasmus+  2014-2020  highlighted  a  clear  and 
satisfactory alignment with different EU-level policies. This was the case for the Europe 2020 
strategy,  the  Strategic  Framework  for  European  cooperation  in  education  and  training  (ET 
2020), Copenhagen process and tools in the context of VET actions, modernisation of higher 
education agenda, Communications on ‘New Skills Agenda for Europe’, the European Youth 
Strategy, EU Work Plan for sport. The review of project topical coverage carried out in the 
mid-term  evaluation  showed  a  higher  trend  towards  ET2020  themes,  in  particular  social 
inclusion, while topics of early school leaving of the Europe 2020 strategy were covered  in 
lower number of projects. Contribution to other policy areas is identified with regards to the 
participation  in  democratic life  and active  citizenship, in  particular in  the youth  field  (2015 
Paris  Declaration),  the  support  to  integration  of  refugees  and  asylum  seekers  (migration 
policies), while in the second part of the programme period, there was an increasing focus on 
digital skills (European digital education action plan) and on sustainability (Life programme).  

The strong continuity between the previous and the current programme generations in term of 
architecture and key objectives (focus on learning mobility in a lifelong learning perspective) 
has confirmed the aspects of external coherence with respect to the 2021-2027 generation of 
EU funding programmes. The  new mobility  actions  of adult learners and  sport staff  funded 
under the 2021-2027 programme have further increased programme coherence vis-à-vis other 
instruments,  supporting  skills  formation  on  a  wider  spectrum  of  target  groups.  These  new 
actions reinforce support to grassroot sport (mobility of sport staff), offer mobility opportunities 
to adults enrolled in adult education (mobility of adult learners), and offer non-formal learning 
to 18-years old young people (DiscoverEU), all putting a strong emphasis on social inclusion. 
These  activities  appear  coherent  and  complementary  with  the  objectives  of  other  funding 
instruments, in particular ESF+.  

According to the 2023 European Parliament study on the early implementation of Erasmus+ 
2021-2027, the programme demonstrates a high degree of alignment with all six priorities 
of  the  2019-2024  Commission  and  relevant  EU  policies355.  Erasmus+  2021-2027  appears 
well-embedded in EU policy agendas and thus provides strong support for their implementation 
(see also section 4.1.1.6). For example, 77% of public consultation respondents either ‘strongly 
agreed’  or  ‘agreed’  that  Erasmus+  is  supporting  EU  policies  and  priorities.  The  horizontal 
priorities established under the 2021-2027 programme mark a strong commitment to support, 
through  a  lifelong  learning  perspective 356,  skills  development  and  behavioural  changes 
addressing the areas of social inclusion (Erasmus+ inclusion framework), climate change and 
sustainability  (European  Green  Deal),  the  digital  transformation  (European  Digital 
tackling  disinformation,  active  citizenship  and 
Education  Action  Plan), 
participation in democratic life (2015 Paris Declaration). Erasmus+ flagships actions, such as 
European Universities alliances, Centres of Vocational Excellence (both already piloted under 
the  2014-2020  programme)  and  Erasmus+  Teacher  Academies  are  key  to  achieve  the 
European  Education  Area  and  contribute  to  the  European  Skills  Agenda.  To  date,  the 

including 

354 In their study, Esparza Masana and Woolford consider that initiatives like the European Universities and the 
Knowledge  Alliances  offer  a  means  to  increasingly  integrate  HEIs  into  regional  development  and  innovation 
policies,  including  S3,  and  integrate  them  within  their  innovation  ecosystems,  through  facilitating  their 
contribution across research, teaching and outreach/community and in S3 governance (Esparza Masana, R. and 
Woolford (2023), https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/429140)  
355 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2023/747442/EPRS_STU(2023)747442_EN.pdf  
356  As  described 
topics/improving-quality-equity/key-competences-lifelong-learning  

the  EU  Framework  on  key  competences:  https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-

in 

95 

 
 
quantitative targets set for Erasmus+ contribution from these actions have been achieved or 
show high progress (see section 4.1.1.4). While at this stage a full assessment of the impact of 
these actions towards these key policy initiatives is  not  yet possible, the  collected  evidence 
shows positive signs of spill-over effects producing changes and driving progress at systemic 
level.  Thanks  to  its  international  dimension,  Erasmus+  is  also  coherently  contributing  to 
external policies, including the Global Gateway strategy, which has education and research as 
one of its investment priorities. Furthermore, the interim evaluation of the EU Youth Strategy 
2019-2027 found that Erasmus+, together with the EU Youth Dialogue and European Solidarity 
Corps, is the instrument fostering the most synergies 357.  

The collected evidence points at a very high level of complementarity between both generations 
of  Erasmus+  and  other  EU  programmes  with  similar  objectives.  66%  of  the  public 
consultation respondents indicated that Erasmus+ is fully or partially coherent with other EU 
funding opportunities, while only 3% believe it is not and close to one third of respondents 
(31%) didn’t know358. Furthermore,  almost  80% of respondents  to  the NAs/EACEA survey 
stated that Erasmus+ complements other EU programmes, while 28% indicated that it overlaps 
with similar actions under those programmes. Coherence with other EU initiatives is pointed 
out as good in reports from 14 countries359. 

At level of projects, about one third of the beneficiary organisations responding to the survey 
of  socio-economic  actors  stated  that  they  took  part  previously  (35%)  or  were  taking  part 
currently (30%) in another EU-funded programme 360. Among these, 45% indicated that this 
project had a link with their Erasmus+ participation a total of 34% indicated that this project 
was  the  continuation  and/or  upscaling  of  a  previous  project,  showing  a  good  level  of 
connections between Erasmus+ and other EU programmes. 

Links between projects under Erasmus+ and other programmes361 

Among  respondents  to  this  survey  who  had  previously  participated  in  other  EU-funded 
programmes, the most common were the European Social Fund (ESF/ESF+) (31%), Interreg 
(21%),  and  Horizon  2020/Horizon  Europe  (13%),  with  similar  patterns  regarding  the 
participation  in  on-going  projects  funded  by  other  programmes.  These  funding  instruments 

357 SWD(2024) 90 of 11 April 2024, p. 46. 
358 Respondents well or partly familiar with the programme were asked to indicate whether they found Erasmus+ 
fully  coherent,  partially  coherent,  not  coherent  at  all  (or  didn’t  know)  with  other  EU  funding 
opportunities/instruments addressing the education, training, youth, and sport sectors (such as the European Social 
Fund Plus, European Solidarity Corps, Interreg programmes, the National Recovery and Resilience facility, etc.). 
The question, not mandatory for respondents partly familiar with the programme, gathered 1225 responses.  
359 AT, BE, CY, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, IT, LU, NL, PL, PT, RO. 
360 Survey of Socio-economic actors, annex V of ICF study. Q9: ‘Before participating in Erasmus+ activities, have 
you been involved as a partner or coordinator in another EU-funded project?’; Q10: ‘Is your organisation currently 
involved as a partner or coordinator in another EU-funded project?’. 
361  Survey  of  socio-economic  actors,  annex  V  of  ICF  study.  Question:  You  said  that  your  organisation  has 
participated/  is  participating  in  other  EU-funded  project(s).  Does  this  have  any  link  with  your  Erasmus+ 
participation? 

96 

 
 
 
were also the most mentioned by the stakeholders consulted for case studies and interviews and 
emerge as those having the highest potential for synergies and complementarities362. 

Horizon Europe was mentioned in international and national level interviews, case studies and 
national  reports  as  being  very  coherent  with  Erasmus+,  complementing  Erasmus+  with  its 
research  dimension,  in  particular  with  regards  to  the  higher  education  sector,  while  some 
complementarity exists also with the VET sector too 363. Similar findings emerged from the 
study  ‘Innovative  Europe’  contributing  to  the  interim  evaluation  of  Horizon  Europe.  The 
quantitative analysis carried out on the basis of common beneficiaries encoded in the eGrants 
system indicated Erasmus+ as one of the most complementary programmes with the actions 
supporting innovation under Horizon Europe Pillar III ‘Innovative Europe’364. However, this 
analysis only took into account the Erasmus+ actions under direct management (approximately 
20% of the Erasmus+ budget). Under Pillar III of Horizon Europe, the study also highlights 
synergies  between  Erasmus+  and  the  European  Institute  of  Innovation  and  Technology 
(EIT).  For  example,  the  EIT  Food  has  partnered  with  other  organisations  in  its  network  to 
submit  bids  for  Erasmus+  funding,  leading  to  successful  Erasmus+  projects  such  as  I-
RESTART and GEEK4Food. The study ‘Excellence science’ addressing Pillar I of Horizon 
Europe highlights that the collaborative networks established under Erasmus+ often also serve 
as platforms for collaborations under Horizon Europe. Further synergies were identified under 
Pillar  II  of  Horizon  Europe  (Global  Challenges  &  European  Industrial  Competitiveness)  in 
relation to addressing inequalities in green and digital transitions, skills, and labour shortages.  

Synergies  and  complementarities  with  Horizon  2020/Horizon  Europe  were  also  identified 
regarding capacity-building for research excellence and learning mobility between universities 
located  within  and  outside  of  Europe365.  Erasmus+  presents  strong  complementarities  with 
Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) (Horizon 2020 / Horizon Europe, Pillar I), with 
the possibility for Erasmus+ participants to take part in MSCA research teams and for MSCA 
researchers to participate in Erasmus+ activities366. Interviewees in EU Delegations indicated 
for  example  that  Erasmus+  facilitates  mobility  for  PhD  students  previously  involved  in 
Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters (EMJM) and that it contributes to excellence in research. The 
European Excellence initiative under Horizon Europe provides complementary support for 
the  development  of  the  research  dimension  of  the  Erasmus+  European  Universities 

362  National  studies  like  those  carried  out  by  INDIRE  in  2020  confirm  that  most  synergies  happened  with 
ESF/ERDF 
(https://2014-2020.erasmusplus.it/wp-
programmes. 
national 
content/uploads/2020/05/erasmus_summary_q3_WEB.pdf ) 
363 International mapping study on good practices of applied research in vocational education and training | ETF, 
https://www.etf.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/publications/international-mapping-study-good-
practices-applied-research  
364 European Commission (2024): Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Naujokaitytė, R., Cakić, M., 
Didžiulytė,  M.,  Zharkalliu-Roussou,  K.  et  al.,  Evaluation  study  of  the  European  framework  programmes  for 
research and innovation for an innovative Europe – Report phase 2 (support study for the interim evaluation of 
Horizon Europe), https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/499132, p. 88-89. 
365 The Case study on the University of Sevilla shows that participation in Erasmus+ facilitated the participation 
in Horizon Europe, with positive effects on the quality of the projects granted under Horizon. The Unite! European 
Universities alliance, funded under Erasmus+, secured funding for the development of its research and innovation 
dimension under the European Excellence initiative with the project ‘Unite.! Widening’. The Unite! alliances also 
set up an MSCA Doctoral Network ‘Energy Storage Network’ aiming to nurture a new generation of enterprising 
researchers, fostering integration of hydrogen in the energy sector through interdisciplinary excellence. 
366 The ex-post evaluation of Horizon 2020 also confirms that in education Horizon 2020 complemented Erasmus+ 
well (SWD(2024) 29 of 29 January 2024). The guidance on ensuring synergies between MSCA and Erasmus+ 
actions  in  the  field  of  higher  education  provides  examples  of  such  synergies.  European  Commission,  DG  for 
Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Synergies between the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions and Erasmus+ in 
the 
2021, 
Publications  Office 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/958920.  

European  Union, 

education, 

higher 

area 

the 

of 

of 

97 

 
 
alliances 367. The ability to supplement core Erasmus+ funding with complementary support 
from  Horizon  2020  /  Horizon  Europe  is  seen  as  instrumental  to  enable  higher  education 
institutions to access additional funding for the development of their research and innovation 
capabilities. 

Programmes  funded  under  the  European  Social  Fund  (ESF)+  and  European  Regional 
Development Fund (ERDF) are generally viewed as very coherent with Erasmus+, supported 
also by different types of synergy examples. The ESF+ Regulation 368 explicitly emphasises 
collaborative efforts with Erasmus+ in supporting various initiatives, particularly in facilitating 
the participation of disadvantaged learners in learning mobility. This alignment extends to the 
ESF+  focus  on  human  resource  development,  which  encompasses  upskilling  and  reskilling, 
including  digital  skills  and  green  initiatives,  echoing  the  priorities  of  Erasmus+.  The  ESF+ 
Regulation also provides an incentive in the form of a higher EU co-financing (up to 95%) for 
scaling  up  innovative  approaches  tested  on  a  small  scale  and  developed  under  other  Union 
programmes,  including  Erasmus+ 369.  Regarding  ERDF,  investments  in  infrastructure  and 
equipment strengthen equal access to quality and inclusive services with a focus on addressing 
socioeconomic and territorial disparities. Such support can complement Erasmus+ objectives 
and actions by reinforcing the enabling environment for mobility opportunities and cooperation 
in the fields of education, youth, and sport. As novelty in 2021-2027, ERDF can also directly 
fund skills development opportunities in the framework of smart specialisation strategies, thus 
increasing complementarities beyond investments in education infrastructures and equipment.  

The  opportunities  for  synergies  between  Erasmus+  and  Cohesion  policy  funds  have  been 
enhanced in  2021-2027  programming  period through  mirroring provisions  establishing new 
tools  and  mechanisms,  such  as  the  Seal  of  Excellence 370  and  the  possibility  of  transferring 
funds  from  programmes  under  shared  management  to  those  under  direct  or  indirect 
management, like Erasmus+371, to facilitate the building of effective synergies.  

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 is piloting the implementation of the Seal of Excellence as from the 2023 
Call  through  its  flagship  actions,  such  as  European  Universities  alliances  and  Centres  of 
Vocational  Excellence.  The  tool  aims  to  facilitate  the  alternative  funding  of  high-quality 
proposals  awarded  with  a  Seal  of  Excellence  under  Erasmus+  from  ESF+/ERDF  in  case  of 
insufficient funding under a given Erasmus+ Call for proposals. However, despite the potential 
of this tool, its uptake appears challenging given the transnational (multi-beneficiary) character 
of  Erasmus+  proposals.  Mainstream  cohesion  policy  programmes  have  a  clear  national  and 
regional scope. The provision established in 2021-2027 Common Provisions Regulation for the 
funding of Seal  holders  under Cohesion  policy funds do not  apply to  Interreg programmes. 
While there is opening from ESF+ to fund Erasmus+ transnational proposals with impact at 
national level, there is no information yet of schemes launched by ESF+ Managing Authorities 

367 Currently, the European Excellence initiative is the sole initiative allowing the alliances to receive support at 
the institutional level for the development of their alliance’ research and innovation dimension (around 13% of 
existing alliances receive funding support under this Horizon initiative). 
368 Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the 
European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1296/2013, OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 21.  
369 Article 14(2) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1057. 
370 See Article 32 of the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ Regulation and Article 73(4) of the 2021-2027 Common Provisions 
Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 laying 
down  common  provisions  on  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund,  the  European  Social  Fund  Plus,  the 
Cohesion  Fund,  the  Just  Transition  Fund  and  the  European  Maritime,  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture  Fund  and 
financial rules for those and for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the 
Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy, OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 159). 
371 See Article 26 of the 2021-2027 Common Provisions Regulation and Article 17(8) of the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ 
Regulation. 

98 

 
 
to fund Erasmus+ Seal holders. Consulted stakeholders showed limited awareness of the Seal 
under Erasmus+. However, as the launch of the Seal under Erasmus+ is still quite recent, it is 
not possible to provide firm conclusions on the effectiveness of this tool. 

The  new  mechanism  for  budgetary  transfer  has  been  used  by  Germany,  which  decided  to 
transfer a share of its ESF+ resources amounting to EUR 57 million for the period 2022-2027 
to support higher education student mobility, targeting students with fewer opportunities 372. 
This mechanism allows the transferred resources to be managed under a single budget on the 
basis of the rules of the receiving programme (i.e. Erasmus+), thus providing a high degree of 
simplification  both  for  the  National  Agency  and  the  beneficiary  organisations.  However, 
despite its potential, to date this possibility has been used by Germany only. Other mechanisms 
for the injection of ESF/ESF+ funds into Erasmus+ and requiring separate budget management 
have been used in other countries, for instance in Lithuania (2014-2020 programme), Poland 
and Italy (both programming periods). 

The Interreg programmes addressing the European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) objective 
under  ERDF  aim  at  fostering  cooperation  and  cohesion  across  border  regions.  Interreg 
promotes economic, social, and territorial integration by supporting cross-border, transnational, 
and interregional cooperation projects. Human capital support (such as skills development and 
language trainings, joint education and training schemes and cross-border school exchanges), 
infrastructure and equipment support and measures to reduce legal and administrative obstacles 
(such as joint  recognition of qualifications  and joint delivery of services) are eligible under 
Interreg making it complementary to Erasmus+, with Interreg being more territorially focused, 
whereas Erasmus+ fosters stronger internationalisation aspects373. 

The  European  Solidarity  Corps  was  established  in  2018,  with  the  incorporation  of  the 
European Voluntary Service (EVS), implemented under Erasmus+ until 2018374. The objectives 
and  beneficiaries  of  Erasmus+  and  the  European  Solidarity  Corps  are  similar  and  the 
importance  of  synergies  between  the  two  programmes  is  paramount.  The  two  programmes 
share a joint framework of inclusion measures and an inclusion and diversity strategy; they are 
managed under a single National Agency in the countries participating in both programmes375, 
and share the same IT landscape for the management of actions under indirect management. 
National Agencies managing both programmes have reported actions to foster synergies, such 
as joint events, trainings, and information sessions.  

The  European  Parliament  report  on  the  implementation  of  Erasmus+  2021-2027376  of 
December  2023  asked  for  greater  synergies  between  both  programmes.  Furthermore,  the 
evidence  collected  from  key  informant  interviews,  the  public  consultation,  and  the 
NAs/EACEA survey show that the differences between these two programmes are not always 
clear to all stakeholders and that some concerns exist about risks of overlaps. Both programmes 
cover  similar  goals  and  challenges  stemming  from  the  2019-2027  EU  Youth  Strategy  by 
supporting youth participation and non-formal learning. At the same time, while they address 

372 Commission Implementing Decision of 18.9.2023 on the financing of Erasmus+: the Union Programme for 
Education,  Training,  Youth  and  Sport  and  the  adoption  of  the  work  programme  for  2024.  https://erasmus-
plus.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-09/eplus-awp-20240-C-2023-6157_en.pdf  
373 This was pointed, for instance, in the case study on the Chambre de Métiers et de l'Artisanat Auvergne-Rhône-
Alpes (VET, FR). 
374 EVS was covered under Erasmus+ 2014-2020 under KA105 (mobility projects for young people and youth 
workers) until 2017. In 2017, KA135 Strategic EVS was launched and in 2018, in preparation of the European 
Solidarity Corps, volunteering was moved from KA105 to KA125 Volunteering projects. 
375 Serbia and Norway do not participate in the Corps. 
376 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2023-0413_EN.html 

99 

 
 
similar target groups, the European Solidarity Corps has lower barriers to participation, making 
it more accessible to young individuals outside formal institutional frameworks, as observed in 
the evaluation of the programme.  

A potential area of duplication concerns Erasmus+ Youth Participation activities and Solidarity 
projects funded under the European Solidarity Corps, both supporting youth-led initiatives run 
by  informal  groups  of  young  people,  fostering  active  citizenship  and  sense  of  initiative. 
Solidarity projects have a stronger solidarity component, supporting mostly bottom-up local 
solidarity activities with a view to addressing key challenges within the communities the young 
people carrying the project live in. Nevertheless, the many common areas of action suggest the 
need to reflect on potential overlaps and improve communication on the differences to potential 
applicants. The support activities aiming at increasing the quality implementation of the two 
programmes377 also emerge as examples for possible overlaps. Both activities are run by the 
same National Agencies, active in the youth field, and fund very similar activities, reaching out 
to target groups that are often the same 378. These activities represent opportunities for synergies 
between the programmes, they could also be looked at to seek for some economy of scale and 
improve efficiency.   

Regarding  Creative  Europe,  in  response  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  a  specific  selection 
round was held under the 2020 Call of the Erasmus+ Strategic partnerships, called ‘Partnerships 
for  creativity’,  with  the  allocation  of  an  indicative  EUR  100  million  budget  to  address  the 
priority  “Skills  development  and  inclusion  through  creativity  and  the  arts”.  In  the  current 
programme, areas of synergies are found in the Erasmus+ projects supporting skills for the arts 
and cultural sectors, for architecture and design and the fashion sector379. 

Complementarities  with  the  RRF  are  developed  under  pillar  I  (green  transition),  II  (digital 
transformation),  IV  (social  and  territorial  cohesion)  and  pillar  VI  (policies  for  the  next 
generation, children and the youth, such as education and skills) of the Facility. There is good 
alignment with Erasmus+ objectives, particularly in fostering digital skills and supporting the 
green  transition  through  educational  initiatives.  Most  of  Erasmus+  KA3  activity  types 
supporting  policy  development  and  coordination  in  programme  fields  have  the  potential  to 
stimulate reforms at national level, thus showing complementarity with pillar VI of the RRF. 
Support to national educational reforms is also provided through National Agencies, which, as 
part of their yearly work programmes, are requested to identify Erasmus+ priorities of particular 
relevance in their national context in view of addressing European Semester country-specific 
recommendations. In 2023, the Ministry of Education in Italy developed an Operational Plan 
to support through RRF funds more Erasmus+ mobility projects in the school education sector 
(EUR 150 million, to be managed by the Italian National Agency INDIRE). The synergy targets 
schools  in  disadvantaged  areas  with  limited  participation  in  Erasmus+  to  foster  skills  and 
internationalisation through mobility projects (pillars IV and VI of the RRF). 

Only few respondents to the public consultation drew attention to some missed opportunities 
and potential areas of overlap between Erasmus+ and the  CERV programme at level of the 

377 Training and Cooperation Activities (TCA) under Erasmus+ and Networking Activities (NET) under European 
Solidarity Corps. 
378 60% of National Agencies dealing with the youth sector reported taking specific actions to  ensure synergies 
between the two programmes, such as joint events, trainings, information sessions or similar types of activities, 
NAs/EACEA survey, annex III of ICF study. 
379 For example, more than 70 Erasmus+ projects support skills for sustainable fashion, around 150 concern the 
textile industry and more than 3 700 relate to ‘arts and culture’ (source: Erasmus+ project result platform. Search 
made using keywords ‘arts and culture’, ‘sustainable fashion’ and ‘textile industry’).  

100 

 
 
Erasmus+  priority  on  democratic  participation  and  civic  engagement  and  similar  strands  in 
CERV. However, the collected evidence was not sufficiently large to build a stronger case. 

Regarding the Life programme, the strongest evidence of synergies appears in the 2014-2020 
programme, when the Life programme made available EUR 9 million to fund further long-term 
European Voluntary Service opportunities in the areas of environment, nature conservation and 
climate action in 2017 and 2018. In the 2014-2020 programme, complementarities are built at 
level  of  the  horizontal  priority  ‘environment  and  fight  against  climate  change’  through  activities 
aiming to raise awareness around environmental matters and boost more sustainable behaviours. 

respondents  considered  Erasmus+  and  national 

The  collected  evidence  also  suggests  that  Erasmus+  is  generally  coherent  with  and 
complementary to national interventions in the programme fields. A vast majority (88%) of 
the  public  consultation 
funding 
opportunities/instruments addressing the education, training, youth and sport sectors fully or 
partially coherent380.  The analysis of national  reports  also  shows that the  programme aligns 
well with national education and youth policies381, as confirmed in the evaluation of the EU 
Youth  Strategy 382.  In  some  cases,  national  programmes  are  specifically  designed  to 
complement Erasmus+ by providing additional funding to supplement Erasmus+ grants or by 
focusing  on  bilateral  mobility.  This  complementary  approach  can  enhance  the  overall 
effectiveness of mobility and educational opportunities, suggesting that a higher exploitation 
of synergies with national interventions could further enhance the impact of Erasmus+.  

Respondents  to  the  public  consultation  also  considered  that,  in  both  programming  periods, 
Erasmus+  is  coherent  with  other  international  funding  opportunities/instruments  in  the 
education, training youth and sport fields (53%), although a high share of respondents (42%) 
had  no  opinion 383.  EEA  and  Norway  Grants  and  Nordplus  emerge  as  the  ‘international’ 
instruments having the highest degree of complementarities with Erasmus+.  

Synergies between Erasmus+ 2014-2020 and EEA and Norway Grants384 can be identified in 
the funding of additional learning mobility (Poland), upscaling of innovative practices tested 
under  Erasmus+  (Romania 385)  or  the  funding  of  projects  and  learning  modules  with  future 
evolutions under Erasmus+ (Czechia 386). The EEA and Norway Grants are often managed by 

380  Public  consultation  report,  annex  II of  ICF  study:  Question:  ‘Please  comment  whether,  and  if  so  to  which 
extent,  the  Erasmus+  programme  is  coherent  with:  National  funding  opportunities/instruments  addressing  the 
education, training, youth and sport sectors’. The question was asked to respondents familiar and partly familiar 
with the programme, gathering a total of  1,227 responses. The full range of replies was as follows: 43% fully 
coherent, 35% partially coherent, 7% not coherent at all, 15% don’t know. 
381 Highlighted in 13 reports: AT, BE, CY, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, LU, NL, PL, PT, TR. 
382 See p. 48 of SWD(2024) 90. 
383 Public consultation report, annex II of ICF study: Please comment whether, and if so to which extent, the Erasmus+ 
programme is coherent with Other international funding opportunities/instruments for the education, training, youth and 
sport  sectors (such  as from the  World  Bank, Unesco, EEA and Norway Grants,  Nordplus  etc.).  Overall,  the share of 
respondents with no opinion (42%) was highest in comparison to EU level and national level instruments. 
384 At the time of running the evaluation the EEA & Norway Grants 2021-2028 generation had not started yet; 
therefore, findings concern the 2014-2021 generation, mostly in link with the Erasmus+ 2014-2020. 
385 The EEA and Norway grants project, “Digitalisation of the water sector and water education (DIGIWATRO) 
in Romania, successfully built on the Erasmus+ Knowledge Alliances project “Digitalisation of water industry by 
innovative graduate water education” to address more specific national challenges, demonstrating the potential for 
complementary, rather than overlapping funding. 
386 The EEA and Norway Grants project “Supporting threatened plurality: Languages and Medieval Literatures” 
(Czechia) was designed to prepare a Master’s degree programme that aimed for future funding under the Erasmus 
Mundus Joint Master’s degree. This exemplifies the sequential funding approach, where initial projects funded by 
EEA and Norway Grants pave the way for further development under Erasmus+. Similarly, the project, ‘Use of 
modern  technologies  in  vocational  education’  project,  also  in  Czechia,  highlights  successful  long-term 
partnerships initiated under EEA and Norway Grants having in mind future developments under Erasmus+. 

101 

 
 
hosting  organisations  of  Erasmus+  National  Agencies,  which  facilitates  coordination  across 
programmes. However, as indicated in the national report of Norway, the coordination among 
these instruments should be reinforced to further exploit synergies.  

Nordplus promotes Nordic and Baltic cooperation in education, offering funding to projects 
that enhance collaboration between educational institutions in the Nordic and Baltic countries. 
Stakeholders’  feedback  highlights  several  synergies  between  Nordplus  and  Erasmus+.  For 
example,  initiatives  first  funded  by  Erasmus+  are  often  continued  through  Nordic  cooperation 
projects or receive complementary funding through Nordplus to enhance cooperation and impact 387. 
Nordplus can fund shorter mobilities compared to Erasmus+, thereby complementing each other.  

The  evolution  of  the  external  coherence  between  both  programming  periods  is  assessed 
positively.  Erasmus+  2021-2027  has  successfully  built  on  the  strong  foundation  of  the 
predecessor programme, continuing being well aligned with policies and instruments at EU, 
national or international level. The emphasis on synergies given by the inclusion of specific 
provisions in the legal bases of the different EU funding instruments has strengthen the effort 
for building more effective synergies producing fruitful experiences, though to a lower extent 
than potentially expected.  

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

The  analysis  has  been  carried  out  jointly  for  both  programming  periods,  while  highlighting 
differences or elements relevant to the final or the interim evaluation, and stressing elements 
of evolution between the two programmes. Evidence points to the strong European added 
value of both programme generations. The analysis was informed by 5 evaluation questions 
that examined to what extent Erasmus+ 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 support:  

•  a scale of actions between countries which would not otherwise be achieved (volume effects);  
• 
target groups or sectors that would not be otherwise covered (scope effects);  
•  processes translated into own practice by participating countries (process effects);  
• 
•  contribution to ‘Europeanness’; 
• 
international added value.  

internationalisation of organisations, systems and policies (role effect); 

4.2.1  European  added  value  as  compared  to  what  could  be  achieved  at 

regional, national or other international level 

The  strong  European  added  value  of  the  programme  is  demonstrated  when  it  comes  to  its 
volume, scope and benefits. Among other evidence, this is showcased by the national reports 
which  highlight  that  Erasmus+  2014-2020  provided  significant  European  added  value 
beyond what could be achieved through national or regional initiatives alone and that this 
added value continues in the 2021-2027 programme. Its unique contributions in fostering 
learning mobility, promoting European identity and driving innovation in education are widely 
recognised across participating countries.  

The  support  study  conducted  by  ICF  compared  Erasmus+  to  19  other  programmes  selected 
based  on  their  geographical  diversity,  the  type  of  collaboration,  sector,  and  actions  they 

387  See  for  example  the  Erasmus+  project  “STEM  skills  and  competences  for  the  new  generation  of  Nordic 
engineers” (2018, KA2): https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/projects/search/details/2018-1-SE01-KA203-039142  

102 

 
 
cover 388. With an average annual budget of EUR 2.6 in the period 2014-2020, and a MFF total 
envelope of EUR 16.2 billion (including both heading 1 and heading 4 budget) for the 2014-
2020  programming  period,  Erasmus+  2014-2020  had,  by  far,  the  largest  number  of 
participants and budget for mobility, cooperation and capacity building activities in the 
fields  of  education  and  training,  youth  and  sport.  The  same  applies  to  Erasmus+  2021-
2027,  thanks  to  its  annual  budget  of  EUR  4.4  billion  in  2023,  and  EUR 28.6  billion, 
including both heading 2 and heading 6 budget, for the period 2021-2027. 

At least 60% of NAs/EACEA survey respondents estimated that more than half of the learning 
mobilities in their sector are supported by Erasmus+ 389.  

Share of Erasmus+ learning mobilities compared to other programmes according to NAs /EACEA 

Source: NAs/EACEA Survey 

UNESCO-OECD-Eurostat  data  on  learning  mobility  in  higher  education390  shows  that 
Erasmus+ funds over half of credit mobilities in the Member States. There is no comparable 
data in other sectors. However, as most funding schemes outside Erasmus+ are focussed on 
higher education, it can imply that the shares of mobilities funded by Erasmus+ in VET, school 
education, adult education, youth and sport sectors are substantially higher. For example, unlike 
any other scheme identified, Erasmus+ 2021-2027 is the only one funding sport staff mobility 
at grassroots level.  

Box 9 - Credit mobility under different funding schemes391 

The Education and Training Monitor 2023 indicates that credit mobility financed under EU programmes involved 
most credit-mobile graduates at the bachelor and master levels (52.8%). There are only four countries where less 
than 50% of the credit-mobile graduates took part in programmes financed by the EU: the Netherlands (40.0%), 
Denmark (37.8%), France (37.5%), and Sweden (37.0%). By contrast, programmes financed by the EU supported 
more than 80% of credit-mobile graduates in 16 EU countries. Mobility at bachelor level (60.9%), but it accounts 
for less than half of the credit mobility taking place at master level (45.8%). The corresponding percentages for 
short  cycle  tertiary  education  (data  from 13  EU  countries)  and  doctoral  or  equivalent  level  (data  from  21  EU 
countries) are 48.7% and 32.3% respectively. 

388  These  are:  1)  African  Research  Universities  Alliances,  2)  Association  of  Commonwealth  Universities  grants,  3) 
Association of Southeast Asian Nations, 4) Ausbildung Weltweit, 5) Baltic-American Freedom Foundation professional 
internship programme, 6) Carnegie Foundation, 7) Central European Exchange Program for University Studies (CEEPUS), 
8) EEA and Norway Grants, 9) Franco-German Youth Office DFJW, 10) Fulbright, 11) DAAD scholarship programme, 
12) German Polish Youth Office DPJW, 13) Programmes de mobilité du Bureau International Jeunesse, 14) Nordplus, 15) 
NORPART - Norwegian Partnership Programme for Global Academic Cooperation, 16) OKM (Club support (OKM)), 
17) Turing Scheme, 18) Visegrad Scholarship Programme, 19) Visegrad Grants and Visegrad+ Grants. See also box 8, 
section 4.1.2.4 for a comparison for the Fulbright programme. 
389 NAs/EACEA survey, annex III of ICF study. Question: ‘Taking into consideration other programmes/ funding 
schemes operating in your sector, what proportion of the learning mobilities are supported by Erasmus+?’.  
390https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/EDUC_UOE_MOBC01__custom_6711802/bookmark/table?l
ang=en&bookmarkId=b6a9ff9f-9a24-499e-ba94-1a2d51b27df6&page=time:2021  
391  Education  and  Training  Monitor  2023,  Box  18.  Credit  mobility  under  different  funding  schemes.  Link: 
https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eac/education-and-training-monitor-2023/en/comparative-report/chapter-5.html  

103 

 
 
 
Both  programme  generations  are  unparalleled  in  terms  of  volume  in  fostering  the  educational, 
professional, and personal development of individuals and boosting cooperation in education, 
training, youth, and sport across Europe and beyond, setting it apart from other similar schemes.  

Findings from ICF study point out that the European added value of the Erasmus+ programme 
lies not only in its volume but also in its wide scope, which encompasses an extensive range 
of activities that complement and enhance each other, its broad fields and target groups as 
well as its geographical coverage. While other national and international schemes exist, very 
few cover the fields and the type of opportunities provided by Erasmus+. This is particularly 
the case of the adult education, youth and sport fields, where Erasmus+ covers activities that 
are less likely to be addressed by other initiatives392, thus playing a more vital role for these 
target groups. 

Comparison with other comparable initiatives 

Source: NAs/EACEA Survey (score out of 10). Question ‘To what extent to you agree with these statements about 

the comparison between Erasmus+ and other comparable initiatives’ 

Furthermore, case studies show that, across both programme generations, stakeholders highly 
value  the  programme's  unique  scope  and  that  organisations  would  not  have  been  able  to 
undertake similar activities or the activities would have been on a much smaller scale without 
Erasmus+  2014-2020  or  Erasmus+  2021-2027.  This  is  also  confirmed  by  84%  of  the 
respondents to the public consultation. Erasmus+ 2021-2027 also offers specific added value 
in  supporting  individuals  with  fewer  opportunities,  thanks  to  its  comprehensive  and 
mainstreamed approach to inclusion. This is particularly the case in the  adult education and 
youth sectors, where respectively 24% and 28% participants belong to this category. Inclusion 
and diversity is also the most predominant priority addressed across all key actions of the 2021-
2027 programme.  

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 served as a reference in many cases and positively influences national 
schemes. This is noted also in the current programme, as an effect of the continuation of the 
intervention.  Several  spillover  effects  on  processes  have  been  identified  with  relevant 
examples of other programmes aligning with best practices from Erasmus+ and harmonising 
their rules with the programme’s. For instance, Bulgaria has set similar priorities, objectives 
and procedures to Erasmus+ for their national programmes; Spain is developing a programme 
to promote the inclusion of people with disabilities based on Erasmus+ applications forms393; 
some 2021-2027 Cohesion policy programmes in Portugal refer to Erasmus+ unit costs funding 

392 NAs/EACEA survey, annex III of ICF study. Participants were asked if they aware of other national or non-
EU programmes in their country providing similar activities. For higher education, VET and school education, at 
least  half  of  the  respondents  answered  positively.  However,  less  than  a  third  were  aware  of  schemes  funding 
mobility of learners, staff or cooperation activities in the fields of adult education, youth and sport.  
393 Source: key informant interviews at national level. 

104 

 
 
 
model 394;  EEA  and  Norwegian  Financial  Mechanisms  2014-2021  require  that  ‘the  national 
practices for the management and financing of the educational programmes shall be established 
following  the  principles  of  Erasmus+  and/or  Horizon  2020  EU  programmes’395,  similarly 
Nordplus learning mobility in higher education are shaped as complementary to those funded 
by Erasmus+. At EU level, across both programming periods, Erasmus for young entrepreneurs 
shares comparable approaches with Erasmus+ mobility. As showed in the mid-term evaluation 
of  the  2014-2020  programme,  the  schemes  launched  in  the  2014-2020  period,  such  as  the 
European Solidarity Corps or the EU AID scheme for volunteers in humanitarian aid, follow 
similar selection principles as the European Voluntary Service (EVS). This extended further 
with the inclusion of EVS under the European Solidarity Corps, when the Corps was formally 
established  as  a  fully-fledged  programme  in  2018,  and  continues  in  the  2021-2027 
programming  period, with  the Corps  adopting  the same types of  support  structures  used by 
Erasmus+,  such  as  SALTO  Resource  Centres  and  schemes  such  as  ‘networking  activities’ 
(reflecting very closely the model of Erasmus+ TCAs). 

Over  both  programme  generations,  the  programme  has  facilitated  cooperation  among 
organisations  across  countries,  enabling  transnational  exchanges,  mutual  learning,  and 
dialogue.  This  allows  for  an  expansion  in  involved  organisations’  perspectives  and 
enhances  their  internationalisation.  Internationalisation  takes  the  form  of  support  to 
transnational mobility and partnerships that would not be achievable through national schemes 
alone,  as  reported  in  24  national  reports 396.  Erasmus+  also  has  an  effect  on  the 
internationalisation of policies and education systems, which would not have happened to the 
same extent or at all, without Erasmus+. 86% of respondents to the public consultation were of 
the opinion that Erasmus+ contributed to improving the national, European and international 
support measures for the education, training, youth and sport sectors. 

The programme influences national policies and systems in most countries, albeit to a varying 
degree, with many examples being reported by Member States in their national reports397. The 
long-term  and  systemic  effects  of  KA3  activities  is  consistently  highlighted  for  both 
programming periods. The European Parliament study 398 on the early implementation of EU 
programmes  such  as  Erasmus+,  issued  in  2023,  indicates  that  a  number  of  countries  uses 
Erasmus+  as  a  “serious  co-contributor  to  address  certain  national  challenges  such  as 
internationalisation  of  the  higher  and  vocational  educational  establishments  in  Bulgaria  or 
Spain”. Across both programming periods, Erasmus+ has played a unique role in supporting 
evidence-based policy cooperation in the fields of education, training, youth and sport. In the 
youth field, the Youth Wiki is recognised for facilitating comparative analyses of youth policies 
across  different  countries,  aiding  youth  policy  stakeholders  in  understanding  international 
youth  policies.  The  case  study  carried  out  under  the  support  study  highlighted  this  role, 
stressing  that  it  fosters  peer  learning  and  cooperation  among  stakeholders,  enabling  the 

Scholarships, 

394 See e.g. Norte Regional Programme 2021-2027.  
395 See EEA Financial Mechanism and Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2014-2021, Guideline for educational 
programmes.  Rules  for  the  establishment  and  implementation of programmes falling under  programme  area 3 
“Education, 
5. 
Apprenticeships 
https://eeagrants.org/sites/default/files/resources/2014-
2021%20Guideline%20for%20educational%20programmes.pdf  
396 AT, BEde, BEfr, BEnl, BG, CZ, DE DK, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LU, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, SE, SK, TR.  
397 For example, strengthening of the adult education field in Austria, development of national policies on mobility 
in upper secondary education in France, policy changes in the youth field on quality of youth work in Estonia.  
398 ‘Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus+, Creative Europe, European Solidarity 
Corps  and  Citizens,  Equality,  Rights  and  Values  (Strand  3)’,  European  Parliament,  Directorate-General  for 
Parliamentary 
2023. 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_STU(2023)747442  

Entrepreneurship, 

Research 

Services, 

Youth 

July 

and 

20 

p. 

105 

 
 
identification of good practices and the establishment of a network of information providers399. 
The Youth Wiki is seen as essential for understanding and comparing youth policies across 
Europe, which would not be achievable through national resources alone.  

The programme has a unique and strong impact on fostering a sense of European identity 
and  belonging.  Evaluation  findings  consistently  demonstrate  its  value  in  developing 
knowledge for European integration, raising awareness of EU common values, and cultivating 
a  sense  of  belonging  to  the  EU.  Building  or  maintaining  European  identities  and  European 
values provides key benefits for participating countries, in terms of supporting social cohesion, 
the preservation of democracy and the rule of law, but also for building relationships as well as 
supporting capacity building across the world and strengthening the geopolitical standing of 
the EU. This is also supported by the European Parliament study mentioned above that reports 
that the programme has increased relevance in strengthening the EU strategic autonomy, 
including in building a European identity.  

Erasmus+  2014-2020  and  2021-2027  have  a  range  of  other  benefits,  including  supporting 
inclusion,  diversity,  fairness  and  equal  opportunities  (89%  of  respondents  to  the  public 
consultation  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  with  this  statement)  and  contributing  to  innovation 
(86%  agreed  or  strongly  agreed).  Evidence  collected  through  different  sources  (beneficiary 
surveys, case studies, meta-analysis, national reports) all show that participation in Erasmus+ 
offers numerous benefits for individuals. According to 29 national reports400, Erasmus+ fosters 
the  development  of  intercultural  competences,  language  skills  and  international  networks. 
Moreover,  Erasmus+  supports  learners'  ability  to  learn,  especially  for  VET  learners,  school 
pupils, adult learners, participants in youth activities and those with fewer opportunities. The 
programme also reduces the likelihood of poor performance despite effort and enhances social 
integration among students. 

Monitoring  data  from  participants’  surveys  and  national  reports  point  that  the  programme 
increases  self-confidence,  problem-solving,  autonomy,  initiative,  entrepreneurship  and  civic 
engagement in participants, the degree of which vary depending on the sectors.  

4.2.2  European  added  value of  Erasmus+  2021-2027  compared  to  what  was 

achieved by Erasmus+ 2014-2020 

The  Erasmus+  programme  2021-2027  has  been  built  on  the  success  of  the  2014-2020 
programme, keeping substantial stability and continuity in the structure and management mode 
compared to its predecessor. The continuity between the two generations of programmes and 
well-known branding, ensures overall increased awareness, greater visibility and positive 
perception 401.  

When comparing the two programming periods, Erasmus+ 2021-2027 shows a clearer added 
value in terms of its scale, scope, effects and cooperation with third countries.  

As outlined in section 2.1, the 2014-2020 programme was designed to support the objectives 
of the Europe 2020 strategy and the ET 2020, responding and adapting well to the emerging 
challenges  of  the  increased  digitalisation  and  the  migration  crisis.  Similarly,  the  2021-2027 
programme was designed to better respond to the newest challenges and needs aligning well to 

399 Case Study on Youth Wiki (You, FR, CY, MT). Finding based on stakeholders’ perception. 
400 AT, BEde, BEnl, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, IE, IT, LI, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, NO, PT, RO, 
RS, SE, SI, SK, TR. 
401 The Report from the European Parliament on the implementation of the Erasmus+ programme 2021-2027 and 
the social media analysis carried out by the external evaluator report popularity of the programme and positive 
sentiment towards it. 

106 

 
 
most of the 2019-2024 EU political priorities, while the analysis in section 4.3 shows that its 
relevance  has  evolved  positively  compared  to  the  2014-2020  programme.  The  learning 
mobility  opportunities  offered  by  the  programme  can  be  considered  its  most  significant 
added  value,  magnified  by  the  sustained  actions  between  the  two  programmes.  The  high 
numbers of programme beneficiaries add up over time, expanding the benefits of mobility to 
an  increasing  share  of  learners,  as  well  as  staff  and  organisations.  This  applies  also  to 
international mobility which has in general increased over the period 2014-2020, particularly 
from  third  countries  associated  and  not  associated  to  the  programme  as  sending  countries, 
except a down point in 2020 due to COVID-19 pandemic, providing an important legacy for 
the current programme and further reinforced by the expansion of available opportunities in 
terms of funding and type of actions.  

Furthermore, the evidence collected does not point to any lost added value as a consequence of 
the discontinuation of actions from  Erasmus+ 2014-2020.  In 2018, the European Voluntary 
Service was moved from Erasmus+ to the European Solidarity Corps. As the action still exists 
in a similar form, it cannot be said that its added value has been lost.  Similarly, the Student 
Loan  Guarantee  Facility  (higher  education)  was  discontinued  at  the  start  of  the  2021-2027 
programming  period,  following  the  detection  in  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  2014-2020 
programme of several factors that were hindering its effectiveness, including the overlaps with 
national schemes. Consequently, it was considered that its added value could be more suitably 
achieved in  the context of the InvestEU programme. On this basis,  no loss  in  the European 
added value of the Erasmus+ programme can be advocated. 

Participants  in  the  2021-2027  programme  have  also  benefited  from  a  greater  alignment 
between Erasmus+ and national priorities. Representatives from around half of the countries 
consulted as part of national level interviews report that the alignment between Erasmus+ and 
national  priorities  has  strengthened  in  the  current  programming  period  compared  to  the 
previous one. This improvement is often attributed to the clearer and more focused priorities 
set by the programme, which have better resonated with national policy objectives.  

Even  if  challenges  persist,  Erasmus+  2021-2027  shows  specific  added  value  to  the  benefit  of 
disadvantaged groups. The increased focus on inclusion and diversity, combined with the efforts 
for simplification introduced in the current programme, have provided clear benefits. The programme 
has  become  more  accessible  for  smaller  organisations  and  newcomers  with  new  actions  and 
measures, such as the use of lump sums in KA2 and the Small-scale Partnerships. The 2023 European 
Parliament study 402 reports positive outcomes from these measures, with significant appreciation 
from national stakeholders. Case studies carried out in the frame of the support study also suggest 
that the 2021-2027 programme has become more user-friendly.  

4.2.3  European  added  value  as  compared  to  what  would  be  the  most  likely 

consequences of discontinuing the programme 

thus  drastically 

In terms of funding, the discontinuation of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 would remove in average 
EUR 4 billion of annual funding across education and training, youth and sport sectors 
and  would 
limit  financial  support  for  mobility,  cooperation  and 
internationalisation in these sectors in most participating countries. The programme’s funding 
is particularly crucial in countries and fields where no similar schemes are available, while in 
countries where comparable schemes are available  maintaining the current levels of support 
without Erasmus+ would require considerable budgetary efforts at national level.  

402 See p. 34 (EPRS_STU(2023)747442_EN.pdf (europa.eu)). 

107 

 
 
No other national or EU level programme has a comparable scope, capacity and scale, 
thus making the Erasmus+ programme unique. The evidence analysed for this evaluation 
demonstrates  that  without  the  Erasmus+  programme,  the  activities  currently  funded  via  the 
programme in the relevant sectors would not be supported to a comparable extent and the level 
of relevant activities taking place would be significantly lower.  

In higher education, Erasmus+ is the primary funding tool for short-term (at least three months) 
learning mobility across the programme countries. Based on Eurostat data, EU programmes 
like  Erasmus+  supported  around  2  out  of  3  (65.6%)  of  the  credit  mobile  graduates  from 
bachelor’s  or  equivalent  at  EU  level,  including  Serbia  and  Norway,  in  2022 403.  EU 
programmes are the only possibility to go abroad for a short period during studies in countries 
like Cyprus and Ireland, where 100% of short mobility is financed by Erasmus+. This share is 
higher than 90% in 11 countries 404 according to data from Eurostat. If Erasmus+ were to be 
halted,  and  no  similar  alternatives  were  to  be  provided,  12  programme  countries  would  see 
higher  education  international  mobility  virtually  disappear  (with  under  100  grant-supported 
mobilities a year 405). 

Without  Erasmus+,  it  is  likely  that  the  benefits  deriving  from  programme  actions  for 
individuals  and  organisations  are  drastically  reduced.  Internationalisation  of  education  and 
training,  youth  and  sport  sectors  would  be  reduced  to  close  to  zero  in  several  countries, 
especially  in  sport  and  youth.  The  positive  results  achieved  for  individual  participants  and 
beneficiary organisations would not be achieved to the same extent.  

4.2.4  Contribution to ‘Europeanness’  

The Erasmus+ programme plays an essential role to support the development of knowledge of 
the EU, raise awareness of the EU common values and foster a European sense of belonging. 
Evaluation findings show widespread recognition of Erasmus+ in promoting shared values, 
EU identity, and intercultural understanding.  

Participation in the programme is positively associated with a sense of European identity and 
positive  feelings  towards  the  EU.  23  national  reports  refer  to  the  positive  impact  of  the 
programme on promoting awareness of shared European values, EU identity, and intercultural 
understanding and openness 406. 91% of the public consultation respondents agreed or strongly 
agreed with the fact that Erasmus+ contributes to building a sense of European identity/sense 
of belonging and raises awareness of European values 407.  

The 2014-2020 programme monitoring data show that more than 70% of HE, VET and youth 
mobility participants declared being more aware of European values and European topics after 
their  mobility,  with  the  highest  share  (82%)  registered  by  participants  in  youth  mobilities. 
Under Erasmus+ 2014-2020, participation in the KA3 Youth Dialogue is positively associated 
with increased active citizenship and involvement in democratic life, while participation in the 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Learning_mobility_statistics#Credit-

403 
mobile_graduates  
404 RO, SK, EL, BG, MT, LV, PT, SI, PL, HR, HU. 
405 Bulgaria, Czechia, Greece, Croatia, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, and 
North Macedonia. Data source: Eurostat, educ_uoe_mobc01 (ICF own calculations). 
406 AT, BEde, BEfr, BEnl, CZ, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LU, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, SE, SK, TR 
407 Public consultation report, annex II of ICF study. Respondents familiar or partly familiar with the programme 
(N = 1 231) were asked to what extent they agreed with a series of statements, including that Erasmus+ contributes 
Erasmus+ building a sense of European identity/sense of belonging and raises awareness of European values. 60% 
strongly agreed, 31% agreed, only 7% had no opinion and the remaining 2% disagreed/strongly disagreed. 

108 

 
 
European Voluntary Service is associated with a positive feeling towards the EU, compared to 
non-participants408.  

In  the  higher  education  field,  the  2020/21  and  2022/23  Erasmus  Mundus  Graduate  Impact 
Surveys 409 consistently report that attitude towards Europe and the EU was among the areas of 
main personal impact following Erasmus Mundus studies. In both surveys, the area of greatest 
personal impact was the development of intercultural competences, which appears important 
given the strong international dimension of this action. Also, the XV ESN Survey 410 concluded 
that, before mobility, HE students have the weakest sense of belonging to the EU, and rather 
felt  strongly  connected  to  their  hometown  and  their  country.  In  contrast,  post-mobility  data 
show that those feelings and perceptions change. Students with a learning mobility experience 
feel strongly connected to Europe and to the world as a whole, with a striking increase in their 
sense  of  belonging  towards  the  EU.  On  a  wider  institutional  scale,  76%  of  the  European 
University  alliances  support  the  development  of  democratic  competencies  and  citizenship, 
reinforcing the role of higher education in strengthening democratic European values 411. 

Results from the beneficiary (learners) survey run by ICF show that 88% of the participants in 
mobility over the period 2014-2023 felt that they had increased their sense of belonging to the 
EU.  Programme  participation  is  positively  associated  with  respondents’  sense  of  European 
identity  and  positive  feelings  towards  the  EU,  particularly  for  participants  from  higher 
education and the youth sector. 49% of surveyed participants since 2014 indicated that they 
saw themselves  as  European, compared to  40%  of non-participants.  Also, 79% of surveyed 
participants indicated positive feelings towards the EU, compared to 74% of non-participants.  

Box 10 – Examples from National Reports  
Portugal: ‘Erasmus+ is key in promoting the European values of tolerance and acceptance and can be seen as 
a  major  investment  in  the  promotion  of  participation  in  democratic  life  and  civic  involvement,  on  a  more 
immediate and individual context, and promotion of peace and conflict management, on a broader and global 
arena. By encouraging the mobility of people, under any of its Key Actions, the Erasmus+ programme provides 
participants  from  Portugal  with  the  opportunity  to  learn  about  the  history,  culture,  and  values  of  the  host 
countries, thus stimulating tolerance and open-mindedness, a raised awareness of the EU's common values and 
citizenship, a sense of belonging to a diverse Europe/world, and, ultimately, peace’.  

The added value of the Erasmus+ 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 is undisputable when it comes to 
focusing  on  teaching  and  research  on  the  EU.  Across  both  programme  generations,  Jean 
Monnet  Actions  focus  specifically  on  spreading  knowledge  about  European  integration 
matters. The operating grants received by the seven Jean Monnet Designated Institutions under 
Erasmus+ 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 enable them to deliver teaching, training, research and 
dissemination activities focused on the EU, with a scale of impact that would not otherwise be 

408 Source: beneficiary surveys for learners run by ICF. 
409  Juhlke,  R.  &  Unger,  M.  (2022).  Erasmus  Mundus  Joint  Master  Graduate  Impact  Survey  2020/21. 
Comprehensive report of results. Institut für Höhere Studien – Institute for Advanced Studies (IHS). Pp. 40 and 
43 
(https://www.esaa-eu.org/fileadmin/esaa/content/news/files/2022/gis_202021_definite_report.pdf);  Robert 
Jühlke R., Dau J., Unger M. (2023). Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Graduate Impact Survey 2023. Comprehensive 
report  of  results  (https://www.em-a.eu/post/graduate-impact-survey-2023-results).  The  2020/21  impact  survey 
analysed Erasmus Mundus (EM) Joint Master Degree graduates from graduation cohorts 2010/11, 2015/16 and 
2019/20 (2 015 responses). The 2022/23 impact survey was conducted among Erasmus Mundus Master Alumni 
who graduated in one of three double cohorts 2012/13, 2017/18 and 2021/22 (3 396 responses). 
410 ESN survey XV is a quantitative and deductive research based on an online questionnaire that was launched 
on 29 May and closed on 31 July 2023, constituting a collection period of 2 months for the survey. The data 
collected are from students who were enrolled in Higher Education in the academic year 2021-2022 and/or the 
academic year 2022-2023 
(https://esn.org/sites/default/files/news/participation_in_learning_mobility_as_a_driving_force_to_change_the_eu.pdf) 
411  European  Commission  (2025),  Report  on  the  outcomes  and  transformational  potential  of  the  European 
Universities 
(https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/db43f6ca-da14-11ef-be2a-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en ). 

initiative 

109 

 
 
to  promoting  cultural  diversity,  cohesiveness  and 

possible. The College of Europe, the European University Institute, the European Institute of 
Public  Administration  (EIPA)  and  the  International  Centre  for  European  Training  (CIFE) 
actively  contribute 
inclusiveness, 
intercultural and multilingual understanding, and provide a space for research and debate. They 
also  support  professionals  entering  into  EU  careers.  For  example,  the  European  University 
Institute has  run  the Max Weber  programme  for talented postdoctoral  researchers  with  an EU-
focused research interest. It has created the School of Transnational Governance, running a master 
in Transnational governance and training mid-career professionals on this topic with a focus on the 
EU. All these specific activities would not have been possible without Erasmus+ funding.  

4.2.5  International added value 

Across  both  programming  periods,  the  programme  conveys  international  added  value 
through  cooperation  between  EU  Member  States  and  third  countries  not  associated  to  the 
programme. Furthermore, it fosters people to people contacts and global connections.  

Mobility activities to/from non-associated third countries represent a small share of the total 
number of mobilities supported by the programme, yet they benefit participants from almost 
all countries in the world. Various interviews with beneficiary organisations from the higher 
education  field  in  non-associated  third  countries  highlight  that  the  projects  funded  under 
Erasmus+ 2014-2020 have had a positive impact in facilitating peer learning, upgrading and 
modernising higher education curricula in countries such as Georgia, Uzbekistan, as well as in 
some African countries, and in supporting institutional capacity building across various fields. 
For candidate countries, interviewees also mentioned that the programme has influenced the 
perception  of  citizens  in  candidate  countries,  aligning  with  EU  priorities  during  accession 
negotiations.  

Box 11 - Examples of added value for non-associated third countries 
Erasmus+  has  significantly  impacted  individuals,  organisations,  and  the  higher  education  system  in  Sri 
Lanka. Participants experienced personal and professional growth, such as securing internships abroad and 
pursuing  higher  education  opportunities.  The  programme  facilitated  the  development  of  new  courses, 
master's  courses,  and  MOOCs,  enhancing  university-industry  collaborations  and  improving  graduates' 
employability. Additionally, it boosted language skills, intellectual competence, and global competitiveness, 
with positive effects including a sense of European identity, social cohesion, and breaking down cultural 
barriers. 
In Thailand, the programme promoted higher education internationalisation, establishing it as a key quality indicator 
at both institutional and national levels, and strengthening relationships with European institutions and the EU. 
In Ukraine, Erasmus+ has led to revisions to the curriculum for VET teacher training, incorporating more 
practical elements to enhance work-based learning. Erasmus+ funding is also used to develop the offer of 
micro-credentials  and  to  use  micro-credentials  for  the  professional  development  of  teachers  in  higher 
education. On a general level, interviewees stressed the importance of their participation in the programme 
and  the  measures  taken  to  adapt  to  the  needs  of  Ukrainian  participants,  as  a  sign  of  solidarity  with  their 
country in times when it is suffering from the Russian aggression.  

Source: key informant interviews performed under ICF support study 

Some remaining barriers to participation were also mentioned such as: 

•  Difficulties to take part in joint activities due to visa requirements, limits to eligibility 
(third countries not associated to the programme do not have access to the same funding 
opportunities as programme countries), or variations in exchange rates;  

•  Need  for  increased  coordination,  communication  and  awareness  of  programme 
opportunities. Reinforcing the capacity of Erasmus+ National  Focal Points (ENFPs), 
established in the current programme, could contribute to address these needs. 

110 

 
Since  2014,  Erasmus+  is  leveraged  in  EU  international  relations,  with  the  programme's 
mobility  component facilitating  people to people contacts, international  cooperation and 
boosting relations with other countries. The 2021-2027 capacity building actions in higher 
education and VET sectors support the delivery of the Global Gateway in third countries, in 
particular in Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean. It also plays 
a role in attracting talent and bridging gaps in international mobility. The programme can 
be further used to extend EU influence in third countries, with suggestions to further expand 
cooperation in VET and increase synergies with bilateral actions.  

4.3. 

Is the intervention still relevant? 

The  analysis  has  been  carried  out  jointly  for  both  programming  periods,  while  highlighting 
differences or elements relevant to the final or the interim evaluation, and stressing elements 
of evolution between the two programmes. The assessment was performed against 5 evaluation 
questions regarding:  

relevance to socio-economic needs and challenges; 
relevance to emerging needs for skills and growth; 
relevance to stakeholder needs; 
relevance to people with fewer opportunities; 

• 
• 
• 
• 
•  evolution of relevance between the two evaluation periods. 

The assessment is generally positive. Stakeholders generally agree that the relevance of the 
2021-2027 programme has increased compared to 2014-2020 programme, in particular due to 
clear  and  explicit  horizontal  priorities  set  in  the  current  programme.  Two-thirds  of  the 
respondents  to  the NA/EACEA survey412  confirmed that the  2021-2027  programme is  more 
relevant  to  the  current  and  emerging  needs  than  the  2014-2020  Erasmus+  generation. 
Respondents to this survey also reported an improved alignment of programme actions with 
EU priorities (90%) and with national priorities (62%) compared to the previous programme.  

All  32  countries  submitting  a  national  report413  assessed  positively  the  evolution  of  the 
programme  relevance  between  programming  periods,  with  regards  in  particular  to:  i)  the 
diversification  of  participants  and  increased  participation  in  previously  underrepresented 
sectors, such as youth and sport; ii) additional funding for social inclusion; iii) the programme’s 
focus on digital transformation and environmental sustainability. 

4.3.1  Relevance of programme objectives and priorities 

Based on the consultations carried out for the programme’s evaluation, stakeholders generally 
agree that the objectives and priorities set by the current Erasmus+ programme address well 
the most pressing socio-economic needs and challenges Europe is facing today. Around 
80% of respondents to the public consultation rated the objectives and priorities of Erasmus+ 
as relevant. Respondents to the NAs/EACEA survey generally expressed positive views, with 
48% affirming its full relevance in the context of today's socio-economic needs and challenges, 
and an additional 51% finding it partially relevant 414. Respondents to this survey also perceived 
strong  alignment  between  individual  actions  and  projects  funded  by  the  programme  and 
specific EU priorities such as ‘increasing the number of learners and staff who spend some time 

412  NAs/EACEA  survey,  annex  III  of  ICF  study.  Question  ‘Overall,  how  relevant  do  you  find  the  Erasmus+ 
Programme considering today’s socio-economic needs and challenges?’ (Respondents N=164). 
413 MK did not submit a national report. 
414  NAs/EACEA  survey,  annex  III  of  ICF  study.  Question:  ‘Overall,  how  relevant  do  you  find  the  Erasmus+ 
Programme considering today’s socio-economic needs and challenges?’ (Respondents N=164). 

111 

 
 
abroad’  (80%),  ‘improving  the  quality  of  education  and  training’,  ‘promoting  equity,  social 
cohesion, and active citizenship”; and ‘improving green and digital skills’ (69% each) 415. The 
mid-term evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020 showed that the pogramme was better aligned 
with EU policies than its predecessor programmes and that it entailed sufficient flexibility to 
adapt to EU-level emerging needs. This is confirmed in the final evaluation, when looking in 
particular to the last part of the programme implementaiton. The programme showed a good 
alignment with the EU political priorities 2019-2024 in its last two years of implementation, 
paving the way for the 2021-2027 programme and showing adaptability to emerging needs.  

The  Digital  Education  Action  Plan 416,  adopted  in  2018,  relied  on  Erasmus+  and  Horizon 
2020  for  the  implementation  of  its  priorities  aiming  to  help  education  and  training  systems 
make better use of innovation and digital technology and support the development of relevant 
digital  competences  (see  4.3.3) 417.  The  Communication  on  preventing  radicalisation 
adopted in June 2016 418 emphasised the preventive role of the educational and youth sectors 
by  tackling  the  root  causes  of  radicalisation  leading  to  violent  extremism  and  terrorism. 
Erasmus+ reflected the objectives and challenges addressed by the 2015 Paris Declaration in 
the implementation of all three key actions of the programme, as well as in the actions in the 
field  of  Sport.  This  permeated  the  programme  action  throughout  most  of  the  programming 
period, with further emphasis on the promotion of multicultural dialogue as from 2018 with the 
launch of Erasmus+ Virtual Exchanges, funded with Heading 4 of EU budget, also contributing 
to priorities of EU as a global actor. The piloting of the European Universities initiative was 
set  as  a  follow  up  to  the  European  Council  conclusions  of  14  December  2017,  laying  the 
foundations for the European Education Area. 

As for Erasmus+ 2021-2027, the promotion of learning mobility in formal, informal and non-
formal  settings,  including  its  embedded  inclusive  dimension,  addresses  both  individual  and 
societal needs supporting the building of skills for life and for jobs, and their circulation to form 
and attract talents worldwide. In parallel, the programme includes ‘excellence’ and ‘innovation’ 
in education as part of its objectives, translated into deepened transnational cooperation among 
educational institutions. These activities contribute to pursue a set of objectives that, since its 
early  implementation  stage,  has  shown  flexibility  and  adaptability  to  respond  to  major 
challenges (see 4.1.1.8) and effectively contributing to key policy areas, such as the European 
Education  Area,  the  European  Skills  Agenda,  including  the  Pact  for  Skills  (see  4.1.1.4). 
Therefore, they appear relevant to continue support the adaptation of education systems to the 
rapidly evolving world and to supply the European single market with the skills required by the 
technological changes and to support EU competitiveness (see 4.3.2). 

Broad support is highlighted for the four horizontal priorities, which were praised by many 
stakeholders  as  highly  relevant.  EU-level  stakeholders,  in  particular,  agreed  that  the 
programme’s priorities aligned well with EU-level socio-economic goals. Four of the 2019-
2024  Commission’s  priorities  are  embedded  into  the  programme’s  horizontal  priorities, 
showing a direct correspondence among them 419. Erasmus+ priorities address those aspects of 
the  broader  European  agenda  that  are  most  relevant  to  the  needs  of  people  in  education, 
training, youth and sport. Between 2021 and 2023, a significant part of both the total number 

415 NAs/EACEA survey, annex III of ICF study. Question: ‘To what extent are the individual actions and projects 
funded under Erasmus + aligned with key EU policy priorities?’ (Respondents N=113). 
416 COM(2018) 22 final. 
417 The plan set three priorities for the Commission’s work on digital education: (1) Making better use of digital 
technology  for  teaching  and  learning;  (2)  Developing  relevant  digital  skills  and  competences  for  the  digital 
transformation; (3) Improving education systems through better data analysis and foresight. 
418 COM(2016) 379 final. 
419 Priorities of the European Union 2019-2024 | European Union (europa.eu)  

112 

 
 
of projects funded and grants awarded by the programme were allocated to some of the main 
EU priority areas. In particular, 12% and 17% of all the projects relate to the ‘European Green 
Deal’ and ‘Europe fit for the digital age’ respectively, with a total of 43% of the total grants 
spent on these two areas. A mapping of the programme’s priorities against public opinions as 
measured in the Eurobarometer survey in 2022 further confirms their relevance as respondents 
mentioned  ‘working  on  environmental  issues  and  climate  change’  (22%)  and  ‘defending 
European values’ (18%) as the fourth and fifth most pressing challenges facing Europe today. 

The relevance of the 2021-2027 horizontal priorities is confirmed by the results of the public 
consultation,  with  more  than  90%  of  respondents  agreeing  that  the  programme’s  horizontal 
priorities  are  ‘extremely  relevant’  or  ‘relevant’  to  the  current  needs  and  challenges  of  our 
societies. 

Relevance of horizontal priorities 

Source: Public consultation report 

As regards the international dimension, the interviews carried out with EU delegations in Sub-
Saharan  Africa  countries  also  show  a  general  good  alignment  of  Erasmus+  priorities  with 
overarching ones. In Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Kenya, South Africa and Tanzania, alignment 
is reported with Erasmus+ priorities, with links to the Global Gateway strategy, particularly 
regarding  support  for  digitalisation  and  the  green  transition.  Enhancing  connectivity, 
digitalisation, and innovation are key areas of alignment with Erasmus+, also reflecting broader 
trends in global education and development. 

4.3.2  Relevance to emerging needs for skills and growth 

According  to  the  recent  Letta  Report 420  on  strengthening  the  EU  Single  Market,  learning 
mobility is part of the environment suitable for knowledge transfer, and acquisition of much 
needed skills for sustainable growth that Europe should focus on. Skills are also a key pillar of 
the  Draghi  report  on  strengthening  European  competitiveness421,  representing  an  essential 
investment for building a thriving, competitive, and fair economy. This report underlines that 
over  the  years,  the  EU  has  regularly  reiterated  the  importance  of  skills’  provision  and  has 
intervened  to  promote  general  policy  frameworks  for  investment  in  skills  and  stimulate  the 
formation of general and sector-specific skills across a broad coalition of actors, with a major 
part  of  this  investment  in  skills  coming  from  ESF+  and  the  Erasmus+  programme.  The 
acceleration of the twin – green and digital – transitions has been among the top priorities for 
the European Union, together with boosting the skills needed for it. Under Erasmus+, two out 
of four horizontal priorities address the twin transitions. As displayed in the chart above most 

420 Enrico Letta (2024), Much more than a market. 
421 Mario Draghi (2024), The future of European competitiveness. 

113 

 
 
 
respondents to the public consultation consider “the environment and the fight against climate 
change” and “digital transformation” priorities as either “extremely relevant” or “relevant”). 

These results are confirmed also by other stakeholders’ consultations which show that the 2021-
2027  programme  is  more  relevant  to  green  transition  and  digital  transformation  than  the 
previous  one  and  that  the  alignment  of  project  and  priorities  has  improved 422.  69%  of 
respondents to the NAs/EACEA survey found that Erasmus+ actions and projects have a strong 
alignment with the EU policy priority “improving digital and green skills” for education and 
training, right after “increasing the share of students and staff who spend time abroad” 423. When 
requested  to  compare  with  the  previous  programme  generation,  this  share  rises  to  84%, 
appearing  as  the  priority  gaining  with  the  strongest  alignment  with  Erasmus+  projects  and 
actions compared to the previous period. The programme's focus on digital transformation and 
environmental sustainability is widely recognised as an improvement in the 2021-2027 period 
in national reports, with 18 explicitly mentioning this 424, although 9 countries 425 noted that 
these  priorities  are  not  yet  fully  integrated  into  participant  experiences  or  project 
implementations.  

•  Relevance to digital transformation 

Erasmus+ is heavily mobilised to respond to the necessary digital transformation of education 
and training, youth and sport fields. Digital aspects of learning mobilities have been progressing 
in all education sectors in particular since 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic hampered physical 
learning mobility activities and led to the rapid development of new learning mobility patterns, 
including  remote elements, emphasising  the need to  accelerate the digital transition  and the 
acquisition of digital competences. The pandemic accelerated the use of blended mobility, as 
well as the community’s debates and efforts to utilise the digital aspects  of mobilities more 
broadly and efficiently 426. 42% of respondents to the survey run by the Commission in May 
2020 427  to  collect  views  of  mobility  participants  on  the  impact  of  the  COVID-19  outbreak 
replied  that  they  continued  their  activities  with  different  arrangements,  such  as  distance  or 
online learning, with variation between sectors. All 32 countries submitting a National Report 
have indicated that the pandemic catalysed and accelerated the adoption of digital tools and 
platforms  for  project  management,  communication  and  virtual  learning  in  Erasmus+.  For 
example, the online self-reflection tool SELFIE for schools, launched in 2018 to help schools 
reflect on their digital readiness, saw a rapid growth following Covid-19 pandemic, going from 
150 000 users in 2018 to more than one million users in April 2021, and up to two million in 
November of the same year. In July 2023, the tool has reached 6.6 million users 428. 

The  importance  of  digitalisation  has  also  been  growing  in  the  youth  sector.  The  Council 
conclusions  on  digital  youth  work 429  encouraged  the  exchange  of  best  practices  and  peer 
learning activities, inviting to carry out research to increase knowledge in the field as well as 
to  improve  digital  competences  through  non-formal  learning  and  training.  Building  on  the 
Council  conclusions,  and  in  response  to  such  needs  for  innovation  and  competence 

422 Survey of expert assessors, annex IV of ICF study. 
423 Survey of NAs/EACEA, annex III of ICF study. Question 6: “To what extent are the individual actions and 
projects funded under Erasmus+ aligned with key EU policy priorities?”  
424 AT, BE, CY, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO. 
425 AT, BE, CY, DE, DK, IE, NL, NO, PT. 
426 European Commission (2023), Study on supporting learning mobility: progress, obstacles and way forward 
(https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/036d1f45-82ad-11ee-99ba-01aa75ed71a1/language-en).  
427 
https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2021-09/coronavirus-mobility-impact-results-
may2020_en.pdf  
428 2021 and 2023 Erasmus+ Annual Reports. 
429 Council conclusions on digital youth work (OJ C 414, 10.12.2019, p. 2). 

114 

 
 
development, since 2021 17 National Agencies and 4 SALTOs have led a long-term Training 
and Cooperation Activity on the topic 430. The project has been cooperating closely with the 
RAY 431  network,  in  particular  with  the  RAY  DIGI  research 432,  exploring  dimensions  of 
digitalisation in European youth work. Since 2019, the Erasmus+ programme guide highlights 
digital  youth  work  among  the  competences  and  methods  relevant  for  youth  workers’ 
professional development, becoming one of the criteria for assessing the relevance of mobility 
projects of youth workers. Around 500 youth projects, funded between 2021 and 2023, for a 
total of over EUR 39 million contracted grants, focused on the topic of digital youth work.  

The programme nowadays complements physical mobility by promoting distance and blended 
learning. In the period 2021-2023, 90 000 mobilities were flagged as blended. It also includes 
a  broad  offer  of  learning  opportunities  focusing  on  basic  and  advanced  digital  competence 
development (see section 4.1.1.6.) and virtual exchanges, and it supports cooperation projects 
on digital education, with around 40% of contracted KA2 projects addressing this priority. The 
overall  contribution  of  the  programme  to  digital  transformation  priority  amounts  at  EUR 
2 018.1 million at the end of 2023 (equal to 21% of the total 2021-2027 implementation)433. 
Particularly important appears the role of the newly set SALTO Resource Centre on Digital to 
produce resources and materials to help applicants integrate the digital transformation priority 
in their projects.  

KA2 actions such as the Centres of Vocational Excellence contribute to the development of 
skills for the digital transformation by promoting the creation of ecosystems for sustainable 
collaboration  between  education  and  training  providers  and  other  stakeholders,  including 
companies in this area. They provide opportunities for initial training of young people as well 
as  the  continuing  up-skilling  and  re-skilling  of  adults,  through  flexible  and  timely  offer  of 
training that meets the needs of a dynamic labour market, in the context of the green and digital 
transitions. The 2023 ETF reports on building evidence to support vocational excellence for 
the digital and green transitions 434 focus on the role of Centres of Vocational Excellence in the 
green  and  digital  transition,  exploring  how  national  Centres  of  Vocational  Excellence  are 
managing the whole-institution change connected to these transitions.  

Among  the  actions  supported  by  Erasmus+  under  the  Digital  Education  Action  Plan,  the 
Erasmus+ Teacher Academies support the creation and application of digital pedagogies and 
teachers’ digital expertise. SELFIE for Teachers, launched in October 2021, helps primary and 
secondary school teachers assess their digital competences and plan further training, reaching 
more  than  100 000  users  by  January  2023.  Erasmus+  also  funds  activities  related  to  the 
priorities of the Digital Education Action Plan, such as the Digital Opportunity Traineeships. 

430 The project aims, among others, to make suggestions for developing national youth strategies with links to 
digitalisation, to analyse and promote STEAM activities in youth work, develop new practices for online youth 
work  as  well  as  for  virtual  and  blended  mobilities  in  the  framework  of  EU  Youth 
 Programmes: 
https://www.oph.fi/en/education-development-and-internationalisation/long-term-cooperation-projects/digital-
youth-work  
431  Research-based  analysis  of  European  youth  programmes.  The  RAY  network  is  an  open  and  self-governed 
European research network of the Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps  National Agencies. Funded under 
TCA  (KA3),  the  network  conducts  research  on  international  youth  work  and  youth  learning  mobility  and 
contributes to evidence-based youth policy development in the youth field: https://www.researchyouth.net/   
432 The research project conducted more than 60 digital youth work case studies, in and beyond Europe, between 
2022  and  2024.  The  RAY  DIGI  report  was  published  in  October  2024.  https://www.researchyouth.net/wp-
content/uploads/2024/10/RAY-DIGI_Key-Findings_20241020.pdf  
433  Source:  2023  Programme  Performance  Statement  (https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-
budget/performance-and-reporting/programme-performance-statements/erasmus-performance_en ). 
434  https://www.etf.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-11/CoVEs%20in%20the%20digital%20transition.pdf  and 
https://www.etf.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-11/P233084_ETF_Green%20transition_EN_v2-4COL_0.pdf 

115 

 
 
In  2022,  one  of  the  cross-sectoral  priorities  of  the  Forward-looking  projects  Call  was 
specifically dedicated to supporting high quality and inclusive digital education, in line with 
the aims of the Digital Education Action Plan, with projects called to address at least one of the 
following three areas: a) Key success factors for inclusive and high quality digital education 
and training; b) Artificial Intelligence in Education; c) High quality digital education content.  

The Erasmus Charter for Higher Education (ECHE) require institutions to  undertake the 
necessary steps to implement digital mobility management. Contribution to digital and green 
priorities  is  considered  in  award  criteria.  The  European  Student  Card  Initiative  (ESCI) 
introduces digital solutions, such as Erasmus Without Paper (EWP) and the Erasmus+ App, to 
facilitate the exchange of student data and mobility information in a digital, secure and efficient 
way;  it also  sets  standards  to  enable the cross-border authentication of students on mobility 
through the European Student Card. By the end of 2023, 2.3 million European Student Cards 
had  been  issued  and  the  Erasmus+  App  had  registered  218 546  downloads,  whereas  3 342 
higher education institutions were connected to the Erasmus Without Paper network, leading 
to  152 253  interinstitutional  agreements  and  185 027  learning  agreements  completed  fully 
digitally 435. Between the end of 2022 and the end of 2023, there was a 12% increase in the 
number of higher education institutions connected to the EWP network; a two-fold increase in 
the number of interinstitutional agreements completed digitally; and a  165% increase in the 
number of learning agreements approved through EWP. 

Similarly, organisations awarded with an Erasmus Accreditation have to align with ‘Erasmus 
quality  standards’  including  digital  education,  relevant  to  the  facilitation  of  the  digital 
transformation priority, as well as green transition aspects.  

The programme is supporting the digital transformation in education, leading to the adoption 
of digital tools, applications and innovative methodologies enabled by digital technology, often 
following  practices  discovered  during  international  mobility  activities.  In  certain  cases,  the 
programme has contributed to organisations adopting digital transformation as an objective436. 
Digitalisation is also fostered through European Universities alliances. Their long-term joint 
strategies,  which  include  the  development  of  shared  governance  structures  and  pooling  of 
resources  to  create  new  digital  resources  and  virtual  campuses,  or  further  develop  their 
blended learning provision to increase collaboration between institutions across borders 437. 

Overall, since 2014, Erasmus+ funded around 29 000 projects on themes related to digital (e.g. 
digital safety, digital skills, digital content), ICT and artificial intelligence. About one third of 
these  projects  were  funded  in  the  2021-2023  period.  The  programme  also  supports  projects 
dealing with the use of artificial intelligence in education. The number of projects specifically 
addressing themes related to artificial intelligence is close to 900, out of which 15% specifically 
address the topic ‘Artificial intelligence and data usage’, while the remaining ones treat this 
theme in relation to topics such as ‘digital skills and competence, ‘new learning and teaching 
methods and approach’, ‘creating new curricula’, as well as in relation to inclusion topics. This 
number is still limited but the yearly increase (from only 2 projects contracted in Call year 2014 
to  266  in  2023)  is  a  clear  sign  of  increasing  relevance.  For  example,  looking  beyond  the 

435 Erasmus+ annual report 2023, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/833629    
436 Case study on Asociația Sprijin+ (ADU, RO) as well as the case study on the European University alliance 
CHARM-EU, led by the University of Barcelona. 
437 Some Alliances have a particular focus on technology, including digital innovations, while others have placed 
a  focus on the environment,  to develop skills but also to transform higher education itself. Examples of these 
include Unite!, EU GREEN and UNI Green. Uni Green Alliance provides an overview of actions to reduce carbon 
balance in their activities. 

116 

 
 
evaluation period, the number of projects contracted under 2024 Call and specifically tackling 
the topic ‘artificial intelligence’ has doubled compared to 2023.  

Box 12 - Jean Monnet Module on ‘Europe Regulates Robotics’ and the ‘Centre of Excellence on the 
Regulation of Robotics and Artificial Intelligence’ (EURA) 
Europe  Regulates  Robotics  (ERR),  funded  in  2015,  focused  on  the  regulation  of  robotics  in  Europe,  (i) 
identifying applicable regulation, suggesting reforms where needed; (ii) fostering a multidisciplinary debate on 
its legal, ethical and economic implications; and  (iii) developing  ‘robolaw’ as a new field of EU studies. It 
reached these goals through teaching activities, academic events, research, and by fostering a dialogue with 
policy-makers.  
The Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence EURA, run from 2018 to 2022, successfully established itself as a focal 
point of competence in the field of the regulation of robotics and AI and is today widely recognized for its 
unique expertise and multidisciplinary methodology. EURA underwent research in many domains, leading to 
scientific publications. At the same time, it directly impacted policy making by drafting in-depth studies upon 
request of Italian and EU institutions. Many such considerations are today part of the debate as well as of the 
solutions  advanced  by  the  EU  policymakers  in  their  proposals  for  regulating  AI  (e.g.  the  AI  Act  and  the 
directives on civil and product liability associated with the use of AI).  
The case study carried on the projects highlights the role of the Erasmus+ funding, received under Jean Monnet 
activities, to foster studies, teaching and research on topics of EU interest. The interviewed representatives of 
the Centre of Excellence, researchers and learners highlighted that in the period 2014-2015 the regulation of 
technology was not a recognised field of study within European studies. Since then, largely because of the Jean 
Monnet  module  on  ERR  and  Centre  of  Excellence  EURA,  the  EU  has  emerged  as  a  global  leader  by 
introducing legislation in the field of artificial intelligence, evidenced by the recently approved AI Act, along 
with other pieces of legislation.  
The  Centre  of  Excellence  filled  in  a  critical  knowledge  gap  in  the  field.  This  positioned  the  researchers  as 
forerunners  in  this  area  of  expertise,  benefiting  both  participating  students  and  the  overall  organisation  of 
teaching within this action. The Centre of Excellence EURA facilitated the formation of a multi-disciplinary 
research community that did not exist before, and which continues to contribute to and participate in the Centre's 
activities,  helping  to  advance  the  field  further.  According  to  the  interviewees,  both  projects  significantly 
elevated  understanding  of  European  issues,  particularly  within  the  area  of  expertise  of  the  Centre  of 
Excellence on the regulation of robotics and AI.  

Although it is outside the evaluation period, the programme is preparing to further support the 
emerging needs linked to the challenges posed by artificial intelligence. For example, in 2025, 
the  Erasmus+  Forward  Looking  Project  Call  (KA2)  will  have  a  dedicated  priority  on 
generative  AI  in  education  and  training,  aiming  to  upscale  and  promote  the  innovative, 
efficient and ethical use of generative AI in education. Similarly, attention is given to digital 
well-being, one of the priorities of the 2024 Policy experimentation Call (KA3). Furthermore, 
in 2025, Erasmus+ will fund cooperation with OECD on developing an Artificial Intelligence 
Literacy Framework for primary and secondary level of education to address emerging 
trends  and  skills  needs  stemming  from  the  AI  disruption,  contributing  to  Commission’s 
work on AI literacy guidelines. 

•  Relevance to green transition 

In line with the Council recommendation on learning for the green transition and sustainable 
development adopted in June 2022 438, Erasmus+ provides opportunities to promote, support 
and  enable  formal  and  non-formal  education  and  training  for  the  green  transition  and 
sustainable development, facilitating cooperation and peer learning for the green transition and 
sustainable  development.  Learning  mobility,  cooperation  projects,  flagship  actions,  and 
activities supporting policy cooperation, contribute to this goal. For example, Cedefop report 
‘Meeting skill needs for the green transition’ 439 provides examples of Centres of Vocational 

438 Council recommendation of 16 June 2022 on learning for the green transition and sustainable development, 
OJ C 243, 27.6.2022, p. 1. 
439 https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/files/4220_en.pdf  

117 

 
 
Excellence projects supporting (i) collaboration of regional and local stakeholder to address 
green skill gap, (ii) the introduction of new collaboration practices for skills development or 
(iii) the promotion of systemic reform of education and professional training via innovative 
approaches in areas of green transition. This is key to ensure that Europe has highly competent 
professionals to support the green transition 440. 

Support to green objectives is also ensured by Erasmus+ through the basic principles included 
in its quality standards441 and the requirements that organisations need to meet when applying 
for  the  accreditation.  For  example,  the  programme  requires  higher  education  institutions  to 
adopt environmentally friendly practices, support sustainable means of travel and reduce the 
negative impact of mobility on the environment. Higher education institutions are encouraged 
to  develop  their  own  sustainability  strategies  and  connect  these  strategies  with  mobility 
activities. In particular, the negative environmental impact of transnational and international 
learning  mobility  needs  to  be  considered 442.  To  mitigate  the  impact  of  plane  travels  the 
programme promotes more sustainable means of transport as a norm for travel below 500 km 
and provides an increased green travel support since 2024 Call 443 (see also section 4.1.1.6). 
DiscoverEU offers participants a travel pass and travel opportunities predominantly by train. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  programme  supports  hundreds  of  projects  working  on  improving 
learning and teaching practices in the area of education for sustainable development and the 
green transition. A SALTO Resource Centre on sustainable development was launched in 2023 
to provide guidance and support to National Agencies and beneficiaries on the implementation 
of both dimensions of this priority. Nevertheless, the horizontal priority addressing the green 
transition is considered the least developed in 8 national reports444, with growing awareness and 
interest in environmental issues, identified especially in the school, youth and VET sectors 445. 
Efforts  to  promote  green  travel  are  ongoing,  as  some  countries  consider  the  programme’s 
incentives for green travel to be insufficient to have a significant impact on travel choices 446.  

The  digital  and  green  priorities  are  also  connected  as  shown  by  references  to  the  ‘twin 
transition’.  Around  two-thirds  of  Europeans  think  that  digital  technologies  are  important  to 
combat climate change 447. There is, however, also a need to better assess the environmental 
impact  of  digital  technologies 448  as  well  as  balance  the  relationship  between  all  horizontal 
priorities  of  the  programme,  for  example  by  considering  how  inclusion  may  be  affected  by 
longer journey durations, when these could negatively impact the participation of educational 

440  See  also  recital  7  of  the  Council  recommendation  on  learning  for  the  green  transition  and  sustainable 
development. 
441  https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/document/erasmus-quality-standards-mobility-projects-vet-adults-schools; 
https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/fr/document/erasmus-quality-standards-mobility-projects-youth 
442 Shields, R (2019) 'The sustainability of international higher education: Student mobility and global climate 
change', Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 217, pp. 594-602. 
443 Since 2024 Call, green/low emission travel is considered the norm and non-green travel the exception, whereas 
in  the  previous  ‘top  up’  system  low  emission  travel  was  the  exception.  The  Case-study  on  the  Pädagogische 
Hochschule Freiburg noted how learners have preferred in some cases to take the train (up to 3 days) to avoid the 
environmental impact of flying. 
444 AT, CY, DE, DK, ES, NL, NO, SE.  
445 AT, CY, DE, DK, ES, NL, SE. 
446 DK, IE, NO. 
447 See Special Eurobarometer 2959. See also the case-study on Oktatasi es Szakerto Bt. (ADU, HU). 
448 See COM(2023) 570 of 27.9.2023. Some Erasmus+ projects are also examining the relationship between digital 
technologies  and  the  environment.  For  example,  the  ‘Green-Co’  KA2  project  aims  to  provide  educational 
resources to raise awareness on the environmental impact of the use of digital technologies, not only as a global 
impact  by  companies  and  organizations,  but  even  in  the  mere  role  of  users.  Literature  also  explores  clashes 
between the twin transitions in a range of other fields outside of education - see Muench, S., Stoermer, E., Jensen, 
K., Asikainen, T., Salvi, M. and Scapolo, F., (2022) Towards a green and digital future, Publications Office of the 
European Union, Luxembourg, JRC129319. 

118 

 
 
institutions  with  fewer  resources  to  cover  staff  absences,  and  for  individuals  with  caring 
responsibilities or those living in remote areas, including outermost regions. 

•  Relevance to competitiveness 

In the evolving socio-economic context, and as also stressed by the Letta and Draghi reports 
mentioned  above,  new  needs  emerge  emphasizing  the  key  role  of  education  and  skills 
development for current and next generations, to support Europe’s competitiveness, economic 
resilience,  innovation  capacity  and  prosperity.  A  recent  study  by  the  Institute  of  German 
Economics (IW), surveying over 800 German companies, highlights that, in the current process 
of transformation of the European economy, the types of skills developed by students during 
learning  periods  abroad,  such  as  flexibility,  resilience  or  intercultural  competences  are 
becoming  increasingly  important  and  particularly  valued  by  ‘digital’,  ‘innovative’  or 
‘international’ companies 449. The IW study says that, to survive the tough global competition, 
the  economy  and  state  institutions  need  university  graduates  with  a  high  degree  of 
independence, problem-solving skills and proactive behaviour. These are exactly the types of 
skills more likely to be developed by Erasmus+ participants (see 4.1.1.2). In other words, the 
skills developed during Erasmus+ mobility activities are fundamental for what the economy 
needs today. 

In  the  same  vein,  the  Letta  Report  on  the  future  of  the  single  market  argues  that  a  fifth 
freedom, encompassing research, innovation, knowledge, and education, should be added to 
the existing four fundamental freedoms of the Single Market. By embedding those at the core 
of the Single Market, including learning mobility for all, Europe can according to Enrico Letta 
create an environment suitable for knowledge transfer, acquisition of much needed skills for 
sustainable  growth.  Skills  are  also  a  key  pillar  of  Mario  Draghi’s  recommendations,  and 
represent an essential investment for building a thriving, competitive, and fair economy.  

In  this  context,  it  is  important  to  stress  that  Erasmus+  is  instrumental  for  supporting  the 
implementation of the European Skills  Agenda450 aiming to support people to develop the 
skills  needed  to  take  full  advantage  of  the  opportunities  provided  by  the  green  and  digital 
transitions. The Skills Agenda covers several building blocks supported by Erasmus+ such as 
the Pact for Skills, supporting relevant private and public stakeholders to partner up and 
take action for lifelong skills development. Since the 2014-2020 programme, the Erasmus+ 
Sector Skills Alliances (2014-2016), then the Blueprint Alliances for sectoral cooperation 
on skills (2017-2020) and in the 2021-2027 programme the Alliances for Innovation – Lot 2 
support  collaboration  between  businesses,  trade  unions,  research  institutions,  education  and 
training  with  the  aim  of  developing  and  implementing  strategies  to  address  skills  gaps  in 
specific sectors and industrial ecosystems. Since 2018, Erasmus+ has funded 40 Blueprints 
alliances,  out  of  which  27  under  the  2021-2027  programme,  addressing  skill  gaps  in  e.g. 
automotive sector, maritime technology, aerospace and defence, textile industry, steel industry, 
construction,  cybersecurity,  work  integration  social  enterprises,  software  services451.  These 
large-scale projects gather sectoral skills intelligence, design sectoral skills strategies, review 
and develop occupational profiles and vocational programmes related to these occupations, and 
set up a long-term action plan for the local and regional roll-out of their results. Thus, they 

449 Die Bedeutung studienbezogener Auslandsaufenthalte im Transformationsprozess  der deutschen Wirtschaft, 
DAAD-IW-Studie, 
(https://eu.daad.de/medien/eu.daad.de.2016/dokumente/service/medien-und-
publikationen/studien-und-auswertungen/unternehmensbefragung_2024_25_daad_iw.pdf).  
450 COM(2020)274. 
451  European  Commission  (2024),  Bridging  projects  and  policy:  Blueprints  for  sectoral  cooperation  on  skills 
(c27d24c3-e435-43fc-9200-0fb92ab11c88_en). 

2025 

119 

 
 
foster  innovation  and  competitiveness  in  areas  that  experience  severe  skills  gaps, 
promoting greater preparedness and adaptability to changes in the labour market.  

Several  Blueprints  have  also  formed  connections  with  Centres  of  Vocational  Excellence 
(CoVEs) and  Forward-Looking projects creating a synergetic path  for  driving  innovation, 
fulfilling  reskilling  and  upskilling  commitments  in  specific  ecosystems  and  widening  their 
impact.  Centres  of  Vocational  Excellence  are  innovative  and  comprehensive  transnational 
partnerships to set up skills eco-systems that make VET agile, innovative, attractive, excellent 
and inclusive. The initiative is strongly linked to the opportunities and needs of regions and 
local  territories and  covers a variety  of activities  such as  innovation  hubs, applied research, 
provision of digital skills at all levels, among others.  

Box 13 - Skills4CMT  

The  KA2  strategic  partnership  ‘Sector-specific  skills  development  in  Coastal  and  Maritime  Tourism’ 
(Skills4CMT),  funded  in  2020  and  coordinated  by  SAMK  university  (Finland)  in  partnership  with  five 
organisations, addresses skills needs for coastal and maritime tourism sector. Limited awareness of the specific 
skill needs, existing skill gaps and mismatches currently hamper the competitiveness of this sector,  featured for 
its importance in the European economy as a driver for sustainable growth, jobs and social cohesion.  

Thanks  to  Skills4CMT,  new  sector-specific  curricula  and  innovative  forms  of  professional  teaching  were 
developed  to  match  the  supply  of  skills  with  the  demand  of  the  labour  market.  The  project  aimed  to  make  a 
fundamental change to sector-specific skills development by improving the quality and digitalisation of thematic 
higher education in coastal and maritime tourism, since investing in people is a condition for its sustainable and 
competitive growth. 

In this context, European Universities alliances also play an essential role. The Draghi Report 
emphasises  that  “competitiveness  today  is  less  about  relative  labour  costs  and  more  about 
knowledge  and  skills  embodied  in  the  labour  force”  while  “labour  shortages  will  be  most 
pronounced  in  high-skilled,  non-manual  occupations  –  i.e.  those  requiring  high  level  of 
education”452.  In  this  context,  the  alliances  can  effectively  support  EU  competitiveness  and 
attain  EU  critical  mass  of  talent,  offering  access  to  several  European  higher  education 
institutions rather than just one institution. The European Universities also embody the Letta 
Report fifth freedom vision and are seen as central for realising the ambition of opening both 
learning and labour mobility in the European Single Market, necessary to fill skills and labour 
market gaps and leverage its opportunities. As shown in a recent study on the Outcomes and 
transformational potential of the European Universities initiative453, the European Universities 
initiative is contributing to bridging skills gaps by  equipping students with key future-proof 
skills  and  competencies,  including  in  key  fields  for  Europe’s  competitiveness  and  strategic 
autonomy  such  as  STEM,  AI,  clean  technologies,  energy,  health,  notably  through  student-
centred  and  challenge-based  joint  educational  programmes,  some  leading  to  joint  degrees, 
flexible learning pathways, micro-credentials, etc. For example, the alliances boost visibility 
and  attractiveness  of  European  education  offer  in  engineering454,  developing  and  testing  a 
general  European  engineer  profile  defining  a  set  of  high-level  technical  and  scientific 
competencies  combined  with  environmental,  social,  and  multicultural  skills,  integrating  EU 
values455 and fit for the competitive global market. Alliances also play an important role for 

initiative 

452 M. Draghi, The future of EU competitiveness, part A, p. 36.  
453  European  Commission  (2025),  Report  on  the  outcomes  and  transformational  potential  of  the  European 
Universities 
(https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/db43f6ca-da14-11ef-be2a-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en). 
454 Fuchs, L., Cuevas-Garcia, C. and Bombaerts, G., ‘The societal role of universities and their alliances: the case of the 
EuroTeQ  Engineering  University’,  Tertiary  Education  Management,  Vol.  29,  2023,  pp.  263–277, 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-023-09126-x. See also the Case study on TU Berlin - ENHANCE Alliance (HED, DE). 
455 Frame, A., and Curyło, B., ‘Bringing Erasmus home: the European universities initiative as an example of 
‘Everyday 
2023, 
of 
https://doi.org/10.1080/14782804.2022.2134986 67  

Europeanhood’’, 

Contemporary 

European 

Studies, 

Journal 

120 

 
 
lifelong  learning,  offering  opportunities  for  re-skilling  and  upskilling,  helping  to  meet  the 
demand for new skills456 in the labour market, and engaging learners regardless of their previous 
qualifications or backgrounds. This multiplies opportunities for students, offering them cutting-
edge  trans-  and  inter-disciplinary  education  opportunities  with  embedded  mobility,  which 
contribute to balanced knowledge flows and talent attraction. Their extended network of over 
2 200 associated partners all across the EU and beyond allows those students, academics and 
researchers to further foster innovation in regions and cities, contributing to job creation 
and competitive and attractive local economies, balanced brain and talent mobility, while 
interconnecting the ecosystems of the partner universities in different countries.  

Last but not least, to ensure that the future generations have the right skills to address emerging 
challenges, it is essential that teachers are well-equipped to handle skill gaps and technological 
changes. The Erasmus+ Teacher Academies (KA2) promote excellence in teacher education 
in Europe, tackling some of the most relevant issues in the teaching community. For example, 
the  Erasmus+  Teacher  Academy  ‘ContinueUp’  aims  to  support  the  development  of  digital 
competences for teachers based on DigCompEdu and through a Massive Open Online Course 
(MOOC)  module;  the  Teacher  Academy  ‘acaSTEMy’  aims  to  develop  a  systemic  support 
structure for high-quality, research-based STEM teacher education, providing STEM teachers 
with  skills  and  competences  to  prepare  students  for  their  future  careers;  similarly,  ICSE 
Academy  supports  the  EU’s  endeavours  to  minimize  the  amount  of  low-performing  STEM 
learners investing in a high-quality STEM teacher workforce, becoming an international centre 
for research and best practice exchange for innovative STEM pedagogy457.  

4.3.3  Relevance to socio-economic needs of individuals and organisations  

•  Individual level needs 

Across both programming periods, Erasmus+ is considered successful in addressing the needs 
of individuals from the various target groups. National Agencies and EACEA rate Erasmus+ 
learning mobility and KA2 activities  458  highly relevant for the majority of their target groups’ 
current and emerging needs. For learners, evidence from the NAs/EACEA survey suggests that 
the needs and challenges faced by learners with fewer opportunities require further attention.  

Consulted  stakeholders  highlighted  the  relevance  of  programme  actions  to  the  needs  of 
individuals in non-associated third countries through its international dimension. Interviews in 
EU delegations  or programme structures dealing with  non-associated third countries (NEOs 
and  regional  SALTOs)  recognise  that  Erasmus+  contributes  to  the  employability  of  young 
people and graduates as mobility allows them to gain international experience, develop new 
skills, and broaden their horizons. EU Delegations to Brazil, Bangladesh and Pakistan highlight 
that Erasmus+ offers significant opportunities for vulnerable groups. There is also consensus 
among consulted NEOs (Kosovo, Bosnia, Ukraine) and EU Delegations (Asian and African 
countries) that Erasmus+ projects bring different perspectives to teaching and learning. They report 

456  For  example,  the  European  University  alliance  ‘UNA  Europa’  offers  a  micro-credential  programme  in 
Sustainability which gives a holistic understanding of global sustainability challenges and how to address them 
(https://www.una-europa.eu/study/microcredential-sustainability). 
457 Case study Pädagogische Hochschule Freiburg (SCH, DE). 
458 NA/EACEA survey, annex III of ICF study. Questions: i) To what extent are Erasmus+ mobility actions (KA1) 
relevant to the current and emerging needs of the different target groups concerned? ii) To what extent are activities 
under KA2 relevant to the current and emerging needs of the target groups concerned? iii) Do they address key 
issues/needs the target groups are facing?’  Respondents were requested to evaluate the relevance of KA1 and 
KA2 to the needs of specific target groups. Depending on their involvement with the various sectors, different 
groups of respondents received different questions to make sure they only evaluate the actions’ relevance for target 
groups in their sectors of activity.  

121 

 
 
that  in  higher  education,  professors  can  gain  access  to  resources  and  exchange  with  professors 
working in their fields of knowledge abroad, which directly influences the quality of teaching. 

The  majority  of  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  agreed  that  Erasmus+  2021-2027  is 
successfully facilitating the participation of people with fewer opportunities facing various 
barriers. This is confirmed by the increasing share of participants with fewer opportunities that 
has risen from around 10% in the 2014-2020 programme to 15% in 2023. The highest level of 
agreement  concerns  the  success  in  facilitating  the  participation  of  people  who  face  cultural 
differences, social barriers, and economic barriers. Health problems and barriers linked to the 
education and training system were considered to be the least positively handled, but still with 
an overall level of agreement of around 60%. Overall, the views are positive but still pointing 
to room for further strengthening the inclusivity of the programme.  

Barriers faced by people with fewer opportunities459 

Interviewed stakeholders broadly acknowledged the enhanced focus and efforts to reach people 
with  fewer  opportunities.  Studies  highlight  the  role  of  Erasmus+  for  involving  in  learning 
mobility school pupils with less favourable learning profiles who would otherwise not have the 
chance of benefitting from such opportunities 460. The use of blended learning and digital tools 
is seen as a positive step to increase outreach. At the national level, stakeholders from several 
countries  noted  that  the  2021-2027  programme  made  significant  efforts  to  encourage 
participation among people with fewer opportunities, responding better to the needs of these 
groups, compared to the previous period.  

Financial barriers emerge as a key concern from the various stakeholder consultations as well, 
further  emphasised  by  the recent  high  inflation rates across Europe. These observations are 
also underpinned in the national reports, with insufficient and sometimes ineffective support 
for inclusion being discussed in 17 reports 461. In the various consultations, financial barriers 

459 Public consultation report, annex II of ICF study: Question ‘To what extent do you agree with the following 
statements: Erasmus+ is an inclusive programme as it facilitates participation of people with fewer opportunities 
facing the following barrier(s)’ (Respondents: N=1231).  
460  S.  Hornberg,  M.  Becker,  N.  Sonnenburg,  M.  Peitz,  C.  Schreiber  (2025).  Lernmobilität  in  Europa 
(https://erasmusplus.schule/fileadmin/Dateien/Bilder/Dossiers/Politische_Papiere/2025_Hornberg_et_al_Zusam
menfassung_Studie_Lernmobilitaeten_Europa.pdf).  
461 AT, BEfr, CY, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, IE, IT, LT, LU, MT, NL, NO, PL, SE. 

122 

 
 
 
are often mentioned in relation to other barriers, reinforcing the programme’s emphasis on the 
correlations between the various difficulties.  

Overall,  the  definition  of  people  with  fewer  opportunities  as  provided  in  the  inclusion  and 
diversity  strategy  is  considered  adequate.  However,  challenges  were  highlighted  by 
interviewed stakeholders in aligning the criteria for fewer opportunities across diverse contexts, 
requiring  further  guidance  in  the  application  of  the  broad  EU  definition  as  well  as  on  the 
implementation  and  utilisation  of  the  relevant  indicators.  For  example,  international  key 
informants  stressed  that  the  term  ‘social  inclusion’  may  be  understood  differently  in  third 
countries participating in the programme.  

•  Organisation level needs 

Public consultation respondents generally expressed positive views about the relevance of the 
organisational-level  specific  objectives  of  the  programme462.  According  to  NAs/EACEA 
survey463, the programme’s activities under KA2 and KA3 are the most relevant for education 
and training, youth and sport organisations and, to a moderate extent, for many other types of 
organisations, including social partners and civil society organisations. In the sport sector, the 
need to further strengthened cooperation between grassroots sport organisations was addressed 
through the new mobility activities available for sport staff since 2023. 

The importance of promoting cooperation was further underlined by the socio-economic actors’ 
survey464. Across the different organisation types, the primary motivations for participating in 
the  programme  included  providing  new  opportunities  for  learners  (80%),  an  interest  in 
cooperation  with  other  European  and  third  countries  (78%),  and  a  desire  to  establish 
partnerships with organisations from other countries (75%).  

At the same time, interviewees from European level stakeholder organisations perceived the 
programme as being better oriented towards larger, better-resourced organisations as opposed 
to smaller ones that would need more support. Limited engagement of smaller organisations, 
particularly in KA2 projects, was also reported in the national reports from 15 countries465, due 
to lack of administrative capacity or limited resources to manage complex project requirements. 

The organisations interviewed in third countries not associated to the programme confirmed 
that  learner  and  institutional  needs  are  addressed  via  Erasmus+,  especially  regarding 
internationalisation, which remains a priority for many universities. In addition, they repeatedly 
recognised Erasmus+ for its role in supporting institutional capacity-building across various 
fields. This was particularly noted in African countries as well as in Georgia and Uzbekistan, 
where  the  programme  has  significantly  contributed  to  upgrading  and  modernising  teaching 
curricula. Policy stakeholders in these countries often use Erasmus+ to enhance their training 
structures, pedagogical programmes, and mobility schemes. 

10 National reports466 explicitly mention the need to enhance the programme’s flexibility and 
adaptability to better meet evolving needs and challenges. For instance, they highlight the 
need for more flexibility in funding applications, based on the amount of funding requested to 

462 Public consultation report, annex II of ICF study.  
463 NAs/EACEA survey, annex III of ICF study. Question: ‘To what extent are activities under KA2 and KA3 
relevant to the current and emerging needs of the following organisations? Do they address the key issues these 
organisations are facing?’.  
464  Socio-economic  actors  survey,  annex  V  of  ICF  study.  Question:  ‘What  was  the  main  motivation  for  your 
organisation to participate in the programme?’. 
465 BE, CY, DE, ES, HR, IE, IT, LT, LV, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, SK. 
466 AT, BEde, BG, CY, DE, EE, ES, FI, HR, PL. 

123 

 
 
further promote inclusion, adapting the programme’s design to better cater to the diverse needs 
of  adult  learners,  or  further  exploiting  blended  intensive  programmes  (BIPs)  as  a  suitable 
format to support inclusion.  

Furthermore,  despite  the  strong  support  to  programme  focus  on  inclusion  expressed  in  the 
national  reports  from  28 countries 467, 23 countries 468 underline  that  reaching  out  to  people 
with fewer opportunities is challenging. The identified challenges include the lack of awareness 
about  the  programme,  complex  application  procedures,  financial  barriers,  uneven  regional 
participation,  limited  participation  of  small  organisations  in  KA2  projects,  insufficient,  and 
sometimes ineffective support for inclusion, cultural and linguistic barriers, psychological and 
mental health concerns. The recommendations put forward in the national reports to address 
these  challenges  include  simplifying  application  procedures  and  reducing  administrative 
burdens, increasing targeted outreach and awareness campaigns, providing additional financial 
support  and  resources  for  inclusion  initiatives,  developing  more  comprehensive  support 
systems,  including  mentoring  and  guidance  and  enhancing  collaboration  with  local 
organisations and stakeholders who are hard to reach.  

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

5.1 Conclusions 

Across  both  programme  generations,  Erasmus+  has  proven  to  be  successful  in  delivering  a 
strong European added value, performing well across key evaluation criteria. However, the 
conclusions presented below reflect the limitations in the evidence base, particularly in relation 
to causality and efficiency, as detailed in Chapter 4. At the same time, some areas could be 
improved for which the external support study made recommendations, focussing on:  

-  Expanding  the  reach  of  the  programme,  to  support  greater  inclusiveness  and  broader 

international scope;  

- 

-  Enhancing  management  and  implementation:  proposed  improvements  to  ease  access, 
simplify management, strengthen monitoring processes, including optimising related tools;  
Increasing sustainability and scalability, through reinforced dissemination and exploitation 
of results and synergies with other EU programmes; 
-  Strengthening resilience through increased flexibility.  

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 

•  Effectiveness 

Based  on  available  (mainly  qualitative)  evidence,  Erasmus+  2014-2020  has  effectively 
delivered on the expected outputs and results. These have been achieved despite significant 
disruptions  from  COVID-19  pandemic  that  heavily  affected  the  end  of  the  2014-2020 
programming period. The success of the programme lies both in the volume of mobilities, with 
some 6.2 million mobility participants supported in the period 2014-2020, and in the impact 
generated including improvements in participants' skills, the advancements in organisations’ 
practices and influence on policies. 

The 2014-2020 programme aligned well with relevant EU political priorities set for this 
period, advancing them either directly or indirectly. The priorities addressing jobs and growth 

467 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, 
SE, SI, SK.  
468 AT, BE, BG, CY, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, SE, SK. 

124 

 
 
were at the core of the programme implementation, thanks to programme support to learning 
mobility,  the  delivery  of  skills  and  competences  for  better  employability  and  support  to 
education  systems.  The  international  dimension  of  the  programme  contributed  to  these 
objectives, in addition to the priorities specifically focusing on strengthening Europe role as a 
global actor. Priorities related to environmental themes, digital market, civil rights and rule of 
law  were  addressed  through  a  sectoral  approach  and  registered  increasing  importance  and 
number of projects from year to year. Leveraging its role of education programme, Erasmus+ 
indirectly  contributed  to  the  migration  policy  priority,  supporting  the  integration  of  newly 
arriving  immigrants.  The  promotion  of  fundamental  values  and  multicultural  dialogue  was 
further enhanced with the strong alignment to the Paris Declaration since 2016.  

The programme activities have demonstrated effectiveness at the different levels of intervention, 
with strong outcomes delivered through mobility activities and transnational partnerships.  

•  At individual level: the programme yielded significant benefit for individuals, generating 
positive  effects  for  learners’  skills  development  and  supporting  ability  to  learn,  critical 
thinking,  resilience.  Erasmus+  enhanced  academic  performance,  with  programme 
participants  experiencing  better  results  than  those  who  had  not  taken  part  in  learning 
mobility. Based on the available evidence, causal link can be identified in few instances in 
relation  to  higher  education  student  mobility,  on  the  basis  of  national  data,  showing 
improved graduation results for undergraduate students in STEM fields. Erasmus+ is found 
effective  to  foster  European  identity  and  deepen  knowledge  on  civic  participation, 
supporting the development of skills important for active citizenship, in particular through 
the activities implemented in the youth field, where positive outcomes were reported across 
most  of  its  actions.  Effects  on  individual  participants  appear  sustained.  For  staff,  across 
various  sectors, 
international  networking  and  fostered 
transnational partnerships.  

the  programme  enhanced 

•  At  organisational  level:  the  programme  managed  to  effectively  support  quality 
improvements in the participating organisations, fostering the creation of new practices and 
methods.  The  establishment  of  organisational  networks  with  the  involvement  of  a  large 
number of different actors from diverse sectors helped create flow of knowledge between 
educational  organisations  and  business.  KA1  staff  mobility  also  contributed  to  reinforce 
transnational  cooperation,  allowing  to  strengthen  ties  among  organisations.  There  is 
evidence  of  newly  created  partnerships,  and  the  setup  of  internationalisation  strategies 
fostered by the programme activities. Outcomes  for organisations appear  sustained, even 
though available evidence doesn’t allow to establish causal links and quantify impact as well 
as  the  extent  to  which  the  partnerships  formed  as  an  effect  of  the  participation  in  the 
programme last over time.  

•  At policy/systemic level: programme objectives  at  systemic level  were linked to  Europe 
2020 headline targets for education and ET2020 European benchmarks. Although no causal 
link can be identified, the programme indirectly influenced the achievement of these targets 
reaching a high  number  of learners through its activities and improving  attractiveness of 
higher  education  institutions,  including  via  the  piloting  of  initiatives  with  high 
transformational impact, such as the European Universities alliances. Qualitative evidence 
shows  that  the  programme  influenced  policy  changes  with  the  integration  of  innovative 
educational  practices 
initiatives  pursuing 
professionalisation  and  recognition  of  youth  work  as  an  occupational  qualification. 
Although no precise quantification is possible due to the unavailable data, several spillover 
effects  can  be  observed  at  the  system-level  through  cross-sectoral  action  or  through  the 
evolution of actions and projects between programme generations. At the same time, while 
systemic ‘spill-over’ effects demonstrate the extensive reach of Erasmus+ beyond individual 

into  national  systems  and 

triggered 

125 

 
participants and organizations, challenges persist in upscaling successful project outcomes 
and translating them into meaningful national changes.  

•  Efficiency 

The 2014-2020 programme funded around 160 000 projects for a total of EUR 17.5 billion. 
Despite the 40% budget increase compared to its predecessor programmes, the programme 
was not able to fully address the high demand across its different sectors, with low success 
rates. In particular, the youth sector registered the lowest success rates across the different key 
actions  (32%  for  KA1,  17%  for  KA2,  31%  for  KA3  in  2020).  It  is  estimated  that  around 
EUR 8.9 billion would have been necessary to fund more than 44 000 quality projects which 
were rejected for lack of funds.  

The management structure of Erasmus+ 2014-2020 relying on a combination of direct and 
indirect  management  modes  has  proven  efficient  and  fit  for  purpose,  with  overall  good 
coordination and communication mechanisms.  The distribution of  resources,  accounting  for 
FTEs and administrative expenditure, appears balanced between both programme management 
modes,  considering  the  volume  of  budget  and  number  of  projects  managed.  Overall,  the 
administrative  costs  for  the  functioning  of  the  implementing  bodies  appears  reasonable, 
considering the volume of implemented budget and linked tasks.  

National Agencies have confirmed their key role in supporting the implementation of the 
programme at national level, shaping support activities on the basis on specific needs and 
national  priorities,  and  providing  tailored  assistance  to  participants  and  beneficiary 
organisations during the project lifecycle. This role was particularly important during Covid-
19  pandemic  and  widely  appreciated  by  stakeholders.  The  performance  of  most  of  the 
administrative steps by National Agencies has generally seen improvements from year to year, 
until  the  outbreak  of  Covid-19  pandemic,  which  had  repercussions  also  on  management 
aspects.  Despite  improvements,  on  average  the  timely  performance  of  final  payments  has 
remained below 60%, requiring further improvements.  

The 2014-2020 Erasmus+ programme showed cost-effectiveness, although at varying levels 
throughout its actions. KA1 (mobility) is confirmed to be highly cost-effective, providing high 
benefits to a large number of learners and staff benefitting from learning mobility in Europe 
and beyond. The limited availability of other similar interventions underscores its EU added 
value. When – despite limitations - this comparison is carried out, the cost of the programme 
appears highly competitive. The cost-effectiveness is further enhanced by the absence of significant 
areas of inefficiencies, coupled with the use of simplified cost and high demand throughout sectors.  

The  cost-effectiveness  of  KA2  (cooperation)  and  KA3  (policy  support)  is  more  difficult  to 
evaluate as a whole, given the variety of outputs, both in terms of types and size, they deliver 
across  sectors.  This,  together  with  the  predominance  of  qualitative  evidence,  limits  the 
possibility  of  generalising  and  providing  strong  conclusions  at  the  level  of  key  actions. 
Nevertheless,  KA2  has  provided  a  strong  contribution  for  the  achievement  of  programme 
results  at  organisational  level,  contributing  to  fostering  international  cooperation  with  third 
countries  in  higher  education  and  youth,  reinforcing  cooperation  with  business,  enhancing 
internationalisation, and improving learning and teaching methods, and leading to the creation 
of organisational and professional networks. These benefits, coupled with the high demand, show 
a good cost-effectiveness, despite the presence of some areas of inefficiencies identified in the 
funding model and the complex management of one specific action (school exchange partnership 
- indirect management), both addressed in the succeeding 2021-2027 programme generation.  

A comprehensive assessment of KA3 cost-effectiveness is hindered by the highly diversified 
character of these activities, made of multiple sub-actions with small budgetary envelopes as 

126 

 
well  as  by  the  predominance  of  qualitative  evidence.  Despite  the  small  funding  share  they 
represent  (only  3%  of  the  programme  contracted  grants),  the  available  evidence  shows  that 
these  activities  yielded  substantial  benefits  generating  systemic  impact,  supporting  policy 
objectives and fostering active citizenship. These activities are appreciated for their added value 
due to their role in supporting EU policy coordination in programme fields, implementation of 
EU  tools,  creation  of  networks,  which  would  not  be  otherwise  possible  through  national 
interventions alone. This gives indications of reasonable cost-effectiveness.  

The generalised use of unit cost in KA1, representing the biggest share of programme funding, 
has enhanced the efficiency of the whole programme; however, the use of real cost under part 
of KA2 and KA3 activities made the management and reporting complex both for beneficiaries 
and  implementing  bodies,  leading  to  some  inefficiencies.  The  monitoring  system  of  the 
programme also showed some limitations due to inadequate coverage of specific areas of the 
programme intervention, and difficulties to link the measurement of system level indicators to 
the interventions, underscoring the need for a more refined and comprehensive approach (this 
led amongst others to the development of a new monitoring and evaluation framework for the 
2021-2027 successor programme). 

•  Coherence 

The programme confirms a good internal coherence, thanks to the strong learning dimension 
informing its activities, functional to improve education, training, youth and sport systems for 
the benefit of individuals and the creation of more skilled societies. The pilots for the Centres 
of Vocational Excellence and the European Universities alliances in the last two years of the 
programming  period  reinforced  the  cross-sectoral  dimension  of  the  programme,  and  appear 
coherent with programme objectives.  

The  final  evaluation  also  confirms  the  results  of  the  interim  evaluation  regarding  the  high 
external  coherence  of  the  programme.  The  2014-2020  programme  has  been  complementary 
with  other  policy  areas  and  funding  instruments  delivering  on  similar  objectives,  creating 
synergies  in  particular  with  ESF  and  Horizon  2020.  Compared  to  the  mid-term  evaluation, 
synergies with other funding instruments have slightly increased. 

•  EU added value 

Erasmus+  2014-2020  delivered  substantial European  added  value,  surpassing  what  could 
have  been  achieved  by  individual  countries  operating  at  their  national  level  through  other 
schemes. This is due to Erasmus+ unique framework for mobility, cooperation, and policy 
development  in  the  fields  of  education,  training,  youth  and  sport  across  Europe  and 
beyond. With an average annual budget of EUR 2.6 in the period 2014-2020, and a MFF total 
envelope of EUR 16.2 billion, including both Heading 1 and 4 budget, Erasmus+ 2014-2020 
resulted  unmatched  in  scale,  scope,  and  ability  to  foster  collaboration  among  diverse 
beneficiaries, influencing processes in other EU programmes, in Member States and beyond.  

The  programme  yielded  added  value  for  individuals  and  organisations  who  took  part  in  it, 
compared  with  those  who  did  not.  For  individual  participants,  it  contributed  to  academic 
performance, to developing skills and competences, including soft skills, willingness to engage 
in civic life. For beneficiary organisations, participation in Erasmus+ brought benefits in terms 
of  enhanced  opportunities  for  cooperation  across  borders,  creation  of  networks,  enhanced 
organisational development, and internationalisation. 

In addition, Erasmus+ 2014-2020 was found to play an essential role in raising awareness of 
shared EU values and EU topics, with stronger results in youth activities. Through Jean Monnet 

127 

 
Activities,  the  programme  supported  the  development  and  spreading  of  knowledge  on  European 
integration matters for a better understanding of the functioning of the European Union.  

Erasmus+  2014-2020  conveyed  added  value  through  promoting  EU  policy  cooperation  and 
coordination between EU Member States, fostering peer-learning and evidence-based policy 
development, which would not be achievable through national resources alone. Furthermore, 
added  value  was  also  conveyed  through  cooperation  between  Member  States  and  third 
countries  associated  to  the  programme,  providing  equal  participation  opportunities  and 
supporting some of these countries in their EU accession preparations. Although only limited 
to the higher education and youth fields, the cooperation with non-associated third countries 
facilitated cooperation with organisations across the world, contributed to build capacity and 
to strengthen the EU’s role as global actor on the international scene.  

•  Relevance 

Erasmus+  2014-2020  showed  a  good  level  of  relevance  with  EU  priorities  and  emerging 
challenges,  adapting  well  over  time.  The  programme  reacted  well  to  the  migration  crisis  of 
those  years,  putting  emphasis  on  intercultural  dialogue  and  prevention  of  radicalisation, 
supporting integration of refugees by leveraging the role of education. The increasing emphasis 
on  the  digital  transformation  in  the  last  years  of  programme  implementation  enabled  the 
programme  to  react  more  effectively  to  the  challenges  posed  by  Covid-19  pandemic.  By 
remaining increasingly relevant and adapting to the changing world, the programme paved the 
way  for  its  successor  programme  supporting  measures  that  have  become  more  and  more 
relevant over years. This was the case for example of the pilots for future flagship actions, for 
digital  tools  like  Selfie,  and  of  blended  mobilities,  the  latter  introduced  to  face  Covid-19 
consequences for then becoming an embedded part of the successor programme.  

•  Cross-cutting issues  

o  Inclusion 

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 performed well to promote equity and inclusion in the youth sector with 
a high number of projects  and support activities. This was possible thanks to  the setup of a 
dedicated  strategy,  tools  and  structures  allowing  to  deploy  dedicated  support  to  youth 
participants  and  organisations  and  to  provide  guidance  to  National  Agencies.  This 
comprehensive set  of measures proved effective allowing to reach 29% of participants with 
special needs and fewer opportunities in the youth sector by 2020. The lack of a harmonised 
definition, approach and strategy at programme level however limited the possibility to enhance 
the  participation  of  people  with  special  needs  and  fewer  opportunities  in  the  education  and 
training sectors too. The approach remained largely sectoral, with the youth sector being the 
most equipped to address inclusion challenges.   

o  Response to unforeseen events 

During  the  2014-2020  programming  period,  several  unforeseen  events  influenced  its 
implementation, triggering response and adaptation. The programme showed flexibility to react 
to  2015  terrorist  attacks  and  the  refugee  crises  that  became  salient  in  the  same  year, 
incorporating the March 2015 Paris Declaration as a new priority area and reinforcing its focus 
on the promotion of tolerance, non-discrimination, social inclusion and on the prevention of 
radicalisation leading to violent extremisms. During the same period, the uncertainty generated 
by  Brexit  determined  a  significant  decrease  in  the  number  of  both  outbound  and  inbound 
mobilities from the UK. The withdrawal agreement guaranteed that all projects could continue 
until  their  completion  and  that  the  UK  could  continue  participating  as  a  fully-fledged 
programme  country  until  the  end  of  the  programming  period.  This  mitigated  somehow  the 

128 

 
impact  on  the  programme,  which  only  registered  a  minor  decrease  in  the  number  of  UK 
organisations.  The  2014-2020  programme  reacted  promptly  to  the  outbreak  of  Covid-19 
pandemic  adopting  swift  measures  to  support  participants  and  organisations,  showing 
flexibility and adaptation, which was judged positively by stakeholders. 

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 

•  Effectiveness 

With around 1.6 million participants who completed their mobility in the period 2021-2023, 
Erasmus+ 2021-2027 is on track to meet its key outputs, results, and impacts. Most of the 
expected outputs and results show good progress to achieve their targets, despite the significant 
disruptions from Covid-19 pandemic in the initial rollout of the 2021-2027 programme. 

At  an  early  stage  of  implementation,  the  2021-2027  programme  shows  good  progress  in 
supporting  skills  development,  fostering  EU  values  and  sense  of  belonging,  advancing 
organisations’ practices and influencing policies.  

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 aligns well with the 2019-2024 EU political priorities and has made an 
important contribution to advancing them, including at international level. The four horizontal 
priorities of the 2021-2027 programme have positively influenced systems and norms among 
participants and organisations. Particularly, the Programme managed to deliver on inclusion, 
with an increasing participation of people with fewer opportunities arising from around 10% in 
the  2014-2020  programme  to  15%  in  2023.  Additionally,  the  programme  has  increased 
awareness  and  engagement  around 
inclusion  and  diversity  across  participants  and 
organisations.  Digital  transformation  efforts  have  supported  participants’  digital  skill 
development and promoted the digital evolution of education systems, even if the needs are 
still high, especially to support digital skills development. The green transition priority has 
increased environmental awareness and encouraged sustainable travel, though results in climate 
action and carbon footprint reduction remain somewhat limited. Efforts to foster democratic 
engagement have led to greater civic awareness and commitment to democratic values among 
participants. 

KA1  (learning  mobility)  and  KA2  (cooperation  among  organisations)  have  demonstrated 
effectiveness, with strong outcomes in mobility and partnerships, while KA3 (policy support) 
is seen as somewhat less impactful on individuals and organisations, but valuable in fostering 
sector-wide  benefits.  Jean  Monnet  Actions  effectively  promote  EU  knowledge,  civic 
engagement,  and  cross-national  academic  dialogue.  The  strong  continuity  of  most 
programme  actions  between  programming  periods  is  assessed  as  a  strength,  allowing 
stability in the management and implementation. Although  at mid-term  it is too  early to 
make assumptions on impact, it can be anticipated that the effects of the 2014-2020 programme 
will carry on with the current programme, likely in a more positive and sustainable manner, 
particularly on organisations and systems. 

•  At individual level: Erasmus+ yields significant added value for individuals, including 
participants with  fewer  opportunities.  The programme continues  delivering  on learners’ 
skills  development  and  supporting  learners'  ability to  learn, critical  thinking, resilience. 
For staff,  across various sectors, the programme enhances international  networking  and 
fosters transnational partnerships. At this stage, the programme shows very positive results 
in fostering a sense of European identity and belonging, raising awareness of EU common 
values and on increasing knowledge for European integration. 

•  At  organisational  level:  Erasmus+  2021-2027  is  progressing  well  in  view  of  driving 
improvements  for  participating  organisations,  enhancing  internationalisation,  expanding 
networks,  and  supporting  increased  organisational  capacity  across  Europe  and  beyond. 

129 

 
Notably,  smaller  organisations  often  experience  the  most  substantial  benefits,  and 
organisations in the education, training, youth,  and sport sectors report durable benefits 
from their participation.  

•  At system level: The 2021-2027 programme shows progress towards contributing to EU 
policy development, strategies and cooperation in education and training, youth and sport, 
providing  significant  contribution  to  building  the  European  Education  Area,  and 
supporting the Skills Agenda and European Pillar of Social Rights.  

•  Efficiency 

In continuity with the previous programming period, the Erasmus+ management structure, 
with  its  mix  of  direct  and  indirect  management  modes,  confirms  its  efficiency  and 
appreciation by stakeholders. The performance of National Agencies has seen improvements 
compared  to  the  previous  programming  period,  despite  Covid-19  impact  at  the  start  of  the 
programme  implementation.  The  introduction  of  the  Erasmus  Accreditation  in  the  VET, 
school education, adult education and youth sectors has reduced costs for the assessment of the 
KA1 proposals and time required for project selection, as well as for submitting grant requests. 
Simplified  grant  forms  have  reduced  administrative  burdens  and  are  viewed  positively, 
although further guidance and simplification of procedures are needed to enhance efficiency. 
The IT landscape for actions under indirect management experienced issues until the end of 
2023, requiring corrective actions, which should be continued. 

The  interim  evaluation  highlights  the  need  for  additional  funding  to  fully  reach  the 
programme’s  objectives  and  especially 
fewer 
opportunities. It is estimated that, in the period 2021-2023, EUR 5 billion of additional budget 
would have been needed to fund around 29 400 quality proposals which were rejected for lack 
of  funds.  Flexibility  in  budget  management  has  been  increased  in  the  current  programme 
compared to its predecessor, allowing National Agencies to perform greater transfers among 
actions under indirect management to ensure optimal absorption. Stakeholders would welcome 
even greater flexibility in budget allocation.  

for  engaging  participants  with 

The 2021-2027 Erasmus+ programme demonstrates a commendable, albeit varying, level of 
efficiency across its key actions. KA1 shows high cost-effectiveness, with clear connections 
between mobility activities and resulting benefits for both learners and staff involved. The key 
action’s evident European added value is coupled with the absence of significant inefficiencies. 
The  cost-effectiveness  of  mobility  activities  has  improved  since  the  previous  programming 
period, even with COVID-19 mobility restrictions. Demand for mobility surged once activities 
resumed,  raising  concerns  about  whether  the  programme’s  budget  is  sufficient  to  meet  its 
ambitious  objectives  and  demand  for  funding  across  various  sectors.  The  extended 
accreditation scheme beyond higher education and VET has simplified access to funding and 
reduced  cost  and  administrative  burdens,  contributing  to  increase  the  cost-effectiveness  of 
KA1.  Conversely,  the  cost-effectiveness  of  activities  under  KA2,  KA3  and  Jean  Monnet 
Actions  is  more  difficult  to  evaluate  given  the  multi-faceted  type  of  outputs  they  deliver. 
Overall, the assessment didn’t show areas of inefficiency, suggesting an extension of the lump 
sum model to further improve cost-effectiveness.  

•  Coherence  

The  Erasmus+  2021-2027  programme  has  significantly  improved  both  its  internal  and 
external coherence compared to the previous programming period.  

With  its  three  key  actions,  and  blend  of  direct  and  indirect  management,  the  2021-2027 
Erasmus+  programme  has  a  clear  and  well-structured  design  that  aligns  well  with  its 
objectives and supports strong cross-sectorial cooperation. The role and place of KA2 show 

130 

 
coherence  with  the  programme  intervention  logic,  but  challenges  emerge  to  support  the 
sustainability of its tangible outputs. The collaboration process fostered by KA2 activities is 
highlighted for its importance to meet programme objectives, as it can lead to the establishment 
of an extended community of practitioners.  

Coherence  would  still  be  improved  by  addressing  the  separate  handling  of  Jean  Monnet 
Actions, which occasionally leads to confusion among stakeholders.  

Erasmus+ has high external coherence with other interventions addressing education, training 
youth  and  sport  at  EU,  national  or  international  level.  Among  EU  programmes  with 
complementary objectives, ESF+, Horizon Europe and Interreg show the highest potential for 
synergies with Erasmus+. Although opportunities for synergies have been reinforced under the 
2021-2027 programming period, so far they still appear underutilized. The evaluation identifies 
further opportunities for enhancing external coherence, particularly in relation to the European 
Solidarity Corps programme, which presents risks of overlaps.  

•  European added value  

Erasmus+  2021-2027  delivers  substantial  and  undisputed  European  added  value, 
significantly  surpassing  what  could  be  achieved  by  individual  countries  at  national  or 
international levels. Erasmus+ stands out from other education and training support schemes 
due  to  its  unique  and  consistent  framework  for  mobility,  cooperation,  and  policy 
development across Europe and beyond. The programme is unmatched in scale, scope, and 
ability to foster collaboration among diverse beneficiaries. 

The  2021-2027  programme  has  enhanced  its  added  value  compared  to  the  previous 
programming  period,  covering  target  groups  (such  as  adult  learners  and  sport  staff)  not 
otherwise addressed under other types of interventions, effectively addressing emerging needs 
and expanding its reach. The discontinuation of certain actions between the two programming 
periods has not diminished the programme's overall value. 

Erasmus+ is found to yield significant added value for individuals and organisations who take 
part in the programme, compared with those who do not. For individual participants, Erasmus+ 
contributes to skills development, including transversal skills such as intercultural awareness, 
self-confidence, problem-solving skills, autonomy. For beneficiary organisations, participation 
in Erasmus+ brings benefits in terms of enhanced opportunities for cooperation across borders, 
capacity building and quality, organisational development and internationalisation. 

In  addition,  Erasmus+  is  found  to  play  an  essential  role  in  promoting  shared  EU  values, 
intercultural understanding and fostering a European sense of belonging. For example, through 
Jean  Monnet  Actions,  the  programme  supports  the  development  of  knowledge  of  European 
integration  matters  and  supports  understanding  of  the  functioning  of  the  European  Union, 
beyond the academic environment, reaching schools and the younger generations.  

Erasmus+  also  conveys  added  value  through  promoting  cooperation  between  EU  Member 
States  and  third  countries  associated  to  the  programme,  providing  equal  participation 
opportunities and supporting some of these countries in their EU accession preparations. The 
cooperation  with  non-associated  third  countries  has  extended  compared  to  the  2014-2020 
programme.  Although  more  limited  compared  to  other  programme  dimensions,  the 
international dimension facilitates cooperation with organisations across the world, contributes 
to  build  capacity  in  many  countries  and  to  strengthen  the  EU’s  international  relations  on  a 
global scale. Erasmus+ contributes to the EU’s public diplomacy and to promoting EU values 
and views globally. 

Discontinuing the Erasmus+ programme would have massive and detrimental consequences. 
Annually, the programme currently provides in average around EUR 4 billion in funding for 

131 

 
education, training, youth, and sport, supporting activities which would be drastically reduced 
or  -  in  some  countries/sectors  -  completely  non-existent  without  it.  Support  for  learning 
mobility, cross border cooperation and internationalisation would be severely limited.  

•  Relevance 

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 is seen as highly relevant to the socio-economic needs and challenges 
in  Europe,  reflecting  both  high-level  EU  priorities  and  emerging  issues  from  recent  crises, 
doing better than its predecessor in this regard.  

The four overarching priorities introduced in the 2021-2027 programme are widely viewed as 
relevant at both European and national levels and highly contributed to enhancing Erasmus+ 
alignment with EU priorities; the programme places a strong emphasis on the digital and green 
transition,  successfully  supporting  the  development  of  digital  and  green  skills  and  the 
digitalisation and greening of education systems in all sectors. The programme took on board 
the increasing emphasis on digitalisation, including in response to the consequence of Covid-
19 pandemic, which further boosted blended mobility and the uptake of self-reflection tools for 
assessing digital competences of teachers. However, the evaluation noted that a more balanced 
approach across all four priorities would increase their impact. Erasmus+ is also found to be 
highly  responsive  to  the  diverse  needs  of  its  participants  and  beneficiary  organisations 
across the various sectors, although larger, better-resourced organisations often find it easier 
to navigate the funding and application processes. Further efforts for greater accessibility and 
inclusiveness are needed.  

The  programme  is  also  responding  to  emerging  needs  related  to  new  challenges  posed  by 
technological  developments,  in  particular  the  emergence  of  generative  artificial  intelligence 
and  the  provision  of  skills  to  support  EU  competitiveness.  The  number  of  projects  and 
initiatives tackling artificial intelligence as well as the themes of digital safety and digital well-
being  is  increasing  over  years.  Similarly,  the  programme  is  investing  in  supporting  the 
development of skills needed to provide the EU single market and industrial sectors with the 
skills  needed  to  boost  EU  competitiveness,  as  highlighted  in  Draghi  and  Letta  reports.  The 
funding of learning mobility, at the heart of the programme, appears key in this sense and proof 
of continuous relevance.  

Erasmus+ wide recognition and awareness remains higher in higher education; more targeted 
communication strategies are needed to raise awareness on opportunities for all sectors, and 
to promote access to categories of individuals and organisations with lower participation levels. 

•  Cross-cutting issues  

o  Inclusion 

The evaluation indicates significant progress in embedding inclusion and diversity in the 2021-
2027 programme, across all sectors and actions. Following the adoption of its framework of 
inclusion measures, the programme put in place mechanisms, including additional funding, to 
support the inclusion of individuals with fewer opportunities, whose participation has increased 
during  2021-2023  period  compared  to  the  previous  programme.  The  introduction  of  this 
framework is assessed positively as it enabled more structured outreach to more participants 
with fewer opportunities, with benefits in terms of personal development and skills acquisition, 
in  particular  for  those  facing  cultural  or  economic  barriers.  Challenges  persist  in  reaching 
specific target groups; recommendations include increasing guidance on inclusion definitions, 
improving data collection methodologies, sharing best practices, and stepping up funding for 
actions benefiting underrepresented participants. 

132 

 
o  Response to unforeseen events 

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 has demonstrated resilience and adaptability in responding to significant 
external challenges. The start of the programming period was heavily affected by Covid-19 
pandemic with all 2021 mobility being impacted. The response of the programme  included 
mitigating  and  flexibility  measures,  continuing  from  the  previous  programme,  was  found 
effective and appreciated by stakeholders.  

Rising  inflation  also  negatively  affected  the  first  years  of  the  2021-2027  programme 
implementation, while the impact of Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine was lower. 
The  programme  was  able  to  respond  and  adapt  quickly  thanks  to  flexibility  in  its 
implementation  and  enhanced  support  mechanisms.  It  showed  resilience  and  adaptability 
through  digitalisation,  online  collaboration,  and  the  development  of  new  formats  such  as 
blended mobilities;  it adjusted the rates of individual support for 2023 call for proposals  to 
cushion  inflation,  it  refocused  project  activities  and  opened  mobility  schemes  to  incoming 
participants  from  Ukraine  in  all  fields  of  education  and  training.  Only  the  programme’s 
response  to  inflationary  pressures  was  considered  less  effective  as  stakeholders  found  that 
Erasmus+ grants were not sufficiently rapidly adjusted to rising inflation rates.  

Future improvements could include more flexible financial planning mechanisms and greater 
operational flexibility for beneficiary organisations. 

o  International Dimension 

Erasmus+ plays a crucial role in fostering cooperation between EU Member States and third 
countries  not  associated  to  the  programme,  contributing  to  institutional  development  and 
capacity  building.  While  its  international  dimension  has  become  more  significant,  with 
increased opportunities, there is still potential for strengthening this aspect to bolster the EU’s 
global influence amid increasing geopolitical uncertainties. Recommendations include further 
reinforcing the international dimension of the programme, by supporting international mobility 
and cooperation with non-associated third countries through programme actions, as well as by 
pursuing synergies with the relevant EU external action instruments and strategies, such as the 
Global Gateway or A new Agenda for the Mediterranean. 

5.2 Lessons learned 

The  final  and  the  interim  evaluations  have  identified  several  topics  to  inform  and  support 
improvements  to  the programme.  These lessons  will be at  the core of an  action plan to  be 
approved  at  senior  management  board  level,  once  this  evaluation  is  adopted  and  regularly 
monitor through set milestones, in line with its internal procedures.  

5.2.1.  Programme activities 

The consistent programme architecture between the 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 periods and the 
horizontal priorities introduced in the latter programming period have proven effective. This 
has  allowed  for  continued  exposure  to  similar  types  of  interventions  over  time,  fostering 
stronger  results  and  impacts  and  increasing  the  programme’s  contribution  to  broader  EU 
priorities. Both the direct and the indirect management mechanisms are effective in supporting 
the  programme’s  objectives,  contributing  as  well  to  its  flexibility  in  addressing  unexpected 
challenges.  

Despite the clear progress  made in  making the programme more  inclusive, evidence shows 
some still existing barriers to the participation of people with fewer opportunities. A number 
of measures and mechanisms have been implemented and brought positive results in the 2021-
2027  period.  Their  regular  review  and  close  monitoring  by  both  the  Commission  and  the 

133 

 
National  Agencies  are  recommended  by  the  external  support  study.  Erasmus+  should  keep 
addressing accessibility challenges, continuing to expand its reach to participants with fewer 
opportunities. Further clarifying definitions of people with fewer opportunities and providing clearer 
guidance on the measures available to support their participation would also enhance inclusivity.  

While digital transformation efforts have supported participants’ digital skill development and 
promoted the digital evolution of education systems, the needs are still high. Considerations 
should thus be given to further enhance the digital dimension and especially digital skills. 

The evaluation identified opportunities to improve coherence with the European Solidarity 
Corps.  A  more  in-depth  analysis  is  needed  to  identify  ways  to  address  potential  overlaps, 
improve  overall  efficiency  and  increase  clarity  for  stakeholders.  More  in  general,  the 
establishment  of  clear  coordination,  cooperation,  and  communication  mechanisms  is  a  key 
endeavour to enable complementary funding and strengthen synergies between Erasmus+ and 
other EU, national, and regional programmes. Ensuring a wider and systematic dissemination 
of  good  practices,  both  at  level  of  projects  and  implementation  practices,  could  facilitate 
synergies  among  funding  instruments  and  foster  projects’  upscaling.  The  evaluation  also 
identified  needs  for  simplifying  alternative  funding,  facilitating  transfer  of  funds  between 
instruments and breaking down barriers between different operational modes and funding rules 
to build more synergies with other instruments. 

There is scope to refine the focus of some actions. KA2 has a justified role within Erasmus+, 
offering  funding  opportunities  producing  organisational  level  impact.  However,  measures 
should  be  considered  to  enhance  impact  of  produced  outputs  and  their  sustainability  post-
funding, including by re-evaluating the emphasis placed on tangible outputs versus the value 
of the collaborative process that drives innovation. 

The  evaluation  shows  the  international  added  value  of  the  programme,  essential  for 
promoting  EU  values,  intercultural  learning,  raising  awareness  of  democratic  and  active 
participation but also facilitating peer learning and bringing European expertise in the fields of 
education, training, youth and sport to other regions. As per the recommendation of the external 
study, Erasmus+ could consider widening its cooperation with non-EU countries, enabling 
more  international  cooperation  with  and  learning  mobility  from  and  to  third  countries  not 
associated  to  the  programme.  It  could  also  significantly  contribute  to  the  preparedness  and 
integration of accession countries, with support to capacity building, knowledge-sharing, and 
management  of  EU  funds,  contributing  as  well  to  the  positive  perception  of  the  EU,  as 
highlighted  in  the  evaluation  findings.  Furthermore,  increased  mobility  experiences  and 
cooperation opportunities between EU Member States and industrialised third countries could 
strongly contribute to strengthening EU competitiveness. 

Erasmus+ is a well-known EU programme. However, further efforts are needed to  increase 
the visibility of the opportunities it offers. Outreach could be further improved by sharing and 
better  targeting  information  about  the  programme  to  reach  out  to  new  participants  and 
organisations across all sectors. The process of disseminating and exploiting project results 
would require a greater  focus to  ensure more  effective uptake and long-term impact.  In the 
future,  the  programme  should  invest  in  mechanisms  that  ensure  project  results  are  further 
shared  and  promoted,  enabling  future  projects  to  build  to  a  greater  extent  on  existing 
achievements,  rather  than  duplicating  efforts  and  recreating  the  same  outcomes.  Such  an 
approach could not only foster innovation and continuous improvement but also ensure a more 
efficient and strategic use of EU funds. Improvements are needed as well to extend the reach beyond 
immediate beneficiaries, thereby contributing to greater visibility, sustainability, and overall impact. 

The  current  programme  has  undergone  significant  simplification.  However,  administrative 
burden remains a barrier to participation and the programme is still perceived as better oriented 

134 

 
towards larger, more-resourced organisations. Improvements should be focused on offering an 
even  more  user-friendly  and  streamlined  programme.  Simpler  reporting  procedures,  less 
administrative burden and a streamlined set of rules across the various actions and fields should 
be assessed to simplify access for small and newcomer organisations. Further support is needed 
through guidance and training on the lump sum system, not fully understood by some beneficiaries.  

The  rollout  of  Erasmus+  2021-2027  introduced  an  entirely  new  IT  landscape.  For  actions 
under  indirect  management,  the  evaluation  highlights  important  issues  which  affected  the 
functioning  of  the  IT  tools.  Building  on  the  efforts  made  to  gradually  introduce  qualitative 
improvements, it is crucial that the IT infrastructure remains a key priority for the successful 
continuation of the current programme and for its successor, ensuring continuity, stability, high 
performance, and alignment with simplification and user-friendliness objectives. 

5.2.2.  Monitoring and evaluation arrangements  

Several lessons have emerged as well regarding the regular monitoring, evaluation and data 
availability. The adoption of the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework in 2023 for Erasmus+ 
2021-2027 has been appreciated by stakeholders as it streamlined the measures for its regular 
monitoring, providing a set of additional indicators on key areas of programme performance. 
While the interim evaluation of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 highlights notable improvements of the 
monitoring framework compared to the previous programme, some indicators remain of not 
easy measurement. The absence of indicators for the Jean Monnet Actions makes it challenging 
to fully evaluate their performance based on targets. Existing monitoring data are not sufficient 
to measure the causal link of Erasmus+ activities on its outcome, so that the evaluation of the 
Erasmus+  activities  is  difficult  to  conduct.  Both  the  final  and  interim  evaluations  have 
highlighted  these  challenges,  which  need  to  be  addressed  in  view  of  the  final  evaluation  of 
Erasmus+ 2021-2027 and any future evaluation.  

National reports on the implementation and impact of Erasmus+ have provided a wealth of data 
and analyses from national perspectives, representing a great added value for this evaluation. 
However, the variety of activities and analytical methods at the basis of these reports limit their 
full  comparability  and  consolidation.  The  final  evaluation  of  Erasmus+  2021-2027  would 
benefit from redefining the role of these reports, emphasizing the need for more comparable 
and  methodologically  robust  studies.  National  Authorities  could  be  encouraged  to  design 
impact  analyses  using  representative  sample  sizes  and  to  expand  the  use  of  counterfactual 
methodologies at the country level. This action could be performed with support of the Expert 
Group on the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps programmes, which would 
provide  the  forum  for  discussing  indicators  for  future  evaluations  and  needs  for  additional  data 
collections  to  feed  impact  indicators.  The  group  could  also  support  the  preparation  of  structured 
guidance to National Authorities for the preparation of national reports, through harmonised and agreed 
methods and data collections, ensuring comparability and cross-country analyses.  

As part of their tasks, National Agencies carry out a number of studies, survey and reports. 
However, almost none of these studies could be retained in the final list of papers used for the 
three meta-analyses carried out for this evaluation. The meta-analyses also highlighted research 
gaps in areas of great relevance for Erasmus+. The lack of quantitative research papers on the 
topic of EU values, making use of data directly linked to both the 2014-2020 and the 2021-
2027 programming periods, limited the possibility of exploiting the outcomes on this topic for 
both the final and the interim evaluations. Another major gap highlighted by the meta-analyses 
concerns the difficult of assessing and quantifying the programme impact on employability, 
career prospects  and labour market  outcomes.  For higher education student mobility, which 
represents  the  biggest  portion  of  Erasmus+  budget,  this  gap  stems  from  the  lack  of  unique 
identifiers that would enable linking Erasmus+ applicant data to other administrative sources, 

135 

 
such  as  employment  records,  across  Member  States  and  associated  countries,  which  are 
essential for tracking long-term outcomes. In addition, the assessment of the organisational and 
system level impact of the programme was also limited by lack of quantitative data and studies 
with  contrafactual  methodologies  on  the  outcomes  generated  by  these  dimensions  of  the 
programme. Reflection is needed on how to close these gaps and ensure a sound assessment of 
programme impact and higher usability of the evidence-base activities carried out by National 
Agencies for the evaluation of the programme. Monitoring and evaluation activities conducted 
by National Agencies should be better coordinated, drawing on the existing RAY network in 
the  field  of  youth.  The  RIA-AE 469  network,  recently  established  by  National  Agencies  to 
coordinate evidence base research activities in  the adult education sector, represents  a good 
practice  to  be  further  expanded  across  fields.  The  existing  working  groups  gathering 
Commission and National Agencies’ representatives will tackle this issue as a follow up to this 
evaluation indicatively as from 2026 to ensure that coordinated analyses can take place across 
all programme fields, with appropriate methodologies and adequate timing to feed the impact 
analysis of the final evaluation for the three levels of intervention of the programme. While 
administrative  data  connections  are  essential  for  tracking  long-term  outcomes  at  individual 
level and cannot be easily replaced by systematic surveys due to limitations in coverage and 
the high costs involved, in the short term, surveys could still serve as an interim measure until 
more  robust  data-linking  mechanisms  are  in  place.  Therefore,  regular  survey  activities 
involving  both  participants  and  non-participants,  facilitated  through  their  respective 
organisations  and  coordinated  by  National  Agencies,  in  cooperation  and  under  supervision 
from EAC, should also be implemented to enrich the evaluation process, ensure cross-country 
contrafactual analyses and provide more comprehensive impact analyses.  

A more systematic and structured approach to reporting is also needed to ensure easy access to 
up-to-date data and information, in particular for key action 2 and key action 3 activities. The 
enhanced  reporting  should  include  both  quantitative  and  qualitative  data  on  achievements, 
outcomes and challenges experienced by funded projects, and complemented by examples of 
best  practices  to  strengthen  accountability  and  drive  policy  results.  A  review  of  application 
forms and final reports of programme actions is already on-going. This review aims to facilitate 
data extraction and to reinforce the monitoring of project results in particular for key action 2 
activities, where less data is currently available. This exercise will also support the feeding of 
the  two  impact  indicators  established  through  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU) 
2023/2710, with regular quantitative data.   

Furthermore,  the  setup  of  a  resource  centre  will  be  explored  to  systematically  tackle  the 
monitoring, survey design, data collection for impact evaluation and analysis of the impact of 
the  programme.  The  resource  centre  could  be  operational  as  from  2028  and  work  in  close 
cooperation with and under supervision of Commission services, creating the link between the 
EU level evaluation (Commission) and national level impact analyses (National Agencies and 
National  Authorities),  supporting  them  with  guidelines  and  expertise  through  a  university-
based team of researchers. The resource centre could also support the coordination of activities 
and analyses aiming to feed the final evaluation of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 and coordinate the 
execution of longitudinal studies based on follow-up surveys addressing participants and non-
participants, ideally at 1, 3, and 5 years post-application.  

Furthermore, the following additional options as well as options for improving analysis of costs 
in  the  final  evaluation  will  be  explored  in  the  mid-term  to  support  the  preparation  of  final 
evaluation of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 and enable further steps for the establishment of a long-term 
strategy based on comprehensive data strategy, thereby moving away from ad hoc data collection 

469 Research-based Impact Analysis of Erasmus+ Adult Education programmes. Founded in 2022, the network 
counts NAs from 15 Member States and Türkiye at the beginning of 2024. 

136 

 
 
for each evaluation. The set up of these activities may indicatively kick off in 2026 on the basis 
of a roadmap included in the action plan that EAC will approve as a follow up to this evaluation: 

•  Carrying  out  counterfactual  studies  at  national  level  and  meta-analyses  of 
Erasmus+ effectiveness, at individual and organisational level: as outlined above, it 
is essential to conduct counterfactual analyses to assess the effectiveness of Erasmus+ 
and the causality of the intervention. To complement and enhance the evidence-based 
activities carried out by National Agencies, national-level studies could be carried out 
on a limited but representative sample of institutions by university consortia, based on 
gaps identified in existing research. Where feasible, cross-country comparisons through 
meta-analyses could  be carried out  to  enhance the robustness  of findings and enable 
generalisations of findings at transnational/programme level.  

•  Feasibility study on data availability and integration, linking education data with 
data  on  labour  market  outcomes:  the  study  will  serve  as  a  basis  to  identify  data 
sources within the Erasmus+ data platforms for direct and indirect management actions 
and  assess  feasibility  of  linking  Erasmus+  participant  data  with  participants’  labour 
market  outcomes  in  Member  States  and  associated  countries.  The  study  may  also 
address data availability for tracking costs. 

•  Feasibility study on how to collect data not only on Erasmus+ participants but also 
achieve a representative sample of non-participants which are in their characteristics 
close to Erasmus+ participants. Reaching out to non-participants is key for any future 
impact evaluation. The feasibility study would focus on how the data could be collected 
to reach representative samples, which incentives could be used, which variables would 
need to be collected and identify the most feasible data collector. 

In the context of the preparation of the post-2027 programming period and the evaluations of a 
successor programme, reflection is on-going on a set of additional long-term measures, aiming 
to provide a strategic and more systematic approach to  enhance  programme data collection, 
integration, and analysis. These measures could build on a series of targeted options to enable 
integrated data analysis complementing the current evidence base. The options currently under 
reflection are: 

-  Assess potential changes of the Erasmus+ application and reporting system to reinforce 
data collection at individual level, i.e. track all individual applicants for learning mobility 
activities  achieving  longitudinal  samples,  regardless  of  funding  status  (i.e.  both  selected 
and non-selected mobility participants). 

-  Expanding Data Collection from Erasmus+ individual mobility applicants: depending 
on  the  outcomes  of  the  feasibility  study  explored  at  mid-term,  a  modification  of  the 
Erasmus+ application process could be implemented in the post-2027 programme to track 
both selected and non-selected individual mobility applicants for causal impact assessment. 
Follow-up  surveys  at  1,  3,  and  5  years  post-application  could  be  carried  out  using  data 
directly stored in the programme tools (instead of those stored in organisations’ databases). 
Introducing  Unique  Identifiers  in  Erasmus+  Applications  (e.g.  Social  Security 
Number  for  individuals,  VAT  for  companies):  this  option  is  a  pre-condition  to  link 
students/learners outcomes to labour market databases, and quantify Erasmus+ impact on 
employability based on administrative data. Its potential implementation would be linked 
to a feasibility study on regulatory and technical aspects of collecting and securely storing 
unique  identifiers  at  the  level  of  individuals  and  organisations,  and  the  development  of 
encryption and storage protocols. 

- 

-  Policy engagement and roundtables on data sharing in view of linking mobility data 
to labour market outcomes: linking data on Erasmus+ learning mobility participants with 
labour market databases will require close collaboration with Member States and associated 

137 

 
third countries,  inter-institutional  cooperation, policy and financial support. To this aim, 
consideration  will  be  given  to  the  organization  of  technical  as  well  as  ministerial-level 
roundtables  to  discuss  data-sharing  frameworks.  The  Expert  Group  on  Erasmus+  and 
European Solidarity Corps programmes could provide an initial forum to test the feasibility 
of this projects, while raising attention on the challenges and needs, to be carried out with 
interlocutors at different levels and from different institutions depending on the country. 
Further  established  cooperation  with  Member  States  and  associated  third  countries,  the 
feasibility of data-sharing should be tested and pilot projects should be conducted. 

-  Simplifying  counterfactual  analysis  through  interoperable  data  frameworks.  To 
enhance counterfactual analysis while reducing administrative burden, it could be explored 
the implementation of interoperable data collection and storage approaches that minimize 
reporting requirements for Member States. This decentralized approach would align with 
GDPR  compliance,  ensuring  data  privacy  while  maintaining  analytical  flexibility.  By 
allowing  on-demand  access  to  harmonized  data  without  requiring  direct  transfers,  the 
system  would  simplify  evaluation  processes  and  reduce  duplication  of  reporting  efforts. 
Technical feasibility, legal frameworks, and implementation challenges should be assessed 
as a preliminary step. 

138 

 
 
ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

The interim evaluation of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 and the final evaluation of the predecessor programme (Decide reference: PLAN/2022/281) have been 
steered  by  Directorate-General  Education,  Youth,  Sport  and  Culture  (DG  EAC)  since  May  2022470  under  the  scrutiny  of  an  inter-service  group  (ISG) 
comprising of representatives of 15 DG (BUDG, SJ, SG, CLIMA, CNECT, EMPL, ENV, INTPA, JRC, JUST, MARE, MOVE, NEAR, RTD and REGIO). 

The ISG was consulted at each stage of the evaluation process and reviewed each deliverable produced by the contractor as well as this SWD. Overall, 
nine ISG meetings took place as well as several written consultations on key outputs of the evaluation work, such as: 1) Guidelines for the National reports 
on the implementation and impact of Erasmus+; 2) text of the publication consultation; 3) factual summary report of the public consultation; 4) Synopsis 
report; 5) Synthesis of National Reports (‘Synthesis report’).  

The first ISG meeting took place on 31 May 2022 to get a common understanding of what the evaluation should deliver as well as to discuss the evaluation 
mandate, the distribution of roles and tasks, the evaluation timetable and the draft call for evidence. Following this meeting, the Call for evidence was 
published on 28 July until 12 September 2022 for seven weeks and received 195 individual replies. The ISG met again on 29 September 2022 to discuss 
the Technical Specifications (including the intervention logic and the evaluation questions) for the external consultancy study supporting the evaluation 
work.  

In total, six ISG meetings focused on the supporting study and the key deliverables foreseen under the service contract signed with ICF: 

1.  23 March 2023: kick-off meeting with ICF 
2.  23 May 2023: inception report 
3.  13 October 2023: first interim report 
4.  15 March 2024: second interim report 
5.  1 July 2024: draft final report 
6.  9 September 2024: final report 

The ISG met last on 8 November 2024 to discuss the draft Commission’s evaluation report (SWD) before submission to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board 
(RSB). 

470 Ares(2022)3394783. 

139 

 
 
 
No exception from the usual procedural requirements of the better regulation guidelines was requested for this evaluation. 

This evaluation is based on evidence gathered via different channels and an overview is presented in Annexes II and III. The main sources of evidence 
are internal analyses by the European Commission, reports submitted by the Erasmus+ national authorities on the implementation and impact of 
Erasmus+ in their territories (‘national reports’), analysis and reports by other European Institutions and by the external evaluator who worked on the 
supporting study, carried out between 2023 and 2024. 

CONSULTATION OF THE RSB  

A meeting with the RSB took place on 29 January 2024. Following this meeting, the RSB provided a series of comments requiring revision of the draft 
SWD, with re-submission to the RSB on 16 April 2025. A positive opinion with reservations was issued on 19 May 2025 highlighting some areas of 
improvements.  

The changes introduced in the draft SWD to address RSB observations are described in the table below. 

What to improve (RSB comments) 

How and where comments have been addressed 

(1) The overall conclusions remain overly far reaching and positive, given the 
acknowledged evidence gaps. The conclusions should fully reflect 
(un)available evidence base regarding effectiveness (limited demonstration 
and causal attribution of benefits) and efficiency (no monetisation of benefits, 
incomplete account of costs) of the programme. 
(2) The report should be clear about the robustness of evidence used and 
related limitations. It should distinguish those statements and conclusions 
which build solely or primarily on opinion stakeholder data, self-assessment 
survey data and those which are underpinned by counterfactual methodology 
based on observational data, and on limitations linked to the methodology 
such as limited external validity. 

(3) The benefits at the organisational and systemic/policy levels should be 
systematically critically analysed beyond selective evidence from several 
case studies. The results and impacts should be better operationalised to 
reflect organisational learning (improving quality, changes of methodologies, 
pedagogies, practice and content) and policy-level improvements based on 
supported activities such as policy experimentation and evidence-based 

A statement has been added at the beginning of section 5.1, while conclusions have 
been revised to take further account of the caveats stated in section 1.1.4.  

The caveats described in section 1.1.4 have been recalled where relevant in the 
analysis of both the effectiveness and efficiency criteria. The type of sources 
supporting the evidence base (e.g. studies, surveys, case studies, interviews, 
programme data) is stated at each occurrence either in the text or in the footnotes. 
Additional clarifications either in the text or in footnotes have been added, where 
relevant, on findings that are only based on qualitative evidence, stakeholder 
perceptions or surveys with non-contrafactual methodology (see e.g. section 4.1.1, 
4.1.1.2, 4.1.1.3, 4.1.1.4…). 
Operational definitions of organisational and system level impact have been added at 
the beginning of sections 4.1.1.3 and 4.1.1.4 to further clarify what should be 
expected in terms of analysis and outcomes. 
The evidence collected in the support study from the external evaluator on these 
dimensions, in great part qualitative and opinion based, was further complemented 
with programme data and a more in-depth literature review, covering additional 

140 

 
What to improve (RSB comments) 

How and where comments have been addressed 

approaches. The methodology of the evaluation should allow to assess the 
identified causal links between activities, results, impacts and progress on the 
objectives including of sustainability of benefits at least in quantitative terms. 

studies and policy documents on top of those exploited by the Contractor. However, 
given the lack of administrative data on these dimensions of the programme, at this 
stage it is not possible to collect further data and produce additional analyses. 

(4) The cost-effectiveness analysis fails to move beyond a qualitative, 
perception-based narrative. The report should be transparent that the absence 
of quantitative efficiency analysis does not allow efficiency and value for 
money to be demonstrated. 
(5) The analysis of relevance should better capture the evolving needs 
regarding skills, in particular regarding competitiveness, AI and technology 
developments, and what it means for the objectives and design of the 
programme. 
(6) A clear implementation roadmap for outlined monitoring and evaluation 
framework improvements should be included in view of the upcoming 2021-
2027 final evolution. The lessons learned on evaluation and monitoring 
should be developed in relation to data and methods to allow for assessing 
effectiveness of staff mobility, and interventions at organisational and 
systemic/policy levels. The lessons regarding collection of data on costs to 
beneficiary organisations should be added. 

(7) While the report acknowledges the 2023 Delegated Regulation and 
recognises its potential, it still fails to explain how the new indicators will be 
operationalised. The report should include a clear explanation of how the new 
indicators will be integrated in practice and how they correspond to proposed 
improvements. 

The limitations have been stated in section 4.1.2.4. 

Additional analytical elements on the relevance of programme objectives and its 
design to competitiveness and technological change have been integrated in section 
4.3.1 to complement the analysis provided in section 4.2.3. 

Sections 5.2 and 5.2.2 have been revised as follows:  
-  The action plan foreseen in line with EAC internal procedures as follow up to the 
recommendations  stemming  from  this  evaluation  has  been  mentioned  in  the 
introductory paragraph of section 5.2 and re-stated in relation to  the additional 
monitoring  measures  (section  5.2.2).  This  action  plan  will  include  precise 
milestones and will be set up once the Erasmus+ evaluation is adopted. 
-  Where possible, indicative time references have been added (section 5.2.2). 
-  Clarifications  have  been  added  on  the  activities  aiming  to  address  the 

organisational and system level impact. 

The indicators adopted in 2023 through the Delegated Act on the Monitoring and 
Evaluation Framework are all operationalised and their achievements were included 
in this SWD (see table C of annex VII). In addition: 
-  More  explicit  references  to  the  2023  DA  have  been  added  at  each  occurrence 

- 

throughout the text.  
In  section  4.1.2.5  on  Monitoring  mechanism,  a  footnote  has  been  added, 
explaining how they are operationalised.  

-  Section  5.2.2  includes  additional  clarifications  on  how  the  activities  aiming  to 
reinforce the monitoring and evaluation system of the programme apply also to 
the impact indicators introduced through the 2023 DA. 

(8) The distinction between the two programme periods in terms of structure 
should be also done for all quantitative data.  

All quantitative data based on programme data are fully split between the period 
2014-2020 and 2021-2023. It is not possible to further split certain survey data due 

141 

 
  
What to improve (RSB comments) 

How and where comments have been addressed 

(9) With 148 pages the report is too long, even taking account of the fact that 
it covers both a final and an interim evaluation. With a view to ensuring 
readability it should be significantly shortened, including by taking out 
redundancies and repetitions throughout the document. 

to the design of the questionnaires, which do not allow a clear distinction between 
programming periods.  
The text has been slightly reduced, removing repetitions.  

142 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

The final evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020 and the interim evaluation of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 was coordinated by the Erasmus+ Coordination unit, in 
cooperation with  the unit  Evidence-Based Policy and Evaluation, of the  Commission’s  Directorate-General Education, Youth,  Sport and Culture (DG 
EAC),  with  the  support  of:  (i)  a  technical  working  group,  gathering  together  representatives  of  13  DG  EAC  units  involved  in  the  implementation  of 
Erasmus+ as well as the Executive Agency EACEA; (ii) and an interservice group comprising 15 Commission DGs and chaired by DG EAC. The evaluation 
process started in 2022 and was guided by the Terms of Reference drawn up for contracting the external evaluator, consulted with the ISG and approved 
by EAC board of directors.   

The evaluation builds on: (i) a large amount of quantitative and qualitative evidence collected through a variety of methods described below; and (ii) a 
thorough evaluation analysis, applying triangulation of evidence from different sources, ensuring an objective and robust assessment. 

Main data sources 

The study of the external evaluator was organised around a set of evaluation questions (EQs) under each evaluation criterion. A total of 63 evaluation 
questions were set in the terms of reference, which were grouped into 27 themes or ‘macro-questions’: seven under the effectiveness criterion and five each 
under the efficiency, relevance, coherence and European added value criteria. An evaluation framework was developed by the external evaluator in the 
inception phase of the study to link the evaluation questions with relevant data sources, indicators and judgment criteria. 

To answer the evaluation questions, a broad set of data collection and analytical techniques were used, building on the lessons learnt from the previous 
combined evaluation of Erasmus+ (mid-term evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020 and final evaluation of its predecessor programmes), and introducing new 
methods reflecting evolving evaluation requirements and techniques. 

The data collection and analysis activities carried out to perform the evaluation have drawn on both primary and secondary data, as follows. 

1) Secondary data (pre-existing or collected/produced independently from the support study): 

•  Programme  data,  collected  by  the  Commission  in  the  programme’s  internal  dashboards  and  tools  managed  by  DG  EAC  and  in  publicly 

available platforms and data collection activities managed by DG EAC – in particular: 

Programmes' Results dashboard 

Data of Erasmus+ of all Erasmus+ contracted projects under direct and indirect management of 
both 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 programming periods 

Non-public available data - DG EAC dashboards 

143 

 
Erasmus+ reporting (MFF 2014-2020) 

Operational Dashboard collecting data of Erasmus+ actions under indirect management, at all stages 
of the selection process, for the 2014-2020 period 

Erasmus+ and ESC (MFF 2021-2027) 

Operational Dashboard collecting data of Erasmus+ actions under indirect management, at all stages 
of the selection process, for the 2021-2027 period 

Erasmus+ ‘Participant’s Survey Indicators' 
Dashboard 

Dashboard displaying monitoring data from Participants surveys 2014-2023 (i.e. survey submitted by 
programme participants at completion of their mobility experience) 

Erasmus+ ‘Country Factsheet' Dashboard 

Dashboard providing data at country level of contracted projects under direct and indirect 
management of both 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 programming periods. 

Publicly available data sources 

Statistical annexes of the Erasmus+ annual 
reports471, 

Review of key programme data published since 2014 as part of the Erasmus+ annual report  

Project data from the Erasmus+ Project Results 
Platform472 

Public platform displaying information and results of Erasmus+ projects, since 2014, for actions under 
direct and indirect management 

•  The non-publicly available data was extracted by the external evaluator from DG EAC dashboards on the basis of an extraction protocol approved 
by DG EAC. The dashboards were ‘frozen’ on 5 January 2024 to reflect the state of play of the period under evaluation (2021-2023) and ensure 
that data would not be updated while the extraction process was ongoing and could be replicated in any moment. In parallel, the main programme 
dataset extracted in January 2024 has been in certain cases complemented by ad hoc extractions performed by EAC and EACEA at a later stage 
to complement and provide a more accurate picture, in particular for those indicators where changes in the calculation or adaptations in the tools 
were implemented during the evaluation period. Data extracted from the 2024 Programme Performance Statement have been also taken into 
account following the publication of the latter in June 2024. The sources and parameters for data extraction, including the time of extraction, 
have been made clear at any step to ensure transparency and clarity. Differences among programming periods have been clarified and stated, 
when applicable.  

•  The  evaluation  used  the  wealth  of  the  programme  data  available  as  regards  inputs  (funding),  outputs  (numbers  of  projects,  numbers  of 
beneficiaries, etc.), results (satisfaction rate, specific benefits for programme participants), impacts (benefits for programme participants).  

471 https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/ro/resources-and-tools/statistics-and-factsheets 
472 https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/projects 

144 

 
 
•  The monitoring surveys of beneficiaries carried out by DG EAC concern all learners and staff who take part in mobility activities under KA1 
over the period 2014-2023. The reliability of the data is strong for the 2014-2020 period and good for the current period. Given the sample sizes 
(first two years of the programme) the data is considered to be reliable even though 2023 data is still partial. 

•  Where applicable, the data and extraction methodology reflected the parameters of the Programme Performance Statement. For the 2021-2027 
programme, the analysis reflected the full set of indicators covered in the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework, with exception of two legal 
basis indicators473, for which a critical mass of data was not available yet.  

•  The continuity between the two programming periods of most actions made possible to ensure comparability to a quite large extent.   
•  The main limitation of this analysis consists in the incompleteness of 2023 data, which applies in particular to the most recent actions (e.g. 
Staff mobility in the sport sector). Nevertheless, the replicability and constant verification of data make the reliability of the underlying analysis 
sufficiently strong.  

•  A network analysis was carried out by the external evaluator using publicly available data sources as well as programme monitoring data to 
identify participation patterns in the programme, understand the degree of cross-sectoral cooperation and interconnectedness of country and 
organisational networks, and compare network characteristics across actions, fields and time. 

Other desk research activities: 

o  Literature review, i.e. structured analysis of literature relevant to the evaluation, including the following types of documents i) key 
programme documentation (Regulation, guides, Annual work programmes, Erasmus+ annual reports, National Agencies’ yearly reports, 
National  Authorities’  annual  reporting  (‘October  reports’));  ii)  documentation  on  programme  management,  monitoring  tools,  audit 
reports, dissemination tools; iii) documentation on other related EU funding instruments and relevant policy agenda developments; iv) 
documentation on similar national and international policy instruments; v) studies, evaluations, research reports on Erasmus+ carried out 
both at EU and national level, mainly by National Agencies throughout both programming periods. In total, over 1 500 sources were 
identified and analysed  by the external evaluator using natural language-processing techniques and automated extraction. Additional 
studies were reviewed for the meta-analyses performed as part of the evaluation (see later). 

o  Project sample analysis, i.e. review of the outputs and outcomes of a sample of 180 finalised projects (162 under Erasmus+ 2014-2020 
and 18 under Erasmus+ 2021-2027) to provide a statistical overview of: the thematic coverage of Erasmus+ projects, the relevance of 
those topics to key challenges in education, training, youth and sport and the programme’s four horizontal priorities; the types of project 
outputs produced (beyond the basic classification available in the programme database); the availability of project outputs in the public 
domain; and the level of citation or references to project outputs. The sample was selected randomly based on statistical criteria with 

473 “The share of organisations and institutions that consider they  have developed high-quality practices as a result of their participation in KA2” and “the share of organisations and 
institutions that consider that the procedures for taking part in the Programme are proportionate and simple”. Data is collected through final reports of funded projects, therefore there was 
no critical mass of data available at the time of the evaluation; moreover, data related to these indicators has been processed and displayed in the relevant dashboard as from February 
2024 only. 

145 

 
 
some manual  adjustments to  ensure a more  appropriate coverage of a variety  of  actions. The analysis was carried out through desk 
research on public available sources. The analysis, initially intended to identifying system-level effects from the projects examined or 
systemic-effects linked to the horizontal priorities of the programme, encountered some implementation challenges, which limited its 
scope and its use for data triangulation.  

2) National Reports: In accordance with Article 24(3) of the Erasmus+ Regulation, Member States and third countries associated to the programme have 
submitted reports on the implementation and impact of Erasmus+ in their respective territories. Their findings are summarised in the so-called ‘Synthesis 
report474’ drawn by the external evaluator. The reports were prepared by National Authorities on the basis of a guidance note sent by the Commission in 
January 2023, including a list of evaluation questions, grouped under the five evaluation criteria. It was not mandatory for National Authorities to answer 
all questions, nor were they limited to answering those questions. The national reports mainly cover the actions which are being implemented under indirect 
management by the National Agencies. At the same time, National Authorities were invited to comment, when relevant, on implementation of actions 
under direct management in the country, though this was not compulsory. The preparation of national reports on the implementation and impact of Erasmus+ 
involved a range of data collection activities and analytical methods in participating countries. Those used most often included: 

interviews (individual or group, used by 29 out of 32 countries),  
surveys (26 countries),  
focus groups (15 countries) 

- 
- 
- 
-  workshops (12) 
-  qualitative literature/document reviews (18 countries),  
-  quantitative analysis of programme data (15 countries) 

Source 
National reports on the implementation and impact 
of Erasmus+ 
(‘Synthesis report’ drawn up by ICF) 

Scope 

National evaluations on the implementation and 
impact of Erasmus+, submitted between end of 
February and early June 2024, as per Article 24(3) of 
the Erasmus+ Regulation, addressing mainly actions 
under indirect management, covering all sectors and 
all evaluation criteria.  

Volume 

34 reports from 32 participating countries 
NB: Belgium submitted 3 distinct reports 
representing the Flemish, French and German-
speaking communities. 
North Macedonia did not submit any report. 

3) Primary data, collected for the support study through stakeholder consultations and including475: 

474 Stand-alone report [not published yet] 
475 Consultation activities are summarized in the synopsis report. 

146 

 
 
 
 
 
-  Public Consultation and Call for Evidence: 

•  A  public  consultation  was  conducted  to  gather  opinions,  including  forward-looking  perspectives,  from  citizens  and  stakeholders  on  the 
programme’s performance across all evaluation criteria as well as on programme response to recent unforeseen events. Different (closed and 
open-ended)  questions  were  asked  depending  on  the  level  and  scope  of  knowledge  of  the  programme  declared  by  each  respondent.  Most 
respondents were either organisations or practitioners, who declared to be familiar with Erasmus+. All programme sectors were represented, 
although with quite different levels of participation. Consultation findings are not considered representative due to the selection bias inherent to 
any open recruitment, but they can be triangulated with other sources to inform the evaluation. 

•  The feedback collected through the call for evidence, conducted by the Commission in 2022 was also analysed and retained as part of the 

evidence base. 

Source 

Public consultation 
(Annex II of ICF study report and synopsis report) 

Call for evidence  
(Annex X of ICF study report – not published – and 
Synopsis report) 

Scope 

Volume 

To gather the opinions and perspectives of citizens 
and other stakeholders, the public consultation was 
available in all official EU languages on the 
dedicated European Commission website from 15 
September to 8 December 2023. 

To collect stakeholder views on the programme 
performance and help define the scope of the 
evaluation. 
Conducted by the Commission from July to 
September 2022. 

1243 contributions from all participating countries, 
sent either by individuals replying in their personal 
capacity (40%) or on behalf of their organisations 
(60%), and representing all programme fields. 
64 position papers, analysed in annex II of ICF 
study report 

195 submissions 

-  Targeted consultations, focusing on target groups of programme beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries as well as on different types of stakeholders: 
•  Surveys of beneficiaries and control groups: To analyse the effects of participation in the programme, the external evaluator conducted a 
set of surveys addressing beneficiary learners (higher education students, VET learners, school pupils, adult learners, youth outside of formal 
education/ training) and staff (in higher education, VET, schools, VET, adult education, youth and sport organisations). A total of 11 surveys 
were  conducted  among  all  categories  of  individuals  who  participated  in  an  Erasmus+  projects  from  2014  (post-mobility  in  the  case  of 
participation in mobility activities). In the case of staff, the survey touched upon also KA2. A corresponding survey was carried out among 
non-participants in all target groups to evaluate and analyse the effects of taking part in the programme in terms of outcomes, experiences, 
and attitudes (counterfactual analysis). The Erasmus+ monitoring survey (‘participants report) shows a subjective evaluation by beneficiaries 

147 

 
 
 
 
 
themselves of their experience, whereas these set of surveys was run through factual questions whether learners or staff demonstrate different 
attitudes, competences or beliefs compared to a control group, which was asked the same questions.  

  The surveys were disseminated to contactable beneficiaries of the current and previous programme. However, findings cannot be always 
generalised to the whole programme with sufficient confidence because of the varying size of the samples of the target groups and related 
control group, which in some cases were not large enough to make judgements.  

  Control groups of non-beneficiaries with similar profiles were set up to compare their responses with those Erasmus+ participants. This has 
been achieved in matching respondents in the treatment group (i.e. Erasmus+ beneficiaries) with ‘similar’ individuals in the control group, 
to come up with a ‘matched sample’ where subjects are alike in some background characteristics, called covariates, such as gender, age, etc.  
Regression analysis was used to compare the outcomes for the two groups while controlling for compositional differences in terms of the 
demographics/characteristics considered, making it possible to statistically measure the existing correlation with participating in Erasmus+ 
(i.e., whether participation in the programme contributed to improving outcomes for programme participants).  

•  A pre/post-mobility survey targeting school pupils and young people outside of formal education/training was also carried out to obtain 
a finer measurement of short-term effects of programme participation on the youngest target groups taking part in mobility activities. For 
young people outside formal education/training, the ‘pre-mobility’ component of the survey did not gather a sufficient number of replies to 
ensure the implementation of the ‘post-mobility’ component. Hence, the post-mobility survey was only carried out for school pupils. 
The  surveys  of  learners  and  staff  were  complemented  with  a  survey  of  socio-economic  actors,  i.e.  organisations  taking  part  in  the 
programme: companies, public authorities, civic organisations, sectoral bodies, etc. in addition to the traditional target group organisations. 

• 

Source 

Scope 

Volume 

Beneficiary surveys of learners and 
staff 
(Annexes XV and XVI of ICF study 
report, both not published, and 
synopsis report) 

Pre-post mobility survey of school 
pupils 
(Annex XVII of ICF study report, 
not published, and synopsis report) 

Individual beneficiaries of mobility actions 
(learners and practitioners) and cooperation 
actions (practitioners) as well as control groups 
(non-beneficiaries) 

Pupils before and after their mobility as well 
control group in the same school/class 

Learners’ survey: 25 413 Erasmus+ 
participants (test group) and 2,094 non-
participants (control group) 
Staff survey: 26 332 participants (test group) 
and 2 894 non-participants (control group). 

366 pupils took part inf the survey (261 in the 
‘pre-mobility’ component and 105 in the ‘post-
mobility’ component), as well as 149 non-
participants (123 in the ‘pre-mobility’ 
component and 26 in the ‘post-mobility’ one) 

Survey of socio-economic actors 

Organisations (companies, public authorities, 
civil society organisations, NGOs) taking part 

1 550 valid replies 

148 

 
(Annex V of ICF study report and 
synopsis report) 

in the programme in addition to those 
representing the primary target group across all 
sectors and action types.   

-  Surveys of staff involved in the programme implementation, including: 

•  Erasmus+ National Agencies and EACEA. The survey covered extensively all evaluation criteria and types of actions, from the specialised 

perspective of the key managing bodies. 

•  Erasmus+ expert assessors of project proposals and final reports for actions under direct and indirect management. The survey was used to 
complement data on projects, in particular about the quality of applications, including the new accreditation scheme, final reports as well as 
the efficiency of the selection process. 

Source 

Scope 

Volume 

Survey of National Agencies and EACEA 
(Annex  III  of  ICF  study  report  and  synopsis 
report) 

in 

staff 

programme 
Agencies’ 
implementation  (55  National  Agencies  and 
the 
Executive Agency EACEA). One response per sector 
designated by each agency  

charge 

of 

164  valid  responses  (156  from  National 
Agencies and 8 from EACEA respondents) 

Survey of Expert assessors 
(Annex  IV  of  ICF  study  report  and  synopsis 
report) 

Assessors  supporting  project  selection  and  those 
supporting  evaluation  of  final  reports  across  both 
programming periods (actions under direct and indirect 
management)  

1 842 valid replies (70% of the respondents 
dealing with indirect management, 20% with 
direct management actions, 10% with both) 

-  Qualitative data collection through interviews to key informant and case studies 

•  Key informant interviews aimed at collecting information from key informants at international, European and national levels,  targeting 
respectively i) EU delegations and stakeholder organisations in third countries not associated to the programme, ii) Commission’s and EU 
agencies officials as well as EU key stakeholder organisation representative, and iii) national policy officers and stakeholder organisations in 
25 countries. The interviews focused on the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and coherence evaluation criteria. 

•  Case studies  served to  complement insights  gained from  key informant interviews and surveys, in particular about  how the programme 
generates organisational and system level changes including spill over effects from individuals participating in mobility to other individuals 
and to organisations. Case studies focused on projects and organisations, randomly selected based on a combination of pre-determined criteria 
(e.g. variety of countries, experienced and newcomer organisations, balanced coverage of programme actions). The 44 case studies covered 

149 

 
 
all five evaluation criteria collecting experiences from interviewees and the main changes they noted following the participation in Erasmus+ 
on themselves as individuals, on their organisations and on systems.  

Source 

Scope 

Volume 

Interviews of key informants  
(Annex XIV of ICF study report, not published, 
and synopsis report) 

Semi-guided interviews at international, EU and 
national level involving stakeholders from 38 
countries (21 Member States, 4 associated third 
countries; 13 non associated third countries) across 
all programme sectors 

267 interviews: 42 with international level 
interviewees, 60 with European-level 
interviewees, and 165 with national-level 
interviewees.  

Case studies 
(Annex VIII of ICF study report, not published, 
and synopsis report) 

Case studies mainly at organisation and system level 
to assess spillover effects and changes at organisation 
and 
to  analyse  different 
perspectives (staff, learners, organisation, project and 
system) 

levels  and 

system 

44 case studies, of which 29 at organisational 
level  in  all  programme  fields,  8  on  Jean 
Monnet Actions (JMA), 7 ‘system-level’. 
186 stakeholders were interviewed 

•  Social media analysis: it was used to understand and measure awareness about the programme and its actions among different audiences on 
various social media platforms, track and analyse audience reaction to programme communications, campaigns or events, capture engagement 
metrics, as well as collect and analyse insights around sentiment and themes relevant to the programme and its actions. In addition, data from 
relevant social media accounts managed by DG EAC was also analysed. 

Source 

Scope 

Volume 

Social media analysis 
(Annex XII of ICF study report – not published) 

Over 150 000 social media posts were collected 
for  the  analysis,  mentioning  one  or  more 
programme-related  keywords;  some  sectoral 
keywords were used too.  

X/Twitter,  YouTube,  Instagram,  Facebook,  and 
TikTok  were  analysed  over  the  period  going  from 
August 2021 to January 2024. 
The privacy settings in Instagram, Facebook reduced 
a lot the input from these social media. As a result, 
97%  of  the  traffic  taken  into  account  was  from  X 
(Twitter).  The  user  profiles  were  impacted  too, 
resulting  in  a  lower  number  of  posts  that  could  be 
collected from the target groups making larger use of 
Instagram or Facebook.  

150 

 
In addition to these ‘traditional’ data collection and analysis activities, more advanced and innovative methods were also used to complement the evidence 
base: 

•  Three Meta-analyses were carried out to summarise in a structured way the conclusions of several scientific studies looking at individual 
level impacts linked to the programme’s participation and focusing on three topics: skills development, employability and European values. The 
meta-analyses carried out provide insights into the effectiveness and EU-added value evaluation criteria, specifically concerning the individual- 
level effects of the programme. They also helped test the causal links between the participation in the programme and the effects observed at 
the individual level. The application of this method in the context of the Erasmus+ programme presented several challenges due to lack of high-
quality primary studies meeting all the methodological requirements and enabling three full meta-analyses on three distinct Erasmus+ related 
topics. By applying a range of remedies (e.g. a careful selection and definition of the topics, inclusion of studies in other languages, consideration 
also of ‘grey literature’, etc.), it was possible to reach – and for two topics to even to exceed – the minimum threshold of ten papers for the three 
research questions looking into higher education student mobilities. Still, in none of the three cases did the pool of studies include a minimum 
of  10  papers  with  a  directly  comparable  outcome  measure.  Therefore,  a  sign  and  significance  meta-analysis  was  carried  out  instead  of  a 
traditional  effect-  size  analysis.  Regarding  mobilities  outside  higher-education  student  mobility,  the  systematic  literature  review  and  the 
following selection process identified no more than one paper each.  

•  Behavioural  analysis,  conducted  as  an  information  provision  experiment  to  evaluate  the  effectiveness  of  providing  key  information  to 
individuals who had never participated in Erasmus+ in view of encouraging them to participate in Erasmus+. The experiment was run through 
an  online  survey  on  a  panel  of  over  10 000  non-participants,  using  rigorous  methods  from  behavioural  and  experimental  economics.  The 
experiment also aimed to shed light on the factors that hinder participation with a counterfactual approach. 

Source 

Meta-analysis 
Annex VI of ICF study report 

Scope 

Volume 

Individual  level  effects  mainly  of  higher  education 
i)  skills 
student  mobility  around 
development,  ii)  employability  and  iii)  European 
values  

topics: 

three 

Final  retained  papers  after  application  of 
inclusion and exclusion criteria were 19 papers 
for  the  topic  ‘skills  development’,  11  for  the 
topic  ‘employability’  and  10  for  the  topic 
‘European values’ 

10 985 non-participants, aged between 18 and 
30 years old in 10 countries 

Behavioural experiment 
Annex VII of ICF study report, synopsis report 

Analysing  factors  for  non-participation  in  Erasmus+ 
targeting higher education students, VET learners and 
young  people  through  an  information  provision 
experiment 

151 

 
 
 
Main methods used 

The evidence collected through these various data collection and activities was then analysed using the approach of systematic synthesis and triangulation 
to review, systemise and confirm findings and to provide robust answers to the evaluation questions. To this end, various methods were used to analyse 
and synthetise the collected data, including the following: 

•  Textual analytics using natural  language processing  to  automatically pre-process  large amounts  of structured or unstructured text data, extract 
information relevant for the evaluation, and quantify text data where relevant. These techniques were used across several activities of the support 
study, including in particular the literature review, the analysis of answers to open questions in the various consultation activities, and the analysis 
of position papers submitted by respondents to the public consultation, as well as to extract and process information from the national reports on the 
implementation and impacts of the programme, to support the production of the report summarising the national reports (‘synthesis report’). 

•  Qualitative comparative analysis to analyse patterns in qualitative data. This was in particular used to analyse the write-ups of key informant 

interviews and the national reports to retrieve relevant information and produce usable summaries.  

•  Benchmarking  analysis,  using  the  data  collected  on  comparator  programmes  to  address  evaluation  questions  on  the  efficiency  of  grants  and 
participant  volumes  of  Erasmus+  with  respect  to  other  programmes;  coherence  and  complementarity  of  Erasmus+  with  other  national  and 
international programmes; and assessing the added value of Erasmus+. In each case, only the programmes and metrics relevant for the specific 
question  were  used.  To  enhance  the  analysis,  insights  from  public  consultations  and  key  informant  interviews  were  incorporated  to  compare 
Erasmus+ with other programmes or to assess its synergies, and complementarities with. The activity determined a shortlist of 32 programmes, 
including both bilateral (two-way) and multilateral (multi-way) cooperation or exchange programmes. The data collected by the external evaluator 
on comparator programmes is largely based on desk research and publicly available information. The granularity of this data is therefore variable 
and limited for most comparator programmes. As a result, the depth of the benchmarking exercise resulted limited. Actions were put in place to 
ensure the best-match possible with the characteristics of the Erasmus+ programme under analysis in the relevant evaluation questions and the best 
‘like-for-like’ comparison possible. However, the quality and granularity of the data available made necessary a trade-off between the number of 
comparator programmes retained for the analysis and the depth of the analysis itself. Consequently, data at different levels was applied to each of 
the evaluation questions tackled for this analysis to ensure accuracy and alignment with the objectives of the relevant question. 

•  Cost-effectiveness analysis: The cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) performed for the previous combined evaluation of Erasmus+ has shown that a 
‘one size fits all’ CEA approach is not appropriate given the diversity and specific characteristics of actions supported under Erasmus+ over two 
programming periods, meaning that different approaches need to be applied to different actions/clusters of actions. A classic CEA calculation of 
cost per unit (output or result achieved) is not meaningful across the programme. As a result: 

152 

 
-  The depth and breadth of analysis undertaken for each action/cluster of actions is proportionate to their budget allocation, resulting in a 

primary focus on learning mobility activities (KA1). For learning mobility, a full CEA was undertaken, incorporating internal 
benchmarking for more granularity (analysis at the level of sectors/fields, distinguishing between short-term and long-term actions).  
-  Cooperation activities (under KA2) and policy support activities (under KA3) generate a multiplicity of effects that cannot always be 

aggregated and compared, and it is not possible to identify and isolate the costs of the specific effects generated by an action. These 
projects generate a diversity of effects that are often of a ‘soft’ or intangible nature and are therefore neither measurable nor comparable 
across projects. This called for a ‘lighter’ CEA approach offering a more limited level of granularity and relying more on qualitative 
evidence and evaluators’ judgement, as well as on case studies.  

The application of both approaches was carried out through a multi-step approach requiring i) the identification of inputs, ii) the gathering of 
evidence relating to the effectiveness and the added value of the cluster of actions, iii) determining whether the volume of expenditure appears 
reasonable and cost-effective also in comparison with comparator programmes, where applicable, iv) identifying any evident inefficiencies and 
identifying the potential to improve the efficiency. For KA2, KA3 and JMA, the difficulty of identifying comparable programmes did not make it 
possible to apply all the steps above, limiting the analysis to a qualitative assessment. 

The process of data triangulation was applied throughout the support study carried out by the external evaluator, by systematically analysing and reviewing 
the findings from different sources of evidence as they came in. Both methodological and data triangulation were used, to build on the outputs of the 
different quantitative and qualitative research methods used, and to compare and consolidate data from various sources, with a view to provide a complete 
and reliable picture and enhance the validity of the findings. 

This process made it possible to cross-check evidence as well as to identify and examine possible bias and inconsistencies, thus making it possible to 
differentiate the evidence arising from single sources from the one corroborated by several sources and thus underpin the evaluation findings. It also helped 
identify remaining gaps in the evidence base, allowing appropriate action to be taken to fill them. 

In addition, five stakeholder workshops were organised at various stages of the evaluation process, which were used to review, fine-tune and confirm 
the study findings at various stages of their elaboration, as well as to capture additional expert input to support their further development.  

153 

 
 
ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) 

EFFECTIVENESS 

Main 
evaluation 
question 

1 
of 

EQ 
Degree 
the 
achievemen
the 
of 
t 
programme 
intervention 
logic  

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria and indicators of 
success 

Data collection methods 

1.1 To what extent have the expected outputs, 
results and impacts been achieved in both 
evaluation periods? 
Is there a need to streamline the programme’s 
objectives? Are there any objectives missing from 
the Erasmus+?  

[applicability: both programming periods] 

▪  The programme is on track (or shows 

progress) in achieving its targets in both 
evaluation periods 

▪  The programme has been effective in 

▪  Programme data analysis  
▪  Beneficiaries surveys; targeted 

consultations to NAs/EACEA and 
socio-economic actors.  

achieving its objectives 

▪  There are no gaps in the programme’s 

objectives 

Section of the 
SWD 

4.1.1.1 

▪  Scoping interviews 
▪  Case studies  
▪  Key informant interviews 
▪  Analysis of public consultation results  
▪  Analysis of behavioural experiment  
▪  Analysis of national reports  
▪  Network analysis  
▪  Meta-analyses  
▪  Literature review 
▪  Surveys  
▪  Key informant interviews  
▪  Network analysis  
▪  Case studies 
▪  Review of studies/evaluations  
▪  Meta-analyses  
▪  Programme data analysis   
▪  Key informant interviews  
▪  Analysis of public consultation results 
▪  Targeted consultations: NA/EACEA 

survey, socio-economic actors’ survey 

4.1.1.3 
4.1.1.4 

4.1.1.6. 

1.2 Identify, describe and quantify (if possible) the 
spill-over effects between various actions (clusters 
of actions) of Erasmus+ 2021-2027, as described in 
the intervention logic. 

▪  Spill-over  effects  are  identified,  or  are 
recognised  by  stakeholders,  at  various 
intervention level. 

▪ 

[applicability: 2021-2027] 
1.3 To what extent has Erasmus+ 2021-2027 had a 
transformative effect on systems, values and norms, 
particularly with respect to the four horizontal 
priorities of the programme? 
1.4 To what extent do the actions/activities/projects 
supported by Erasmus+ 2021-2027 contribute to 
mainstreaming climate actions and achieving 
climate objectives? To what degree are they 
designed in an eco-friendly manner and incorporate 
green practices? 

[applicability: 2021-2027] 

▪  The programme demonstrates positive 
impact in promoting its four horizontal 
priorities 

▪  Participants show increased knowledge 
and behavioural change related to the 
four priorities 
▪  Stakeholders 

the 
transformative  effect  of  the  programme 
on the four horizontal priorities 

recognise 

154 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Main 
evaluation 
question 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria and indicators of 
success 

Data collection methods 

1.5 How effective are the forms of cooperation and 
the types of action under Erasmus+ 2021-2027 and 
Erasmus+ 2014-2020 for the purpose of supporting 
the political priorities, including its international 
dimension? Could the international dimension of 
Erasmus+ be strengthened? 

[Applicability: both programming periods] 

•  The 

thematic 

the 
programme and its actions supports the  
political priorities 

coverage 

of 

•  Programme data analysis  
•  Key informant interviews  
•  Review of programme documentation 

•  Outputs, 

results  and 

impact  are 
thematically  aligned  with  political 
priorities 

•  The 

dimension 

international 

of 
Erasmus+  responds  to  region-specific 
priorities and strategies and contributes 
to political priorities 

Section of the 
SWD 

4.1.1.4. 

4.2.5 

1.6 Which fields and actions of the programmes are 
the most effective considering the needs? 

•  The  programme  actions/fields  address 
needs  and  challenges  of  their  target 
groups 

•  Targeted consultations: NA/EACEA 

4.1.1. 

survey 
•  Case studies 

[Applicability: both programming periods] 

1.7 Can conclusions be drawn on the effectiveness 
of actions that have been continued and those that 
were discontinued between the two periods? 

1.8 What conclusions can be drawn on the likely 
impact of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 given that 
significant parts of its actions are a continuation of 
Erasmus+ 2014-2020? 

[Applicability: both programming periods] 

•  There is clear link between programme 
actions and the resulting outcomes and 
and 
impact 
organisations 

participants 

for 

•  There  is  evidence  of  impact  for  those 
actions  of  Erasmus+  2014-2020  which 
continued in Erasmus+ 2021-2027; 
•  Discontinued  actions  did  not  create 
important gaps in Erasmus+ 2021-2027 
effectiveness; 

•  Key informant views at national level 
•  Analysis of national reports 
•  Case studies 
•  Programme data analysis 

Not  covered 
SWD 

in 

•  Erasmus+ 

all 
2021-2027 
activities that are associated with strong 
positive effects 

covers 

•  There 

is 

evidence  of  continued 
impact  of 
effectiveness  and  future 
actions continued from Erasmus+ 2014-
2020 

•  Comparison  between 

outcomes 
continued actions;  

for 

the 
discontinued 

reported 
and 

155 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Main 
evaluation 
question 

Sub-questions 

EQ2 
Programme 
implementa
tion and 
architecture 

1.9: Jean Monnet in schools: how well is the action 
known? What added value does it bring and what re 
the first results? 

[applicability: 2021-2027] 
2.1: How effective are the measures that contribute 
to the high-quality and inclusive implementation of 
the programme, including support for activities and 
bodies in enhancing the strategic implementation of 
Erasmus+?  
What additional measures or changes to the existing 
support actions may contribute to further supporting 
the high-quality implementation of the programme? 

[applicability: 2021-2027] 
2.2: To what extent are programme results 
adequately disseminated and exploited? 

[applicability: 2021-2027] 

2.3 How has the perception and reputation of the 
programme changed among stakeholders since the 
mid-term evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020 and 
what were the key factors in that change? 

Judgement criteria and indicators of 
success 

•  Comparison  of 

scale  of  actions 
discontinued and continued: numbers of 
participants; numbers of applications 

Data collection methods 

Section of the 
SWD 

▪  The action is well known 
▪  The action has been delivering effective 

▪  Case studies 

Not  covered 
SWD. 

in 

results 

▪  Stakeholders recognise effective results 
of activities performed under the actions 
▪  Extent, scale of action, reach and impact 

▪  Programme  data  on  support  activities 

of support activities and bodies  

and bodies  

▪  Stakeholders  recognise  relevance  and 
usefulness  of  support  activities  and 
bodies  

▪  Analysis of programme documentation  
▪  Key informant interviews  
▪  Targeted  consultation:  NA/EACEA 

survey 

▪  Analysis of public consultation results 

Not  covered 
SWD 

in 

▪  Type, 

extent 

of 
and 
dissemination  activities  of  programme 
results  

take-up 

▪  Stakeholders consider EU and national 
and 

efforts 

useful 

dissemination 
adequate  

▪  The  project  results  are  available  and 

used 

▪  Volume  and  relevance of  references  to 

the programme in social media   

▪  Number  of  visitors  and  visits  to  the 

EPRP 

•  Stakeholders  show  overall  positive 

perception of the programme 

•  There is evidence of positive evolution 
reputation  and 

the  programme 

of 

156 

▪  Mapping and analysis of dissemination 

4.1.1.7. 

tools and actions 

▪  Analysis of programme documentation  
▪  Key informant interviews  
▪  Surveys of participants  
▪  Analysis of Public Consultation results 
▪  Review of projects sample 
▪  Social media analysis   
▪  Analysis of national reports 

▪  Targeted consultations 
▪  Social media analysis  
▪  Scoping interviews 
▪  Key informant interviews 

4.1.1.7. 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria and indicators of 
success 

Data collection methods 

Section of the 
SWD 

[applicability: both programming periods] 

perception 
periods  

between 

programming 

▪  Workshop with National Agencies 
▪  Case studies 

3.1. What negative and positive factors (internal 
and external) seem to influence outputs, results and 
impacts?  

•  Social media channel show evidence of 

positive sentiment on the programme  

•  Evidence  of  factors  with  a  positive 
influence on the level of outputs, results 
and impacts 

Main 
evaluation 
question 

EQ3 
Influencing 
factors 
(external 
environmen
t)  

3.2. How did the COVID-19 pandemic impact the 
implementation of the two generations of the 
programme, and what was the effect of the 
measures taken in response to the pandemic? 

3.3. What was the effect of the measures taken in 
the frame of the programme implementation in 
response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine? 

[applicability: 2014-2020 for 3.2, 2021-2027 for 
the whole EQ] 

EQ4 
Unintended 
effects  

4.1. What, if any, have been the unintended effects 
(and their magnitude) on Erasmus+ 2021-2027 and 
Erasmus+ 2014-2020? 

EQ5 
Impacts  on 
people  with 

[applicability: both programming periods] 
5.1. What are the differences in the impact of 
Erasmus+ 2021-2027 actions on people with fewer 
opportunities (including people living in remote 

•  Scoping 
review  

interviews  and 

literature 

•  Analysis of programme data  
•  Case studies 
•  Key informant interviews 
•  Analysis of national reports 
•  Analysis of public consultation results 
•  Targeted  consultation:  socio-economic 
actors survey, beneficiaries’ surveys 
review  and 

•  Literature 

review  of 

programme documentation 

The  SWD  only 
covers 
external 
influencing factor 
in section 4.1.1.8. 

remaining 
are 
the 
the 

The 
elements 
covered 
in 
study  from 
external 
evaluator 

•  Evidence  of  factors  with  a  negative 
influence on the level of outputs, results 
and impacts 
•  The  programme 

in 
addressing areas where negative factors 
have been identified 

successful 

is 

•  Stakeholders’  perceptions  of  the  most 
significant external influencing factors  
▪  The  programme  has  adapted  well  to 
limited 

external 
repercussions on its implementation; 

factors 

with 

▪  Stakeholders 
flexibility 
resilience 
and 
programme to external factors 

consider 

good 
of 

the 
the 

▪  The  measures  taken  in  response  to  the 

pandemic have been effective; 

▪  The  measures  taken  in  response  to 
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have been 
effective; 

▪  Evidence  shows  the  positive  impact  of 
measures undertaken by the programme 
▪  Unintended  effects  that  have  occurred 

are positive 

▪  No  negative  unintended  effects  have 

been identified  

▪  Key informant interviews  
▪  Analysis of national reports 

4.1. 

▪  Participants with fewer opportunities 

report benefits from their participation 
in the programme 

▪  Beneficiaries’ surveys 
▪  Behavioural experiment  
▪  Analysis of National reports 

4.1.1.2. 

157 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Main 
evaluation 
question 

fewer 
opportuniti
es 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria and indicators of 
success 

Data collection methods 

Section of the 
SWD 

regions such as the EU outermost regions and 
overseas countries or territories) who traditionally 
do not engage in transnational or international 
activities?  

▪  Participants with fewer opportunities 
show higher or lower impacts than 
others participants 

▪  Share of people with fewer 

[applicability: 2021-2027] 

opportunities participating in the 
programme 

▪  Meta-analyses  
▪  Analysis of programme monitoring 

data  

▪  Analysis of public consultation results  
▪  Case studies 
▪  Key informant interviews 
▪  Targeted consultations: NA/EACEA 

survey 

▪  The effects of participation (of 

▪  Targeted consultations: beneficiaries’ 

EQ6 
Sustainabili
ty   

6.1. To what extent are the effects likely to last after 
the  intervention  ends,  both  cumulatively  and  the 
level of each implemented grant? 

individuals and organisations) in the 
programme are likely to last in the 
long-term 

[applicability: 2021-2027] 

▪  The programme generates tangible and 

EQ7 
Counterfact
ual  

the 

relevant  sectors 

7.1.  What  if  the  Erasmus+  programme  had  not 
existed?  Would 
(higher 
education, school education, adult education, VET, 
youth  and  sport)  be  supported  to  a  comparable 
extent? 
[applicability: both programming periods] 

long-lasting impact 

▪  Without Erasmus+ the activities funded 
by the programme in the relevant 
sector would not be supported/would 
be supported at a lower extent 
▪  Comparison of the outcomes for 

learners and staff participating in the 
programme versus those not 
participating  

4.1.1.1. 
4.1.1.2. 
4.1.1.3. 

4.1.1.2. 

surveys; NA/EACEA survey 

▪  Case studies 
▪  Analysis of public consultation results 
▪  Meta-analyses  
▪  Project sample analysis 

▪  Review of programme documentation 
▪  Programme monitoring data  
▪  Targeted consultations: Surveys to 
NAs/EACEA, Survey of socio-
economic actors 

▪  Beneficiaries’ surveys (learners/staff) 
▪  Analysis of public consultation results 

EFFICIENCY 

Main 
evaluation 
question 
EQ8 Cost-
effectiveness 
of different 
actions  

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria and indicators of success  Data collection methods 

8.1 What is the cost-effectiveness of various actions 
of  Erasmus+  2021-2027  and  Erasmus+  2014-2020? 
How do the relative costs and outcomes (effects) of 
various  programme  actions  compare  within  and 
across the programme fields?  

▪  Activities funded under Erasmus+ generate 
reasonable changes or effects in relation to 
their costs; 

▪  The volume of expenditure appears 

reasonable and cost-effective in light of the 
performance and EU added value delivered  

▪  Programme data analysis 
▪  Programme documentation 

analysis  

▪  Key informant interviews  
▪  Case studies 
▪  Survey to NAs/EACEA 

Section of the 
SWD 

▪ 

4.1.2.4. 

158 

 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
Main 
evaluation 
question 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria and indicators of success  Data collection methods 

[applicability: both programming periods] 

▪  Evidence of EU added value  

EQ9  Size  of 
programme 
budget  

9.1  To  what  extent  is/was  the  size  of  the  budget 
appropriate  and  proportionate  to  what  Erasmus+ 
2021-2027  and  Erasmus+  2014-2020  set  out  to 
achieve? 

9.2  To  what  extent  is/was  the  distribution  of  funds 
across 
the  programme  fields  and  key  actions 
appropriate in relation to their level of effectiveness 
and utility? 

9.3. What are the budget absorption rates and capacity 
per sector and key action, and how do they affect the 
quality of proposals?  

EQ10 
Alternatives  

[applicability: both programming periods] 
10.1. What is the prospect of other policy instruments 
or mechanisms providing a better cost-effectiveness 
ratio? 

[applicability: 2021-2027] 

EQ11 
Efficiency  of 
management 
architecture  

11.1  To  what  extent  is  the  implementation  and 
management structure of actions implemented under 
direct and indirect management appropriate, efficient, 
and well-functioning? 

▪  The resources allocated to the different 

fields/actions is appropriate and justified on 
the basis of cost-effectiveness and 
achievement of intended outputs, outcomes 
and results  

▪  Stakeholders consider budget adequate at 

action/field/project level  

▪  Extent  to  which  a  different  mix  or  lower 
funding  would  have  reduced  the  scale  of 
benefits  achieved  (projects  scaled  back  or 
implemented over a longer timeframe with 
lower  levels  of  funding)  or  would  have 
compromised the quality of results  

▪  The  volume  of  programme  expenditure 
and  cost-effective 

appears 
compared to other policy instruments  

reasonable 

▪  There 

is 

evidence  of  other  policy 
instruments that could fund similar types of 
actions/activities  and  achieve  similar  or 
better results at lower costs    

•  The 

programme 

implementation 

and 
management  structures  have  proven  to  be 
appropriate,  efficient,  non-burdensome  and 
cost-effective, both under direct and indirect 
management 

Are  there  differences  in  efficiency  of  programme 
management and implementation between the bodies 
in  charge  of  indirect  and  direct  management  or 
between different programming periods? If so, what 

•  The  differences,  if  any,  in  the  costs  of 
programme 
and 
implementation  between  national  agencies 
and EACEA are justified 

management 

159 

Section of the 
SWD 

▪ 

4.1.2.1. 

▪  Analysis of national reports 
▪  Analysis of public consultation 

results  

▪  Programme data analysis 
▪  Key informant interviews 
▪  Targeted consultations: 

beneficiaries, NA/EACEA 
surveys, Expert assessors 
surveys 
▪  Case studies 
▪  Analysis of public consultation 

results 

Not covered in 
SWD 

4.1.2.2 

▪  Programme data analysis 
▪  Analysis of programme 

documentation 

▪  Targeted consultations: 
NA/EACEA surveys 
▪  Key informant interviews  
▪ 

•  Programme data analysis 
•  Key informant interviews,  
•  Targeted consultations: 
Beneficiaries’ surveys; 
NA/EACEA survey 

•  Programme documentation 

analysis  

•  Analysis of national reports  

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
Main 
evaluation 
question 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria and indicators of success  Data collection methods 

Section of the 
SWD 

are  the  differences  and  what  are  the  underlying 
reasons?  

[applicability: both programming periods] 

•  Comparison of the programme 

management and implementation structure, 
the roles and responsibilities among the two 
programming periods shows evidence of: 
-  Clearly defined roles and 

responsibilities 

-  No overlaps/duplications 
-  Effective and efficient cooperation 
between management bodies  
•  Analysis  of  key  administrative  steps  as 
indicator  of  programme  management 
efficiency 

actors 

11.2  How  efficient  is  the  cooperation  between  the 
different 
in 
implementation  and  supervision  of  the  programme, 
and  to  what  extent  does  the  Commission  fulfil  its 
guiding role in the process?  

involved 

entities 

and 

How has this changed between the two programming 
periods? What are the reasons for potential changes? 
What are the areas for improvement?  

▪  Supervision  and  implementation  roles  and 
responsibilities  of  the  various  actors  are 
clearly 
by 
and 
stakeholders 

understood 

defined 

▪  Division  of  functions  is  logical,  with  no 

overlaps/duplication observed 

▪  Distribution  of  programme  supervision 
functions is well understood by the different 
management bodies 

▪  The  cooperation  between 

the  different 

4.1.2.2. 

▪  Programme data analysis 
▪  Analysis of programme 

documentation/reporting   

▪  Targeted consultations: 

NAs/EACEA survey, socio-
economic survey 

[applicability: both programming periods] 

management bodies is efficient 

▪  Most stakeholders are satisfied with current 

management structure 

▪  EACEA,  national  agencies,  Erasmus+ 
Committee satisfied with the Commission’s 
guiding role 

▪  The 

current  management 

structure 
represents an improvement on the previous 
programming period 
is 

little  or  no  evidence  of 

▪  There 

11.3.  To  what  extent  is  the  information  flow  and 
communication  efficient,  fast  and  well-organised 
between different actors? 

▪ 

inefficiencies in management structure  
Information  and  communication  roles  and 
responsibilities  of  the  various  actors  are 

▪  Programme data analysis 
▪  Key informant interviews 

4.1.2.2. 

160 

 
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
Main 
evaluation 
question 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria and indicators of success  Data collection methods 

Section of the 
SWD 

What  are  the  obstacles  or  challenges  (if  any)  in  the 
good  flow  of  information  and  how  can  it  be 
improved?  

[applicability: 2021-2027] 

clearly  defined,  and  there  are  no  overlaps/ 
duplication in their functions 

▪  Surveys: NA/EACEA survey, 
expert assessors survey 

▪  Distribution 

of 

information 

and 
communication functions is well understood 
by  the  different  stakeholders  (particularly 
applicants and beneficiaries) 

▪  The flow of information and communication 
between the different actors is effective and 
efficient 

▪  Most 

stakeholders  are 
communication structure 

satisfied  with 

▪  The current information and communication 
flow  represent  an  improvement  on  the 
previous programming period 

▪  There 

is 

little  or  no  evidence  of 
and 

information 

inefficiencies 
communication flows   

in 

11.4.  To  what  extent  has  the  system  of  simplified 
grants  resulted  in  a  reduction  of  the  administrative 
burden  for  national  agencies,  the  EACEA  and 
programme beneficiaries and participants? Are there 
differences across actions or fields?  
What elements of the programme could be  changed 
to  further  reduce  the  administrative  burden  and 
simplify  the  programme's  implementation,  without 
unduly compromising its results and impact? 

[applicability: 2021-2027] 
11.5.  To  what  extent  are  the  management  support 
tools  adequate  and  sufficient  to  support  sound 
management of the programme? 

[applicability: both programming periods] 

▪  There is evidence that simplified grants have 
reduced  administrative  burden  for  national 
agencies, 
programme 
and 
beneficiaries and participants 

EACEA 

▪  Stakeholders are positive about the used of 

simplified grants 

▪  There is evidence that management support 
tools (including IT landscape of both direct 
and  indirect  management,  the  complete  set 
of programme and guidance documents) are 
adequate and sufficient  

▪  Stakeholders’  perception  of  management 

support tools is positive 

161 

▪  Key informant interviews  
▪  Workshops  with  NAs 

and 

4.1.2.3. 

stakeholders 

▪  Targeted consultations: 

NAs/EACEA survey, socio-
economic actors survey 

▪  Desk research  
▪  Literature review  
▪  Programme monitoring data  
▪  Analysis of national reports 

•  Overview of existing 
management tools  

•  Key informant Interviews  
•  Targeted consultations: 

NA/EACEA survey, expert 
assessors’ survey 

•  Workshops with NAs and 
programme stakeholders 

4.1.2.2 

 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
Section of the 
SWD 

4.1.2.6. 

4.1.1.5. 

Main 
evaluation 
question 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria and indicators of success  Data collection methods 

•  Analysis of national reports 
▪  Key informant interviews  
▪  Secondary data review Annual 

Activity Reports; Anti-Fraud 
strategy; Supervision Strategy 

▪  Analysis of national reports 
▪  Targeted consultation: 
NAs/EACEA survey  

▪  Key informant interviews  
▪  Targeted 

NA/EACEA 
surveys, 
economic actors survey 
▪  Analysis of national reports 
▪  Secondary 
review 

consultations: 
socio-

of 
data 
mechanisms and tools for project-
level  monitoring;  mechanisms 
and  tools  for  programme-level 
monitoring 

▪  Analysis 

of 

programme 

documentation/reporting  

review 

data 

▪  Secondary 
monitoring 
reports, the legal base 
▪  Key informant interviews 

indicators 

of 
and 

11.6.  To  what  extent  have  the  antifraud  measures 
allowed  for  the  prevention  and  timely  detection  of 
fraud? 

▪  The  anti-fraud  measures 
appropriate and robust 

in  place  are 

▪  Stakeholders’  perceptions  of  decreasing 

[applicability: both programming periods] 

EQ12 
Efficiency  of 
monitoring  

12.1. Efficiency of monitoring mechanisms: 
a.  To  what  extent  are  the  monitoring  mechanisms 
applied by the Commission, the EACEA, and the 
national  agencies  efficient/cost  effective,  and 
have  they  been  simplified  in  the  programming 
period 2021-2027?  

b.  To  what  extent  are  the  monitoring  mechanisms 
of the beneficiaries and participants by national 
agencies  and 
the  EACEA  effective  and 
proportionate?  

c.  To  what  extent  are 

internal  monitoring 
mechanisms of activities of the national agencies 
and  the  implementation  of  the  programme  at 
nationl effective and proportionate? What are the 
areas for improvement, considering the need for 
smooth  and  effective  implementation  of  the 
further 
programme? 
simplification  in  all  programme  dimensions  or 
actions? 

scope 

there 

for 

Is 

prevalence and nature of fraud 

▪  The  number  and  scale  of  fraud  incidents 

reduced over time 

▪  Monitoring  mechanisms  are  relevant  and 
useful  for  managing  the  programme  and 
making policy decisions 

▪  Stakeholders’ perception of the available 

monitoring tools and outputs is positive 
▪  Participants/beneficiaries do not regard the 
reporting requirements as onerous and 
satisfied with format and frequency of 
reporting 

▪  Monitoring tools are fit for purpose 
▪  Monitoring at programme and project level 

is efficient 

▪  Monitoring  systems  are  sensible  and 

proportionate 

▪ 

▪ 

Indicators  have  a  clear  purpose  and  are 
related  to  the  priorities/objectives/activities 
of the programme 
Indicators  chosen  for  monitoring  purposes 
are proportionate and meaningful 

12.2. Efficiency of indicators  
To  what  extent  do  the  indicators  identified  for  the 
programme  in  the  legal  base  correspond  to  the 
monitoring  purposes?  How  could 
the  overall 
management and monitoring system be improved? 

[applicability: both programming periods] 

162 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
COHERENCE 

Main 
evaluation 
question 

EQ18 
Internal 
coherence 

EQ19 
External 
coherence  – 
EU level  

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria and indicators of success  Data collection methods 

Section of the 
SWD 

18.1. To what extent are the objectives of different 
programme  fields  within  Erasmus+  consistent  and 
mutually  supportive?  What  evidence  exists  of 
synergies  between  the  different  programme  fields 
and  actions?  How  well  do  different  actions  work 
together?  To  what  extent  are  there  duplications, 
overlaps,  or  other  clashes  between  the  programme 
fields and how are they dealt with? 

18.2.  To  what  extent  are  the  actions  implemented 
under  direct  and  indirect  management  coherent? 
How do they interact/complement each other? 

18.3. Key Action 2: How appropriate is the structure 
of  KA2?  How  complementary  are  the  Actions  and 
what  contributions  do  these  make  in  reaching  the 
Erasmus+ objectives? 

[applicability: both programming periods] 
19.1 To what extent is Erasmus+ 2021-2027 
coherent with relevant EU policies and programmes 
with similar objectives, such as Creative Europe, 
European Solidarity Corps, Horizon Europe (in 
particular EIT, MSCA and ‘Widening participation 
and strengthening the ERA’ parts), ALMA, 2021-
2027 Cohesion Policy programmes funded under 
European Social Fund (ESF)+ and European 
Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (including 
mainstream and ETC programmes) 

19.2 To what extent is Erasmus+ coherent with 
other EU funding programmes, such as InvestEU, 
Recovery and Resilience Facility, Citizens, 

▪  There  are  logical  linkages  between  the 

programme fields and actions  

▪  Stakeholders  confirm 

the  existence  of 
synergies  between  different  programme 
fields and actions 

▪  There  are  no  duplications  or  overlaps 

between programme actions or fields 

▪  Stakeholders  appreciate  the  coherence  and 
complementarity of the different actions 

▪  Actions complement each other. 

•  KA2  is  coherent  with  the  rest  of  the 
contributes 

programme/actions 
delivering on programme’s objectives 

and 

▪  Programme  objectives  are  complementary 
with  objectives  of  other  EU  funding 
instruments  

▪  There  is  no  evidence  of  overlap  in  actions 
funded  in  the  programme  and  other  EU 
funding instruments 

▪  EU-level 

stakeholders’  perception  on 
funding 

across  EU 

complementarity 
instruments is positive  

▪  Programme data analysis  
▪  Scoping interviews 
▪  Workshops  with  NAs 

and 

4.1.3. 
4.1.3.1. 

stakeholders 

▪  Targeted 

consultations: 
survey, 

NAs/EACEA 
beneficiaries’ survey 
▪  Key informant interviews 
▪  Case studies 
▪  Analysis  of  public  consultation 

results  

▪  Analysis of national reports 

4.1.3.2. 

▪  Literature 

and  desk 
review 
analysis  of  other  EU  funding 
programmes  and  EU  policy 
agenda documents  

▪  Secondary  data  on  programme 
actions funded and actions funded 
by other EU funding instruments  

▪  Key informant interviews 
▪  Targeted 

consultations: 
socio-

▪  The  Programme  is  coherent  with  relevant 

EU policies 

▪  The  Programme’s  design  and  mechanisms 

feed into EU policies and vice-versa 

NAs/EACEA 
survey, 
economic actors survey 
▪  Analysis of national reports  
▪  Analysis  of  public  consultation 

results  

163 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Main 
evaluation 
question 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria and indicators of success  Data collection methods 

Section of the 
SWD 

Equality, Rights and Values (CERV), EU4Health, 
Digital Europe, Life  

19.3 To what extent is Erasmus+ coherent with 
external financing instruments, such as the 
Neighbourhood, Development and International 
Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) – Global Europe, 
Instrument for PreAccession (IPA III)?  
19.4. To what extent has Erasmus+ 2021-2027 
proved complementary to other EU 
interventions/initiatives in the fields of education 
and training, youth and sport? To what extent is it 
building effective synergies or interactions with 
other EU funding programmes or financing 
instruments?  

19.5. To what extent does the design of Erasmus+ 
2021-2027 (including needs, objectives, activities, 
outputs and effects) provide appropriate links and 
support to the EU policy agendas, both internal 
and external?  

[applicability: 2021-2027] 

EQ20 
External 
coherence  – 
national level  

20.1.  To  what  extent  is  Erasmus+  2021-2027 
coherent  with  various  interventions  pursued  at 
national  level  which  have  similar  objectives?  To 
what  extent  has 
to 
countries’  interventions/initiatives  in  the  fields  of 
education and training, youth and sport? 

it  proved  complementary 

EQ21 
External 
coherence  – 

[applicability: 2021-2027] 
21.1. To what extent is Erasmus+ 2021-2027 
coherent with various international-level 
interventions with similar objectives? 

▪  EU-level 

stakeholders’  perception  on 
coherence at the EU policy level is positive 
▪  There is evidence of synergies between the 
funding 

programme 
programme or financing instruments  

other  EU 

and 

▪  Collected evidence shows that the objectives 
and  nature  of  actions  under  Erasmus+  are 
coherent with other national interventions  

▪  Literature review  
▪  Key informant interviews 
▪  Targeted 

consultations: 

4.1.3.2. 

▪  Stakeholders’ 

on 
complementarity 
national 
programmes/initiatives  and  Erasmus+  is 
positive 

perception 
between 

▪  Collected evidence shows that the objectives 
and  nature  of  actions  under  Erasmus+  are 
international 
coherent 
programmes  

other 

with 

NAs/EACEA survey 

▪  Analysis  of  public  consultation 

results  

▪  Analysis of national reports 

▪  Literature review  
▪  Key informant interviews   
▪  Analysis  of  public  consultation 

4.1.3.2. 

results  

164 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Main 
evaluation 
question 
international 
level  

EQ22 
Evolution  of 
coherence 
(internal  and 
external)  

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria and indicators of success  Data collection methods 

Section of the 
SWD 

[applicability: 2021-2027] 

▪  Stakeholders  identify  synergies  between 
international-level 

Erasmus+  and  other 
programmes/initiatives 

▪  Targeted 

consultations: 

NAs/EACEA survey 
▪  Analysis of national reports 

22.1. What is the coherence of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 
compared to the coherence of Erasmus+ 2014-2020? 
Has it improved in the new programme generation? 

▪  There  is  evidence  of  increased  programme 
coherence  between  the  two  programming 
periods,  as  measured  through  aspects  of 
internal and external coherence  

▪  Literature review  
▪  Key informant interviews   
▪  Analysis  of  Public  Consultation 

4.1.3.2. 

results  

[applicability: both programming periods] 

▪  Stakeholders  recognise 

the 

increase 

in 

▪  Targeted 

consultations: 

coherence and its key contributing factors 

NAs/EACEA survey 
▪  Analysis of national reports 

EU ADDED VALUE 

Main 
evaluation 
question 
EQ23 Overall 
added value  

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria and indicators of success 

Data collection methods 

Section of the 
SWD 

4.2.1. 

23.1. What is the additional value and benefit from 
EU activities, compared to what could be achieved 
by  Member  States  and  other  countries  at  regional 
and/or national and/or international level?  
23.2  What  does  Erasmus+  2021-2027  offer  in 
addition  to  other  education  and  training  support 
schemes available at both national and international 
level? 
23.3 What would be the most likely consequences of 
stopping the Erasmus+ programme? 

[applicability: 2021-2027] 

▪  Evidence on volume, scope and benefits of 
the  programme  confirm  its  overall  added 
value 

▪  Programme data analysis  
▪  Key informant interviews 
▪  Analysis of public consultation 

results  

▪  Analysis of national reports  
▪  Case studies 
▪  Targeted 

NAs/EACEA 
beneficiaries’ surveys 
▪  Workshops  with  NAs 

consultations: 
survey, 

4.2.3. 

and 

stakeholders 

▪  The analysis of size, target group coverage 
and  geographical  coverage  of  similar 
national/international  programmes  show 
Erasmus+ offers the biggest added value  
▪  Stakeholders’ perception of the programme 
added  value  against  other  comparable 
national/international schemes is positive  
▪  Stakeholders consider that similar activities 
could  not  be  undertaken  (or  would  be 
undertaken 
scale)  without 
smaller 
Erasmus+ 

in 

165 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Main 
evaluation 
question 

EQ24 
Contribution 
to 
Europeanness  

EQ25 
Benefits 
of 
participation  

EQ26 
International 
added value  

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria and indicators of success 

Data collection methods 

24.1 To what extent does the Erasmus+ programme 
contribute  to  developing  knowledge  of  European 
integration  matters,  raising  awareness  of  EU 
common values, and fostering a European sense of 
belonging?  

24.2  What  is  the  benefit  of  direct  support  to 
designated  institutions  named  in  the  Erasmus+ 
Regulation? 

[applicability: 2021-2027] 

▪  The  programme  contributes  to  develop 
knowledge of European integration, to raise 
awareness  of  EU  common  values  and  to 
foster a European sense of belonging 

▪  Programme data analysis  
▪  Literature review 
▪  Key informant interviews 
▪  Analysis of public consultation 

shows 

▪  There  is  evidence  of  increased  European 
sense  of  belonging  among  participants 
Evidence 
support 
(operating grants) to designated institutions 
allows  activities  focused  on  the  EU  with  a 
scale and impact which would not have been 
possible otherwise. 

that  direct 

results  

▪  Analysis of national reports  
▪  Targeted consultations: 

NAs/EACEA survey, 
beneficiaries’ surveys 
▪  Analysis of national reports 
▪  Case studies 

Section of the 
SWD 

4.2.4. 

2021-2027 

25.1  What  is  the  benefit  and  added  value  of 
individuals 
Erasmus+ 
or 
organisations  participating 
the  programme, 
compared to non-participants? 
25.2.  To  what  extent  are  the  results  of  Erasmus+ 
sustainable beyond the projects’ duration? 

for 
in 

[applicability: 2021-2027] 

26.1  To  what  extent  does  Erasmus+  2021-2027 
promote  cooperation  between  Member  States  and 
third countries associated with the programme?  
26.2  To  what  extent  does  Erasmus+  2021-2027 
promote  cooperation  between  these  countries  and 
third countries not associated with the programme? 
26.3  How  has  the  EU  leveraged  the  Erasmus+ 
programme in its international relations? 

[applicability: 2021-2027] 

▪  Participating  in  the  programme  produces 
significant  benefits  for 
individuals  and 
organisations compared to non-participation 

▪  Programme data analysis  
▪  Key informant interviews 
▪  Analysis of public consultation 

4.2.1. 

▪  The programme generates tangible results 

results  

▪  Analysis of national reports  
▪  Meta-analysis 
▪  Targeted consultations: 

beneficiaries’ surveys 

▪  Case studies 
▪  Programme data analysis 
▪  Analysis  of  public  consultation 

4.2.5. 

results  

▪  Key informant interviews  
▪  Analysis of national reports  
▪  Case studies 

and long-lasting impact 

▪  Extent  to  which  the  programme  provides 
equal opportunities (access to mobility and 
cooperation  opportunities) 
to  associated 
third countries as to Member States. 

▪  The extent to which the programme provides 
countries  not 

opportunities 
associated to the programme 

third 

to 

countries 

(associated 

▪  Extent to which the participation patterns of 
third 
and  not 
associated)  evolved  during  the  evaluation 
period. 
▪  Stakeholders 

recognise 
leverage in EU’s international relations  

the  programme 

166 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Main 
evaluation 
question 

EQ27 
Evolution  of 
EU 
added 
value  

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria and indicators of success 

Data collection methods 

Section of the 
SWD 

27.1  What  is  the  benefit  and  added  value  of 
Erasmus+  2021-2027  compared  to  the  benefit  of 
Erasmus+  2014-2020?  What  is  the  added  value  of 
repetitive actions/activities in the two programmes? 
27.2 Was any EU added value lost as a consequence 
of 
the  discontinuation  of  some  actions  from 
Erasmus+ 2014-2020? 

[applicability: both programming periods] 

▪  Extent to which the programme added value 
increased  between 
two  evaluation 
periods,  measured  through  volume,  scale, 
scope  and  process  effects,  participation 
international  and 
aspects,  as  well  as 
Europeanness  

the 

▪  Findings of EU added value 

4.2.2. 

analysis  

▪  Key informant interviews  

▪  Extent 

to  which  key 

informants  and 
stakeholders  agree  on  the  increase  in  EU 
added  value  and  key  contributing  factors 
compared to the baseline situation  

RELEVANCE 

Main 
evaluation 
question 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria and indicators of success 

Data collection methods 

EQ13 
Programme 
relevance 
the 
economic 
needs 
challenges  

to 
socio-

and 

13.1. To what extent are current and emerging  key 
socio-economic needs and challenges that Europe 
is  facing  internally  and  globally  reflected  in  the 
policy priorities, objectives and actions/activities of 
Erasmus+? 

[applicability: both programming periods] 

▪  The  programme  design 

the 
reflection  on  current  and  emerging  key 
socio-economic  needs  and  challenges  that 
Europe is facing  

supports 

▪  Share  of  stakeholders  considering  that  the 
programme  is  relevant  to  the  key  socio-
economic needs and challenges 

▪  Share  of  funding  allocated  to  projects  in 
those  areas  that  correspond  to  key  strategic 
priorities 

EQ14 
Relevance  to 
addressing 
green 
digital 
transitions  

and 

14.1.  To  what  extent  are  the  needs  and  challenges 
linked  to  Europe’s  green  and  digital  transitions 
reflected in the actions/activities of Erasmus+ 2021-
2027? 

▪  The  programme  design  supports  the  green 

and digital transitions   

▪  Stakeholders consider that the programme is 
appropriately  addressing  green  and  digital 
transitions  

[applicability: 2021-2027] 

167 

▪  Programme data analysis 
▪  Review of key EU strategic 
documents and programme 
documentation 

▪  Key informant interviews  
▪  Targeted consultations: 

NAs/EACEA survey, expert 
assessors’ survey 

▪  Analysis of public consultation 

results 

▪  Analysis of national reports 
▪  Case studies  
▪  Programme data analysis 
▪  Review of key EU strategic 
documents and programme 
documentation 

▪  Key informant interviews 

Section of the 
SWD 

•  4.3. 
•  4.3.1. 
•  4.3.2. 

4.3.2.  
(the section’s 
coverage is 
larger than the 
evaluation 
question, 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Main 
evaluation 
question 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria and indicators of success 

Data collection methods 

▪  The  share  of  funding/projects  in  areas  that 

▪  Targeted consultations: 

address green and digital transitions  

EQ15 
Relevance  to 
stakeholder 
needs  

15.1.  To  what  extent  are  needs  of  different 
stakeholders  and  sectors  addressed  by  Erasmus+ 
2021-2027 objectives?  
15.2. How successful is the programme in attracting 
and  reaching  target  audiences  and  groups  within 
different fields of the programme's scope?  

▪  The  extent  to  which  the  topics  covered  by 
to  policy 

funded  projects  correspond 
priorities in the different sectors 

▪  Stakeholders  across  sectors  agree  that  the 
programme addresses and contributes to their 
needs 

Section of the 
SWD 

referring also to 
emerging needs 
for skills and 
growth) 

4.3.3. 

NAs/EACEA survey, socio-
economic actors’ survey, expert 
assessors’ survey, beneficiaries’ 
surveys 

▪  Analysis of Public Consultation 

results 

▪  Analysis of national reports 
▪  Case studies  
▪  Programme data analysis  
▪  Social media analysis  
▪  Targeted consultations: 

NAs/EACEA survey, socio-
economic actors’ survey, expert 
assessors’ survey 

▪  Key informant interviews 
▪  Analysis of Public Consultation 

results 

▪  Analysis of national reports 
▪  Behavioural experiment 

15.3. How well is the Erasmus+ programme known 
to  the  education  and  training,  youth  and  sport 
communities?  

15.4. In case some target groups are not sufficiently 
reached,  what  factors  are  limiting  their  access  and 
what actions could be taken to remedy this? What are 
the  reasons  of  non-participation  of  certain  target 
groups, are there groups who chose not to participate 
or are there always external factors preventing them? 

[applicability: 2021-2027] 
16.1. To what extent is the design of Erasmus+ 2021-
2027 oriented and adapted towards the hard-to-reach 
groups,  people  with  fewer  opportunities  (including 
inter alia people living in remote regions such as the 
EU  outermost  regions  and  overseas  countries  or 
territories)  or  specific  disadvantaged  groups  of  the 
population  who  traditionally  do  not  engage  in 

EQ16 
Relevance  to 
people  with 
fewer 
opportunities 

▪  Practitioners  agree 

to 

that 

the  programme 
contributes 
their  professional  needs; 
stakeholders and policy makers agree that the 
programme  responds  to  the  main  policy 
needs 

▪  There is high volume of discussion about the 

programme on social media 

▪  The  programme  is  talked  about  on  social 
media in the context of all fields of action and 
by varied target groups 

▪  The  programme  design 

the 
involvement  of  participants  with  fewer 
opportunities facing various barriers 

facilitates 

168 

4.3.3. 

▪  Programme data analysis 
▪  Network analysis 
▪  Social media analysis 
▪  Targeted consultation: 
beneficiaries’ surveys, NAs/EACEA 
survey  
▪  Key informant interviews 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Main 
evaluation 
question 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria and indicators of success 

Data collection methods 

Section of the 
SWD 

transnational or international activities as compared 
to other groups that benefit from the programme?  

[applicability: 2021-2027] 

▪  Behavioural experiment 
▪  Analysis of Public Consultation 
results 
▪  Analysis of national reports 
▪  Literature review 

EQ17 
Evolution  of 
relevance 
between 
two periods  

the 

17.1. What is the relevance of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 
compared to the relevance of Erasmus+ 2014-2020? 
Has  it  been  improved  in  the  new  programme 
generation? 

[applicability: both programming periods] 

▪  There is evidence of an increased relevance 
in  the  Programme  between  the  two  evaluation 
periods  measured 
the  aspects  of 
through 
responding 
to  key  socio-economic  needs, 
stakeholder needs and participation, compared to 
the baseline situation 

▪  Key informant interviews  
▪  Targeted consultation: 
NAs/EACEA survey, expert assessors 
survey 
▪  Analysis of findings per each 
evaluation period  

4.3. 

▪  Share  of  stakeholders  considering 
that 
relevance  of  the  programme  across  the  various 
fields improved since the previous programming 
period 

169 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS AND TABLE ON SIMPLIFICATION AND BURDEN REDUCTION 

Table 1. Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation (Erasmus+ 2014-2020) 

Citizens/EU society   

EU Public Administration  
&  
Implementing bodies  

Erasmus+ beneficiaries  

Erasmus+ participants  

Quantitative   

Comment  

Quantitative   

Comment  

Quantitative  

Comment   

Quantitative  

Comment  

I.COSTS  

Erasmus+ budget  

Type: One-
off and 
recurrent  

Financial 
envelope for the 
programming 
period 2014-
2020: 18.5 
billion476  

Spending477:  
Under indirect 
management: 
EUR 14 548 653 
167  
Under direct 
management: 
EUR 
4 120 424 157  

National co-
funding for 
actions under 
indirect 
management 
(grant support): 
EUR 
174 458 718 

476 Heading 1: EUR 16.9 billion (all credits included), Heading 4: EUR 1.6 billion (all credits included). 
477 The figures cover executed commitments at the end of the programming period, Heading 1 and 4 included.  

170 

 
                         
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
Administrative costs of 
implementing Erasmus+  

Type: 
recurrent  

Costs of 
administrating 
Erasmus+ are 
incurred by the 
public sector at 
European level 
but are 
ultimately a cost 
to the EU 
society  

Administrative 
line (executed 
commitments 
2014-2020): 
EAC: EUR 
91 865 156  
EACEA: EUR 
188 234 759  

EACEA FTEs: 
272 (in 2020) 

NAs FTEs: 2 363 
(in 2020)479 

NAs 
Management 
fees478: EUR  
612 287 871 
(2014-2020) 
Budget Heading 
1 (and Heading 4 
as from 2019) 
and the relevant 
national co-
financing in line 
with the 
programme 
regulation  

Costs for Erasmus+ 
applicants and beneficiaries  

Type: 
recurrent  

Not possible to 
quantify  

Administrative 
costs linked to 
the application 
process and 
meeting the 
eligibility 
requirements.  

Administrative costs 
related to the 
application, 
implementation and 
reporting 
requirements.  

Not possible 
to quantify  

89% of 
surveyed 
beneficiaries 
consider the 
net costs of 
project 
activities 
borne by the 

478 NAs management fees are retrieved in this line (administrative costs of implementing Erasmus+) to provide the full picture of the running costs of the programme, including both 
management modes, however, in the programme budget structure, they are part of the operational budget. 
479 Out the total of FTEs working in NAs in 2020 (2 617, covering both FTEs allocated to Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps in agencies responsible for youth). The figure has 
been calculated proportionally, based on the management fees in the two programmes, to exclude staff allocated to the European Solidarity Corps. 

171 

 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
organisation 
“fully 
proportionate” 
or “somewhat 
proportionate” 
compared to 
the benefits 
obtained by 
the 
organisation. 
[Source: 
socio-
economic 
actors survey] 

Co-financing 
ranges 
between 5% 
and 20% of 
the project 
budget, 
depending on 
the action.  

Projects beneficiaries 
must complement the 
project budget with 
sources of co-
financing other than 
the EU grant, which 
vary depending on the 
action.  

II.BENEFITS  

Direct benefits  

Type: 
recurrent  

Contribution 
to Europe 
2020 Smart 
Growth 
(innovation, 
education, 
digital society) 
and Inclusive 
Growth 

Contribution to 
policy priorities 
set under 
ET2020480  
and Europe 2020 
strategy481, 
including the 
headline 
education target 

Number of 
distinct 
organisations 
supported in 
funded 
projects: 
131 000 

Increased capacity of 
organisations: 
common benefits 
include enhanced 
internationalisation, 
experience in 
transnational and 
international 
cooperation, 

6.2 million 
actual 
participants  

94% of 
participants in 
youth mobility 
activities 
declared 

Improved skills 
and 
competences; 
personal growth 
and soft skills; 
increased sense 
of European 
belonging; 
language 

480 Strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training 
481 Europe 2020: the European Union strategy for growth and employment | EUR-Lex 

172 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
strengthen their 
capacities, produce 
innovative 
approaches, exchange 
good practices, 
expanded networks, 
etc.  

proficiency, 
cultural 
awareness and 
enhanced 
intercultural 
competence 

having 
increased skills 
under the 
2014-2020 
programme 
[source: 
Programme 
Performance 
Statement] 

80% of 
Erasmus+ 
students were 
employed 
within three 
months of 
graduation 
[source: E+ 
higher 
education 
impact study] 

Number of 
funded 
projects: 
161 000  

More than 
80% of 
academics 
report that 
their 
Erasmus+ 
experience 
abroad has led 
to the 
development 
of more 
innovative 
teaching 
practices and 
curricula in 
their faculties  
[source: E+ 
higher 
education 
impact study] 

(employment 
and skills, 
fighting 
poverty) 
priorities: 
EUR 2 665 
million  
[source: PPS 
2019] 

Contribution to 
Commission’s 
priorities 

Contribution to 
large scale 
policy 
progresses at EU 
and national 
levels, 
supporting the 
sectors’ needs 
and supporting 
more cohesive 
policy 
approaches 
across Member 
States  

Contribution 
to 
mainstreaming 
of climate 
action: over 
12 000 
projects 
addressing 
environment 
and climate 
change 

Gender 
equality: 
women 
represent 58% 
of learners 
over the period 
2014-2020  
[source: 
Erasmus+ 
Annual Report 
2020] 

38 000 
projects (EUR 
2.3 billion 
grant) tackling 

Contribution to 
building a sense 

173 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
Indirect benefits 

Type:  
recurrent  

the priority of 
participation, 
common EU 
values and 
civic 
engagement 

of European 
identity and 
awareness of EU 
values across 
participating 
countries  

Contribution to 
SDGs 

Contribution 
to SDGs 1-3-
4-5-8-10-16 
[source: 
Programme 
Performance 
Statement] 

Not possible to 
quantify  

Multiplier effect: 
participating 
organisations 
raise capacity in 
other 
organisations 
(through 
network-
building, 
knowledge 
exchange, 
training and 
curriculum 
development).  

174 

 
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
Table 2. Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation (ERASMUS+ 2021-2027) 

Citizens/EU society   

EU Public Administration  
&  
Implementing bodies  

Erasmus+ beneficiaries  

Erasmus+ participants  

Quantitative   

Comment  

Quantitative   

Comment  

Quantitative  

Comment   

Quantitative  

Comment  

II.COSTS  

Erasmus+ budget  

Type: 
One-off 
and 
recurrent  

Administrative costs of 
implementing Erasmus+  

Type: 
recurrent  

Costs of 
administrating 
Erasmus+ are 
incurred by the 

Financial 
envelope for the 
programming 
period 2021-
2027:  EUR 26.2 
billion    

Spending as of 
31 December 
2023:  
Under indirect 
management: 
EUR 
8 770 880 435  
Under direct 
management: 
EUR 
2 389 576 576  

National co-
funding for 
actions under 
indirect 
management 
(grant support): 
EUR 
140 839 478 
Administrative 
line (executed 
commitments 
2021-2023): 

175 

 
                         
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
EACEA FTEs: 
296.6483 

NAs FTEs: 
2 430 
[source: NAs 
multiannual 
work 
programme 
2022] 

public sector at 
European level 
but are 
ultimately a cost 
to the EU 
society  

EAC: EUR 
71 919 437  
EACEA: EUR 
77 096 690  

NAs 
Management 
fees482: EUR  
406 666 193 
(2021-2023) 
Budget 
Headings 2 and 
6  Relevant 
national co-
financing to 
National 
Agencies’ 
management 
costs, in line 
with the 
programme 
regulation: EUR 
198 920 995 

Not possible 
to quantify  

Administrative 
costs linked to 
the application 
process and 
meeting the 
eligibility 
requirements 

Costs for Erasmus+ 
applicants and 
beneficiaries  

Type: 
recurrent  

Administrative costs 
related to the 
application, 
implementation and 
reporting 
requirements.  

Not possible 
to quantify  

89% of 
surveyed 
beneficiaries 
consider the 
net costs of 
project 
activities 
borne by the 
organisation 

482 NAs management fees are retrieved in this line (administrative costs of implementing Erasmus+) to provide the full picture of the running costs of the programme, including both 
management modes, however, in the programme budget structure, they are part of the operational budget. 
483 Average for the period 2021-2023 

176 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
“fully 
proportionate” 
or “somewhat 
proportionate” 
compared to 
the benefits 
obtained by 
the 
organisation. 
[Source: 
socio-
economic 
actors survey] 

Projects beneficiaries 
must complement the 
project budget with 
sources of co-
financing other than 
the EU grant, which 
vary depending on 
the action.  

Co-financing 
ranges 
between 5% 
and 20% of 
the project 
budget, 
depending on 
the action.  

III.BENEFITS  

Direct benefits  

Type: 
recurrent  

Contribution to 
policy priorities 
set under the 
European 
Education Area  

Contribution to 
Commission’s 
priorities  

Contribution to 
large scale 
policy 
progresses at 

Climate 
objectives: 
EUR 1 049 
million (2021-
2023)  

Digital 
contribution: 

Number of 
distinct 
organisations 
supported in 
funded 
projects: 
77 671 (at cut-
off date 
31/12/2023)  

Number of 
funded 
projects: 
72 000 (at cut-

177 

Increased capacity of 
organisations: 
common benefits 
include enhanced 
internationalisation, 
experience in 
transnational and 
international 
cooperation, 
strengthen their 
capacities, produce 
innovative 
approaches, exchange 
good practices, 

1.6 million actual 
participants (at cut-
off date 31/12/2023)  
of which 15% with 
fewer opportunities 

98% of participants 
consider they have 
benefited from 
participation [source: 
2022 Erasmus+ 
annual report] 

Enhanced skills 
and 
competences; 
personal 
growth and soft 
skills; 
increased sense 
of European 
belonging; 
language 
proficiency, 
cultural 
awareness and 
enhanced 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
off date 
31/12/2023)  

expanded networks, 
etc.  

More than 90% have 
an increased 
European sense of 
belonging  

intercultural 
competence 

85% of participants 
declare having 
increased their key 
competences 
[source: 2022 
Erasmus+ annual 
report] 

83% stated improved 
competences useful 
for their current 
work/studies [source: 
2022 Erasmus+ 
annual report] 

78% have improved 
their foreign 
language 
competence  
[source: 2022 
Erasmus+ annual 
report] 

EU and national 
levels, 
supporting the 
sectors’ needs 
and supporting 
more cohesive 
policy 
approaches 
across Member 
States  

Contribution to 
building a sense 
of European 
identity and 
awareness of 
EU values 
across 
participating 
countries  

EUR 2 018 
million  

Gender 
equality: 60% 
of mobility 
opportunities 
taken up by 
women  
[source: 
Programme 
Performance 
Statement] 

Over 3 000 
contracted 
projects (EUR 
169 ml 
contracted 
grant) working 
on the topic 
“European 
identity, 
citizenship 
and values” 
(at cut-off date 
31/12/2023)  

Over 1 600 
Youth 
Participation 
Activities 
(EUR 61 ml 
contracted 
grant) 
involving 

178 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
more than 
250 000 
young people 
(call years 
2021 to 2023)  

88% of PC 
respondents 
agreed or 
strongly 
agreed that the 
programme is 
performing 
well in 
promoting 
common EU 
values and 
strengthened 
European 
identity  
Not possible 
to quantify  

Multiplier 
effect: 
participating 
organisations 
raise capacity in 
other 
organisations 
(through 
network-
building, 
knowledge 
exchange, 
training and 
curriculum 
development).  

179 

Indirect benefits 

Type:  
recurrent  

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
TABLE 3:  Simplification and burden reduction (savings already achieved)   

Citizens/EU society  

Quantitative    Comment  

EU Public Administration  
&  
Implementing bodies  
Quantitative    Comment  

Erasmus+ beneficiaries   

Erasmus+ participants  

Quantitative  

Comment   

Quantitative   Comment  

Burden reduction following the introduction of simplification measures: lump-sums  
The use of lump sums, unit costs and flat-rate funding has considerably simplified the calculation of the grant amounts in comparison to the 'traditional' system of basing the amount of 
the grant on a detailed budget of eligible costs per cost category  

Type: recurrent  

82% of 
respondents 
considered that 
the lump sum 
system 
simplifies the 
administration 
for 
NAs/EACEA  
[NAs/EACEAs 
survey]  

Reduced 
administrative 
burden at 
application and 
payment stage 
reducing 
overheads for 
NAs and 
facilitating 
productivity 
gains  

Not possible to quantify at 
this stage  

92% share of organisations 
and institutions considering 
that procedures for taking 
part in the programme are 
proportionate and 
simple (2022 data)  

Greater predictability for 
grant beneficiaries who 
can take the pre-
established rates into 
account when submitting 
their applications making 
the actions more attractive; 
simplified reporting 
requirements  

Burden reduction following the introduction of simplification measures: accreditation  
The introduction of the accreditation scheme for mobility projects in school education, adult education, and youth improved programme accessibility to funding and reduced 
administrative requirements for recurrent beneficiaries  

Type: recurrent  

Reduces 
administrative 
burdens for 
implementing 
bodies  

61% of 
respondents 
agree to a high 
extent that it 
simplifies the 
application 
process  
[NAs/EACEAs 
survey]  

Reduces application time 
(and costs). 

Accredited organisations 
may gain indicatively about 
70% time to prepare a grant 
request instead of 
submitting a full 
application form484.  

45% of respondents agrees 
that it simplifies project 
management for 
beneficiaries   

Streamlines project 
management, fosters long-
term planning and 
financial security for 

484 Estimation based on the structure of the application form for non-accredited projects, compared to the request for funds for accredited projects.  

180 

 
                
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
beneficiaries, reduces 
administrative burdens for 
beneficiaries.  

[NAs/EACEA survey] 

92% share of organisations 
and institutions considering 
that procedures for taking 
part in the programme are 
proportionate and 
simple (2022 data)  

Reduces 
assessment costs 
(savings 
increasing 
yearly and are 
expected to be 
more visible in 
the second part 
of the 
programming 
period)  

Estimated 
indicative 
savings for 
assessing 
accredited 
projects under 
2021-2024 
Calls: between 
EUR 1 million 
and EUR 5.9 
million [details 
under 4.1.2.4] 
Accreditation 
system assessed 
very positively 
across most (31) 
national reports  

Burden reduction and increased accessibility following the introduction of simplification measures: small-scale partnerships  
The introduction of the action widened the access to the programme to small-scale actors, grassroots organisations and newcomers to Erasmus+, reducing entry barriers to the 
programme for organisations with smaller organisational capacity thanks to lower grant amounts awarded to organisations, shorter duration and simpler administrative requirements 
compared to the cooperation partnerships.  

Type: recurrent  

Not possible to quantify  

Greater  predictability  for 
beneficiaries; 
grant 
simplified 
administrative 
requirements; flexibility of 
the format.  
Increased  accessibility  for 
small 
newcomer 
and 
organisations  

Revamped IT architecture, including for implementing bodies, with the introduction of the “single entry point” for IT applications  

Type: one-off 

100% of users 
(NAs and 
Commission 
users)  

100% 
of 
applicants/beneficiaries   

Erasmus+ 

Facilitated  access  for  all 
applicants/beneficiaries, 
who  can  easily  navigate, 
from one single entry page, 
IT 
through 
(previously 
modules 

different 

Facilitated 
access for all 
users, who can 
easily navigate, 
from one single 
entry page, 
through different 

181 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
IT modules 
(previously 
accessible 
through different 
hyperlinks)  

accessible 
different hyperlinks)  

through 

Administrative costs savings of programme implementing bodies (NAs) through introduction of several simplifications: introduction of multi-annual work programme, shorter and 
more targeted annual reporting (yearly reports); simplified contractual requirements (contribution agreements) with increased flexibility for the management of funds; digitalisation of 
contractual, payments and amendment procedures, use of digital signature; simplified rules for the implementation and reporting of certain tasks (TCA activities, funding rules for 
SALTOs, Eurodesk, national VET teams)  

Type: one-off and 
recurrent  

Reduced 
administrative 
burdens for 
implementing 
bodies (indirect 
management)  

Quantification 
of savings (in 
terms of FTE) 
are not yet 
measurable: for 
indirect 
management, 
NAs 
communicate 
their resources 
(FTE) in the 
multiannual 
work 
programme at 
the beginning of 
the 
programming 
period and will 
revise in 2025. 

Time to process 
amendments 
related to 
budgetary 
transfers: 11 
days in 2023 (10 
days in 2024), 
against the 
contractual 

Digitalisation of 
processes at 
level of NAs 
brought to 
increased 
efficiency in 
processing 
contribution 
agreements and 
amendments 

182 

 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
Digitalised and simplified implementation of the programme for participants, in particular through Erasmus Without Paper  

deadline of 30 
days).   

 Type: recurrent 

Potential savings of over 
€13.5 million prints 
annually across the 
Erasmus+ programme 
and a consequent 55% 
workload reduction for 
university administrative 
staff. 485 

More 
efficient 
management  of 
student 
mobilities 
for 
higher 
institutions, 
education 
reduced  data  entry  errors, 
accelerated  approvals  and 
greener processes. 

218 546 
downloads 
and close to 
10 million 
webpage loads 
of 
the Erasmus+ 
app. 

Simplified 
student mobility 
through the 
completion of 
learning 
agreements 
onlineand easier 
access to 
information and 
services for 
students.  

PART II: II Potential simplification and burden reduction (savings)  

Identify further potential simplification and savings that could be achieved with a view to make the initiative more effective and efficient without prejudice to its policy objectives4.  
Erasmus+ participants  

Erasmus+ beneficiaries  

Citizens/EU society  

EU Public Administration  
&  
Implementing bodies  

Quantitative   

Comment  

Quantitative   

Comment  

Quantitative  

Comment   

Quantitative  

Comment  

Further simplification measures to cater for the needs and nature of newcomers and small-sized applicants, including exploring new action formats  

Type: recurrent   

Not possible to quantify  Expected impact/savings 

for applicants and 
beneficiaries.  
Expected wider outreach 
of newcomers/small-sized 
applicants.  

Ongoing simplification assessment action to alleviate reporting burden on participants, beneficiaries and implementing authorities:  Commission is working together with the 
National Agencies and EACEA in order to explore simplification of administrative documents, application, monitoring and reporting processes having always in mind the need to keep 
a correct balance between reporting obligations and accountability rules.  

485 López-Nores, Martín, José J. Pazos-Arias, Abdulkadir Gölcü, and Ömer Kavrar. 2022. "Digital Technology in  Managing Erasmus+ Mobilities: Efficiency Gains and Impact Analysis from Spanish, 

Italian, and Turkish Universities" Applied Sciences 12, no. 19: 9804. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12199804 

183 

 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Type:  recurrent   

Not possible to 
quantify  

Expected 
impact/savings for 
implemented bodies  

Not possible to quantify  Expected impact/savings 

for applicants and 
beneficiaries  

Not possible 
to quantify  

Expected 
impact/savings 
for participants 
(reporting)  

184 

 
  
  
  
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT  

1. Introduction 

Erasmus+ is the European Union (EU) programme in the fields of education and training, youth, and sport. Covering both an intra-European and an 
international dimension, Erasmus+ aims to support, in particular through learning mobility, the educational, professional and personal development of 
people in education, training, youth and sport, in Europe and beyond. Erasmus+ was established in 2014 as a result of the integration of the prior Erasmus 
programme with all previously existing EU programmes implemented in the fields of education, training, youth and sport. Building on the achievements 
of its 35 years of existence, as well as on those of other pre-existing programmes and previous initiatives, it is one of the EU’s most visible and well-
known success stories. 

This document presents a synopsis of the consultation activities carried out in the context of the support study performed by ICF under a contract to 
support the European Commission (EC) in conducting an interim evaluation of the Erasmus+ programme 2021-2027, accompanied by a final evaluation 
of the Erasmus+ programme 2014-2020.  

This synopsis report covers the public consultation, targeted consultations as well as feedback received during workshops. The stakeholder consultations 
took place between July 2022 and September 2024. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to analyse stakeholder input. 

This report has the following aims:  

• 
• 

to inform policymaking of the outcome of the consultation activities and of the views expressed by the different categories of stakeholders; and  
inform stakeholders about how their input has been considered. 

2. Consultation strategy 

The aim of the support study was to assess the programme against five evaluation criteria:  

1)  the effectiveness of the measures taken to achieve the programme’s objectives, especially with regards to new initiatives;  
2)  the continued relevance of all objectives of the programme;  
3)  the programme’s internal and external coherence with other programmes with similar or complementary objectives;  
4)  the efficiency of the programme, including the inclusion and simplification measures put in place, as well as the scope for further simplification 

and burden reduction; and  

5)  the European added value resulting from the actions and activities supported by the programme, especially in terms of sustainable impact, 

compared with what could reasonably have been achieved by Member States at national and/or regional levels.  

185 

 
 
In line with the European Commission’s Better Regulation guidelines, a consultation strategy was elaborated to gather input from all interested parties 
on the programme’s performance against the five evaluation criteria. To this end, the consultation strategy was designed and implemented to support 
the assessment of different programme aspects in line with the objectives of the evaluation, but also to collect views on possible improvement options 
and on their impact on all relevant stakeholder groups.  

To ensure a balanced consultation process and to capture the full diversity of the ‘Erasmus+ ecosystem’, the following stakeholder groups were 
identified across all programme fields:  

International organisations(such as OECD, UNESCO, ILO, Council of Europe, World Bank);  

•  EU institutions (i.e. Commission services, EU Delegations, Commission’s Agencies); ervices, EU Delegations, Commission’s Agencies);  
• 
•  National, regional and local public authorities; 
•  Erasmus+ National Authorities;  
•  Erasmus+ National Agencies, and other programme structures, such as SALTO resource centres and National Erasmus+ Offices (NEOs);  
•  Erasmus+ expert assessors (both for actions under direct and indirect management);  
• 
•  Potential programme participants, not or not yet participating in the programme486; 
•  Beneficiary organisations across all programme fields, including education and training institutions/providers, sport and youth organisations;  
•  European  stakeholders  in  education,  training,  youth  and  sport  (sectoral  networks,  professional  bodies,  social  partners,  youth  and  sport 

Individual programme participants (both learners and staff) across all programme sectors and fields;  

organisations, NGOs, civil society organisations);  

•  National  stakeholders  in  education,  training,  youth  and  sport  (sectoral  networks,  professional  bodies,  social  partners,  youth  and  sport 

organisations, NGOs, civil society organisations); 

•  Stakeholders in education, training, youth and sport in third countries not associated with the programme;  
•  Citizens (EU and non-EU). 

A number of consultation activities were implemented, including: 

•  a Call for evidence; 
•  a Public consultation; 
•  a set of targeted consultations:  

o  scoping interviews, 

486 Non-participants were targeted to support a counterfactual analysis aimed at assessing the impacts of participation in the learners and staff surveys, and to analyses the barriers to 
participation in the behavioural experiment. 

186 

 
 
 
o  survey of beneficiary learners, 
o  survey of beneficiary staff, 
o  pre-post survey of pupils and young people, 
o  behavioural experiment with individuals who did not participate in the programme, 
o  survey of Erasmus+ National Agencies and the EACEA, 
o  survey of expert assessors, 
o  survey of socio-economic actors, 
o 
o  case studies. 

interviews of ‘key informants’ at international, European and national levels, 

In addition, five stakeholder workshops were organised as part of the study conducted by ICF to gather feedback on specific aspects of the evaluation. 

The different stakeholder categories targeted and consulted for each of the consultation activities are shown in the table below. 

Table 1: Stakeholder categories targeted and consulted for each of the consultation activities 

Stakeholder 
type 

Call for 
evidence 

Public 
consultatio
n 

Scoping 
interviews 

Survey of 
beneficiary 
learners 

Survey of 
beneficiari
es (staff) 

Pre-post 
survey  

Survey of 
National 
Agencies 
and 
EACEA 

Survey of 
expert 
assessors 

Survey of 
socio-
economic 
actors 

Behavioural 
experiment 

Key 
informant 
interviews 

Case 
studies 

Workshops 

X 

X 

X 

EU institutions 

International 
organisations 
Public 
authorities  
Erasmus+ 
National 
Agencies 
Erasmus+ 
National 
Authorities 
Erasmus+ 
expert assessors 
Individual 
programme 
participants 
Potential 
programme 
participants / 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

187 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
non-
participants 
Beneficiary 
organisations 
European 
stakeholders 
National 
stakeholders 
International 
stakeholders 

Citizens 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

188 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The following table shows the timeline of the consultation activities implemented by ICF, and 
the level of stakeholder participation achieved for each of them.  

Table 2: Stakeholder participation in consultation activities 

Consultation activity 

Call for evidence 
Scoping interviews 
Public consultation 

Survey of beneficiary learners 
across programme fields 

Timeline 
From 28 July to 12 September 2022 
Between 29 March and 26 May 2023 
From 15 September 2023 to 8 
December 2023 
From 16 October 2023 to 11 
December 2023 

Survey of beneficiary staff 
across programme fields 

From 16 October 2023 to 11 
December 2023 

Level of participation 

195 responses 
24 interviews 
1,243 responses 
64 position papers 
25 413 Erasmus+ participants (test 
group) and 2,094 non-participants 
(control group) 
26,332 Erasmus+ participants (test 
group) and 2,894 non-participants 
(control group) 
Pupils: 261 (pre-) and 105 (post-) 
Erasmus+ participants; 123 (pre-) 
and 26 (post-) non-participants 
(control group) 
164 valid responses, including 156 
from National Agencies and 8 from 
the EACEA 
1 550 valid responses, of which 
1 130 complete and 420 partial 
1 842 valid responses  

From 16 October 2023 to 11 
December 2023 (pre-survey) and 
from 07 June 2024 to 05 July 2024 
(post-survey, school pupils only) 
Between October and December 
2023 

From 15 November 2023 to 22 
December 2023 
From 26 October and 15 December 
2023 
Between 3 April and 10 May 2024 

Between April 2024 and July 2024 

10 985 responses from individuals 
who have not previously taken part 
in the Erasmus+ programme 
Between October 2023 and July 2024  264 interviews with 313 key 
informants at national (165), 
European (60) and international (42) 
level 
44 case studies covering all 
programme fields, focusing on 
organisational level impacts (29 
case studies) and system levels 
effects (7) as well as on Jean 
Monnet Actions (8). A total of 186 
stakeholders were interviewed to 
perform these case studies (58 from 
organisations’ leadership, 80 
members of staff, 48 learners). 
Over 540 participants in total 

5 stakeholder workshops between 
June 2023 and September 2024 

Pre-post survey of pupils and 
young people487 

Survey of Erasmus+ National 
Agencies and the EACEA 

Survey of socio-economic 
actors 
Survey of expert assessors 

Behavioural experiment 

Key informant interviews 

Case studies 

Stakeholder workshops 

487  A  pre-mobility  survey  of  young  people  took  place  as  well  in  parallel  with  the  pupils  pre-mobility  survey; 
however since it yielded insufficient response (7 participants and 5 non-participants), the post-component was not 
implemented. 

189 

 
 
 
 
3. Consultation activities 

The following section provides an overview of each consultation activity indicating the types 
of stakeholders that were targeted, a short description of the employed methods and procedures, 
as well as a brief presentation of the results. 

3.1.   Call for evidence 

A call for evidence was conducted by the European Commission between 28 July 2022 and 12 
September 2022 on the Europa website Have your say portal488 to collect inputs and evidence 
from  programme  stakeholders,  with  a  view  to  help  framing  and  scoping  the  upcoming 
evaluation exercise.  

195  submissions  were  received,  from  11  stakeholder  groups,  mostly  Academic/research 
institutions (26.67%), EU Citizens (20.51%), and NGOs (18.46%).  

Call for evidence – Profile of respondents by stakeholder category489 

Source: Europa website, Have your say portal 490 

181  responses  were  received  from  Erasmus+  programme  countries  (177  from  EU  Member 
States  and  4  from  third  countries  associated  to  the  programme),  while  14  were  from  third 
countries not associated to the programme. Overall, the countries providing the highest number 
of contributions were Cyprus (25, 13%), Germany (16, 8%) and Estonia (13, 7%). Out of the 
195  submissions  received,  22  (11%)  included  a  position  paper,  36.36%  of  which  were 
submitted by NGOs. 

Across the stakeholder groups, there was very strong support for the Erasmus+ programme and 
the opportunities it provides from an academic, professional, training, and personal perspective. 
Respondents  also  reported  on  issues  concerning  some  areas  of  practical  implementation,  in 
particular administrative burden and IT tools. 

Among  respondents  from  academic/research  institutions  62%  expressed  support  for  the 
changes introduced in the 2021-2027 programme. Specific areas viewed positively include: the 
focus  on  sustainability  and  inclusion,  the  additional  funds  for  sustainable  travel,  or  the 
additional flexibility in the use of funds.  

Feedback  from  EU  citizens  was  also  predominantly  positive,  mostly  highlighting  the  many 
opportunities provided by Erasmus+. Among respondents from NGOs, over a third explicitly 
expressed  support  for  the  improvements  made  in  the  2021-2027  programme,  such  as  the 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13454-Erasmus+-2021-27-

488  See : 
interim-evaluation-Erasmus+-2014-20-final-evaluation_en  
489 These stakeholders’ categories reflect pre-defined categories based on the Better Regulation standard template. 
490 Erasmus+ 2021-27 interim evaluation & Erasmus+ 2014-20 final evaluation (europa.eu) 

190 

 
 
 
introduction  of  small-scale  partnerships  or  the  enhanced  inclusion  and  diversity  measures. 
Besides the programme’s IT tools, areas of attention reported by NGO participants included 
remaining obstacles to the participation of vulnerable persons. 

3.2. 

 Scoping interviews 

The scoping interviews were carried out at the inception stage with a selection of officials from 
EU  institutions  (European  Commission,  European  Parliament,  EACEA),  National  Agencies 
and National Authorities representatives. 

The main objective of this set of interviews was to gather high-level views on and ensure a 
better understanding of the perceived relevance and achievement of Erasmus+ objectives and 
priorities as well as the structure and management of the programme. They aimed at identifying 
overall trends, success factors and areas for improvement.  

A  total  of  24  interviews  were  completed  between  29  March  and  26  May  2023,  conducted 
mostly  online  and  following  a  semi-structured  approach.  The  results  and  analysis  of  these 
interviews were presented in the Inception Report, submitted in June 2023 as part of the study 
conducted by ICF. 

The insights obtained from the scoping interviews enabled the study team to better understand 
the  key  objectives  of  the  evaluation,  to  finalise  the  analytical  frameworks  and  adjust  data 
collection activities as applicable, and to generate interest and participation in the study. 

3.3.  Public consultation 

A public consultation was held to collect the views of the main programme stakeholders (e.g., 
stakeholders  active  in  the  education,  training,  youth  and  sport  fields,  individual  programme 
beneficiaries  and  alumni,  beneficiary  organisations,  national,  regional  and  local  public 
authorities and organisations) as well as EU and non-EU citizens. Running for 12 weeks, from 
15  September  until  8  December  2023,  the  public  consultation  was  made  available  on  the 
European  Commission’s  ‘Have  your  Say’  portal 491  and  was  disseminated  and  promoted 
through  various  channels  by  the  Commission,  National  Agencies,  National  Authorities  and 
other programme stakeholders, including  social media posts, news items  on the programme 
websites,  and  announcements  at  events  to  ensure  a  large  response  rate  across  relevant 
stakeholders and among interested citizens.  

The consultation questionnaire was designed around three possible response paths reflecting 
the respondents’ level of knowledge of the programme: i) very familiar with the programme’s 
objectives and actions, ii) partly familiar with the programme, iii) no knowledge. Respondents 
well  familiar  with  the  programme  received  the  most  in-depth  questionnaire;  those  partly 
familiar  were  provided  with  a  curated  set  of  questions;  and  those  with  no  knowledge  of 
Erasmus+ received a much shorter and simplified questionnaire, focusing on the need for the 
programme and its possible continuation.  

The full questionnaire contained 22 questions in total, most of them broken down into sub-
questions, concerning the programme’s relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, and EU 
added  value,  as  well  as  its  future.  A  set  of  questions  concerning  the  impact  of  contextual 
elements  on  the  Erasmus+  programme  was  also  included,  focusing  on  the  programme’s 
responsiveness  and  resilience  in  light  of  the  disruptive  events  of  recent  years  (COVID-19 
pandemic,  war  in  Ukraine,  inflation  surge).  The  questions  related  to  the  ‘efficiency’  and 

491 Erasmus+ 2021-27 interim evaluation & Erasmus+ 2014-20 final evaluation (europa.eu) 

191 

 
 
‘coherence’ criteria, as well as those on the ‘impact of contextual elements on Erasmus+’, were 
only asked to respondents with detailed knowledge of the programme. 

Some questions had a range of answer options (Likert scale) while others were requesting open 
feedback; most questions were mandatory, while few were optional.  

A total of 1,243 respondents contributed to the public consultation in their individual capacity 
(40%) or on behalf of an organisation (60%). All 33 countries associated to the programmes492 
responded to the public consultation with at least one contribution. The country with the highest 
number of contributions  overall was  Germany (175), followed by  Portugal  (144) and Spain 
(129). 

The distribution of respondents by stakeholder category is shown below.  

Public consultation – Profile of respondents by stakeholder category493  

In addition to answering the questionnaire, respondents could submit position papers, outlining 
their views on the Erasmus+ programme, or on some of its aspects most relevant to them. In 
total,  67  position  papers  were  submitted  by  several  types  of  organisations  (e.g.,  umbrella 
organisations representing the education and training, youth and sport sectors, NGOs, schools, 
university  networks,  VET  providers).  In  addition,  8  papers  were  submitted  outside  the 
consultation mechanism (i.e., by email), which the Commission decided to accept as part of the 
consultation process. A total of 75 papers were therefore received and considered. 11 of these 
submissions were found to be duplications, hence 64 position papers were analysed. 

A factual summary report was drafted in line with the Better Regulation requirements and 
published on the Europa website Have your Say portal 494 within eight weeks from the closure 
of the public consultation. 

492  27 EU  Member  States  and  6  third  countries  associated  to the  programme:  Iceland,  Liechtenstein,  Norway, 
North Macedonia, Serbia and Türkiye. 
493 These stakeholders’ categories reflect pre-defined categories based on the Better Regulation standard template 
for EU public consultations. 
494  See:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13454-Erasmus%2B-2021-27-
interim-evaluation-Erasmus%2B-2014-20-final-evaluation/public-consultation_en  

192 

 
 
 
Summary of findings 

The relevance of the specific objectives of the programme for 2021-2027 to current challenges 
and  needs  in  the  education  and  training,  youth,  and  sport  sectors  is  viewed  very  positively 
overall, however significantly more for the education and training sector than for the youth and 
sport  sectors.  These  differences  are,  nonetheless,  mostly  due  to  a  higher  proportion  of  ‘no 
opinion’ shared for the youth  and sport sectors,  rather than  a result of negative views. This 
likely reflects the fact that fewer respondents to the public consultation stemmed from those 
sectors and, hence, were familiar with the programme’s objectives as well as with their current 
challenges and needs. In fact, the analysis of answers by sectors shows that the objectives in 
the youth and sport sectors are considered as extremely relevant by the respondents involved 
in those sectors.  

Similarly,  the  relevance  of  the  programme’s  horizontal  priorities  to  current  challenges  and 
needs was assessed very positively across all stakeholder categories and sectors. 

The continued relevance of the structure of the programme and the type of actions it supports 
in  pursuit  of  its  future  objectives  was  assessed  positively  by  a  vast  majority  (94%)  of 
respondents, across all stakeholder categories and sectors. 

A majority of respondents also assessed very positively the coherence of Erasmus+ with other 
funding  instruments  addressing  the  education,  training,  youth  and  sport  sectors  available  at 
national, EU, or international levels, yet to a varying degree (i.e. 78% for funding instruments 
at  the  national  level,  66%  for  funding  instruments  at  the  European  level  and  53%  at  the 
international level). It should be noted that the lower level of agreement on the coherence of 
the  programme  with  other  funding  instruments  available  at  the  EU  and  especially,  the 
international level mostly results from a higher share of respondents indicating that they have 
no knowledge of the matter, suggesting that public consultation’s respondents were generally 
more familiar with national funding instruments addressing the education, training, youth, and 
sport sectors than with instruments available at EU and international level. 

Concerning the programme’s  effectiveness,  most respondents  indicated that the programme 
was  fulfilling  its  objectives  from  a  ’very  large’  to  a  ‘large’  extent,  yet  with  some  slight 
differences  between  sectors.  Overall,  the  level  of  agreement  was  significantly  higher  for 
objectives in the education and training sector (i.e., close or over 80%) than for objectives in 
the youth (around 60%) and especially the sport sectors (close to 30%). Also in this case, these 
differences are due to a higher proportion of ‘no opinion’ for the youth and sport sectors (close 
to  25%  and  over  50%  respectively),  likely  reflecting  the  fact  that  fewer  respondents  to  the 
public  consultation  were  stemming  from  those  sectors.  The  analysis  of  answers  by  sectors 
shows  that  respondents  involved  in  the  youth  and  sport  sectors  perceive  the  programme’s 
fulfilment of its objectives in their respective sectors very positively. 

A significant majority of respondents indicated that the programme was performing particularly 
well in the following areas:  

•  promoting  common  EU  values  and  strengthened  European  identity  (88%  strongly 

agreeing or agreeing);  

•  supporting EU policies and priorities (83%);  
• 

fostering mobility and cooperation opportunities with the rest of the world, thanks to its 
international dimension (81%); and  

•  providing  flexible  mobility  formats,  such  as  group  mobility  and  blended  mobility 

(80%). 

193 

 
Respondents were more uncertain about the performance of the programme with regards to:  

•  ensuring the participation of grassroot and newcomer organisations through simplified 

• 

grants (53% strongly agreeing or agreeing); and  
reducing its carbon footprint, for example by supporting sustainable transport modes 
(47%). 

In  terms  of  inclusion  and  diversity,  most  respondents  indicated  that  the  programme  is 
particularly  effective in  facilitating participation of people with fewer  opportunities  that 
face cultural, social, or economic barriers (74% strongly agreeing or agreeing for each), and a 
bit less so for barriers related to health problems and to education and training systems (about 
30% for each). This seems to be due to a higher share of respondents answering ‘uncertain’ or 
having no opinion concerning the latter barriers. 

In terms of efficiency, public consultation’s respondents expressed mixed views on the cost-
effectiveness  of  actions  funded  by  the  programme,  with  a  largely  positive  assessment 
concerning KA1 and less for KA2 and especially KA3, with a much higher share of respondents 
having no opinion or being uncertain in relation to the cost-effectiveness of this key action. 

Overall,  respondents  positively  assessed  the  programme’s  evolution  and,  specifically,  the 
changes  occurred  from  the  2014-2020  programming  period  to  the  2021-2027  one.  A 
majority indeed agreed that: 

• 

• 
• 

the user-friendliness of the grant application to the programme had improved (55% of 
respondents strongly agreeing or agreeing),  
the management of the programme had been effectively simplified (53%), and  
the  user-friendliness  of  the  guidance  and  support  tools  had  generally  improved  over 
time (52%).  

Views were mixed on the sufficiency of the programme’s budget to achieve its objectives, with 
50% of respondents in agreement and 38% disagreeing, or on the distribution of the budget 
between  directly  managed  actions  and  those  managed  indirectly  by  National  Agencies,  and 
between programme actions, for which a significant share of respondents were uncertain or had 
no opinion. 

Concerning EU added value, a vast majority of respondents positively assessed: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

the programme’s contribution to the internationalisation of participating organisations 
(97% strongly agreeing or agreeing),  
its  contribution  to  building  a  European  identity/sense  of  belonging  and  to  raising 
awareness of EU values (91%),  
the  fact  that  Erasmus+  is  funding  activities  which  would  not  have  been  funded 
otherwise (90%), and  
the  programme’s  contribution  to  improve  inclusion,  diversity,  fairness,  and  equal 
opportunities at national, European, and international level (89%). 

Concerning the future of the programme, over 50% of respondents indicated that all existing 
activities  under  KA1  (Learning  mobility)  should  be  maintained  in  a  possible  successor 
programme  to  Erasmus+,  as  well  as  most  activities  under  KA2  (Cooperation  among 
organisations and institutions). On the other hand, over half of respondents did not know/had 
no  opinion  about  maintaining  most  of  existing  activities  under  KA3  (Support  to  policy 
development and cooperation) and under the Jean Monnet Actions. The majority of respondents 

194 

 
also agreed from ‘a very large’ to a ‘large’ extent, that the following aspects would have to be 
addressed to maximise the impact of a possible successor programme to Erasmus+:  

increasing the overall programme budget (82%);  

• 
•  simplifying the administrative requirements to access funding (82%);  
• 
•  providing better access to people with fewer opportunities (74%)  
• 

increasing the level of individual grants (76%); 

increasing the opportunity for international mobility and international cooperation with 
countries outside Europe (74%). 

3.4. Surveys of beneficiaries 

A  set  of  online  surveys,  referred  to  as  ‘beneficiaries’  surveys’,  were  conducted  with  the 
beneficiaries  of  the  Erasmus+  programme,  from  both  programme  and  non-programme 
countries, including both learners (school pupils, higher education students, VET learners, adult 
education learners, young people outside of formal education/ training) and staff (from school, 
higher education, VET, adult education, youth organisations and sport organisations). 

Specifically, the following surveys were implemented: 

•  A  post-mobility  survey  among  programme  participants,  i.e.  individuals  who 
participated  in  an  Erasmus+  learning  mobility  activity,  in  all  target  categories  of 
learners and staff, and a corresponding survey among individuals who did not take part 
in any Erasmus+ learning mobility activity (non-beneficiaries) in the same categories 
of learners and staff (control groups). The survey was aimed at measuring experiences, 
attitudes and effects of taking part in the programme (i.e., for learners: effects in relation 
to  skills,  employability  and  progression  to  further  education;  for  staff:  effects  on 
professional development, adoption of new teaching methods). 

•  A combination of pre- and post-mobility surveys  among  school  pupils and young 
people outside of formal education/training, and corresponding control group surveys 
among non-participating pupils and young people495, to allow for a more fine-grained 
measurement  of  short-term  effects  of  taking  part  in  an  Erasmus+  experience  in  the 
school education and youth sectors and compare attitudes/ skills/ beliefs shortly before 
and right after the participation. 

Survey participants  were recruited on the basis of databases of programme participants  and 
beneficiaries provided by the European Commission. For the learners’ control groups, survey 
participants were recruited via snowballing and social media recruitment as no contact database 
of  non-participants  exists.  Social  media  recruitment  was  implemented  through  banners  on 
platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and Google Ads (Search, Display and YouTube) in five 
programme countries496. Furthermore, communication and information actions were performed 
by the Commission through its own communication channels (e.g. social media, advertising 
during events, news items) and by requesting support to National Agencies to act as multipliers 
and  further  support  the  dissemination  of  the  surveys  through  their  own  communication 
channels.  A  significant  aspect  of  the  recruitment  involved  leveraging  existing  contacts  to 
facilitate snowball recruitment  to  further recruit  participants  within the participant  and non-
participant groups. 

The following table provides the detail of target and achieved sample sizes for each survey and 
category after the performance of data cleansing: 

495 See footnote 2.  
496 RO, IE, PT, PL, DK. 

195 

 
 
Table 3: Beneficiary surveys - fieldwork dates and target and achieved sample sizes 

Learners survey - Fieldwork: 16/10/2023 to 11/12/2023 

Programme 
fields 

School 
education 
Higher 
education 
VET  

Adult education 

Youth 

Survey 

Test group  
(participants) 

Control group  
(non-participants) 

Target groups 

Target 

Achieved 

Target 

Achieved 

Pupils 

111 

571 

Higher education students 
and recent graduates 
VET students, apprentices 
and recent graduates 
Adult learners 

Young people outside 
formal education/training 
Total 

15,200 

16,761 

4,800 

29 

2,250 

5,281 

90 

2,710 

22,390 

25,413 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

284 

819 

796 

28 

167 

2,094 

Staff survey - Fieldwork: 16/10/2023 to 11/12/2023 

Survey 

Test group  
(participants) 

Control group  
(non-participants) 

Target groups 

Target 

Achieved 

Target 

Achieved 

Programme 
fields 

School 
education 

Higher 
education  

VET  

School staff (e.g. teachers, 
headmasters, 
administrative staff) 
Higher education staff 
(e.g. administrative and 
teaching staff)   
VET staff (teachers, 
trainers…) 

Adult education   Adult education staff 

Youth  

Sport  

Youth workers and staff 
of youth organisations 
Coaches and staff of sport 
organisations 

3,000 

3,900 

11,000 

14,884 

2,500 

1,350 

2,350 

200 

3,243 

1,501 

2,473 

331 

150 

400 

200 

100 

150 

50 

719 

1529 

235 

122 

241 

48 

Total 

20,400 

26,332 

1,050 

2,894 

Pre-post survey - Fieldwork: 4/10/2023 to 11/12/2023 (pre-survey) and 7/06/2024 to 5/07/2024 (post-
survey, school pupils only) 

Programme 
fields 
School 
education 
Youth 

Survey 

Target group  

Target 

Test group  
(participants) 
Achieved  
(Pre-) 
261 

Achieved 
(Post-) 
105 

Target 

Control group  
(non-participants) 
Achieved 
(Pre-) 
123 

Achieved  
(Post-) 
26 

Pupils 

Young people outside 
formal education/training 
Total 

97 

16 

7 

N/A 

N/A 

114 

268 

39 

7 

46 

5 

128 

N/A 

N/A 

For the learners’ survey, the target sample sizes were achieved for all categories, both for the 
test groups (participants) and the control groups (non-participants). The number of respondents 
in the adult education sector was much lower than the other categories due to the limited budget 
of the action, as well as to its recent start in 2021, in pandemic times, and the consequent much 
smaller size of the available contact database. 

For the staff survey, the target sample sizes were achieved for all categories, both for the test 
groups  (beneficiaries)  and  the  control  groups  (non-beneficiaries),  with  the  exception  of  the 
sport staff control group (48 respondents recorded against a target of 50). 

196 

 
 
For the pre-post survey, given the small numbers of respondents achieved in the pre-mobility 
survey of the youth  category, it was  decided that  the post-mobility  survey for this  category 
would not be carried out. The post-survey was only implemented for school pupils.  

Summary of findings 

Beneficiary survey of learners: The analysis of survey data indicates a positive correlation 
between participation in the Erasmus+ programme and some of the outcomes investigated for 
learner  participants.  The  statistical  evidence  suggests  that  participating  in  the  programme 
increased  participants’  problem-solving  and  autonomy  skills,  and  their  level  of  digital 
competence. It also suggests that participating in Erasmus+ increased the participants’ sense of 
European  identity,  being  confident  in  their  efforts  in  education  or  training,  recognising  that 
employers  value  mobility  and  transnational  educational  experiences,  and  completing  their 
studies or other learning activities. 

Beneficiary  survey  of  staff:  The  data  analysis  indicates  a  positive  correlation  between 
participation  in  the  Erasmus+  programme  and  some  of  the  outcomes  investigated  for  staff 
participants.  The  statistical  evidence  suggests  that  participating  in  the  programme  has  had 
varied but significant effects across different sectors, with particularly strong outcomes in areas 
related to international networking (e.g., development of other projects, continued exchange of 
professional information, keeping abreast of developments in the professional community) and 
transnational partnerships (strategy, cooperation and network size). 

Pre-post mobility survey of school pupils: The data analysis indicates that participation in 
the Erasmus+ programme has a positive correlation with some of the outcomes explored for 
school  pupils. Specifically,  statistical  evidence suggests that participation  in  the programme 
was found to have increased the likelihood of participants taking action to live more sustainably 
and the participant’s level of cultural awareness and expression.  

3.5.  Survey of National Agencies and EACEA 

A survey addressing the 55 Erasmus+ National Agencies across the 33 programme countries 497 
and EACEA was conducted between October and December 2023 to collect feedback from the 
bodies in charge of the implementation of the programme actions 498. 
Each National Agency was requested to submit one reply per country and per sector/field499 
under their responsibility, while EACEA was requested to submit one reply per programme 
sector/field, plus one reply for the Jean Monnet Actions. 

A total of 164 valid responses were received, including 156 from National Agencies (95%) 
and 8 from the EACEA (5%). 

Summary of findings 

The survey results show that the Erasmus+ programme is perceived by National Agencies and 
EACEA  as  being  highly  relevant  in  the  context  of  today's  socio-economic  needs  and 
challenges.  Erasmus+  was  also  assessed  very  positively  in  terms  of  internal  and  external 
coherence. In particular, it was seen as strongly aligned with EU policy priorities as well as 
highly complementary to other EU-funded programmes and international initiatives. 

497 27 EU Member States and 6 third countries associated to the programme, i.e. Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, 
North Macedonia, Serbia and Türkiye. 
498  National  Agencies  for  actions  under  indirect  management,  and  the  EACEA  for  actions  under  direct 
management. 
499 School education, VET, higher education, adult education, youth, and sport. 

197 

 
 
Concerning  effectiveness  and  related  factors,  36%  of  survey  respondents  indicated  that  the 
programme fully attains its goals within their respective sectors, and an additional 63% argued 
that  it  does  so  partially.  Concerning  the  programme  architecture,  55%  of  respondents 
consider it fully appropriate and 42% partially appropriate for achieving its objectives.  

The survey found that 63% of respondents deem the programme’s financial envelope either 
fully (17%) or partially (46%) appropriate and proportionate to Erasmus+ objectives regarding 
their sector of competence, vs. 36% stating that the funding was either not really or not at all 
appropriate and proportionate. When asked for suggestions to improve programme efficiency, 
respondents  identified  several  crucial  areas  requiring  enhancement,  including  further 
simplification of grant agreements, administrative procedures, and programme guidelines, with 
the aim of reducing complexity and improving overall efficiency; establishment of reliable IT 
tools to minimise errors and delays; improved communication channels between the EACEA 
and  National  Agencies;  or  encouragement  of  collaboration  and  knowledge-sharing  among 
National Agencies. 

3.6.  Survey of socio-economic actors 

The  socio-economic  actors  surveyed  included  education  and  training  organisations,  civil 
society organisations, public authorities (at national, regional and local levels), companies, and 
other  sectoral  and  professional  organisations  having  participated  in  the  programme  in  the 
period 2014-2023. 

The target group was composed by organisations identified on the basis of the survey design 
and  contacted  through  a  randomly  selected  sample  of  organisations  from  the  Erasmus+ 
programme database, covering actions under both direct and indirect management. The survey 
invitation was disseminated by e-mail only, reaching out to over 8 000 contacts.  

The  survey  was  made  available  in  six  languages  (ES,  DE,  EN,  FR,  IT  and  PL),  from  15 
November to 22 December 2023 (including deadline extensions). After data cleansing, in total, 
1 550 valid responses were  received, of which 1,130 were  complete (73%) and 420 (27%) 
were partially complete. 50% of responses were submitted by respondents from education and 
training organisations, followed by representatives of civil society organisations (18%) and of 
public authorities (local, regional, and national) (13%). 

Summary of findings 

The survey results indicate that the Erasmus+ programme is essential to the implementation of 
the projects it finances, with about 70% of respondent organisations stating that their projects 
would not have been undertaken without Erasmus+ funding. The survey results also indicate a 
high level of satisfaction among respondent organisations that participated in the programme, 
most  of  which  are  highly  motivated  to  participate  again  in  the  future,  both  in  similar  and 
different activities (over 90% considering it likely or highly likely in both cases). 

Socio-economic  actors  were  also  asked  to  identify  the  main  barriers  hindering  similar 
organisations  from  participating  in  the  Erasmus+  programme.  Approximately  half  of 
responding organisations identified the lack of available staff to get involved in such activities 
as the main barrier. This barrier was the most frequently cited across all types of organisations 
addressed  through  the  survey.  The  second  most  cited  barrier  was  application  procedures, 
mentioned  by  40%  of  organisations,  but  emphasised  particularly  by  civil  society,  youth 
organisations  and  public  authorities.  Among  companies,  the  lack  of  knowledge  about  the 
programme  was  cited  by  43%.  For  sport  organisations,  the  main  barriers  were  identified  as 

198 

 
application procedures, grant levels to cover the actual costs, knowledge about the Erasmus+ 
programme, and a lack of staff (all cited by 45% of sport organisations). 

When  asked  about  their  involvement  in  other  EU-funded  projects,  only  about  a  third  of 
respondents indicated having previously participated or being currently participating in such 
projects. Among respondents who participated in other EU-funded programmes in the past, the 
most  common  were  the  European  Social  Fund  programmes  (ESF/ESF+,  31%),  the  Interreg 
programmes (21%), and Horizon 2020/Horizon Europe (13%). These EU funding programmes 
were also those respondents were currently participating the most: ESF+ programmes (34% of 
respondents), followed by Horizon Europe (17%) and the Interreg programmes (16%).  

3.7.  Survey of expert assessors 

The  survey  addressed  the  experts  responsible  for  assessing  applications  for  the  calls  for 
proposals and final reports of projects implemented under Erasmus+ actions under direct and 
indirect management over both programme generations.  
The survey was conducted between 26 October and 15 December 2023 in English only. The 
survey  link  was  disseminated  through  National  Agencies  and  EACEA,  who  were  asked  to 
forward the survey invitation to their mailing lists of expert assessors in charge of evaluating 
applications and final reports, respectively, for projects under indirect and direct management.  
In total, 1 842 valid responses were received and analysed, distributed as follows:  

•  70% of the total respondents were from experts in charge of assessing Erasmus+ project 

applications and final reports of indirectly manged actions,  

•  20%  of  respondents  were  conducting  these  assessments  for  actions  under  direct 

• 

management,  
the remaining 10% of respondents was dealing with the assessment of project proposals 
and final reports of both directly and indirectly managed actions.  

35% of respondents indicated that they conducted assessments for the Erasmus+ programme 
applications/projects  originating  in  Spain,  followed  by  Italy  (16%),  France,  Belgium  (both 
13%) and Portugal (11%). Conversely, none of the respondents indicated that they had assessed 
Erasmus+ applications/ projects in Malta, The Netherlands, or Norway. 

4.7.1 Summary of findings 

The survey results provide insights into the role of the guidance received by expert assessors 
in enhancing the assessment process of project proposals and final reports within the previous 
and current Erasmus+ programme. The vast majority of respondents find this guidance to be 
very useful for their assessments (81%) and agree or strongly agree that it provides agreed and 
clear  standards  to  use  for  their  assessments  (96%).  67%  of  respondents  indicated  that  the 
guidance received under the current Erasmus+ programme generation has improved the way 
they  assess  applications/projects.  92%  of  respondents  also  perceive  a  positive  evolution 
concerning  the  IT  tools  supporting  the  assessment  of  applications/projects  over  the  two 
programming  periods,  with  29%  indicating  a  significant  improvement  and  63%  a  moderate 
improvement. 

33% of respondents indicated that the overall quality of project applications has improved in 
the current generation of Erasmus+ compared with the previous programme, while 10% stated 
that it has worsened, and 24% that it has remained the same. 33% indicated that they do not 
know as they have not assessed projects under one of the two programme generations. 

199 

 
 
85% of respondents expressed a positive stance towards the project award criteria, indicating 
that they either strongly agree (34%) or agree (51%) that the criteria effectively capture the 
essential features crucial for delivering high-quality project results, and 74% (out of which 22% 
strongly  agree  and  52%  agree)  find  the  award  criteria  sufficiently  clear  for  those  preparing 
applications. In addition, 79% of respondents either strongly agree or agree that the weighting 
of the award criteria appropriately reflects the importance of each quality aspect in the project 
application. 

3.8. 

 Behavioural experiment 

A  behavioural  experiment  was  designed  and  implemented  as  part  of  the  support  study  to 
analyse the factors that prevent learners in higher education, VET and youth from taking part 
in the Erasmus+ programme. 

The  behavioural  experiment  was  implemented  through  a  pre-selected  panel  of  10 000 
individuals  in  10  EU  Member  States  (Czechia,  Estonia,  Germany,  Greece,  Ireland,  Italy, 
Poland,  Romania,  Spain,  and  Sweden),  aged  18-30  and  who  never  participated  in  the 
programme. The aim was to:  

•  explore factors preventing learners’ participation in Erasmus+, and  
• 

test  behavioural  interventions  designed  to  influence  learners’  beliefs  and  their 
willingness to participate in the Erasmus+ programme.  

The experiment targeted learners from both disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged backgrounds 
to study the determinants of Erasmus+ participation among the general learners’ population, as 
well as more specifically among those considering themselves as having ‘fewer opportunities’ 
due to facing one or several barriers to participation, in line with the Erasmus+ definition of 
‘fewer opportunities’ as set out in its framework of inclusion measures 500.  

A  total  of  10 985  valid  responses  were  registered  (between  a  minimum  of  1 065  and  a 
maximum  1 147  participants  in  the  10  participating  countries).  49.2%  of  respondents  were 
male, 50.3% female, and 0.4% and 0.2% indicated “other” and “prefer not to say” respectively. 
75.7% declared being affected by one or more of the 8 barriers allowing to classify participants 
as having fewer opportunities. 

The experiment aimed to estimate the causal effects of providing information (at a high or low 
extent) about: 

i) 

the benefits of Erasmus+ mobility actions addressing learners in the higher education, 
VET and youth fields; as well as  

ii)  the  effects  of  explaining  how  to  acquire  information,  on  both  learners’  beliefs  and 

willingness to participate in the programme.  

In addition, it also aimed to estimate the causal effects of changing learners’ beliefs on their 
willingness to participate, using random treatment assignment as an instrument for beliefs. 

The  outcomes  of  this  analysis  were  aimed  to  help  better  understand  the  relevance  of  the 
Erasmus+ mobility actions for potential participants in the youth, higher education, and VET 
sectors with fewer opportunities compared to those without, as well as their responsiveness to 
prompts about the benefits of the programme and about access to more information about it.  

500  Commission  Implementing  Decision  (EU)  2021/1877  of  22  October  2021  on  the  framework  of  inclusion 
measures of the Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps Programmes 2021-2027, OJ L 378, 26.10.2021, p. 15. 
See also Implementation Guidelines on Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps Inclusion and Diversity Strategy 
(https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/document/commission-decision-framework-inclusion-2021-27). 

200 

 
 
Summary of findings 

The analysis yielded three key findings:  

1.  Overall, the provision of information about the benefits of participating in Erasmus+ 
mobility actions was found to positively influence respondents' beliefs about the effect 
of programme participation on their chance of getting a job and improving their skills. 
It was also found to have a positive effect on respondents' willingness to participate in 
an  Erasmus+  mobility  action  in  the  future.  Moreover,  it  was  found  that  presenting 
participants  with  a  high  estimate  of  the  benefits  from  participation  was  effective  to 
influence  their  beliefs  about  participation  in  a  mobility  activity  and  increasing  their 
chance of getting a job.  

2.  The provision of information about how to find more information on Erasmus+ learning 
mobility opportunities was found to positively influence respondents’ beliefs on (i) the 
ease/difficulty of acquiring such information, (ii) their likelihood of actually acquiring 
more  information,  and  (iii)  their  willingness  to  participate  in  an  Erasmus+  learning 
mobility action within the next year and within the next few years. Moreover, showing 
how  to  find  more  information  on  Erasmus+  learning  mobility  opportunities  through 
online channels only was found to be more effective for increasing their likelihood to 
acquire more information than showing them both online and in-person channels. 

3.  Evidence  was  found  that  the  interventions  had  varying  effects  on  participants  with 

different characteristics.  

Together, these findings suggest that information provision is overall an effective tool in 
positively  influencing  learners’  beliefs  and  their  willingness  to  participate  in  Erasmus+ 
learning mobility. To maximise the effect of the interventions, the information presented 
should  include  a  high  estimate  of  programme  benefits  and  online  information  channels 
through which learners can easily find more information about Erasmus+ learning mobility.  

3.9.  Key informant interviews 

Key  informant  interviews  were  conducted  to  gather  qualitative  information  and  insights 
concerning the performance of the Erasmus+ programme against the evaluation criteria. Three 
main types of interviewees were targeted: 

•  National-level interviewees in selected Member States and third countries associated 
to  the  programme,  including  national  policy  officers,  programme  managers  (e.g. 
Erasmus+  national  authorities  representatives  and  committee  members,  Erasmus+ 
national agencies representatives), and stakeholder organisations involved in Erasmus+ 
implementation (e.g., Higher education institutions, VET organisations, youth and sport 
organisations,  NGOs,  civil  society  organisations,  sectoral  networks,  business 
organisations,  etc.).  The  aim  of  these  interviews  was  mostly  to  collect  insights  on 
perceptions of system-level impacts of Erasmus+ and concrete changes influenced by 
the programme.  

•  European-level  interviewees,  including  representatives  from  relevant  European 
Commission services, EU agencies, and umbrella organisations active at European level 
and representing all programme sectors. The objective of these interviews was to collect 
insights  on  the  systemic  impact  of  the  programme  at  EU  level,  as  well  as  on  the 
programme’s resilience and responses, specifically related to the COVID-19 pandemic, 
the Ukraine war and high levels of inflation. 

201 

 
•  International-level 

interviewees, 

representatives  of 

international 
including 
organisations 501, EU delegations, programme bodies interacting with third countries not 
associated  to  the  programme  (e.g.  National  Erasmus+  Offices  (NEOs)  and  regional 
SALTOs (Support, Advanced Learning and Training Opportunities) resource centres), 
as well as beneficiary organisations (mostly higher education institutions and networks) 
in third countries not associated to the programme. The objective of these interviews 
was  to  better  understand  the  international  dimension  of  Erasmus+,  specifically  the 
extent to which it contributes to the EU’s objectives at the international level. 

For  each  of  these  three  levels,  key  informant  interviews  used  semi-structured  topic  guides 
focusing on the following evaluation criteria: 

•  Relevance: alignment of the programme with policies and needs in the education and 
training,  youth  and  sport  sectors,  and  contribution  to  inclusivity  and  international 
cooperation. 

•  Effectiveness: implementation of programme objectives, policy influence, impact on 

institutions and individuals, and best practices. 

•  Efficiency: adequacy of programme/projects funding and implementation challenges. 
•  Coherence: collaboration among entities and potential areas for improved cooperation. 

The interviews covered the following selection of countries: 

•  25 programme countries covered through national level interviews, and including:  

▪  21  EU  Member  States  (Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Czechia,  Denmark,  Estonia, 
Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Malta, 
Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden), and 

▪  4 third countries associated to the programme (North Macedonia, Norway, Serbia, 

Türkiye). 

•  14  third  countries  not  associated  to  the  programme  (Albania,  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina,  Ghana,  Ukraine,  USA,  Azerbaijan,  Colombia,  El  Salvador,  Morocco, 
Nigeria, Cameroun, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam), covered through international level 
interviews with programme beneficiaries. 

A total of 267 interviews were conducted online between October 2023 and July 2024.  

Table 4: Overview of interviews conducted by key informant level and type 

Key informant type 

International level 

EU delegations 502 
Regional SALTOs 
NEOs 
International organisations 
Organisations in third countries not associated to Erasmus+ 

European level 

European Commission and EU Agencies 
European stakeholder organisations 

National level 

National policy officers and stakeholder organisations in Member States 
and third countries associated to Erasmus+  

Interviews 
42 
15 
3 
3 
5 
16 
60 
22 
38 
165 

149 

501 Organisations with an international scope (i.e. without a country or EU specific mandate and scope of action). 
502 Interviews were carried out with EU delegations in: Region 1 (Kosovo, Montenegro), Region 2 (Georgia), 
Region 3 (Lebanon), Region 5 (Bangladesh, Pakistan, Vietnam), Region 6 (Uzbekistan), Region 9 (Kenya, South 
Africa, Tanzania, Benin, Cabo Verde, Burkina Faso, Ghana), Region 10 (Brazil). 

202 

 
 
Key informant type 

National programme managers in Member States and third countries 
associated to Erasmus+ 

TOTAL 

Interviews 

16 
267 

The  table  below  shows  the  number  of  key  informant  interviews  conducted  by  Erasmus+ 
sector/field.  Some key informants, due to  their role or organisation,  covered more than one 
sector/field, which is why the total number shown in the table below exceeds the total number 
of completed interviews indicated in the preceding table. This is the case of 46 interviewees 
who were, in great part, covering more than one (or all) education and training sectors. Other 
key informants, who either did not cover a specific sector or covered all sectors, are included 
in the ‘General’ category.  

Table 5: Overview of interviews by sector 

Sector/field 

International 

European 

National 

Total 

Higher education 

VET 

School education 

Adult education 

Youth 

Sport 

General 

Total 

9 

0 

0 

0 

3 

2 

23 

37 

9 

8 

4 

4 

11 

3 

27 

66 

40 

25 

19 

24 

36 

13 

53 

210 

58 

33 

23 

28 

50 

18 

103 

313 

The conducted interviews were summarised, anonymised, and analysed for common trends and 
insights,  in  particular  with  regards  to  emerging  needs  and  trends  in  education  and  training, 
youth and sport that Erasmus+ should address as well as potential areas for improvement.  

Summary of findings – International-level interviews 

International-level  interviews  revealed  that  Erasmus+  is  uniquely  positioned  to  facilitate 
knowledge and good practice sharing between Europe and the different parts of the world in 
key areas such as greening, digitalisation and inclusion.  

While Erasmus+ initiatives support digital skills and inclusion, difficulties persist in addressing 
local needs effectively, especially in regions like Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. The 
needs  considered  of  highest  relevance  among  international-level  informants  include  the 
internationalisation of higher education and the enhancement of learners’ mobility in VET.  

Interviews  highlighted  that  Erasmus+  contributes  to  the  employability  of  young  people  and 
graduates  in  non-associated  countries.  At  the  level  of  organisations,  the  programme  has 
considerably contributed to modernising and upgrading teaching curricula, thus enhancing the 
overall quality of education in partner countries.  Overall, it is  acknowledged that Erasmus+ 
contributes  to  educational  reform  and  capacity-building  of  educational  institutions  and 
stakeholders internationally, despite ongoing challenges in accessibility and inclusivity. The 
scalability of Erasmus+ projects to influence policy levels remains a challenge, particularly in 
Africa and Asia. Despite these challenges, Erasmus+ has facilitated notable achievements in 
education quality, mobility, and institutional capacity-building globally. The increased budget 
allocation  for  2021-2027  is  praised  overall,  but  interviewees  indicated  that  more  funding 
would  be  needed  for  sectors  other  than  higher  education.  Implementation  challenges 

203 

 
 
include  administrative  complexities,  lack  of  visibility  for  funding  opportunities,  and  slow 
communication processes, reported in particular for Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, while the 
main barriers for third country learner participation in the programme are linked to financial 
and visa constraints.  

Overall,  while  improvements  like  the  establishment  of  Erasmus+  National  Focal  Points 
(ENFPs)  are  noted,  there  remains  a  need  for  better  coordination  and  responsiveness  in 
supporting Erasmus+ projects. 

EU  Delegations  noted  synergies  with  Horizon  Europe  (mostly  its  Marie  Skłodowska-Curie 
third-country 
Actions),  emphasising  capacity  building  and  mobility.  Non-associated 
organisations see Erasmus+ as providing unique opportunities for capacity building without 
overlapping with other programmes. 

Summary of findings – European-level interviews 

The Erasmus+ programme is seen as aligning well with EU policy priorities, focusing on digital 
skills,  green  initiatives,  inclusion,  and  civic  participation.  Emphasis  on  adult  education  and 
VET  is  increasing.  Capacity  building  and  internationalisation,  especially  in  VET,  are 
highlighted as key aspects of the programme. European stakeholder organisations praise the 
efforts under the current Erasmus+ programme to promote inclusion and accessibility.  

Erasmus+ is viewed as having evolved positively, becoming more flexible and inclusive. It has 
expanded to include a wider range of objectives and activities, emphasising sectoral needs like 
collaboration  between  education  and  business,  promoting  apprenticeship  mobility  and 
supporting the Centres of Vocational Excellence. The programme is recognised as significantly 
supporting  the  building  of  the  European  Education  Area  and  the  European  Skills  Agenda, 
through internationalisation, cooperation, and its contribution to the development of national 
qualification frameworks.  

New features introduced under the 2021-2027 programme, such as the ‘Erasmus accreditation’, 
the DiscoverEU learning cycle and blended mobilities, are seen positively. According to the 
interviewees,  Erasmus+  significantly  impacts  national  policy  implementation,  especially  in 
smaller  EU  Member  States  with  limited  state  funding,  thereby  fostering  reforms  in  higher 
education,  in  particular.  Despite  positive  developments,  Erasmus+  still  faces  challenges  in 
translating project outcomes into policy, in particular outside the EU.  

The  increased  budget  for  the  2021-2027  is  overall  regarded  positively,  yet  interviewees 
underline a growing demand for increased funding for capacity building initiatives, particularly 
in  areas  like  youth  and  VET,  with  a  call  for  greater  flexibility  in  budget  allocation  to  meet 
evolving  needs.  Interviewed  stakeholders  acknowledge  that  Erasmus+  has  improved 
cooperation and communication but highlight challenges with inconsistent interpretations of 
programme  rules  at  the  national  level.  Simplified  application  processes  have  increased 
accessibility, yet complex IT tools and financial management remain issues. Mixed views exist 
on actions under indirect management, with some interviewees supporting their flexibility and 
others  noting  implementation  complexities.  In  particular,  interviewed  representatives  from 
civil  society  organisations  testified  participation  barriers,  arguing  that  flexibility  in  budget 
allocation is crucial for adapting to changing circumstances.  

Synergies  between  Erasmus+  and  EU  research  programmes  such  as  Horizon  Europe  are 
frequently  highlighted,  both  by  Commission/EU  Agencies  informants  and  by  European 
stakeholder  organisations,  pointing  to  potential  for  collaboration  in  areas  such  as  digital 
education and skills development. 

204 

 
Summary of findings – National-level interviews 

National-level interviewees generally report strong alignment between Erasmus+ priorities and 
national policies 503, particularly in education, higher education, and VET. This is credited to 
the programme’s focus on internationalisation, skills development, and societal challenges like 
inclusivity and digitalisation. However, challenges persist, such as operationalising priorities 
like the green transition and better aligning priorities in specific sectors such as youth, sport, 
and adult education. Some countries highlight bureaucratic hurdles 504 and the need for clearer 
programme  priorities  to  better  reflect  national  strategies 505.  Despite  improvements  in 
alignment, disparities remain between countries and sectors, necessitating enhanced coherence 
between Erasmus+ objectives and national policies. 

While  the  current  programme  is  seen  as  more  responsive  to  diverse  needs,  access  barriers 
persist, particularly for marginalised groups in the VET and youth sectors 506. Informants stress 
the  need  for  streamlined  administration,  increased  financial  support,  and  tailored  assistance 
across  sectors  to  ensure  equitable  participation  and  maximise  the  programme's  impact  on 
professional development and systemic change in European education 507. 

The  COVID-19  pandemic  significantly  impacted  Erasmus+  projects,  prompting  a  shift  to 
online formats across most sectors. Digitalisation accelerated, which fostered virtual tools and 
platforms,  thereby  enhancing  resilience,  but  also  revealed  disparities  in  digital  skills  and 
infrastructure  across  countries.  Additionally,  the  war  in  Ukraine  curtailed  mobility,  yet  the 
programme adapted with flexibility and support. Financial challenges due to inflation affected 
project quality despite attempts to mitigate through increased funding.  

Concerns about  budget  proportionality  were expressed by informants across  sectors such as 
adult  education  and  VET,  which  face  lower  funding  levels  compared  to  higher  education. 
Demand for Erasmus+ funding surpasses available budget in numerous countries 508, despite a 
significant  increase  for  2021-2027.  Calls  were  made  for  more  flexibility  and  coordination 
between  National  Agencies  and  the  European  Commission  to  address  funding  imbalances 
effectively. 

Most  national-level  key  informants  highlighted  how  Erasmus+  aligns  with  national 
skills,  promoting  digitalisation,  or  enhancing 
programmes  aimed  at 
internationalisation 509.  While  recognising  the  uniqueness  of  Erasmus+,  some  stakeholders 
(from higher education, school education, VET) highlighted a need for improved coordination 
and synergy between Erasmus+ and other EU programmes 510. This includes concerns about 

improving 

503 Reported by informants from Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, 
Italy, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Türkiye 
504 Reported by informants from Austria, Belgium, Czechia, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, 
North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Türkiye. 
505 Reported by informants from Czechia, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, 
Portugal, Sweden. 
506 Reported by informants from Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, 
Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Spain, 
Sweden 
507 Reported by informants from Austria, Belgium, Czechia, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, 
North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Türkiye 
508  Reported  by  informants  from  Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Czechia,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  France, 
Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Malta,  Netherlands,  North  Macedonia,  Norway,  Poland, 
Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Türkiye. 
509 Reported by informants from Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, France, Finland, Germany, 
Hungary, Ireland, Malta, Norway, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden 
510 Reported by informants from Austria, Czechia, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, 
Norway, Poland, Sweden, Türkiye. 

205 

 
 
overlapping  funding  structures,  differing  administrative  procedures,  and  a  lack  of  strategic 
synchronisation between the respective programme’s calls.  

3.10 Case studies 

As part of the stakeholder consultation strategy, case studies were carried out to complement 
insights gained from surveys, key informant interviews and workshops.  Three types of case 
studies were carried out, interviewing in total 186 stakeholders: 

•  Organisational-level  case studies, examining  organisational  developments,  changes 
in  staff  work  and  professional  growth,  learners'  motivations,  and  development  in 
organisations coordinating Erasmus+ projects in all programme fields. For each case 
study,  interviews  were  typically  carried  out  with  the  concerned  organisation’s 
leadership,  staff,  and  learners 511.  A  total  of  130  individuals  were  interviewed  for 
performing the organisational-level case studies. 

•  Jean Monnet case studies, assessing how Erasmus+ grants enhance European studies’ 
teaching and research quality, help reach new audiences, and analysing the extent to 
which similar activities existed in the organisation prior to the reception of the grant 
and how organisations plan to sustain these activities on completion of the grant. These 
case studies focused on the Jean Monnet Actions in the higher education field and on 
the  newly  introduced  actions  in  other  fields  of  education  and  training  (schools  and 
VET), and on Jean Monnet Designated Institutions. 37 individuals were interviewed for 
performing the Jean Monnet case studies. 

•  System-level  case  studies,  analysing  how  specific  actions  impact  practices  and 
policymaking  across  all  programme  fields,  with  interviews  mainly  targeting  project 
leaders and partner organisations. 19 individuals were interviewed for performing this 
set of case studies. 

The case study selection process was carried out randomly based on several criteria: 

•  Implementation period: organisations coordinating projects completed in 2018-2020 
(previous programme) and 2021-2023 (current programme), as well as ongoing projects 
at an advanced stage. 

•  Experience level: a mix of experienced, less experienced, and newcomer organisations, 

based on the number of Erasmus+ projects coordinated. 

•  Geographical distribution: balanced coverage of larger and smaller countries. 
•  Action  types:  coverage  of  KA1  mobility  activities  (learners  and/or  staff),  KA2 
partnerships, KA3 policy development support. In addition, Jean Monnet case studies 
cover most type of Jean Monnet actions implemented under the current programme. 

•  Thematic coverage: balanced coverage of Erasmus+ horizontal priorities. 
•  Sectors: balanced coverage of the six sectors. 

The selection was made using the Erasmus+ Project Results Platform, with the Commission’s 
input.  A  reserve  list  was  established  to  replace  organisations  that  were  non-responsive  or 
declined to take part in the case studies. 

The case studies were carried out through semi-structured interviews, supplemented in some 
cases with project documentation. They reflect diverse stakeholder perspectives across sectors 
and actions, structured around the main evaluation criteria.  

511 In the sport sector, no “learners” were interviewed as the programme doesn’t cover this type of mobility. 

206 

 
 
A total of 44 case studies were carried out: 29 organisational-level cases, 8 Jean Monnet cases 
and 7 system-level cases. 

The tables below provide an overview of the type and number of case studies conducted as well 
as their respective focus. 

Table 6: Organisational-level case studies 

CS#  Field 
SCH 
1 
SCH  Bundeshandelsakademie Bundeshandelsschule Oberpullendorf 
2 
SCH 
3 

Istituto comprensivo Manzoni-Radice 

Lead Organisation 

I Liceum Ogólnokształcące im. Henryka Sienkiewicza w Kedzierzynie-
Koźlu 

4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 

23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 

SCH  Pädagogische Hochschule Freiburg 
SCH  Primary school Anton Skala 
ADU  Asociația Sprijin+ 
ADU  Afeji Hauts-de-France 
ADU  Oktatasi es Szakerto Bt. 
ADU  Społeczny Instytut Ekologiczny 
ADU  Unitre (Associazione Nazionale delle Università della Terza Età - 

Università delle Tre Età A.P.S.) 

HED  Technische Universität Berlin  
HED  Univerza v Mariboru 
HED  Universidad de Sevilla 
HED  Satakunnan ammattikorkeakoulu 
SPO  THOMAS MORE Mechelen-Antwerpen Safe Sport Allies 
SPO  Stichting Flik-Flak 
SPO  So Europe Eurasia Foundation 
SPO  European Hockey federation 
SPO  EuropeActive 
VET  FH Joanneum Gesellschaft Mbh 
VET  Chambre de Métiers et de l'Artisanat Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes 
VET  Upper-Secondary School of Electrical and Computer Engineering and 

Technical Gymnasium Ljubljana (Vegova Ljubljana) 

Ifjúsági Nomád Klub 

VET  Kauno technologijų mokymo centras 
VET  AKMI Anonimi Ekpaideftiki Etairia 
YOU 
YOU  Društvo ustvarjalcev Taka Tuka 
YOU  Agenzija Zghazagh 
YOU  Unternehmergesellschaft (haftungsbeschränkt) "Roter Baum" Berlin 
YOU  Youth for exchange and understanding international 

Table 7: Jean Monnet case studies 

Country 
IT 
AT 
PL 

DE 
RS 
RO 
FR 
HU 
PL 
IT 

DE 
SI 
ES 
FI 
BE 
NL 
IE 
BE 
BE 
AT 
FR 
SI 

LT 
EL 
HU 
SI 
MT 
DE 
BE 

CS#  Action Type 
30 
31 

Teacher Training 
Learning EU initiatives  SCH 

Field  Lead Organisation 
SCH  Casa do Professor 

32  Networks for Schools 

SCH 

Profilirana Prirodo-Matematicheska Gimnazia Akademik 
Ivan Tsenov 
Istituto Statale d'Arte - Liceo artistico "Edgardo 
Mannucci" 

Country 
PT 
BG 

IT 

33 

Jean Monnet Projects 

HED  Scuola superiore di studi universitari e di perfezionamento 

IT 

34 
35 

36 

37 

Sant'Anna 
Jean Monnet Modules  HED  Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna 
JM Designated 
Institution 
JM Designated 
Institution 
JM Designated 
Institution 

European University Institute, Florence, Italy 

European Institute of Public Administration, Maastricht, 
The Netherlands  

- 

- 

- 

College of Europe - Bruges, Belgium, and Natolin, Poland  BE, PL 

IT 

IT 

NL 

207 

 
 
Table 8: System-level case studies 

CS#  Field  KA  Action Type 
38 

HED  KA2  European 

Project Title 
Charm-EU 

Universities alliances 

39 

HED  KA3  Policy 

Experimentation 

40 

SCH 

KA1  Erasmus+ 

Accreditation 

41 

ADU  KA3  Social inclusion 

42 

VET 

through education, 
training and youth 

KA2  Sector Skills 
Alliances in 
vocational education 
and training Lot 1 – 
vocational excellence 

Edlab: European Degree 
Label institutional 
laboratory 
Bildungsdirektion 
Steiermark  
Regional Capacity for 
Adult Education and 
Learning 

Pilot Platform of 
Vocational Excellence 
Water (Pilot PoVE Water) 

43 

YOU  KA3  Youth Wiki 

Youth Wiki 

44 

SPO 

KA2  Collaborative 

partnership 

FIA European Young 
Women Programme 

Organisation 
University of 
Barcelona 
Universidad de 
Granada 

Board of Education 
of Styria 
European 
Association for the 
Education of Adults 
(EAEA) 
CIV Water 

Country 
ES 

ES 

AT 

BE 

NL 

Agenzija Zghazagh 
(Malta), Ministry of 
National Education 
and Youth (France), 
Youth Board of 
Cyprus 
Fédération 
Internationale de 
l'Automobile (FIA) 

MT, FR, 
CY 

FR 

3.11 Stakeholder workshops 

Five  workshops  were  organised  to  gather  stakeholders’  feedback  on  specific  aspects  of  the 
support study conducted by ICF: 

Table 8: Overview of stakeholder workshops 

N° of 
participants 
70 

Participant types 

Representatives of Erasmus+ National 
Agencies  

# 

Date and 
format 
1  14/06/2023 
Physical 
(Brussels) 

2  04/03/2024 
Online 

Topic 

Preliminary findings of 
scoping interviews and 
stakeholder consultation 
strategy. 
Three meta-analyses to 
support the Erasmus+ 2021-
2027 Interim Evaluation and 
Erasmus+ 2014-2020 Final 
Evaluation 

87 

3  20/03/2024 
Hybrid 
(Brussels / 
online) 

Key issues for a possible 
successor of the Erasmus+ 
programme 

115 (of which 
41 online) 

208 

Experts in the field, policymakers, 
Erasmus+ national agencies’ 
representatives, stakeholder 
organisations, Commission’s Inter-
Service Group members assisting with 
the preparation of the Erasmus+ 
evaluation 
Representatives from Erasmus+ 
National Authorities, Erasmus+ 
National Agencies, stakeholder 
organisations active at European level 
across all programme fields, 
representatives from the European 
Parliament, the Commission’s Inter-
Service Group members assisting with 

 
 
 
# 

Date and 
format 

Topic 

N° of 
participants 

Participant types 

4  09/07/2024 
Hybrid 
(Brussels/ 
online) 

Findings from the Draft Final 
Report on the Erasmus+ 
support study 

159 (of which 
120 online) 

5  19/09/2024 
Online 

Synthesis of national reports 
on the implementation and 
impact of Erasmus+ 

126 

the preparation of the Erasmus+ 
evaluation 
Representatives from Erasmus+ 
National Authorities, Erasmus+ 
National Agencies, stakeholder 
organisations active at European level 
in all programme fields, representatives 
from the other EU institutions, 
Commission’s Inter-Service Group 
members assisting with the preparation 
of the Erasmus+ evaluation 
Representatives from Erasmus+ 
National Authorities, Erasmus+ 
National Agencies, other EU 
institutions, Commission’s Inter-
Service Group members assisting with 
the preparation of the Erasmus+ 
evaluation 

Workshop 1 (14 June 2023) took place in Brussels in the context of the National Agencies’ 
event. The objective of the workshop was to provide National Agencies with an overview of 
the preliminary findings from the scoping interviews carried out in the inception phase with 
different  types  of  stakeholders,  to  gather  feedback  on  these  preliminary  findings  as  well  as 
inputs for the data collection activities and suggestions concerning the stakeholder consultation 
activities. The workshop was attended by approximately 70 National Agency representatives. 

Workshop  2  (4  March  2024)  aimed  to  present  the  preliminary  results  of  the  three  meta-
analyses undertaken as part of the support study via a systematic quantitative literature review. 
These  three  meta-analyses  focused  on  specific  individual  level  effects  of  taking  part  in  a 
mobility  under  the  Erasmus+  programme:  1)  effects  on  skills  improvements  and  academic 
performance,  2)  effects  on  employment  outcomes,  and  3)  effects  on  European  values. 
Interaction  with  workshop  participants  mainly  focused  on  methodological  choices:  the 
selection of exclusion criteria, the definition of the counterfactual, the challenge of overcoming 
(self-)selection  bias  for  all  themes,  especially  the  theme  on  European  values.  Workshop 
participants were invited to propose additional studies for inclusion in the meta-analyses, which 
were assessed by the study team to complete the task. 

Workshop  3  (20  March  2024)  aimed  to  present  and  discuss  the  initial  findings  from  the 
Erasmus+ evaluation related to potential issues of the current Erasmus+ programme and how 
these  could  inform  the  objectives  and  design  of  its  potential  successor  programme  beyond 
2027. Participants were invited to share their experiences with the current programme and ideas 
for a possible successor programme to Erasmus+ around four areas: (1) Erasmus+ objectives 
and priorities; (2) programme structure; (3) management and (4) resources. 

Workshop 4 (9 July 2024) aimed to present and discuss the findings from the draft final report 
of the external consultancy study informing the evaluation of Erasmus+, in view of collecting 
additional insights into the various aspects of the evaluation and helping refine the findings and 
recommendations emerging under each evaluation criterion. The feedback collected during and 

209 

 
 
after  the  workshop512  contributed  to  the  finalisation  of  the  support  study  and  supported  the 
production of its final report.  

Workshop 5 (19 September 2024) presented and discussed the report synthetising the National 
reports  on  the  implementation  and  impact  of  Erasmus+  submitted  by  Erasmus+  National 
Authorities (‘synthesis report’ prepared by ICF). The feedback collected during and after the 
workshop contributed to the finalisation of the synthesis report. 

512  21  additional  contributions  were  collected  through  a  EUsurvey  link  on  the  five  evaluation  criteria  and  the 
preliminary list of recommendations. 

210 

 
 
 
ANNEX  VI.  COMPLEMENTARY  INFORMATION  ON  THE  INTERVENTION  LOGICS  OF 
ERASMUS+ 2014-2020 AND ERASMUS+ 2021-2027  

Erasmus+ 2014-2020  

•  Inputs  

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 had an overall indicative financial envelope of EUR 14.774 billion 
under Heading 1 (Sustainable growth) and of EUR 1.68 billion under Heading 4 (EU as 
global player) of the EU budget. 

The  European  Commission  bears  the  overall  responsibility  for  the  supervision  and 
coordination of the agencies in charge of implementing the programme at national level. It 
is assisted by the Erasmus+ programme committee composed of the representatives of 
the  Member  States.  The  European  Commission  manages  the  budget  and  sets  priorities, 
targets  and  criteria  for  the  programme.  Furthermore,  it  guides  and  monitors  the  overall 
implementation, and evaluates the programme at European level after having received the 
National Reports from participating countries. It also manages directly few actions of the 
programme513.  

At European level, the European Commission's Education, Audiovisual and Culture 
Executive Agency (EACEA) is responsible for the implementation of actions under direct 
management 514 which account for a small share of the total budget. The largest share of 
the  budget  is  implemented  through  indirect  management.  The  European  Commission 
entrusts implementation and promotion tasks to National Agencies515 established in each 
participating country, which implement those actions of the programme with the highest 
volume 516 so as to bring the programme as close as possible to its beneficiaries and to adapt 
to the diversity of national education, training and youth systems. 

The programme actions are implemented mainly by means of open Calls for proposals, 
while few others are implemented identified beneficiaries or public procurement.   

The  implementation  of  the  programme  is  also  supported  through  structures  such  as  the 
SALTO  resource  centres,  which  provide  qualitative  support  to  National  Agencies  and 
programme  stakeholders  in  the  youth  field,  the  National  Erasmus+  offices  (NEOs) 
deployed in third countries not associated to the programme with a role of promotion of 
Erasmus+ opportunities.  

513  These  actions  consist  mainly  of  administrative  expenditure  (studies,  external  communication  and 
dissemination,  IT  systems,  etc.),  policy  coordination  and  support  actions,  politically  sensitive  and  new 
actions, pilot projects and preparatory actions. 
514 These actions are: large-scale European Voluntary Service (until 2018, when the action was discontinued 
from Erasmus+ to be implemented under the European Solidarity Corps) and Joint Master Degrees (KA1), 
Knowledge Alliances and Sector Skills Alliances (KA2), most of the KA3 actions, Jean Monnet activities 
and sport actions.  
515 By the end of the programming period 58 NAs (including the Serbian and UK NAs) were appointed and 
supervised  by  the  National  Authorities  in  their  respective country.  Since  2014,  their  performance  is  also 
controlled  by  Independent  Audit  Bodies  identified  in  each  country  and  delivering  an  Independent  Audit 
Opinion as part of the NAs’ yearly management declaration. 
516 NAs manage KA1 mobility (except Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees), KA2 strategic partnerships, 
structured dialogue between young people and decision-makers under KA3.  

211 

 
 
 
Erasmus+ 2021-2027 

•  Inputs 

The  2021-2027  Erasmus+  programme  is  implemented  under  both  direct  and  indirect 
management  in  33  countries,  i.e.  27  EU  Member  States,  three  EFTA/EEA  countries 
(Iceland,  Liechtenstein,  Norway)  and  three  candidate  countries  (North  Macedonia, 
Republic of Türkiye and Republic of Serbia). 

In  continuity  with  the  2014-2020  programme,  the  European  Commission  bears  the 
overall  responsibility  for  the  running  of  the  programme,  is  assisted  by  the  Erasmus+ 
programme committee composed of the representatives of the Member States, manages 
the budget, and sets priorities, targets and criteria for the programme on an on-going basis. 
Furthermore, it guides and monitors the general implementation, follow-up and evaluation 
of  the  programme  at  European  level.  The  European  Commission  also  guides  and 
coordinates  the  structures  in  charge  of  implementing  the  programme  at  national  level. 
Additionally, it manages directly a few actions of the programme.  

At the European level, the European Commission's  European Education and Culture 
Executive Agency (EACEA) is responsible for the implementation of Erasmus+ actions 
under direct management.  

The  largest  share  of  the  programme’s  budget  is  implemented  through  indirect 
management. The European Commission entrusts implementation and promotion tasks to 
National Agencies, established in each of the 33 countries participating in the programme. 
The National Agencies bring Erasmus+ as close as possible to its beneficiaries at local, 
regional and national level and adapt to the diversity of national education, training and 
youth  systems.  The  European  Commission  also  entrusts  implementation  activities  in 
indirect  management  mode  to  some  international  organisations,  mainly  for  better 
knowledge purposes, including OECD or Council of Europe. 

The  implementation  of  the  programme  is  also  supported  through  structures  such  as  the 
SALTO  resource  centres,  which  provide  qualitative  support  to  National  Agencies  and 
programme  stakeholders,  the  National  Erasmus+  offices  (NEOs)  and  the  Erasmus+ 
National Focal Points (ENFP) deployed in third countries not associated to the programme 
with a role of promotion of Erasmus+ opportunities.  

•  Outputs and Activities 

•  Key action 1: Learning mobility 

o  Short and long-term group and individual mobility opportunities for learners 
(all education and training sectors), and young people (youth) as well as for staff 
(all programme sectors). These activities provide opportunities for formal, informal 
and non-formal learning, which can be carried out through a physical or blended 
mobility,  i.e.  a  combination  of  physical  mobility  with  a  virtual  component 
facilitating a collaborative online learning exchange and teamwork. 

o  Mobility  projects  and  accreditations:  Erasmus+ 

learning  mobilities  of 
individuals are designed in the context of projects providing a framework for the 
preparation  and  follow  up  of  the  different  activities  they  include.  This  allows 
beneficiary organisations in the fields of education and training, youth and sport to 
build or increase their capacity to work in an international environment and build 

212 

 
future  partnerships.  Accredited  organisations  benefit  from  a  simplified  grant 
application process.  

Key Action 1: target groups, activities and outputs 

Source: EAC elaboration 

•  Key action 2: Cooperation among organisations and institutions  

Transnational  and  international  partnership  opportunities  for  European,  but  also  third 
country organisations and institutions:  

•  partnerships for cooperation, including small-scale partnerships, designed to widen 
access to the programme to small-scale actors and individuals who are hard to reach 
in education, training, youth and sport;  

•  Large  scale  partnerships  include  the  ‘Partnerships  for  excellence  (European 
Universities, Centres of Vocational Excellence, Erasmus+ Teacher academies and 
Erasmus  Mundus  Joint  Masters  Degrees)  and  the  ‘Partnerships  for  innovation 
(Alliance for innovation and forward-looking projects), aiming at systemic impact 
at  European  level  and  focussed  on  thematic  areas  that  are  strategic  for  Europe's 
growth and competitiveness and social cohesion;  

•  Capacity  building  in  higher  education,  VET,  youth  and  sport  supporting 
international  cooperation  through  multilateral  partnerships.  The  activities  and 
outcomes of these projects are geared to benefit the individuals, organisations and 
systems in eligible third countries not associated to the programme. 

•  Online platforms and tools for virtual cooperation. 

213 

 
 
Key Action 2: target groups, activities and outputs

Source: EAC elaboration 

•  Key action 3: Support to policy development and cooperation  

This set of activities is featured for its diversified character, going from grants awarded 
through open calls for proposals (e.g. policy experimentations, Civil society cooperation) 
to other awarded to identified beneficiaries (e.g. activities supporting policy networks), via 
contribution  agreements  or  public  procurement.  They  comprise:  i)  support  to  policy 
development and cooperation at European Union level, including gathering evidence and 
knowledge about education, training, youth and sport systems and policies at national and 
European level, including via European policy experimentations; ii) support to tools (such 
as  Europass  and  Youthpass)  and  measures  that  foster  the  quality,  transparency,  and 
recognition of skills, competences and qualifications; iii) policy dialogue and cooperation 
with  key  stakeholders  and  international  organisations;  iv)  activities  for  the  quality  and 
inclusive implementation of the programme.  

214 

 
 
Key Action 3: target groups, activities and outputs 

Source: EAC elaboration 

Jean  Monnet  Actions:  in  the  2021-2027  programme  the  Jean  Monnet  Actions  were 
extended  beyond  the  higher  education  sector  to  other  fields  of  education  and  training. 
These actions support teaching and research on EU integration, policy debates and wider 
outreach beyond the academic context, as well as learning about the EU and its values in 
schools and VET institutions. They also provide support to designated institutions pursuing 
an aim of European interest that conduct research, including for preparing future policies, 
and teaching for future staff of international organisations and for civil servants. 

•  3. Results 

The expected results of the programme intervention can be summarized at the level of 
each key action as follows: 

•  Key action 1 – Learning mobility: the intervention seeks to bring positive change 
for learners and staff in the form of improved skills and competences (including 
language,  digital,  green  and  soft  skills),  enhanced  personal  developments,  better 
awareness of EU values. The intervention also  aims to obtain a series of learning 
outcomes linked to the four horizontal priorities of the programme. 

The introduction of the accreditation scheme in the fields of VET, school education, 
adult  education  and  youth,  and  the  overall  project  dimension  in  which  individual 
mobilities  are  framed  allows  to  expect  the  development  of  higher  capacity  of 
educational  and  training,  and  youth  organisations  to  act  in  an  international 
environment and to develop partnerships and cooperation with organisations in other 
countries.  

•  Key  action  2  –  Cooperation  among  organisations  and  institutions:  the 
programme  seeks  changes  in  pedagogies,  methodologies,  content  and  practices. 
Transnational  cooperation  projects  are  expected  to  generate  e.g.  the  development 
and/or  implementation  of  innovative  and  inclusive  pedagogies  or  curricula,  new 
methods  of  youth  work,  the  implementation  of  new  organisational  practices, 
enhanced  networking  and  exchange  of  good  practices  with  foreign  partners 
(including outside Europe and from other fields). The intervention is also expected 
to enhance the cooperation between organisations in view of increasing the response 

215 

 
 
to the green transition and fostering digital readiness. These results are mainly seen 
at the level of organisations and institutions. 

•  Key action 3 – Support to policy development and cooperation: the intervention 
aims  at  improving  the  national  education,  training,  youth  and  sport  systems, 
developing  a  European  dimension,  and  enhancing  the  overall  impact  of  the 
programme at national and European level. The actions supported under key action 
3 are designed to act at policy level and to support the quality implementation of the 
other programme actions, facilitating the generation of their long-lasting effects at 
individual and organisational level, producing a systemic effect. Given its systemic 
character, this type of intervention is not intended to produce immediate results 
on specific target groups but rather mid- and long-term impacts.  

•  Jean Monnet Actions: in the field of higher education the intervention supports all 
over the world teaching, training, and research on European Union studies as well as 
policy  debate  on  Union  policy  priorities,  involving  the  academic  world,  policy 
makers  and  the  wider  society.  As  a  result,  better  knowledge  about  the  European 
Union integration matters is expected, with a stronger role of the EU in a globalized 
world. In other fields of E&T, it supports teaching and learning about the EU, its 
functioning  and  its  values  in  schools  in  programme  countries.  As  a  result  of  the 
intervention, it is expected that teachers are better equipped to teach about the EU 
and that the learning outcomes on EU matters in schools and VET institutes increase.  

•  Impacts  

The impacts of the programme are identified at three levels:  

•  Individual level: the intervention aims to contribute to enhance skills, employability, 
entrepreneurship  and  innovation  capacity  of  learners  and  young  people,  to  ensure  a 
better  transition  to  further  levels  of  education.  In  the  medium  and  long  term,  an 
increased capacity of staff can be expected to trigger modernisation and international 
opening  of their organisations. The intervention should also  contribute to  develop  a 
European  identity  and  sense  of  belonging,  to  foster  more  active  participation  in  the 
democratic life and civic society, to increase awareness of EU values and to ensure 
deeper knowledge on the EU and its policies.  

institutions  and 

•  Institutional/organisational  level:  the  intervention  contributes  to  developing  long-
lasting  partnerships  among  organisations  and 
their 
internationalisation, to fostering their adaptability to the digital transformation and the 
green  transition.  At  this  level,  the  intervention  aims  to  increase  the  capacity  of 
educational institutions by fostering internationalisation, the progressive adoption of 
innovative teaching and learning methods and tools, and the recognition of youth work. 
It is also expected that the programme will increase the capacity of higher education 
institutions (HEIs) to teach about EU subjects and support the creation of structured 
centres providing EU specific high-level knowledge in the field of European studies 
worldwide. 

to 

•  Systemic/policy  level:  the  main  impacts  are  expected  in  relation  to  the  programme 
support to the establishment of the European Education Area and advancing the policy 
cooperation in the fields supported by the programme. In the long term, it is expected 
that  the  programme  contributes  to  build  more  inclusive,  innovative  and  digital 
education  systems,  including  non-formal  and  informal  education,  in  order  to  foster 

216 

 
innovation. It is also expected that the programme contributes to improve international 
cooperation  to  build  more  cohesive  communities  and  sustainable  socio-economic 
development. 

217 

 
 
 
ANNEX VII. OVERVIEW OF INDICATORS  

Erasmus+ 2014-2020  
Table A - Programme indicators established in the 2014-2020 Erasmus+ Regulation: 2020 
achievement versus 2020 target517 

Type 

Indicator518 

2013 baseline 

2020 yearly 
achievemen
t 

2020 target 

Output  The number of staff supported by the programme 

86 000 

203 000 

136 000 

Output 

The number of participants with special needs or 
fewer opportunities519 

26 700 

43 000 

77 000 

Output 

The number and type of organisations and 
projects520 

– Indirect 
management - p
rojects: 11 000 / 
Organisations: 
32 000 
Direct 
management - P
rojects: 800 / 
Organisations: 
2 000 

Indirect 
management 
- projects: 
25 000 / 
Organisation
s: 82 000 
Direct 
management 
managed– 
Projects: 
5008/Organi
sations: 
3 000 

/ 521 

Education and Training 

Output 

The number of pupils, students and trainees 
participating in the programme 

301 000 

500 000 
[HE: 
350 000 
VET: 
150 000] 

543 000 
[HE: 412 000 
VET: 
131 000] 

Output 

The number of higher education students 
receiving support to study in a partner country 

/ 

25 000 

3 900 

517  Data  on  2014-2020  indicator  achievements  refer  to  the  latest  reporting  carried  out  under  the  2022 
Programme Performance Statement (PPS), based on a cut-off date of 21 December 2021, which is earlier 
than the cutoff date of the evaluation (31 December 2023). For this reason, few discrepancies could be noted 
with the total achievement referred to in the final evaluation of the 2014-2020 programme due to the longer 
timeframe needed to complete projects, in particular  mobility activities. More in general, any differences 
presented between the PPS data and any other data presented in this document (stemming from Erasmus+ 
monitoring  data  extracted  from  DG  EAC  databases  and  dashboards)  are  due  to  the  fact  that  DG  EAC’s 
databases are continuously updated. PPS documents present a static version of the programme’s performance 
at a specific time period when data were extracted (i.e. usually, on the last day of each year). On the contrary, 
DG EAC’s databases are regularly updated and present the performance of the programme in real-time. For 
the  purpose  of  this  evaluation,  data  were  frozen  at  31  December  2023  to  provide  the  most  reliable  and 
possibly updated overview of programme performance. 
518 The list of indicators set up in the 2014-2020 Erasmus+ Regulation also included the number of users of 
Euroguidance, for which the last measurement took place in 2016 (achievement: 2 983 273). The indicator 
was then discontinued as individual Euroguidance Centres were using different methodologies to estimate 
and track numbers of users, making the reporting difficult.  
519 KA2: only pupils in the School Exchange Partnerships action (KA229) are covered; KA3: young people 
participating in the youth dialogue (KA347). 
520  This  composite  indicator  tracked  i)  the  number  of  contracted  projects  per  management  mode  (all  key 
actions, Jean Monnet activities and Sport), and ii) the number of participations of organisations. 
521 No target was set for this indicator upon agreement with central services. This was due to the inherent 
limitations  at  the  encoding  stage  of  organisations’  details  that  usually  provide  the  source  systems  with 
insufficient information. 

218 

 
 
Type 

Output 

Output 

Result 

Indicator518 

2013 baseline 

2020 yearly 
achievemen
t 

2020 target 

The number of higher education students from a 
partner country coming to study in a programme 
country 
The number of partner country higher education 
institutions involved in mobility and cooperation 
actions 
The percentage of participants who have 
received a certificate, diploma or other kind of 
formal recognition of their participation in the 
programme (E&T) 

/ 

37 000 

15 000 

1 000 

1 235 

1 300 

100% HE 
65% VET 

100% HE 
91% VET 

100 HE 
75% VET 

Result 

The percentage of participants declaring that they 
have increased their key competences (E&T) 

81% 

94% 

88% 

Result 

The percentage of participants in long-term 
mobility declaring that they have increased their 
language skills (E&T) 

94% HE 
81% VET 

96% HE 
95% VET 

98% HE 
90% VET 

Result 

The number of students receiving training 
through Jean Monnet activities 

120 000 

432 000 

360 000 

Youth 

Output 

The number of young people engaged in 
mobility actions supported by the programme 

Output 

The number of youth organisations from both 
programme countries and partner countries 
involved in international mobility and 
cooperation actions 

60 000 

117 000 

124 000 

5 300 

6 984 

6 000 

Output 

The number of users of the Eurodesk network 

140 000 

300 000 

140 000 

Result 

Result 

Result 

Output 

The percentage of participants who have 
received a certificate – for example a Youthpass 
–, diploma or other kind of formal recognition of 
their participation in the programme 
The percentage of participants declaring that they 
have increased their key competences (Youth) 
The percentage of participants in voluntary 
activities declaring that they have increased their 
language skills (Youth) 
Size of membership of sport organisations 
applying for, and taking part in, the programme 
(Sport) 

Result 

The percentage of participants who have used the 
results of cross-border projects to combat threats 
to sport (Sport) 

Sport 

26% 

91% 

65% 

75% 

96% 

80% 

87% 

95%522 

95% 

0 

0 

40%523 

50% 

75%524 

75% 

522 Reported for the last time in 2019. 
523 Percentage of small grassroot organisations, less than 1 000 members, in projects. Reported until 2019. 
524 The value corresponds to 2019, last year when the achievement for this indicator was reported. 

219 

 
 
Type 

Result 

Result 

Indicator518 

2013 baseline 

The percentage of participants who have used the 
results of cross-border projects to improve good 
governance and dual careers (Sport) 
The percentage of participants who have used the 
results of cross-border projects to enhance social 
inclusion, equal opportunities and participation 
rates (Sport) 

0 

0 

2020 yearly 
achievemen
t 

2020 target 

75% 

75% 

75%525 

75% 

Indicators referring to European targets and benchmark for learning mobility (measurements 
based on Eurostat data, not directly linked with programme participants) 

Europe 
2020 
headline 
education 
target526 

Mobility 
benchma
rk527 

Percentage of 18-24 years-old with only lower-
secondary education who are not enrolled in 
education or training 
Percentage of 30-34 years-old with completed 
tertiary or equivalent education 
Percentage of higher education graduates who 
have had a period of higher education-related 
study or training (including work placements) 
abroad 
Percentage of 18-34 years-old with an initial 
vocational education and training qualification 
who have had an initial vocational education and 
training-related study or training period 
(including work placements) abroad 

11.9% 

10.3% 

10% 

37.1% 

41.6% 

>40% 

2.9% 

10.7%528 

20% 

2-3% 

3%529 

6% 

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 

Table B - Indicators established in the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ Regulation 

Type 

Indicator name 

Achievement 
level at end 2023 

Target by 
2027 

Progress to 
2027 
target 530 

Output 

Number of participants in learning 
mobility activities under key action 1 

3 246 360 531 

8 215 900 

40% 

525 The value corresponds to 2019, last year when the achievement for this indicator was reported. 
526  Achievement  for  these  indicators  refer  to  Eurostat  data  from  2019,  latest  available  data  within  the 
programming period. 
527 Achievements for these indicators refer to Eurostat data. 
528 Latest data available: 2016.  
529 Only 2014 data available. 
530  For  indicators  with  a  cumulative  target  at  the  end  of  the  programming  period,  progress-to-target  is 
calculated  according  to  the  formula  (sum  of  results  –  baseline)/  (target  –  baseline).  The  baseline  for  all 
indicators of the current programme was set at ‘0’ per corporate guidance. However, for those indicators in 
continuity with the previous programming period, the achievement in 2020 is considered the baseline for the 
current programme. 
531 The methodology applied to calculate the yearly achievements in the Programme Performance Statement 
is a combined methodology due to the  sui generis structure, including rules, of the mobility strand of the 
programme.  More  specifically,  final  data  on  (actual)  participants  (i.e.  mobilities)  are  available  once  all 
projects are administratively closed (between 2 to 4 years after the project starts, depending on the type of 
action). Until mobility data are deemed as final, numbers are calculated based on estimates/provisional data 
which are provided by organisations during the application phase of the projects. This explains the difference 
between the figure reported for this indicator in table 7, with the number of actual participants at the cut-off 
date of the evaluation (i.e. 1.6 million), mentioned in the text. 

220 

 
 
 
Type 

Indicator name 

Output 

Number of participants in virtual 
learning activities under key action 1 

Result 

Number of people with fewer 
opportunities taking part in activities 
under key action 1 

Achievement 
level at end 2023 

Target by 
2027 

Progress to 
2027 
target 530 

211 600 

264 300 

80% 

445 635 

924 810 

48% 

Output 

Number of organisations and 
institutions taking part in the 
programme 

KA1: 210 449 
KA2: 63 445 
KA3: 1 401 

KA1: 506 
620 
KA2: 153 
520 
KA3: 3 092 

KA1: 42% 
KA2: 41% 
KA3: 45% 

Output 

Number of newcomer organisations 
and institutions taking part in the 
programme under key actions 1 and 2 

Output 

Number of small-scale partnerships 
supported under key action 2 

Output 

Number of users of virtual cooperation 
platforms supported under key action 2 

Type 

Indicator name 

Impact 

Impact 

Result 

Result 

Share of participants that consider they 
have benefited from their participation 
in learning mobility activities under 
key action 1 

Share of participants that consider they 
have an increased European sense of 
belonging after participation in 
activities under key action 1 

Share of organisations and institutions 
that consider they have developed 
high-quality practices as a result of 
their participation in key action 2 

Share of organisations and institutions 
that consider that the procedures for 
taking part in the programme are 
proportionate and simple 

Output 

Share of activities addressing climate 
objectives under key action 1 

Output 

Share of projects addressing climate 
objectives under key action 2 

29 533 

79 915 

37% 

5 894 

13 355 

44% 

2 128 723 

6 410 000 

32% 

Achievement 
level at end 2023 

Target 2023 

Target 
2027532 

E&T: 99% 
YOU: 99% 
SPO: 99% 

E&T: 89% 
YOU: 96% 
SPO: 95% 

E&T: 95% 
YOU: 91% 
SPO: 74% 

E&T: 95% 
YOU: 95% 
SPO: 95% 

E&T: 64% 
YOU: 60% 
SPO: 55% 

E&T: 85% 
YOU: 68% 
SPO: 70% 

[data not 
available 533] 

E&T: 67% 
YOU: 67% 
SPO: 65% 

E&T: 75% 
YOU: 75% 
SPO: 65% 

E&T: 86% 
YOU: 91% 
SPO: 63% 

E&T: 21% 
YOU: 86% 
SPO: 34% 

E&T: 36% 
YOU: 24% 
SPO: 11% 

E&T: 61% 
YOU: 62% 
SPO: 55% 

E&T: 65% 
YOU: 70% 
SPO: 63% 

[not 
available] 

E&T: 15% 
YOU: 17% 
SPO: 15% 

20% 

[all fields] 

E&T: 25% 
YOU: 25% 
SPO: 15% 

532 For all indicators expressed in form of percentage (non-cumulative) the progress to the final 2027 target 
is 48%.  
533 Data for 2023 is not available yet: data is captured from final reports, once projects are closed (2 to 4 
years after start). 

221 

 
 
 
Table C - Additional indicators established under Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 
2023/2710534 

Type 

Name of the indicator 

Output  The share of activities addressing digital transformation, 

including the Digital Opportunity Traineeship (DOT) under 
key action 1 

Output  The share of projects addressing inclusion and diversity under 

key action 2 

Output   The share of projects addressing digital transformation under 

key action 2 

Output  The share of projects addressing participation and civic 

engagement under key action 2  

Achievement level 
at end 2023 
14% 

Target by 
2027 
20% 

44% 

40% 

28% 

35% 

25% 

20% 

Output  The number of less experienced organisations taking part in 

46 432 

98 000 

the programme under key actions 1 and 2 

Result  The share of participants in learning mobility that consider 
they have reached a better understanding of inclusion and 
diversity in their society and/or are more committed to 
working against discrimination, intolerance, xenophobia and 
racism  

Result  The share of participants in learning mobility that consider 
they have learnt about environmental, climate and 
sustainability issues and/or have changed their habits to 
become more sustainable 

Result  The share of participants in learning mobility that consider 
they have learnt about new and useful ways to apply digital 
technologies and/or are eager to use them in their study or 
work 

40% 

60% 

30% 

40% 

30% 

40% 

Result  The share of participants in learning mobility that consider 

38% 

60% 

they have learnt more about Europe, the European Union and 
European values or are more interested in participating in 
elections, in other democratic processes, and in the life of 
their local community 

Result  The number of people with fewer opportunities receiving 

146 535 

/ 

Erasmus Mundus scholarships 

Impact 

Increased capacity of organisations 

Positive trend 

Impact  Contribution to policy development, strategies and 

Positive trend 

cooperation in education and training, youth and sport  

Increasing 
and positive 
trend 

Level of 
contribution 
- Positive 
trend  

534 The baseline for these 12 indicators is ‘0’. Targets have been estimated and set only at the end of the 
programming period, to be reviewed once more data is available, after the interim evaluation.  
535 The tracking tools for this indicator were still under construction at the moment of the evaluation. The 
completion  of  the  field  for  “fewer  opportunities”  was  not  mandatory  yet,  therefore  the  figure  is  partial. 
Moreover, data for 2022 and 2023 is provisional. 

222 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX  VIII.  OVERVIEW  OF  CONTINUED  AND  DISCONTINUED  ACTIONS  BETWEEN 
ERASMUS+ 2014-2020 AND ERASMUS+ 2021-2027 

PROGRAMMING PERIODS 

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 

Fields 

•  Discontinued activities in orange 
•  Actions moved from one key action to another are 

•  New activities in blue 
•  Actions moved from one key action to another are 

in green 

in green 

Key Action 1 – Learning mobility 

E&T 

•  Mobility of higher education students and staff 
•  Mobility of VET learners and staff 
•  Mobility of school staff 
•  Mobility of adult education staff 
•  Students Loan Guarantee Facility 
•  Accreditations in HE, VET 
•  Language assessment and support 
•  Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees 

•  Mobility of higher education students and staff 
•  Mobility of VET learners and staff 
•  Mobility of school pupils and staff 
•  Mobility of adult education learners and staff 
•  Language learning opportunities 
•  Virtual exchanges in higher education 
•  Accreditations in HE, VET, SCH and ADU 

Youth 

•  Mobility of young people 
•  Mobility of youth workers 
•  Volunteering Charter 
•  EVS  

Sport 

•  Not applicable 

•  Mobility of young people 
•  Mobility of youth workers 
•  Youth participation activities 
•  DiscoverEU activities 
•  Virtual Exchanges in Youth 
•  Accreditation in Youth 

•  Mobility of sport staff 

Key Action 2 – Cooperation between organisations and institutions 

•  Strategic partnerships 
•  Alliances (Knowledge Alliances, Sector Skills 

Alliances) 

•  Capacity building in the field of higher education 
•  Transnational cooperation activities (TCA) 
•  Virtual exchanges in higher education 
•  IT support platforms 

•  Strategic partnerships 
•  Capacity Building in the field of youth 
•  Transnational cooperation activities (TCA) 

•  Small collaborative partnerships 
•  Collaborative partnerships 
•  Not-for-profit European sport events 

E&T  

Youth 

Sport 

•  Partnerships for cooperation, including small-scale 

partnerships 

•  Partnerships for excellence (including European 
Universities alliances, Centres of Vocational 
Excellence536, Erasmus+ Teachers Academies, 
Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees) 

•  Partnerships for innovation (including Alliances 
for Innovation and Forward-looking projects) 
•  Online platforms and tools for virtual cooperation 
•  Capacity Building in the fields of higher education, 

and VET 

•  Partnerships for cooperation, including small-scale 

partnerships 

•  Online platforms and tools for virtual cooperation 
•  Capacity Building in the field of youth 

•  Partnerships for cooperation, including small-

scale partnerships 

•  Not-for-profit sport events 
•  Capacity Building in the field of Sport 

536 European University alliances and Centres of Vocational Excellence are considered new actions of the 
2021-2027  programme  despite  pilots  carried  out  in  the  last  years  of  the  2014-2020  programme 
implementation. 

223 

 
 
PROGRAMMING PERIODS 

Key Action 3: Support to policy development and cooperation 

Across 
sectors 

•  Implementation of the Union policy agendas 
•  Implementation of EU transparency and recognition 
tools and support for Union-wide networks and 
European NGOs 

•  Preparation and implementation of the EU general 

and sectoral policy agendas in education and 
training 

•  Quality, transparency and recognition of skills and 

•  Policy dialogue with relevant European 

stakeholders and international organisations 

•  Support to resource centres and specific 

organisations 

competences 

•  Policy dialogue and cooperation with stakeholders 
•  Qualitative and inclusive implementation of the 

programme (including Training and Cooperation 
Activities (TCA), SALTO Resource Centres, 
Eurodesk, national VET teams, DiscoverEU 
Learning Cycle 

•  Cooperation with other EU instruments and 

support to other policy areas 

•  Dissemination and awareness-raising activities 

E&T 

•  Jean Monnet in the field of higher education 

•  Jean Monnet in the field of higher education 
•  Jean Monnet in other fields of education and 

training 

Jean Monnet Actions 

224