Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

![european flag](./../../../images/eclogo.jpg)EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 1.4.2025

SWD(2025) 75 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  
  
EVALUATION

Evaluation

Accompanying the document

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE  
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEEAND THE  
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

on the interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps and final evaluation of the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps

{COM(2025) 144 final}

Contents

Glossary

1. Introduction

1.1.
   Purpose of the evaluation
   

1.2.
   Methodology of the evaluation
   

1.3.
   Limitations and constraints
   

2. European Solidarity Corps

2.1.
   European Solidarity Corps: structure, objectives and priorities
   

2.2.
   Expected outcomes of the evaluation
   

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

2.4.
   Evaluation findings
   

2.4.1.
   Assessing programme success: extent and challenges…………………...

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

2.4.1.2.
   Interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps……..

Humanitarian aid strand…………………………………………………………………….

Solidarity projects…………………………………………………………………………......

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

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

2.4.2.2.
   Interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps……….…

2.4.3.
   Programme relevance: continuing importance or growing obsolescence?.......

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

2.4.3.2.
   Interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps………….

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

2.5.1.
   Conclusions…………………………………………………………………...

2.5.1.1.
   Conclusions on the relevance of the programme
   

2.5.1.2.
   Conclusions on the coherence of the programme
   

2.5.1.3.
   Conclusions on the effectiveness of the programme
   

2.5.1.4.
   Conclusions on the efficiency of the programme
   

2.5.1.5.
   Conclusions on the EU added value of the programme
   

2.5.2.
   Lessons learnt…………………………………………………………………

2.5.2.1.
   Inclusion of PWFOs
   

2.5.2.2
   Addressing possible variations in the geographical spread of resultsand impacts
   

2.5.2.3.
   Improving visa arrangements for non-EU nationals……………………

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

2.5.2.5.
   IT systems………………………………………………………………

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

3. Annex I. Procedural information..

4.Annex II. Methodology and analytical models used

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

5.1
   Effectiveness
   

5.2.
   Efficiency
   

5.3.
   Relevance
   

5.4.
   Coherence
   

5.5.
   EU added value
   

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

6.1.
   Overview of benefits and costs
   

6.1.1.
   2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps (period covered: 2021-2023)…..

6.1.2.
   2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps………………………………….

7.Annex V. Stakeholder consultation – synopsis report

7.1.
   Introduction
   

7.2.
   Outline of the consultation strategy
   

7.3.
   Key results of consultation activities
   

7.3.1. 
   Summarised results of the public consultation………………………….

7.3.2. 
   Summarised results of the survey of the European Solidarity Corps programme:
   

7.4.
   Comparison of the results of consultation activities
   

Glossary

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| Term or acronym | Meaning or definition |
| the programme | European Solidarity Corps |
| CERV | Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme |
| DG EAC | Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture |
| EACEA | European Education and Culture Executive Agency |
| ESF+ | European Social Fund Plus |
| NA | National Agency |
| PWFOs | People with fewer opportunities |
| SALTOs | Support, Advanced Learning and Training Opportunities |
| UN SDG | United Nations Sustainable Development Goals |
| Youth strategy | 2019-2027 European youth strategy |

  

1. Introduction

Article 21 of the Regulation
[1](#footnote2)
 establishing the European Solidarity Corps programme requires the European Commission to carry out an interim evaluation of the programme no later than 31 December 2024. That interim evaluation is also to be accompanied by a final evaluation of the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme, which feeds into the interim evaluation. The interim evaluation assesses the overall effectiveness and performance of the programme (its effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value) and the delivery of the inclusion measures. This evaluation is informed by participating countries from the Member States and associated countries who participate in the programme
[2](#footnote3)
 and submitted a report on the programme’s implementation and impact in their respective territories to the Commission. This staff working document accompanies the Report from the Commission on the mid-term evaluation of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps and final evaluation of the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps.

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

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

1.1.Purpose of the evaluation

The purpose of this evaluation is for the Commission to fulfil its obligations under Articles 21(2) and 21(6) of the European Solidarity Corps Regulation. This includes the submission of an evaluation report to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the European Committee of the Regions by 31 December 2024. In line with Article 21(2), the evaluation encompasses both the interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme and the final evaluation of the 2018-2020 programme. This evaluation aim to assess the relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency and EU added value of the programme.

1.2.Methodology of the evaluation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

·Social media analysis that improved the assessment of the programme’s visibility and public sentiment towards it.

1.3.Limitations and constraints

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

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

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

The administrative and monitoring data collected by the programme served as an important source for a sound analysis of the programme’s performance and cost-effectiveness. However, the evaluation faced challenges due to gaps and limitations in the available data. These include incomplete data on implementation of the European Solidarity Corps programme between 2021 and 2023 at the time of writing, as well as gaps in and limitations of the 2018-2020 budget data. While the evaluation used other data collection and analysis methods to validate and give context to the findings, analyses of some aspects of the programme’s cost-effectiveness remained inconclusive (mainly comparisons between programming periods or direct and indirect management actions). These limitations are clearly identified and given context in the sections on programme efficiency.

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

2. European Solidarity Corps

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

2.1.European Solidarity Corps: structure, objectives and priorities

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

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

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

In 2018, the first European Solidarity Corps programme Regulation
[3](#footnote4)
 created a new, coherent framework for solidarity-related activities, with a budget of EUR 375.6 million for 2018-2020. It offered new formats and tools, with a sustained commitment to quality, to reach out to more young people and provide them with a valuable experience. Based on the positive reception of the initiative by young people and other stakeholders in the solidarity sector, the European Commission proposed an extension of the programme to the 2021-2027 programming period.

The adoption of Regulation (EU) No 2021/888
[4](#footnote5)
 gave the green light to a new generation of the programme, covering 2021-2027, with a budget of more than EUR 1 billion in current prices and activities that now include volunteering in the area of humanitarian aid. The current programme now focuses fully on volunteering. By extending its scope to cover volunteering activities in support of humanitarian aid operations, the programme now also contributes to needs-based humanitarian aid based on the fundamental principles of neutrality, humanity, independence and impartiality, and will help to deliver assistance, relief and protection where most needed. It therefore helps to address not only unmet societal needs in Europe but also humanitarian challenges in non-EU countries that have been or that could potentially be affected by human-made or natural disasters. Humanitarian aid volunteering actions of the European Solidarity Corps are guided by the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid
[5](#footnote6)
.

In November 2018, the Council adopted a renewed resolution on the 2019-2027 European Union youth strategy
[6](#footnote7)
 (‘Engaging, connecting and empowering young people’). The strategy sets out the framework for European cooperation in the youth field for the benefit of young people and puts solidarity at the heart of EU youth policy. One of the key overall objectives of the renewed youth strategy is to ‘Encourage young people to become active citizens, agents of solidarity and positive change for communities across Europe, inspired by EU values and a European identity’. Under the ‘Connect’
[7](#footnote8)
 priority area, the Commission proposes to expand mobility actions under the programme and support its implementation through stronger policy cooperation and community-building activities.

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

·volunteering (volunteering under the ‘participation of young people in solidarity activities’ strand and under the European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps);

·solidarity projects;

·networking activities;

·quality and support measures.

The 2021-2027 programme works with horizontal priorities, namely: (i) inclusion and diversity; (ii) digital transformation; (iii) the environment and fight against climate change; and (iv) participation in democratic life. In addition, the programme allows for flexibility in adding annual thematic priorities beyond the four horizontal priorities. Annual thematic priorities address pressing challenges and difficulties and are mainly implemented as centralised actions (managed directly by the Commission). For instance, the thematic annual priority of ‘Promoting healthy lifestyles’ has been changed based on changing priorities in the area of health. It was first added in 2021, and it initially focused on the response to the COVID-19 emergency and then shifted to promoting general well-being and healthy lifestyles. By 2023, it had a stronger emphasis on marginalised groups, including gender-specific needs and mental health. Similarly, the ‘inclusion and diversity’ priority evolved to focus more on local community needs in 2023, such as refugee relief, assistance, support and integration
[8](#footnote9)
. Additional horizontal priorities have been introduced through the ‘volunteering teams in priority areas’ action.

2.2.Expected outcomes of the evaluation 

The scope of the evaluation was determined by the Better Regulation requirements
[9](#footnote10)
 and the legal basis of European Solidarity Corps. Article 21 of the European Solidarity Corps Regulation specifies that ‘no later than 31 December 2024, the Commission shall carry out an interim evaluation of the Programme. That interim evaluation shall also be accompanied by a final evaluation of the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme, which shall feed into the interim evaluation. The interim evaluation of the Programme shall assess the overall effectiveness and performance of the Programme, as well as the delivery of the inclusion measures’. The evaluation has therefore covered actions in all programme countries between 2018 and 2023.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Complementing EU policy and priorities

There is a high degree of complementarity and synergies between the European Solidarity Corps (2018-2020 and 2021-2027), the EU Aid Volunteers Initiative (2014-2020) and other EU programmes and policy initiatives in the field of youth, as well as the Commission’s broader strategic priorities for 2019-2024
[10](#footnote11)
. Furthermore, the European Solidarity Corps programme has demonstrated a strong commitment to sustainability, addressing global climate mandates such as the Paris Agreement, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (the ‘UN SDGs’) and the European Green Deal. It effectively incorporates sustainability by supporting environmentally focused projects, integrating climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, and raising awareness of sustainability among participants.

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

Expected results

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

The programme ensures consistency with international obligations by reflecting eight of the priorities of the 17 UN SDGs: ending poverty (UN SDG 1), ensuring healthy lives (UN SDG 3), ensuring quality education (UN SDG 4), achieving gender equality (UN SDG 5), decent work and economic growth (UN SDG 8), reducing inequalities (UN SDG 10), making cities and human settlements inclusive and sustainable (SDG 11) and the green transition (UN SDGs 12 and 13). Nevertheless, there is scope for further highlighting linkages and for developing communication around them.

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

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

During the current programme period of the European Solidarity Corps, several developments have affected its implementation. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, natural disasters and climate challenges led to a shift in priorities and caused delays. The programme has therefore been adapted to tackle new challenges. For instance, the thematic annual priority of ‘promoting healthy lifestyles’ was changed based on changing priorities in the area of health. It was first added in 2021, and it initially focused on the COVID-19 emergency health response and then shifted to promoting general well-being and healthy lifestyles. By 2023, it had a stronger emphasis on marginalised groups, including gender-specific needs and mental health. Similarly, the ‘inclusion and diversity’ priority evolved to focus more on local community needs in 2023, such as refugee relief, assistance, support and integration
[11](#footnote12)
.

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

There have been several changes to the management of the programme, which has affected implementation. Compared with the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps, the current programme has improved its internal coherence by streamlining procedures, in particular the application process for quality labels
[12](#footnote13)
. Integrating the humanitarian aid strand into the European Solidarity Corps has streamlined volunteering activities by consolidating them into a single programme. At the same time, the transition from the EU Aid Volunteers Initiative to the European Solidarity Corps marked a shift in focus towards a more individualised and learning-centred approach. In line with the priorities of the European Solidarity Corps as a youth-focused initiative, the new strand focuses on providing opportunities for young volunteers to gain valuable learning experiences while showing solidarity with people in need in non-EU countries through participation in humanitarian action. 

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

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

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

2.4.Evaluation findings

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

2.4.1.Assessing programme success: extent and challenges

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

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

Main findings

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

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

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

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

Effectiveness

Outputs

The late adoption of the European Solidarity Corps Regulation in October 2018 and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020 delayed programme outputs, but high performance targets were maintained. The traineeships and jobs action underperformed, resulting in its discontinuation in the 2021-2027 programme. However, the programme saw growth in the number of participants in 2020, with 42% of participants coming from backgrounds with fewer opportunities, exceeding targets. Moreover, the programme delivered the necessary support measures. These include the European Youth portal, in particular the European Solidarity Corps portal, where young people interested in the programme had to register to access volunteering opportunities and connect with organisations. In 2018, 95 832 young people registered on the portal, exceeding the annual target of 25 000
[13](#footnote14)
. In 2019, 90 698 young people were newly registered on the portal, exceeding the target of 60 000
[14](#footnote15)
.

Results

Almost all surveyed participants (89%
[15](#footnote16)
) were highly satisfied with the European Solidarity Corps experience in the 2018-2020 period. The programme supported personal development (83%), promoted educational and professional growth (83%) and helped participants improve their sense of solidarity, as well as social and civic awareness (75%).

Results for participants

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

Results for organisations

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

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

Impacts 

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

While 47% of the organisations continued similar activities after the programme, the COVID-19 pandemic made those activities difficult to sustain. Participants mainly heard about the programme through friends (26%), social media (15%), and educational institutions (21%). Youth organisations played a key role in disseminating information, with 83% of participants sharing project outputs. However, only 41% of the organisations felt that they had sufficient funding for the sharing of results, and just 47% felt that there was sufficient guidance for promoting activities. Despite these challenges, 51% adopted best practices from others, and 58% acknowledged that the programme provided support in the sharing of success stories.

Efficiency

|  |
| --- |
| Main findings  ·Funding was deemed appropriate for this funding period, as only 79.4% of the funding was absorbed. A subset of the stakeholders interviewed agreed with that view. The low uptake in payments is not an indicator of excessive funding, but rather of inflexible budget allocations and the distortions resulting from the COVID-19 crisis.  ·The administrative burden was reasonable. Most participants, organisations and individuals took a positive view of how the programme was run.  ·The implementation of the programme is difficult to assess reliably due to data discrepancies in the output and budgetary data for the previous programming period. A tentative assessment would suggest good cost-effectiveness compared with the parallel EU Aid Volunteers Initiative.  ·The management of the programme was considered to be moderately efficient. However, organisations were somewhat critical of user-friendliness of the programme management tools. |

Funding

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

There were inefficiencies in budget allocation, particularly for the less popular activities, such as traineeships, which accounted for 7% of the budget but met just 5% of its participant targets. Feedback from participating organisations indicated that, while 52% felt that the financial support covered participation costs, only 42% believed that the unit cost rates were sufficient to cover actual expenses. Overall, the budget allocation was in line with Regulation (EU) 2018/1475
[16](#footnote17)
. The Regulation sets out the budget distribution for the European Solidarity Corps, allocating 90% to volunteering and solidarity projects and 10% to traineeships or jobs, with a maximum of 20% for in-country activities. Article 9(3) enables the budget to cover expenses for the preparatory, monitoring, control, audit and evaluation tasks needed to manage the programme
[17](#footnote18)
.

The budget also includes costs for studies, expert meetings, communication actions, IT support for the European Solidarity Corps portal, and other administrative expenses, and no financial limits are set. As required, the programme differentiated between in-country and cross-country volunteering budgets, but it slightly exceeded the 20% cap for in-country activities, allocating 23.6%. This excess was probably due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which restricted cross-country mobility, while the programme remained below the threshold before the pandemic, only exceeding it by 5% in 2020
[18](#footnote19)
. The rationale behind budget allocation as regards expected activities and outcomes was unclear. The annual work programmes from 2018 to 2020 set out the expected results in general terms, with no specific targets. This made it difficult to assess whether the budget was consistent with the intended outcomes of the European Solidarity Corps. Furthermore, detailed financial absorption levels across all action types could not be evaluated due to gaps in the 2018-2020 budgetary data
[19](#footnote20)
.

Administrative burden

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

Efficiency of programme implementation

The European Solidarity Corps has been cost-effective, based on a calculation of cost-effectiveness using comparable data. The programme achieved a cost-effectiveness of EUR 7 160.28 per participant, approximately seven times more cost-effective than the EU Aid Volunteers Initiative (EUR 49 168.47), which ran in parallel
[20](#footnote21)
. On cost-effectiveness by organisation, the European Solidarity Corps is still two-and-a-half times more cost-effective, EUR 45 691.51 for the European Solidarity Corps vs EUR 127 102.80 for the EU Aid Volunteers Initiative
[21](#footnote22)
. While this is to be expected, as the amount of training required and the distance and length of deployment for EU Aid Volunteers is much higher than for the European Solidarity Corps, the magnitude of the difference per participant is striking. This is probably due to the change in the design of the European Solidarity Corps, which allowed for more participants per organisation, in turn resulting in scaling effects.

The European Solidarity Corps programme invested considerable resources in preparing high-quality reference documents, which were crucial to the programme’s effective implementation. Approximately 13% of the annual budget
[22](#footnote23)
 (EUR 16 million) was spent on training, contributing to key programme features such as volunteer security, standardised training, organisational certification, volunteer management and partner governance. These efforts boosted the programme’s overall effectiveness. However, an assessment of the suitability and efficiency of actions under direct and indirect management remains inconclusive due to a lack of data on the actual budget spent on direct management actions, such as insurance.

Efficiency of programme management

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

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

Performance measurement and monitoring (RACER criteria)

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

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| RACER criteria | |  |
| Relevance and acceptability | The Commission’s monitoring indicators are relevant but not necessarily comprehensive, focusing more on compliance and output rather than measuring impact. While compliance indicators are crucial for complying with regulations, they may not fully reflect the programme’s broader impact. Nonetheless, the indicators used are generally acceptable and meet essential requirements. | |
| Credibility | The credibility of the European Solidarity Corps’ performance management is to some extent limited by self-reporting and by a wide interpretation of the definition of ‘participants with fewer opportunities.’ This makes it difficult to accurately identify and measure the programme’s impact on this group. Different interpretations have resulted in inconsistencies in data collection. Verifying resource allocation for inclusion targets therefore becomes challenging, resulting in concerns as to the programme’s true impact. | |
| Ease of monitoring | While the indicators chosen by the Commission were easy to monitor in theory, not all of the data on monitoring dashboards was complete. This highlights the need for a more robust data verification process in order to reduce instances of misreported or missing data. This could involve cross-checking data from different sources or using automated tools to detect anomalies. | |
| Robustness | The European Solidarity Corps’ performance management was sufficiently robust. However, missing data had a negative impact on the accuracy of performance assessments, suggesting that the data verification of important measures and processes could have been improved. | |

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

Main findings:

·The programme complemented EU-level policies and served as a single entry point for solidarity activities.

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

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

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

Coherence

Internal coherence

While directly and indirectly managed actions were generally seen to be consistent and distinguishable from each other, certain challenges could be identified for the 2018-2020 period. To obtain quality labels, organisations had to follow different application procedures depending on the type of organisation and their country. Europe-wide networks and national authorities applied directly to the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA), while other organisations applied to their NA or the relevant SALTO. In addition, the quality labels had different requirements depending on the type of solidarity activity and the role of the organisation. This process has been streamlined and simplified for 2021-2027.

Traineeships and jobs (occupational strand)

The occupational strand of the European Solidarity Corps faced challenges in aligning its objectives with the overall programme by incorporating youth employment policies. By offering not only volunteering but also solidarity traineeships and jobs, the programme sought to act as a central hub for solidarity activities in Europe and to complement other national and EU initiatives promoting social inclusion for disadvantaged young people. However, some stakeholders, such as the European Economic and Social Committee
[23](#footnote24)
, argued that vocational activities should be offered through existing EU employment programmes, in order to prevent confusion and job substitution. Consultations with applicant organisations indicated that traineeship and job projects were the least aligned with the programme’s objectives, suggesting that participants found that there were barriers to integrating solidarity with employment and traineeships.

Organisations involved in traineeships and jobs were modest in their assessments. While 61% found that participation conditions were favourable for organisations and 64% found that they were attractive to young people, previous studies indicated that financial incentives were often insufficient. This was mainly due to the requirement for organisations to contribute to trainee salaries and to the heavy administrative burden
[24](#footnote25)
. The organisations interviewed that had participated in the strand noted that they had to invest not just financial resources but also considerable time and effort in training and mentoring. Some had to rely on combining the strand with other financial incentives, such as national subsidies for recruiting unemployed youth
[25](#footnote26)
. Furthermore, 36% of the organisations surveyed that had not participated in traineeships and jobs cited such activities not being relevant to their organisation as a reason for not participating in the strand, while 35% did not know about traineeships and jobs
[26](#footnote27)
. 19% cited insufficient financial incentives, while 5% noted that there were better traineeship or job programmes in their country. Other reasons included lack of internal capacity, disinterest, challenges with national laws, and eligibility restrictions limited to EU Member State organisations. National implementation reports indicate that there was limited uptake of the discontinued strand due to perceived inconsistencies with the programme’s core values, overlaps with existing measures such as Erasmus+, insufficient funding, and legal problems with national or regional employment laws.

External coherence

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

Consistency with other EU programmes

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

2.4.1.2.
   Interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps 

Main findings

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

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

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

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

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

Effectiveness

Individual level

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

Skill and personal development

The European Solidarity Corps improved participants’ personal, professional and educational skills, including language skills. It achieved good results by increasing participants’ involvement in social, voluntary, solidarity and civic activities and by promoting greater tolerance and cooperation between different groups. It successfully developed participants’ understanding of key democratic values, increased their environmental awareness, and strengthened their sense of European identity. Moreover, one in three European Solidarity Corps participants studied a new language at B2 level after taking part in the programme (33%). Improved language proficiency is also one of the key skills and educational development outcomes identified by the counterfactual analysis.

Increased civic engagement

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

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

Organisational level

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

Capacity building

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

Inclusion and diversity

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

The programme’s projects focus on a wide variety of young people with fewer opportunities. For example, some projects aim to empower young people with intellectual or developmental disabilities, as well as those from migrant backgrounds or with mental health issues, facilitating the development of social skills, cultural integration and freedom of expression. The programme provides a safe space for those people’s personal growth
[27](#footnote28)
. However, participating organisations faced challenges with the availability of equipment, finding willing consortium partners and receiving sufficient guidance and financial support. Organisations are not certain that they are well-equipped to support volunteers with fewer opportunities. Only half of the organisations surveyed reported that they were (58%), while a smaller proportion said that it was easy to find consortium partners who were well-prepared for this task (30%). However, only half of the organisations surveyed agreed that they received sufficient guidance on inclusion (50%), while an even smaller number of organisations agreed that the financial support provided was sufficient to enable those volunteers to participate (42%). This can potentially be linked to the visibility of intersectional and other ‘hidden’ barriers to the opportunities of young people, such as mental health and gender concerns. Nevertheless, challenges remain, particularly for smaller organisations and those in remote areas, which struggle with limited resources and the high cost of living in urban centres. It is crucial that those challenges be addressed so that the programme’s positive impacts at the organisational level can be maintained.

International opportunities

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

The programme has enabled and encouraged participating organisations to explore similar volunteering and solidarity activities outside of the European Solidarity Corps, including at an international level. 55% reported that their organisation continued to be involved in similar volunteering and solidarity activities after participating in the programme. 52% of organisations stated that they participated in those activities at EU or international level after the programme. By learning from their international partners, participating in training programmes and receiving guidance from their NA and SALTOs, organisations have acquired valuable new skills, which have provided a stepping stone to more complex funding programmes. As pointed out above, the Quality Label plays an important role in this, as it motivates organisations to continuously assess and improve their operations and provides them with a European accreditation badge that they can present to potential partners and other funding programmes.

Impacts of the European Solidarity Corps

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

Addressing local challenges

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

Community development

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

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

However, the programme faced challenges in remote and socio-economically disadvantaged areas. Türkiye’s experience shows that preparing volunteers for the local context requires considerable resources, and some regions in the country have opted for shorter volunteer stays due to limited socio-cultural opportunities. To sustain the impact at community level, it is essential that these regions have adequate support and resources, particularly by increasing involvement and strengthening local organisations.

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

The programme’s impact can potentially be expanded or improved by promoting it more actively online. According to the Eurobarometer survey, awareness of the programme among young people is low, at 8%. The Erasmus+ programme, which includes DiscoverEU, outperformed the European Solidarity Corps in terms of awareness among young people
[28](#footnote29)
. Awareness raising and branding efforts need to be strengthened at European and national level
[29](#footnote30)
. Interviewees highlighted that post-pandemic budget cuts have affected the programme’s visibility and outreach. They pointed out that the European Solidarity Corps’ branding was unclear and called for improved communication efforts and increased funding to ensure that the programme’s benefits are well promoted and accessible to a wider audience.

The principal platform for promoting the programme should be social media and the internet. The survey shows that participants mainly heard about the European Solidarity Corps through friends, social media and a combination of youth organisations and educational institutions. However, their friends could have initially learnt about the programme on social media, and youth and educational organisations could have promoted their activities, including the programme, on social media. Almost all young people in the EU use social networks and the internet in general on a daily basis
[30](#footnote31)
. Youth organisations and educational institutions play a major role in sharing information about the programme. Indeed, 83% actively shared the outputs and results of their European Solidarity Corps projects.

Main findings

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

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

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

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

·While IT systems have improved compared with previous programming periods, their user-friendliness, accessibility and functionality require further attention.

Efficiency

Funding

The budget for the European Solidarity Corps programme has been too small to achieve its intended objectives, in terms of number of initially planned participants. Overall, the programme has had 22% more budget available per year than in the previous 2018-2020 programming period, approximately EUR 143 million per year for 2021-2027 compared with EUR 117 million for 2018-2020
[31](#footnote32)
. However, the programme has also become more costly to run
[32](#footnote33)
. The first cost increase has been due to inflation, which from 2021 to 2023 amounted to 17.4%
[33](#footnote34)
. Furthermore, the European Solidarity Corps chose to fund an additional 21% of unit costs to inclusion support for projects with participants with fewer opportunities (target 30%)
[34](#footnote35)
. This means that, despite the budget increase, the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps has less money available per year to achieve its goals, due to inflationary pressure, which has absorbed a large portion of the budget increase. Additionally, the programme reacted to the rise in inflation due to the Russian war in Ukraine by adapting its unit costs in 2023 and 2024, but mostly keeping overall funding the same. While higher unit costs made the funding more suitable for participating organisations and individuals, it also meant that fewer participants and participating organisations could be supported. Improved financial conditions (the level of project grants and/or unit cost rates) are the most important area for improvement according to 60% of the organisations that participated in the European Solidarity Corps. Of those organisations surveyed that had decided not to participate, one in five stated that the programme’s financial incentives were insufficient, the third most common reason for non-participation
[35](#footnote36)
.

The programme is oversubscribed, with funds only covering a small proportion of the existing demand (approximately 10%). However, not all of the funding has been used due to under-subscription in solidarity projects and a delayed start to the humanitarian aid strand. Funds were initially underused during the 2019-2020 pandemic, but they are now being absorbed back into the programme. However, there has been limited demand for solidarity projects, and budget reallocations only partially addressed the over-subscription in the volunteering strand from 2023. Furthermore, some countries under-use their budgets, which affects overall fund usage, while countries with higher demand are not allocated more funds, resulting in inefficiencies. A readjustment of funds between countries and from less popular strands to those in higher demand could improve efficiency
[36](#footnote37)
. This must be done carefully, however, in order to prevent under-funding of essential activities. Despite these issues, funding has generally been adequate for individual participants: 74% were satisfied that their financial needs were covered, though 24% said that their participation was affected by rising costs.

The budget allocation for the European Solidarity Corps programme has been consistent with the allocation set out in Regulation 2021/888 as regards the key actions
[37](#footnote38)
. The Regulation does not specify how the budget should be allocated. However, it does set out indicatively how the budget should be distributed between the different operational objectives under certain actions: 94% for volunteering and solidarity projects and 6% for volunteering under the European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps.

For each action, it set a limit for the maximum amount allocated for in-country volunteering, at 20%. Article 11(3) of the Regulation also stipulated that the budget may be used for technical and administrative assistance in the implementation of the programme, such as preparatory, monitoring, control, audit and evaluation activities, including corporate information technology systems
[38](#footnote39)
, but does not impose financial constraints on them. The current amount allocated to in-country volunteering, as of January 2024, stands at 8.1%, well within its set limits
[39](#footnote40)
.

Excluding the unspecified budget for technical and administrative assistance, the planned budget share allocated across years to volunteering and solidarity projects (95.5%) has been slightly higher than the 94% share required by the Regulation. However, commitments closely mirrored the expected percentages: 4.5%, as opposed to 6%, has been allocated to the European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps so far. This difference can be explained by the delayed start of the humanitarian aid strand in 2022, and the intention is to increase the allocation over subsequent years. The rationale behind the budget allocation in relation to expected activities and outcomes has been unclear. The annual work programmes for 2021-2023 have not been specific about the European Solidarity Corps’ expected outcomes, such as the skills to be acquired through its activities. Each of the annual work programmes has described expected results in a generalised manner, without setting concrete targets, such as the expected number of participating organisations to be reached in a given year
[40](#footnote41)
. This made it difficult to judge whether the budget was consistent with the expected outcomes and with the changes that the programme sought to achieve.

First of all, it is recommended that the rationale behind budget allocation be clearly explained in relation to expected activities (e.g. number of training sessions planned per stakeholder) and outcomes (e.g. expected learning outcomes of those training sessions). This would provide a clear understanding of how resources are being used and the value they are expected to bring. In addition, the annual work programmes need to be more specific about the levels of outcome that the European Solidarity Corps is expected to achieve. This will set a clear path for the programme and allow for better planning and execution of activities. Lastly, the expected results should be described in a concrete manner, and targets should be set. This will make it easier to measure success and to align the budget with the expected outcomes and the changes that the programme seeks to achieve. Financial absorption levels across all action types have been mixed. While the budget allocated to volunteering under each annual work plan has been close to 100%, the budget allocated to solidarity projects has repeatedly fallen short of its goal, averaging 67%, coming 10% closer to full absorption each year
[41](#footnote42)
. A reliable comparison of financial absorption levels between NAs has not been possible due to reporting issues. The reporting issues among NAs need to be addressed to ensure reliable comparability. This may require more time and resources, but it is crucial to the accurate tracking and management of financial absorption levels.

Humanitarian aid strand

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

Compared with organisations participating in other actions, organisations involved in the programme’s humanitarian aid strand were particularly critical of the financial support they received. Of those surveyed, 44% disagreed that the financial support was sufficient, while 62% felt that the unit cost rates were too low
[42](#footnote43)
. In addition, the area most cited by organisations as being in need of improvement was the financial conditions (71%)
[43](#footnote44)
. Organisations agreed that the programme’s financial rules had been simplified, particularly compared with the EU Aid Volunteers Initiative. However, many of them stressed that the available budget had not kept up with the rising costs of living since the start of the current European Solidarity Corps programme in 2021 and is not proportionate to the time and resources required from local staff to manage and build the capacities of volunteers. Hosting and supporting organisations also stressed that the budget was insufficient to cover volunteer relocation or drop-out contingencies.

One possible reason for organisations’ mixed opinion on the level of funding is that, while the strand’s unit costs are based on the funding provided under the EU Aid Volunteers Initiative, they do not include funding for technical assistance and capacity-building projects, which are no longer provided for under the new strand. While the level of funding per project is expected to be somewhat lower than under the EU Aid Volunteers Initiative, the number of projects selected is expected to be higher, enabling more organisations to participate in the strand and therefore improving its cost-effectiveness. Despite organisations’ mixed views on funding, the results of the most recent calls for deployment projects suggest that the strand has been more successful than its predecessor in attracting them. The previous initiative had attracted a total of 37 proposals for deployment projects in 2015-2019 and awarded 32 contracts for the deployment of 1 173 volunteers
[44](#footnote45)
. In comparison, the humanitarian aid strand received 49 applications in 2022-2023, of which 25 were selected. In addition, the EACEA awarded humanitarian aid quality labels to 170 organisations in 2021-2023, compared with 370 organisations certified under the EU Aid Volunteers Initiative in 2015-2020.

Administrative burden

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

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

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

The reaction of participating organisations to the European Solidarity Corps project management and reporting procedures was mixed. 40% found it easy to find volunteers via the European Solidarity Corps portal. 49% confirmed that the recruitment time frame was well suited to their organisational needs. Moreover, 56% agreed that the reporting requirements were reasonable. The user-friendliness of the Beneficiary Module received modest support, with only 36% stating that it was easy to use. The participating organisations expressed a positive opinion on support from the NAs and the EACEA during the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic affected 55% of the organisations surveyed. 60% of them contacted NAs, and only 2% asked the EACEA for assistance. 74% agreed that NAs and/or the EACEA provided clear guidelines for ensuring the safety of volunteers. Similarly, 78% were satisfied with the support and guidance received by the organisations. 83% appreciated the flexibility shown by the NAs and the EACEA in accommodating the project changes necessitated by the pandemic. However, fewer organisations (10%) than was previously the case reported that the administrative requirements matched the amount of funding requested. In the interview, organisations that have been long-term participants in the programme stated that, while the number of aspects to report on has decreased over the years, the burden of proof per claim (financial or activity) has increased for organisations.

Solidarity projects

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

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

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

Efficiency of programme implementation

The European Solidarity Corps has been cost-effective, with certain limitations. Cost-effectiveness varies greatly between operational actions. This variation is to be expected, as actions require differing degrees of effort depending on their nature. It is difficult to make a reliable comparison between the cost-effectiveness of the ongoing 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps and that of its previous iteration due to slight discrepancies in the output data for the previous programming period. Adjusting for inflation, the current European Solidarity Corps has managed to be roughly twice as cost-effective compared to the 2018-2020 programme as regards participant. Furthermore, as regards projects, it has been some 20% more cost-effective than in the previous period.

However, given the expanded scope of the programme, a simple cost-effectiveness comparison between the two programmes is somewhat flawed. When it comes to inclusion, both programming periods of the European Solidarity Corps can be considered cost-effective. The programme achieved a 30% inclusion rate, which is higher than the percentage of 21% of unit costs that it has specifically allocated to participants with fewer opportunities, a strong sign of cost-effectiveness
[45](#footnote46)
. The European Solidarity Corps has been most cost-effective in its solidarity projects, and least cost-effective in the European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps strand, based on a comparison of cost per participant. The European Humanitarian Aid Corps is currently at an early stage of development, with only one single year’s complete data available for analysis. As the programme matures, improvements in financial efficiency might be expected. However, it is important to note that, while the programme’s implementation might improve as it matures, there is no guarantee of that. One possible way of improving the strand’s cost-effectiveness could be to reduce the cost of the physical pre-departure training provided by some projects by moving it online rather than providing it face-to-face.

Overall, the European Solidarity Corps has been more cost-effective than comparable international programmes, such as International UN Youth Volunteers, with a cost-effectiveness of roughly EUR 44 654 per volunteer in 2021
[46](#footnote47)
. Even the European Solidarity Corps’ most comparable humanitarian aid strand is about twice as cost-effective. The European Solidarity Corps invested significant resources in preparing high-quality reference documents that have been useful in the implementation of the programme. The programme has spent approximately 10% of its yearly budget, or EUR 16 million per year, on training
[47](#footnote48)
. This work contributed to developing key features of the programme, including careful consideration of volunteers’ security, a uniform approach to volunteer training, the certification process for organisations, volunteer management and the governance of partners. These elements have contributed to the European Solidarity Corps’ effectiveness.

The training and recruitment procedures for volunteers under the humanitarian aid strand have been revised from those for the EU Aid Volunteers Initiative. This has improved accessibility and transparency and reduced the time between applications to participate in projects and their deployment. Previously, organisations pre-selected volunteer candidates to be trained, whereas now the training is open to all applicants who, after completing the training, become available for recruitment by organisations. Organisations expressed mixed views on these changes. Some organisations also expressed concern that the new procedures might make volunteer candidates less committed, taking training places away from genuinely interested candidates and slowing down the recruitment process
[48](#footnote49)
.

Participants in the programme’s horizontal training activities (general online training and online language support), managed by the EACEA, are generally satisfied with the support they received, with 71% indicating that they were satisfied with the general online training. Participants in online language support were more modest in their assessment. While 47% were satisfied with the support, 27% were dissatisfied. There may also be room for improving engagement and completion rates, as only 35% of participants actually completed the general online training, and 36% in the case of online language support, suggesting that this content may not be engaging, relevant or accessible to all
[49](#footnote50)
.

Participants were also generally satisfied with the European Solidarity Corps insurance (67%) managed by the EACEA
[50](#footnote51)
. However, in response to open survey questions and during interviews, numerous organisations, as well as NAs, spontaneously raised potential concerns about changes in insurance providers starting from February 2023. Organisations highlighted difficulties in contacting customer service, receiving timely email responses, and receiving enrolment certificates in time (especially relevant for volunteers requiring a visa in order to participate). In addition, they noted difficulties in the reimbursement of payments, especially for volunteers from partner countries. Some NAs interviewed noted that insurance issues are particularly burdensome for participants with fewer opportunities, for whom they can be a significant obstacle.

Quality Label and networking activities have been very cost-effective. On average, the European Solidarity Corps spent 4.5% of its budget, or EUR 6.5 million, on the Quality Label and networking activities. Organisations appreciated these activities, with 62% of them reporting that their international network has expanded as a result of their participation in the programme. Moreover, the Quality Label operations are successful, with two thirds of organisations saying that they have been encouraged to continue assessing and improving their operations
[51](#footnote52)
. The assessment of the extent to which the implementation of actions under direct and indirect management have been appropriate, efficient, and well-functioning has been inconclusive due to a lack of data on the actual budget spent under direct management actions (on insurance, for example).

Efficiency of programme management

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

IT tools

The assessment of the programme’s management tools shows mixed results. The application portal was well-received, but there was significant criticism of the beneficiary and reporting tools, with users expressing dissatisfaction. Although the application tools have improved since the previous period, they still need to be further improved for organisations. Furthermore, organisations found the participant information on the portal to be not detailed enough and highlighted the need for better search and filtering functionalities
[52](#footnote53)
. Organisations expressed a positive view of the level of support provided by support organisations
[53](#footnote54)
. Overall, individual participants’ assessment of the European Solidarity Corps portal was positive
[54](#footnote55)
. Despite improvements in the beneficiary and reporting tools since 2023, challenges remain in terms of their usability and reliability. National reports and interviews indicate that these tools are cumbersome, overly complex and prone to bugs, which disrupt key functionalities. The temporary unavailability of reporting tools also caused significant issues for users when uploading reports. Many NAs feel the IT system is inefficient, and that it fails to streamline project management processes and is too complex for target users. Some National Authorities also noted a lack of integration between systems, which adds administrative burdens and further inefficiencies throughout the programme.

Cooperation between stakeholders and the quality of support

Cooperation between different national management bodies has been efficient. This view has been shared by both the stakeholders involved and the participating organisations. Organisations were overwhelmingly satisfied with the quality of support and the responsiveness of NAs and the EACEA. 75% of respondents stated that the level of support provided by NAs and the EACEA during the project was good, and 74% stated that the responsiveness of the NAs and the EACEA in answering questions was also good
[55](#footnote56)
. Furthermore, the NAs and authorities interviewed described their collaboration with each other and with the Commission as efficient. They agreed that the Commission was responsive and helpful in dealing with requests, and that it showed great flexibility during crises
[56](#footnote57)
. The only criticism mentioned in interviews was that the Commission had been too slow in adapting unit costs in 2022, and one Member State unilaterally decided to step in to support hosting organisations in their country through a national cost compensation programme
[57](#footnote58)
.

During the evaluation period, the European Solidarity Corps had to respond to several external crises that had a significant impact on the programme’s implementation. The COVID-19 pandemic affected participants’ engagement with the programme, but most individual participants (78%) confirmed that the programme provided sufficient support to enable them to handle the crisis
[58](#footnote59)
. 67% of individual participants noted that some planned activities were moved online, while 28% of respondents experienced a change in their project’s thematic focus. 21% of respondents reported changes in the project’s target communities and social groups. The pandemic caused 18% of respondents to postpone their participation, and 7% had to end their activity prematurely without the possibility of completing it remotely. Meanwhile, 5% left their activity early but completed it remotely. This adaptability is chiefly due to the programme’s ability to quickly adjust and respond to unforeseen events, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the COVID-19 pandemic. The programme’s swift response to the immediate needs of beneficiaries during these emergencies highlights its significant capacity to adapt operations to changing situations.

Performance measurement and monitoring (RACER criteria)

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

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| RACER criteria | |  |
| Relevance and acceptability | On relevance, the monitoring indicators are deemed relevant but not necessarily comprehensive. The indicators used for monitoring are more compliance-focused, rather than being geared towards measuring impact. While these indicators are essential for ensuring compliance with regulations and guidelines, they may not fully capture the programme’s broader impact in achieving its objectives. There therefore needs to be a balance between compliance- and impact-focused indicators in order to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the programme’s performance and outcome. However, the indicators that the Commission uses for monitoring are generally acceptable. | |
| Credibility | In terms of credibility, the broad interpretation of certain definitions (e.g. on participants with fewer opportunities) and self-reporting make it challenging to measure impact. However, the European Solidarity Corps did make great improvements in terms of the credibility issues with its monitoring tools during its earlier programming period, except for data accuracy at the finalisation stage. This is particularly evident in light of the increased number of tracked indicators and the improved granularity of the data available for monitoring. | |
| Ease of monitoring | Furthermore, the indicators the Commission uses for performance management are easy to monitor as they are tied to directly measurable outputs. This makes it easier to track progress and assess the effectiveness of various initiatives. However, an exception to this is the monitoring of people with fewer opportunities. Given the complex and multi-faceted nature of the challenges faced by this group, the standard indicators may not capture the full scope of their experiences or the impact of project activities. This highlights the need for more nuanced and comprehensive indicators that can better reflect the realities of people with fewer opportunities. | |
| Robustness | While the robustness of the European Solidarity Corps’ performance management improved greatly compared with its previous iterations, there is still some room for improvement. Due to problems with the reporting tools, many final reports were not submitted in 2021 and 2022, resulting in a lack of data points at the final stage. Reliable data are crucial to understanding and identifying areas for improvement at the finalisation stage. In addition, the overall lack of regular monitoring of outcome and impact-related indicators cannot provide a comprehensive picture of the European Solidarity Corps’ performance. Overall, it is recommended that the European Solidarity Corps implement a number of measures to address the user-friendliness of its reporting tools and simplify its monitoring framework in order to improve its performance management. | |

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

Coherence

|  |
| --- |
| Main findings:  ·No specific inconsistencies are perceived between directly and indirectly managed action types, as stakeholders consider both to be important and see them as distinguishable in terms of their objectives.  ·Streamlining volunteering activities under the European Solidarity Corps has improved the programme’s coherence.  ·While integrating the programme into Erasmus+ may seem cost-effective, many stakeholders worry that it could raise barriers to participation and weaken the programme’s distinct focus, targeted reach and impact.  ·The 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps is highly complementary to other EU youth policy initiatives and the Commission’s broader strategic priorities for 2019-2024.  ·Overall, the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps complements a number of other relevant EU programmes. However, it complements the Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe programmes the most, and synergies with them could be further developed. |

Internal coherence

Coherence between directly and indirectly managed actions

No specific inconsistencies are perceived between directly and indirectly managed action types, as stakeholders consider both to be important and see them as distinguishable in terms of their objectives. The rationale for delegating directly and indirectly managed actions is clear, with appropriate delimitation of responsibilities and tasks between the NAs and the EACEA. While the comments of some of the participating organisations interviewed were restricted by their lack of familiarity with both types of actions, those who could comment felt that they added value through their targeting of different types of participants and thematic areas and their overall shorter duration. Compared with the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps, the current programme has improved its internal coherence by streamlining procedures, in particular the application process for quality labels
[59](#footnote60)
.

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

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

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

The possible integration of the European Solidarity Corps into Erasmus+

In the discussion on the integration of the European Solidarity Corps into Erasmus+, stakeholders have not expressed a clear preference. While integration into Erasmus+ may seem cost-effective to some, many worry that it could create barriers to participation and undermine the programme’s distinct focus, targeted reach and impact. The programme’s participating countries express a similarly mixed view. While some stressed that the programme should remain separate in order to maintain the European Solidarity Corps’ focus, others saw it as an opportunity to improve its visibility and efficiency. Several countries did not voice a clear preference. Instead, they emphasised that it was crucial to maintain the programme’s unique identity and to increase its funding, regardless of its future format.

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

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

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

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

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

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

·Increased visibility and clarity – The European Solidarity Corps could reach more young people and organisations under the well-known Erasmus+ brand, facilitating communication, dissemination and awareness of its opportunities.

·Programme synergies – A single programme could foster greater synergies between different types of youth activities, enriching the experience for participants by offering diverse opportunities within a single, coherent framework (see also the sections below on potential duplications). An integrated programme combining the non-formal learning opportunities of Erasmus+ with the volunteering and solidarity focus of the European Solidarity Corps could offer a more integrated approach to youth development.

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

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

External coherence

The 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps highly complements other EU youth policy initiatives and the Commission’s broader strategic priorities for 2019-2024, in particular ‘a new push for European democracy’. The legal framework for the 2017-2027 European Solidarity Corps explicitly integrates the programme into the 2019-2027 EU youth strategy and supports the youth action plan under EU external action for 2022-2027
[60](#footnote61)
. Compared with the previous programming period, and in line with the EU youth strategy’s increased emphasis on youth engagement
[61](#footnote62)
, the programme places greater emphasis on the participation of young people in its objectives and actions. The aim is to strengthen the active citizenship of its participants and their engagement in democratic life. This indicates a high level of appropriate links with and support for EU policy agendas, while the projects’ thematic coverage indicates it aligns, to varying extents, with horizontal EU-level policies and priorities.

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

Coherence with other EU programmes

The 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps complements a number of other relevant EU programmes (see below), as required by the programme’s legal basis
[62](#footnote63)
. However, the programme complements the Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe programmes the most, and there is room for developing further synergies with them. No specific examples of duplications were identified. National implementation reports also highlighted a need for better synergies. Many countries recognised the programme’s alignment with national and EU-level initiatives, but they recommended that better links and coordination efforts be developed with other programmes at EU and national level. This could avoid potential overlaps and confusion while maximising the programme’s impact and overall consistency.

Erasmus+

Both programmes cover similar goals and challenges in the 2019-2027 EU youth strategy by supporting youth participation and non-formal learning
[63](#footnote64)
 and raising awareness of existing cross-programme opportunities. At the same time, while they address similar target groups, the European Solidarity Corps has lower barriers to participation, making it more accessible to young individuals outside formal institutional frameworks. This is particularly important in terms of achieving the programme’s objective of including young people with fewer opportunities, who are more likely to be detached from formal institutional settings. Furthermore, the complementarity with Erasmus+ makes it easier for participants from diverse institutional and non-institutional backgrounds to become involved in EU youth activities and remain engaged across programmes in order to achieve their goals. This aspect was also consistently highlighted by national and EU-level interviewees, who emphasised that the two programmes have a clear logical link that enables participating organisations to work with young people through different activities.

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

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

Horizon Europe

In 2023 and 2024, the volunteering activities of the European Solidarity Corps received financial support from the Horizon Europe Missions (respectively EUR 16.53 million in 2023 and EUR 12.71 million in 2024
[64](#footnote65)
) through a co-delegation agreement implemented by the European Solidarity Corps NAs. In practical terms, the top-up allows the European Solidarity Corps to offer more volunteering opportunities for young Europeans to address the following priorities: the green transition, health, the digital transition, culture, civil security and food-bioeconomy. This synergy has boosted NAs’ focus on Mission priority topics. Moreover, some of the Mission priorities (e.g. the green transition and health) are consistent with the priorities of the European Solidarity Corps programme. This coordination offers clear added value given that this synergy may continue over the coming years. According to a first data collection carried out in 2023, the largest share of this co-delegated budget is used by the NAs for projects addressing environment-related Missions, such as climate change, soil health, oceans and waters, and carbon-neutral cities.

Other programmes

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

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

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

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

Coherence with national programmes and initiatives

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

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

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

2.4.2.1
   Final evaluation of the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps 

Main findings

·The European Solidarity Corps helped to strengthen European identity.

·The programme promoted active citizenship and facilitated participants’ personal development on a scale unlikely to be achieved through national efforts.

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

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

·The programme offered improved international networking, since it is difficult to achieve international collaboration through national volunteering initiatives.

EU added value

Scope and volume effects

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

Process and innovation

By broadening its scope, increasing flexibility, and boosting inclusion, the European Solidarity Corps was better positioned than the European Voluntary Service to meet young people’s current needs
[65](#footnote66)
. Unlike the European Voluntary Service, which was primarily focused on volunteering, the European Solidarity Corps introduced additional opportunities, including solidarity traineeships and a jobs strand.

Therefore, the European Solidarity Corps better recognises the dynamic nature of modern volunteering. This flexibility catered to the varied needs and situations of young people, ensuring that a broader demographic could participate in a way that resonates with them. The programme was also viewed as being more inclusive than its predecessor, as it also emphasised domestic volunteering and solidarity activities, specifically targeting young people who face challenges, such as language barriers, obstacles linked to disabilities or difficulties in finding volunteering opportunities abroad
[66](#footnote67)
. The introduction of domestic volunteering under the European Solidarity Corps has enabled a wider demographic, including those lacking language skills and confidence, to engage in volunteering. However, the transition from the European Voluntary Service to the European Solidarity Corps also resulted in better international opportunities
[67](#footnote68)
. It also improved networking opportunities for participating organisations by connecting local organisations with international bodies, fostering a more interconnected approach to solidarity. That was accompanied by better branding and more publicity, which increased the visibility of local initiatives on the global stage
[68](#footnote69)
.

Network effects

The transnational nature of the European Solidarity Corps greatly improved intercultural dialogue and understanding among young Europeans. It enabled participants to experience a variety of cultures and viewpoints, in stark contrast to the domestically oriented experiences provided by national schemes. The programme’s main added value at European level was in promoting pan-European networks, which often resulted in enduring partnerships. According to survey findings, a significant number of organisations (64%) reported that the programme had helped them to form new partnerships that continued well beyond the duration of specific projects. Furthermore, 62% of the organisations found that their international networks had expanded as a direct result of their participation in the European Solidarity Corps. They would have struggled to achieve such an increase in international networking and collaboration through national volunteering initiatives. The programme showcased the added value of nurturing long-lasting connections between participants. For example, 76% of respondents are still in touch with volunteers they had met during the programme, which highlights the enduring nature of those intercultural exchanges.

2.4.2.2.
   Interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps 

Main findings

·The European Solidarity Corps plays an important role in cultivating a European identity and support for European values.

·The programme is a powerful initiative for youth empowerment with a unique blend of opportunities for young people.

·While most participants came from middle-class backgrounds, the programme includes young people facing a combination of different challenges.

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

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

·The European Solidarity Corps is unique in creating pan-European networks, leading to long-term partnerships and relationships.

EU added value

Scope and volume effects

Enhancing European identity and support for European values

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

Participation in the programme has also strengthened the European identity and profile of the participating organisations. Initially, they concentrated on local projects, but through their involvement in the programme, they have reported a better understanding and appreciation of their connection to the wider pan-European context. Now, they are expanding their focus beyond local issues and gaining awareness of the advantages of working together and of how their efforts contribute to the broader European landscape and shared challenges
[69](#footnote70)
. The participating organisations surveyed also reported that the positive attitude towards the EU clearly spills over to the communities and societal groups involved in the programme. 81% of those organisations either agree or strongly agree that the work of European Solidarity Corps volunteers contributed to positive attitudes towards the EU in the communities and societal groups involved in the programme.

Strengthening democracy and active citizenship

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

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

Empowering youth

Resulting from the programme’s contributions to objectives such as strengthening democracy, active citizenship, solidarity, and personal and professional development, the European Solidarity Corps offers a unique blend of opportunities and is recognised as a powerful initiative for youth empowerment. The programme helps young people to become proactive contributors in a dynamic and uncertain global landscape. As an interview respondent from a participating organisation in Latvia pointed out, it also supports young people in their personal and professional growth, enabling them to develop crucial life and work skills that go beyond what formal education has to offer. The results of the survey programme support that finding, indicating that participants agree that the programme effectively addresses societal challenges (80%) and benefits the personal and professional development of the young people involved (93%).

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

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

Facilitating the transition from the education system to the jobs market

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

Significantly, a substantial proportion of the participants in the programme (40%) reported job-related challenges, specifically, difficulties in finding a job at the time of their application to the programme
[70](#footnote71)
. That significant figure underscores the harsh employment realities facing a large segment of today’s young people, and indicates that those challenges are an important reason why young people seek opportunities through the European Solidarity Corps. The survey also shed light on the applicants’ educational background. Most of those surveyed (76%), had already finished higher education, and therefore already possessed a strong academic foundation at the time of their application.

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

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

Inclusion of PWFOs

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

Those findings indicate that the programme mainly attracts those from the middle of the income spectrum, but also appeals to individuals from a wide range of economic backgrounds. Participants from lower-income households were somewhat less likely to agree (69% agreed on average) that their financial costs for participating in the programme were covered sufficiently compared with those from higher-income households (78% agreed). Additionally, young people from lower-income backgrounds are more likely to be discouraged from participating by specific issues affecting social benefits for volunteers, such as the potential loss of social welfare benefits and the lack of unified administrative and legal frameworks for volunteering
[71](#footnote72)
. Those factors may contribute to the lower representation of low-income individuals in the programme despite the financial support provided.

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

·being unable to find a job despite trying (40%); 

·experiencing mental health problems (26%); 

·living in a remote geographical area, far away from major urban centres (17%);

·facing discrimination, because of their identity, beliefs, or ethnic background (11%);

·having a physical health problem (8%).

It is important to note that the programme is able to cater to its participants’ diverse needs and motivations. The evaluation of the survey results shows that PWFOs have somewhat different motivations for participating in the European Solidarity Corps compared with the general participant group. Notably, 48% of PWFOs cited the development of soft skills – such as communication, teamwork, and adaptability – as a motivation, compared with 42% of other participants
[72](#footnote73)
. Additionally, only 32% of PWFOs were motivated by the desire to volunteer abroad compared with 39% of other participants. That is in line with interview findings, which highlight that PWFOs often prioritise in-country opportunities due to lower perceived barriers to participation.

Process and innovation

Capacity building for organisations

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

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

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

While organisations may not always consider the financial resources provided directly by the European Solidarity Corps to be substantial, the programme compensates by offering them a wealth of other resources. These include comprehensive training, logistical support and administrative guidance, all of which can bolster their operational capacities. Such empowerment often leads to spillover effects, enabling organisations to attract additional funding or forge new partnerships
[73](#footnote74)
. Furthermore, the European Solidarity Corps plays a crucial role in making volunteering more accessible by covering individual volunteers’ participation costs. While there is room to further reduce obstacles to participation, that support is particularly beneficial for individuals who might otherwise lack the financial means or the opportunities to become involved in volunteering, especially in a cross-border context. By reducing those barriers, the programme facilitates a broader and more inclusive participation in volunteering activities, in line with its core objectives of fostering solidarity and cooperation across Europe.

High quality of the programme

The emphasis on quality within the European Solidarity Corps contributes to significant EU added value and distinguishes the programme from many national schemes that may not prioritise the same level of quality, consistency and international standards. That commitment to quality ensures that participants have enriching and impactful experiences while also enhancing the participating organisations’ credibility and capacity. The programme stands out owing to its implementation of stringent standards and processes designed to ensure high-quality volunteering experiences. That focus extends beyond what many national schemes might offer, as it sets a pan-European standard that aligns with broader objectives and values.

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

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

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

·68% either agree or strongly agree that the Quality Label supports volunteer safety and well-being;

·66% either agree or strongly agree that the certification process encourages organisations to continually assess and improve their operations.

Those findings are corroborated by the results of the interview programme, which also indicate that attaining the Quality Label boosts the reputation and perception of those organisations, thereby strengthening their positions and improving their credibility
[74](#footnote75)
. Organisations that are recognised as European Solidarity Corps-qualified organisations improve not only their operational capacity, as they gain skills through the process of acquiring the label, but also their standing within the community and among potential volunteers, as reported in the interview programme. That increase in prestige can make those organisations more attractive to both volunteers and other stakeholders, such as funders or partners.

Network effects

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

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

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

2.4.3.Programme relevance: continuing importance or growing obsolescence?

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

2.4.3.1
   Final evaluation of the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps 

Relevance

Main findings:

·The objectives and priorities of the European Solidarity Corps were especially relevant for promoting social cohesion and individual development among young people.

·The programme’s diverse range of formats and topics made it highly relevant for addressing local societal needs and enabling tailored projects.

Participating organisations

The European Solidarity Corps’ main goal in 2018-2020 was to promote solidarity, involve young people and organisations in high-quality activities, and strengthen cohesion, democracy, and citizenship in Europe. In 2019, the programme aimed to involve over 100 000 young people in solidarity activities and introduced the inclusion of PWFOs as a new priority. While most organisations felt that the programme was suitable for supporting inclusion, many were uncertain about their ability to effectively support volunteers with fewer opportunities and felt that they needed additional guidance and resources.

Compared with the overall objectives of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps, the 2018-2020 programming period focused more on the transition of young people from school to work by also providing them with opportunities in the form of traineeships and jobs in solidarity-related fields. During the programming period of the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps, only 2.8%
[75](#footnote76)
 of the contracted projects were in the traineeships and jobs strand, and the allocated budget for that strand was significantly lower than for volunteering.

The emphasis in terms of budget and priorities that was put on employability was out of sync with the goals and priorities of the organisations at the time. Other sources, such as a SALTO research report, indicated that most applicant organisations considered their projects to be most closely aligned with the programme objectives ‘competence development of young people’ and ‘promotion of active citizenship’
[76](#footnote77)
. Nonetheless, the report found that most organisations also considered that their projects corresponded to the programme objective of ‘fostering employability of young people and their transition into the labour market’.

Individuals

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

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

2.4.3.2.
   Interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps

Main findings:

·The objectives and priorities of the European Solidarity Corps are especially relevant for promoting social cohesion and individual development among young people.

·The programme is highly relevant in addressing local societal needs due to its diverse formats and topics, which allows for tailored projects.

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

·The programme’s relevance is underscored by high satisfaction rates among individual participants, particularly with how it addresses the significant challenges they face.

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

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

Relevance

National governmental stakeholders

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

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

Horizontal priorities

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

The programme is flexible and allows annual thematic priorities that go beyond the four horizontal priorities to be added. They address pressing challenges and difficulties and are mainly carried out through centralised actions. For instance, the ‘promoting healthy lifestyles’ annual thematic priority was changed to reflect changing priorities in the area of health. When it was first added in 2021, it initially focused on the COVID-19 emergency health response, but then shifted to promoting overall well-being and healthy lifestyles. By 2023, it had a stronger emphasis on marginalised groups, including gender-specific needs and mental health. Similarly, the ‘inclusion and diversity’ priority evolved to focus more on local community needs in 2023, such as refugee relief, assistance, support and integration
[77](#footnote78)
. National bodies mostly felt that the horizontal and annual priorities of the programme were relevant to country realities, flexible enough, and largely aligned with societal needs. There was minor criticism of the ‘mental health (health promotion and support)’ or ‘digital transformation’ priorities because some national bodies believed that organisations might not be adequately equipped to address those priorities.

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

EU and international stakeholders

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

The members of EU youth organisations emphasised that the programme’s design and implementation is well suited to promote inclusion and participation in democratic life at European level. This is mainly because the volunteering experience helps young people to become involved and connected with other (or their own) European communities. This is further illustrated by the survey results, which show that participants become more socially aware. While they may not have initially applied specifically with the goal of promoting solidarity and civic engagement
[78](#footnote79)
, their experiences helped them develop a sense of solidarity and empathy for others, as well as social and political awareness.

Interviewees also noted that the increased focus on humanitarian aid, solidarity and refugee assistance – and in turn, the increase in projects in those thematic areas – contributes to value-based learning for young people and strengthens the role of the European Solidarity Corps in promoting solidarity, cohesion and social inclusion. For example, they highlighted an increase in large-scale projects related to integrating refugees
[79](#footnote80)
 and underlined the role of volunteering team projects in proactively addressing major crises, such as the emerging needs arising from Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, or crises linked to disasters, such as floods and earthquakes
[80](#footnote81)
. Interviewees also saw the environment and climate change as increasingly important. The programme allocated 18.0% of its budget to that horizontal objective in 2021, 15.8% in 2022 and 16.5% in 2023
[81](#footnote82)
.

Lastly, representatives of EU and international stakeholders also believed that the networking opportunities arising from the programme’s implementation and design are suited to supporting organisational capacity building, knowledge sharing and community building among volunteers, as well as between host communities and volunteers. That, in their view, can help to strengthen the European civic sphere. They emphasised that this aspect of the programme can be particularly relevant in countries where democracy is under threat
[82](#footnote83)
.

Stakeholders agreed that the programme priorities needed to be flexible to respond effectively to societal challenges. For instance, during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the European Solidarity Corps responded flexibly to challenges by adjusting project applications to address urgent issues. Like the NAs, youth organisations also noted the need for ‘continuous learning and improvement’ in the programme in order to respond rapidly to crises, and some stakeholders suggested the need for even more flexibility in terms of the formats and budget
[83](#footnote84)
.

Participating organisations

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

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

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

The organisations interviewed agreed that the programme’s four horizontal priorities were all relevant to current societal needs, particularly ‘inclusion and diversity’ and ‘participation in democratic life’, and stated that the programme promotes solidarity, especially among marginalised and minority groups. The survey also showed that digital transformation was seen as slightly less relevant, with 10% of organisations viewing it as not relevant, or only slightly relevant. In interviews and in response to open questions in the survey, organisations described the digital transition as less directly related to their own work than other priorities, which often involved vulnerable communities and addressed more pressing basic needs. That view is also consistent with the broader perception of the programme as focusing on solidarity and the inclusion of vulnerable groups. Other organisations noted that while they recognised the benefits of digitalisation, they saw it more as a long-term process and an ‘add-on’ to other priorities, rather than as a goal in itself. Nevertheless, many organisations emphasised that they were trying to incorporate that aspect, even if it was not yet a well-established goal. According to European Solidarity Corps monitoring data, 26 % of contracted projects between 2021 and 2023 addressed the European Commission’s digital priority
[84](#footnote85)
.

As more and more young people are struggling, partly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, with mental health, its inclusion in the programme’s priorities was also considered timely and relevant. In recent years, there has been an increase in applicants with such struggles
[85](#footnote86)
. In the context of the green priority, the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps has set environmental sustainability and the fight against climate change as one of the programme’s horizontal priorities. The evaluation finds that the programme has demonstrated a strong commitment to sustainability. The programme was found to be generally flexible and adaptable to specific needs and exceptional situations. Interviews also suggest that this flexibility has improved in recent years. Organisations also recognised the flexible and timely support they had received during the pandemic, with survey results showing that they agreed that their needs had been met during that period (78%).

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

Individuals

The relevance of the European Solidarity Corps programme is reflected in individual participants’ high satisfaction rates with their activities, especially with the volunteering projects. Overall, 90% of participants were satisfied or very satisfied with their involvement in the programme’s activities. 80% of participants in volunteering projects felt that their work benefited the community and social groups. As for solidarity projects, 78% of respondents felt that they also met the needs of young people.

Survey results show that:

·close to half of all participants (40%) and applicants (51%) faced difficulties related to finding a job at the time of their application to the programme;

·more than 20% faced economic challenges (i.e. could only afford basic necessities), or had mental health issues. 

The programme’s relevance to young people seeking opportunities to improve their employability is further underscored by the fact that 41% of participants mentioned the desire to gain professional experience or explore potential career paths as their top motivation for participating
[86](#footnote87)
 (see Section 2.4.2.2. on facilitating transition from the education system to the jobs market). 

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

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

Inclusion of PWFOs

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

The European Solidarity Corps’ 2021 inclusion and diversity strategy significantly boosted the participation of young PWFOs between 2021 and 2023 (self-reported, see ‘Effectiveness’ under Section 2.4.1.2.). It achieved this by providing additional support and services (including increased mentoring, personal assistance and sign language interpreters to participants with disabilities), funding and increased accessibility throughout the programme. The strategy also aimed to involve more organisations that work specifically with that social group. Some other updates to the programme have also helped it to better cater for and meet the needs of PWFOs, in particular by allowing them to apply for shorter-term projects, for projects in their own country and to participate in team volunteering. Case studies show an increase in the number of such participants in selected countries in the 2021-2023 programming period compared with the previous period.

Meeting the unique needs of PWFOs through early identification

The current method of identifying and supporting PWFOs within the European Solidarity Corps programme is problematic because of the broad criteria defining PWFOs and the reliance on self-reporting. Organisations frequently struggle to identify PWFOs during the selection process due to insufficient information at the application stage. Consequently, they often recognise the specific needs of PWFOs only after their arrival, once their background and specific challenges become evident, which hampers timely support and integration. That delay prevents organisations from making the necessary arrangements to fully include and integrate those individuals from the start. During the interview programme, organisations stated that their approach to PWFOs is complicated by the fact that they may not be aware of whether participants belong to that group until they arrive
[87](#footnote88)
.

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

In addition to the challenges identified above, specific factors need to be considered for including PWFOs in the humanitarian aid strand for which volunteering activities take place mainly in countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia. Organisations pointed out that logistical and financial barriers can be high, and emphasised that the high degree of mobility required and the associated costs may discourage young people, especially those who are economically disadvantaged, from taking part 
[88](#footnote89)
. Therefore, providing a high level of support to candidates and sufficient funds for participation is particularly important
[89](#footnote90)
. In that context, several organisations surveyed noted that the programme could also do more to support applicants from non-EU countries, such as Türkiye. Those candidates also require visas to take part in the programme’s mandatory face-to-face training in EU Member States and are more likely to face economic barriers. Some Turkish organisations interviewed suggested that the programme could consider organising training activities in Türkiye or online to help young Turkish people participate in the strand.

PWFOs’ unique motives

The survey evaluation results show that PWFOs have somewhat different motives for participating in the European Solidarity Corps than the general participant group. Significantly, 48% of PWFOs mentioned developing soft skills – such as communication, teamwork, and adaptability – as a motivation, compared with 42% of other participants
[90](#footnote91)
. Additionally, only 32% of PWFOs indicated the desire to volunteer abroad as a motivation, which is slightly lower than the 39% observed among the general participant group. Those findings align with interview findings, highlighting that PWFOs often prioritise in-country opportunities due to perceived lower barriers to participation. While it is difficult to quantify specific life outcomes for PWFOs, stakeholders generally agree that the programme positively impacts young people, and young PWFOs in particular. Those outcomes, driven by PWFOs’ unique motives, suggest that the programme is especially transformative for them.

2.5.What are the conclusions and lessons learnt?

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

2.5.1.Conclusions

2.5.1.1.
   Conclusions on the relevance of the programme

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

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

2.5.1.2.
   Conclusions on the coherence of the programme

With its focus on youth involvement and policy integration, the European Solidarity Corps is well-aligned with EU priorities. Its clear management structure and streamlined activities, which are based on the EU Aid Volunteers Initiative, boost its effectiveness and visibility. The transition to a more individualised, learning-centred approach reflects its youth-focused goals. Its potential integration into Erasmus+ presents opportunities and raises concerns.

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

2.5.1.3.
   Conclusions on the effectiveness of the programme

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

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

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

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

2.5.1.4.
   Conclusions on the efficiency of the programme

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

While implementation has become more cost-effective, variations across different activities suggest that targeted financial strategies could improve efficiency, especially for infrastructure-intensive or high-mobility activities. Programme management has been effective, for example by adapting to external shocks like COVID-19, but inefficiencies have been identified in financial resource management. Funds are sometimes underused in low-demand areas, while high-demand areas remain underfunded, indicating a need for more dynamic financial management. Measuring and monitoring processes have clearly improved, but new IT tools did not fully meet user needs, which had an impact on the effectiveness of monitoring. Performance indicators are better aligned but need to be refined to better capture the programme’s impact, particularly for participants with fewer opportunities. Monitoring its geographical spread and how its benefits are distributed is essential for real-time learning and for improving the programme.

2.5.1.5.
   Conclusions on the EU added value of the programme

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

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

2.5.2.Lessons learnt

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

2.5.2.1.
   Inclusion of PWFOs

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

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

·raising awareness of the ‘Implementation guidelines - Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps inclusion and diversity strategy’
[91](#footnote92)
;

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

·creating more opportunities for capacity building within organisations to better identify and integrate PWFOs;

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

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

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

·continuing to improve monitoring mechanisms to track where volunteer activities are taking place and ensure accurate geographical data;

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

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

2.5.2.3.
   Improving visa arrangements for non-EU nationals

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

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

·close cooperation with EU Member States in the implementation of Directive (EU) 2016/801 on the conditions of entry and residence of non-EU nationals for the purpose of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing, which is also in line with Council Recommendation (2022/C157/01) on the mobility of young volunteers across the European Union.

2.5.2.4.
   Aligning goals and funding

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

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

·consider planning for annual budget increases rather than a flat budget, thereby making the project more resilient to economic shocks and allowing for scalability;

·bringing in an annual reassessment of the suitability of unit costs, in line with an overall increase in the budget; and 

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

2.5.2.5.
   IT systems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  

3. Annex I. Procedural information

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

Agenda planning reference:  PLAN/2022/489

Organisation of the evaluation 

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

The external evaluation assignment included a public consultation and multiple targeted consultations, and provided the main evidence base for the staff working document. The service contractor’s full final report has been published here:  
<https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/5736339>
.

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

Timing of the evaluation

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| DESCRIPTION | TIMING |
| Call for evidence on the ‘Have your Say’ portal | 18 October 2022 to 15 November 2022 |
| Signature of the contract for the external evaluation assignment | 16 June 2023 |
| First interservice group meeting | 29 June 2023 |
| Inception report | 5 September 2023 |
| Second interservice group meeting | 11 September 2023 |
| Public consultation on the ‘Have your Say’ portal | 13 November 2023 to 5 February 2024 |
| First interim report | 20 November 2023 |
|  |  |
| Third interservice group meeting | 29 November 2023 |
| Second interim report | 9 April 2024 |
|  |  |
| Fourth interservice group meeting | 18 April 2024 |
|  |  |
| Draft final report submitted by the contractor | 27 May 2024 |
| Fifth interservice group meeting | 3 July 2024 |
| Final report submitted by the contractor | 31 August 2024 |
| Approval of the final version of the external contractor’s final report | October 2024 |
| Interservice consultation on the draft Commission report and SWD | 26 November 2024 to 16 December 2024 |
| Publication of the Commission report and SWD | March 2025 |

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

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

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

The external evaluation assignment was carried out between June 2023 and October 2024 and included a public consultation and multiple targeted consultations. The consultation strategy for the evaluation was based on a mapping of stakeholders, and quantitative and qualitative data were gathered mainly through the following consultation activities:

·a call for evidence on the Commission’s ‘Have Your Say’ portal from 18 October to 15 November 2022;

·a public consultation on the ‘Have Your Say’ portal from 13 November 2023 to 5 February 2024;

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

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

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

  

4.Annex II. Methodology and analytical models used

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

Desk research

The desk research for this evaluation comprised:

1.a review of relevant literature and documents; 

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

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

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

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

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

b.studies, evaluations and assessments analysing the programme’s implementation (including RAY Network reports and studies, studies prepared for the CULT and EMPL Committees
[92](#footnote93)
, the 2018 ex ante evaluation accompanying the proposal for a regulation establishing the European Solidarity Corps); 

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

The European Solidarity Corps’ monitoring dashboards (which DG EAC allowed the evaluation team to access) served as a key source of administrative and monitoring data for the evaluation, and were particularly helpful for answering evaluation questions related to the programme’s effectiveness and efficiency. However, the evaluation was impeded by gaps and limitations in the available data, including incomplete data on the implementation of the 2021-2023 European Solidarity Corps programme at the time of evaluation, and gaps and limitations in the 2018-2020 budget data. As a result, certain parts of the cost-effectiveness assessment were inconclusive.

Stakeholder consultations

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

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

·Three targeted surveys addressing:

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

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

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

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

Those different types of stakeholder consultations were complementary because:

·large-scale surveys of participating organisations and individual volunteers of the programme provided robust evidence on its effectiveness and efficiency;

·interviews with participants, managing and implementing bodies, and external experts and organisations served also to cover relevance and coherence evaluation issues.

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

Case studies

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

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

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

Table 1. Horizontal case studies

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| CASE STUDY | THEME |
| The programme’s contribution to improved social inclusion and diversity | Examining the extent to which the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme has so far been successful in reaching the goal (set in the European Solidarity Corps Regulation (EU) 2021/888) of putting in place special measures to promote social inclusion and the participation of disadvantaged young people. |
| Sustainable development in the programme | Evaluating the extent to which the programme was in line with sustainable development principles and respected the ‘do no harm’ principle laid down in the European Solidarity Corps Regulation (EU) 2021/888. |
| The added value of the programme’s international/cross-border dimension | Evaluating the results of the European Solidarity Corps programme in fostering: (1) cross-cultural understanding and cooperation; (2) a sense of European identity among young people; and (3) the development of partnerships between organisations from different participating countries. |
| The programme’s flexibility and adaptability | Evaluating how flexible the programme is in adapting to major external challenges such as COVID-19 or Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as well as the impact of inflation. |

Counterfactual analysis

The evaluation used counterfactual impact evaluation methods and techniques to measure the causal effect of participation in the 2018-2020 and 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme. The aim was to determine the programme’s effectiveness and impact on individual participants. The analysis used administrative and survey data to compare the characteristics of individual European Solidarity Corps participants (who represented the treatment group) with those of non-participants (meaning rejected applicants to the programme, who represented the control group).

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

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

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

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

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

Cost-effectiveness assessment

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

Social media analysis

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

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

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

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

Limitations and constraints

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

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

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

-By their very nature (particularly in relation to the coherence criteria), some of the answers to the evaluation questions relied heavily on desk research and interview data. To mitigate this issue, the study team carried out an extensive programme of interviews with representatives of management and implementation bodies, national authorities, participating individuals and organisations, external experts and other stakeholders. The evaluation also took into account secondary sources of information, particularly reports from networks and research bodies on the implementation of the European Solidarity Corps programme. The findings presented under each evaluation criterion also clearly indicate the extent to which they are based on opinions, facts or other types of evidence.

-The administrative and monitoring data collected by the programme served as an important source for a sound analysis of the performance and cost-effectiveness. However, the evaluation faced challenges due to gaps and limitations in the available data. These include incomplete data on the implementation of the 2021-2023 European Solidarity Corps programme at the time of evaluation and gaps and limitations in the 2018-2020 budget data. While the evaluation used other data collection and analysis methods to validate and contextualise the findings, analyses of some aspects of the programme’s cost-effectiveness (mainly comparisons between programming periods or between direct and indirect management actions) remained inconclusive. These limitations are clearly identified and contextualised in the relevant sections on programme efficiency.

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

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

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

5.1Effectiveness

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

Summary of evaluation findings

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

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

Evaluation questions

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| EFFECTIVENESS  EQ01 | 1.1. To what extent has the programme delivered the expected outputs, results and impacts?  1.2. What negative and positive factors seem to be influencing outputs, results and impacts? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | |
| 1.1.1 To what extent has the programme delivered outputs specified in the intervention logic?  1.1.2 To what extent has the programme delivered results specified in the intervention logic?  1.1.3 To what extent has the programme delivered impacts specified in the intervention logic?  1.2.1 What negative and positive factors influenced the delivery outputs, results and impacts? | |
| SCOPE | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | |
| §Expected outputs (short-term results), results and impacts (medium- to long-term results) have been achieved  §Description of negative and positive factors influencing outputs, results and impacts and an explanation of their influence | |
| INDICATORS | |
| 1.1.1. Outputs (short-term) | |
| §Number and proportion of outputs produced by the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme and by the 2021-2027 programme  §Number and proportion of outputs that can be attributed thematically as contributing to inclusion and diversity, the digital transformation, the environment and the fight against climate change, participation in democratic life  §The trend of the number of hosting organisations that took part in the European Solidarity Corps programmes | §Proportion of stakeholders satisfied with the outputs |
| 1.2.1: Negative and positive factors influencing outputs, results and impacts | |
| §List and description of positive and negative factors mentioned by:  ostakeholders and policymakers  orespondents to surveys and online public consultation | §Evidence from focus group discussions  §Evidence from reports and internal documents  §Demonstration of the impact of the indicated factors during case study analysis |
| 1.3.1 . Results and impacts (medium- to long-term results) | |
| Improved skills and competencies for personal, educational and professional development | |
| §Proportion of participants who consider that their skills and competencies for personal, educational and professional development have improved as a result of participation in European Solidarity Corps activities  §Proportion of participants who consider their English and third-language skills have improved from their participation in European Solidarity Corps training activities  §Proportion of participants that feel more self-empowered and self-esteem as a result of participation in European Solidarity Corps activities  §Proportion of participants who started their own private or non-governmental initiatives after participating in European Solidarity Corps activities  §Proportion of participants who started their own private socially-oriented business  §Proportion of participants who consider their decision to enrol in educational institutions was inspired by their participation in European Solidarity Corps activities | §Proportion of participants who are aware of EU common values and EU projects in the youth, solidarity and volunteering fields as a result of participation in European Solidarity Corps activities  §Proportion of participants who consider that their employment opportunities have improved as a result of participation in European Solidarity Corps activities  §Proportion of participants who consider engaging in solidarity activities, democratic life and society after participating in European Solidarity Corps activities  §Proportion of participants who claim that their habits, consumption patterns and preferences became more sustainable after participating in 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps activities  §Proportion of participants who claim that their digital skills improved from participating in 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps activities |
| Build the capacity of hosting organisations to offer quality solidarity activities | |
| §Proportion of organisations and institutions that consider they have improved their standard operating procedures and partnerships as a result of their participation in European Solidarity Corps activities  §The proportion of hosting organisations that participated in more EU/international level activities after taking part in European Solidarity Corps activities | §Proportion of organisations and institutions that consider their professional environment has improved as a result of their participation in European Solidarity Corps activities  §Evidence of participating in European Solidarity Corps helping improve diversity practices in the hosting organisations |
| Improve capacity of local communities to address societal challenges | |
| §Evidence that 2014-2020 solidarity projects addressed local issues or developed local opportunities  §Evidence that participating in European Solidarity Corps activities improved hosting communities’ capacities to address societal challenges, including sustainability issues  §Evidence that the activities have inspired other young people and organisations to engage in similar solidarity activities | §Evidence that volunteering projects improved social cohesion and civic engagement in local communities  §Evidence that volunteering projects improved the sense of ownership over the development of local communities  §Evidence that the hosting communities’ improved capacities to address societal challenges are sustainable |
| Improve opportunities for the public to participate in humanitarian aid activities and operations | |
| §Number of sending organisations with the specific Quality Label for humanitarian aid volunteering activities  §Number of hosting organisations with the specific Quality Label for humanitarian aid volunteering activities | |
| §Proportion of stakeholders who think that the humanitarian aid strand of European Solidarity Corps has contributed to increasing and improving the EU's humanitarian aid capacities  §Extent to which the programme was able to target its support both to delivery of humanitarian aid to those in the recipient/beneficiary local communities who are most in need and to their specific needs | |
| Improve capacity to respond to humanitarian crises and resilience of vulnerable or disaster-affected communities in non-EU countries | |
| §Extent to which local staff and volunteers from the countries and communities in which they are implemented were actively involved in the programme  §Extent to which the action has contributed to efforts to strengthen local preparedness or the response to humanitarian crises | |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | |
| Desk research: Documents outlining key priorities and objectives of the programmes, such as annual work programmes, guides and legal and policy documents. Annual activity/implementation reports of the programmes, DG EAC, EACEA and National Agencies. Previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity. Research data and findings from relevant networks and stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations. | |

|  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| EFFECTIVENESS  EQ02 | | 2.1 To what extent have the 2018-2020 and 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programmes succeeded in transforming an initiative primarily focused on the learning outcomes of the participants (European Voluntary Service - EVS) into an initiative that retains learning mobility and non-formal learning at its heart but has a clear ambition to achieve positive societal changes and enhance solidarity across Europe? How many and what types of positive societal changes have been induced by the programmes?  2.2 Have the original objectives set out by the Juncker Commission with regard to these measures been achieved? | | |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | | |
| 2.1.1. Has the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme achieved its learning outcomes objectives?  2.1.2. How successful has the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme been in achieving positive societal challenge and enhancing solidarity across Europe?  2.1.3. What is the share of learning mobility and non-formal learning in the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme's activities?  2.1.4. What kind of societal changes did the programmes induce?  2.2.1. Have the Juncker Commission's original objectives for these measures been achieved? | | |
| SCOPE | | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme | | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | | |
| §The extent to which the programmes still retain a focus on learning outcomes for participants  §The extent to which the programmes demonstrate a clear ambition to achieve positive societal changes and enhance solidarity | | §The extent to which the Juncker Commission's relevant objectives have been addressed and achieved  §The extent to which the ambition to achieve positive societal changes and enhance solidarity was addressed |
| INDICATORS | | |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| The extent to which the programmes still retain a focus on learning outcomes for participants | |
| §Stability of objectives about learning outcomes | §Quantitative trends of such objectives and associated outputs (e.g. budget spent, number of projects, etc.) over time |
| The extent to which the Juncker Commission's relevant objectives have been addressed | |
| §Number of the Juncker Commission’s objectives addressed by the programmes  §The extent to which the objective of a connected digital single market has been achieved  §The extent to which the objective of justice and fundamental rights based on mutual trust has been achieved | §The extent to which the objective of a union of democratic change has been achieved  §The extent to which the objective of a new boost for jobs, growth and investment has been achieved |
| The extent to which the programmes demonstrate a clear ambition to achieve positive societal changes and enhance solidarity | |
| §The extent to which objectives on positive societal changes and improved solidarity are well-defined  §Existence and quality of measurable objectives on positive societal changes and improved solidarity | §Proportion of stakeholders who have a shared understanding of solidarity and positive social change |
| The extent to which the ambition to achieve positive societal changes and enhance solidarity was addressed | |
| §Number of successful projects and their regional distribution  §Number of young people who participated in the programme and their regional distribution  §Extent to which European Solidarity Corps participants have developed new transferable skills and competencies, such as communication or teamwork  §The extent to which European Solidarity Corps participants have contributed to the needs of the host communities | §The extent to which European Solidarity Corps participants have continued to be engaged in social and civic activities beyond their initial participation in the programme  §The extent to which European Solidarity Corps projects improved cross-cultural understanding, including between participants from diverse backgrounds  §The number of participants continuing to engage in social and civic activities after completing their projects  §The number of disadvantaged and marginalised groups that the projects reached |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | |
| Desk research: Documents outlining key priorities and objectives of the programmes, such as annual work programmes, guides and legal and policy documents. Annual activity/implementation reports of the programmes, DG EAC, EACEA and National Agencies. Previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity. Research data and findings from relevant networks and stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations. | |

|  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| EFFECTIVENESS  EQ03 | | 3.1 Has the programme achieved its purpose of promoting solidarity as a value and building communities of individuals committed to enhancing solidarity across Europe and beyond? | | |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | | |
| 3.1.1. What share of participants share the same understanding of solidarity as a composition of empathy, active citizenship, human rights and inclusion?  3.1.2. What share of participants became engaged in other solidarity activities after taking part in the programme? | | |
| Scope | | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme | | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | | |
| §Participation level and participants’ attitudes  §Impact of the programmes on individuals and communities  §Collaboration of different actors | | |
| INDICATORS | | |
| Participation and participants’ attitudes | | |
| §The number and gender of young people who participated in the programmes and the national and regional diversity  §Extent to which programme participants felt engaged and committed to promoting solidarity | | |
| Impact of the programmes | | |
| §The extent to which the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme has spread the concept of social entrepreneurship among participants  §The extent to which the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme has achieved a more active participation of young people in democratic life and in society in general | | §The extent to which the programmes had a measurable and positive impact on communities in terms of improving solidarity  §The extent to which the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme has achieved more willingness of young people to remain active and engaged in the area of solidarity  §The extent to which the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme has increased young people's sense of belonging in the EU |
| Collaboration | | |
| §The extent to which participating organisations and individuals have been able to organise collaboration and partnerships among different actors to promote solidarity at different levels and in different contexts | | |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | | |
| Desk research: Annual activity/implementation reports of National Agencies. Previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity. Research data and findings from relevant networks and stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations. Monitoring data and good practice examples from project databases and management tools (both public and internal) and Eurobarometer surveys. | | |

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| EFFECTIVENESS  EQ04 | | 4.1 How did the 2018-2020 and 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programmes help address societal and humanitarian challenges in local communities? How did the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps humanitarian aid strand help address humanitarian challenges in local communities outside of the EU and programme countries? | |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | |
| 4.1.1. What were the societal and humanitarian challenges in local communities where the European Solidarity Corps operated?  4.1.2. How successfully has the European Solidarity Corps addressed these challenges?  4.1.3. What were the humanitarian and development challenges in local communities where the humanitarian aid strand of the European Solidarity Corps operated?  4.1.4. How successfully has the humanitarian aid strand of the European Solidarity Corps addressed these challenges? | |
| Scope | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | |
| Results and impacts of European Solidarity Corps projects and activities on societal and humanitarian challenges in local communities | |
| INDICATORS | |
| §List of achieved results and impacts on societal and humanitarian challenges in local communities  §Local stakeholders’ satisfaction with the quality of outputs produced (proportion of stakeholders satisfied with the outputs from the surveys and the trend in expressing satisfaction with the outputs through the interviews) | |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | |
| Desk research: Annual activity/implementation reports of National Agencies and EACEA. Previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity. Research data and findings from relevant networks and stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations. Monitoring data and good practice examples from project databases and management tools (both public and internal). | |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| EFFECTIVENESS  EQ05 | 5.1 What are the main specific impacts of the European Solidarity Corps activities on the inclusion of young participants with fewer opportunities? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | |
| 5.1.1. What is the share of participants with fewer opportunities in the ESC?  5.1.2. How has participation in the European Solidarity Corps impacted young people with fewer opportunities? | |
| Scope | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | |
| §Identifying the efforts to promote inclusion of hard-to-reach groups, people with fewer opportunities and disadvantaged groups and evidence of their results | §Disaggregating results and impacts by group wherever possible and identifying the different types and amount of benefits obtained per average group member |
| INDICATORS | |
| §Proportion of beneficiaries that have introduced measures to promote the participation of hard-to-reach and disadvantaged groups (in line with the framework of inclusion measures and the inclusion and diversity strategy)  §The efforts and their results to promote inclusion in hard-to-reach and disadvantaged groups identified through review of monitoring data, literature and project outputs | §Disaggregation of the results and impacts (EQ1) in terms of hard-to-reach and disadvantaged groups (especially in terms of disabilities, health problems, barriers linked to education and training systems) and gender dimension  §Proportion of overall participants from hard-to-reach and disadvantaged groups |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | |
| Desk research: Annual activity/implementation reports of National Agencies. Previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity. Research data and findings from relevant networks and stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations. Monitoring data and good practice examples from project databases and management tools (both public and internal).  Methods: Metanalysis of all findings related to disadvantaged groups, analysis of existing monitoring and other data, surveys of learners and practitioners, interviews, case studies, online public consultation, literature review, and review of project outputs. | |

|  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| EFFECTIVENESS  EQ06 | | 6.1 What was the impact of the change from the Erasmus+ youth programmes (including the EVS) to the European Solidarity Corps programmes on all the stakeholders concerned? | | |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | | |
| 6.1.1. Has the transition from the Erasmus+ youth programmes (including the EVS) to the European Solidarity Corps programmes affected the composition of stakeholder groups?  6.1.2. How has the transition impacted the stakeholder groups that were active in both programmes? | | |
| Scope | | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme | | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | | |
| §Participation: The extent to which the change affected the participation of young people in the programmes, including the number and diversity of participants, and their level of engagement and commitment to the programmes  §Opportunities: The extent to which the change affected the range and quality of opportunities available to young people, including the variety of projects and activities offered, the level of support provided, and the relevance of the opportunities to young people's needs and aspirations  §Integration: The extent to which the change affected the programme’s integration into the wider EU policy framework, and their alignment with the EU’s broader objectives and priorities  §Visibility: The extent to which the change affected the visibility and recognition of the programmes, both within the EU and internationally, and their ability to attract new participants and partners  §Sustainability: The extent to which the change affected the sustainability of the programmes, including their ability to secure funding, maintain partnerships and deliver long-term impact for participants and communities | | |
| INDICATORS | | |
| §Participation rate in the Erasmus+ youth and European Solidarity Corps programmes  §The number of volunteering and solidarity projects organised per year by both programmes  §Background of participants in the Erasmus+ youth and European Solidarity Corps programmes | | §Opinions of organisations that participated in both programmes  §Changes in results on the participating individuals, organisations and communities  §Number and distribution of host organisations involved in both programmes |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | | |
| Desk research: Monitoring and administrative data on the outputs and results of the European Solidarity Corps and the EVS. Previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity. Stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations on the programmes.  Survey of individual European Solidarity Corps participants, young people who have not participated, and organisations that participated in the European Solidarity Corps.  Interviews with individual participants, participating organisations, authorities and supervisory bodies (DG EAC), national authorities, EU bodies and policymakers, external experts. | | |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| EFFECTIVENESS  EQ07 | 7.1 What were the unintended effects of the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme, if any, and what was their magnitude? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | |
| 7.1.1. Has the European Solidarity Corps had any unintended effects?  7.1.2. What unintended effects did the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme have?  7.1.3. What was their magnitude? | |
| Scope | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | |
| §Identification and scope of unintended effects on participants | §Identification and scope of unintended effects in local communities and specific organisations |
| INDICATORS | |
| §Feedback from participating young people and organisations on the unanticipated effects of the programmes | §Unintended reactions to the social media posts  §Estimation of the number individuals and communities affected by the unintended consequences |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | |
| Interviews, surveys of experts, National Agencies and practitioners, analysis of unstructured monitoring information (e.g. project reports), case studies, online public consultation, literature review. Case studies.  Desk research: Annual activity/implementation reports of the programmes, DG EAC, EACEA and National Agencies. Previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity. Research data and findings from relevant networks and stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations. Monitoring data from project databases and management tools (both public and internal). | |

|  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| EFFECTIVENESS  EQ08 | | 8.1 For the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme, what can be done to increase the number of participants in short-term activities (e.g. volunteering teams and solidarity projects) and, consequently, the number of participants in the whole programme? | | |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | | |
| 8.1.1. What was the yearly number of participants in 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps short-term activities?  8.1.2. What were the reasons for participating in 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps short-term activities?  8.1.3. How well were the short-term activities promoted?  8.1.4. What were the reasons for not being selected for participation in 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps short-term activities? | | |
| ScopE | | |
| 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme | | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | | |
| §Assessment of the level of demand for short-term activities in different countries  §Accessibility of the programme for participants from communities with fewer opportunities  §The level of awareness about short-term activities among different participating groups | | §Sufficiency of financing conditions for short-term activities  §Cohesion of the programme schedule with other programmes and national events (university schedules, events and projects, etc.) |
| INDICATORS | | |
| Relevance and accessibility of short-term activities | | |
| §Evidence that financial support is sufficient to participate or organise short-term activities  §Proportion of young people who find short-term activities relevant to them | | §Proportion of non-EU-country nationals that are satisfied with the visa support in short-term activities  §The level of competitiveness of the calls for short-term activities |
| Communication materials promoting short-term activities | | |
| §Number of posts and promotion materials per each short-term activity every year | | §Proportion of participants in short-term activities who applied due to a communication material |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | | |
| Desk research: Annual activity/implementation reports of the programmes, DG EAC, EACEA and National Agencies. Previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity. Research data and findings from relevant networks and stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations. Relevant Eurobarometer surveys.  Survey of individual European Solidarity Corps participants, young people who did not participate, organisations that participated in European Solidarity Corps.  Interviews with individual participants, participating organisations, authorities and supervisory bodies (DG EAC), national authorities, EU bodies and policymakers, external experts. | | |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| EFFECTIVENESS  EQ09 | 9.1 To what extent are the activities' effects likely to last, for both participants and local communities, after the end of the activity? |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | | |
| 9.1.1. Which of the impacts were sustained upon the completion of projects (without EU support)?  9.1.2. How likely are the new impacts to be sustained upon the completion of projects (without EU support)?  9.1.3. How do stakeholder perceive the effects’ durations?  9.1.4. How likely are the impacts also to be achieved in the new/ongoing programme? | | |
| Scope | | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme | | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | | |
| §Evidence of the pathways followed by participating individuals and organisations and the role of the European Solidarity Corps in developing skills and changing the perspectives of participating young people  §The extent to which the European Solidarity Corps activities have built sustainable structures and systems in local communities or host organisations that can continue to function and have an impact after the activity has ended  §The extent to which the activities have fostered a sense of ownership among local communities, by involving them in the design and implementation of the activity, and encouraging their continued engagement and commitment  §The extent to which the activities have had a multiplier effect, by inspiring other young people and organisations to engage in similar solidarity activities, and contributing to a broader culture of solidarity and social responsibility | | §Evidence of European Solidarity Corps projects contributing to organisational change and partnerships  §Evidence of European Solidarity Corps projects contributing to systemic and policy change and partnerships at community level  §The extent to which the activities have boosted the local communities’ and host organisations’ capacity to continue to address the issues targeted by the activities after their completion, by strengthening their skills, knowledge, and resources,  §The extent to which the activities have had a lasting impact on the participants, by increasing their awareness, skills, and knowledge, and encouraging their continued engagement in solidarity activities |
| INDICATORS | | |
| §Evidence of spillover effects within and beyond participating organisations, new and innovative approaches being adopted, institutionalised, and new capacities and partnerships being built and sustained  §Proportion of participants with perceived and proven positive changes as a result of the programme | §Proportion of participants and host organisations who continued to engage in solidarity activities after participating in European Solidarity Corps  §Evidence of new policy approaches, guidelines and tools being adopted, innovative approaches being institutionalised via changes in legislation and new capacities and partnerships being built and sustained | |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | | |
| Desk research: Research data and findings from relevant networks and stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations. Monitoring data and good practice examples from project databases and management tools (both public and internal). Data and documents on national results, initiatives and developments, including national reports and YouthWiki.  Survey of individual European Solidarity Corps participants and organisations that participated in the European Solidarity Corps. Interviews with individual participants, participating organisations, national authorities. | | |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| EFFECTIVENESS  EQ10 | 10.1 To what extent are the programme’s results adequately disseminated and exploited? How successful has the programme been in attracting and reaching target audiences and groups at an individual and organisational level? How well-known is the European Solidarity Corps programme among the youth and volunteering communities? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | |
| 10.1.1. How good was the reach of the programme’s primary dissemination activities? How active were the participating organisations in spreading (accurate and positive) information about the programme through their networks and communication tools?  10.1.2. What was/is the level of awareness about European Solidarity Corps activities among the programme applicants, participants (before and after participation) and stakeholders? | |
| Scope | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | |
| The programme results are adequately disseminated and exploited | |
| §Awareness of the European Solidarity Corps is evidently increasing | §There were/are plans and a strategy for disseminating European Solidarity Corps information at EU level  §The programme achieved its key performance indicators in the communication area |
| INDICATORS | |
| At European level | |
| §The existence of and characteristics of the social media communication strategy itself, including frequency and distribution of content, types of media artefacts chosen for delivering the programme’s messages  §The key performance indicators met by the social media communication strategy  §Number of communication and dissemination outputs, including specifically targeting young people with fewer opportunities | §Evidence on communication channels for applicants  §The number of people actively engaged with the information disseminated via the programme website  §Demographic and geographic characteristics of the individuals following and interacting with the programmes, as well as the potential reach, filtered by country, gender and age group |
| At beneficiary/project level | |
| §Participating organisations using diverse channels to disseminate the message about the programme  §Proportion of participating organisations that shared the outputs and results of the projects they hosted or supported | §Proportion of potential beneficiaries that identify a lack of information about the programme as an obstacle to participation  §Proportion of participants who shared the information about the programmes |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | |
| Desk research: European Solidarity Corps annual work programmes. Previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programme and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity. Research data and findings from relevant networks and stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations. Results of the social media analysis.  Survey of individual European Solidarity Corps participants, young people who have not participated, organisations that participated in European Solidarity Corps. Interviews with individual participants, participating organisations, authorities and supervisory bodies (DG EAC), national authorities and external experts. Social network analysis. | |

5.2.Efficiency

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

Summary of evaluation findings

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

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

Evaluation questions

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| EFFICIENCY  EQ11 | 11.1 How cost-effective were/are the various operational actions of the 2018-2020 and 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programmes? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | |
| 11.1.1. How costly were the operational actions? How did the costs change over time?  11.1.2. Did they achieve the intended objectives? | |
| Scope | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | |
| §Costs are the minimum necessary to achieve the intended effects  §Unit costs are comparable across actions and between the programmes (taking account of differences in activities, e.g. duration; nature of activities carried out) | §Necessity and proportionality of EU funding  §European added value of EU funding (i.e. funding is necessary to achieve the intended effects)  §No obvious inefficiencies or wasted resources in activities and in programme management  §Unit costs and other costs are comparable across the activities and to other EU programmes (taking account of differences in the programmes) |
| INDICATORS | |
| Cost-effectiveness of various actions and comparisons of the relative costs and effects of the interventions | |
| §Average unit costs (by categories of eligible costs) in actions supported under the 2018-2020 or 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps  §Comparing/benchmarking within/between the programmes and similar programmes in terms of the average unit costs in similar cost categories  §Percentage change in the average unit costs (by categories of eligible costs) in actions supported by the programmes (or compared with the simplified cost options) | §Qualitative descriptions of changes in capabilities/capacities alongside associated unit costs  §Participants’ and other stakeholders’ perceptions of value for money |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | |
| Cost-effectiveness analysis, benchmarking analysis, organisational, operational and managerial assessments.  Analysis of administrative and monitoring data, survey of organisations, survey of individuals, stakeholder consultations, statistical analysis, interviews, case studies  Desk research: Annual activity/implementation reports of the programme, DG EAC, EACEA and National Agencies. Cumulative programme performance overviews covering both the 2014-2020 and the 2021-2027 MFF. Up-to-date internal financial data. Previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programme. | |

|  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| EFFICIENCY  EQ12 | | 12.1 How cost-effective were/are the quality support measures (training and evaluation measures, inclusion, online linguistic support, etc.)? | | |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | | |
| 12.1.1. How costly were the quality support measures? How did the costs change over time?  12.1.2. Did they achieve the intended effects? | | |
| Scope | | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme | | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | | |
| §Costs are the minimum necessary to achieve the intended effects  §Unit costs are comparable across actions and between the programmes (taking account of differences in actions)  §Necessity and proportionality of EU funding  §European added value of EU funding (i.e. funding is necessary to achieve the intended effects)  §No obvious inefficiencies or wasted resources in activities and in programme management activities (e.g. duration; nature of activities carried out) | | |
| INDICATORS | | |
| §Cost of quality support measures taken before, during and after solidarity activities (training, linguistic support, insurance, Youthpass, etc.)  §Results of quality support measures taken before, during and after solidarity activities (training, linguistic support, insurance, Youthpass, etc.) in quantitative descriptions of outcomes and improvements, such as improved skills, increased language proficiency, reduced risk, etc.  §Cost of attribution of the Quality Label at activity and organisation level  §Benefits of the Quality Label for organisations and for the actions | | §Average survey scores for participants’ and stakeholders’ perceptions of the quality and accessibility of programmes  §Cost of action support including management and organisational costs and information and communications technology costs  §Quantitative descriptions of benefits gained of management and organisational support (including systems and tools)  §Cost of supporting measures per new participant and/or organisation |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | | |
| All data collection and analysis methods (as this question covers the entirety of the intervention logic of the programme).  Desk research: Annual activity/implementation reports of the programme, DG EAC, EACEA and National Agencies. Cumulative programme performance overviews covering both the 2014-2020 and the 2021-2027 MFF. Up-to-date internal financial data. Previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes. | | |
| EFFICIENCY  EQ13 | | 13.1 To what extent is/was the size of budget and the funding models appropriate and proportionate to what the 2018-2020 and 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps set out to achieve? | | |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | | |
| 13.1.1. What was the size of the programmes’ budgets?  13.1.2. What funding models supported the programmes?  13.1.3. Was the funding sufficient to reach the programmes’ goals and fulfil its objectives? | | |
| Scope | | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme | | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | | |
| §The programmes achieved/are achieving their goals, and the organisation, operations, management modes and tools were/are implemented at minimum costs.  §The order of magnitude of the results of the programmes were/are commensurate by the earmarked budget | §Level of unsatisfied demand was/is comparable with other programmes and in line with stakeholder expectations  §Degree to which objectives were/are fulfilled and intended effects achieved relative to baseline | |
| INDICATORS | | |
| Appropriateness of the budget to the planned achievements | | |
| §Extent to which the targets of the programmes were achieved  §Extent to which the demand for funding was satisfied (success rates)  §Correlation between funding allocations and the achievement of the overall targets  §Extent to which the boundary conditions (primarily financial arrangements) of different actions affected their capacity to contribute to the achievement of the overall targets  §Opinions of EU policymakers and stakeholders on the progress of the programmes towards its targets with available funds | | §Extent to which the actions’ objectives are achievable given the historical evidence on the cost-effectiveness of the programmes  §Extent to which funding allocation to different actions of the action is likely to be sufficient for achieving the specific action objectives  §Opinions of programme beneficiaries on the funding sufficiency  §Extent to which organisations‘ beneficiaries confirm that participation in the programmes has a structuring effect for their entities |
| Appropriateness of the distribution of funds across the different actions | | |
| §Proportion of the overall programmes budgets that were allocated to quality support measures  §Evidence that the distribution of the programmes budget was informed by evidence on the cost-effectiveness of actions supported under the successor programmes in similar fields | §Quantitative assessment and percentage to which highly cost-effective actions of the programmes were/are also among the actions with the highest share of the overall budget | |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | | |
| Analysis of administrative and monitoring data, survey of organisations, statistical analysis, interviews, case studies, surveys, online public consultation, benchmarks  Desk research: Annual activity/implementation reports of the programmes, DG EAC, EACEA and National Agencies. Cumulative programme performance overviews covering both the 2014-2020 and the 2021-2027 MFF. Up-to-date internal financial data. Previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes. Research data and findings from relevant networks and stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations. | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| EFFICIENCY  EQ14 | | 14.1 What were the financial absorption levels across all action types and National Agencies?  14.2 Has the target number of participants in solidarity activities been achieved? | | |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | | |
| 14.1.1. What were the financial absorption levels across all action types and National Agencies?  14.2.1. What were the target numbers of participants in solidarity activities?  14.2.2. Have these targets been achieved? | | |
| Scope | | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme | | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | | |
| §Budget consumption is high (<90%) across all the different actions and in line with their planned budget  §Budget consumption across all the different actions is evenly distributed overtime  §The number of repeat participant organisations and new participant organisations meets or exceeds the set targets (or impact assessment)  §The number of participants in solidarity activities meets set targets and gradually increases across the successive actions (by type of activities) | | |
| INDICATORS | | |
| §The percentage of budget spent versus planned by type of actions overtime  §The percentage of budget spent versus planned by national agencies overtime  §Stakeholder feedback on the reasons for achieving or falling short of set absorption rates or targets | | §Number of repeat participant organisations  §Number of new participant organisations  §Number of participants in solidarity activities (by type of activities) |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | | |
| Administrative and monitoring data, consultations (interviews and surveys)  Desk research: Annual activity/implementation reports of the programmes, DG EAC, EACEA and National Agencies. Cumulative programme performance overviews covering both the 2014-2020 and the 2021-2027 MFF. Up-to-date internal financial data. Previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes. | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| EFFICIENCY  EQ15 | | 15.1 What was the impact of key programme management changes such as introducing the support role in the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme and introducing the accreditation system in the 2021-2027 programme? | | |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | | |
| 15.1.1. What were the key programme management changes?  15.1.2. How have they affected the European Solidarity Corps programmes? | | |
| Scope | | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme | | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | | |
| §Volunteers derive benefits from supporting role in addition to the predecessor programmes (e.g. awareness raising, preparation for the learning and mentoring activities, learning agreement, linguistic preparation, pre-departure training) and after the learning and mentoring activities (e.g. dissemination of learning results, exploitation of results, further education, jobs, networking effects of the activity)  §Participating organisations (both the host and supporting organisations) derive benefits in terms of reputation, ability to partner with other organisations and advertising opportunities, which ultimately contribute to the action's impact and/or community level impacts | | |
| INDICATORS | | |
| §Relation between the distance travelled by participants and results, dissemination of results and uptake by their organisations/communities, jobs | | §Extent of the participation of accredited organisations in the European Solidarity Corps (e.g. number of participations, projects, etc.)  §Quantitative descriptions of benefits derived from being accredited, e.g. higher participation in other EU programmes, tenders, grants, higher turnover, higher number of employees. |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | | |
| Comparative analysis of the cohorts of EU aid volunteers and successor programmes (administrative and monitoring data, interviews, surveys and case studies)  Desk research: Annual activity/implementation reports of the programmes, DG EAC, EACEA and National Agencies. Previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes. Research data and findings from relevant networks and stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations. Monitoring data from project databases and management tools (both public and internal). | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| EFFICIENCY  EQ16 | | 16.1 To what extent has the European Solidarity Corps portal replaced the functions of supporting organisations?  16.2 Are there any duplications between the portal functions and the role of supporting organisations? | | |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | | |
| 16.1.1. What were the functions of supporting organisations? What were the intended functions of the portal?  16.1.2. Have the intended portal functions been implemented?  16.2.1. Are there any duplications between the portal functions and the role of supporting organisations? | | |
| Scope | | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme | | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | | |
| §The functionalities of the portal are complementary to the functions entrusted to supporting organisations  §The duplications between the portal functions and the role of supporting organisations are minor or can be explained on the basis of efficiency grounds | | |
| INDICATORS | | |
| §Types and costs of functions under the responsibilities of supporting organisations  §Types of functions and cost of running the European Solidarity Corps portal | | §Extent, number and proportion of duplications between portal and supporting organisation functions  §Cost benchmarking of the functions as performed by the portal or by the supporting organisations  §Stakeholders’ feedback on the synergies achieved and or potential for further efficiency savings |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | | |
| Cost benchmarking of the EU Solidarity Corps actions (administrative and monitoring data, interviews, surveys and case studies)  Desk research: Annual activity/implementation reports of the programmes, DG EAC, EACEA and National Agencies. Monitoring data from project databases and management tools (both public and internal). | | |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| EFFICIENCY  EQ17 | 17.1 To what extent is the implementation of actions in direct and indirect management appropriate, efficient and well-functioning?  17.2 How efficient is the cooperation between the different management bodies (Commission – executive agency – National Agencies – national authorities – independent audit bodies – European Solidarity Corps committee) and to what extent does the Commission fulfil its guiding role in the process? How has this evolved over time? What are the areas for improvements? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | |
| 17.1.1. To what extent has the implementation of actions in direct and indirect management met the programmes’ objectives?  17.1.2. What were the implementation costs direct and indirect management actions?  17.1.3. To what extent has the implementation direct and indirect management actions been without mistakes and corrections?  17.2.1. What were the achievements of cooperation between the different management bodies?  17.2.2. What do the stakeholders think about the Commission’s guiding role in the process?  17.2.3. How has this evolved over time?  17.2.4. What are the areas for improvements? | |
| Scope | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | |
| §Programme management costs as a share of the programme budget are similar to comparable EU programmes  §Occurrence of problems or delays in decision-making (by entity/actor involved in implementation and supervision)  §Occurrence of problems in coordination (by entity/actor involved in implementation and supervision)  §Views on the appropriateness of the balance between actions financed under direct and indirect management modes (by entity/actor involved in implementation and supervision) | §Views on the efficiency of cooperation between the different actors and entities (by entity/actor involved in implementation and supervision)  §Views on the usefulness of management tools (by entity/actor involved in implementation and supervision)  §Views of beneficiaries about the usefulness of support provided by the National Agencies  §Views of the National Agencies on the guiding role of the Commission  §Views on opportunities for improvements |
| INDICATORS | |
| Appropriateness, efficiency and functioning of the overall institutional structure of the programme management | |
| §Extent to which the programme management and implementation functions are well-defined, detailed enough and clearly attributed to the involved management bodies  §The extent to which the stakeholders perceive the distribution of functions as efficient | §Absence of (perceived or actual) overlap in the management and implementation functions across the management bodies involved  §Best practices employed by the different national authorities, which could be streamlined throughout the action |
| Efficiency of cooperation between the different management bodies | |
| §Clarity and sufficiency of the formal rules setting out the cooperation links and practices between the different management bodies covering the whole programme management cycle  §Informal cooperation links and practices between the different management bodies | §Adequate information flow and collaboration between the relevant management bodies throughout the programme management cycle (i.e. meets the needs and expectations of the bodies involved) |
| Extent to which the Commission fulfils its guiding role in the programme management process | |
| §Commission provides clear ex ante formulation and explanation of the rules | §Commission provides ongoing guidance and support  §Stability and consistency of guidance issued |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | |
| Analysis of administrative and monitoring data, survey of organisations, survey of individuals, statistical analysis, interviews, case studies, social network analysis, online public consultation.  Desk research: Legal and policy documents, including EU regulations, communication policies and relevant memorandums of understanding and working arrangements. Annual activity/implementation reports of the programmes, DG EAC, EACEA and National Agencies. Up-to-date internal financial data. | |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| EFFICIENCY  EQ18 | Are there differences in efficiency of programme management and implementation between National Agencies and the Commission executive agency or between different programming periods?  If so, what are the differences and what are the underlying reasons for them? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | |
| 18.1.1. What were the costs of programme management and implementation between National Agencies and the Commission executive agency or between different programming periods?  18.1.2. What changes have the programme management and implementation arrangements in the National Agencies and the Commission’s executive agency generated, including in different programming periods?  18.2.1. What were the reasons behind the differences in the changes? | |
| Scope | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | |
| §Programme management costs relative to budget  §Speed of completing programme management tasks  §Minimisation of errors, etc. | §Satisfaction of beneficiary organisations and participants  §Evaluator’s expert judgement of effectiveness of the design and implementation of strategies and approaches |
| INDICATORS | |
| §Percentage of programme budgets allocated to programme management  §Dates of launching comparable calls by different bodies and National Agencies  §Time to inform, i.e. time from the call deadline to the invitation to sign the contract in days | §Time to grant, i.e. time elapsing between the closure of a call and the signature of a grant agreement in days  §Level of errors etc., identified by auditors in total numbers and percentages per level  §Recipients’ level of satisfaction with the time taken and quality of service provided  §Typology of reasons explaining differences in efficiency levels achieved |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | |
| Analysis of administrative and monitoring data, survey of organisations, survey of individuals, stakeholder consultations, analysis of documentation on strategies and approaches of programme management bodies, statistical analysis  Desk research: Legal and policy documents, including EU regulations and relevant memorandums of understanding and working arrangements. Annual activity/implementation reports of the programmes, DG EAC, EACEA and National Agencies. Annual audit reports. Up-to-date internal financial and monitoring data. | |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| EFFICIENCY  EQ19 | To what extent are the monitoring mechanisms applied by the Commission, the executive agency and the National Agencies efficient/cost-effective? What are the areas for improvement, considering the need for a smooth and effective implementation of the programme? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | |
| 9.1.1. To what extent have the monitoring mechanisms met their objectives?  9.1.2. What were the costs of the monitoring mechanisms?  9.2.1. What are the areas for improvement?  9.2.2. What are the changes to be introduced by the monitoring and evaluation framework? | |
| Scope | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | |
| §Level of financial and human resources devoted to monitoring as a proportion of the programme budget compared with other EU programmes  §Instances of simplification in monitoring between the two programme periods | §Problems or delays in monitoring  §Identification of errors etc., by auditors  §Grant recipients’ satisfaction with monitoring activities |
| INDICATORS | |
| §Proportion of programme budgets allocated to monitoring  §Categorisation of scope and scale of simplifications identified in programme documents  §Number of new indicators introduced by the monitoring and evaluation framework | §Quality of monitoring reports  §Number and proportion of errors, etc. identified by auditors  §Recipients’ level of satisfaction with monitoring  §Typology of decisions enabled by monitoring activities |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | |
| Analysis of administrative and monitoring data, survey of organisations, stakeholder consultations, analysis of documentation on monitoring and decision-making at programme level, statistical analysis  Desk research: Legal and policy documents, including EU regulations, monitoring frameworks and relevant memorandums of understanding and working arrangements. Programme guidelines. Annual activity/implementation reports of the programmes, DG EAC, EACEA and National Agencies. Annual audit reports. Up-to-date internal financial and monitoring data. | |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| EFFICIENCY  EQ20 | To what extent do the indicators identified for the programme in the legal basis correspond to the purposes of the monitoring and evaluation framework? How could the overall management and monitoring system be improved? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | |
| 20.1.1. What is the monitoring and evaluation framework of the European Solidarity Corps programme?  20.1.2. What are the indicators identified in the legal basis for the programme?  20.1.3. What are the differences between the indicators and the monitoring and evaluation framework?  20.2.1. How could the overall management and monitoring system be improved? | |
| Scope | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | |
|  | |
| §There is a clear framework showing how chosen indicators relate to programme objectives  §The indicators are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound and relate to all main activities within each action  §Baseline values are identified for all indicators  §The target values for indicators demonstrate an appropriate level of ambition  §Monitoring data are available for indicators in the legal basis  §The data collected matches the definition of the indicator | §The Commission, executive agency, national authorities, National Agencies are satisfied with the:  -correspondence of the indicators  -usefulness of the indicators  -fitness for purpose  -ease of collection  §The grant recipients are satisfied with the monitoring indicators  §The indicators are aligned with indicators monitored in comparable EU programmes |
| INDICATORS | |
| Extent to which indicators identified for the programme in the legal basis correspond to the monitoring purposes | |
| §Proportion of the indicators laid down in National Agency work programmes that are aligned with indicators used for measuring the overall implementation of the programmes  §Proportion and type of all the monitoring data collected at national level that is being analysed and used for programme management and policymaking purposes  §The extent to which all National Agencies ensure all relevant monitoring data are collected  §Evidence of sufficiency of available monitoring data to inform the programme management and policymaking processes at EU level  §The extent to which the monitoring indicators measure the programmes’ aims and objectives and provide relevant monitoring information to decision-making | §Number and properties of indicators which enable the EACEA to effectively follow up and monitor the financial and non-financial progress of the ongoing projects  §The extent to which the indicators enable National Agencies to effectively follow up and monitor the financial and non-financial progress of the ongoing projects  §Extent to which the applied monitoring mechanisms (including IT tools) correspond to the needs of the Commission, the EACEA and National Agencies  §Extent to which these instruments (including IT tools) are efficient/cost-effective in terms of their administrative costs (relative to their benefits) |
| Areas for improvement in the overall management and monitoring system | |
| §Areas where monitoring mechanisms applied are inadequate and/or disproportionate  §Areas where relevant indicators are not set | §Areas where indicators set are not insufficient  §Areas where indicators set are redundant |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | |
| Analysis of administrative and monitoring data, survey of organisations, interviews, survey of National Agencies. Desk research: Legal and policy documents, including EU regulations, monitoring frameworks and relevant memorandums of understanding and working arrangements. Programme guidelines. Annual activity/implementation reports of the programmes, DG EAC, EACEA and National Agencies. Up-to-date internal financial and monitoring data. | |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| EFFICIENCY  EQ21 | To what extent are the management support tools (e.g. E+ Link, E - Forms, Mobility Tool, Lifecard National Agencies module, Youth portal, PMM, BM, Application Forms, Mobility Tool, EU Academy, eGrants) suitable and sufficient to support a sound management of the programme? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | |
| 21.1.1. What is the role of the management support tools in programme management?  21.1.2. What added value do they generate?  21.1.3. Are they user-friendly and functional? How often do problems with tools occur? | |
| Scope | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | |
| §The purpose, nature, scope of the information processed by the tools can be traced back to the legal basis  §The functionalities of the suite of tools are consistent with one another, address a specific user base and avoid multiple collection of the same information | §Occurrence of problems or delays related to inadequacy or insufficiency of management support tools  §Tools enable best management practices to be implemented across the programme  §Views of agencies on the adequacy and sufficiency of management support tools |
| INDICATORS | |
| §Typology of best management practices enabled by the tools  §Number and types of documented problems or delays due to inadequacy or insufficiency of management tools | §Proportion of National Agencies reporting problems or delays due to inadequacy or insufficiency of management tools  §Proportion of National Agencies reporting satisfaction with management tools |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | |
| Analysis of administrative and monitoring data, interviews with National Agencies, analysis of documentation on programme management  Desk research: Documentation and guidelines of tools. Administrative and monitoring data on the tools from NAs and the Commission. | |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| EFFICIENCY  EQ22 | To what extent have the anti-fraud measures allowed for the prevention and timely detection of fraud? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | |
| 22.1.1. What anti-fraud measures did the programmes use? Did they function as expected?  22.1.2. How has the level of fraud changed over time? | |
| Scope | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | |
| §Level of fraud relative to previous programme periods and comparable EU programmes  §Level of fraud under the different management modes is comparable  §Internal controls allow swift detection and implementation of anti-fraud measures (e.g. EDES) | §Views of Commission, executive agency and National Agencies on the effectiveness of anti-fraud measures  §Auditor reports confirm the effectiveness of anti-fraud measures |
| INDICATORS | |
| §Number of cases of fraud reported  §Typology of anti-fraud measures implemented  §Estimation of the number and value of fraud avoided through the application of anti-fraud measures  §Confidence of Commission and Executive Agency in anti-fraud measures | §Proportion of National Agencies reporting confidence in anti-fraud measures  §Confidence in anti-fraud measures expressed by audit reports at EU or national level  §Variations in the level of fraud across actions |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | |
| Analysis of administrative and monitoring data, interviews, interviews with National Agencies, analysis of documentation on programme management and auditing  Desk research: Annual activity/implementation reports of the programmes, DG EAC, EACEA and National Agencies. Annual audit reports. Administrative and monitoring data on fraud from NAs and the Commission. Documentation and guidelines related to anti-fraud measures. | |

5.3.Relevance

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

Summary of evaluation findings

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

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

Evaluation questions

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| Relevance  EQ23 | To what extent have current European societal needs been addressed and reflected in the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme and the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | |
| 23.1.1. What European societal needs did the programme address and reflect? | |
| Scope | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | |
| §Programme objectives and priorities are in line with EU strategic policy documents.  §Its commitment to addressing key challenges and needs at European level is confirmed by the key European and national policymakers and stakeholders.  §Measures can be adjusted in line with (emerging) needs and challenges of participants and host organisations. | |
| INDICATORS | |
| Extent to which the programmes reflect and address key socio-economic needs and challenges in the EU | |
| §Strength of logical links between the objectives, priorities and actions/activities of the European Solidarity Corps in the areas of youth, volunteering, solidarity and humanitarian aid, and socio-economic needs identified in EU strategic policy documents  §Extent to which the key European and national policymakers and stakeholders confirm that the European Solidarity Corps is pertinent to addressing key challenges and needs at European level | §Links between the European Solidarity Corps and national goals and activities  §Extent to which National Agencies agree that the programme can respond to emerging socio-economic needs and challenges  §Extent to which European Solidarity Corps projects contribute to environmental sustainability  §Extent to which the programmes satisfy the needs of participants in the solidarity and humanitarian aid projects |
| Relevance of the European Solidarity Corps design, intervention logic | |
| §Strength of logical links between the current programme design/project selection criteria and the key European priorities in the relevant fields (youth, volunteering, solidarity and humanitarian aid) and socio-economic development | §Extent to which key European and national policymakers confirm that the preferences for certain actions, priorities or geographical areas in the European Solidarity Corps are still pertinent to the EU’s key strategic objectives  §Proportion of European Solidarity Corps participants who indicate that no national or international funding was available to support the type of activities they were engaged in |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | |
| Desk research: European Solidarity Corps annual work programmes. Legal and policy documents, including EU regulations and relevant strategic policy documents (e.g. youth strategy, youth action plan). Previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity. Research data and findings from relevant networks and stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations. Data and documents on national results, initiatives and developments, including national reports and YouthWiki.  Survey of individual participants, young people who have not participated, participating organisations.  Interviews with individuals participants, participating organisations, authorities and supervisory bodies (DG EAC), national authorities, EU bodies and policymakers, external experts. | |

|  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Relevance  EQ24 | | Is the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme perceived as a programme focused on providing learning opportunities for young people or rather on addressing societal changes? To what extent is it both? What type of activities are offered to young volunteers and participants in solidarity projects? What is the predominant type of participating organisations: volunteering or youth organisations? Has the number of volunteering organisations involved in the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme increased compared with the EVS? What about the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme compared with the EVS? | | |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | | |
| 24.1.1. What is the perception of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme among its stakeholders?  24.2.1. What type of activities are offered to young volunteers and participants in solidarity projects?  24.3.1. What is the predominant type of participating organisations: volunteering or youth organisations?  24.4.1. What was the number of volunteering organisations involved in the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps and the EVS? In the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps? | | |
| Scope | | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps | | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | | |
| The perception of the programme depends on: | | |
| §Types of activities offered to participants and their objectives  §Range of projects the participating organisations implement and their number in the European Solidarity Corps and the EVS  §The number and scale of European Solidarity Corps projects that address societal challenges, such as poverty, social exclusion, climate change or migration  §The number and scale of European Solidarity Corps projects that exclusively address learning needs, such as gaining new skills, work experience, or developing personal and professional competencies | | |
| INDICATORS | | |
| Extent to which the programme focuses on the learning dimension or societal challenges | | |
| §Proportion of the programme’s activities and projects that are designed to provide learning opportunities for young people and proportion focused on addressing societal challenges  §Extent to which the programme aligns with EU policies and strategies related to providing opportunities for young people or addressing societal challenges | | §Extent to which the programme works with stakeholders in the fields of learning opportunities for young people or addressing societal challenges  §Proportion of European Solidarity Corps participants who participated in learning projects and proportion who participated in projects addressing social needs |
| Level of awareness of participants and applicants of European Solidarity Corps activities | | |
| §Proportion of European Solidarity Corps applicants and participants who believe that the European Solidarity Corps focuses on societal challenges and proportion who believe it focuses on learning opportunities for young people  §Number of applicants and participants in different types of projects and actions/activities in the European Solidarity Corps and the EVS | | §Level of awareness of European Solidarity Corps applicants and participants about the EU strategies and priorities that address societal challenges and improve learning opportunities  §Opinion of national authorities, European Solidarity Corps staff members and EU representatives on the most successful projects in the European Solidarity Corps programme |
| Number of applicants and participants in the European Solidarity Corps and EVS projects | | |
| §Number of participating volunteering organisations in the European Solidarity Corps and EVS programmes, by year  §Types of participating organisations in the European Solidarity Corps and EVS programmes, by year | | §Types of applicant organisations for the European Solidarity Corps and EVS programmes, by year  §Number of individual participants in the European Solidarity Corps and EVS projects, by type of project and by year |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | | |
| Desk research: European Solidarity Corps annual work programmes. Legal and policy documents, including EU regulations and relevant strategic policy documents (e.g. youth strategy, youth action plan). Previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity. Research data and findings from relevant networks and stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations.  Survey of individual participants, young people who have not participated, participating organisations.  Interviews with participants, participating organisations, authorities and supervisory bodies (DG EAC), EU bodies and policymakers, external experts. | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Relevance  EQ25 | | What are the existing alternatives for solidarity activities for persons outside the current age limits? | | |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | | |
| 25.1.1. What are the existing alternatives for solidarity activities for people outside the current age limits? | | |
| Scope | | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps | | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | | |
| Young people and volunteering communities are aware of the European Solidarity Corps. | | |
| §Similar solidarity initiatives have been identified | | §Young people and volunteering community members can indicate what distinguishes the European Solidarity Corps from other alternatives |
| INDICATORS | | |
| Availability and awareness of alternative programmes outside the age limits | | |
| §Yearly budgets of alternative solidarity programmes for persons outside the current age limit | | §Level of awareness of surveyed European Solidarity Corps applicants, participants and experts of alternative programmes |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | | |
| Desk research: Previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity. Research data and findings from relevant networks and stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations.  Survey of young people who have not participated, open public consultation.  Interviews with organisations, national authorities, EU bodies and policymakers, external experts. | | |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| Relevance  EQ26 | To what extent is the design of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme focused on people with fewer opportunities?  What factors limit their access and what actions could be taken to improve access? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | |
| 26.1.1. How do the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme’s objectives, eligibility rules and selection criteria address people with fewer opportunities?  26.1.2. What is the proportion of participants with fewer opportunities in the overall number of participants?  26.2.1. What factors negatively affected European Solidarity Corps work with people with fewer opportunities? | |
| Scope | |
| 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | |
| The programme takes into account factors limiting young people’s opportunities | |
| §There is an existing categorisation of the various vulnerable populations relevant to the European Solidarity Corps. The programme’s definition of people with fewer opportunities is considered valid by stakeholders | §For each identified group, there is a set of relevant identified challenges that the European Solidarity Corps is seeking to address |
| Actions have been taken to overcome accessibility limitations | |
| §The programme has addressed disadvantaged groups in its objectives, eligibility rules and selection criteria  §Stakeholders and European Solidarity Corps staff members demonstrate awareness of disadvantaged groups.  §Disadvantaged groups are included in the programme-related documents about specific populations | §The outputs by the disadvantaged groups can be measured against certain indicators set for the programme   §Quantitative indicators show an increase in the involvement of targeted populations after the implementation of specific measures |
| The design of the European Solidarity Corps programme is oriented towards young people with fewer opportunities. | |
| §Factors limiting accessibility are identified (see criteria above)  §Actions to overcome limitations are set out (see criteria above) | §There is continuity between the programmes (2018-2020 and 2021-2027) in addressing groups with fewer opportunities (previous gaps have been addressed, new goals are informed by the experience)  §Measures to support groups with fewer opportunities are formulated, targets and clear indicators to monitor implementation are set |
| INDICATORS | |
| Factors limiting access of groups with fewer opportunities | |
| §Key groups with fewer opportunities that could potentially benefit from the European Solidarity Corps programme, as identified by documents and programme staff  §Quantitative limiting factors, as identified by surveyed individuals with fewer opportunities | §Key challenges in access to the programme for each group, as identified by documents and programme staff |
| Actions taken to remedy access limitations for groups with fewer opportunities | |
| §Scope of measures taken to ensure participation of young people with fewer opportunities | §Level of involvement of young people with fewer opportunities in the European Solidarity Corps projects |
| Extent to which the design of the European Solidarity Corps programme is oriented towards groups with fewer opportunities compared with other programme participants and applicants | |
| §Factors that limit the opportunities of specific groups  §Actions taken to overcome these limitations, including specific measures and indicators for monitoring  §Outputs received by the disadvantaged groups | §Continuity of measures to overcome opportunity limitations through the 2018-2020 and the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programmes  §Attitudes of applicants, participants and partners of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme toward the measures for young people with fewer opportunities |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | |
| Desk research: Legal and policy documents, including EU regulations. European Solidarity Corps annual work programmes. Annual activity/implementation reports of the programmes. Cumulative programme performance overviews covering both the 2014-2020 and the 2021-2027 MFF. Previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity. Research data and findings from relevant networks and stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations. Data and documents on national results, initiatives and developments, including national reports and YouthWiki. Monitoring data from project databases and management tools (both public and internal).  Survey of individual participants, young people who have not participated, participating organisations.  Interviews with individual participants, participating organisations, authorities and supervisory bodies (DG EAC), national authorities, EU bodies and policymakers, external experts. | |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| Relevance  EQ27 | Based on the analysis of the impact of the EVS and the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps, are there any elements that have been discontinued (i.e. are not included in the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps) but could have a possible value added in future cycles of the European Solidarity Corps programme? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | |
| 27.1.1. What elements of the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme and the EVS were discontinued in the 2021-2027 MFF?  27.1.2. What were the reasons for discontinuing the elements?  27.1.3. Do these reasons still hold? | |
| Scope | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | |
| The discontinued elements could add value. | |
| §The performance of the discontinued elements has been measured in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, and EU added value  §Challenges, bottlenecks and good practices have been identified with regard to the functioning of the discontinued elements; the reasons for the discontinuation have been identified  §Challenges and issues have been identified in the field of youth, solidarity, volunteering and humanitarian aid that the European Solidarity Corps can address in future cycles | |
| INDICATORS | |
| List of discontinued elements, their functions and performance | |
| §Discontinued elements, their objectives, functions, targets and key performance indicators | §Strength of the rationale for discontinuing some elements of the European Solidarity Corps |
| Current and future priorities and needs | |
| §Current needs and challenges in areas that the discontinued elements addressed in the previous MFF | §Possibility of addressing the reasons for the elimination in order to bring the elements back |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | |
| Desk research: Legal and policy documents, previous evaluations. Annual activity/implementation reports of the programmes. Programme performance overviews covering both the 2014-2020 and the 2021-2027 MFF. Reports and assessments of the programmes. Data and documents on national results, initiatives and developments, including national reports and YouthWiki. Monitoring data from project databases and management tools (both public and internal).  Survey of individual participants, participating organisations;  Interviews with participants, participating organisations, authorities and supervisory bodies (DG EAC), national authorities, EU bodies and policymakers, external experts. | |

|  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Relevance  EQ28 | | Do programme priorities reflect societal expectations? Is it effective to update priorities every year? | | |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | | |
| 28.1.1. What are the perceptions of solidarity, humanitarian aid and youth engagement among key stakeholders?  28.1.2. What are the stakeholders’ opinions on the programmes’ priorities? | | |
| Scope | | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps | | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | | |
| §Stakeholders perceive programme priorities as meeting their needs and expectations | | |
| INDICATORS | | |
| §Proportion of participants in the online public consultation who agree that their expectations are being met | | §Proportion of survey respondents who agree that programme priorities meet social expectations  §Interview data providing evidence that programme priorities meet social expectations |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | | |
| Desk research: European Solidarity Corps annual work programmes, legal and policy documents, including EU regulations, previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity, data and documents on national results, initiatives and developments, including national reports and YouthWiki, Eurobarometer surveys, research data and findings from relevant networks and stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations.  Online public consultation, interviews with different stakeholders, surveys of participants and organisations. | | |

5.4.Coherence

The coherence analysis examines whether the different actions under the European Solidarity Corps produce synergies and operate in a consistent and non-contradictory manner (internal coherence). It also evaluates whether the European Solidarity Corps is aligned with other EU programmes and overarching EU strategies in related fields (external coherence).

Summary of evaluation findings

For the 2018-2020 period, the European Solidarity Corps programme complemented EU-level policies and acted as a single entry point for solidarity activities It was largely complementary to other EU programmes, particularly Erasmus+. However, while there was some overlap, particularly in the occupational strand, actual synergies were limited. The inclusion of in-country activities and group projects, which reduce barriers to participation in volunteering, distinguished the European Solidarity Corps from other programmes.

For the period of the 2021-2027 programme that was evaluated, stakeholders did not observe major inconsistencies among different action types, seeing each as distinct and distinctly important. Streamlining volunteering activities under the European Solidarity Corps has improved coherence. Although some stakeholders view integration into Erasmus+ as potentially cost-effective, concerns exist about possible barriers to participation and weakened programme values. The programme is highly complementary to other EU youth initiatives and broader strategic priorities, especially Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe, with opportunities to further improve synergies.

Evaluation questions

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| COHERENCE  EQ29 | To what extent are the direct and indirect management actions consistent with each other? How do they interact/complement each other? To what extent has the ‘Volunteering in high-priority areas’ action complemented and added value to the indirect management volunteering projects? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | |
| 29.1.1. What are the objectives, eligibility requirements and activity types of the direct and indirect management actions?  29.1.2. How do the actions interact and complement each other?  29.2.1. What are the objectives, eligibility requirements and activity types of the ‘Volunteering in high-priority areas’ action?  29.2.2. How do its actions complement and add value to the volunteering projects under indirect management? | |
| Scope | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps (except the humanitarian aid strand) | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | |
| Actions under direct and indirect management are consistent with each other. | |
| §There are no clear overlaps between the actions implemented under direct management and those under indirect management (in terms of objectives, eligibility rules or types of activities) | §There is effective coordination between direct and indirect management (e.g. synergies are identified in exchanging good practices) |
| INDICATORS | |
| Lack of overlaps between the actions implemented under direct and indirect management | |
| §Linkages between the objectives of actions under direct management and objectives of actions under indirect management  §Examples of how actions implemented under direct and indirect management interact/complement each other | §Examples of specific synergies (non-financial or financial) created as a result of complementarities between actions implemented under direct and indirect management |
| Effective coordination between direct and indirect management takes place | |
| §Evidence of existing mechanisms for coordinating activities among actions implemented under direct and indirect management | |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | |
| Document review (annual work programmes, legal and policy documents, previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity), interviews with different stakeholders. | |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| COHERENCE  EQ30 | To what extent have the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme and the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme been coherent with relevant EU programmes with similar objectives such as Erasmus+, cohesion policy programmes funded under the European Social Fund Plus ( ESF+ ) and/or the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Horizon Europe? To what extent have the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps and the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps proved complementary to other EU interventions/initiatives in the field of youth? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | |
| 30.1.1. What are the objectives of the relevant EU programmes?  30.2.1. How did the European Solidarity Corps actions interact and complement them?  30.2.2. How did the European Solidarity Corps actions support the implementation of horizontal priorities? | |
| Scope | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | |
| The programmes are coherent with other EU programmes with similar objectives. | |
| §The programmes’ objectives are consistent with relevant EU programmes  §The programmes address horizontal priorities | §There is effective coordination between the relevant DGs to ensure synergies  §Stakeholders perceive different programmes as complementary |
| INDICATORS | |
| Extent to which there are synergies in terms of objectives with relevant EU programmes | |
| §Evidence of shared funding for complementary activities  §Existing mechanisms for coordination among the DGs/units responsible for European Solidarity Corps and other relevant programmes | §Linkages between the formulation of objectives of European Solidarity Corps and the objectives of Erasmus+, cohesion policy programmes funded under the ESF+ and/or the ERDF, Horizon Europe and external action programmes |
| Extent to which effective coordination exists between applicable DGs to ensure synergies | |
| §Existing mechanisms for communication and interaction among the DGs/units responsible for European Solidarity Corps and other relevant programmes | |
| Extent to which there are synergies in terms of objectives, target groups, activities with EU programmes with similar objectives | |
| §Proportion of survey respondents who perceive the different relevant programmes as complementary | §Evidence in interview data that different stakeholders perceive the programmes as complementary |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | |
| Document review (annual work programmes, legal and policy documents, previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity); analysis of existing monitoring and other data; interviews with different stakeholders; surveys of individuals and organisations; case studies. | |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| COHERENCE  EQ31 | To what extent did the design of the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme and the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme (including needs, objectives, activities, outputs and effects) provide appropriate links and support to EU policy agendas, in particular policy initiatives and political priorities such as the 2019-2027 European Union youth strategy, the youth action plan and the digital education action plan? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | |
| 31.1.1. What European policy initiatives and political priorities were/are relevant to the field of solidarity, humanitarian aid and youth?  31.1.2. Which European Solidarity Corps elements are linked to the relevant European policy initiatives and political priorities? | |
| Scope | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | |
| §European Solidarity Corps can be linked to specific EU-level policy initiatives and political priorities | |
| INDICATORS | |
| §Linkages between the European Solidarity Corps and different EU-level policy agendas and priorities in the legal basis of the European Solidarity Corps programme  §Linkages between European Solidarity Corps priorities and objectives and different EU-level strategies, action plans and working groups’ agendas  §Linkages between European Solidarity Corps objectives and different EU-level strategies, action plans and working groups’ agendas | §Linkages between European Solidarity Corps activities and different EU-level strategies, action plans and working groups’ agendas  §Evidence of the contribution of the European Solidarity Corps to the implementation, monitoring and support of policymaking in various EU policy areas |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | |
| Document review (regulations, annual work programmes, policy documents, including EU regulations and relevant strategic policy documents, previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity), analysis of existing monitoring and other data, interviews with EU bodies and policymakers, interviews with external experts. | |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| COHERENCE  EQ32 | To what extent have the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme and the2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme been coherent with various interventions pursued at national and international level which have similar objectives? To what extent have the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme and the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme proved to be complementary to other Member States’ interventions/initiatives in the field of volunteering in support of humanitarian aid and in the field of youth? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | |
| 32.1.1. What national and international policy initiatives and political priorities were/are relevant to the field of solidarity, humanitarian aid and youth?  32.2.1. Which European Solidarity Corps elements were/are consistent with the relevant national and international policy initiatives objectives? | |
| Scope | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | |
| §The objectives are consistent with identified relevant interventions pursued at national and international level  §The target groups are consistent with identified relevant interventions pursued at national and international level which have similar objectives | §The activities are consistent with identified interventions pursued at national and international level which have similar objectives  §Stakeholders and experts perceive different programmes as complementary |
| INDICATORS | |
| §Correspondence (in terms of objectives, target groups and activities) between the European Solidarity Corps and national, regional or international initiatives on youth and volunteering in support of humanitarian aid in different Member States  §Existing mechanisms to allow for mutually reinforcing interventions and/or learning between European Solidarity Corps and initiatives pursued at national level which have similar objectives  §Evidence about overlaps and duplications between the European Solidarity Corps activities and various initiatives in the fields of youth and volunteering in support of humanitarian aid in different Member States | §Examples of specific (non-financial or financial) synergies created as a result of mutually reinforcing actions between European Solidarity Corps and other Member States’ interventions/initiatives in the fields of youth and volunteering in support of humanitarian aid in different Member States  §Proportion of survey respondents who perceive different programmes as complementary and opinions of interviewed respondents  §Proportion of public consultation participants who perceive different programmes as complementary |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | |
| Document review (annual work programmes, legal and policy documents, including EU regulations, previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity, data and documents on national results, initiatives and developments, including national reports and YouthWiki); interviews with different stakeholder groups; surveys of experts and stakeholders; online public consultations | |

5.5.EU added value

The analysis of EU added value assesses the extent to which the results and impacts of the European Solidarity Corps are exclusively due to EU action and would not have occurred without the programme. It evaluates four key effects: volume, scope, role, and process. These include measuring the volume of activities carried out, the scope of engagement with target groups, the programme’s role as a supporter of innovation and good practices, and the sustainability and learning impact of the programme’s results.

Summary of evaluation findings

For the 2018-2020 period, the European Solidarity Corps strengthened participants’ sense of European identity and promoted active citizenship, facilitating personal development on a scale that national initiatives could not achieve. The transition from the European Voluntary Service to the European Solidarity Corps increased EU added value by creating a single, accessible entry point for solidarity activities, with greater ambition and visibility. By broadening its scope, increasing flexibility and emphasising inclusion, the programme better addressed young people’s needs compared with its predecessor. It also facilitated international networking and collaboration, which is challenging to achieve through national volunteering initiatives.

During the period evaluated, the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps played a significant role in fostering a European identity and support for European values. The programme provided unique empowerment opportunities for young people and strengthened participating organisations by boosting professional skills and improving effectiveness. Distinguishing features of the programme are its emphasis on quality and its ability to enable pan-European networks, fostering long-term partnerships and relationships.

Evaluation questions

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| EU ADDED VALUE  EQ33 | What is the additional value and benefit resulting from EU activities compared with what could be achieved by Member States at national and/or regional levels?  What did the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme and the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme offer in addition to other education and training support or solidarity schemes available at both international and national levels? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | |
| 33.1.1. What are the national and regional solidarity, humanitarian aid and youth initiatives’ actions?  33.1.2. What are the differences between national/regional solidarity, humanitarian aid and youth initiatives and the European Solidarity Corps?  33.2.1. What are the differences between other European education and training support or solidarity schemes and the European Solidarity Corps? | |
| Scope | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps 2021-2017 European Solidarity Corps | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | |
|  | |
| §Projects of a comparable scope and volume would not have reached people in need without the European Solidarity Corps  §Opportunities for synergies with other relevant EU activities are successfully exploited | §The European Solidarity Corps has provided better economic value compared with other available programmes  §The European Solidarity Corps contributed to the development of innovative common standards, systems and/or operating procedures for volunteering |
| INDICATORS | |
| Projects of a comparable scope and volume would not have reached targeted communities without the European Solidarity Corps | |
| §Number of projects carried out under the European Solidarity Corps  §Number of participants in projects under the European Solidarity Corps  §Monetary value of project activities conducted under the European Solidarity Corps  §Proportion of volunteers who state that in the absence of the European Solidarity Corps they would not have had a chance to volunteer abroad and examples of their projects | §Examples of transnational mobility instances that would not have taken place without the European Solidarity Corps  §Examples of the ability of the European Solidarity Corps to respond to crises to which other national, regional or international initiatives could not have responded |
| Development of innovative common standards, systems and/or operating procedures for volunteering | |
| §Number of organisations issued a Quality Label under the European Solidarity Corps  §Examples of standards, systems and operating procedures adopted by participating organisations as a result of the European Solidarity Corps programmes  §Proportion of organisations which say that in the absence of the European Solidarity Corps they would not have had a chance to undertake comparable activities | §Degree of satisfaction among participants and stakeholders with the adopted standards, systems, processes and/or procedures  §Quality and standard of volunteer training |
| Opportunities for synergies with other relevant EU activities are successfully exploited | |
| §Objectives consistent with relevant EU programmes | |
| European Solidarity Corps has provided better economic value compared with other available programmes | |
| §Comparative cost-effectiveness of various European Solidarity Corps actions versus other available programmes | |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | |
| Desk research (annual activity/implementation reports of the programmes, DG EAC, EACEA and National Agencies, previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity, data and documents on national results, initiatives and developments, including national reports and YouthWiki, monitoring data and good practice examples from project databases and management tools (both public and internal)); counterfactual analysis; interviews with different stakeholders; surveys of organisations; stakeholder workshops/focus groups. | |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| EU ADDED VALUE  EQ34 | What is the benefit and added value of the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme and the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme compared with the benefit of the EVS? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | |
| 34.1.1. What were the benefits and added value of the EVS?  34.1.2. In what areas has the European Solidarity Corps performed better than the EVS? | |
| Scope | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | |
| §The scope of opportunities provided is higher in the European Solidarity Corps than in the EVS  §The scope and number of European Solidarity Corps synergies with other relevant EU activities are higher than in the EVS | §The European Solidarity Corps have provided better economic value compared with the EVS  §The European Solidarity Corps and EVS have contributed to the development of innovative common standards, systems and/or operating procedures for volunteering |
| INDICATORS | |
| The scope and volume of opportunities provided is higher in the European Solidarity Corps than in the EVS | |
| §Number of projects carried out under the EVS/ European Solidarity Corps  §Number of participants in the EVS/ European Solidarity Corps  §Monetary value of aid provided under the EVS/ European Solidarity Corps | §Evidence of transnational mobility instances that would not have taken place without the EVS/ European Solidarity Corps  §Evidence of the ability of the European Solidarity Corps to respond to crises to which other national, regional or international initiatives could not have responded |
| The scope and number of European Solidarity Corps synergies with other relevant EU activities are higher than in the EVS | |
| §Evidence of synergies between EVS/European Solidarity Corps objectives and relevant EU programmes | §Proportion of programme-funded projects addressing horizontal priorities under the European Solidarity Corps compared with the EVS |
| The European Solidarity Corps has provided better economic value compared with the EVS | |
| §Comparative cost-effectiveness of various European Solidarity Corps /EVS actions versus other available programmes | |
| Evidence of European Solidarity Corps and EVS contribution to the development of innovative common standards, systems and/or operating procedures for volunteering | |
| §Number of organisations issued a Quality Label under the European Solidarity Corps and accreditation under the EVS  §Examples of standards, systems and operating procedures adopted by participating organisations as a result of the EVS/ European Solidarity Corps | §Degree of satisfaction among participants and stakeholders with the adopted standards, systems, processes and/or procedures  §Quality and standard of volunteer training |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | |
| Desk research (annual activity/implementation reports of the programmes, DG EAC, EACEA and National Agencies, cumulative programme performance overviews, legal and policy documents, previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity, monitoring data from project databases and management tools); counterfactual analysis; interviews with different stakeholders; surveys; case studies; stakeholder workshops/focus groups. | |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| EU ADDED VALUE  EQ35 | What would be the most likely consequences of discontinuing the European Solidarity Corps as a stand-alone programme? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | |
| 35.1.1. What are the unique results of the European Solidarity Corps?  35.1.2. Can these outputs be reasonably replicated by other programmes? | |
| Scope | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | |
| §The European Solidarity Corps results and assessments justify the need for continuing the programme | §The negative consequences of discontinuing the European Solidarity Corps as a stand-alone programme outweigh the positive ones |
| INDICATORS | |
| Extent to which the European Solidarity Corps results and assessments highlight a need for the continuity of the programme | |
| §Evidence of the volume and scope of other European, national or international schemes and programmes in comparison with the European Solidarity Corps | §Proportion of stakeholders indicating that no other regional/national or international scheme or programme could meet their needs |
| Extent to which the negative consequences of discontinuing the European Solidarity Corps outweigh the positive ones | |
| §Stakeholders’ assessment of the consequences of discontinuing the European Solidarity Corps based on the evidence of the added value above | §Evidence of cooperation and learning opportunities lost as a consequence of discontinuing the European Solidarity Corps |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | |
| Desk research (annual activity/implementation reports of the programmes, DG EAC, EACEA and National Agencies, cumulative programme performance overviews, legal and policy documents, previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity, monitoring data from project databases and management tools, research data and findings from relevant networks and stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations); counterfactual analysis; interviews with different stakeholders; case studies. | |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| EU ADDED VALUE  EQ36 | Are there national schemes that could effectively replace the European Solidarity Corps programme if no funding is allocated in the future? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | |
| 36.1.1. What Member States have schemes with similar objectives? How similar are they?  36.1.2. What is the scope and volume of services provided by these schemes? | |
| Scope | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | |
| §The likelihood of activities of similar scope and volume taking place without the European Solidarity Corps is low | |
| INDICATORS | |
| Likelihood of similar (scope of) activities taking place without the European Solidarity Corps | |
| §Proportion of European Solidarity Corps volunteers/organisations who would have carried out their activities under other schemes (if they had not been accepted to the European Solidarity Corps programme)  §Evidence on the extent to which the European Solidarity Corps results and assessments justify a need to continue the programme (previous EQ) | §Evidence from national authorities and experts on the European Solidarity Corps unique and similar features in comparison with the local programmes |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | |
| Desk research (reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity, data and documents on national results, initiatives and developments, including national reports and YouthWiki, research data and findings from relevant networks), interviews with different stakeholders. | |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| EU ADDED VALUE  EQ37 | To what extent did the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps programme and the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps programme promote cooperation between participating countries? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| oPERATIONAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS | |
| 37.1.1. How do the cross-country arrangements of the European Solidarity Corps work?  37.1.2 What is the scope of cross-country arrangements of the European Solidarity Corps?  37.1.3. Would these arrangements be possible without the European Solidarity Corps? | |
| Scope | |
| 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps | |
| JUDGEMENT CRITERIA | |
| §The European Solidarity Corps promotes cooperation between the authorities and agencies of the Member States and non-EU countries | §The European Solidarity Corps increases cooperation and mutual learning between organisations in EU Member States |
| INDICATORS | |
| Increased cooperation and mutual learning between organisations in EU Member States | |
| §Number of new partnerships and collaboration networks set up between organisations, agencies and authorities as a result of participation in the programmes  §Evidence that, in the absence of the European Solidarity Corps schemes, the funded international cooperation projects would not have happened  §Evidence on the practices and procedures established in the new partnerships and collaboration networks | §Evidence of continued partnerships between organisations in Member States and organisations in non-EU countries even after the completion of projects  §Extent to which cooperation projects could have taken place through programmes other than the European Solidarity Corps  §Evidence of learning outputs achieved in the partnerships |
| The extent to which the European Solidarity Corps promotes cooperation between the authorities and agencies of the Member States and non-EU countries | |
| §Number of new partnerships and collaboration networks set up between organisations, agencies and authorities as a result of participation in the programmes  §Evidence that, in the absence of the European Solidarity Corps schemes. the funded international cooperation projects would not have happened  §Evidence on the established practices and procedures in the new partnerships and collaboration networks | §Evidence of continued partnerships between organisations in Member States and organisations in non-EU countries even after the completion of projects  §Evidence of learning outputs achieved in the partnerships  §Extent to which cooperation projects could have taken place through programmes other than the European Solidarity Corps |
| LIST OF KEY DATA SOURCES AND METHODS | |
| Desk research (previous evaluations, reports and assessments of the programmes and horizontal/transnational studies on youth, volunteering and solidarity, data and documents on national results, initiatives and developments, including national reports and YouthWiki, research data and findings from relevant networks and stakeholders’ position papers and recommendations, analysis of existing monitoring and other data), interviews with DG EAC, EACEA, National Agencies, national authorities. | |

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

6.1.Overview of benefits and costs

The table below provides a typology which has been applied to classify the overall cost-effectiveness at the level of actions (key programme strands and training and support actions).

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| Assessment typology | Description |
| High (+) cost-effectiveness | A high (+) assessment for cost-effectiveness indicates that the programme achieves positive outputs and outcomes at a relatively low cost. The programme is implemented efficiently, resulting in positive impacts for young people. |
| Adequate (/) cost-effectiveness | An adequate (/) cost-effectiveness assessment indicates that the programme achieves positive outputs and outcomes commensurate with the resources invested. The benefits obtained from the implementation of the programme are reasonably commensurate with the costs incurred. |
| Low (-) cost-effectiveness | A low (-) assessment of cost-effectiveness indicates that the programme does not produce outputs and results that justify the costs incurred. The implementation of the programme may be inefficient or misaligned, resulting in benefits that fall short of the resources invested. |
| Undetermined (~) | An undetermined (~) cost-effectiveness assessment occurs when information gaps on either costs or magnitude of benefits make it difficult to definitively assess whether the programme/its individual actions are cost-effective. |

The table below presents a summary of the costs and benefits identified by the programme’s evaluation. The main source of quantitative information are the results of the cost-effectiveness analysis. Where quantitative information was not available, information from the survey programme has been used to provide a more qualitative view of the costs and benefits for different actors.

6.1.1.2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps (period covered: 2021-2023)

Costs (actual budget) and numbers of participants were retrieved from DG EAC frozen monitoring dashboards (cut-off date 5 January 2024). At the time of the evaluation, data for 2023 were not final as not all final reports had been submitted.

Planned output numbers are milestones for key performance indicators provided in the MFF Performance Results Reports
[93](#footnote94)
.

Costs (planned budget) were retrieved from annual work programmes for the implementation of the European Solidarity Corps programme.

|  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Action | Anticipated output | Anticipated results/impact | Costs | Benefits | Cost-effectiveness assessment |
| Volunteering activities | Supported individual volunteering projects and volunteering teams projects | Individuals:  Improved skills and competences for personal, educational, and professional development    Organisations:  Strengthened capacities of hosting organisations    Local communities:  Strengthened local communities, more capable of addressing societal challenges | Planned budget: EUR 220 202 653.00  Actual budget: EUR 225 542 897.00    Cost per participant: EUR 5 159.58 | Individual participants:  Planned: 67 423  Realised: 61 329    90% of surveyed participants were highly satisfied with their European Solidarity Corps experience (N=8 551). The programme supported personal development (84%), promoted educational and professional growth (83%) and strengthened participants’ solidarity and social and civic awareness (78%).    Organisations:  76% (N=970) of surveyed organisations reported increased programme management skills; 78% (N=971) reported improved diversity practices; 65% (N=972) reported new partnerships.    Local communities:  81% of surveyed individual participants (N=8 405) and 85% of participating organisations (N=887) agreed that community and social groups benefited from the programme; 80% of individual participants (N=8 311) believe it addresses societal challenges. | Assessment: Adequate (/)    Rationale:    The cost of volunteering is adequate compared with other strands and to the previous programming period. The overall budget was slightly overspent compared with the plan. This was deliberate and reflects a reallocation of unused budget from solidarity projects. Effectiveness was described as very satisfactory by participants and organisations. |
| Solidarity projects | Supported solidarity projects under the youth initiative | Individuals:  Improved skills and competences for personal, educational and professional development    Local communities:  Strengthened local communities, more capable of addressing societal challenges | Planned budget: EUR  36 003 142  Actual budget: EUR 24 304 148    Cost per participant: EUR 1 217.63 | Individual participants    Planned: 27 800  Realised: 16 395    Compared with other strands and programmes, solidarity projects provide added value by offering young people leadership opportunities, direct access to funding and the chance to address local community needs and inspire wider social change. However, take-up of the action has been significantly lower than anticipated.    78% (N=1 599) of surveyed participants agreed that solidarity projects meet the needs of young people. | Assessment: High (+)    Rationale:    Compared with other volunteering opportunities offered by the programme, solidarity projects are very cost-effective. |
| Volunteering in high-priority areas (VTHPA) | Supported large-scale, high-impact projects supporting short-term voluntary activities in high-priority areas | Individuals:  Improved skills and competences for personal, educational and professional development    Organisations:  Strengthened capacities of hosting organisations    Local communities:  Strengthened local communities, more capable of addressing societal challenges | Planned budget:  EUR 15 000 000    Indicative cost per participant: EUR 3 317.85 | Individual participants:  Planned: 3 000  Realised: 4 251    Insufficient data are available to quantify the impact of participation in VTHPA on individuals and organisations compared with other programme strands. | Assessment: Undetermined (~)    Rationale:    Overall, based on indicative data, this strand demonstrates relatively high cost-effectiveness. The estimated cost per participant is significantly lower than for traditional volunteering. Note: as no data were available at the time of the evaluation, the analysis is based on the planned budget and should be interpreted with caution. Due to the higher than planned number of participants, the implemented budget is also likely to be higher. |
| European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps | Supported projects in non-EU countries with ongoing humanitarian aid operations | Individuals:  Improved skills and competences for personal, educational and professional development    Organisations:  Strengthened capacities of hosting organisations    Local communities:  Improved capacity and resilience of vulnerable or disaster-affected communities in non-EU countries | Planned budget: EUR 13 000 000    Indicative cost per participant: EUR 20 123.84 | Individual participants    Planned: 629  Realised: 678    79% (N=212) of surveyed participants agreed that they had developed valuable personal relationships with other volunteers and people working in the fields of humanitarian aid or development cooperation. | Assessment: High (+)    Rationale:    Overall cost-effectiveness was high, as the costs were less than half the inflation-adjusted costs of similar programmes such as EU Aid Volunteers or UN Volunteers. It should be noted that only one full year of data were available for analysis at the time of the evaluation. |
| Insurance | Volunteers are insured for the duration of their activity | Support and protection for volunteers, access to necessary care and coverage for unforeseen incidents | Planned budget: EUR 14 500 000; approximately EUR 5 000 000 per year | 67% (N=4 284) of surveyed participants were satisfied with the European Solidarity Corps insurance; however, numerous organisations and National Agencies raised potential concerns about a lack of effective support and responsiveness. | Assessment: Undetermined (~)    Rationale:    It is difficult to make a full assessment of cost-effectiveness as data on costs saved are not available. However, insurance has been more cost-effective than during the previous programme, which cost EUR 7 million per year. The rate of participant satisfaction seems to suggest that the cost-effectiveness of the insurance is adequate overall. |
| Online language support (OLS) | Volunteers participate in language learning | Improved language skills of volunteers | Unknown | Among surveyed volunteers, 36% (N=4 697) of those who had received some form of linguistic support indicated that they had participated in OLS, suggesting that the courses offered may not be engaging, relevant or accessible to all; among OLS participants, 47% (N=1 705) expressed satisfaction. | Assessment: Undetermined (~)    Rationale:    Cost-effectiveness cannot be reliably assessed based on existing evidence. Low participation and a modest satisfaction rate suggest room for improvement. |
| Quality Label | Organisations with a Quality Label | Improved standards, systems and/or operating procedures for volunteering | On average, the European Solidarity Corps spent 4.5% of its budget, or EUR 6.5 million, on Quality Label and networking activities. | Most surveyed organisations agreed that the Quality Label:  ·promotes the delivery of high-quality solidarity and volunteering activities (71%, N=974)  ·supports the safety and well-being of volunteers (68%, N=974)  ·motivates them to continually assess and improve operations (66%, N=968). | Assessment: Undetermined (~)    Rationale:    Cost-effectiveness cannot be reliably assessed based on existing evidence. Perceived benefits and high satisfaction rates suggest good cost-effectiveness. |
| General online training | Volunteers participate in training | Support for volunteers engaged in solidarity activities | Planned budget for general online training and specific training for participants in cross-border activities: EUR 15 430 000 | Among surveyed volunteers, 35% (N=8 531) participated in the general online trainings; 71% (N=2 939) were satisfied with the general online training. | Assessment: Undetermined (~)    Rationale:    Cost-effectiveness cannot be reliably assessed based on existing evidence. Survey results suggest that cost-effectiveness is reasonable given the high satisfaction rates, but relatively low completion rates suggest that there is room for improvement. |
| Training for participants in solidarity-related activities | Volunteers participate in training | Pre-departure preparation of volunteers for the European Solidarity Corps experience | Planned budget: EUR 48 850 000; approximately EUR 16 000 000 per year.    Specific spending and implementation data were unavailable at the time of the evaluation. | Among surveyed volunteers, 72% (N=7 054) were satisfied with pre-departure training and support received, while 69% (N=7 185) were satisfied with the task-related training | Assessment: Undetermined (~)    Rationale:    Cost-effectiveness cannot be reliably assessed based on existing evidence. |

6.1.2.2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps

Costs (actual budget) and numbers of participants were retrieved from DG EAC frozen monitoring dashboards (cut-off date 5 January 2024).

Planned output numbers are milestones for key performance indicators provided in the MFF Performance Results Reports
[94](#footnote95)
.

Costs (planned budget) were retrieved from annual work programmes for the implementation of the European Solidarity Corps programme.

|  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Action | Anticipated output | Anticipated results/impact | Costs | Benefits | Cost-effectiveness assessment |
| Volunteering activities | Supported individual volunteering projects and volunteering teams projects | Individuals:  Improved skills and competences for personal, educational and professional development    Organisations:  Strengthened capacities of hosting organisations    Local communities:  Strengthened local communities, more capable of addressing societal challenges | Planned budget:  EUR 203 789 051.00  Actual budget:  EUR 123 079 357.76    Cost per participant: EUR 4 267.07 | Individual participants:  Planned: 61 900  Actual: 28 844    89% of surveyed participants were highly satisfied with their European Solidarity Corps experience (N=3 430). The programme supported personal development (83%), promoted educational and professional growth (83%) and strengthened participants’ solidarity and social and civic awareness (75%).    Organisations:  74% (N=83) of surveyed organisations reported increased programme management competences; 72% (N=83) reported improved diversity practices; 55% (N=83) reported new partnerships.    Local communities:  79% of surveyed individual participants (N=3 381) and 80% of participating organisations (N=70) agreed that community and social groups benefited from the programme; 80% of individual participants (N=3 341) believe it addresses societal challenges. | Assessment: Adequate (/)    Rationale:    The cost-effectiveness of the volunteering activities appears to be adequate and similar to the cost-effectiveness of similar volunteering activities in the programme. When adjusted for inflation, these activities are even more cost-effective. |
| Solidarity projects | Supported solidarity projects under the youth initiative | Individuals:  Improved skills and competences for personal, educational, and professional development    Local communities:  Strengthened local communities, more capable of addressing societal challenges | Planned budget: EUR 23 429 844.00  Actual budget: EUR 15 096 158.69    Cost per participant:  EUR: 1 177.27 | Individual participants:  Planned: 18 900  Actual: 12 823    75% (N=629) of surveyed participants agreed that solidarity projects met the needs of young people. | Assessment: High (+)    Rationale:    The cost-effectiveness of solidarity projects appears to be high. It is similar to, or even higher than, their cost-effectiveness in the 2021-2027 programming period, adjusted for inflation. With costs around a third of those of volunteering projects, solidarity projects are especially cost-effective. |
| VTHPA | Supported large-scale, high-impact projects supporting short-term voluntary activities in high-priority areas | Individuals:  Improved personal, educational, and professional development skills    Organisations:  Strengthened capacities of hosting organisations    Local communities:  Strengthened local communities, more capable of addressing societal challenges | Planned budget: EUR 2 789 725.00    Indicative cost per participant: EUR 1 886.22 | Individual participants:  Planned: --  Actual: 1 479    Insufficient data are available to quantify the impact of participation in VTHPA on individuals and organisations compared with other programme strands. | Assessment: Undetermined (~)    Rationale:    The cost-effectiveness of the VTHPA appears to be high, with a lower cost per participant than for traditional volunteering activities in the programme. When adjusted for inflation, these activities are still cost-effective. Note: as no implementation data were available at the time of the evaluation, the analysis is based on the planned budget and should be interpreted with caution. |
| Traineeships and jobs | Supported traineeships / jobs projects | Individuals:  Improved personal, educational and professional development skills; better employability and transition into the labour market | Planned budget: EUR 25 200 000.00  Actual budget: EUR 2 418 118.46    Cost per participant: EUR 2 844.85 | Individual participants:  Planned: 11 200  Actual: 850    Insufficient data are available to quantify the impact of participation in traineeships and jobs on individuals and organisations compared with other programme strands. | Assessment: Undetermined (~)    Rationale:    Cost-effectiveness cannot be reliably assessed based on existing evidence. In terms of cost, they are more expensive than solidarity projects or VTHPA, but, at around half the cost, they remain cheaper than volunteering projects. Comparisons with other programmes or subsequent programmes are not possible as this strand has been discontinued. |
| Insurance | Volunteers are insured for the duration of their activity | Support and protection for volunteers, access to necessary care and coverage for unforeseen incidents | Actual budget: EUR 14 125 014.00; approximately EUR 7 000 000 per year | 69% (N=2 488) of surveyed participants were satisfied with the European Solidarity Corps insurance. | Assessment: Undetermined (~)    Rationale:    It is difficult to make a full assessment of cost-effectiveness as data on costs saved are not available. However, at EUR 7 million per year for a programme that had far fewer participants than the subsequent one, the cost-effectiveness of the insurance seems relatively low compared with the current programme, especially when inflation is taken into account. |
| Training and evaluation cycle |  |  | Planned budget:  EUR 49 504 475.00    Actual budget:  EUR 17 318 888.69    Cost per participant: EUR 531 | Number of participants: 32 611    Among surveyed volunteers, 73% (N=2 765) were satisfied with pre-departure training and support received, while 69% (N=2 802) were satisfied with the task-related training. | Assessment: Undetermined (~)    Rationale:    Cost-effectiveness cannot be reliably assessed based on existing evidence. At around EUR 531 per participant, the cost of training appears reasonable considering the overall cost of participation per participant. |

  

7.Annex V. Stakeholder consultation – synopsis report 

7.1.Introduction 

This annex presents an overview of the work carried out and conclusions reached during the interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps and the final evaluation of the 2018-2020 European Solidarity Corps. It covers three types of stakeholder consultation activities: public consultations, surveys and interviews. In line with the requirements of the terms of reference and the Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox, the annex: (i) provides an overview of the consultation strategy; (ii) explains the implementation of each consultation activity carried out and its consistency with the initial consultation strategy; and (iii) summarises and compares the results of the consultation activities. 

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

7.2.Outline of the consultation strategy 

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

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

·designing the consultation strategy; 

·conducting the consultation work; 

·informing policymaking through the preparation of reports. 

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

Table 1. Stakeholder consultation activities – overview

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Consultation activity | Target groups | Date |
| Public consultation | ·programme participants   ·other relevant stakeholders such as management and implementation bodies, national authorities, international organisations and networks   ·general public | 13 November 2023 to 5 February 2024 |
| Interview programme | ·participating organisations   ·participating individuals   ·European Commission DGs   ·EACEA   ·National Agencies   ·external experts/evaluators   ·national authorities   ·EU bodies   ·international organisations and NGOs   ·other stakeholders (SALTOs, RAY, etc.) | August 2023 to April 2024 |
| Surveys | ·survey of individual participants   ·survey of individual applicants   ·survey of participating organisations | 25 January 2024 to 28 February 2024 |

Source: evaluation team.

These different types of stakeholder consultations were complementary. While large-scale surveys of participating organisations and individual volunteers of this programme provided robust evidence on its effectiveness and efficiency, interviews with participants, managing and implementing bodies, and external experts and organisations also served to collect data on relevance and coherence. The survey of individual European Solidarity Corps applicants was mainly used to provide data for the counterfactual analysis (see Annex 3). The public consultation, which covered all evaluation criteria, enabled not only participants but also other stakeholders and the general public to provide their views on the programme. 

While the study produced separate evaluations of the 2018-2020 and 2021-2027 periods of the European Solidarity Corps programme, the following sections summarise the results of the consultation at the level of the overall programme and are forward-looking. The separate evaluations in the final report take into account the specific findings for each evaluation period, based on not only consultations but also additional data collection and analysis methods. 

7.3.Key results of consultation activities

7.3.1. Summarised results of the public consultation 

The public consultation aimed to collect information, expertise and views from programme participants, stakeholders and the general public. An integrated questionnaire covering the European Solidarity Corps was developed by the evaluation team. The public consultation was available on the Commission’s ‘Have your say’ portal in all official EU languages and ran from 13 November 2023 until 5 February 2024. It was further disseminated through social media channels and news items by the Commission and the European Solidarity Corps National Agencies. 

The questions asked in the public consultation focused on the evaluation of the programme and its future. The low number of responses received is attributed to the limited scope of the consultation and the small size of the initiative. 

The public consultation, which also covered the final evaluation of the EU Aid Volunteers initiatives, received a total of 673 responses. Of these, 264 (39%) were from non-governmental organisations, 230 (34%) from EU citizens, 50 (7%) from non-EU citizens, 35 (5%) from public authorities and 18 (3%) from business associations. 9 responses came from academic/research institutions, 7 from companies/businesses, 4 from environmental organisations, 2 from consumer organisations and 1 from a trade union. The highest numbers of contributions came from Germany (96), Romania (90), France (75), Türkiye (57), Spain (46), Italy (39), Austria (26), Belgium (24) and Denmark (22). 

The questionnaire was designed around several response paths to provide both representatives of organisations and individual respondents different sets of questions depending on their participation in the programmes and level of familiarity with it. Representatives of organisations which did not participate in the programmes but who indicated at least some degree of familiarity with them received additional questions (unrelated to participation). Among organisations, 89% (350 out of 393) indicated that they had participated in the European Solidarity Corps while among individuals, 62% (174 out of 280) had participated. As regards familiarity, 312 respondents from organisations indicated that they were very familiar with the European Solidarity Corps, while 68 were familiar and 11 were somewhat familiar with the programme (2 were not familiar).

Responses to closed questions on the five evaluation criteria form the basis of this analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the frequency of responses and the prevalence of particular views for each question. In addition, responses to open-ended questions (e.g. on the coherence of the European Solidarity Corps programme) were summarised and analysed qualitatively to complement the quantitative analysis. 

Relevance: Individuals and respondents representing organisations held positive views of the relevance of the programme’s activities and priorities. 87% (582 out of 671) agreed that solidarity activities address community or societal challenges, while 92% (614 out of 670) believed they had a positive impact on young people’s development. In response to open-ended questions, respondents emphasised in particular the importance of the programme in improving young people’s civic skills and instilling the notion of solidarity by actively involving them in local communities and broadening their world view. Among the horizontal programme priorities, respondents considered inclusion and diversity as highly relevant (69%; 464 out of 668), followed by participation in democratic life (58%; 388 out of 664), the green transition (56%; 374 out of 668) and the digital transformation (31%; 207 out of 666). As regards further development of the priorities, the most common suggestions were to include a focus on mental health and well-being and increase efforts on inclusion and diversity. Respondents also called for clearer explanations and practical implementation of the digital transformation, and specific action on climate change and sustainable living practices. 

As regards recent challenges that affected the programme, 15% of individuals (26 out of 173) and 57% of organisations (193 out of 341) responded that the COVID-19 pandemic had affected their participation in the programme. Of these, organisations most frequently reported that their project had been postponed (109); that their project methodology and activities had changed (106); that their project outcomes had changed (104); that they had to carry out part of their project online (103); or that not all participants could take part (100). Organisations were very satisfied with the support provided by the National Agencies in this context (97 out of 190 organisations rated it 10 out of 10). In addition, 10% (17 out of 171) of individuals and 32% (109 out of 342) of organisations had been affected by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, while 31% (52 out of 170) of individuals reported that the rising prices of goods and services in recent years had affected their participation in the programme. 

Coherence: Respondents representing organisations expressed mixed opinions on a potential integration of the programme into Erasmus+. 46% (175 out of 381) answered that keeping the European Solidarity Corps separate from other EU programmes offers advantages, while 32% (123) thought that it would be more beneficial to integrate it into a larger programme like Erasmus+. 22% (83) of respondents selected ‘Don’t know / No opinion’. In response to an open-ended follow-up question about the reasons for these positions, some respondents argued that keeping the European Solidarity Corps separate would maintain the unique character of the programme and allow for focused objectives on youth engagement, social inclusion and solidarity, with dedicated funding, easier monitoring and management, and clarity in implementation. Others suggested that merging the two programmes could increase visibility and reach more young people and organisations while allowing for economies of scale, greater budgetary flexibility for National Agencies, more coherent rules and greater synergies between different types of actions. 

Effectiveness: Individuals and respondents representing organisations assessed the impact of the programme on different stakeholder groups very positively. 96% (538) of all respondents (N=559) agreed or strongly agreed that the programme has a positive impact on the lives and values of the communities and social groups involved. The areas of highest positive impact identified by individuals were: improved foreign language skills (88 out of 169 respondents selected ‘10 (high impact)’ on a scale from 1 to 10); better understanding of diversity in society (86 out of 168); increased self-empowerment and self-esteem (82 out of 168); increased motivation for further involvement in solidarity activities (78 out of 168); and better awareness of the European project and common European values (73 out of 169). Among organisations, 97% (335 out of 345) indicated that the European Solidarity Corps had a positive impact on their organisation to some or to a large or very large extent, while 91% (315 out of 346) of respondents replied that the programme increased their organisation’s capacity to operate at the EU or international levels. 

When asked about the inclusivity of the European Solidarity Corps, 75% (420 out of 559) of all respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the programme facilitates the participation of people with fewer opportunities. 14% (77) neither agreed nor disagreed, while 9% (50) disagreed or strongly disagreed. 2% (12) selected ‘Don’t know / No opinion’. Among the suggestions for how the programme could further improve access and participation of people with fewer opportunities, respondents most frequently mentioned the need for increased budget and financial support, simplification of procedures and tools, and targeted communication and outreach. 

Efficiency: Respondents provided a modest assessment of the benefits versus the costs of participation. While 62% (214 out of 346) of organisations considered that the benefits outweighed the costs, 60% (206 out of 341) of organisations and 45% (77 out of 171) of individuals felt that their participation required a lot of effort, and 41% (142 out of 346) of organisations and 24% (41 out of 173) of individuals felt that the financial support received was insufficient. Information about the programme was found to be comprehensive by 75% (260 out of 345) of organisations and 57% (98 out of 171) of individuals, while 73% (252 out of 343) of organisations and 43% (74 out of 172) of individuals considered it easy to find. Overall, individuals found the application process on the European Solidarity Corps portal user-friendly (103 out of 173). Among organisations, 67% (229 out of 340) found the grant application process user-friendly; 51% (175 out of 346) found the accreditation application process user-friendly; and 49% (169 out of 344) found the guidance and support tools user-friendly. 

Overall, organisations considered the 2021-2027 programme to be an improvement compared with the 2018-2020 programme (57%; 220 out of 387). 52% (200 out of 386) of respondents reported that the programme’s visibility had improved, while 48% (184 out of 384) considered it to be more accessible to organisations and individuals, and 43% (167 out of 365) reported a reduced administrative burden for organisations. Among the aspects of the programme that could be further improved, respondents most frequently mentioned better accessibility and usability of the programme’s systems and platforms; improved guidance and training; and the need for more publicity and communication to increase the programme’s visibility. 

EU added value: A small majority of individuals and organisations (51%; 285 out of 556) indicated they would not be able to find and participate in alternative programmes with similar objectives if the European Solidarity Corps did not exist. Of the 23% (142) of respondents who indicated that they would be able to find alternative programmes, 106 indicated that these would be at international/European level, while 82 indicated that they would be at national level. Compared with other national, European or international initiatives, the distinctive added value of the European Solidarity Corps most frequently cited by individuals and organisations (N=556) was providing opportunities for international volunteering (indicated by 424 respondents) and helping participants to improve their personal or professional skills (indicated by 423 respondents) as . These were followed by the accessibility of the European Solidarity Corps volunteering and solidarity activities (403 respondents) and the programme’s promotion of exchanges between different cultures and countries (401 respondents). In response to an open-ended follow-up question, respondents highlighted the inclusivity of the programme and its unique focus on youth engagement, solidarity and community impact, as well as the strong support framework and financial support provided. 

In addition to the open-text comments addressed in the report, four position papers on the European Solidarity Corps programme were received. One focused on improving the conditions for volunteering by introducing an ‘EU Volunteer’ status and a ‘Quality Charter’ for volunteering, as well as promoting and supporting capacity building among organisations. The second highlighted challenges in different aspects of the programme, such as accessibility, funding and support, with specific recommendations for volunteering, solidarity projects and the humanitarian aid strand of the programme. Two submissions focused on inclusion and diversity: one gave recommendations for improving accessibility, funding and monitoring practices and the other outlined problematic areas and made recommendations for better inclusion of participants with disabilities. 

7.3.2. Summarised results of the survey of the European Solidarity Corps programme:

The study team implemented three surveys covering: 

o individual participants 

o individual applicants 

oparticipating organisations.

The initial survey questionnaires were developed based on the evaluation questions, consultations with the Commission and previous surveys. During the second interim phase, the evaluation team finalised the survey questionnaires based on a pilot survey with selected stakeholders and additional feedback from the DG EAC and the Interservice Group. 

The surveys were launched in January and February 2024 and closed at the end of February 2024. The contracting authority provided the study team with the contact details of all stakeholders who were then contacted directly with personal invitations to the survey via the Alchemer surveying tool. In addition to English, the surveys were available in French, German, Italian and Spanish. The table below provides an overview of the target population and the response rates achieved. 

Table 2. Main statistics on implementation of the surveys

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Target group | Survey launch date | Survey closure date | number of invitations sent out | Number of responses received | Response rate\* | Number of responses included in the analysis after cleaning |
| European Solidarity Corps organisations | 25 January 2024 | 12 February 2024 | 5 939 | partial: 328  complete: 978  total: 1 306 | 16.4% | partial: 111  complete: 977  total: 1 088 |
| European Solidarity Corps individuals – participants |  |  | 68 495 | partial: 2 721  complete: 7 834  total: 10 555 | 11.4% | participants:  partial: 2 160  complete: 8 513  total: 10 673  applicants:  partial: 619  complete: 2 660  total: 3 279 |
| European Solidarity Corps individuals – applicants | 13 February 2024 | 28 February 2024 | 64 392 | partial: 2 078  complete: 3 915  total: 5 993 | 6.1% |  |

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

Source: evaluation team. 

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

Survey data were used to inform all evaluation questions, particularly those aspects where participants’ opinions were of high importance. All findings from the surveys were included in the final report of the evaluation. The following sections summarise the findings from the survey data of European Solidarity Corps participants (individuals and organisations). Survey data from European Solidarity Corps applicants were used to inform the counterfactual analysis (see Annex 3). 

Relevance: Most organisations agreed that there was a good match between their needs and the skills of the volunteers (75%; 488 out of 648) and believed that the programme was also relevant to the needs of the communities involved (85%; 752 out of 887). Similarly, individual volunteers felt that the programme was relevant for addressing young people’s development (93%; 7 696 out of 8 309) and societal challenges (80%; 6 650 out of 8 311). However, volunteers’ assessment of the relevance of their individual tasks was more modest (65%; 4 809 out of 7 351, ranked them as relevant). 

Respondents considered the four horizontal priorities of the European Solidarity Corps relevant to current societal needs, particularly inclusion and diversity (66%, or 797 out of 1 076, considered them ‘highly relevant’); participation in democratic life (57%; 606 out of 1 070); and the green transition (56%; 603 out of 1 073). The digital transformation was seen as somewhat less relevant (32%; 345 out of 1 070). Individual participants were also asked about annual thematic and specific priorities. Among these, they considered ‘Preservation of cultural heritage’ (47%; 3 865 out of 8 260) and ‘Bridging the intergenerational and social divide’ (50%; 4 123 out of 8 250) most relevant, while ‘Prevention, promotion and support in the field of health’ was perceived as least relevant (35%; 2 851 out of 8 228). 

Organisations and individual volunteers recognised the flexible and timely support they received during various challenges that affected their participation in the programme. The majority considered that the programme provided sufficient support during the COVID-19 pandemic (1 969 out of 2 536 organisations; 1 969 out of 2 536 individuals); during Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine (472 out of 642 organisations; 472 out of 642 individuals); and during unforeseen events or crises in host countries (235 out of 366 organisations; 235 out of 366 individuals). 

Coherence: To gather views on the internal coherence of the programme and the alignment between its different activities, the survey programme asked organisations about their experience with traineeships and jobs, which were only offered during the 2018-2020 programme period. Organisations that had participated (in a supporting or host role) in traineeships and jobs under the programme gave mixed reviews to the experience . 78% (43 out of 55) considered the difference between traineeships/jobs and volunteering to have been clear; 61% (33 out of 54) found that it was easy for organisations to participate; and 64% (35 out of 55) found that they were attractive for young people. Of the organisations surveyed that had not participated in traineeships and jobs, 36% (304 out of 837) cited a lack of relevance of such activities to their organisation as a reason for not participating in the strand, while 35% (297) did not know about traineeships and jobs. 19% (162) cited insufficient financial incentives offered by the programme, while 5% (44) indicated that there were better traineeship or job programmes for young people in their country. 

Effectiveness: Individuals and organisations assessed the impact of the programme on different stakeholder groups very positively. The areas of highest positive impact reported by individuals were: improved foreign language skills (91%; 7 677 out of 8 447); teamwork (90%; 7 561 out of 8 407); and ability to cooperate with people from different backgrounds (89%; 7 485 out of 8 434). Individual participants also became more involved in social, solidarity or civic activities after taking part in the programme: 70% (6 280 out of 8 972) had recently participated in such activities, compared with 55% (4 935 out of 8 972) at the time of application. 

Organisations reported that their participation contributed to improving their diversity and inclusion practices (78%; 757 out of 971) and project management (76%; 736 out of 970), and led to new partnerships (64%; 626 out of 972) and expanded international networks (62%; 601 out of 967). The programme has enabled and encouraged participating organisations to explore similar volunteering and solidarity activities outside the European Solidarity Corps, including at international level. 55% (525 out of 963) reported that their organisation continued to be involved in similar volunteering and solidarity activities after participating in the programme, while 52% (500 out of 967) of organisations reported that they participated in more activities at EU or international level. 

The Quality Label has received very positive feedback from organisations. They consider that it promotes the delivery of high-quality solidarity and volunteering activities (71%; 694 out of 974) and supports the safety and well-being of volunteers (68%; 666 out of 974). In addition, 66% (639 out of 968) of the organisations surveyed felt that the certification process motivated them to continuously evaluate and improve their activities. 

As for the impact of the programme at local level, 81% (6 795 out of 8 405) of volunteers and 85% (752 out of 887) of organisations felt that the programme met important needs of the communities and social groups involved. In addition, participating organisations reported that the work of volunteers contributed to a positive attitude towards the EU in the communities (81%; 717 out of 884), promoted openness to new cultures (84%; 748 out of 886) and provided services or activities that would not otherwise be available (73%; 648 out of 883). 

Efficiency: Participating organisations gave relatively low ratings to the financial aspects of the programme. 43% (434 out of 1 005) thought that the financial support received was sufficient to cover their participation costs, while 36% (360 out of 1 000) considered the unit cost rates as sufficient. Funding has overall been sufficient for individual participants (74%; 6 222 out of 8 390). 

Participation in the European Solidarity Corps has not been viewed as burdensome by most organisations and individuals. Most volunteers (66%; 5 560 out of 8 393) and around half of organisations (49%; 499 out of 1 009) deemed the various administrative requirements to be reasonable (31% (315) of organisations and 13% (1 098) of individuals neither agreed nor disagreed). Most individuals felt that the benefits of participating outweighed the costs (74%; 6 170 out of 8 350) and that the time between applying and starting their activity was reasonable (82%; 6 863 out of 8 383). 

Participating organisations gave a positive assessment of the Quality Label application process and the project application process. 63% of them (537 out of 857) found the information provided to Quality Label applicants clear and easy to understand, and 51% (439 out of 859) found the guidance and support tools easy to use. On the project application process, 60% of participating organisations (608 out of 1 018) found the information provided to applicants clear and easy to understand, and 50% (509 out of 1 019) found the guidance and support tools easy to use. However, 62% (535 out of 858) said that the Quality Label application required significant effort on the part of their organisation, and 49% (499 out of 1 010) agreed with this statement on the project application process. Participating organisations had mixed views on the tools and procedures used to recruit and manage volunteers. 39% (399 out of 1 015) found it easy to recruit volunteers through the European Solidarity Corps portal, and 49% (492 out of 1 010) found the time needed for this process acceptable. The Beneficiary Module and the Mobility Tool+ received low rates for user-friendliness, with only 36% (329 out of 922) and 37% (31 out of 86) respectively confirming that they were easy to use.

Experienced organisations reported several improvements, especially simplified procedures for project proposals, implementation and reporting, compared with the 2018-2020 period. A total of 51% (363 out of 717) confirmed that the programme has simplified the process of preparing and submitting project proposals, while 40% (288 out of 712) noted that the project implementation and reporting processes had been streamlined. The simplification of project funding mechanisms was acknowledged by 45% (319 out of 709), while 40% (286 out of 713) noted the increased visibility of the programme. 

EU added value: The programme has significant added value in providing opportunities for volunteering and solidarity activities for individuals and organisations. Among individuals, 37% (3 382 out of 9 073) stated that they would not have participated in a similar activity without the European Solidarity Corps, while 25% (2 245) expressed uncertainty. For 47% (493 out of 1 051) of the organisations, no alternative sources of funding were available for the projects in which they took part, and 70% (754 out of 1 069) would not have taken part in similar activities without the support of the programme. 

7.4.Comparison of the results of consultation activities 

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

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Evaluation criterion | Public Consultation | Survey | Interview programme | Consistency of  results across  consultation  activities | Complementarity of  results across  consultation  activities | Contradiction of  results across  consultation  activities |
|  | | | | | | | |
| Relevance | Respondents had positive views of the relevance of the programme’s activities and priorities.  Respondents strongly believed that solidarity activities addressed societal needs and had a positive impact on young people’s development.  Among horizontal programme priorities, respondents considered inclusion and diversity as most relevant, while the digital transformation was perceived as less relevant.  Participating organisations were very satisfied with the support provided by the programme in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. | Organisations reported a good match between their needs and the skills of volunteers.  Individual participants and organisations strongly believed that the programme was relevant to addressing societal needs and young people’s development.  Respondents considered the four horizontal priorities of the European Solidarity Corps relevant to current societal needs, particularly inclusion and diversity. The digital transformation was seen as less relevant.  Organisations and individual participants recognised the flexible and timely support they received during various challenges that affected their participation in the programme. | National Agencies, participating organisations and external experts perceive the programme as highly relevant to the needs of its participants and wider communities as it offers a variety of formats and themes for participation.  National stakeholders highlighted the role of the programme in promoting solidarity, especially among marginalised and minority groups. However, they also noted challenges in reaching and targeting young people with fewer opportunities.  National stakeholders agreed that the flexibility of the programme's priorities was necessary to respond effectively to societal challenges. | High | High | Low |
| Coherence | Respondents representing organisations had mixed views on a potential integration of the programme into Erasmus+. | Organisations provided a modest assessment of their experience with the traineeships and jobs strand, which was discontinued in 2021.  Non-participating organisations cited a lack of relevance and awareness of the strand as key reasons for not having taken part. | In general, management and implementation bodies found the rationale for delegation between directly and indirectly managed actions within the programme clear.  Stakeholders interviewed from all groups generally perceived the programme as consistent with other initiatives, including the Erasmus+ programme. They noted that there are possibilities for better exploiting synergies and avoiding duplications.  Participating organisations and National Agencies had mixed views on the potential integration of the programme into Erasmus+.  Experts and participating organisations expressed concerns about the alignment of the newly integrated humanitarian aid strand with the youth strand. | High | High | Low |
| Effectiveness | Individuals and organisations assessed the impact of the programme on themselves very positively.  Participating organisations reported highly positive impacts on their organisations, including on their capacity to operate at EU and international levels.  Overall, respondents believed that the programme facilitated the participation of people with fewer opportunities. | Individuals and organisations assessed the impact of the programme on themselves very positively, including in improving organisational capacities and practices, and enabling participation in similar activities outside of the programme.  The Quality Label received very positive feedback from organisations for promoting high-quality activities and supporting volunteers’ well-being.  Individuals and organisations believed that the programme was effective in addressing the needs of local communities and promoted European values. | In addition to the positive impact of the programme on individual organisations and volunteers, participating organisations, National Agencies and external experts emphasised the programme's contribution to promoting community building and addressing local issues.  National stakeholders stressed that post-pandemic budget cuts had affected the visibility and outreach of the programme. | High | High | Low |
| Efficiency | Organisations and individuals gave a modest assessment of the costs and benefits of their participation.  Organisations generally expressed positive opinions on the grant application process but expressed mixed opinions on accreditation and guidance and support tools.  Financial support was considered sufficient by a minority of organisations and individuals.  Overall, organisations considered the system of the integrated 2021-2027 programme to be an improvement compared with the 2018-2020 programme. | Participating organisations gave relatively low ratings to the financial aspects of the programme. Funding for individuals has been overall sufficient.  Participation in the European Solidarity Corps is not viewed as burdensome by most organisations and individuals.  Participating organisations gave a positive assessment of the Quality Label application process and the project application process.  Participating organisations had mixed views on the tools and procedures used to recruit and manage volunteers.  Experienced organisations reported several improvements, in particular simplifications to project proposal, implementation and reporting, compared with the 2018-2020 period. | Several National Agencies and participating organisations described IT systems and reporting tools as a key area in need of further improvement.  Several participating organisations and National Agencies raised concerns about the programme’s budget.  Some National Agencies also noted that the efficiency of current programme management is not sufficient with regard to IT tools, cooperation between stakeholders and the quality of support.  Several National Agencies and organisations described challenges related to health insurance for volunteers abroad.  National Agencies and authorities interviewed described their cooperation with each other and with the Commission as efficient. | High | High | Low |
| EU added value | Most individuals and organisations indicated they would not be able to find and participate in alternative programmes with similar objectives if the programme did not exist.  Providing opportunities for international volunteering and helping participants to improve their personal or professional skills were most frequently cited by individuals and organisations as the distinctive added value of the programme compared with other initiatives. | Most individuals and organisations believe that the programme has an important added value in providing opportunities for volunteering and solidarity activities for individuals and organisations that would otherwise not be available. | Organisations, National Agencies and external experts noted that one of the key aspects that distinguishes the European Solidarity Corps from other initiatives is its unique blend of opportunities focused on youth empowerment.  Interviewees highlighted that the European Solidarity Corps stands out for enabling the involvement of individuals with fewer opportunities.  The programme’s funding levels, clear structure and accreditation and support mechanisms were seen by external experts as an added value compared with national schemes. | High | High | Low |

:   [(1)](#footnoteref2)

     
       OJ L 202, 2021/888, 8.6.2021, Regulation (EU) 2021/888 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 establishing the European Solidarity Corps Programme and repealing Regulations (EU) 2018/ and (EU) No 375/2014, 
    <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32021R0888>
    .
:   [(2)](#footnoteref3)

     
       The participating countries include the 27 EU Member States and four non-EU countries associated to the programme. In addition, certain parts of the programme’s activities can take place in 22 EU-neighbouring countries that are not associated to the programme. See the 
    [programme guide](https://youth.europa.eu/d8/sites/default/files/inline-files/European_solidarity_corps_guide_2024_en.pdf)
     (p. 16) for further information.
:   [(3)](#footnoteref4)

     
       
    [Regulation (EU) 2018/1475 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 October 2018 laying down the legal framework of the European Solidarity Corps and amending Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013, Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013 and Decision No 1313/2013/EU](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1475/oj)
    <.>
:   [(4)](#footnoteref5)

     
       OJ L 202, 2021/888, 8.6.2021, 
    [Regulation (EU) 2021/888 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 establishing the European Solidarity Corps Programme and repealing Regulations (EU) 2018/1475 and (EU) No 375/2014](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/888/)
    <.>
:   [(5)](#footnoteref6)

     
       European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid,

    <https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/who/european-consensus_en>
    .
:   [(6)](#footnoteref7)

     
       OJ C C/2018/456, 18.12.2018, p. 1.
      
    <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AC%3A2018%3A456%3AFULL>
    <.>
:   [(7)](#footnoteref8)

     
       The four priority areas of the Youth Strategy are: 1) ENGAGE: Fostering youth participation in democratic life; 2) CONNECT: Bringing young people together across the EU and beyond to foster voluntary engagement, learning mobility, solidarity and intercultural understanding; 3) EMPOWER: Supporting youth empowerment through quality, innovation and recognition of youth work; and 4) MAINSTREAM: Addressing the needs of young people across sectors.’
:   [(8)](#footnoteref9)

     
       2023 Annual Work Programme, pp. 10-11, 
    <https://youth.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023_annual_work_programme.pdf>
    <.>
    .
:   [(9)](#footnoteref10)

     
       Better Regulation Guidelines
     [https://commission.europa.eu/document/d0bbd77f-bee5-4ee5-b5c4-6110c7605476\_en]( https://commission.europa.eu/document/d0bbd77f-bee5-4ee5-b5c4-6110c7605476_en)
    <.>
:   [(10)](#footnoteref11)

    https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024\_en
:   [(11)](#footnoteref12)

     
       2023 Annual Work Programme, pp. 10-11, 
    <https://youth.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023_annual_work_programme.pdf>
    .
:   [(12)](#footnoteref13)

     
       Examples of improvements introduced for the 2021-2027 period include the clarification of the Quality Label system and the addition of the Lead Quality Label, which has simplified the funding application process for accredited organisations, as well as clearer procedures on which body (i.e. National Agencies, EACEA and SALTOs) the Quality Label application should be submitted to in the NA of the organisation’s country of origin.
:   [(13)](#footnoteref14)

     
       DG EAC, Annual Activity Report annexes, 2018, p. 10, 
    <https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/ea0a3a65-3117-456c-8927-caabbd2e4f4b_en?filename=eac_aar_2018_annexes_final.pdf>
    .
:   [(14)](#footnoteref15)

     
       DG EAC, Annual Activity Report annexes, 2019, p. 102, 
    <https://commission.europa.eu/publications/annual-activity-report-2019-education-youth-sport-and-culture_en>
    .
:   [(15)](#footnoteref16)

    For the total number of responses, please check the synopsis report (Annex 5 of this Staff Working Document) and the service contractor’s full final report (
    <https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/5736339>
    )
:   [(16)](#footnoteref17)

     
       OJ L 250, 2018/1475, 4.10.2018, 
    [Regulation (EU) 2018/1475 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 October 2018 laying down the legal framework of the European Solidarity Corps and amending Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013, Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013 and Decision No 1313/2013/EU](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32018R1475)
    <,>
     
    <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32018R1475>
    .
:   [(17)](#footnoteref18)

     
       Ibid.
:   [(18)](#footnoteref19)

     
       DG EAC frozen monitoring dashboard (MFF 2014-2020; date of extraction: 5 January 2024), % of In-Country Grant Amount Contracted.
:   [(19)](#footnoteref20)

     
       DG EAC frozen monitoring dashboard (MFF 2014-2020; date of extraction: 5 January 2024).
:   [(20)](#footnoteref21)

     
       PPMI calculation based on EU (2023), ‘MFF Performance Results Report’.
:   [(21)](#footnoteref22)

     
       PPMI calculation based on EU (2023), ‘MFF Performance Results Report’.
:   [(22)](#footnoteref23)

     
       European Solidarity Corps annual work programmes (2021-2023).
:   [(23)](#footnoteref24)

     
       See also Opinion SOC/566 (2017) of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the legal framework of the European Solidarity Corps and amending Regulations (EU) No 1288/2013, (EU) No 1293/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1305/2013, (EU) No 1306/2013 and Decision EU No 1313/2013, 
    <https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-reports/opinions/european-solidarity-corps>
    .
:   [(24)](#footnoteref25)

     
       European Commission (2020). Study on removing obstacles to cross-border solidarity activities 
    <https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1a7042cb-e678-11ea-ad25-01aa75ed71a1>
    <https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1a7042cb-e678-11ea-ad25-01aa75ed71a1>
    .
:   [(25)](#footnoteref26)

     
       Interview programme.
:   [(26)](#footnoteref27)

     
       The higher share of respondents who indicated a lack of awareness may also have been influenced by the fact that the strand was discontinued in 2021.
:   [(27)](#footnoteref28)

     
       Tanja Strecker, Johannes Eick, RAY SOC, Special Programmatic Study, 2023, 
    <https://www.researchyouth.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/RAY-SOC_Programmatic-Study_20231004.pdf>
    .
:   [(28)](#footnoteref29)

     
       Flash Eurobarometer 545, Youth and Democracy, Eurobarometer, 2024, 
    <https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/3181>
    <.>
:   [(29)](#footnoteref30)

     
       Carlberg, M., Plasilova, I., Szolnoki, N. & Zejerman, I. 2023, Research for CULT Committee – 
    [EU funding programmes 2021-2027 in culture, media, education, youth and sports: first lessons, challenges and future perspectives: European Solidarity Corps, European Parliament, Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies, Brussels](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2023/747261/IPOL_STU(2023)747261_EN.pdf)
    .
:   [(30)](#footnoteref31)

     
       Eurostat. 96% of young people in the EU use the internet daily, 2023, 
    <https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20230714-1>
    .
:   [(31)](#footnoteref32)

     
       EU (2024), European Solidarity Corps Performance, 
    [https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/performance-and-reporting/programme-performance-statements/european-solidarity-corps-performance\_en#mff-2014-2020--european-solidarity-corps](https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/performance-and-reporting/programme-performance-statements/european-solidarity-corps-performance_en)
    .
:   [(32)](#footnoteref33)

     
       Ibid.
:   [(33)](#footnoteref34)

     
       Eurostat (2024), ‘euroindicators’: Annual inflation up to 2.9% in the euro area, 
    [https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/18343103/2-17012024-AP-EN.pdf/9d885442-f323-cdde-e149-17ed99a63a6f#:~:text=European%20Union%20annual%20inflation%20was,and%20Belgium%20(both%200.5%25)](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/18343103/2-17012024-AP-EN.pdf/9d885442-f323-cdde-e149-17ed99a63a6f)
    .
:   [(34)](#footnoteref35)

     
       EU (2023), ‘MFF Performance Results Reports’, p. 472.
:   [(35)](#footnoteref36)

     
       PPMI Survey for Evaluation of the European Solidarity Corps: Survey of Organisations.
:   [(36)](#footnoteref37)

    'The allocation of funds is based on a number of criteria which include, among others, country performance weighting 10% of the overall allocation. A readjustment of funds per country would require a readjustment of the criteria and their weight
:   [(37)](#footnoteref38)

     
       OJ L 202, 2021/888, 08.06.2021, EU (2021), ‘
    [Regulation (EU) No 2021/888 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 establishing the European Solidarity Corps Programme and repealing Regulations (EU) 2018/1475 and (EU) No 375/2014](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32021R0888)
     (Text with EEA relevance).
:   [(38)](#footnoteref39)

     
       OJ L 202, 2021/888, 8.6.2021, EU (2021), ‘
    [Regulation (EU) No 2021/888 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 establishing the European Solidarity Corps Programme and repealing Regulations (EU) 2018/1475 and (EU) No 375/2014](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32021R0888)
     (Text with EEA relevance), Article 11(3).
:   [(39)](#footnoteref40)

     
       PPMI calculation based on Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps (MFF 2021-2027) Dashboard.
:   [(40)](#footnoteref41)

     
       European Solidarity Corps annual work programmes (2021-2023), 
    <https://youth.europa.eu/solidarity/organisations/reference-documents-resources_en>
    .
:   [(41)](#footnoteref42)

     
       PPMI calculation based on DG EAC (2024), Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps (MFF 2021-2027). Monitoring Data for Budget and the Annual Work Plan 2021-2023.
:   [(42)](#footnoteref43)

     
       Survey of organisations. Question 43 ‘To which extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the financial support provided by the European Solidarity Corps programme?’.
:   [(43)](#footnoteref44)

     Survey of organisations. Question 53 ‘In your opinion, which of the following aspects of the European Solidarity Corps humanitarian aid strand should be improved to maximise the impact of the programme?’.
:   [(44)](#footnoteref45)

     
       ADE (2021). ‘Ex post’ evaluation of the EU Aid Volunteers Initiative, 2014-2020, 
    <https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1d172a85-0b96-11ec-adb1-01aa75ed71a1/language-en>
    .
:   [(45)](#footnoteref46)

     
       PPMI calculation based on DG EAC (2024), Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps (MFF 2021-2027) Monitoring Data for Budget and the Annual Work Plan 2021-2023.
:   [(46)](#footnoteref47)

     
       PPMI calculation based on UN (2021) ‘2021 Proforma table for UN International Volunteers Youth’, 
    <https://www.unv.org/sites/default/files/2021%20Proforma%20Costs%20for%20international%20and%20national%20UN%20Volunteers.pdf>
    .
:   [(47)](#footnoteref48)

     
       European Solidarity Corps Annual Work Programmes (2021-2023), 
    <https://youth.europa.eu/solidarity/organisations/reference-documents-resources_en>
    .
:   [(48)](#footnoteref49)

     
       Interview programme and answers to open-ended survey questions.
:   [(49)](#footnoteref50)

     
       PPMI Survey for Evaluation of the European Solidarity Corps: Survey of Participants.
:   [(50)](#footnoteref51)

     
       PPMI Survey for Evaluation of the European Solidarity Corps: Survey of Participants.
:   [(51)](#footnoteref52)

     
       PPMI Survey for Evaluation of the European Solidarity Corps: Survey of Organisations.
:   [(52)](#footnoteref53)

     
       Interview programme.
:   [(53)](#footnoteref54)

     
       Survey of organisations. Question 26 ‘To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about your experience hosting European Solidarity Corps volunteers?’.
:   [(54)](#footnoteref55)

     
       Survey of individuals. Question 79 ‘How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the European Solidarity Corps portal (Youth Portal)?’.
:   [(55)](#footnoteref56)

     
       Survey of organisations. Question 27 ‘To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about project cooperation and support?’.
:   [(56)](#footnoteref57)

    Interview programme.
:   [(57)](#footnoteref58)

     
       Interview programme.
:   [(58)](#footnoteref59)

     
       Survey of individual participants. Questions 86 and 87.
:   [(59)](#footnoteref60)

     
       Examples of improvements introduced for the 2021-2027 period include the clarification of the Quality Label system and the addition of the Lead Quality Label, which has simplified the funding application process for accredited organisations, as well as clearer procedures on which body (i.e. National Agencies, EACEA and SALTOs) the Quality Label application should be submitted on the basis of the organisation’s country of origin.
:   [(60)](#footnoteref61)

    https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/policies/youth/youth-action-plan\_en
:   [(61)](#footnoteref62)

     In particular, the strategy’s overall objectives are to: (1) enable young people to be architects of their own lives, support their personal development and build up their resilience; and (2) encourage and equip them with the necessary resources to become active citizens.
:   [(62)](#footnoteref63)

     
       OJ L 202, 2021/888, 8.6.2021, Regulation (EU) 2021/888 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 Establishing the European Solidarity Corps Programme and Repealing Regulations (EU) 2018/1475 and (EU) No 375/2014 (Text with EEA Relevance), 
      
    [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32021R0888](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32021R0888.)
    <.>
:   [(63)](#footnoteref64)

     
       Including the common use of Youthpass as a recognition of learning.
:   [(64)](#footnoteref65)

     
       Horizon Europe Missions 2023-2025 work programme, pp. 324-328 
    <https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/wp-call/2023-2024/wp-12-missions_horizon-2023-2024_en.pdf>
     .
:   [(65)](#footnoteref66)

     
       Interview programme.
:   [(66)](#footnoteref67)

     
       Interview programme.
:   [(67)](#footnoteref68)

     
       Interview programme.
:   [(68)](#footnoteref69)

     
       Interview programme.
:   [(69)](#footnoteref70)

     
       Interview programme.
:   [(70)](#footnoteref71)

     
       Survey of individual participants. Question 14.
:   [(71)](#footnoteref72)

     
       European Commission (2020). Study on removing obstacles to cross-border solidarity activities. Final report. Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, 
    <https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1a7042cb-e678-11ea-ad25-01aa75ed71a1>
     .
:   [(72)](#footnoteref73)

     
       Survey of individual participants. Question 29.
:   [(73)](#footnoteref74)

     
       Interview programme.
:   [(74)](#footnoteref75)

     
       Interview programme.
:   [(75)](#footnoteref76)

     Calculated on the basis of the DG EAC frozen monitoring dashboard (2014-2020 MFF; date of extraction: 5 January 2024).
:   [(76)](#footnoteref77)

     
       See Akarçeşme S., Frennes H., Böhler J. and Mayerl M. (2019). ‘Exploring the implementation of the European Solidarity Corps during its first year – Research Report’
    <, https://www.salto-youth.net/downloads/4-17-4073/01%20RAY%20Report%2020200608.pdf>
    <.>
:   [(77)](#footnoteref78)

     
       2023 Annual Work Programme, pp. 10-11.
:   [(78)](#footnoteref79)

     
       Survey of individuals participating in the European Solidarity Corps.
:   [(79)](#footnoteref80)

     
       Interview programme.
:   [(80)](#footnoteref81)

     
       Interview programme.
:   [(81)](#footnoteref82)

     
       EU (2023), ‘MFF Performance Results Report’.
:   [(82)](#footnoteref83)

     
       Interview programme.
:   [(83)](#footnoteref84)

     
       Interview with EU youth organisations.
:   [(84)](#footnoteref85)

     
       The DG EAC frozen monitoring dashboard (2021-2027 MFF; date of extraction: 5 January 2024).
:   [(85)](#footnoteref86)

     
       Survey of applicants, conducted by PPMI.
:   [(86)](#footnoteref87)

     
       Source: survey of individual participants. Question 29 ‘What were the three most important reasons why you applied to become a volunteer with the European Solidarity Corps? Check your top three reasons.’
:   [(87)](#footnoteref88)

     
       Interview programme.
:   [(88)](#footnoteref89)

     
       Interview programme and answers to open-ended survey questions.
:   [(89)](#footnoteref90)

     
       Only 56% of the EU aid volunteers surveyed felt that their financial costs for participation in the initiative had been sufficiently covered.
:   [(90)](#footnoteref91)

    Survey of individual participants. Question 29 ‘What were the three most important reasons why you applied to become a volunteer with the European Solidarity Corps? Check your top three reasons.’
:   [(91)](#footnoteref92)

     
       
    <https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/document/implementation-guidelines-erasmus-and-european-solidarity-corps-inclusion-and-diversity-strategy>
:   [(92)](#footnoteref93)

    European Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education and Committee on Employment and Social Affairs
:   [(93)](#footnoteref94)

    MFF Performance Results Reports 
    <https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/4e8f26d1-6604-496f-87c4-0b9a886adf29_en?filename=Core%20performance%20indicators%20%28new%29.pdf>
:   [(94)](#footnoteref95)

     MFF Performance Results Reports 
    <https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/4e8f26d1-6604-496f-87c4-0b9a886adf29_en?filename=Core%20performance%20indicators%20%28new%29.pdf>

[Top](#document1)