Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+
National Report The Netherlands
Client: Ministry of Education, Culture and Science & Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport
Rotterdam, 10 February 2017
Lisa van Beek
Linda Dominguez Alvarez
Ineke Litjens
Saraï Sapulete
Thijs Viertelhauzen

Executive summary

3

1

5

2

3

Introduction
1.1

Erasmus+ in the Netherlands

5

1.2

Aim of the midterm evaluation

6

1.3

Methodology

6

Evaluation results

8

2.1

Effectiveness

8

2.2

Efficiency

17

2.3

Relevance

22

2.4

Internal and external coherence and complementarity

24

2.5

European added value and sustainability

25

Conclusions and recommendations

27

3.1

Conclusions per evaluation criterion

27

3.2

Recommendations

29

Annex 1

List of Abbreviations

31

Annex 2

Evaluation framework and evaluation questions

33

Annex 3

List of references

37

Annex 4

List of interviewees

41

Annex 5

List of participants in the workshops

45

Annex 6

Specific objectives Erasmus+ (relevant for this midterm evaluation)

46

Annex 7

EU objectives

47

Annex 8

Needs per sector

49

Annex 9

Survey Results

51

Annex 10

Outcomes – number of applications and granted projects

65

Annex 11

List of alternative programmes

67

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

1

Executive summary

The Erasmus+ programme was launched by the EU in 2014 in order to support internationalisation
within the Education, Youth and Sport fields to stimulate lifelong learning through formal and informal
learning. Erasmus+ integrated several predecessor programmes into a single programme for easy
access, more user friendliness and increased flexibility as well as allow for better linkages between
Education, Training and Youth. The key objective of Erasmus+ is to contribute to tackling socioeconomic challenges that Europe is facing and to support the implementation of the European
Commission’s agenda for growth, jobs, equity and social inclusion.
This national midterm evaluation of Erasmus+ in the Netherlands has been prepared by order of the
Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW) and the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports
(VWS). The aim of this midterm evaluation is to gain insights into the implementation and impact of the
Erasmus+ programme, based on findings regarding the decentralised actions funded through the Dutch
National Agencies (NAs) under the current programme as well as its predecessors. The evaluation also
proposes suggestions for the improvement of Erasmus+ in the future programming period. The results of
this evaluation as well as the evaluations of the other Members States will feed into the final report to be
submitted to the European Parliament, the European Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions by the end of 2017.
This evaluation is based on a variety of methodologies: desk analysis of relevant documents from –
among others – NAs as well as evaluations of predecessor programmes, 58 interviews with various
stakeholders, such as NAs and education and youth institutions, an online- and a face-to-face workshop,
as well as two surveys on students and youth participants.
Main conclusions
 Erasmus+ is a highly relevant programme, contributing to the objectives of the Erasmus+
programme as well as the objectives of the broader EU policy agenda regarding education and skills
development (Europe 2020 and ET2020).
 Erasmus+ is effective in reaching its objectives, mostly regarding individual outcomes such as
development of skills and competences.
 The quality of the applications has increased and the high standards in turn lead to quality
improvements within the applying institutions.
 There is (still) a larger demand for funding of high quality applications than available.
 Erasmus+ is expected to have a broader societal impact in the long run, as individual effects
translate into societal effects.
 The administrative burden did not decrease as a result of the integration and is (still) regarded
to be high.
 The extent to which lower opportunity students and youth, as well as participants with special
needs, are reached, is hard to assess. The perception of participating institutions is that this group
is still hard to reach, although the set targets in the Youth as well as Education and Training
sector, have been reached.
 A substantial share of the interviewed institutions experience quality improvements due to
participation in the Erasmus+ programme, indicating sustainability of the programme.
Conclusions per evaluation criterion
Effectiveness – The way Erasmus+ is executed contributes to a large extent to the intended outcomes in
the Netherlands, regarding achieving the programme’s specific objectives. Erasmus+ contributes to
participants’ knowledge and skills, internationalisation, quality improvements and a more innovative
culture at institutional level. The contribution of Erasmus+ to the objective of lifelong learning is least
apparent, but participation of staff as well as adult education are in itself examples of lifelong learning.

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

3

Erasmus+ affects educational institutions’ internal innovation, internationalisation and mobility policies.
Erasmus+ is less likely to influence national or local policy developments unless policymakers or local
authorities are involved. As Erasmus+ only commenced three years ago, the programme does not (yet)
have a large societal impact, although it is expected to have a broader societal impact in the long run as
individual effects translate into societal effects. Evaluations of predecessor programmes have pointed
into this direction, too. Participation from disadvantaged students and youth could be further
strengthened.
Efficiency – The intended outcomes were achieved against reasonable costs, although the
administrative burden for applicants remains high. The integration of different programmes into
Erasmus+ resulted in more project collaborations over KAs and sectors. The IT tools caused efficiency
losses at the commencement of the programme and are still cause of a large administrative burden for
applicants as well as the NAs. Applicants are satisfied with support provided by the NAs, although some
would welcome more feedback on rejected applications. Equal application procedures apply to large and
small organisations, which affects the accessibility of Erasmus+ for small (volunteer-led) organisations,
as well as newcomers.
Relevance – Erasmus+ adequately links to the needs as identified in the Netherlands. It is a highly
relevant programme, and caters to the needs of institutions as well as participants in the different
sectors. The objective of lifelong learning is least salient to applicants and participants of Erasmus+. KA1
is the best-known strand of Erasmus+.
Internal and external coherence and complementarity – The activities within Erasmus+ are coherent and
there are hardly overlaps or inconsistencies with other programmes. The KAs are perceived to connect
to each other quite well and to complement each other. Since there are hardly any other programmes
that offer similar activities as Erasmus+, institutions have become largely dependent on Erasmus+ as a
basis for their internationalisation activities.
European added value and sustainability – Erasmus+ contributes to effects on the European level. The
Dutch Erasmus+ programme contributes to a large extent to the Erasmus+ general objectives and is
likely to contribute to the Europe 2020 and ET2020 objectives as well. Many projects would not have
been possible without funding through Erasmus+, and the programme offers a solid financial basis for
internationalisation projects subsidised by Dutch NA’s. There is (still) a larger demand for funding of high
quality applications than available. Sustainability requires continued attention, in particular because
knowledge sharing regarding project results is often limited.
Recommendations
 Stimulating cross-sectoral projects – Encouraging collaboration between different sectors and
stakeholders is believed to increase the impact of Erasmus+ programmes. The NAs could more
strongly promote the development and possibilities of cross-sectoral projects. Furthermore, a
dedicated budget for cross-sectoral projects may generate more possibilities for these types of
projects. Additionally, an increase in budget for KA2 is desirable for collaborations.
 Increasing policy impact – Building bridges between policymakers and organisations and institutions
as well as participants should be stimulated to involve policymakers in Erasmus+, for example
through dissemination of results with policymakers.
 Reaching lower opportunity youth – There should be an unambiguous definition for the registration of
lower opportunity youth and students. In this way, measuring the extent to which these groups have
been reached can be done in an unambiguous way. Increasing awareness among lower opportunity
youth may be done by adjusting the way of approaching them. NAs can further encourage and
support projects that include youth or students with fewer opportunities or special needs.
 Increasing accessibility of the programme – In order to make it more attractive for newcomers to
apply, a separate “light” application procedure, taking into account proportionality regarding
applications, may help reduce the administrative burden that discourages newcomers from applying.
 Increasing visibility and knowledge sharing – In order to increase the European added value of
Erasmus+, institutions as well as local authorities and businesses, should be encouraged more to
share knowledge regarding their own project results.

4

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

1

Introduction
The Erasmus+ programme was launched by the EU in 2014 to support internationalisation within the
Education, Youth and Sport fields and stimulate lifelong learning through formal and informal learning.
Erasmus+ integrated several predecessor programmes into a single programme for more user
friendliness, increased flexibility and better linkages between Education, Training and Youth. The
programme has a budget of €14.7 billion for the period 2014-2020. Compared to the budget of its
1
predecessor programmes this resembles a budget increase of 40 percent over the whole seven-year
programme. A substantial part of the increase will be applied during the later years of the programme.
The key objective of Erasmus+ is to contribute to tackling socio-economic challenges that Europe is
facing and to support the implementation of the European Commission’s agenda for growth, jobs, equity
and social inclusion. Erasmus+ is expected to contribute to the achievement of:
1. The objectives of Europe2020 (European growth strategy in the field of employments, social equality
and inclusion) including the education objective;
2. The objectives of ET2020 (strategic framework education and training);
3. The sustainable development of partner countries in the field of higher education;
4. The overall objective of the European Youth Strategy 2010-2018;
5. The objective of developing an European dimension in sport, especially amateur sport, in line with
the work plan of the European Union;
6. The promotion of European values in accordance with Article 2 of the Treaty on the European Union.
The key challenges for Europe in the areas of youth, education, employment and inclusion are
addressed in EU-wide strategies and policy frameworks. These initiatives are largely supported by the
Erasmus+ grant programme.

1.1

Erasmus+ in the Netherlands
In the Netherlands, the Erasmus+ programme is executed by the National Agency Erasmus+ Education
and Training (a collaboration of CINOP & EP-Nuffic) and the National Agency Erasmus+ Youth
(Nederlands Jeugd Instituut). These NAs are supervised by the national authorities: Ministry of
Education, Culture and Science (OCW) and the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS).
Erasmus+ offers programmes through three key actions (KAs):
1. KA1: Learning mobility of individuals. Key Action 1 supports mobility in the education, training
and youth sectors and aims to bring long lasting benefits to the participants and the organisations
involved;
2. KA2: Cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices. The actions under KA2
make it possible for organisations from different participating countries to work together, to develop,
share and transfer best practices and innovative approaches in the fields of education, training and
youth.;
3. KA3: Support for policy reform. Key Action 3 provides grants for a wide variety of actions aimed at
stimulating innovative policy development, policy dialogue and implementation, and the exchange of
knowledge in the fields of education, training and youth.
KA1 and KA2 are used in both the education and training, and youth sector. The decentralised actions
under KA3 are only open for the youth sector. For the education and training sector, these actions are
organised centrally at the level of the European Commission and are therefore beyond the scope of this
evaluation.

1

These include: Life Long Learning; Youth in Action; Erasmus Mundus; ALFA III; Tempus; Edulink; Sport Pilots.

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

5

1.2

Aim of the midterm evaluation
The results of this evaluation and the evaluations of the other Member States, will feed into the final
report to be submitted to the European Parliament, the European Council, the European Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions by the end of 2017. The aim of this midterm
evaluation is to gain insights into the implementation and impact of the Erasmus+ programme and the
results achieved in the Netherlands, based on findings regarding the current and predecessor
programme(s) regarding the decentralised actions implemented in the Netherlands. The evaluation also
proposes conclusions and suggestions for improvement of the Erasmus+ programme for the remaining
and orientations for the future programming period, for the European Commission as well as the
Netherlands.
The following five evaluation criteria are addressed in this review:
 Effectiveness: to what extent does the way Erasmus+ is executed contribute to the intended
outcomes in the Netherlands?
 Efficiency: are the intended outcomes achieved against reasonable costs in the Netherlands?
 Relevance: does Erasmus+ adequately link to the needs as identified in the Netherlands?
 Internal and external coherence and complementarity: are activities within Erasmus+ coherent?
Is there any overlap or are there inconsistencies with other programmes in the Netherlands?
 European added value and sustainability: to what extent did Erasmus+ in the Netherlands
contribute to effects at the European level and to what extent are the effects sustainable?
The evaluation matrix presented in Figure 1 in Annex 2 provides an overview of the underlying
relationship between these elements. A number of questions per evaluation criterion have been
formulated by the European Commission. The ministry of OCW and the ministry of VWS added a
number of additional questions. The questions are spelled out in Annex 2 and answered in Chapter 2.

1.3

Methodology
This research was conducted in five phases: the start-up phase, desk study phase, field study phase,
analysis phase and reporting phase. The assessment is based on qualitative analysis and the use of
survey data. The chosen mix of research methods enabled us to, within the available time path, answer
the research questions as optimal and concrete as possible.

1.3.1 Desk study
The desk study was mainly used to get information on the implementation and impact of Erasmus+ (and
previous programmes) and the degree to which the set objectives have been achieved. One of the main
research elements of our study was the analysis of existing reports and documents, including:
 Evaluation of the Youth in Actions programme;
 Evaluation of the Life Long Learning programme;
 Programme Guides;
 Guides for the NAs implementing Erasmus+;
 Work programmes;
 Year reports;
 Applications overviews;
 Selection overviews and justifications;
 Business Meeting reports.
Other documents reviewed are policy letters and studies in the field of internationalisation. An overview
of the analysed sources can be found in Annex 3.

6

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

1.3.2 Interviews
We have conducted 58 interviews with several stakeholders, such as individuals who are involved in the
policy making around Erasmus+ or the implementation of the programme. During a (semi)structured
interview the activities and the outcomes, efficiency, coherence and effectiveness of activities were
discussed. The interviews contributed to information on the effects at the institutional level. In addition,
stakeholders were interviewed who are not involved in policy making or the implementation of
Erasmus+, but who make use (or could make use) of the available funding. They provided insights in the
relevance and (EU) added value of Erasmus+ activities. The list of interviewees is presented in Annex 4.

1.3.3 Workshops
The involvement of the various groups of stakeholders is a crucial element in our study. Two workshops
were organised to discuss preliminary outcomes and brainstorm about potential solutions and
improvements. The first workshop was hosted by Synmind halfway the field study phase. Several topics
were discussed online with a diverse group of stakeholders. The second workshop was organised at the
end of the field study phase (5 December 2016) in a World Café setting. Several topics were discussed,
issues identified and potential solutions explored. An overview of the workshop participants can be found
in Annex 5.

1.3.4 Surveys
We know by experience that an online survey yields the best results in reaching youth. Two surveys
2
were conducted: one targeted at youth participants of Erasmus+ Youth projects and one targeted at
student participants of Erasmus+ Education and Training projects. The (former) participants were invited
via the participating institutions. These surveys have provided insights into the effects at the individual
level. The survey results are presented in Annex 9. To stimulate students and youth participants to
participate in the surveys, respondents could win an iPad (two iPads in total).
The education and training survey was completed by 2,144 respondents who are on average between
21 and 25 years old, and are enrolled or graduated mostly at higher education level. Table 1.1 provides
an overview of the percentage division of the factual number of participants in Erasmus+ per educational
level and the numbers per educational level in the survey. The students in vocational education are
underrepresented while in higher professional education they are overrepresented. Hence, the survey
results are not completely representative but as the number of respondents is quite high, the results
3
provide valuable insights.
Table 1.1 Overview of percentage participating students and percentage students in surveys
Participants 2015

Percentage population

Percentage survey

Vocational education (Mbo)

5,204

28%

17%

Higher professional education (Hbo)

6,790

37%

49%

University education (Wo)

6,505

35%

33%

Total

18,499

100%

100%

The youth survey was completed by 146 respondents who are on average between 16 and 20 years old
and are enrolled or graduated mostly at secondary education (44%) and higher education (44%) level.
The average labour market position of the respondents is “employed”. The survey results are
complemented by results of the Youth survey that was conducted by the RAY-network (Research-based
Analysis of Youth in action).

2

3

We distinguish between beneficiaries (applicants, organisations, institutions, the ones receiving the funding directly) and
participants (individual participants, such as students, teachers, and youth).
The population figures (18,499) are taken from 2015, while the respondents can have participated in projects from 2014 up until
now. Taking 2015 as a rough estimate of the population enables us to compare the response rates per sector.

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

7

2

Evaluation results

2.1

Effectiveness
Effectiveness refers to the extent to which expected effects have been obtained and objectives have
been achieved. We assessed whether the Erasmus+ programme and its predecessor programmes
contributed to reaching the objectives of the programme, which can be found in Annexes 6 and 7. As
Erasmus+ consists of three KAs, we first discuss the outputs of the programme in terms of the number
of applicants for each of the KAs since the start of the programme.

2.1.1 Question 1 – Realisation of Erasmus+ specific objectives
Question 1

To what extent have Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes contributed to the realisation of the
Erasmus+ specific objectives4 in the Netherlands? Are there differences across fields?

Conclusions

Most interviewed organisations and institutions (in both education and training and youth) indicate that
Erasmus+ is an effective programme to reach its objectives: it contributes to students’ and youth’s
knowledge and skills, internationalisation of youth and education institutions and organisations, quality
improvements and a more innovative culture at organisational level. However, it remains challenging to
reach special needs and fewer opportunity students and youth. The effects of Erasmus+ differ between
education and training and youth, and sometimes per KA. KA1 and KA3 are generally believed to have a
greater effect at the individual level as individuals develop their knowledge and skills, while KA2 has a larger
impact at institutional or organisational level through partnerships.

Outputs: applications
KA1
At the start of Erasmus+ in 2014, KA1 applications for Youth have increased from 219 applications in
2014 to 233 in 2015 and higher education and VET remained stable while student and staff mobility in
school and adult education saw a decline in comparison to its predecessor programmes, although the
5
number of applicants exceeded the available funding. The application forms for Erasmus+ became
available quite late, as was mentioned by several stakeholders from the Education and Training field.
Besides, educational institutions might have been hesitant to apply, not knowing what to expect from the
new integrated programme. Furthermore, the quality of several applications was not up to the required
standards. To ensure better quality applications were submitted, the NA Education and Training
informed applicants of the revised quality standards under Erasmus+ and provided feedback to rejected
6
7
applications. This resulted in better quality applications the years after.
8

With regard to Youth, half of the applications did not meet the quality threshold at the start of Erasmus+.
9
The NA Youth has since improved their support to applicants in a similar manner as the NA for
Education and Training, which resulted in an increase in the number of KA1 Youth applicants and better
10
quality applications.
KA2
The opportunities for KA2 funding have been well received by educational institutions and youth
organisations, and KA2 is a popular KA with a higher number of applications compared to the available
11
budget. Due to the limited budget, only high quality applications are granted funding. Initially, in 2014,
applicants were unfamiliar with the KA2 application procedure and its quality requirements. As a result,
several applications were submitted to the wrong KA in Youth (i.e. KA2 instead of KA1 or vice versa),
and many applications did not meet the quality threshold. Information meetings by the NAs, advising
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

8

See Annex 6 for the Specific Objectives of Erasmus+.
Year report 2014. National Agency Education and Training.
Year report 2014. National Agency Education and Training.
Workprogramme 2016. National Agency Education and Training.
See Table 10.1 in Annex 10.
Year report 2015. National Agency Youth
Workprogramme 2015. National Agency Youth
Year report 2014. National Agency Education and Training

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

applicants, and providing opportunities for applicants to receive feedback on applications before the
deadline made education and youth organisations more familiar with KA2 and its quality requirements.
From 2015, less projects were submitted to the wrong KA in Youth and the quality of applications
12 13
The number of KA2 applications for cross-sectoral partnerships and strategic partnerships
improved.
for all levels of education except higher and adult education, has decreased between 2014 and 2016.
There have been, for instance, no applications for cross-sectoral partnerships in 2015 and 2015 while
there were 14 applications in 2014, In addition, strategic partnership applications for school education
14
dropped from 110 applications in 2014 to 19 in 2016.
KA3
The number of applications for KA3 for Youth increased in 2015 compared to 2014 although the
available budget for KA3 on structured dialogue was not fully spent in 2014 and 2015.15 This is mainly
16
due to the limited number of applications and applications not meeting the quality threshold.
Effects
Competences and skills
KA1 and KA3 of the Erasmus+ programme are found to contribute to the development of competences
17
and skills, as did its predecessor programmes LLP and Youth in Action. Almost all students (94%) and
18
youth participants (93%) who completed our survey, rated their Erasmus+ experience as very useful. A
larger share of university students regarded Erasmus+ as useful (97%) compared to higer professional
19
education (94%) and VET students (88%) although differences are small. For students, KA1
contributed mostly to their cultural awareness (81%) with very small differences between different levels
of education. It also enhanced content knowledge regarding their study (80%). This effect was largest for
university students (86%), followed by VET students (79%) and higher professional education students
(76%). Improvement of research knowledge was largest for university participants (36%) compared to
higher professional education and VET students (29% and 24% respectively) as university programmes
have a stronger research focus. Youth participants in KA1 or KA3 indicated that Erasmus+ had the
20
largest impact on their personal development (72%) and cultural awareness (63%). The RAY 2016
21 22
confirm these findings and suggest that participation enhances youth’s self-awareness
evaluations
and the ability to cope with new environments. In addition, a large majority of students (88%) and young
people (89%) indicated Erasmus+ contributed to their skills development with limited differences
23
between students in different levels of education. For students, language skills were most frequently
enhanced (87%) while for young people participating in youth activities, their social and civic skills were
24
25
mostly strengthened (82%). These skills stimulate participants to become more involved in society. A
noticeable difference between students is that collaborative skills are believed to be enhanced mostly by
VET students (68% of VET students versus 49% of university participants), while writing skills improved
26
according to 38% of university students compared to 17% of VET students. A majority of students
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

20
21

22

23
24
25
26

Workprogramme 2015. National Agency Youth.
Year report 2015. National Agency Youth.
See Table 10.2 in Annex 10. Also based on interviews with NAs conducted by Ecorys.
2016 data not available.
See Table 10.3 in Annex 10.
NJI (2011), De impact van Youth in Action.
See Tables 9.6 and 9.8 and Figures 9.15 and 9.18 in Annex 9.
Based on Ecorys survey among students who participated in Erasmus+. N=375 for VET, N=1054 for higher professional
education and N=705 for higher university education.
See Figures 9.3 and 9.8 in Annex 9.
Boomkens, Awad & Metz (2016). Monitoren Impact Erasmus+ Jeugd – Nederland. Rapportage over het onderzoek naar de
impact van deelname aan het Erasmus+ Jeugd programma 2014-2015 (Concept).Hereafter: RAY findings 2016.
RAY is the “The research-based analysis and monitoring of Erasmus+: Youth in Action” programme and monitors the effects of
the Youth sector of Erasmus+. The results of the RAY participants’ survey and our survey partly overlap, but our evaluation more
broadly assesses the Youth branch of the Erasmus+ programme. We use the results of the RAY evaluations of 2016 to answer
questions regarding participation in Youth programmes under Erasmus+.
See Figures 9.1 and 9.6 and Tables 9.1 and 9.4 in Annex 9.
See Figures 9.2 and 9.7 in Annex 9.
Workprogramme 2015, National Agency Youth.
Based on Ecorys survey among students who participated in Erasmus+. N=375 for VET, N=1054 for higher professional
education and N=705 for higher university education.

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

9

(89% on average with over 90% of university and higher professional education students indicating this
and 83% of VET students) and youth (72%) believed that their gained knowledge and skills adds value
to their CV. Respondents also believe that their career prospects benefit from their Erasmus+
27
experience with over 80% of university and higher professional education participants believing so, and
75% of VET students.
Language learning and development
As indicated above, 87% of students at different education levels surveyed mentioned that their
language skills have improved.28 Additionally for youth participants, Erasmus+ has a positive effect on
their language skills as 61% found that they are better able to communicate in a different language. The
effects on language learning are in line with predecessor programmes such as Youth in Action where a
29
majority indicated they improved their foreign language (66%) and communication skills (56%).
Non-formal learning
The contribution of the programme to the recognition of non-formal learning is assessed by looking at
the use of the Youthpass by participants. The impact of the Youthpass on non-formal learning under
Erasmus+ improved in comparison to its predecessor Youth in Action Programme. The Youth in Action
30
programme found that the Youthpass was not used very much by young people in finding a job (20%),
and that only 17% indicated they received the Youthpass. However, under Erasmus+, the majority of
youth participants received the Youthpass (66%) and 56% of them indicated they used their Youthpass
31
in job application procedures.
32

Students and youth with special needs and fewer opportunities
Interviewed education and youth organisations stated that Erasmus+ mainly reaches the average or
well-off (‘advantaged’) students and young people. In the Youth sector, in 2015, 33% of the participants
in youth projects were youth with fewer opportunities, which is higher than the 2015 target of 30%. In
addition, the target for 2015 was to have 2% special needs participants while the youth sector achieved
33
8% in 2015. For Education and Training, registration of lower opportunity and special needs students is
only required for VET institutions. For these institutions, the percentage of participants with special
34
needs or lower opportunities was 3.62%, substantially higher than the target of 0.5%. For both youth
and VET, the figures are based on self-registration. The European Commission’s definition of lower
opportunity and special needs youth/students is quite broad (see footnote 32), making it difficult to
monitor what applicants register to be lower opportunity and special needs participants. Hence, figures
for these sectors may be inaccurate due to misinterpretation of the definition and, for instance,
underestimated. In addition, higher and school education are not required to register such participants.
While no data are available, higher educational institutions believe not many students with special needs
35
or disadvantaged backgrounds participate in Erasmus+. A complete picture on the extent to which
Erasmus+ is successful in reaching target groups can thus not be made.
Youth organisations and educational institutions stated that it is more difficult to reach lower opportunity
or special needs youth/students as the awareness of Erasmus+ is smaller in these groups, and they
have difficulties in reaching these target groups. Youth organisations believe the language used in
communication with these groups is not sufficiently adapted to the target groups. Educational
27
28

29
30
31
32

33
34
35

10

See Tables 9.1 and 9.4 and Figures 9.1 and 9.6 in Annex 9.
See Figure 9.2 Annex 9. Differences between education levels: at VET and higher professional education level, 87% indicated it
improved their language skills, and 88% of university students indicated this.
NJI (2011), De impact van Youth in Action.
Ernst and Young (2010), Interim evaluation Youth in Action.
Based on RAY findings 2016.
Young people and students with fewer opportunities are defined by the European Commission as those with social obstacles
(e.g. limited social skills, from broken families and people facing discrimination because of gender), economic obstacles (e.g. low
income background, living in poverty, homeless or with financial problems), disability, educational difficulties (e.g. early school
leavers, people with learning problem, poor school performers), cultural differences (e.g. immigrants, refugees, those with
cultural inclusion problems or belonging to an ethnic minority), health problems, and geographical obstacles (e.g. remote or rural
areas, from islands or urban problem zones and less serviced areas).
Year report 2015, National Agency Youth.
Year report 2015, National Agency Education and Training.
Based on interviews with higher educational institutions conducted by Ecorys.

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

institutions add that arranging insurance and health care needs and providing suitable support for
special needs students is an obstacle for them to include these students. This while additional funding is
available for special needs participants in Erasmus+.
For KA2 in education, there is a growing interest of special schools at primary and secondary level to
36
participate in the programme. The NAs for Education and Training and Youth continue to stimulate and
support projects in improving inclusion of disadvantaged and special needs people. However, as
reaching students and youth with special needs and fewer opportunity is an important objective for the
Erasmus+ programme, the programme could benefit from a clear definition and rules regarding
registration of these participants in the future programming period.
Internationalisation of Education and Training and Youth
All interviewed youth organisations and educational and training institutions stated that Erasmus+
contributes to their internationalisation as the programme enables them to establish strategic
partnerships with institutions abroad, expand their international collaborations and enable staff, students
or young people to cross borders. These effects were also found for the LLP and Youth in Action
37
Programmes.
Quality improvements
Several interviewed higher education and adult education institutions believe that Erasmus+, in
comparison to its predecessor programmes, focuses more on quality instead of quantity and a high
number of participating students and young people. The current application procedure encourages
applicants to write better-quality applications and stimulates them to deliver high quality projects. For
instance, the requirement for submitting a development plan for KA1 applications encourages
organisations to think about a strategic long-term quality approach towards Erasmus+ projects according
to both education and youth organisations. Education and youth organisations believe the increased
focus on quality has benefitted their applications as well as the quality of their projects. Several youth
organisations believe this has positively affected the quality of youth work, while most interviewed
education institutions indicated Erasmus+ contributed to a more innovative culture in their institutions.
The NAs confirmed that the quality of most applications improved.
Lifelong learning
Survey results of student participants in KA1 show that Erasmus+ is perceived to have little direct impact
on their awareness of lifelong learning, as just under one-third of students (31%) indicated that
38
Erasmus+ contributed to this. As students are still in initial education, it is also not expected that
Erasmus+ increases their awareness of lifelong learning. However, Erasmus+ contributes to the
awareness of lifelong learning of staff according to secondary education and higher professional
education institutions. Even if there is no direct effect noticeable effect of Erasmus+ on the awareness of
lifelong learning as indicated by participants, participation in itself contributes to lifelong learning as was
39
noted in the mid-term evaluation of the predecessor LLP programme. The topic of lifelong learning will
continue to be promoted amongst others in VET by the NA for Education and Training through the use of
40
lifelong learning experts and networking with VET schools.
Participation in democratic life
Erasmus+ seems to have little direct impact on youth’s participation in democratic life. While Erasmus+
increased young people’s awareness of what is happening in Europe, less than half of the youth
participants (48%) indicated they became a more active citizen after participation in Erasmus+.
According to a majority of youth participants, Erasmus+ did not greatly impact their political interest,
political activity, or their participation in volunteer work, as Erasmus+ did not increase their interest or
41
activities on these parts. The RAY findings also highlight that Erasmus+ did not have an impact on
36
37
38
39
40
41

Work programmes National Agency Education and Training; National Agency Youth.
Ernst and Young (2010), Interim evaluation Youth in Action; Panteia (2010), Interim Evaluation LLP in the Netherlands.
See Figure 9.8 in Annex 9.
Panteia (2010), Interim Evaluation LLP in the Netherlands.
Workprogramme 2016, National Agency Education and Training.
See Table 9.2 and Figures 9.3 and 9.4 in Annex 9. Also based on RAY findings, 2016.

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

11

youth participants’ opinion or attitude towards democracy. These results could, however, be biased as
the youth participants in Erasmus+ are already democratically engaged before starting Erasmus+ and
therefore, choose to enrol. Consequently, Erasmus+ did not further increase their participation in
democratic life. However, it is expected that Erasmus+ can have a broader societal impact in the long
run as cultural and linguistic awareness improve and internationalisation increases and therefore, it may
change the way people deal with e.g. racism and prejudices and enhance thinking of equality as was
42
found in the LLP evaluation.
Policy reforms
Erasmus+ projects for KA1 and KA2 are believed to have little policy impact at the national or regional
level as the projects are implemented at institutional or organisational level. The objective of Erasmus+
projects is to complement national and regional policies in enhancing the development and skills of
individuals and improve quality at an institutional level. Collaborations with local authorities in KA1 or
KA3 are more common for youth projects in Erasmus+ compared to education projects in Erasmus+.
Under KA3 for instance, youth organisations often collaborate with local or national authorities as they
organise debates with policymakers. KA3 however is not available at a decentralised level for
educational and training institutions, while opportunities for this could strengthen the policy link for
education and training according to the NA. Question 3 addresses the topic of policy influence further,
including the impact of Erasmus+ on organisations’ and institutions’ internal policies.
2.1.2 Question 2 – Realisation of the EU objectives in the Netherlands
Question 2

To what extent has the progress on the realisation of the specific objectives contributed to the
realisation of the Erasmus+ general objectives in your country, regarding the objectives of the
Europe 2020 strategy, including the headline education target (employment; research and
development; climate/energy; education; social inclusion and poverty reduction) and regarding the
objectives of the ET2020 strategic framework, including the corresponding benchmark?

Conclusions

The Dutch Erasmus+ programme contributes to a large extent to the Erasmus+ general objectives. With
regard to the Europe 2020 targets, the Netherlands is on track regarding its education and poverty reduction
targets. The Netherlands is ahead of almost all of its ET2020 objectives. The Dutch Erasmus+ programme
contributes to the mobility objective of ET 2020 and its other objectives, and can also contribute towards
some of the Europe 2020 objectives even though the strategic objectives of both programmes differ.

Erasmus+ general objectives
The Dutch Erasmus+ programme and projects contribute to a large extent to the Erasmus+ general
objectives, as represented in Annex 7. As discussed under Question 1, the Erasmus+ programme in the
Netherlands contributes to the general objectives of improving knowledge and skills of students and
youth, enhancing labour market opportunities and improving language skills. Quality or innovation in
both education and training institutions and youth work have been enhanced, and the Dutch Erasmus+
programme made the education and youth sector more internationally oriented. Erasmus+ projects have
limited possibility to impact national or regional policies.
Europe 2020
43
The Netherlands are on track for most of the targets of the Europe 2020 objectives. The employment
44
rate of 20-64-year-olds was 76.4% in 2015 (target 80%). Just over 2% of the GDP was spent on
45
research and development in 2015, which is below the target. The Netherlands is on track with regard
to the education objectives: in 2015 8.2% of students left school before obtaining a diploma,46 which is
just above the target of maximum 8%. In addition, 46.3% of all 30-34-year-olds obtained a tertiary
education degree and with this, the Netherlands already reached its 2020 target. Since 2005, 381,000
47
people have been lifted out of poverty in the Netherlands in 2015, also reaching its 2020 target in
advance.
42
43
44
45
46
47

12

Panteia (2010), Interim Evaluation LLP in the Netherlands.
See Annex 7.
Eurostat data, 2016.
Eurostat data, 2015.
Eurostat data.
Eurostat data.

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

Due to the different objectives of the Europe 2020 and Erasmus+ programmes, it is difficult to link the
Erasmus+ objectives to the intended outcomes of Europe 2020. The evaluation of LLP also indicated
that it is ambitious to assess whether LLP contributes substantially to broader EU priorities, such as the
objectives of the Education and Training 2010 work programme, as LLP was not based on
48
operationalisation of such broader priorities. Erasmus+ is most likely to contribute to the Europe 2020
objectives regarding education. Erasmus+ can, for instance, be a means of contributing towards the
49
number of people obtaining a tertiary education degree, the number of early school leavers, or
employment in the long run as it equips people with knowledge and skills relevant for their study or for
the labour market. Former research for example reveals that developing international and intercultural
50
competences are increasingly important indicators for labour market success.
While Erasmus+ can contribute to some of the Europe 2020 objectives, education and labour market
outcomes are influenced by a combination of personal, societal, economic and political factors.
ET 2020
51
The Netherlands is well on its way to meet the benchmarks of the ET 2020 programme: 97,6% of
children between 4 and compulsory schooling age attended some form of early childhood education in
2015; less than 15% of 15-year-olds were under-skilled in reading, mathematics and science; 8,2% of
18-24-year-olds were early school leavers in 2015; 46,3% of 30-34-year-olds obtained a tertiary degree;
52
18,9% of adults participated in lifelong learning; over 82% of graduates were employed, and 22% of
53
higher education students spent a part of their study abroad. On all indicators except for early school
leaving the Netherlands had already reached its 2020 objectives in 2015.
The objectives of the Erasmus+ programme are more aligned with the ET 2020 programme than the
Europe 2020 objectives. Both Erasmus+ and ET 2020 aim to improve knowledge and skills, stimulate
lifelong learning, stimulate the mobility of students, encourage equity, and improve quality of education
and training. Therefore, Erasmus+ can be a means, together with other policies and programmes, to
54
contribute towards the strategic objectives of ET 2020. The Dutch government indicated that it uses
Erasmus+ where possible in order to increase its impact on the ET 2020 objectives by, for instance,
sharing best project examples and outcomes to be able to strengthen other Erasmus+ projects and
55
outcomes. As a large part of Erasmus+ includes the mobility of students and youth, Erasmus+
contributes to achieving this goal. The magnitude of the effects of the Dutch Erasmus+ programme on
the achieving of the ET 2020 objectives is challenging to assess, as education and training outcomes
are influenced by a range of policies and it takes time for the effects of Erasmus+ on the ET 2020
objectives to materialise but it contributes to the objectives.
2.1.3 Question 3 – Influence on policy developments
Question 3

To what extent have Erasmus+ actions in your country influenced policy developments in the

Conclusions

The Erasmus+ programme complements the objectives of the Dutch government regarding

domains of education and training and influenced policy developments in the domain of youth?

internationalisation and mobility in education, as well as the need to collaborate more on the topic of youth
and develop local initiatives to support youth. Erasmus+ projects however hardly impact national or local
policy developments, unless policymakers or local authorities are involved. Erasmus+ affects educational
institutions’ and organisations’ internal innovation, quality, internationalisation and mobility policies.

48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55

Panteia (2010), Interim Evaluation LLP in the Netherlands.
Work programme 2014. National Agency Education and Training.
Researchcentrum voor Onderwijs en Arbeidsmarkt (ROA). 2013. De arbeidsmarkt naar opleiding en beroep tot 2018.
See Annex 7.
Eurostat data.
EP Nuffic (2016), Uitgaande studentenmobiliteit.
Year report 2015. National Agency Education and Training.
Joint Report ET 2020, 2015.

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

13

Influence on policy developments in the domain of education and training
Erasmus+ is found to affect institution’s internal policies regarding internationalisation, mobility and
56
innovation. Especially among non-higher education institutions, it was mentioned that Erasmus+
contributes to a more strategic internationalisation and mobility approach. Most educational institutions
also indicate that Erasmus+ contributed to a more innovative culture within their institution as they think
in new directions. It also provides them with opportunities to learn from other institutions, which can
further stimulate innovation and improve internal internationalisation policies.
Individual Erasmus+ projects in the sector of education and training are not believed to have a large
57
impact on national or regional education policy developments. Educational institutions mostly
implement projects at institutional level and most educational institutions, except for VET institutions, do
not collaborate with local authorities to implement their projects and oftentimes do not need to. In
addition, education and training institutions do not have the possibility to apply to KA3 projects at a
decentralised level unlike the youth sector. Hence, collaborations with local authorities in the education
and training sector are not very common. However in projects where a municipality is involved,
Erasmus+ is believed to influence local policy developments. In the city of Den Bosch for example, the
municipality’s collaboration with educational institutions in KA2, affected the local policy agenda by
highlighting educational issues and prioritising topics.
Influence on policy developments in the domain of youth
With the decentralisation of responsibilities for youth policies to local authorities in the Netherlands in
2015, youth policies are designed and implemented at local level. As part of this trend, youth
organisations and municipalities as well as youth services and schools are expected to collaborate more
58
in the future. Erasmus+ complements these current developments in the Netherlands as it offers
possibilities through which collaborations between different actors, such as municipalities, in the youth
sector can be established. This happens for example through KA3 projects for Youth to strengthen their
debating skills or stimulate their political interest involving local authorities or policymakers. Due to the
engagement of policymakers in this KA, it is commonly believed that KA3 can impact local policy
development. Youth participants for instance, mentioned that they believe that they were taken seriously
59
by policymakers and that their ideas will be taken into account.
Several youth organisations mention that Erasmus+ professionalised their work as it supported them in
developing a strategic, long-term approach towards quality and internationalisation. This provided
learning opportunities throughout the application and implementation process, which benefitted the
60
quality of their work.
2.1.4 Question 4 – Approaches to enhance the effects of Erasmus+
Question 4

What specific approaches (such as co-financing, promotion or others) have you taken in order to try
to enhance the effects of Erasmus+ in the Netherlands? To what extent have these approaches been
effective? Can any particular points for improvement be identified? Differences between KAs?

Conclusions

A majority of institutions and organisations in both education and youth use co-financing for their project(s)
to ensure higher participation rates and promote Erasmus+. Several promotion methods are used to raise
awareness of Erasmus+, such as information events and making use of websites and social media. They
aim to boost participation and through this, enhance the effects, which seems to be effective.

Most interviewed institutions and organisations indicated that they use additional financial sources (cofinancing) for KA1 and KA3 to implement their projects, increase participation rates and promote their
project. Additional sources of funding can be either internal (such as scholarships in higher education for
students to cover costs of going abroad or a dedicated budget for internationalisation) or external (such

56
57
58
59
60

14

Based on interviews among education and training institutions conducted by Ecorys.
Based on interviews among education and training institutions conducted by Ecorys.
http://www.nji.nl/Verbinding-onderwijs-en-jeugdhulp
See Figure 9.15 and Table 9.6 in Annex 9.
Based on results from interviews among youth organisations conducted by Ecorys.

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

as sponsorships, which are more frequently used in the youth sector). The funding for strategic
partnerships in KA2 is higher and therefore, there is less need for co-financing in KA2 projects.
Additionally, the promotion of projects is done by all educational institutions and youth organisations to
encourage participation. It is common to organise information sessions for students, young people, staff
or parents where former participants share their experiences. Online websites and social media also
play a large role in promoting Erasmus+. A few educational institutions share their best practices in
promoting Erasmus+ with other schools, which is found to be an effective method to enhance
participation and project effects.
2.1.5 Question 5 – Effectiveness of KAs
Question 5

Do you consider that certain KAs of the programme are more effective than others? Are there
differences across fields? What are the determining factors for making these actions of the
programme more effective?

Conclusions

There are differences in effects across KAs. This is most likely to be determined by the different objectives
of the KAs rather than one KA being more effective than the other. In general, KA1 and KA3 are found to
have more effects on individuals, and KA2 more on organisational or sectoral level.

It is difficult to assess which key action is the most effective in addressing the national and EU Erasmus+
objectives. The various KAs contribute to different effects as they have different objectives, as was
explained under Question 1. The difference in impact of Erasmus+ compared to its predecessor LLP and
Youth in Action programme is not very clear as both Erasmus+ and the predecessor programmes had
similar impacts such as internationalisation and the development of language skills. In the long run, the
individual and institutional effects combined can lead to some impact at a more societal level.
Staying abroad for a longer period is believed to have a larger impact than staying abroad for a short
period, according to youth organisations who worked with volunteers in EVS and several universities.
Hence, educational institutions at different levels believe that the effects for staff are less obvious as
they usually go abroad for a short period of time.
2.1.6 Question 6 – Effectiveness of programme integration
Question 6

To what extent has the integration of several programmes into Erasmus+ made the programme
more effective in the Netherlands? Do you see scope for changes to the structure of Erasmus+ or its
successor programme that could increase effectiveness?

Conclusions

The integration of Erasmus+ increased the visibility and familiarity of Erasmus+ in the Netherlands. The
revised application procedure for Erasmus+ with a larger focus on quality resulted in better quality
applications and projects. The opportunities for collaborations between sectors of education and between
education and training and youth under KA2 are welcomed although there is limited awareness regarding
possibilities of sectoral partnerships. It is also felt that the integration resulted in fewer opportunities for
lifelong learning for adults.

Increasing visibility
Interviews and workshops with education and youth organisations revealed that the familiarity and
visibility of the programme increased because of the integration in Erasmus+ as both youth and
education and training projects are under the same umbrella now. Besides, the brand name of ‘Erasmus’
is well known and it is believed that therefore, more people and organisations are familiar with Erasmus+
now. It is found to be challenging to reach special needs and fewer opportunities youth and students
61
(see Question 1). The youth sector indicates it is important that youth and education and training
remain separate sectors as the separation between the sectors gives more visibility to youth.

61

Based on interviews with Ministry of VWS, NA youth, youth organisations, education and training institutions, and Ernst and
Young (2010), Interim evaluation Youth in Action.

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

15

Better quality projects
Stakeholders in both Education and Training and Youth believe that the integration of predecessor
programmes into Erasmus+ contributed to better quality applications and project implementation, as the
current application procedure has a stronger focus on quality than previous application procedures.
Increasing opportunities for collaborations
Stakeholders from both Education and Training and Youth stated that Erasmus+ provides opportunities
for collaborations that were not possible under its predecessor programmes, such as the possibility to
apply for funding for strategic or sectoral partnerships under KA2. These opportunities are very much
appreciated. There is a widespread belief that cooperation between sectors and institutions or
organisations can enlarge the effectiveness of Erasmus+, although there are currently a limited number
62
of KA2 projects set up due to budget limitations. Besides, while institutions seem to know about
possibilities for partnerships with schools or youth organisations abroad, several education institutions at
VET level and youth organisations are not aware of the possibilities for collaboration between the
different sectors (education and youth).
Limited budget and knowledge on opportunities for adult education
While the integration of Youth in Action and LLP into Erasmus+ is generally regarded as a positive
development, some training organisations noted that with the integration the budget distribution towards
adult education is comparatively small. In addition, many education and training institutions do not seem
to be aware of opportunities for adult education projects, the definition of adult education is not well
known among applicants, and the target group for adult education seems to be unclear as well.
Increased awareness of adult education possibilities for education and training institutions and
businesses, and what adult education comprises, may increase the visibility of this specific sector and
can stimulate lifelong learning among adults.
2.1.7 Question 7 – Size of the budget
Question 7

Is the size of the budget appropriate and proportionate to what Erasmus+ is set out to achieve?
Differences between KAs? Is the distribution of funds across the programme's fields and actions
appropriate in relation to their level of effectiveness and utility?

Conclusions

Funding possibilities for Erasmus+ are widely appreciated by both the education and youth sector. The
number of applications exceeds the available funds for KA1 as this is a very popular key action The funding
for KA2 is regarded as too small as the success rate for KA2 applications is limited., while the funding for
KA3 is found to be appropriate as the budget is not yet fully exhausted.

In general, education institutions and youth organisations are very happy with the funding they can
obtain via Erasmus+ as the current budget for Erasmus+ is higher for most sectors than its predecessor
programmes. Although budgets for Erasmus+ have increased, the number of good quality applications
exceeds the available funds for KA1 and KA2. The budget for KA3 has not yet been fully exhausted due
to a lower number of good quality applications than budget available. For KA2, it is believed by
educational institutions at different levels and youth organisations that the budget is insufficient as the
number of applications far exceeds the available budget. Hence, applicants have a small chance of
63
being awarded funding. NAs add that not all KA3 applications meet the quality standards. Furthermore,
while increasing the awareness of lifelong learning is one of the programme’s objectives, training
institutions noted that there is limited funding available for adult learning (see Question 6).
2.1.8 Question 8 - Challenges in implementation of KAs
Question 8

What challenges and difficulties do you encounter while implementing the various actions of
Erasmus+? What changes would need to be introduced in Erasmus+ or its successor programme to
remedy these? Differences between KAs?

Conclusions

The current application procedure includes a few obstacles for project implementation, including forecasting
the number of participants, defining effects beforehand, and disseminating results,

62
63

16

See Table 10.2 in Annex 10.
See Table 10.2 in Annex 10.

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

When implementing projects, a few obstacles can be observed. Education institutions and youth
organisations find it difficult to establish far in advance how many people will participate, while they need
to indicate this in the application. Additionally, institutions and organisations find it challenging to define
in advance what the expected outcomes and impacts of a project are, especially for KA2 projects as the
outcomes of partnerships are more difficult to assess. In addition, primary and secondary education
schools and youth organisations have limited possibilities to disseminate the effects (see Question 9).
2.1.9 Question 9 – Dissemination of Erasmus+ results
Question 9

To what extent are the approaches and tools that are used for disseminating and exploiting the
results of Erasmus+ in the Netherlands effective? Where do you see possibilities for improvement?

Conclusions

Higher and VET education institutions have more financial and human resources available to disseminate
Erasmus+ results. Youth organisations and primary and secondary schools indicate they have insufficient
possibilities to disseminate Erasmus+ results. The NAs provide support to institutions and organisations in
disseminating results.

The budgets for Erasmus+ projects do not include separate funding to promote the results of a project,
nor are there specific dissemination tools that projects are required to use. Instead, costs for
dissemination are covered by the programme management costs which are part of the lumpsum funding
projects receive. But some educational institutions and youth organisations mentioned this funding is not
sufficient for them to cover costs of dissemination of results. Due to fewer available financial and human
resources available in primary and secondary schools and youth organisations, many of them
experience more difficulties in disseminating their project results than higher education and VET
institutions who have more resources available for this. In most higher education and VET institutions,
results of internal institutional surveys about the effects of Erasmus+ are used to disseminate the effects
of Erasmus+ during information meetings and events. A few of them mentioned they are working on
videos where experiences and results are shared to inform (new) students of the benefits of participation
64
in Erasmus+. These methods work well in promoting Erasmus+ effects, according to these institutions.
The NAs support institutions and organisations in this in several ways. For instance, the NA for
Education and Training invited an impact expert at the 2015 kick-off meeting to inform project managers
on how to create a lasting impact with project outcomes and how these can be disseminated. Both NAs
also provide advice to institutions and organisations during meetings in the NA offices, over Skype, by
65
phone, or by email.

2.2

Efficiency
Efficiency refers to the extent to which the intended outcomes are achieved against reasonable costs in
the Netherlands. The execution and organisation of the programme, as well as flexibility and obstacles
for beneficiaries and participants were assessed.

2.2.1 Question 10 – Organisation of execution of the programme
Question 10

To what extent is the system of cooperation and the division of tasks between the Commission,
Executive Agency, Nationaal Agentschap Jeugd and Nationaal Agentschap Onderwijs en Training,
European Investment Fund, National Authorities, Independent Audit Bodies and Erasmus+
Committee efficient and well-functioning from the point of view of the Netherlands? What are the
areas for possible improvement or simplification in the implementation of Erasmus+ or a successor
programme?

Conclusions

In general, collaborations between the national authorities, NAs, educational institutions, youth
organisations and other stakeholders are found to be efficient. National Authorities and NAs are in regular
contact to discuss challenges and improve their practices. The Dutch NAs also frequently discuss with NAs
in other countries on what they can learn from each other. The NAs and national authorities plan to further
strengthen their cooperation in 2017 to create even better synergies between programmes.

64
65

Findings based on interviews with educational institutions and youth organisations conducted by Ecorys.
Year report 2015, NA for Education and Training; Year report 2015, NA for Youth.

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

17

In general, collaboration between the National Authorities, NAs, the European Commission, and
between the NAs and project stakeholders (such as educational institutions and youth organisations)
operates well. The work programmes of the NA Youth and NA Education and Training state that an
effective cooperation with the national authorities and stakeholders in the field are a main objective of
the NAs. The Ministries involved in Erasmus+ and the NAs indicate they have a good working
collaboration with at least two regular meetings a year and more frequent contact via phone or email
when needed. The NAs also meet regularly without the national authorities to discuss issues,
challenges, and how they can improve their work. In addition, the NAs meet with NAs of other countries
to learn from each other. National authorities and NAs plan to intensify their cooperation in 2017 to
create even better synergies between programmes. The communication and cooperation with relevant
stakeholders is being strengthened and is efficient, such as collaborations with NAs in other countries.
The collaboration with the European Commission is also well appreciated by the national authorities and
national agencies as feedback is, when possible, taken into account.
At least two times per year, an evaluation of the financial audit of the Erasmus+ programme is carried
66
out by the Audit Dienst Rijk (ADR) in collaboration with the NAs and the National Authorities. The
collaboration between these parties is a central theme in the evaluations. The collaboration between the
67
68
ADR and the NAs is regarded positive and the feedback is regarded useful.
2.2.2 Question 11 – Efficiency of programme integration
Question 11

To what extent has the integration of several programmes into Erasmus+ resulted in efficiency gains
or losses for the implementation of the programme in the Netherlands, at the level of the NAs and on
the beneficiaries' and participants' level? Do you see scope for changes to the structure of
Erasmus+ or its successor programme that could increase efficiency? Are there differences
between levels of education?

Conclusions

Erasmus+ did not (yet) lead to many efficiency gains for NAs as application procedures require a lot of
support and feedback from NAs to applicants. The reduction of KAs to the current 3 is believed to be an
improvement, as is the increased collaboration between NAs. Beneficiaries (institutions and organisations)
find it easier to look up information and the digitalised application procedure is welcomed. Applying by
institution instead of per participant has resulted in efficiency gains, as has the lump sum funding. However,
the application procedure remains overly complex and time-consuming. The questions in surveys for
individual participants are found to be difficult to understand.

The integration of different programmes into Erasmus+ is mainly perceived to have been a good
development. But while one of the key objectives of the integration of Youth in Action and LLP was to
increase efficiency, NAs, youth organisations and educational institutions do not feel the integration has
led to more efficiency.
NAs have intensified their collaboration as was described in Question 10, which is found to be an
improvement of their operation procedure as they can learn from each other and constructively solve
common challenges. In addition, it was mentioned that the current number of KAs (3) is an improvement
from before, when there were 7 KAs. However, NAs indicate other challenges they experience did not
lead to efficiency gains. Firstly, there are several issues with IT tools for institutions and organisations
(further described in Question 14) and the application procedure is, as with predecessor programmes,
experienced as a large administrative burden for applicants (see Question 13 for further details). As a
result, NAs need to spend a lot of time and effort in explaining both the IT tools and the application
procedure.
Applicants (beneficiaries) find that the integration of LLP and Youth in Action into Erasmus+ has several
benefits in comparison to before. They mention as it is an integrated programme with one website, it is
easier to find information for applicants online. They are pleased with the possibility to apply per
institution or organisation instead of per participant, and that the application procedure has mostly been
66
67
68

18

ADR is the audit agency for the Dutch Ministries.
Input of the ADR on the concept report of this evaluation.
Workprogramme 2015. National Agency Youth; National Agency Education and Training.

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

digitalised. This is regarded as an efficiency gain. In addition, funding by lump sum is also regarded as a
positive development as there is less hassle for beneficiaries with justification of expenses in the form of
receipts. The VET sector received the VET mobility charter positively as a charter leads to simplified
69
applications and hence, efficiency gains. However, in comparison to LLP and Youth in Action, the
application procedure remains overly complex and time-consuming (see Question 13). This is believed
to put off newcomers on the Erasmus+ ‘market’ and has neither lowered the workload for applicants nor
for NAs. The deadline for KA1 Education and Training applications that has been put forward is not
found to be very positive either as institutions and organisations have less time to prepare a high quality
application. Finally, for participants, completing the participants’ report can be regarded as complicated
70
as the questions are often difficult to understand.
2.2.3 Question 12 – Efficiency of implementation of KAs
Question 12

Do you consider that the implementation for certain KAs of the programme is more efficient than for
others? Are there differences across fields?

Conclusions

Institutions and organisations did not indicate many differences in efficiency of implementation between the
different KAs. KA2 is perceived to involve higher administrative costs.

Both educational institutions and youth organisations did not indicate any explicit differences in efficiency
71
of implementation of KAs.KA2 is regarded to be more difficult to implement and less flexible. Also, the
financial responsibility for foreign partners leads to higher administrative burden than for other KAs.
Regarding KA2 applications, several institutions mention that they strategically consider in which country
to submit their application as to increase their chance of being awarded funding.
2.2.4 Question 13 – Administrative burden
Question 13

To what extent has the system of simplified grants resulted in a reduction of the administrative
burden for NAs and for beneficiaries and participants? Are there differences across KAs or fields?
What elements of the programme could be changed to further reduce the administrative burden,
without unduly compromising its results and impact? Differences between levels of education?

Conclusions

Most educational institutions and youth organisations do not experience a reduction in administrative burden
of application and justification of funding procedures. The complexity of the application and justification
procedure is believed to have a negative effect on the accessibility of Erasmus+ among small(er)
organisations and institutions, or newcomers. The administrative burden is also large for individual
participants.

The administrative burden has not been lowered for both NAs and the applicants since the integration of
LLP and Youth in Action. KA2 is mentioned to be particularly time-consuming to complete for applicants
72
and to assess for NAs. While both education and youth applicants understand applications must
maintain a high level of quality to ensure bigger impact and to try to prevent fraud, they indicate the userfriendliness of applications could be improved as currently there is an overlap in requested information
and data cannot be copy-pasted. Additionally, the ADR indicates that the European Commission adds
requirements to the audit of the Erasmus+ programme yearly, increasing the administrative burden
regarding the audit.
The administrative burden is also large for individual participants. Over half of the students surveyed
73
(51%) find the enrolment procedure too time-consuming, and 60% find the instructions unclear.

69
70
71
72
73

Year report 2015, National Agency for Education and Training.
Year report 2015, National Agency for Education and Training.
Based on interviews with educational institutions and youth organisations conducted by Ecorys.
Source: visit to Nuffic.
See Tables 9.3 and 9.5 and Figures 9.5 and 9.10 in Annex 9.

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

19

2.2.5 Question 14 – Adequacy of IT tools
Question 14

To what extent are the IT tools provided by the Commission adequate for the efficient management
and implementation of the programme in the Netherlands? Do they answer to your needs? Give
specific examples where they can be improved. Is the set of IT tools appropriate or should it cover
more/less elements of the programme implementation? Are they sufficient and did they arrive in
time?

Conclusions

Issues that occurred with the IT tools at the start of the programme have been resolved. However, the IT
tools are still experienced to cause a large administrative burden.

The NAs and educational institutions and youth organisations mentioned there were significant problems
with the IT tools at the start of Erasmus+ as the tools were not available in time and had many bugs and
therefore did not work properly. NAs provide training to applicants in how to work with the different tools,
and with improvements implemented in the tools since 2014, most educational institutions and youth
organisations indicated the tools function well now, although some obstacles still occur.
Firstly, there is a lack of links between the different tools such as the Mobility Tool, OLS, and Europass
Mobility Pass and similar data therefore needs to be entered multiple times. Hence, the user-friendliness
could be improved as mentioned under Question 13 by reducing redundancies between tools or making
it possible to copy-paste information. Secondly, the forms in different tools to complete are lengthy, and
74
the tools work slowly. Reducing overlaps would make the tools less time-consuming. Thirdly, the
language used in different tools is not always clear, can be misunderstood and result in mistakes while a
simplification of language can help applicants, participants as well as NAs. Lastly, VET institutions
mentioned that the budget allocated to students participating in KA1 cannot be adjusted in the Mobility
Tool. As some institutions do not allocate the maximum grants to participants, as this is not needed to
cover costs of living abroad and more students can then participate, data in the mobility tool does not
reflect the actual situation. Hence, the implementation of KA1 can differ in such instances from what is
75
registered in the Mobility Tool.
2.2.6 Question 15 – Availability of resources for implementation
Question 15

To what extent is the level of human and financial resources that is available for the implementation
of the programme in the Netherlands adequate? What steps did you take to optimise the efficiency
of the resources deployed for the Erasmus+ implementation in the Netherlands? Differences
between KAs and levels of education?

Conclusions

The application procedure is regarded to be very time-consuming to complete, which causes challenges for
small or volunteering organisations. NAs also face challenges in finishing all assessments of applications in
time with the resources available. The support provided by NAs in the application phase is much
appreciated although some institutions have a need for more detailed feedback on turned down
applications, to improve their future application.

In general, the level of financial resources for educational institutions and youth organisations is
regarded to be sufficient although many make use of co-financing (see Questions 4 and 7). The
administrative burden of completing the complex application procedure can result in challenges for nonhigher education institutions and youth organisations, especially those that are small and do not have
many employees or rely on volunteers. In several youth organisations, primary and secondary schools,
as well as adult education institutions, applications are completed during after office hours or by
volunteers. Higher educational institutions are more professionalised in this respect and have one or
more (external) people working specifically on applications for funding. The NAs provide support to all
organisations and institutions that need advice, guidance or feedback to their application. This available
support is highly appreciated by all. Only a few points for improvement were mentioned. A few youth
organisations, VET schools and universities would like to receive more detailed feedback on turned
down applications to be able to improve their future application as they feel the feedback is not always
helpful in improving their writing, although this need was not shared by all institutions and organisations.
Some primary and secondary schools expressed the wish for more individualised communication with
74
75

20

Year report 2015, National Agency Education and Training; Year report 2015, National Agency Youth.
Year report 2015, National Agency for Education and Training.

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

the NAs with having just one contact person in the NA because they believe this led to greater efficiency
although they are aware NAs have limited financial and human resources to expand their assistance.76
2.2.7 Question NL1 – Flexibility after integration
Question NL1

What are the effects of the integration of the different Erasmus+ programmes for the flexibility of
these programmes, related to the different sectors?

Conclusions

A majority of both educational and youth institutions believe the integrated Erasmus+ programme provides
them with sufficient flexibility to implement their projects.

In general, educational institutions at different levels and youth organisations believe they have sufficient
flexibility in the integrated Erasmus+ programme to implement their projects according to their needs.
They indicate there is the possibility to form partnerships and they believe it is easier to form
collaborations with other stakeholders although cross-sectoral collaborations are not very common in
77
Erasmus+ in the Netherlands. It was also mentioned by educational institutions that the integrated
programme provides more possibilities for staff mobility as with the predecessor LLP, staff needed to be
abroad for a minimum of 5 days while this has been lowered to 3 days in Erasmus+, making it easier for
institutions to arrange mobility opportunities for their staff.
2.2.8 Question NL2 – Flexibility regarding national priorities
Question NL2

To what extent is Erasmus+ flexible enough to do right to national priorities?

Conclusions

The Erasmus+ programme is deemed flexible enough to do right to national priorities and respond to
societal issues, because of the broad formulation of objectives.

It is generally agreed that a topic of national priority in the Netherlands, such as refugees or
radicalisation, can be addressed in an Erasmus+ project as the objectives of Erasmus+ are believed to
be broad enough to be able to incorporate contemporary societal issues. Topics of national priority can
78
be fit under the broader objectives of Erasmus+.
2.2.9 Question NL3 – Obstacles for participants
Question NL3

In which way can obstacles for: young people with fewer opportunities; young people who are not
registered for the mandatory insurance (EVS); students who live in the border region of the
Netherlands and study or fulfil a traineeship abroad; and teachers, who live in the border region of
the Netherlands but work abroad be removed from the procedures?

Conclusions

The possibilities of inclusion of participants with special needs or fewer opportunities can be promoted
further by NAs through informing institutions of best practice examples and providing information on the
support that can be received for inclusion of these groups. The mandatory Dutch health insurance for EVS
volunteers is an additional cost for participants, and can therefore be an obstacle for them to participate.
The fact that students and teachers who live in the border region and do not meet the KA1 requirements for
mobility cannot benefit from Erasmus+ was not found to be a major issue.

Young people and students with fewer opportunities or special needs are found to be more difficult to
reach and they seem to be less familiar with the programme (see Question 1). As explained in Question
1, NAs already encourage institutions and organisations to improve the inclusion of these groups of
people. While some information on inclusion of these target groups and applying for additional funding
for special needs participants can be found on the Dutch Erasmus+ website, it seems many educational
applicants are not aware of this information as they find it challenging to provide suitable support and
health care needs for, for instance, special needs students (see Question 1). The information could
maybe be more prominent on the website as not everyone seems to be aware of this information. In
addition, current initiatives such as a workshop on this topic for VET institutions organised by the NA for
education and training, could be expanded to other levels of education as well.

76
77
78

Based on interviews with educational institutions and youth organisations conducted by Ecorys.
See Table 10.2 in Annex 10.
Based on interviews with educational institutions and youth organisations, national authorities and NAs conducted by Ecorys.

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

21

An obstacle for foreign European Volunteer Service (EVS) volunteers and Dutch host organisations, is
the obligation to sign up (and pay) for Dutch health insurance, next to the health insurance that has
already been arranged for participants by the European Commission. Dutch host organisations are
subject to large fines when they do not comply with the rules regarding Dutch health insurance. But the
mandatory Dutch health insurance leads to extra costs for participants when they are not covered by the
volunteering organisation. Over the past years discussions have taken place with the involved Ministries
and institutions, and the problem is being acknowledged. While no solution has been offered so far, it
remains important to discuss this issue and keep the dialogue open to jointly arrive at a solution that is
beneficial for all.
In addition, students and teachers who live in the border region of the Netherlands but work or study in a
neighbouring country, cannot always benefit from Erasmus+ KA1 projects as they cannot justify that they
live abroad 7 days per week (a requirement of KA1 in the Erasmus+ programme). However, this was not
indicated as a major problem as it is not believed to prevent these students and teachers from studying
or working abroad. If there is the opportunity for such border region students and staff to benefit from
Erasmus+ funding, it might increase the popularity of working or studying in a neighbouring country.
However, a case study of the Achterhoek regarding international mobility of students reveals that
obstacles for mobility in the border region are mostly found in a lack of knowledge on the good
reputation of – in this case – German universities, a lack of interest in studying in Germany, and a lack of
79
good public transport connections crossing borders. We thus believe that the extent to which
Erasmus+ can increase mobility in the border regions to be limited.
2.2.10 Question NL4 – Obstacles for (small) volunteer-led institutions
Question NL4

In which way can obstacles for (small) volunteer-led organizations, be removed from the

Conclusions

The heavy application procedure for Erasmus+ projects negatively affects the accessibility of the

procedures?

programme for smaller (volunteer-led) organisations. A ‘light’ version of the application procedure for smaller
organisations and newcomers can improve the accessibility of the programme for them.

Equal application procedures apply to large and small organisations, which affects the accessibility of
80
Erasmus+ for small (volunteer-led) organisations, as well as newcomers. To ensure that small and
newly applying organisations can also benefit from Erasmus+ funding, and to ensure a wider audience
can be reached, the application procedure needs revision. The ‘rules of the game’ should remain equal
for all, but a ‘light’ version of the application procedure could be developed for smaller organisations and
institutions and newcomers. In this way, proportionality in applications can be taken into account to a
larger extent than currently possible:
“To ensure that the Erasmus+ Programme fully reaches its objectives, experts shall assess the qualitative level
of the planned activities, intended goals, expected impact and results of the project in a proportional way, in
relation to the size and profile of the applicant organisations and, if applicable, project partners. Quantity (of
activities planned, of priorities met or results produced, etc.) will not be judged in absolute terms but in relation to
the capacities and potential of the applicants and partners.”

2.3

81

Relevance
Relevance refers to the extent to which Erasmus+ adequately links to the needs as identified in the
Netherlands. The relevance of the Erasmus+ objectives is assessed, as a whole as well as for specific
sectors and target groups.

79

80

81

22

Euregio. 2014. Studeren in Duitsland: belemmeringen en kansen voor grensoverschrijdend vervolgonderwijs (HBO / WO): Regio
Achterhoek als casestudy.
From the results of the business meeting of National Agency for Youth; annual business meeting for the common input for the
mid-term evaluation 2017.
European Commission. 2016. Erasmus+ Guide for Experts on Quality Assessment.

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

2.3.1 Question 16 – Relevance of objectives
Question 16

To what extent do the Erasmus+ objectives continue to address the needs or problems they are
meant to solve? Are these problems still relevant in the context of the Netherlands? Have the needs
or problems evolved in such a way that the objectives of Erasmus+ or its successor programme
need to be adjusted?

Conclusions

The objectives are regarded as relevant, and relevant to the Dutch context. Organisations’ and institutions’
objectives of their projects are well aligned with the Erasmus+ objectives and in certain cases; Erasmus+
supported them in developing more strategic approaches or innovative practices.

The objectives of Erasmus+ are attached in Annex 6 to this report. In general, interviewees indicate that
the Erasmus+ objectives are very relevant for institutions working with them. In fact, many interviewees
indicate that the relevance is straightforward, because some of the institutions helped formulate them,
and because the objectives of Erasmus+ are so broadly formulated. Consequently, the objectives of
institutions and projects are usually well aligned with the Erasmus+ objectives. In several cases,
Erasmus+ and its objectives stimulated institutions and organisations to (re-)think their own objectives
and policies, resulting in more strategic approaches towards the Erasmus+ objectives, such as
internationalisation, or more innovative practices.
The education and training objectives are more focused on employability and gaining knowledge and
developing skills for the labour market, while the youth sector is more focussed towards inclusion,
diversity and citizenship. While inclusion and societal competences are important for education and
training as well, the education and training objectives focus less on these aspects than the objectives for
youth.
2.3.2 Question 17 – Relevance of objectives for specific target groups
Question 17

To what extent are needs of different stakeholders and sectors addressed by the Erasmus+
objectives? How successful is the programme in attracting and reaching target audiences and
groups within different fields of the programme's scope? Is the Erasmus+ programme well known to
the education and training, and youth communities? In case some target groups are not sufficiently
reached, what factors are limiting their access and what actions could be taken to remedy this?

Conclusions

Erasmus+ is able to respond well to the needs of the different sectors. While students and young people are
generally well reached through Erasmus+, challenges remain in reaching lower opportunity and special
needs students and youth.

Needs of different stakeholders and sectors
In the Erasmus+ work programmes several needs are defined with regards to Youth and Education and
Training that Erasmus+ is expected to address.82 These needs are defined by the National Authorities,
together with the NAs, and are outlined in Annex 8. Erasmus+ does a fair job in responding to the needs
of the different sectors.
The identified needs of school education, higher education and adult education remained the same in
2014, 2015 and 2016. The defined national priorities for Youth have not changed over the course of
2014 to 2016. For vocational education in 2015 and 2016, further needs were added to the list. As
revealed in the answers to Questions 16 and NL2, Erasmus+ offers enough flexibility to respond to these
issues, although continuous learning remains an issue that needs extra attention.
Visibility of Erasmus+ to specific target groups
Erasmus+, as did the predecessor programmes LLP and Youth in Action, reaches students and young
people in general well. But students and youth with fewer opportunities or special needs are found to be
83
more difficult to reach. The programme is mainly known amongst highly educated youth (higher
education), and less so amongst students in VET or secondary education and lower opportunity youth,
as was revealed in the interviews we held with education and youth institutions. More information on the

82
83

Workprogrammes NAs.
Based on interviews with educational institutions and youth organisations conducted by Ecorys,

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

23

extent to which Erasmus+ is able to reach lower opportunity youth and students, as well as those with
special needs, can be found in the answer to Question 1.
Sectoral collaborations can increase the reach of the programme to, for instance, less advantaged
young people. At this moment, sectoral collaborations already exist, but not always within the Erasmus+
programme, as the possibilities are not well-known and the number of applications for cross-sectorial
84
partnerships decreased to zero applications after 2014.
2.3.3 Question NL5 – Profit for the primary and secondary education sectors
Question NL5

To what extent do the primary and secondary education sectors profit from the Erasmus+
programme? Which factors play a role in this and which recommendations can be made regarding
this issue?

Conclusions

Erasmus+ is regarded as relevant for the primary and secondary education sectors. However, problems
regarding budgets, application and implementation of projects restrain institutions from participating.

Relevance
Erasmus+ is less widely known in the primary and secondary education sectors than among VET and
higher educational institutions.85 Within the secondary education sector, especially participants in lower
secondary education are harder to reach. This while internationalisation is considered to be of
substantive importance for the primary and secondary education sectors by institutions in these sectors,
considering that these are the largest education sectors in the Netherlands and offer the foundation for
future development. Adding an international dimension to teaching in primary and secondary education
is therefore highly welcome. This does not necessarily have to be done through student and teacher
mobility, but can also be stimulated by adding an international component to courses that are already
taught in schools (‘internationalisation at home’). This stimulates teacher professionalisation at the same
time.
Budgets
Success rates for school education applications were low at the beginning of Erasmus+, but have
increased substantially over the course of the programme as quality of applications improved and school
education became more familiar with the programme and its requirements. In 2014, 25% of KA1
applications for school education staff mobility were granted funding. This increased to 93% in 2016.
86
And the success rate of KA2 applications of schools changed from 10% in 2014 to 53% in 2016, But
most respondents in the primary and secondary education sectors feel that the budget for their sector is
not sufficient and should be increased, as they receive less funding than the higher education sector
while primary and secondary education is larger in the Netherlands,
Difficulties in application procedure and implementation of projects
The administrative burden of completing an application is one of the main difficulties encountered by the
primary and secondary education sectors. However, the burden is believed to be less high for the
secondary education sector, because there are more opportunities to reserve time for writing an
application: secondary education schools are usually larger, have more teachers and more specific
knowledge in-house. Erasmus+ projects are more difficult to implement in the primary education sector
as well. Having the responsibility over your own class as well as the requirement that classroom mobility
should last for at least a week, makes it difficult to embed Erasmus+ in the curriculum.

2.4

Internal and external coherence and complementarity
Internal and external coherence and complementarity refers to the extent to which Erasmus+ offers a
coherent programme regarding its different KAs and whether there is overlap between Erasmus+ and
other programmes in the Netherlands.
84
85

86

24

See Table 10.2 in Annex 10.
Based on interviews with primary and secondary education institutions as well as one of the umbrella organisations conducted by
Ecorys,
See Tables 10.1 and 10.2 in Annex 10.

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

2.4.1 Question 18 – Coherence of KAs
Question 18

To what extent are the various KAs that have been brought together in Erasmus+ coherent? Can
you identify any existing or potential synergies between actions within Erasmus+? Can you identify
any tensions, inconsistencies or overlaps between actions within Erasmus+?

Conclusions

The coherence of the Erasmus+ programme is clear and logical. Inconsistencies in KAs exist regarding
length of training programmes and budget differences.

The coherence between the KAs is considered to be clear and logical; differences between KAs are
clear as well. The KAs are perceived to connect to each other quite well and to complement each other.
The way in which KA1 and KA2 complement each other, leads to opportunities for cooperation between
long-term network partners. It is not always feasible for institutions that implement projects within several
KAs, to optimally reflect the coherence of the programme within their own institutions. This is in some
cases due to a lack of knowledge on possibilities of the programme. The main reason however, seems
to be that institutions have different account holders in place for the different KAs. This is mainly the
case for higher education institutions.
Inconsistencies
Inconsistencies are mainly found in details between KA1 and KA2. One of the examples that was
mentioned several times, is the length of training programmes. In KA1, training programmes should last
at least two days, whereas in KA2, they should last at least five days. Other inconsistencies arise from
budget differences between different parts of a programme, while it is often not clear to institutions or
organisations what these differences are based. The budget for internships abroad is lower than for
studying abroad while this is not always justified as internships are not always paid. While for youth, the
budget for training is higher than the budget for exchanges. In addition, the reimbursement for travel
costs varies between KA1 and KA2, without a clear rationale.
2.4.2 Question 19 – Complementarity with other programmes
Question 19

To what extent does Erasmus+ complement other national and international programmes available
in the Netherlands? Can you identify any tensions, inconsistencies or overlaps with other
programmes?

Conclusions

There are hardly any alternatives for Erasmus+. The alternatives mentioned are usually more specific or
have a different target group. Erasmus+ is perceived to be more accessible.

Many institutions mention that they do not know about alternatives for Erasmus+ that offer similar
possibilities. Most other funding programmes are more specific than Erasmus+, for example restricted to
collaboration with a limited number of countries. Annex 11 lists alternative programmes mentioned by
interviewees. The Erasmus+ programme is the largest and most well-known programme for international
mobility. Being able to go abroad and opportunities to set up strategic international collaborations and
partnerships is what mainly distinguishes the Erasmus+ programme from other programmes.

2.5

European added value and sustainability

2.5.1 Question 20 – Additionality
Question 20

To what extent do Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes produce effects that are additional to
the effects that would have resulted from similar actions initiated only at regional or national levels
in the Netherlands? What possibilities do you see to adjust Erasmus+ or its successor programme
in order to increase its European value added?

Conclusions

The added value of Erasmus+ is the international collaboration opportunities that it offers, which stimulates
internationalisation, innovation and quality improvements. Too little attention is paid to long-term effects of
projects in the application phase and to knowledge sharing of project results.

Added value of Erasmus+
Erasmus+ provides youth organisations and educational institutions opportunities to learn from foreign
organisations and institutions, contributing to internationalisation of institutions and organisations.
Learning from others’ best practices stimulates innovation and quality improvements. According to

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

25

education institutions, Erasmus+ enables collaborations between institutions and organisations at the
European level, which would be more complex or difficult to realise without Erasmus+ and would be
much more of a bureaucratic burden for institutions as well as participants.
In addition, due to Erasmus+, projects have a much broader and more international audience. The
projects reach a wide variety of cultural backgrounds; something that is not possible without the support
of Erasmus+. Because of the programme’s international character, organisations and institutions can set
up projects that cross borders and cultures and contribute to cultural awareness. It was mentioned that
this is more difficult to achieve when conducting projects within the borders of a country. As a result,
stakeholders believe it is important for Erasmus+ to continue beyond 2020 as it provides them with
opportunities for internationalisation and innovation they feel they otherwise cannot have, or can have at
a smaller scale as organisations are not able to implement the same (number of) projects without
Erasmus+ funding.
Sustainability
Stakeholders from both the Youth and the Education and Training fields indicate that applications focus
more on the project period and less on the long-term idea behind the project and how it can continue
afterwards. This while institutions and organisations mention that continuity is key in ensuring that
projects have a broader effect. It was indicated that the NAs should challenge applicants more to think
about the desired long term effects. Furthermore, there is little attention to knowledge sharing of project
results, negatively affecting sustainability of the programme’s effects. However, the mentioned quality
improvements for institutions and organisations occurring as a result of participation in Erasmus+
projects (see Questions 1 and 6), offer a clear indication of sustainability of the effects of Erasmus+
programme, because the effects of finished projects remain to affect institutional quality and
internationalisation policies.
2.5.2 Question 21 – Budget increase
Question 21

To what extent will Erasmus+ be able to absorb the sharp increase in the budget that is
foreseen in the coming years up to 2020 in the Netherlands in an effective way? Could the
programme use even higher budgets in an effective way? Do you see challenges to
effectively use more money for particular actions or fields of the programme?

Conclusions

Stakeholders in both the youth and education and training sectors would welcome a budget
increase and indicate they believe an increase in budget can be effectively absorbed as the
number of good quality applications exceeds the budget possibilities. A matter of concern following
a budget increase would be the lack of sufficient manpower to handle the extra work resulting from
an increase in applications.

A sharp budget increase could be absorbed as the number of good quality applications is high. For
applicants a budget increase could first mean an increase in approved projects. Most important here is
to ensure that applications continue to meet the quality thresholds. In general the number of good quality
projects that are rejected due to budget constraints is high so no issues of a decrease in quality are
expected.
Stakeholders (NAs as well as beneficiaries) foresee obstacles in manpower, because of an increase in
87
workload for writing and assessing applications. As the NA Youth points out: an increase in workload
may mean that less time can be spent on supportive measures and policy reform.
Stakeholders indicate that a budget increase needs to go hand in hand with a clear objective to make
the spending more effective. For example, it was suggested in interviews that the additional budget can
be deployed for specific purposes such as dissemination and increasing the impact of a project, or
offering opportunities for participation to a larger number of participants.

87

26

Work programme 2016, National Agency Youth.

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

3

Conclusions and recommendations
In this national midterm evaluation of Erasmus+ we have applied a variety of methodologies in order to
gain insights into the implementation and impact of the Erasmus+ programme as well as offer
recommendations for improvement for the remainder of the programme and the future programming
period.
We have evaluated the programme along five evaluation criteria:
 Effectiveness: to what extent does the way Erasmus+ is executed contribute to the intended
outcomes in the Netherlands?
 Efficiency: are the intended outcomes achieved against reasonable costs in the Netherlands?
 Relevance: does Erasmus+ adequately link to the needs as identified in the Netherlands?
 Internal and external coherence and complementarity: are activities within Erasmus+ coherent?
Is there any overlap or are there inconsistencies with other programmes in the Netherlands?
 European added value and sustainability: to what extent did Erasmus+ in the Netherlands
contribute to effects on European level and to what extent are the effects sustainable?
Overall we conclude that Erasmus+ is a highly relevant programme in relation to responding to the
Dutch needs. It is effective in reaching its objectives, both for Education and Training and Youth, mostly
regarding individual outcomes such as development of skills and competences. It also contributes to the
implementation of the broader EU policy agenda regarding education and skills development (Europe
2020 and ET2020) in the Netherlands. Erasmus+ is expected to have a broader societal impact in the
long run, as individual effects translate into societal effects. Integration of the predecessor programmes
has led to some efficiency gains, mainly on the level of execution of the programme and visibility. The
integration of predecessor programmes into Erasmus+ did not help reduce the administrative burden for
applicants and NAs. The administrative burden is still experienced to be high. The quality of the
applications has increased and the high standards in turn lead to quality improvements within the
applying institutions. It is hard to assess the extent to which lower opportunity youth, as well as
participants with special needs have been reached, as definitions and registration procedures are
ambiguous between sectors. Sustainability of the programme could be improved, because there is
limited focus on long term effects of projects. The budget increase for the remainder of the programme
period is welcomed by all parties, and is expected to result in more project applications.

3.1

Conclusions per evaluation criterion

3.1.1 Effectiveness
Since the start of the programme in 2014, the number of applications has increased as well as the
quality of most applications. This is mainly due to efforts from the NAs in supporting applicants to write
good quality applications. KA2 is perceived as a valuable and effective addition to the new programme.
However, the programme budget for this KA is relatively low.
Achievement of specific objectives
Erasmus+ is effective in achieving its specific objectives: it contributes to students’ and youth’s
knowledge and skills, internationalisation of youth and education institutions and organisations, quality
improvements and a more innovative culture at organisational level. The awareness of lifelong learning
is greater among staff than among students. Even though there is no direct effect noticeable of
Erasmus+ on the awareness of lifelong learning as indicated by participants, participation of staff in
Erasmus+ as well as participation in adult education in itself are examples of lifelong learning.
Erasmus+ is found to affect institutions’ internal innovation, internationalisation and mobility policies.
Erasmus+ is less likely to influence national or local policy developments unless policymakers or local
authorities are involved in Erasmus+. In the youth sector, this is more often the case (KA3) and hence,
projects under this KA are believed to be able to contribute more to policy development.

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

27

Societal impact is hard to assess at this point in the programme as Erasmus+ only commenced three
years ago, but Erasmus+ is expected to have a broader societal impact in the long run as individual
effects translate into societal effects. Evaluations of predecessor programmes have pointed in this
direction, too.
A complete picture of the extent to which Erasmus+ is successful in reaching target groups cannot be
drawn, because the definition of what this group entails is quite broad and the given numbers rely on
self-registration, which is only required for some of the sectors.
Individual effects – Knowledge and skills development
Erasmus+ affects the cultural awareness, subject matter knowledge and language skills of students and
the personal development, cultural awareness and social and civic skills of youth participants. Most
participants believe that the knowledge and skills gained under the Erasmus+ programme add value to
their CVs and increases their career prospects.
Institutional effects – Improved quality and internationalisation
Erasmus+, in comparison to its predecessor programmes, focuses more on quality instead of quantity
and reaches a higher number of participating students and young people. The revised application
procedure for Erasmus+ with a larger focus on quality resulted, in general, in better quality applications
and projects. In Youth this has positively affected the quality of youth work, while in Education and
Training institutions Erasmus+ fostered a more innovative culture.
Contribution to general objectives
The Dutch Erasmus+ programme contributes significantly to the Erasmus+ general objectives. With
regard to the Europe 2020 targets, the Netherlands is on track regarding its education and poverty
reduction targets. The Netherlands is ahead of its ET2020 objectives as these have been reached in
2015 already. The Dutch Erasmus+ programme is likely to contribute to some of the Europe 2020
objectives as well as ET2020 objectives. Erasmus+ can, for instance, be a means of contributing
towards the Europe 2020 objectives regarding the number of people obtaining a tertiary education
degree, the number of early school leavers, or employment in the long term, as it equips people with
knowledge and skills relevant for their study or for the labour market. As a large part of Erasmus+
includes the mobility of students and youth, Erasmus+ is highly likely to contribute towards the ET2020
objective regarding mobility. However, it is difficult to assess to what extent Erasmus+ influences Europe
2020 and ET 2020 as other factors impact these outcomes.
3.1.2 Efficiency
Programme level
The integration of different programmes into Erasmus+ is mainly perceived to have been a good
development. The collaboration between NAs, as well as between NAs and other stakeholders, is good.
But while one of the key objectives of the integration of Youth in Action and LLP was to increase
efficiency, NAs, youth and educational institutions believe the administrative burden for NAs, applicants
and participants is still high. The increased visibility of an integrated programme, the lumpsum funding
and the application by institution instead of per individual are regarded as efficiency gains.
Project level
The financial resources that educational institutions and youth organisations receive from Erasmus+ are
generally found to be sufficient to reach the programme’s objectives although most institutions and youth
organisations use internal funding or seek additional external funding opportunities. Most organisations
and institutions have sufficient human resources to implement a project, but not for the application
procedure (especially non-higher educational institutions and youth organisations). Equal application
procedures apply to large and small organisations, which affects the accessibility of Erasmus+ for small
(volunteer-led) organisations, as well as newcomers. KA2 is regarded to have the largest administrative
burden in terms of application and also brings forth higher administrative costs in the implementation
phase.

28

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

NAs as well as applicants experienced many problems with the IT tools at the start of the programme
(including late availability, and tools that did not work). These problems have been tackled, but the IT
tools are still cause of a large administrative burden. Institutions and organisations mention that the
user-friendliness of the application procedure would enhance the accessibility of Erasmus+ and lower
the administrative burden.
3.1.3 Relevance
The objectives of Erasmus+ are regarded as relevant by all stakeholders. It is felt that the objective of
lifelong learning is least addressed by Erasmus+. Organisations’ and institutions’ project objectives are
well aligned with the Erasmus+ objectives and in certain cases; Erasmus+ supported institutions in
developing more strategic approaches or innovative practices. Erasmus+ is able to respond well to the
needs of the different sectors. However, it remains more difficult to reach certain target groups, such as
lower opportunity youth. Additionally, Erasmus+ is not widely known within the primary and secondary
education sectors, while internationalisation is considered to be of large importance for these sectors,
considering that they are the largest education sectors, offering the foundation for future education.
3.1.4 Internal and external coherence and complementarity
The coherence between the KAs is considered to be clear and logical, with little overlap between the
KAs. The KAs are perceived to connect to each other quite well and to complement each other. The way
in which KA1 and KA2 complement each other provides opportunities for cooperation between long-term
network partners. It is not always feasible for institutions that implement projects within several KAs, to
optimally reflect the coherence of the programme within their own institutions, mainly due to separate
account holders per KA within institutions.
There are hardly any alternatives for Erasmus+ in acquiring funding for internationalisation on a similar
scale in the Netherlands. The alternatives mentioned are usually more specific or have a different target
group. Erasmus+ is perceived to be more accessible than other funding programmes.
3.1.5 European added value and sustainability
The added value of Erasmus+ is the international collaboration opportunities that it offers, which
stimulates internationalisation, innovation and quality improvements. It is found that too little attention is
paid to long-term effects of projects in the application phase and to knowledge sharing of project results.
A budget increase would be welcomed by the stakeholders in both the youth and the education and
training field, as the number of good quality applications now exceeds the budget possibilities. A matter
of concern of an increased budget would be the lack of sufficient manpower to handle the extra work
resulting from an increasing number of applications.

3.2

Recommendations
Following from our analyses of the gathered data (desk study, interviews, workshops, surveys), we
formulate a number of recommendations regarding the points for improvement for the Erasmus+
programme in the current as well as future programming period.
Stimulating cross-sectoral projects
 There is a widespread belief that cooperation between sectors and institutions or organisations can
enlarge the effectiveness of Erasmus+, but currently a limited number of KA2 projects are being
financed due to budget limitations. An increase in budget for KA2 is therefore desirable.
 A dedicated budget for cross-sectoral projects may generate more possibilities for these types of
projects.
 Encouraging collaboration between different sectors and different stakeholders can increase the
impact of Erasmus+ programmes, for example through reaching audiences for youth projects
through educational institutions. As there is limited awareness among institutions and organisations
that they can establish collaborations between the different sectors, or between different education
levels, it is recommended that the NAs promote this more strongly or make these possibilities more
visible in their meetings or on their website.

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

29

Increasing policy impact
 To involve policymakers or local authorities in projects, building bridges with organisations and
institutions, and youth and student participants should be stimulated. The NAs could disseminate
Erasmus+ more widely among local authorities and inform institutions and organisations of the
possibility to collaborate with authorities to facilitate spill-over effects. Additionally, to increase policy
impact, decentralised actions under KA3 could be opened up for education and training institutions
as well.
 (Local) government could fulfil an ‘ambassador’s role’ to disseminate how to establish a collaboration
with a local authority, and what the benefits for government institutions can be.
More attention to lifelong learning
 The awareness of the importance of lifelong learning seems to be hardly influenced by Erasmus+ at
the moment. In order to increase the effectiveness regarding this objective, lifelong learning should
gain more attention and collaboration with the private sector (businesses and companies) could be
encouraged as is currently being done in the VET education sector.
Reaching lower opportunity and special needs youth and students
 To reach the objective of reaching lower opportunity and special needs youth and students, there
should be an unambiguous definition for the registration of these groups, for all sectors. In this way,
measuring the extent to which these groups have been reached can be done in an unambiguous
way.
 Increasing awareness among lower opportunity youth may be done by adjusting the way of
approaching them. Research shows that personal contact works best, although this is not always
88
possible. A first step could be taken by reaching out via websites, blogs, movies and social media.
Also, institutions can play a larger role in reaching out to lower opportunity youth.
Increasing accessibility of the programme
 In order to make it more attractive for newcomers to apply, a separate “light” application procedure,
taking into account proportionality of applications (smaller projects are more likely to have smaller
impact), could help reduce the administrative burden that currently discourages new applicants and
smaller organisations from applying. In the first step, newcomers can submit a “light” application,
which can lead up to a “regular” application in the following call.
Improving support from NAs
 The perception of applicants on the efforts of the NAs does not always reflect the reality of activities
pursued. Giving more visibility to the efforts that the NAs are taking (e.g. Transnational Cooperation
Activities (TCAs), personal advice) may reduce this mismatch between perception and reality.
Increasing visibility and knowledge sharing
 Participants’ awareness of possible impacts of Erasmus+ needs to be enhanced. Now applicants’
focus is often on the opportunities for funding and less on the implications of the mobility experience.
Hence, to achieve sustainable learning effects, more attention could be paid to the impacts of
Erasmus+, by having participants spell out their expectations on impact of their participation as well
as paying attention to mobility experiences a year or more after the mobility experience has taken
place. This could for example, be stimulated by institutions.
 Several stakeholders indicate that to increase the European added value of Erasmus+ it is important
to improve the knowledge sharing between projects and countries to avoid reinventing the wheel
over and over again. In addition, knowledge sharing at the start of a programme instead of the end
might improve the outcomes of projects.
 Institutions and organisations, as well as local authorities and businesses, should be encouraged
more to share their project results internally. Also, evaluating project results in light of the institutions’
internationalisation policies could help in establishing sustainable effects.

88

30

https://www.epnuffic.nl/publicaties/vind-een-publicatie/uitgaande-studentenmobiliteit.pdf

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

Annex 1 List of Abbreviations



ADR – Auditdienst Rijk



ECVET – European Credits system for Vocational Education and Training



EQF – European Qualifications Framework



ESF – European Social Fund



ESL – Early school leaving



EU – European Union



FTE – Full time equivalent



HE – Higher Education



KA – Key Action



LLP – Lifelong Learning Programme



NA – National Agency



NEET – Not in education, employment, of training



OCW – Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen (Ministry of Education, Culture
and Science)



RAY – Research-based Analysis of Youth in action



TCA - Transnational Cooperation Activities



VET – Vocational education and training



VWS – Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport (Ministry of Health, Welfare and
Sports)



WMO – Wet Maatschappelijke Ondersteuning (Social Support Act)

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

31

Annex 2 Evaluation framework and
evaluation questions

Evaluation framework
Figure 1 Evaluation framework

Evaluation questions
The evaluation questions are presented in the order they have been answered in the reports. The
evaluation questions have been formulated by the European Commission. The ministries of OCW
and VWS have also added questions, which can be recognised from the “QNL” prefix.
Q1 To what extent have Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes contributed to the realisation
of the Erasmus+ specific objectives in the Netherlands? Are there differences across fields? Please
provide, where relevant, your assessment for each of the specific objectives and provide evidence
and examples where possible.
To what extent have Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes contributed to the realisation of
the Erasmus+ specific objectives of…
Q1.1a ...improving the level of key competences and skills (relevant to the labour market and
contributing to a cohesive society)?
Q1.1b… fostering quality improvements, innovation excellence and internationalisation at the level
of education and training institutions?

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

33

Q1.1c … promoting the emergence and raising the awareness of a European lifelong learning area
to complement national policy reforms and to support modernisation of education and training
systems?
Q1.1d … enhancing the international dimension of education and training?
Q1.1e … improving the teaching and learning of languages and to promote the Union's broad
linguistic diversity and intercultural awareness?
Q1.2a1 … improving the level of key competences and skills of young people, including those with
fewer opportunities?
Q1.2a2 … promoting: participation in democratic life in Europe and the labour market, active
citizenship, intercultural dialogue, social inclusion and solidarity?
Q1.2b … fostering quality improvements in youth work?
Q1.2c … complementing policy reforms at local, regional and national level and supporting
development of knowledge and evidence-based youth policy as well as the recognition of nonformal and informal learning?
Q1.2d … enhancing the international dimension of youth activities and the role of youth workers
and organisations as support structures for young people in complementarity with the Union's
external action?
Q2 To what extent has the progress on the realisation of the specific objectives contributed to the
realisation of the Erasmus+ general objectives in the Netherlands, regarding...
Q2.1 … the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, including the headline education target
(employment; research and development; climate/energy; education; social inclusion and poverty
reduction)?
Q2.2 … the objectives of the ET2020 strategic framework, including the corresponding benchmark?
Q3 To what extent have Erasmus+ actions influenced policy developments in the domains of
education and training, youth in the Netherlands? Which actions were most effective in doing so?
Are there marked differences between different fields?
Q4 What specific approaches (such as co-financing, promotion or others) have you taken in order
to try to enhance the effects of Erasmus+ in the Netherlands? To what extent have these
approaches been effective? Can any particular points for improvement be identified?
Q5 Do you consider that certain actions of the programme are more effective than others? Are
there differences across fields? What are the determining factors for making these actions of the
programme more effective?
Q6 To what extent has the integration of several programmes into Erasmus+ made the programme
more effective in the Netherlands? Do you see scope for changes to the structure of Erasmus+ or
its successor programme that could increase effectiveness?
Q7a Is the size of the budget appropriate and proportionate to what Erasmus+ is set out to
achieve?
Q7b Is the distribution of funds across the programme's fields and actions appropriate in relation to
their level of effectiveness and utility?
Q8 What challenges and difficulties do you encounter while implementing the various actions of
Erasmus+? What changes would need to be introduced in Erasmus+ or its successor programme
to remedy these?
Q9 To what extent are the approaches and tools that are used for disseminating and exploiting the
results of Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes in the Netherlands effective? Where do you
see possibilities for improvement?
Q10 To what extent is the system of cooperation and the division of tasks between the
Commission, Executive Agency, Nationaal Agentschap Jeugd and Nationaal Agentschap Onderwijs
en Training, European Investment Fund, National Authorities, Independent Audit Bodies and
Erasmus+ Committee efficient and well-functioning from the point of view of the Netherlands? What
are the areas for possible improvement or simplification in the implementation of Erasmus+ or a
successor programme?

34

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

Q11a To what extent has the integration of several programmes into Erasmus+ resulted in
efficiency gains or losses for the implementation of the programme in the Netherlands, at the level
of the National Agencies? Do you see scope for changes to the structure of Erasmus+ or its
successor programme that could increase efficiency?
Q11b To what extent has the integration of several programmes into Erasmus+ resulted in
efficiency gains or losses for the implementation of the programme in the Netherlands, on the
beneficiaries' and participants' level? Do you see scope for changes to the structure of Erasmus+ or
its successor programme that could increase efficiency?
Q12 Do you consider that the implementation for certain actions of the programme is more efficient
than for others? Are there differences across fields? Which good practices of these more efficient
actions of the programme could be transferred to other actions?
Q13a To what extent has the system of simplified grants resulted in a reduction of the
administrative burden for National Agencies? Are there differences across actions or fields? What
elements of the programme could be changed to further reduce the administrative burden, without
unduly compromising its results and impact?
Q13b To what extent has the system of simplified grants resulted in a reduction of the
administrative burden for beneficiaries and participants? Are there differences across actions or
fields? What elements of the programme could be changed to further reduce the administrative
burden, without unduly compromising its results and impact?
Q14 To what extent are the IT tools provided by the Commission adequate for the efficient
management and implementation of the programme in the Netherlands? Do they answer to your
needs? Give specific examples where they can be improved. Is the set of IT tools appropriate or
should it cover more/less elements of the programme implementation?
Q15 To what extent is the level of human and financial resources that is available for the
implementation of the programme in the Netherlands adequate? What steps did you take to
optimise the efficiency of the resources deployed for the Erasmus+ implementation in the
Netherlands?
QNL1 What are the effects of the integration of the different Erasmus+ programmes for the
flexibility of these programmes, related to the different sectors?
QNL2 To what extent is Erasmus+ flexible enough to do right to national priorities?
QNL3 In which way can obstacles for young people with fewer opportunities be removed from the
procedures? In which way can obstacles for young people who are not registered for the mandatory
insurance (EVS) be removed? In what way can obstacles for students who live in the border region
of the Netherlands and study or fulfil a traineeship abroad, be removed? In what way can obstacles
for teachers, who live in the border region of the Netherlands and but work abroad, be removed?
QNL4 In which way can obstacles for (small) volunteer-led organizations, be removed from the
procedures?
Q16 To what extent do the Erasmus+ objectives continue to address the needs or problems they
are meant to solve? Are these problems still relevant in the context of the Netherlands? Have the
needs or problems evolved in such a way that the objectives of Erasmus+ or its successor
programme need to be adjusted?
Q17 To what extent are needs of different stakeholders and sectors addressed by the Erasmus+
objectives? How successful is the programme in attracting and reaching target audiences and
groups within different fields of the programme's scope? Is the Erasmus+ programme well known to
the education and training, and youth communities? In case some target groups are not sufficiently
reached, what factors are limiting their access and what actions could be taken to remedy this?
QNL5 To what extent do the PO- and VO-sector profit from the Erasmus+ programme? Which
factors play a role in this and which recommendations can be made regarding this issue?
Q18 To what extent are the various actions that have been brought together in Erasmus+
coherent? Can you identify any existing or potential synergies between actions within Erasmus+?
Can you identify any tensions, inconsistencies or overlaps between actions within Erasmus+?

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

35

Q19 To what extent does Erasmus+ complement other national and international programmes
available in the Netherlands? Can you identify any tensions, inconsistencies or overlaps with other
programmes?
Q20a To what extent do Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes produce effects that are
additional to the effects that would have resulted from similar actions initiated only at regional or
national levels in the Netherlands?
Q20b What possibilities do you see to adjust Erasmus+ or its successor programme in order to
increase its European value added?
Q21 To what extent will Erasmus+ be able to absorb the sharp increase in the budget that is
foreseen in the coming years up to 2020 in the Netherlands in an effective way? Could the
programme use even higher budgets in an effective way? Do you see challenges to effectively use
more money for particular actions or fields of the programme?

36

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

Annex 3 List of references

Consulted documents
EC

Erasmus+ programme guide 2014

EC

Erasmus+ programme guide 2015 + corrigendum

EC

Erasmus+ programme guide 2016

EC

Guide for NAs implementing the Erasmus+ programme_2014

EC

Guide for NAs implementing the Erasmus+ programme_2015

EC

Guide for NAs implementing the Erasmus+ programme_ 2016

EC

Call for proposals 2014

EC

Call for proposals 2015

EC

Call for proposals 2016

EC

Erasmus+ Guide for Experts on Quality Assessment 2016

EC

2015 Joint Report under the ET 2020

NA-J + NA- OT

Workprogramme 2014

NA-J + NA- OT

Workprogramme 2015

NA-J + NA- OT

Workprogramme 2016

NA-J + NA- OT

Year report 2014

NA-J + NA- OT

Year report 2015

NA- OT

KA1 (KA103)_2014

NA- OT

KA1 (KA101)_2015

NA- OT

KA1 (KA103)_2015

NA- OT

KA1 (KA107) (R1)_2015

NA- OT

KA1 (KA107) (R2)_2015

NA- OT

KA1 (KA101)_2016

NA- OT

KA1 (KA103)_2016

NA- OT

KA1 (KA107)_2016

NA- OT

KA2_2014 Justification

NA- OT

KA2 2015

NA- OT

KA2 (KA201)_2016

NA- OT

KA2 (KA202)_2016

NA- OT

KA2 (KA203)_2016

NA- OT

KA2 (KA204)_2016

NA-J

KA1 (K105) (R1)_2014

NA-J

KA1 KA2 KA3 (R2)_2014

NA-J

KA1 KA2 KA3 (R3)_2014

NA-J

KA1 KA2 KA3 (R1)_2015

NA-J

KA1 KA2 KA3 (R2)_2015

NA-J

KA1 KA2 KA3 (R3)_2015

NA-J

KA1 KA2 KA3 (R1)_2016

NA-J

KA1 KA2 KA3 (R2)_2016

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

37

NA-OT

Informal NA Directors Meeting 2016 (1+2)

NA-J

Business meeting 2014 (1)

NA-J

Business meeting 2014 (2)

NA-J

Business meeting 2015 (1)

NA-J

Business meeting 2015 (2)

NA-J

Business meeting 2015 (3)

NA-J

Business meeting 2015 (4)

NA-J

Business meeting 2015 (5)

NA-J

Business meeting 2016 (1)

NA-J

Final Report 2014 KA105 (R1)

NA-J

Final Report 2014 KA105 (R2)

NA-J

Final Report 2014 KA105 (R3)

NA-J

Final Report 2015 KA105 (R2) (1)

NA-J

Final Report 2015 KA105 (R2) (2)

NA-J

Final Report 2015 KA105 (R2) (3)

NA-J

Final Report 2014 KA347 (R1)

NA-J

Final Report 2014 KA347 (R2)

NA-J

Final Report 2015 KA347

NA-J

Input uit business meeting voor Midterm Evaluatie Erasmus+_ 2016 (1)

NA-J

Annual business meeting for the common input for the mid-term evaluation 2017.

NA-J

Staff training plan_2015

NA-J

Werkplan youth in action netwerk

NA-OT

Numbers KA1 + KA2 in Calls 2014 + 2015 + 2016

Additional sources
Panteia (2010). Interim evaluation Lifelong Learning programme + annexes
Ernst & Young (2010). Interim evaluation Youth in Action + annexes
Public Policy and Management Institute (2011). Interim evaluation of the lifelong learning programme (20072013) + annexes
AEF (2013). All Set? Beleidsonderzoek voorbereiding van de uitvoering van Erasmus+ programma 20142020
OCW (2014). Kamerbrief. De wereld in. Visiebrief internationale dimensie van ho en mbo
OCW (2014). Kamerbrief. Internationale dimensie van hoger onderwijs en middelbaar beroepsonderwijs.
OCW (2015). Kamerbrief. Voortgang Bologna proces en EHEA conferentie
OCW (2015). Kamerbrief. Aanpak Jeugdwerkloosheid
OCW (2016). Kamerbrief. Internationaliseren met ambitie
NJI (2011). De impact van Youth in Action (+ summary)
RAY (2011). Research based analysis Youth in Action
Boomkens, Awad & Metz (2016). Monitoren Impact Erasmus+ Jeugd – Nederland. Rapportage over het
onderzoek naar de impact van deelname aan het Erasmus+ Jeugd programma 2014-2015 (Concept).
CPB (2012). De economische effecten van internationalisering in het hoger onderwijs
Onderwijsraad (2015). Startdossier Internationaliseringsagenda voor het onderwijs 2015-2020.
Onderwijsraad (2016). Internationalisering van de jeugdcultuur
EP Nuffic (2016). Uitgaande studentenmobiliteit.

38

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

Eurostat data
NJI (n.d.). Verbinding onderwijs en jeugdhulp.
Researchcentrum voor Onderwijs en Arbeidsmarkt (ROA) (2013). De arbeidsmarkt naar opleiding en beroep
tot 2018.
Website Onderwijs in cijfers (www.onderwijsincijfers.nl)

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

39

Annex 4 List of interviewees

#

Interviewee(s)

Organisation

Category

Education &

Methods

Training/Youth
1.

2.

Denise Heiligers & Liefke

Ministerie van OCW, Directie

Ministry

Education & Training

Face to Face interview

Reitsma

Internationaal Beleid

Marjan Zandbergen (VO) &

Ministerie van OCW, Directie Primair

Ministry

Education & Training

Face to Face interview

Hugo Nieber (PO)

Onderwijs, Directie Voortgezet

Ministry

Education & Training

Face to Face interview

Ministry

Education & Training

Telephone interview

Ministerie van VWS, Directie Jeugd

Ministry

Youth

Face to Face interview

Lem van Eupen, Annemarie

Nationaal Agentschap Erasmus+

National Agency

Education & Training

Face to Face interview

de Ruiter & Ellen Hanselman

Onderwijs & Training

Lorance Janssen & Peter

Nationaal Agentschap Erasmus+

National Agency

Youth

Face to Face interview

Onderwijs
3.

Peter van IJsselmuiden

Ministerie van OCW, Directie
Middelbaar Beroepsonderwijs

4.

Joost van der Veen

Ministerie van OCW, Directie Hoger
Onderwijs en Studiefinanciering

5.

Jan van der Burg & Marieke
Koppenaal-De Lange

6.

7.

Pieters

Jeugd

8.

Jurgen Rienks

VSNU

Umbrella organisation

Education & Training

Face to Face interview

9.

Emiel de Groot

Vereniging Hogescholen

Umbrella organisation

Education & Training

Face to Face interview

Veronique Feijen & Manfred

MBO-raad

Umbrella organisation

Education & Training

Face to Face interview

10.

Polzin
11.

Miriam Appelman

VO-raad

Umbrella organisation

Education & Training

Face to Face interview

12.

Mark Weekenborg

PO-raad

Umbrella organisation

Education & Training

Face to Face interview

13.

Desley van der Zande

Interstedelijk Studenten Overleg (ISO)

Umbrella organisation

Education & Training

Face to Face interview

14.

Fried Kramer & Anne-May

Neth-ER

Umbrella organisation

Education & Training

Face to Face interview

TIO University of Applied Sciences

University of Applied Sciences

Education & Training

Telephone interview

Janssen
15.

Martijn Westerbrink

(Hbo)

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

41

#

Interviewee(s)

Organisation

Category

16.

Myrna Schumacher

NHTV Breda

University of Applied Sciences

17.

Harrie Poulssen

Katholieke Pabo Zwolle

University of Applied Sciences

Education &

Methods

Training/Youth
Education & Training

Telephone interview

Education & Training

Skype interview

Education & Training

Telephone interview

Education & Training

Telephone interview

(Hbo)

(Hbo)
18.

Elke van der Valk

Stichting Fontys

University of Applied Sciences
(Hbo)

19.

Anja Hetsen-Huijsmans

Stichting Aeres Groep

University of Applied Sciences
(Hbo)

20.

Mark van Dun

Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam

University (Wo)

Education & Training

Face to Face interview

21.

Mirjam de Groot

Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam

University (Wo)

Education & Training

Telephone interview

22.

Yvette Sliepen

Maastricht University

University (Wo)

Education & Training

Telephone interview

23.

Marieke Farchi

Stichting VU

University (Wo)

Education & Training

Telephone interview

24.

Marieke te Booij & Hester

Leiden University

University (Wo)

Education & Training

Telephone interview

Bergsma
25.

Erwin Meerkerk

Gomarus SG

Secondary education organisation

Education & Training

Telephone interview

26.

Robin Bakker

RSG Broklede

Secondary education organisation

Education & Training

Telephone interview

27.

Jeroen de Ruijter

Van der Capellen SG

Secondary education organisation

Education & Training

Telephone interview

28.

Dirk van Dorth

RSG Tromp Meesters

Secondary education organisation

Education & Training

Telephone interview

29.

Hester Langkamp-Waanders

Basisschool de Regenboog

Primary education organisation

Education & Training

Telephone interview

30.

Hans de Haan

Stichting Regionaal Orgaan Openbaar

Primary education organisation

Education & Training

Telephone interview

Basisonderwijs Lauwersland

42

31.

Debby van der Putten

Stichting de Noordwijkse School

Primary education organisation

Education & Training

Telephone interview

32.

Cees Visser

OBS de Zeester

Primary education organisation

Education & Training

Telephone interview

33.

Udo Lut

Stichting Landstede

VET organisation

Education & Training

Telephone interview

34.

André Huigens

M. van der Spek Hoveniersbedrijf

Company

Education & Training

Telephone interview

35.

Harman Tietema

ROC de Leijgraaf

VET organisation

Education & Training

Telephone interview

36.

Ton Stok

Stichting Wellant

VET organisation

Education & Training

Telephone interview

37.

Minke Kloppenburg

Noorderpoort

VET organisation

Education & Training

Telephone interview

38.

Joost Geerse

HMC MBO Vakschool

VET organisation

Education & Training

Telephone interview

39.

Elwine Halewijn

ITTA

Adult education organisation

Education & Training

Telephone interview

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

#

Interviewee(s)

Organisation

Category

Education &

Methods

40.

Jo Peeters

EDOS Foundation

Adult education organisation

Education & Training

Telephone interview

41.

Anne Charlotte Fauvel

Eatris

Company

Education & Training

Telephone interview

42.

Debby van der Meulen

Bouwmensen Amersfoort

Company

Education & Training

Telephone interview

43.

Lia Hamminga

Spartak Interdisciplinair Plaform voor

Youthorganisation

Youth

Telephone interview

44.

Mirjam Gietema

Stichting European Institute for

Youthorganisation

Youth

Telephone interview

45.

Meral Ari

Antre Foundation

Youthorganisation

Youth

Telephone interview

46.

Marko Vlaming

De Olde Vechte Stichting

Youthorganisation

Youth

Telephone interview

47.

Peter Keijzer

Richter

Youthorganisation

Youth

Telephone interview

48.

Steven van der Veeke

Stichting GO

Youthorganisation

Youth

Telephone interview

49.

Chris van Maanen

Rock Solid Foundation for

Youthorganisation

Youth

Telephone interview

Youthorganisation

Youth

Telephone interview

Training/Youth

Oost-Europa

Democratic Participation

International Youth Work
50.

Friso Wennekes

Stichting Nederland bouwt V.O.C.

51.

Bas Krans

The Exchangeables

Youthorganisation

Youth

Telephone interview

52.

Wietske Visser

Het Schienvat

Youthorganisation

Youth

Telephone interview

53.

Nana Shaginashvili

Stichting International Youth Bridges

Youthorganisation

Youth

Telephone interview

54.

Yvonne Heselman

IDEA NL

Youthorganisation

Youth

Telephone interview

55.

Biju Oledath

Stichting Don Bosco Youthnet

Youthorganisation

Youth

Telephone interview

Retourschip

Nederland
56.

Theo van de Veerdonk

Gemeente ’s Hertogenbosch

Municipality

Education & Training

Telephone interview

57.

Jan Bloemheuvel

Gemeente Utrecht

Municipality

Education & Training

Telephone interview

58.

Marscha Kuijpers

Gemeente Tilburg

Municipality

Youth

Telephone interview

In addition to our semi-structured interviews, the Auditdienst Rijk (ADR) has been consulted on an earlier version of this report, and has provided feedback.

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

43

Annex 5 List of participants in the
workshops

Participants Synmind workshop – online
Participant

Organisation

Category

Education &
Training/Youth

Liefke Reitsma

Ministerie van OCW, Directie

Ministry

Education & Training

Ministry

Youth

National Agency

Education & Training

National Agency

Youth

Internationaal Beleid
Jan van der Burg

Ministerie van VWS, Directie
Jeugd

Lem van Eupen

Nationaal Agentschap
Erasmus+ Onderwijs & Training

Peter Pieters

Nationaal Agentschap

Miriam Appelman

VO-raad

Umbrella organisation

Education & Training

Bart van Zelst

Stichting JOB MBO

Umbrella organisation

Education & Training

Mark van Dun

Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam

Higher education

Education & Training

Udo Lut

Stichting Landstede

Vocational education

Education & Training

Jo Peeters

EDOS Foundation

Adult education

Education & Training

Andrea Bos

Nationale Jeugdraad

Youth institution

Youth

Peter Keijzer

Richter

Youth institution

Youth

Erasmus+ Jeugd

Participants Workshop 5 December – Ministry OCW
Participant

Organisation

Category

Education &
Training/Youth

1.

Liefke Reitsma

Ministerie van OCW,

Ministry

Education & Training

Ministry

Youth

National Agency

Education & Training

National Agency

Youth

Directie Internationaal
Beleid
2.

Jan van der Burg

Ministerie van VWS,
Directie Jeugd

3.

Lem van Eupen

Nationaal Agentschap
Erasmus+ Onderwijs &
Training

4.

Peter Pieters

Nationaal Agentschap

5.

Jurgen Rienks

VSNU

Umbrella organisation

Education & Training

6.

Veronique Feijen

MBO-raad

Umbrella organisation

Education & Training

7.

Mariëlle Brouwer

Neth-ER

Umbrella organisation

Education & Training

8.

Andrea Bos

Nederlandse Jeugdraad

Umbrella organisation

Youth

9.

Harrie Poulssen

Katholieke Pabo Zwolle

Higher professional

Education & Training

Erasmus+ Jeugd

education
10.

Cindy Schotte

11.

André Huigens

Leiden University

Higher education

Education & Training

M. van der Spek

VET & companies

Education & Training

Hoveniersbedrijf
12.

Jo Peeters

EDOS Foundation

Adult education

Education & Training

13.

Peter Keijzer

Richter

Youth organisation

Youth

14.

Maartje Bulthuis

The Youth Company

Youth organisation

Youth

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

45

Annex 6 Specific objectives Erasmus+
(relevant for this midterm
evaluation)

Education and Training
1. to improve the level of key competences and skills, with particular regard to their relevance for
the labour market and their contribution to a cohesive society, in particular through increased
opportunities for learning mobility and through strengthened cooperation between the world of
education and training and the world of work;
2. to foster quality improvements, innovation excellence and internationalisation at the level of
education and training institutions, in particular through enhanced transnational cooperation
between education and training providers and other stakeholders;
3. to promote the emergence and raise awareness of a European lifelong learning area designed
to complement policy reforms at national level and to support the modernisation of education
and training systems, in particular through enhanced policy cooperation, better use of Union
transparency and recognition tools and the dissemination of good practices;
4. to enhance the international dimension of education and training, in particular through
cooperation between Union and partner-country institutions in the field of VET and in higher
education, by increasing the attractiveness of European higher education institutions and
supporting the Union's external action, including its development objectives, through the
promotion of mobility and cooperation between the Union and partner-country higher education
institutions and targeted capacity-building in partner countries;
5. to improve the teaching and learning of languages and to promote the Union's broad linguistic
diversity and intercultural awareness;

Youth
1. to improve the level of key competences and skills of young people, including those with fewer
opportunities, as well as to promote participation in democratic life in Europe and the labour
market, active citizenship, intercultural dialogue, social inclusion and solidarity, in particular
through increased learning mobility opportunities for young people, those active in youth work or
youth organisations and youth leaders, and through strengthened links between the youth field
and the labour market;
2. to foster quality improvements in youth work, in particular through enhanced cooperation
between organisations in the youth field and/or other stakeholders;
3. to complement policy reforms at local, regional and national level and to support the
development of knowledge and evidence-based youth policy as well as the recognition of nonformal and informal learning, in particular through enhanced policy cooperation, better use of
Union transparency and recognition tools and the dissemination of good practices;
4. to enhance the international dimension of youth activities and the role of youth workers and
organisations as support structures for young people in complementarity with the Union's
external action, in particular through the promotion of mobility and cooperation between the
Union and partner-country stakeholders and international organisations and through targeted
capacity-building in partner countries.

46

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

Annex 7 EU objectives

Erasmus+ objectives
Erasmus+ has the following objectives:


Improving (labour market) skills and knowledge;



Improving youth’s skills and knowledge;



Improving language education and stimulating citizens to learn more languages;



Improving education and training through innovation, internationalization and enhancing the
quality of education itself;



Improving quality of youth work, and enhancing youth work through the use of international
knowledge and networks;



Making education and training and youth more internationally oriented;



Stimulating political and labour market participation;



Facilitating and promoting lifelong learning;



Developing and/or improving local, national and European policies.

Europe 2020
The Europe 2020 strategy for growth has three top priorities:
1. Smart growth for an economy based on knowledge and innovation;
2. Sustainable growth for a greener, more competitive economy with a more efficient use of
resources;
3. Inclusive growth for an economy with sufficient employment and social and territorial cohesion.
In line with the Europe 2020 priorities, the following specific targets have been set for the
Netherlands:


80% employment rate among 20-64-year olds;



2,5% of the GDP spent on research and development;



16% reduction in emission compared to 2005 levels (which has been changed to 25% in 2015
in line with a Dutch court ruling);



14% of energy should be renewable energy (in % of gross final energy consumption);



Below 8% early school leavers;



At least 40% of 30 to 34-year-olds should have completed tertiary education or the equivalent;



A reduction of 100,000 people at risk of poverty or social exclusion (people aged 0-64 living in a
jobless household).

ET 2020
ET2020 consists of four strategic objectives:
1. Stimulate lifelong learning and mobility of students;
2. Improve the quality and efficiency of education and training;
3. Encourage equality, equity, social cohesion and active citizenship;
4. Stimulate innovation and creativity in education and training.
ET2020 focuses on mutual learning and the exchange of knowledge and good examples. The
thought behind ET2020 is that good education is the key to the economic success of the EU.

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

47

The following EU benchmarks for 2020 have been set for education and training for the
Netherlands:


At least 95% of children (from 4 to compulsory school age) should participate in early childhood
education;



Fewer than 15% of 15-year-olds should be under-skilled in reading, mathematics and science;



The rate of early leavers from education and training aged 18-24 should be below 10%;



At least 40% of people aged 30-34 should have completed some form of higher education;



At least 15% of adults should participate in lifelong learning;



At least 20% of higher education graduates and 6% of 18-34 year-olds with an initial vocational
qualification should have spent some time studying or training abroad;



The share of employed graduates (aged 20-34 with at least upper secondary education
attainment and having left education 1-3 years ago) should be at least 82%.

48

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

Annex 8 Needs per sector

In the Erasmus+ work programmes several needs are defined with regards to Youth and Education
and Training that Erasmus+ is expected to address. These are outlined below.

Youth
With regards to Youth the following general needs are defined within the following areas:


The professionalization and quality of youth work;



Youth participation;



Inclusion of young people with fewer opportunities;



International mobility;



Recognition of non-formal learning;



Cooperation between local governments and businesses;



Entrepreneurship.

Primary and secondary education
For primary and secondary education the following themes were listed:


Enhancing foreign language education;



Excellence and development of talents;



Professionalization of teachers and school leaders;



Mathematics and language learning;



Entrepreneurship: encouraging entrepreneurial (learning) behaviour;



Pre-school education;



Virtual communication;



Science;



Early School Leaving;



Schools with a special profile (Culture or sports);



Cooperation between education and the world of work.

Vocational education
For Vocational education the defined themes are:


Quality of education and quality assurance;



Curriculum and examination;



BPV [Beroepspraktijkvorming] and work-based learning;



The prevention of ESL;



Continuous learning from pre-vocational to vocational education to higher professional
education (vmbo-mbo-hbo);



Professionalisation of teachers and trainers: HRM, register of teachers, quality of teaching and
focus on teachers;



International mobility;



Regional cooperation and positioning.

In 2015 the following themes were added to the list of priorities:


Opening up IGT in VET;



Stimulate entrepreneurship.

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

49

In 2016 the following need was added:


Excellence in VET and excellent craftsmanship.

Higher education
Dutch higher education aims to improve the international positioning of Dutch higher education.
Listed needs for higher education are:


Clarifying continuous learning to higher education;



Improve the relevance for the labour market;



Develop innovative entrepreneurial skills;



Reduce obstacles for the transferability of loans;



Increase mobility.

Adult education
For adult education the following main objectives were appointed


Training of basic and transversal skills;



Training of specific groups;



Training of professional skills;



Valuing and validating learning outcomes;



Professional development of teachers and volunteers.

The needs analysis of higher education and adult education remained the same in 2014, 2015 and
2016.

Cross sectoral themes
Next to the identified needs for the specific sectors the NAs Youth and Education and Training
listed a few cross sectoral themes that need focus:


The prevention of dropouts or early school leaving (ESL);



Stimulating continuous learning (from pre-school all the way through post HE) and cooperation
in the knowledge chain;



More mobility and improved foreign language learning;



Development of entrepreneurship;



Strengthening of the relevance for the labour market and the improvement of internships.

Before drafting the action plans of 2016 it was assessed that these previous determined needs
were still relevant but that two new topics needed to be added:

50



Attention for the theme of radicalisation;



Attention for the theme of migrants.

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

Annex 9 Survey Results

Effectiveness
Survey Youth
Skills and knowledge
Respondents were asked about the effects their Erasmus+ participation has had on different topics.
On average respondents (strongly) agree that through their participation one or more of their skills
and their knowledge on one or more topics have improved. They also (strongly) agree on average
that their participation is of added value to their CV and that their (future) work activities will benefit
from their Erasmus+ experiences. Moreover, the majority agrees having participated in Erasmus+
they have more to offer an employer than other young people who did not participate. However, it
should be noted that about 20 percent of the respondents do not have a clear opinion of the effects
on their CV and whether they have more to offer an employer.
Figure 9.1 Effects of Erasmus+
Q14.1

58

Q14.2

58

Q14.3

51

Q14.4

48

Q14.5
0%

20%

Strongly agree
Disagree

2 21

37

40%

60%

Agree
Strongly disagree

5 2

8

36

2

9

22

3

7

18

21

35

25

3 11

6

31

80%

6
100%

Don't disagree/ don't agree
Does not apply

Table 9.1 Effects of Erasmus +
Item

Statement

Mean (1= strongly
disagree- 5= strongly
agree)

Q14.1

Through my Erasmus+ participation one or more of my skills have

4,43

improved.
Q14.2

Through my Erasmus+ participation my knowledge on one or more

4,53

topics has improved.
Q14.3

I believe that participation in the Erasmus + project is of added value

4,19

to my CV.
Q14.4

I think in my (future) work activities will benefit from my Erasmus +

4,31

experience.
Q14.5

I believe that I have more to offer an employer, because of my

3,77

Erasmus + experience, than other young people who did not
participate.

When asked about what skills have improved because of the participation in Erasmus+,
respondents indicate they improved mostly their social and civic skills (82%) and entrepreneurial

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

51

skills and abilities to take initiatives (61%). Participants of Erasmus+ are able to transform ideas
into action. Besides, Erasmus+ participation improves communication in a different language but
also their own language (61% and 54%). More than half of the respondents also indicated that they
improved their cultural awareness and cultural expressive skills. They appreciate the value of
various forms of culture more and are aware of their own national cultural context.
Figure 9.2 Skills improvement
Social and civic skills

82

Entrepreneurial skills and abilities to take initiatives

61

Communication in a different language

61

Communication in my own language

54

Cultural awareness and cultural expressive skills

52

Learning skills (I have learned to learn)

37

Digital skills (being able to use IT)

7

Other namely,

7

Math skills and / or skills in science and technology

6
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 100

Regarding the topics on which respondents improved their knowledge because of their Erasmus+
participation. The majority of respondents indicate they improved their personal development
(72%), but also their knowledge on other cultures and religions (63%). Between 46 and 48 percent
of the respondents improved their knowledge of the European Union, the European laws and
regulations and the European politics and policy.
Figure 9.3 Knowledge improvement
Personal development

72

Other cultures and religions

63

Knowledge of the European Union

48

European laws and regulations

47

European politics and policy

46

Active citizenship

43

Democracy

38

Human rights

37

Professional development

32

Youthwork

32

Youthpolicy

18

Other, namely

11
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Of all foreign languages 96 percent of the respondents are better able to express themselves in
English after their participation.
Participation in democratic life
We asked the respondents about statements on citizenship. On average, respondents remain
involved as a citizen to the same extent as before their Erasmus+ participation. However, there are
two exceptions. Respondents are on average more aware of what is happening in Europe after
their participation and they appreciate cultural diversity more than before as well.

52

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

Figure 9.4 Impact on democratic citizenship

Q19.1

3

45

Q19.2

2

48

Q19.3

3

Q19.4

2

52

42

4

Q19.5

3

53

40

4

Q19.6 1
Q19.7

29

14

20

23

66

4

52
36

2
0%

4

36
54

Q19.8 1
Q19.9

48

4
22

22

63
57

20%

34

6

40%
60%
80%
Less than before my Erasmus+ participation
The same as before my Erasmus+ participation
More than before my Erasmus+ participation
Does not apply

100%

Table 9.2 Impact on democratic citizenship
Item

Statement

Mean
(1= less than before, 2=
same as before,
3= more than before)

Q19.1

I am an active citizen

2,47

Q19.2

I am interested in politics

2,40

Q19.3

I am politically active

2,22

Q19.4

I find democracy important

2,41

Q19.5

I am aware of what is happening in the Netherlands

2,38

Q19.6

I am aware of what is happening in Europe

2,67

Q19.7

I am volunteering

2,23

Q19.8

I appreciate cultural diversity

2,62

Q19.9

I am active in preventing intolerance (e.g., racism).

2,34

Organisation Erasmus+
Respondents are in general (very) satisfied with Erasmus+. They are (very) satisfied with the
organisation of the project, the information and clarity about the application procedure at their
organisation and the information about the goals and expected personal outcomes. They are also
satisfied with the support and guidance during the preparation phase of the projects and during the
project. Moreover, there is satisfaction regarding the possibility to gain knowledge and skills in
several areas. It seems not all respondents had the possibility to select a country of choice or the
possibility to select a project that matches their interests.

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

53

Figure 9.5 Opinion about the project
Q21.1

53

Q21.2

27

37
16

Q21.3

14

3 3

43

38

29

Q21.4

29

49

Q21.5

31

47

Q21.6

4 13

15

46

Q21.10

41

18
20%

11 5
8

41

18
0%

13 3

13

51

40%

13 3
3 4 3

18
60%

6

313 3

47

Q21.9

3 3

45

33

Q21.8

21
10

45

Q21.7

5 1 4

6
80%

100%

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Not satisfied/ not unsatisfied

Unsatisfied

Very unsatisfied

Does not apply

Table 9.3 Opinion about the project
Item

Statement

Mean (1= very satisfied - 5=

Q21.1

Organisation of the project

1,66

Q21.2

The possibility to select a country of choice

2,00

Q21.3

The possibility to select a project that matches my interest

1,64

Information and clarity about the application procedure at my

1,93

very unsatisfied)

Q21.4

organisation
Q21.5

Support and guidance during the preparation phase of the

1,95

project
Q21.6

Support and guidance during the project

1,67

Q21.7

Information about the goals and expected personal outcomes of

1,85

participation in the project
Q21.8

Possibility to gain knowledge in several areas

1,71

Q21.9

Possibility to gain skills in several areas

1,62

Q21.10

Other, namely

2,20

Survey Education and training
Skills and knowledge
Respondents were asked about the effects that their Erasmus+ participation has had on different
topics. Similar to respondents from the Youth survey, the respondents generally agreed that
through their participation in the programme, one or more of their skills and their knowledge on one
or more topics have improved. They also generally agreed that their participation is of added value
to their CV and that their (future) work activities will benefit from their Erasmus+ experiences.
However, on average respondents did not have a clear opinion regarding the statement that after
having participated in Erasmus+, they would have more to offer an employer than other young
people who did not participate.

54

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

Figure 9.6 Effects of Erasmus+
Q13.1

34

Q13.2

54

29

58

Q13.3

48

Q13.4

47

22

0%
Strongly agree

31

9

31

7

32

41

36

Q13.5

7

13

43

32

27

20%
40%
60%
Agree
Don't disagree/ don't agree
Disagree

7

2

80%
100%
Strongly disagree

Table 9.4 Effects of Erasmus+

Item

Statement

Mean (1=strongly disagree en

Q13.1

Through my Erasmus+ participation one or more of my skills

5=strongly agree)
4,16

have improved.
Q13.2

Through my Erasmus+ participation my knowledge on one or

4,09

more topics has improved.
Q13.3

I believe that participation in the Erasmus + project is of added

4,31

value to my CV.
Q13.4

I think in my (future) work activities will benefit from my Erasmus

4,12

+ experience.
Q13.5

I believe that I have more to offer an employer, because of my

3,76

Erasmus + experience, than other young people who did not
participate.

When asked about what skills have improved because of the participation in Erasmus+,
respondents indicated that they mostly improved their language skills (87%). Also the networking
skills and cooperation skills are indicated to be improved due to the participation in Erasmus+. Half
of the respondents also indicated that their skills concerning planning and organising have
improved.
Figure 9.7 Skills development
Language skills

87

Networking skills

59

Cooperation skills

58

Planning and organising

50

Presenting skills

34

Writing skills

32

Research skills

31

Reflecting skills

30

Analysis of scientific information

22

Debating skills

7

Other, namely

8
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Concerning the topics on which respondents improved their knowledge because of their Erasmus+
participation. The majority of respondents indicated that they improved their knowledge of culture
and diversity (81%), as well as the content knowledge related to their study (80%).

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

55

Figure 9.8 Knowledge development
Knowledge of culture and diversity

81

Content knowledge related to my study

80

The importance of life long learning

31

Research knowledge

31

Knowledge of European laws and regulations

28

Knowledge of European politics and policy

18

Knowledge of the European Union

17
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Similar to the Youth survey, the foreign languages respondents are now best able to express
themselves in is English (86%). This percentage is lower than in the Youth survey, as the
respondents in the Education and Training survey indicate more languages in which they improved
after Erasmus+.
Enrolment procedure
Respondents were asked what difficulties they encountered in the enrolment procedure. Almost 60
percent indicate the instructions were unclear and the enrolment procedure also took a lot of time
(51%).
Figure 9.9 Enrolment procedure
The instructions were unclear

59

I took a lot of time

51

The eligibility criteria were unclear

7

Other, namely

24
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Organisation Erasmus+
Respondents are in general (very) satisfied with Erasmus+. On average they are mostly satisfied
with the support and guidance during the preparation phase of the project and during the project.
Respondents are also satisfied about the information and clarity about the application procedure at
their organisation and the information about the goals and expected personal outcomes of
participation in the project.

56

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

Figure 9.10 Organisation of the project
Q21.1
Q21.2
Q21.3

13

49

22

5

4

5

3

10

45

29

Q21.4

9

44

24

15

Q21.5

11

43

25

13
12

Q21.6

10

42

26

Q21.7

8

43

29

Q21.8

Q21.11

0%
Very statisfied

20%

Unsatisfied

15

17

10

40%
Satisfied

5

6

3

6
3 4

5 3 2
4 2 3 2

41

48
9

4

10

55

25

Q21.10

60%

Very unsatisfied

8

5

6

17

7

6 1

10

50

20

Q21.9

4

5

6

14

58

14

7

5

80%
100%
Not satisfied/not unsatisfied
Does not apply

Table 9.5 Organisation of the project
Items

Statement

Mean (1= very
satisfied
5=very unsatisfied)

Q21.1

Organisation of the project

2,27

Q21.2

The possibility to select a country of choice

2,04

Q21.3

The possibility to select a project that matches my interest

2,12

Q21.4

Information and clarity about the application procedure at my organisation

2,64

Q21.5

Support and guidance during the preparation phase of the project

2,57

Q21.6

Support and guidance during the project

2,57

Information about the goals and expected personal outcomes of

2,53

Q21.7

participation in the project
Q21.8

Possibility to gain knowledge in several areas

2,21

Q21.9

Possibility to gain skills in several areas

2,01

Q21.10

Possibility to learn about other countries and cultures

1,68

Q21.11

Other, namely

2,96

Relevance
Survey Youth
We asked the participants whether they were aware that the projects are part of the Erasmus+
programme. The majority know the European Voluntary Service and the Youth Exchange are part
of Erasmus+. However, respondents were not aware that the national events/meetings with policymakers, youth experts, youth organisations and/or government representatives and the
international events/meetings with policy-makers, youth experts, youth organisations and/or
government representatives are part of Erasmus+.

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

57

Figure 9.11 Project awareness
European Voluntary Service (EVS)

50

50

Youth exchange

33

67

National events/meetings

34

66

International events/meetings

37

63

0%

10%

20%

30%

Yes

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

No

Respondents found out about the Erasmus+ project mostly through school (36%), friends and
family (21%), another organisation/association (17%) or a youth organisation/youth association
(15%). None of the respondents found out about Erasmus+ through the website of the European
Commission.
Respondents choose to participate in Erasmus+ mainly because of their personal development,
having fun and learning something new.
Figure 9.12 Reasons to participate
Improving my language skills

32

Professional development

42

Having fun

74

Personal development

88

Going abroad/ traveling

51

Challenge myself

66

Getting to know people from other cultures

59

Having something to do

8

Learning something new

69

Gaining experience for my CV

53

Other, namely

10
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Survey Education and Training
We asked the participants whether they were aware that the projects are part of the Erasmus+
programme. The majority know that study abroad in Europe and an internship or traineeship in
Europe are part of Erasmus+. However, most of the respondents were not aware that the remaining
projects are part of the Erasmus+ programme.

58

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

Figure 9.13 Awareness of projects
Programme or course in the field of the European
Union (Jean Monnet)

9

91

Loan for a master degree abroad

13

87

Erasmus Mundus Joint Master degree

17

83

Group exchange programme

29

71

Internship or traineeship outside of Europe

26

74

Internship or traineeship in Europe

75

Study abroad outside of Europe

25

31

69

Study abroad in Europe

85

15

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes

No

Respondents did not choose to participate in Erasmus+ to improve their skills or because it was
part of their study programme. They mainly choose to participate in Erasmus+ because of their
personal development, going abroad / traveling and gaining experience for their CV. Also the
reason to challenge themselves scores high.
Figure 9.14 Reasons to participate
Personal development

86

Going abroad/ traveling

79

Gaining experience for my CV

66

Challenge myself

65

Improving my language skills

60

Getting to know students from other cultures

59

Improving knowledge

56

Having fun

55

Improving skills

43

It is part of my study program

30

Other, namely

2
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Respondents found out about the Erasmus+ project mostly through their educational institution
(95%). None of the respondents found out about Erasmus+ through the website of the European
Youth Portal, the website of the European Commission or the National Agency Erasmus+
education and training.

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

59

European added value and sustainability
Survey Youth
Respondents are asked whether they had to financially contribute themselves to contribute in the
project. Most of them did not (42%), however 31 percent paid the contribution themselves and 23
percent indicated that their parent(s)/guardian(s) paid the contribution.
Respondents that did not have to financially contribute to take part in the project, were asked
whether they still would have participated if they did have to pay a financial contribution themselves.
Up to 79 percent indicate a financial contribution is not an obstacle for the participation of
Erasmus+ projects.
Regarding the overall experience of Erasmus+ on average respondents (strongly) agree that the
experience was very useful, they would also recommend participating in an Erasmus+ project to
friends and they would like to participate themselves again in a similar project. Half of the
respondents strongly agree the Erasmus+ projects met their expectation. However, results are
different regarding the meetings with policy makers. The majority of the respondents did not
participate in these meeting. However, respondents that did agree that they were taken seriously by
policymakers. They also think that because of these meetings policy makers will consider their
ideas while making future youth policies.
Figure 9.15 Overall experience
Q20.1

63

Q20.2

3 22

30
34

50

10

2 3

Q20.3

70

23

21 4

Q20.4

70

22

12 5

Q20.5

23

27

Q20.6

22
0%

21
20%

Strongly agree
Disagree

2 31
11

43

3 2

40%

60%

Agree
Strongly disagree

41
80%

100%

Don't disagree/ don't agree
Does not apply

Table 9.6 Overall experience
Item

Statement

Mean (1= strongly disagree
– 5 strongly agree)

Q20.1

Overall, I believe my Erasmus+ experience was very useful.

4,49

Q20.2

The Erasmus + project I participated in met my expectations.

4,26

Q20.3

I would recommend participating in the project to my friends.

4,53

Q20.4

I would like to participate again in the coming years in a similar

4,49

project.
Q20.5

During the meeting (s) with policy makers, youth experts or youth

4,28

organisations I felt taken seriously by policymakers.
Q20.6

I think that because of these meetings policy makers will consider

3,96

our ideas while making future youth policies

When asking respondents about things to be improved within Erasmus+, the vast majority believe
that the awareness among youth about the different possibilities of Erasmus+ should be increased

60

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

(98%). They also indicate there should be more (inter)national debate events and meetings (45%).
Moreover, the possibilities of young people with fewer opportunities (through cultural / religious /
economic / social barriers) to participate in an Erasmus+ project should be increased according to
the respondents.
Figure 9.16 Points for improvement
Increase awareness among youth about the different
possibilities of Erasmus+
Increase the number of (inter)national debate events
and meetings
Improve the possibilities of young people with fewer
opportunities (through cultural / religious /…
Increase the number of Erasmus+ volunteering
projects
Explain the expected results and potential benefits of
a project better
Make the procedure at my organization to participate
in the project easier
Improve the possibilities of young people with
physical / mental disabilities to participate in an…

89
45
45
28
26
24
22

Improve the affordability of the project for participants

22

Take the wishes and interests of young people more
into account

16

Make the eligibility criteria for participation more clear

12

Improve the guidance before and during the project

7

Ensure that projects have a better match with the
labour market

7

Other, namely

7
0

20

40

60

80

100

Survey Education and Training
Half of the respondents would have participated in a similar project without the Erasmus+ financial
contribution. That means the other half of the respondents would not participate in an Erasmus+
project without the financial contribution.
When asking about the added value of Erasmus+ for the study program/education, students on
average agree the opportunities available for participation in Erasmus+ make their institution more
attractive to students. However, students do not disagree or agree with the remaining statements.

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

61

Figure 9.17 Added value
Q18.1

29

Q18.2

11

Q18.3
Q18.4

44
18

25

19
4

14
27

40

11

5 1
14

21

33

22

8
7

5
2

9

22

Q18.5

8

32

30

10

2

18

Q18.6

10

30

26

13

4

16

Q18.7

9

Q18.8

26
14

Q18.9

13
0%
20%
Strongly agree
Disagree

26
25

15

20
23

15
4

5

40%
60%
Agree
Strongly disagree

7

4
7

19
19

12

10

80%
100%
Don't disagree/ don't agree
I don't know

Table 9.7 Added value
Item

Statement

Mean (1= strongly disagree
5=strongly agree)

Q18.1

The opportunities available for participation in Erasmus+ makes

4,01

my institution more attractive to students
Q18.2

The opportunities available for participation in Erasmus+ where a

2,84

reason for me to choose this education institution
Q18.3

Because of Erasmus+ the quality of the curriculum of my study

3,73

program improved
Q18.4

Because of Erasmus+ the quality of the teachers at my institution

2,77

improved
Q18.5

Because of Erasmus+ there is a good match between the content

3,40

of courses and the demands of the labour market
Q18.6

Because of Erasmus+ there are more courses that stimulate

3,36

students to perform better
Q18.7

Because of Erasmus+ there is more innovation in courses and

3,27

teaching methods
Q18.8

Because of Erasmus+ now more courses are taught in English

3,30

Q18.9

Other, namely

3,37

Regarding the overall experience of Erasmus+ on average respondents agree that the experience
was very useful, they would also recommend participating in an Erasmus+ project to friends and
they would like to participate themselves again in a similar project. They also agreed on average
that the Erasmus+ projects met their expectations. However, the students are on average
indecisive whether the enrolment procedure of the Erasmus+ project was simple and took a
minimal amount of time.

62

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

Figure 9.18 Overall experience
Q19.1

57

Q19.2

37

30

Q19.3

50

8

30

Q19.4

12

23
56

Q19.5

3 21

40

28

11

37

5 11

34

0%
20%
Strongly agree Agree

6 2

18

6 2

40%
60%
80%
100%
Don't disagree/don't agree Strongly agree Strongly disagree

Table 9.8 Overall experience
Item

Statement

Mean (1=strongly disagree
5=strongly agree)

Q19.1

Overall, I believe my Erasmus+ experience was very useful.

4,47

Q19.2

The Erasmus + project I participated in met my expectations.

4,02

Q19.3

The enrolment procedure of my Erasmus+ project was simple

2,97

and took little time
Q19.4
Q19.5

I would recommend participating in the project to my friends.

4,45

I would like to participate again in the coming years in a

4,05

similar project.

When asking respondents about things to be improved within Erasmus+ the vast majority thinks the
awareness among students about the different possibilities of the programme should be increased
(61%). Almost half of the respondents indicate the enrolment procedure should be easier.
Figure 9.19 Points for improvement
Increase awareness among students about the
different possibilities of Erasmus+

61

Make the enrollment procedure easier

49

Increase to participation possibilities

36

Improve the possibilities of students with fewer
opportunities (through cultural / religious /…

31

Improve the guidance before the project

30

Improve the guidance during the project

26

Explain the expected results and potential benefits
of a project better
Make the eligibility criteria for participation more
clear
Take the wishes and interests of students more into
account
Improve the possibilities of students with physical /
mental disabilities to participate in an Erasmus+…

25
25
16
15

Other, namely

6
0

10

20

30

40

50

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

60

70

63

Annex 10 Outcomes – number of applications
and granted projects

Table 10.1 Number of applications and granted projects for KA1 (2014, 2015 and 2016)
Area

Year

Applications

Not

Rejected

granted

Rejected

Reserve

Granted

above

%
Granted

threshold

School

2014

229

171

48

0

123

58

25%

education staff

2015

93

8

8

0

0

85

91%

mobility

2016

72

0

5

0

0

67

93%

2014

54

2

2

0

0

52

96%

2015

47

3

3

0

0

44

94%

2016

36

5

5

0

0

31

86%

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

54

100%

VET learner and

KA101

KA102

staff mobility

Higher

2014

54

education

KA103

2015

55

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

55

100%

student and staff

2016

56

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

56

100%

2014

29

17

14

0

3

12

41%

2015

10

5

5

0

0

5

50%

2016

9

5

5

0

0

4

44%

2014

219

116

103

47%

2015

233

95

138

59%

mobility within
programme
countries
Adult education

KA104

staff mobility

Youth mobility

KA105

2016
VET learner and

2014

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

staff mobility

KA116

2015

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

with VET

2016

14

1

1

0

0

13

93%

Reserve

Granted

% Granted

mobility charter

Table 10.2 Number of applications and granted projects for KA2 (2014, 2015 and 2016)
Area

Year

Applications

Not

Rejected

granted

Rejected
above
threshold

Cross sectoral

2014

14

1

1

0

0

13

93%

strategic

2015

0

0

0

0

0

0

N.v.t.

partnerships

2016

0

0

0

0

0

0

N.v.t.

Strategic

KA200

2014

110

99

52

47

0

11

10%

Partnerships for

2015

21

12

3

6

3

9

43%

school education

2016

19

9

5

4

10

53%

Strategic

KA201

2014

29

19

17

0

2

10

34%

Partnerships for

KA202

2015

43

31

26

3

2

12

28%

vocational

2016

24

12

12

0

0

12

50%

2014

38

32

28

16

4

6

16%

2015

41

35

32

20

3

7

17%

education and
training
Strategic
Partnerships for

KA203

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

65

Area

Year

Applications

Not

Rejected

granted

Rejected

Reserve

Granted

% Granted

above
threshold

higher education
Strategic

KA204

Partnerships for
adult education

2016

37

30

29

18

1

7

19%

2014

17

13

8

3

2

4

24%

2015

30

25

14

9

2

5

17%

2016

29

23

12

9

2

6

21%

2014

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2015

19

14

5

26%

2016

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2014

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Partnerships for

2015

68

57

26

31

0

11

16%

schools only

2016

39

16

9

6

0

23

59%

Strategic

KA205

Partnerships for
youth
Strategic

KA219

Table 10.3 Number of applications and granted projects for KA3 (2014 and 2015)
Area

Year

Applications

Not
granted

Rejected

Rejected

Reserve

Granted

% Granted

above
threshold

Structured
dialogue

KA347

2014

11

4

36%

2015

13

5

38%

2016

66

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

Annex 11

List of alternative programmes

Primary

Secondary

Vocational

Adult

Higher

education

education

education

education

education

 Early Bird





OCW mobility



OCW funds



funds



(Tel mee met

Holland

Taal)

Scholarship

Pestalozzi

 Regional
collaborations

OCW -



Interreg



Euregional



Tempus



Interreg

subsidies



ESF



Own scholar-

Centre for



Europe for



Expertise


Centre for



Youth


Europe for
citizens



Youth guarantee
programme



ships

Council of
Europe

citizens



Youth foundation

UNESCO



ESF



Labour unions

Innovative
Craftsmanship

(sponsored by
VWS)

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

67

About Ecorys

At Ecorys we aim to deliver real benefit to society through the work we do. We offer research,
consultancy and project management, specialising in economic, social and spatial development.
Focusing on complex market, policy and management issues we provide our clients in the public, private
and not-for-profit sectors worldwide with a unique perspective and high-value solutions. Ecorys’
remarkable history spans more than 85 years. Our expertise covers economy and competitiveness;
regions, cities and real estate; energy and water; transport and mobility; social policy, education, health
and governance. We value our independence, integrity and partnerships. Our staff comprises dedicated
experts from academia and consultancy, who share best practices both within our company and with our
partners internationally.
Ecorys Netherlands has an active CSR policy and is ISO14001 certified (the international standard for
environmental management systems). Our sustainability goals translate into our company policy and
practical measures for people, planet and profit, such as using a 100% green electricity tariff, purchasing
carbon offsets for all our flights, incentivising staff to use public transport and printing on FSC or PEFC
certified paper. Our actions have reduced our carbon footprint by an estimated 80% since 2007.

ECORYS Nederland B.V.
Watermanweg 44
3067 GG Rotterdam
P.O. Box 4175
3006 AD Rotterdam
The Netherlands
T +31 (0)10 453 88 00
F +31 (0)10 453 07 68
E netherlands@ecorys.com
Registration no. 24316726
W www.ecorys.nl

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

69

70

Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

P.O. Box 4175
3006 AD Rotterdam
The Netherlands

Watermanweg 44
3067 GG Rotterdam
The Netherlands

T +31 (0)10 453 88 00
F +31 (0)10 453 07 68
E netherlands@ecorys.com

W www.ecorys.nl

Sound analysis, inspiring ideas

BELGIUM – BULGARIA – CROATIA – INDIA – THE NETHERLANDS – POLAND – SPAIN – TURKEY – UNITED KINGDOM