IMPLEMENTATION

OF THE ERASMUS+:

YOUTH IN ACTION

PROGRAMME IN

THE PROGRAMME’S

PARTNER COUNTRIES

IN THE WESTERN

BALKANS

Strategic Analysis Including

Recommendations for the EU

Programmes in the Field of Youth



EDITORIAL INFO

Title: Implementation of the Erasmus+: Youth in Action

Programme in the Programme’s Partner Countries

in the Western Balkans – Strategic Analysis Including

Recommendations in the Field of Youth

Publisher: MOVIT, Ljubljana, December 2019

Authors:

Dragan Atanasov

Luis Mario Garcia Lafuente

Petre Mrkev

Sladjana Petković

Marija Popović

With many thanks to all organisations that contributed to

this study by taking part in the Survey or Focus Groups!

Editor: Sonja Mitter

Design and layout: AIKO, Maja Cerjak s.p.

Photos: Shutterstock

Tables and graphs: Luis Mario Garcia Lafuente

Kataložni zapis o publikaciji (CIP) pripravili

v Narodni in univerzitetni knjižnici v Ljubljani

COBISS.SI-ID=303172608

ISBN 978-961-6826-32-7 (pdf)

Creative commons licence

This work is published under licence:

•

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International

(CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

IMPLEMENTATION

OF THE ERASMUS+:

YOUTH IN ACTION

PROGRAMME IN

THE PROGRAMME’S

PARTNER COUNTRIES

IN THE WESTERN

BALKANS

Strategic Analysis Including

Recommendations for the EU

Programmes in the Field of Youth

December 2019

Content

6

1. FOREWORD

8

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

11

3. INTRODUCTION

15

4. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH

16

4.1. Data sampling

17

4.2. Identification of research questions

18

4.3. Data analysis

18



4.3.1. Primary data analysis

19



4.3.2. Secondary data analysis

19

4.4. Quantitative and qualitative methods and techniques used

19



4.4.1. Desk research

20



4.4.2. Survey

21



4.4.3. Focus groups

23

5. OUTCOMES AND CONCLUSIONS

23

5.1. Programme implementation trends 2014-2018

32

5.2. Profile of Programme beneficiaries

36

5.3. Elements influencing the Programme implementation

36



5.3.1. Relevance

42



5.3.2. Accessibility

47



5.3.3. Support provided by support structures (SALTO SEE

and EACEA)

51

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

51

6.1. Recommendations to increase the relevance

and interest of organisations in the Western Balkan

partner countries in the EU youth programmes

52

6.2. Recommendations to improve the accessibility

of the EU youth programmes for organisa-tions in

Western Balkan partner countries

53

6.3. Recommendations to better adapt support

services to the needs of organisations in the

Western Balkan partner countries

6.4. Concluding remarks

55

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY

58

8. GLOSSARY

61

9. ANNEXES: Reports of the different parts of the study

1. Foreword

The SALTO South East Europe Resource Centre is a support structure for the

cooperation with the Western Balkan partner countries in the Erasmus+: Youth

in Action programme and the European Solidarity Corps. Since the start of Eras-

mus+ in 2014, we have been asking for and receiving feedback from youth work-

ers, youth leaders and other stakeholders about the Programme and also about

the support provided, especially by our Centre, about what has been particularly

appreciated and what have been the challenges and obstacles to using the op-

portunities offered.

Challenges reported by organisations refer, among others, to managing proce-

dures and requirements related to project applications and the implementation

process, rejected applications (also for projects submitted by partners in Pro-

gramme countries) and finding partners in Programme countries. Positive expe-

riences mentioned include, for instance, the opportunity to coordinate a more

complex project, peer-learning in national meetings of organisations accredited

for hosting or sending volunteers, or the impact of a Youth Exchange on the

youth people participating in it.

This study was initiated to explore these issues further by systematically and

strategically collecting and analysing data and feedback from beneficiaries, with

the purpose to establish a sound basis for future action. As preparations for the

new generation of EU youth programmes are ongoing, it is important to take a

closer look at how the current Programmes have been implemented, what are

the trends and how they can be explained, and what should be considered in

the future.

From the perspective of SALTO SEE, we are particularly interested in the fur-

ther development of adequate support measures, based on the findings of this

study, jointly with the different stakeholders involved in the management and

implementation of the Programmes in and with the partner countries in the

Western Balkans.

6

The outcomes of this study have already been used before their official publication to inform discussions by the network of National Agencies for the EU youth

programmes, leading to recommendations for strengthening the cooperation with

neighbouring partner countries in the frame of the Programmes1.

We hope that the findings and recommendations presented in the following pages

will serve as a basis for the further development of the cooperation with the West-

ern Balkan partner countries, in particular within the new generation of EU youth

programmes.

Our gratitude goes to the people from all the organisations that took part in the

Survey and in the Focus Groups, without whom this study would not have been

possible.

The SALTO SEE team

7

1 https://www.salto-youth.net/about/regionalcooperation/current/consultative-meeting/

2. Executive Summary

The present study explores how the Erasmus+: Youth in Action programme has

been implemented in the Programme’s partner countries in the Western Bal-

kans, what are the trends and how they can be explained. Based on its findings,

the study recommends measures to be taken to further support the coopera-

tion with the partner countries of this region within the EU youth programmes.

The main target group of this study were all Programme beneficiaries in these

countries, in particular a sample of around 470 organisations currently identi-

fied as active and accessible. The study is descriptive and based on a combina-

tion of quantitative and qualitative research design and mixed methods, includ-

ing desk research, survey and focus groups.

Outcomes, conclusions and recommendations have been grouped into Pro-

gramme implementation trends, profile of beneficiaries, and elements influenc-

ing the Programme implementation: relevance, accessibility and support mea-

sures provided.

PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION TRENDS:

This study presents the trends in the number of applications and granted proj-

ects involving the participation of Western Balkan organisations between 2014

and 2018.

The findings indicate a significant decrease in the number of applications in-

volving project partners from Western Balkan partner countries submitted to

National Agencies in Programme countries in 2017 and 2018 following a low

success rate in receiving grants in 2015 and 2016. The number of applications

for mobility projects submitted to National Agencies in 2018 is similar to the

number in 2014. The low success rate of applications is one of the most quoted

reasons for this decline in demand (see further ‘Programme Accessibility’ below).

The centralised funding opportunities for Capacity Building Projects offered by

the Western Balkans Youth Window as of 2015 have partially balanced this sit-

8

uation, allowing direct submission of applications from organisations in the Programme’s partner countries in the Western Balkan region to the Executive Agency

of the European Commission (EACEA). However, these grants have mostly benefited

experienced organisations with relevant resources, risking to demotivate smaller

organisations, in particular those working only with youth, due to the difficult ac-

cess to funding they have been experiencing through both (centralised and decen-

tralised) channels.

PROFILE OF BENEFICIARIES:

In the Western Balkan partner countries, around 70% of the beneficiaries of the

Erasmus+: Youth in Action programme are youth organisations and NGOs working

predominantly with young people, more than half are small organisations or or-

ganisations working only with volunteers, and the vast majority are dependent on

the Erasmus+: Youth in Action programme to a small or very small extent (to less

than 25%). Difficulties in accessing Erasmus+: Youth in Action grants and the exis-

tence of other funding schemes that more adapted to the ongoing or regular needs

of organisations have been reported as main reasons for the preference of other

funding schemes.

RELEVANCE OF THE PROGRAMME:

Organisations participating in the survey found the Programme mostly in line with

their own work priorities (to 75%). All Programme Actions and types of projects are

considered significantly relevant, and their level of relevance is relatively balanced.

Looking at the kind of benefits gained through participation in the Programme, the

organisations participating in this study consider benefits related to supporting the

development and competences of young people and youth workers higher than

those related to structural and organisational development. The relevance of the

Programme could be increased by targeting different themes or priorities and mak-

ing more funds available and granting a larger number of projects.

Organisations perceive the priorities of the Erasmus+: Youth in Action programme

also as highly relevant (to 83%) for the priorities of the national youth policies in

their countries. However, the role of the Programme in strengthening youth policy

frameworks in the Western Balkan region, especially towards better recognition of

youth mobility and, to some extent, volunteering, needs to be considered.

Volunteering projects (EVS/ESC) have been less demanded by organisations in the

Western Balkan partner countries. The main reasons for the comparatively low de-

mand seem to refer to the overall rather low interest and limited capacity of or-

ganisations to host or send volunteers. Exchanging volunteers is one of the Pro-

gramme benefits quoted with one of the lowest scores in the survey. In particular

organisations dominantly run by volunteers, however, mentioned it as relevant and

beneficial. The success rate of receiving a grant for this type of project is significantly

higher than for the other mobility projects and therefore, accessibility to funding is

9

not perceived as a main obstacle.

PROGRAMME ACCESSIBILITY:

Almost two thirds of the organisations involved in this study estimate that the Pro-

gramme has become more accessible over the years. There are two main reasons

for this development, especially for organisations with larger resources. These in-

clude: a) increased access to information and the provision of support measures;

and b) the possibility to include more activities under one project (this is dominant-

ly mentioned by bigger organisations). On the other hand, the main obstacles to

accessibility mentioned are difficulties to find partners in Programme countries,

Programme rules and procedures considered as too complex and, as mentioned

above, lack of approved projects. To increase access to the Programme, in particu-

lar for smaller organisations, these obstacles need to be addressed at the level of

Programme development and support measures provided.

SUPPORT MEASURES:

Services provided by the SALTO South East Europe Resource Centre are perceived

as helpful or very helpful, scoring around 80% of satisfaction on average. Support

provided by Contact Points in the different Western Balkan countries is the service

showing the biggest differences in appraisal by the organisations. In the countries

with lower Programme visibility, additional resources for Contact Points are claimed.

In order to implement the recommendations of this study, a strategic approach and

adequate resources will be needed for the further development of the Programmes

as well as the implementation of additional support measures.

10

3. Introduction

This study explores how the Erasmus+: Youth in Action programme has been

implemented in the Western Balkan partner countries, and in particular, what

are the trends in the Programme implementation and how these trends can be

explained. Based on the outcomes of the study, it identifies measures aiming

to further develop the cooperation with the Programmes’ partner countries of

the Western Balkans within the Erasmus+: Youth in Action Programme and the

European Solidarity Corps.

This study is addressed to all the stakeholders involved in the development and

implementation of the EU youth programmes, such as the European Commis-

sion and its Executive Agency (EACEA), SALTO SEE and its Contact Points in the

Western Balkan partner countries, National Agencies in charge of these pro-

grammes in Programme countries, the national authorities in charge of youth

in the five Western Balkan countries that are subject of this study and, last but

not least, the organisations working with young people in and with this region.

The introductory remarks below describe the framework and limitations of this

study.

Geographically, the study focuses on the implementation of the Erasmus+: Youth

in Action programme in the Programme’s Western Balkan partner countries,

including Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo2, Montenegro and Serbia.

Serbia represents a special case, as its status within the Programme changed

during the period covered by this study. Serbia started preparatory measures

to join the Erasmus+ programme in 2016 and became a Programme country in

2019. At the time of publication of this study (December 2019), it is still a Partner

country in the European Solidarity Corps.

The change from the European Voluntary Service (EVS) as an integral part of

Erasmus+ to the European Voluntary Service as a separate programme led to

some challenges for this study. EVS projects were called Erasmus+ Volunteering

2 This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the 11

ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence.

projects for a transitional period after the launch of the European Solidarity Corps at the end of 2016, until it became an independent programme in 2018. While the

collected data used in this study refer only to the period until 2018 (and therefore to

Erasmus+ only), Survey respondents and participants in the Focus Groups refer to

their experiences with, and expectations from both programmes, which occasion-

ally leads to lack of clarity in naming the programme/s referred to. The recommen-

dations listed in chapter 6 explicitly target both EU youth programmes. However,

specificities of the European Solidarity Corps as opposed to EVS have not been spe-

cifically investigated in the framework of this study.

In terms of Actions, this study explores the opportunities for cooperation with the

Western Balkan partner countries under Erasmus: Youth in Action, Key Action 1 and

Key Action 2, Capacity Building. Key Action 3 and, to a very limited extent, Key Ac-

tion 2, Strategic Partnerships, have also been open for cooperation with partner

countries. However, projects granted under these Actions make up only 4% of all

granted projects involving Western Balkan partner countries (and involve an even

smaller percentage of participants from these countries)3 and have not been further

explored in this study.

Finally, looking at overall, contextual developments influencing the implementation

of the Erasmus+: Youth in Action programme, it should be mentioned that the new

European Youth Strategy 2019 - 2027, includes less references to relations with

countries outside/ neighbouring the European Union, compared to its predecessor,

the European Youth Strategy 2010 – 2018. This shift in focus almost exclusively on

developments inside the European Union, reflecting the broader European develop-

ments and political priorities, has also been noticeable in the implementation of the

Programme and influenced some of the questions explored in this study.

Concretely, the study investigates the trends in the implementation of the Erasmus+:

Youth in Action programme in the Western Balkan partner countries, the profile of

beneficiaries, and the elements influencing the Programme implementation, which

have been grouped under relevance, accessibility and support measures provided.

The outcomes and conclusions are described in chapter 5. Finally, the study includes

recommendations for further measures to be taken, which are based on the find-

ings and structured in the same way, listed in chapter 6.

Methodologically, the study is descriptive and based on a combination of quanti-

tative and qualitative methods, including desk research, Survey and Focus Groups.

The methodological approach is described in chapter 4.

The main findings from the research are presented in this report. More detailed

information can be found online in the reports of the different parts of this study.

The link to these reports can be found in Annex 9.

3 Source: Working paper: Statistical analysis about cooperation with the four neighbouring partner

regions (SALTO SEE and SALTO EECA, October 2018): https://www.salto-youth.net/rc/see/resources/

npcstatistics2014-2017/

12





The Erasmus+ programme, now together with the European Solidarity Corps, is the most appreciated programme supporting cooperation in the field of youth between

the Western Balkan region and the member states of the European Union. The find-

ings of this study confirm that the Programmes are considered highly relevant by all

stakeholders in all partner countries of the region.

However, as the outcomes of this study suggest, challenges, such as success rates

for mobility projects of around 20% (with the exception of European Solidarity Corps

projects) and administrative procedures and financial aspects perceived as difficult

to manage by smaller organisations – which make up the majority of beneficiaries

in the region – , risk decreasing the relevance of the Programmes, as many organ-

isations working with young people in the Western Balkan region are struggling to

maintain organisational sustainability and to further develop their capacities while

many young people are leaving, or want to leave, their country to look for opportu-

nities in countries of the European Union.

The information and recommendations described in the following chapters suggest

ways to ensure that the Programmes remain relevant and accessible for the organ-

isations that are already, or consider using them.

13





4. Methodological Approach

In line with the purpose and aims of this study, the methodological approach

was designed to provide knowledge about the composition and profile of the ex-

isting (and potential) beneficiaries of the Erasmus+: Youth in Action Programme

and the European Solidarity Corps in the Western Balkan partner countries, and

to explore their motivation/interest, needs, expectations, benefits and challeng-

es regarding participation in these Programmes.

The methodology of the study followed two main purposes. The first was ana-

lytical: learning what aspects of the Programme implementation are ‘working’

and how, in order to facilitate future improvements. The second was allocative:

gathering information about how resources have been distributed to the bene-

ficiaries across the different Programme Actions, in order to facilitate matching

between the beneficiaries’ needs and future funding as well as the improvement

of the existing support measures and activities.

The design of the methodological framework has taken into consideration the

following key components:

a. Type of study: This study is descriptive. In order to maximise reliability

of the study results, a combination of quantitative and qualitative research

design and mixed methods has been used. Quantitative and qualitative in-

dicators have been combined to fully capture the subject being studied. A

sequential data gathering has been applied and structured in three differ-

ent phases under an integrated approach reflected in the structure of this

report.

b. Nature of the subject studied: Since this study, inter alia, aims to char-

acterise different aspects of the beneficiaries of the Erasmus+: Youth in

Action programme and the European Solidarity Corps, the fact that these

organisations are dynamic and changing over time had to be taken in con-

sideration as well as the diversity of types of participating organisations

in terms of their structure, capacity, scope and mission. This situation has

been addressed by establishing ex-post categories and clustering the re-

15

sponses accordingly to draw comprehensive conclusions.

c. Existing resources and their limitations: Based on the complexity of the opportunities that are open for cooperation with Western Balkan partner countries – in particular the fact that within Erasmus+: Youth in Action, there are

mainly two Key Actions open for cooperation with partner countries (KA1 and

KA2, Capacity Building), which are managed at different levels (centralised and

decentralised)4, and the fact that beneficiaries extend over five countries -, the

study faced a number of constraints in terms of availability of resources, which

have been addressed by a combination of desk research and interactive meth-

ods with a representative sample of organisations from the target group.

The following sections describe the specific methodological approaches applied in

the different phases of the data gathering process, which include: data sampling,

identification of research questions, data analysis, and specific quantitative and

qualitative techniques used.

4.1. Data sampling

Sampling of the organisations participating in this study has been conditioned by

the availability of data. Data were originally extracted from lists of organisations and projects provided by SALTO SEE, based on the European database used for

the implementation of the Erasmus+: Youth in Action programme5. The data used

in this study extends from the starting year of the Programme, 2014, until 2017,

which is the year for which all the records should be complete for all Actions of the

Programme considered. For those Actions where the data of 2018 are considered

complete, additional statistical information has been provided.

Two broad target groups have been considered in this study:

a. Main target group: all beneficiaries of the Erasmus+: Youth in Action pro-

gramme in the Western Balkan partner countries (sample of ca 470 organisa-

tions currently identified as active and accessible).

b. Other stakeholders: This group includes National Agencies, the European

Commission and its Executive Agency (EACEA) (indirectly), since some conclu-

sions of the study relate to their role in the application and selection proce-

dures in cases when Western Balkan applicants or partners are involved. They

are considered to be relevant parties in the follow up stage of this study.

4 The process of Serbia becoming an Erasmus+ Programme country during the period of this study and granting projects at national level as well as the change from EVS to Volunteering projects to the European Solidarity Corps as a separate Programme are factors adding to the complex structure and related difficulties to collect comparable data.

5 Data related to projects submitted to and granted by National Agencies within the Erasmus+ programme and the European Solidarity Corps is stored in a central internal database maintained by the European Commission (EPlusLink). Data are entered by National Agencies at various stages of the project application and implementation process.

16





Organisations that have not accessed the Programme successfully through a grant, but have attempted to do so, are also considered a relevant target group by this

study. They are included in some conclusions indirectly, in particular those related

to the success rate of applications and the usefulness of the support services pro-

vided by the Programme(s).

4.2. Identification of research questions

The research design includes main and specific research questions developed to

investigate various aspects of the Programme implementation. It involves descrip-

tive, causal and evaluative questions in order to provide an in-depth insight into the

phenomenon investigated.

The main research questions were the following:

•

What trends in the Programme implementation can be identified in the West-

ern Balkan partner countries in the period 2014 - 2018?

•

What is the profile of Programme beneficiaries in the Western Balkan region?

•

What elements (internal and external) influence the Programme implementa-

tion in these countries, including those related to quality?

In addition, a substantial number of specific research questions was created in or-

der to explore particular aspects of the topic investigated, including: characteristics of the trends observed and of the existing funding schemes and behaviours of

donors, as well as profile and behavioural patterns of Programme beneficiaries in

the Western Balkan partner countries. Finally, a set of specific research questions

was focused on quality aspects of the Programme implementation, in particular

on relevance, accessibility, and the connection of the Programme implementation

in the Western Balkan region with the objectives of the Erasmus+: Youth in Action

programme, priorities of the national youth policy frameworks, and the wider EU

framework for cooperation with the Western Balkans in the field of youth.

17





4.3. Data analysis

Data analysis has been undertaken through quantitative and qualitative approach-

es, using predominantly primary data analysis. Secondary data analysis has been

conducted through desk research. The different phases and methods are described

in sub-chapter 4.4 (please see below).

4.3.1. Primary data analysis

This part of the research was focused on the following elements:

a) identification of variables to be explained;

b) level of disaggregation of these variables, and

c) elements (‘factors’) that may explain the value of these variables.

Elements a) and b) contributed to providing answers to the descriptive questions of

the study, specifically to define the existing trends. Element c) contributed to iden-

tifying the key ‘causal’ questions which have been informing the second sequential

stage of the data gathering process, notably the Survey.

Main variables: The studied variables are directly related to the key indicators of

the Erasmus+: Youth in Action programme implementation in the Western Balkan

partner countries, according to the quantitative data available. These are:

a) number of the projects granted;

b) funding amount of the granted projects, and

c) number of participants involved in the projects.

Level of disaggregation: The values of the studied variables relate to individual

projects and have been broken down into three transversal levels:

a) five countries of the SEE region for which data are provided (Albania, Bosnia

and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro and Serbia);

b) four broad types of activities and Actions that all of the projects belong to

(i.e. Youth Exchanges, Mobility of Youth Workers, EVS/Volunteering projects –

funded by National Agencies – and Capacity Building – funded by the EACEA).

c) In addition, all of these traversal levels were analysed sequentially, by break-

ing them down per year of project approval (from 2014-2017, and 2018 when

available).

Factors of ‘causal’ influence: The main factors considered in the desk analysis involve:

a) origin of the funds, and

b) experience of the beneficiary organisation.

These factors were further studied in the Survey and extended to other intrinsic

factors of qualitative nature.

18

4.3.2. Secondary data analysis

Secondary data analysis was conducted as one of the components of the desk re-

search. It was focused on the review of existing SALTO SEE (and related) reports and

youth policy documents based on the developing realities of the five Western Bal-

kan countries considered by this study. It contributed mostly to the establishment

of the existing trends in the Western Balkan partner countries.

4.4. Quantitative and qualitative methods and

techniques used

4.4.1. Desk research

The desk research was conducted in two different phases. In the preliminary phase,

it contributed to the primary and secondary data analysis through:

a. quantitative statistical analysis of the data retrieved from the database con-

taining the projects (classified by beneficiary, year, type of activity, and country)

granted within the Erasmus+: Youth in Action programme in the period 2014 –

2017 (and 2018, when available);

b. overview of work plans and reports of the SALTO SEE Resource Centre (focus-

ing on background information and trends).

The study combined data from the database and internal records of SALTO SEE

regarding projects involving organisations in the Western Balkan region funded

by National Agencies of the Erasmus+: Youth in Action programme, and the data

from public records released by the Executive Agency of the European Commission

(EACEA) about Capacity Building projects submitted by beneficiaries from Western

Balkan partner countries funded directly by the European Commission. The data

from both sources are not homogeneous, which required further treatment. The

data on participants and budget correspond to the approved proposals and not to

the data of the implemented projects, which may differ slightly.

In the second phase, the desk research was based on secondary data analysis of

key youth policy documents focusing on comparison of the strategic priorities of

the European youth policy and youth work frameworks with those of the national

youth policies in the five Western Balkan countries in the period 2014 - 2018. The

study also reflects on the relevance of the Erasmus+: Youth in Action programme for

youth policy and youth work in these countries and offers brief concluding remarks

regarding future developments.

19

4.4.2. Survey

The Survey targeted organisations which have participated in the Erasmus+: Youth

in Action programme, regardless if they were the beneficiary of the grant or not.

Around 470 organisations could be accessed via records kept by of SALTO SEE and

were invited by SALTO SEE by email to participate. In addition, an open call for par-

ticipation was published on the SALTO SEE Facebook page, and further disseminat-

ed via Contact Points, networks and experts in the youth work field in the Western

Balkan countries.

The Survey was accessible online and consisted of a questionnaire of some 20 ques-

tions, including descriptive, causal and evaluative questions. It combined open and

closed (multiple choice) questions. Responses to the questionnaire were received

between 22/02/2019 and 11/03/2019.

The Survey obtained 113 responses including an indication of the organisation and

the country where the organisation was based. The Survey form was designed in

such a way that the respondents could indicate whether any of the causal and eval-

uative score questions was not relevant for the organisation. This ensured that the

113 data records are complete.

To prevent from outliers in the statistical treatment, the names of the organisations

were looked up in the Participants’ Portal of the European Commission. Out of 113

organisations responding to the Survey 102 appeared as registered in this portal

with an identifier (the so-called PIC number). 7 organisations appeared twice, with

responses from 2 different representatives. Only the records from 95 registered

organisations were used for statistical purposes.

The score responses from respondents belonging to the same organisation were

averaged when the descriptive answers regarding the organisation were the same.

Otherwise, they were maintained as different records in the sample, as they may

correspond to different realities of the same organisation (involved in different peri-

ods, in different Actions or in different departments, for instance).

The results of the Survey have contributed to the primary data analysis mostly by

explaining trends and suggesting elements to be elaborated as part of the recom-

mendations.

20

4.4.3. Focus Groups

Focus Groups were implemented in the period from 5 to 15 May 2019, involving 36

participants (out of 78 who were initially invited): 5 from Albania, 8 from Bosnia and

Herzegovina, 6 from Kosovo, 6 from Montenegro and 11 from Serbia. In addition,

five representatives who were not able to participate directly in the Focus Groups

sent their answers by e-mail.

Each Focus Group was conducted with participants from a single country, aiming to

explain some of the national trends identified through the initial data analysis.

In Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, there were two Focus Groups conducted

per country, which enabled the facilitators to have separate groups of more ex-

perienced and less experienced organisations. For Albania, Montenegro and Koso-

vo, despite all efforts, in the end, there was only one Focus Group conducted per

country. In these countries, the facilitators worked with a mixture of more and less

experienced organisations, including those who have been granted once or multiple

times by the EACEA, those who have applied once or multiple times, but have never

been successful and those who have been partners in one or more projects applied

at the decentralised level.

All Focus Groups included organisations currently or previously accredited for EVS/

ESC, as well as organisations who have never been accredited, but are planning to

apply for the Quality Label (QL) in the future. Participants came from organisations

that are currently or were previously (during the last four years) actively involved in

the Erasmus+: Youth in Action programme and possessed a certain experience, e.g.

in volunteering and/or Capacity Building. There were representatives of organisa-

tions that have been fully involved in the Programme (i.e. in all Actions) and those

only partially involved (e.g. only EVS projects, or only Capacity Building projects).

Participation in the Survey was not a prerequisite for participation in a Focus Group.

Each Focus Group was based on the same set of questions. However, as the partic-

ipants of the Focus Groups had different experiences with the Programmes, slight

differences in formulating the questions to them were made (e.g. in Focus Groups

gathering less experienced organisations, there was a bigger emphasis on the in-

troductory questions referring to their personal experience with the Programmes,

while in other groups, the emphasis was more on the organisational motivation

and experience to take part in the Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps pro-

grammes).

Participants were very keen on discussing the pros and cons of the Programmes,

while they took less time in answering questions related to the Survey.

21





5. Outcomes and Conclusions

5.1. Programme implementation trends 2014-2018

Trends in the implementation of the Erasmus+: Youth in Action programme in

the Western Balkan partner countries can be identified from 2014 - 2018 ac-

cording to the treatment of data explained in the methodological approach of

the study. Data sources combine projects granted at the decentralised level for

three types of Key Action 1 projects: Mobility of Youth Workers, Youth Exchanges

and European Voluntary Service/Volunteering projects and projects granted at

the centralised level for one single Action: Key Action 2 - Capacity Building. This

centralised Action can incorporate activities from one or several of the three

aforementioned types of projects.

Capacity Building projects are directly granted to Western Balkan organisations

under the so-called Western Balkans Youth Window, which opened in 2015. Ca-

pacity Building projects involve, in general, a higher budget and a higher num-

ber of participants from Western Balkan organisations than the projects funded

at the decentralised level. However, data on the number of participants in Ca-

pacity Building projects was not available and, therefore, precise comparisons

and determinant conclusions are not possible based on raw statistical data from

the project selection rounds only.

23

At the decentralised level, the budget spent on cooperation with neighbouring partner regions increased by about 12% over the period 2014-2017. At the same time,

the number of projects with the Western Balkan region was decreasing continuous-

ly since 2015. Also the number of participants coming from partner countries of the

Western Balkans was decreasing in projects funded at the decentralised level. This

trend has been somewhat compensated by the projects granted under the Western

Balkans Youth Window at the centralised level. The following table shows the overall

number of funded projects involving participation of Western Balkan organisations.

Table 1. Number of approved projects involving organisations from Western Balkan partner countries (2014 - 2018)

SEE country

YW Mobility*

Youth Exch* EVS**

CB***

Total

Albania

372

204

109

26

711

BiH

308

294

236

23

861

Kosovo

153

96

45

8

302

Montenegro

136

94

45

24

299

Serbia

605

558

251

82

1496

Total

1574

1246

686

163

* Data for Youth Worker Mobilities and Youth Exchanges include years 2014 - 2018.



** Data for EVS projects are only available for the period 2014 - 2017.





*** Data for Capacity Building projects are available for the period 2015 - 2017.

The analysis of types of activities implemented through projects funded at the de-

centralised level shows a steady decrease of Youth Worker Mobility projects, a gen-

erally stable level of funding for Youth Exchanges, and a heterogeneous trend of

EVS/ Volunteering Activities. The trends related to these projects funded by National

Agencies are presented in the following charts.

24





Fig. 1. Number of projects granted per year, and grants per year, for Mobility of Youth Workers projects, decentralised level

Number of Youth Workers mobilty projects with SEE partners

Budget spent in SEE cooperation (Mobility of Youth Workers)

25





Fig. 2. Number of projects granted per year, and grants per year, for Youth Exchanges,

decentralised level

Number of Youth Exchange projects with SEE partners

Budget spent in SEE cooperation (Youth Exchange)

26





Fig. 3. Number of projects granted per year, and grants per year, for European Voluntary Service /

Volunteering projects, decentralised level

Number of EVS projects with SEE partners

Budget spent in SEE cooperation (EVS projects)

27

In figures 1 to 3, the correlation between number of projects and budget spent on cooperation with each of the countries and types of projects shows similar trends,

which is an indicator of robustness of the conclusions.

Two key factors are crucial in explaining these trends:

1. There is a steadily decreasing trend in the success rate of applications select-

ed at the decentralised level, i.e. decisions taken by National Agencies in Eras-

mus+ Programme countries. This trend is shown in the following tables related

to Youth Exchanges and Mobility of Youth Workers:

Table 2. Success rate of applications for Mobility of Youth Workers involving Western Balkan partner countries (2014 - 2018)

SEE country

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Total

Albania

40.23%

21.56%

19.45%

17.38%

17.05%

22.71%

BiH

44.74%

27.03%

17.92%

24.54%

24.87%

27.23%

Kosovo

36.84%

25.17%

15.00%

22.22%

16.10%

22.53%

Montenegro

45.10%

23.48%

17.56%

20.00%

21.21%

25.14%

Serbia

38.24%

24.96%

20.80%

16.47%

16.25%

22.90%

Table 3. Success rate of applications for Youth Exchanges involving Western Balkan partner countries (2014 - 2018)

SEE country

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Total

Albania

32.12%

23.26%

19.83%

19.28%

16.80%

22.10%

BiH

46.40%

35.29%

39.13%

32.26%

24.70%

34.92%

Kosovo

37.50%

31.82%

28.92%

25.33%

17.50%

27.27%

Montenegro

43.14%

37.70%

27.87%

34.92%

21.74%

33.33%

Serbia

34.28%

27.98%

28.94%

24.77%

21.16%

26.74%

The declining rate of success since 2014 is due to a severe increase in applications

involving WB partners in 2015 and 2016. This reduced rate of success seems to have

had a significant impact on the number of applications submitted in 2017 and 2018

(especially for Youth Worker Mobilities). In fact, the number of applications involving

partners from Western Balkan partner countries received in 2018 was comparable 28

to that in 2014, indicating a reactive reduction in the demand from applicants following the decline of the success rate.

Table 4. Applications received for Mobility of Youth Workers involving Western Balkan partner countries (2014 - 2018)

SEE country

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Total

Albania

266

436

437

282

217

1638

BiH

190

296

240

216

189

1131

Kosovo

114

143

160

144

118

679

Montenegro

102

132

131

110

66

541

Serbia

442

573

601

589

437

2642

Total

1114

1580

1569

1341

1027

6631

Table 5. Applications received for Youth Exchanges involving Western Balkan partner countries (2014 - 2018)

SEE country

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Total

Albania

137

258

237

166

125

923

BiH

125

204

161

186

166

842

Kosovo

48

66

83

75

80

352

Montenegro

51

61

61

63

46

282

Serbia

283

386

432

537

449

2087

Total

644

975

974

1027

866

4486

2. The trends identified with the support of tables 2 and 4 are consistent with

the findings from the Survey and Focus Groups showing that Capacity Build-

ing projects granted under the centralised procedure have substituted, at least

partially, Youth Worker Mobility projects funded under the decentralised pro-

cedure. The most dominant activities in Capacity Building projects also target

youth workers as main beneficiaries6.

6 Capacity Building projects may include different kinds of capacity building and mobility activities. However, “youth work” or “youth worker” appear as key words in the title of 25 out of the 163 granted Capacity Building projects. “Volunteer” or “volunteering” appear as key words only in 2 projects and “youth exchange”

29

or “exchange” only in 1 project.

The reduced demand for Youth Worker Mobility projects and, to a more limited extent, Youth Exchanges involving partners from the Western Balkan region in the

decentralised strand observed in the years 2017 and especially 2018 is consistent

with the opinions of organisations, especially the bigger ones, in the Survey and

Focus Groups. The Survey shows a greater propensity of Western Balkan organisa-

tions to participate in the Western Balkans Youth Window instead of decentralised

selections, and this was further emphasised in the Focus Groups particularly by par-

ticipants from larger organisations. The main arguments given in the Survey and

Focus Groups are the possibility to apply directly for funds and the perception of

better chances to be funded.

The Survey indicates that the size and previous experience of the organisations are

key factors determining the preference, which was also confirmed by the findings of

the Focus Groups. The participating organisations in the Focus Groups stated that,

as one participant expressed it, “less experienced organisations feel they lack capac-

ities to apply directly for funds, whereas more experienced organisations often use

both procedures and predominantly the centralised one”.

The trend for EVS/ Volunteering projects shown in figure 3 seems to indicate that

there are specificities for these types of projects and for each of the Western Bal-

kan countries. The trend is clearly visible in Serbia, which had a significant peak in

2017. Kosovo shows a steady increase, and the other three Western Balkan coun-

tries show a decline or stable situation. The different success rate of applications for

EVS/ Volunteering projects (much higher) compared to applications for Mobility of

Youth Workers and Youth Exchanges reinforces the specificity of EVS/ Volunteering

projects. The demand for EVS/ Volunteering projects involving organisations from

Western Balkan partner countries was more limited, and in all of the countries con-

cerned, at least 2 out of every 3 applications were approved.

Finally, the peak for EVS/ Volunteering projects reached in Serbia in 2017 can also

be observed when it comes to Youth Exchanges, and this is likely due to the fact that

preparatory measures for joining the Erasmus+ programme started in 2016 and na-

tional calls have been available since 2017 in this country. Therefore, Serbia should

be considered as a singular case, as Serbian organisations have had a different

range of opportunities to participate in the Erasmus+: Youth in Action programme.

30

Despite the increase in decentralised funds allocated to

cooperation projects with neighbouring partner regions

in the past years through the Erasmus+: Youth in Action

programme, granted projects involving Western Balkan

partner countries show a decline since 2015. Data suggest

that this can be explained by a simultaneous decline in

the success rate of applications and an additional source

of funding created at the centralised level, the Western

Balkans Youth Window, which has substituted, at least

partially, the use of decentralised funds. This substitution

effect is especially relevant for bigger and more experienced

organisations in the Western Balkans region and for Youth

Worker Mobility projects.

The trends in the Programme implementation in the

Western Balkans look similar in the different partner

countries between 2014 and 2018. The establishment of the

National Agency for Erasmus+ in Serbia makes it a singular

case since 2017, when national calls were opened. That year,

a significant increase in the number of projects both in Youth

Exchanges and European Voluntary Service can be observed

in Serbia.

EVS/ Volunteering is the type of project of the Erasmus+:

Youth in Action programme where finding common trends

was more difficult both in terms of evolution in time and

evolution by country. The only common factor observed was

the lower demand for EVS projects and higher success rate

of applications compared to the other two main types of

projects in all of the countries concerned. Therefore, support

for the implementation of EVS - now European Solidarity

Corps - projects with partners from the Western Balkan

region requires further action on the demand side (i.e.

action to increase the number of applications).

31



5.2. Profile of Programme beneficiaries

The raw data offered by the records of project applications do not allow classifying

the organisations systematically, other than by the country of origin.

Data from the selections at the decentralised level offer the possibility to track every

participating organisation by a single identifier (the Personal Identification Code, PIC). In the desktop research phase, we looked up the beneficiaries of the centralised Western Balkans Youth Window in the PIC search portal of the European

Commission.

The PIC enabled us to identify the number of unique active organisations in the Western Balkan partner countries in the period 2014 - 2017 (and 2018 for Youth

Exchanges and Mobility of Youth Workers). This number is significantly lower than

the one estimated in previous analyses, due to the fact that many organisations are

registered in applications under different names (most frequently using the name in

the local language and in English, or with different abbreviations).

According to the data available, the number of organisations benefitting from a

grant under the Erasmus+: Youth in Action programme in the period under study,

considering both centralised and decentralised procedures, is 743. The distribution

per country is presented in the following chart.

Figure 4: Distribution of unique beneficiary organisations per Western Balkan country (2014-2018) Number of unique beneficiary organisations

Western Balkan Country

32



In order to determine the profile of the beneficiaries, our methodological approach

included a Survey. Out of the 743 organisations, around 470 could be accessed via

records kept by SALTO SEE. They were invited to participate. In addition, an open

call for participation was circulated via different social media in the Western Balkan

region. 95 different registered organisations actually participated in the Survey. The

distribution per country in the sample was similar to the distribution of the com-

plete population shown in the previous figure. The size of the sample, its random

character and its distribution per country enable us to consider it as statistically

representative of the population of Programme beneficiaries in the Western Balkan

partner countries. Hence, we can infer with a high degree of statistical confidence

the profile of the beneficiary organisations in these countries through the analysis

of the sample in the Survey.

For the purposes of the Survey, the beneficiaries of the Programme were catego-

rised by three different criteria described below.

•

Size of the respondent organisations

According to the organisations’ size (as a disaggregating criterion), all respondents

were divided in four groups listed below, based on their own indications. Staff mem-

bers are employees either full-time or part-time:

a) Volunteering organisations: those that are run only by volunteers

b) Small organisations: those having between 1 and 5 staff members

c) Medium organisations: those having between 6 and 10 staff members

d) Large organisations: those having more than 10 staff members.

Figure 5: Distribution of respondents by size of organisation

Number of respondents

33

Respondent’s organisation size



•

Type of respondent organisations

According to the aim and mission of the organisation, the Survey enabled the partic-

ipating organisations to choose between four main categories:

a) Youth organisations

b) NGOs predominantly working with young people

c) Other kinds of NGO

d) Public institutions.

Figure 6: Distribution of respondents by profile of organisation

Number of respondents

Respondent’s organisation profile

•

Dependence of the organisations on Erasmus+: Youth in Action funding

The respondents were classified according to the influence of the Erasmus+: Youth

in Action programme on their overall budget:

a) Less than 25%.

b) Between 25% and 50%.

c) Between 51%-75%.

d) More than 75%

34





Figure 7: Distribution of respondents by dependence of the organisation on Erasmus+: Youth in Action funding

Number of respondents

Organisation dependence on Erasmus+ funding

In the Western Balkan partner countries, around

70% of the beneficiaries of the Erasmus+: Youth

in Action programme are youth organisations and

NGOs working predominantly with young people.

More than half of them are small organisations or

organisations working only with volunteers, and

the vast majority of them is to a small or very small

extent (under 25%) dependent on the Erasmus+:

Youth in Action programme.

35



5.3. Elements influencing the Programme

implementation

5.3.1. Relevance

The study explored the overall relevance of the Erasmus+: Youth in Action pro-

gramme for beneficiaries in the Western Balkan partner countries, in relation to

overall organisational aims and missions and the countries’ youth policy frame-

works. It also looked into the relevance of specific Actions and types of projects.

Furthermore, it researched the benefits organisations associate with the implemen-

tation of Erasmus+: Youth in Action projects.

Looking at the relevance of the Programme for beneficiaries in the Western

Balkan partner countries in relation to their organisational aims and mis-

sions, according to the Survey, organisations in these countries estimate that the

Erasmus+: Youth in Action programme meets their own working priorities to more

than 75%. To the question of how the Programme could be made more relevant for

their organisation, the most frequent responses were: targeting different themes

and/or priorities, and having more funds available and larger number of projects

approved.

Figure 8: Measures suggested to align the Erasmus+: Youth in Action programme to the interests and needs of Western Balkan organisations

Another aspect of relevance refers to the relationship between the objectives of

the Programme and the strategic priorities of the national youth policies in the five

Western Balkan countries. According to the Survey, organisations from the Western

Balkan partner countries perceive the Erasmus+: Youth in Action programme as

highly relevant (to 83%) for the priorities of the national youth policies. This percep-

tion does not depend on the individual Western Balkan country, as respondents

from all countries involved answered similarly to this question.

36

This is consistent with the desktop research findings, since the overall strategic priorities of the national youth policies in the Western Balkan countries concerned

by this study highly correspond with the strategic priorities of the European youth

policy framework (especially the European Youth Strategy 2010-2018). This is not

surprising, having in mind that, in the EU accession phase, all public policy frame-

works have to be harmonised with European standards, including those set in the

field of youth.

In contrast to this ‘external’ coherence and relevance, there is a discrepancy among

the countries when it comes to prioritising policy domains in their national youth

strategies. The results of the comparative review reveal that, for instance, only three

thematic areas (i.e. Employment and entrepreneurship; Participation in civil soci-

ety; and Health and well-being) are prioritised in all five Western Balkan countries,

while the areas of Education and training and Creativity and culture are prioritised

in four of them (Albania, Kosovo, Montenegro, and Serbia). On the other hand, So-

cial inclusion (Kosovo and Serbia) and Voluntary activities (Albania and Kosovo) are

prioritised in youth policy frameworks in only two out of five countries.

Importantly, youth mobility and youth work have not been recognized as priority

areas in any of the five Western Balkan partner countries. Only in Serbia, youth mobility has been recognised as the seventh strategic priority in the national youth

strategy, emphasising the need for enhancing youth mobility, the scope of interna-

tional youth cooperation and support to young migrants. It is also important to un-

derstand that there are obvious comparative differences in defining and interpret-

ing these priory areas (and the measures linked to them) among the five Western

Balkan countries.

In terms of relevance of different types of projects, capacity building has been per-

ceived as the most relevant type of the project, but the level of relevance of all four

types of projects mentioned in this study is comparable (over the 20% in all cas-

es), as is shown in figure 9. The study also analysed the perceived intrinsic benefits

(those directly linked to participation in each of these projects) of the Erasmus+:

Youth in Action programme. This analysis, based on the opinions of the Survey re-

spondents, is also shown in figure 9.

37





Figure 9: Comparison between the distribution of opinions on the intrinsic benefits of Erasmus+: Youth in Action types of projects and the most relevant type of project for the respondents’

organisations.

This comparison shows that there is no complete overlap between the favoured

type of project or activity and the perceived benefit of the Programme that could be

related to it. This could mean that certain benefits are provided by different types

of projects/activities (for example, Capacity Building projects responding to a wide

variety of expectations, or volunteering activities contributing to extrinsic benefits

other than just exchanging volunteers).

In the Focus Groups, the relevance of EVS/Volunteering/ESC projects was confirmed,

while also the challenges with this Action were raised, in particular the lack of finan-

cial and human capacities of many organisations needed for the required long-term

engagement, and the long time-frame between accreditation/Quality Label and the

actual project implementation, indicating, in the words of one participant, that “the

investment is often bigger than the gain”.7 These outcomes are consistent with the

7 In addition, together with Corps often being pronounced and understood as ‘corpse’ (dead body), the rebranding of EVS into ESC (short for ‘Escape’) tends to be considered difficult in a region confronted with a high amount of youth emigration.

38





data gathered through the desk research showing a more limited demand for vol-

unteering than for other types of projects.

Capacity Building projects are homogeneously appraised by all of the different cat-

egories of organisations (i.e. they have been systematically perceived as highly rel-

evant), except by the group of organisations run by volunteers only. Besides the

benefits associated to this Action, it may meet a part of the organisations’ reported

needs, such as thematic autonomy and higher funding.

Finally, the study also looked into the relevance of transversal benefits of the Pro-

gramme for the organisations in the region. The following chart shows the distribu-

tion of relevance of the different benefits for the respondents:

Figure 10. Distribution of Erasmus+: Youth in Action transversal benefits as perceived by the respondents

There is a significant overlap in the perceived benefits expressed through the Survey

and in the Focus Groups. The benefits that were highly rated in the Survey were also

confirmed in the Focus Group discussions. Similarly, the benefits that were graded

lower in the Survey were partially further explained or not even mentioned in Focus

Groups, which confirms their lower relevance for the organisations.

39

The benefits mostly expressed in the Survey and Focus Groups can be classified in five categories:

1. Opportunities for young people’s mobility, intercultural learning and develop-

ment of competences

2. Opportunities for capacity building and career development as youth workers

3. Opportunities for supporting young people with fewer opportunities

4. Opportunities for organisational development and strengthening organisation-

al capacities. These opportunities were more frequently mentioned benefits in

the Focus Groups than in the Survey (e.g. the financial benefit when receiving

a grant and learning how to deal with administrative issues as a basis for using

other, more complicated EU programmes), but participants also reported vari-

ous challenges related to these opportunities.

5. Possibilities to establish long-term partnerships.

These account for almost 80% of the transversal benefits reported (i.e. benefits be-

yond the ones directly connected with a specific type of project).

The less often mentioned benefits include: opportunities for exchanging volunteers

and for sharing practices with other organisations, opportunities for strengthening

youth work structures and achieving organisational sustainability, and possibilities

for hosting international projects.

These outcomes of the Survey and Focus Groups show that the organisations par-

ticipating in the study consider the benefits of the Programme related to support-

ing the development and competences of young people, specifically including those

with fewer opportunities, as well as youth workers higher than those related to

structural and organisational development. In the Focus Groups, more elaborated

reflections were made. In particular, the above mentioned advantages were linked

to the sustainability of the activities.

We also checked, if and how the size and type of organisation (as shown in figures

5 and 5) might have influenced their appreciation of the benefits (listed in figures 9

and 10). Overall, differences were not significant, but some are worth mentioning:

a) The size and type of organisation seems to have an influence on how organ-

isations appraise opportunities to build international partnerships (much more

frequent in middle-sized organisations) and opportunities to receive funding

for sustainability (practically inexistent in the responses of big organisations

and public institutions).

b) Benefits connected to empowering young people with fewer opportunities

and developing key competences of young people are appraised differently by

different types of organisations. In particular, both of these benefits are signifi-

cantly appreciated by youth organisations (more than the other groups). Or-

40





ganisations run only by volunteers as well as public institutions, however, give much more relevance to empowering young people with fewer opportunities

than to building young people’s key competences.

All Actions and types of projects of the Erasmus+:

Youth in Action programme that are open for Partner

countries (KA1 and KA2, Capacity Building) are

significantly relevant for Western Balkan organisations,

and the level of relevance of the different Actions/

types of projects is relatively balanced. The

most relevant Action for the Western Balkan

organisations is Capacity Building. It is the only

Action of the Programme to which Western Balkan

organisations can apply directly. The relevance of

Capacity Building is lower among smaller organisations

and those run by volunteers than for bigger

organisations.

The organisations participating in the study perceive

the Programme also as highly relevant for the national

youth policies in their countries. A comparative review

has shown, however, that while there is overall

a great overlap between national youth policy

priorities and European youth policy frameworks,

there is a discrepancy among the five Western

Balkan countries in prioritising policy domains.

Organisations consider the benefits of the

Programme related to supporting the development

and competences of young people and youth

workers higher than those related to structural

and organisational development. Some types

of organisations, especially organisations run by

volunteers and public institutions, more strongly

appraise benefits associated with supporting young

people with fewer opportunities than those providing

young people with key competences.

41

5.3.2. Accessibility

Another aspect investigated by the study relates to how organisations in the West-

ern Balkan partner countries perceive the accessibility of the Erasmus+: Youth in

Action programme. The study further explored the reasons that contributed to

greater accessibility as well as the hampering factors and challenges linked to the

implementation of the Programme.

Almost two thirds of the organisations participating in the Survey estimate that the

Erasmus+: Youth in Action programme has become more accessible over the years,

and only about 10% of them think the opposite. This perception differs between the

types of organisations depicted in figure 6, and more specifically for youth organisa-

tions, which dominantly think that the Programme has remained equally accessible

over time, so they do not think that it has become easier to obtain funds.

The perception of youth organisations is consistent with the trends analysed and

presented in section 5.1. Youth organisations are generally smaller than the oth-

er types of organisations involved in this study. Furthermore, youth organisations

from Western Balkan partner countries are especially confronted with the reduction

of the success rate in the decentralised selections due to their lack of capacity to

apply directly to the Western Balkans Youth Window, which makes their chances to

benefit from the Programme more limited compared to bigger organisations, which

have more resources or established partnerships. This was also confirmed by the

Focus Groups, where organisations with higher capacities stated the greater acces-

sibility of the Western Balkans Youth Window, while smaller organisations indicated

their difficulties to use this Action.

The greatest percentage of organisations agree about two main reasons for great-

er accessibility of the Programme:

a) Increased access to information and support measures; and

b) The possibility to include more activities under one single project.

Regarding the increased access to information and support measures, the organisa-

tions responding to the Survey appreciate the tools and support provided by SALTO

SEE the most in comparison to other support measures available. The Focus Groups

also showed that the organisations perceive the activities provided by SALTO SEE

and its Contact Points as the most valuable ways of support in the Western Balkan

region. (Support measures are analysed separately in section 5.5 of this study.)

The Focus Groups furthermore confirmed the positive influence of the possibility

for multi-measure projects, especially under the Western Balkans Youth Window,

but this was more acknowledged by experienced organisations. Less experienced

organisations found the preparation and implementation of these kinds of projects

challenging, even though they perceived them as useful for increasing organisation-

al capacities.

42



Cross-sectoral cooperation in the youth field was mentioned by only some organi-

sations in the Survey and it was discussed more in the Focus Groups, with the con-

clusion that it is not much used by organisations and might, indeed, still represent

a novelty for the youth work field the Western Balkan partner countries. Organi-

sations expressed the perception that cross-sectoral cooperation was needed to

achieve greater impact and influence policy, but there was more support needed to

further develop understanding and capacities, especially towards the public sector.

Figure 11. Distribution of favourable factors for accessibility to the Erasmus+: Youth in Action programme

Regardless of the overwhelming majority of organisations assessing the Erasmus+:

Youth in Action programme as more accessible now, there was still a considerably

high number of reasons listed as hampering its accessibility, which shows that there

is ample room for improvement.

The three most frequently identified reasons hampering accessibility of the

Programme are:

•

Increased difficulties to find interested partners from Programme coun-

tries;

•

Increased complexity of Programme rules processes; and

•

Higher competition in selections and low rate of success of the projects

submitted to National Agencies in which the organisations were partners.

In a separate question, the Survey explored the organisations’ perception of the inter-

est of organisations in Programme countries to establish partnerships with Western

Balkan organisations. The correlation of this variable with the rest of the responses

related to Programme accessibility, and in particular the difficulty to find partners, is

very low. This indicates that the perceived interest in the Western Balkan region, by

organisations in Programme countries, may not be a significant factor in explaining

43

the actual decreasing trend in the number of projects with the Western Balkan region,





meaning that some other factors are more relevant. At the same time, a significant

number of respondents rating this level of interest as average or high still think that

the difficulty to find partners for projects has increased over the time.

Figure 12. Distribution of hampering factors for accessibility of the Erasmus+: Youth in Action programme

These findings correlate significantly with the trends identified through analysis of

the raw data included in section 5.1., revealing that ‘competition’ and ‘decline of the

success rate’ are two significant factors influencing the demand (number of applica-

tions presented) and the final beneficiaries (number of applications approved). This

is also consistent with the fact that the reason less frequently used in the Survey as

a reason for greater accessibility of the Programme was: ‘it has become easier for

us to obtain funds’.

Based on these findings, there are indications for concluding that the Programme

format, procedures and types of projects have made the Programme more acces-

sible for bigger and more experienced organisations than for smaller and youth

organisations.

There was a high level of agreement between the data obtained through the Sur-

vey and the Focus Groups. The Focus Groups allowed for deeper discussions about

the challenges encountered during the implementation of projects and provided a

broader set of elements worth considering in terms of providing further support for

effective participation in the Programme. The most frequently mentioned additional

obstacles referring to accessibility (presented in figure 13) are:

a) challenges related to the limited funding opportunities for organisational

staff, such as leaders of youth exchanges, or overhead costs;

b) challenges related to understanding of the ideology and philosophy of the

Programme (different understanding of quality in projects, rebranding of

EVS);

44

c) challenges related to providing the adequate profile of participants (e.g.

youth workers, young people with fewer opportunities);

d) lack and/or instability of organisational human capacities.

Participants in the Focus Groups also identified specific challenges in some Western

Balkan countries affecting the implementation of the Programme. The most rele-

vant ones are:

•

Bosnia and Herzegovina: a) complex political system affecting procedures, b)

visa issues with Kosovo, c) lack of recognition of youth work and volunteering.

•

Kosovo: a) existence of other big funding programs which are more accessible,

b) specific political status of Kosovo regarding procedural aspects, c) visa issues

with other countries, d) lack of cooperation between organisations, e) lack of

interest in the Programme by national authorities.

•

Montenegro: a) administrative challenges related to taxes, b) lack of interest/

support related to the Programme by national authorities.

45





Almost two thirds of the organisations involved in

the study think that the Programme has become

more accessible over the years, and only about 10%

of all organisations think it has become less accessible.

The Programme was assessed as more accessible

by organisations of all sizes, but the percentage of

those assessing it as such is the highest among larger

organisations. The majority of youth organisations,

however, think that the Programme has remained

equally accessible.

Two main reasons for greater accessibility of the

Programme are mentioned: increased access

to information and support measures, and the

possibility to include more activities in one project.

The three most frequently quoted reasons for

preventing accessibility are: it has become more

difficult to find interested partners from the

Programme countries; Programme rules and

processes have become more complex and the

projects in which the organisations were partners

were not approved by the National Agencies. These

reasons are quoted by all types of organisations,

but they affect more seriously smaller and youth

organisations.

The centralised Western Balkan Window has offered

additional access to the Programme, mainly for

already experienced organisations which have

significant resources. Smaller organisations lack the

capacities to benefit fully from the opportunities of this

Action.

46



5.3.3. Support provided by the support structures

(SALTO SEE and EACEA)

Support measures are perceived as an important element for facilitating the acces-

sibility of the Programmes. The study looked particularly into the support provided

by SALTO SEE as the Programme’s main support structure in the Western Balkan

partner countries, and to a lesser degree also into the support offered by the Euro-

pean Commission’s Executive Agency (EACEA).

The Survey analysed five different components of SALTO SEE support measures:

a) Contact Points

b) participation in international support activities

c) publications

d) direct support and information

e) activities supporting volunteering

All services are perceived as helpful or very helpful, scoring around 80% in all com-

ponents, except for the service of Contact Points, which are also perceived as help-

ful, but scoring around 75% on average and showing a great difference in opinions

among the respondents from different countries.

Figure 13. Respondents’ perception of helpfulness of SALTO SEE support measures

According to the Survey respondents, the most frequently used resources are pub-

lications. The services of the Contact Points and EVS/Volunteering related activities

are the least frequently used. This can be explained by the greater accessibility of

47

publications for everyone, as they are available online and might refer to the whole

SALTO network (thematically more extensive and versatile)8. In contrast, Contact Points are more specific for a particular purpose and location, and activities related

to EVS/ Volunteering are relevant only for a limited number of organisations.

The Focus Groups showed that the types of support mostly identified and appreci-

ated by the organisations are: information provided on the SALTO SEE web page,

trainings and other activities organised by SALTO SEE9, and ongoing communication

and exchange of information. This is also consistent with the information gathered

through the Survey.

The Focus Groups confirmed the different level of satisfaction with the support pro-

vided by the Contact Points in different countries, consistently with the data of the

Survey. Organisations from Serbia, for example, felt well supported and informed,

while the organisations from Bosnia and Herzegovina and, in particular, Kosovo ex-

pressed a need for more support and improved work of the Contact Points. Limited

feedback was received from the organisations from Albania and Montenegro in the

Survey, which also limits the possibility of creating any general conclusion about the

perception of usefulness of the Contact Points in these countries.

It is worth mentioning that this appraisal is in line with feedback SALTO SEE received

on other occasions outside this study. The Contact Points, nominated and support-

ed by SALTO SEE, are the only support structures for the Erasmus+ programme

in the field of youth, and now also for the European Solidarity Corps, based in the

Western Balkan partner countries. Generally speaking, their resources and capac-

ities are too limited to fully respond to the needs for support claimed by organisa-

tions/ potential Programme beneficiaries. In some countries, Contact Points receive

some additional support from their national authorities (mostly on an occasional

rather than a regular basis). The feedback received through this study also shows

a certain correlation between the amount of support provided by the countries’

national authorities for the Contact Points (and the Programmes in general) and the

Contact Points’ visibility.

The support provided by the EACEA for projects within the Western Balkans Youth

Window was identified as a source of information in our study and therefore ad-

dressed in the Focus Groups, but it was not frequently mentioned by the participants.

The web page of the EACEA was assessed by the Focus Groups participants as ‘not

youth friendly’, and communication with EACEA staff was dominantly appraised as

'difficult’, but also partially positively, ‘relying on the project officer in charge of the project file’. The online info-sessions (webinars) offered were perceived as helpful.

8 Publications and tools are published by all SALTO Resource Centres on the same website www.salto-

youth.net, and experience has shown that users are not necessarily always aware of the specific SALTO

Resource Centre that has produced them.

9 Support activities organised by SALTO SEE include training courses, seminars, partner-finding activities and other kinds of activities organised in cooperation with National Agencies and other SALTOs as well as activities organised by others, where SALTO SEE supports the participation of participants from Western Balkan partner countries. They also include trainings and meetings for organisations and volunteers organised specifically in the framework of EVS/Volunteering/European Solidarity Corps.

48





Services provided by SALTO SEE are perceived as

helpful or very helpful, scoring around 80% in all

components (referring to participation in international

activities; publications; direct support and information;

and activities supporting volunteering). The support

services provided by the Contact Points are appraised 5%

lower and show greater differences in assessment among

respondents in different countries.

The resources that are the most frequently used

are publications available online. EVS/Volunteering

related activities and the services of Contact Points

address more specific target groups and are therefore

less used. Improvement of the Contact Point services and

their visibility are requested in some countries.

The most appreciated type of support of the EACEA

in the centralised procedures within the Western

Balkans Youth Window are online info-sessions

and the direct contact with EACEA project officers.

Smaller and youth organisations perceive the EACEA as

less supportive than organisations that have already

implemented funded projects.

49





6. Recommendations

This chapter presents some recommendations for the further development and

implementation of the EU youth programmes in and with the Western Balkan

partner countries. They are based on the conclusions of the study and the is-

sues raised by the organisations participating in the Survey and Focus Groups,

described in chapter 5. Due to the development of the programmes during

the past years, while the study focused on the Erasmus+: Youth in Action pro-

gramme, the recommendations also target the European Solidarity Corps.

6.1. Recommendations to increase the relevance

of the EU youth programmes for organisations in

the Western Balkan partner countries

The relevance of the Programmes for the organisations in the Western Balkan

partner countries and their interest to invest in participating are clearly

depending on their real chances to implement projects and to use the

Programmes according to their capacities and specific missions. Both are the

most frequent aspects raised in the Survey and Focus Groups. Moreover, the

trends of the desk research have shown that the chance to receive a project

grant has significantly conditioned the organisations’ behaviour. As has also

been shown by the study, the success rate of applications is higher and its

increase therefore less relevant for ESC/ volunteering projects.

Accordingly, to make the Programmes more relevant and interesting for organ-

isations and potential beneficiaries, the recommendations are:

a) Within Erasmus+: Youth in Action, making more funds available, in partic-

ular at the decentralised level, to increase the success rate of applications

and the number of approved projects;

b) Including additional thematic priorities in the calls. Themes should be

decided carefully considering needs and interests of organisations and well

as national/ regional (Western Balkans) and European policy frameworks

51

and priorities.

Another recommendation refers to the relevance of the EU youth programmes for the strategic priorities of the national youth policy frameworks in the Western Balkan partner countries.

c) Having in mind the lack of recognition of youth mobility, youth work and volun-

teering identified in the region, promoting synergies between the develop-

ment of national youth policies and the EU youth programmes in the West-

ern Balkans region and exploring how the Programmes can support recognition

of these strategic priorities as well as the alignment of national youth policies

with the new EU Youth Strategy 2019-2027.

6.2. Recommendations to improve the accessibility

of the EU youth programmes for organisations in

Western Balkan partner countries

Even though the conclusions of the study indicate that the Erasmus+: Youth in Action

programme has become more accessible over the years, this does not concern all

types of organisations equally. In fact, the programmes have become increasingly

more accessible for organisations with higher capacities than for smaller organ-

isations with fewer resources, which constitute the majority of beneficiaries.

To counter this trend, in addition to increasing the success rate of applications

(which, besides raising the organisations’ interest in the Programmes, would con-

tribute to improving their accessibility), the following recommendations can be ex-

tracted from the outcomes of the Survey and the Focus Groups:

a) Simplifying the procedures and requirements related to project applications

and implementation, in particular to facilitate the participation of youth and

smaller organisations in projects adapted to their capacities (for instance by

shortening the time-frame between project applications and implementation10;

creating a separate slot for small organisations or small-scale projects, and hav-

ing more than one deadline per year for Capacity Building or similar types of

projects);

In the framework of the European Solidarity Corps, simplifying and shortening

procedures and the time-frame between the Quality Label application and the

project implementation.

b) Increasing monitoring of organisations and projects in the Western Balkan

partner countries with the aim to better identify if organisations are qualified

10 The time-frame of the overall project application – implementation process is important in the social context of the Western Balkan region, where long-term planning is challenging due to mainly project-based funding of organisations, and because many young people consider leaving their town or country in search of better opportunities, often in EU countries, and are not ready or able to commit to involvement a project that might be implemented many months later (if the application is successful).

52

and have the capacities to implement the projects applied for, thereby increasing the diversity of beneficiaries and the quality of projects. (Specific sugges-

tions of the Focus Groups include quality label entry access to the Programmes

and increased monitoring measures for multiple-grant beneficiaries.)

c) Developing a more supportive approach to applicants for Capacity Build-

ing projects at the level of the EACEA, aiming to help applicants more effective-

ly to improve the quality of their project applications and to receive a grant (e.g.

upon renewed submission at the next deadline).

6.3. Recommendations to better adapt support

services to the needs of organisations in the

Western Balkan partner countries

Finally, as also expressed by the organisations participating in the study, support

activities are essential to improving access and quality implementation of the

Programmes. The recommendations include:

a) More strongly adapting and targeting support and information activities

about the Programmes to different kinds of target groups (for instance, nation-

al information and training sessions for different target groups; specific support

measures to develop cross-sectoral cooperation etc.);

b) Translating key documents of the Programmes (i.e. principles and proce-

dures) into the languages of the Western Balkans and making more support

materials available in local languages in order to facilitate understanding, espe-

cially among smaller/new organisations;

c) Facilitating more networking & partnership-building activities

•

for organisations at national and regional (Western Balkan) level to facili-

tate networking and peer-learning and

•

between organisations from Programme and Western Balkan partner

countries to overcome the experienced difficulties in finding suitable part-

ners, especially for Western Balkan organisations that do not belong to in-

ternational networks.

d) Making specific support measures available within the European Solidarity

Corps, to support organisations that are already (or are planning to be) active

and, in particular, to reach out to potential new beneficiaries;

e) Providing specific support to Contact Points, especially in those countries,

where the Programme might have lower institutional visibility. This support is

suggested in financial, capacity-building and promotional terms, in order to im-

prove relevant competences, resources and visibility.

53

6.4. Concluding remarks

In order to implement these recommendations, a strategic approach and ad-

equate resources will be needed at the level of further development of the Pro-

grammes as well as the implementation of support measures by SALTO SEE – in-

cluding its Contact Points and the experts11 that the Centre works with on a regular

basis - and other main stakeholders in the field of youth working in and with the

Western Balkan region. These include in particular the European Commission, the

EACEA and National Agencies for the EU programmes in the field of youth in Pro-

gramme countries, but also main actors in the field of youth in the Western Balkan

partner countries, such as national authorities in charge of youth, and organisations

and networks with relevant experience and capacities.

Last but not least, it seems worth noting that the above-listed recommendations

do not refer much to building competences and capacities of youth workers. This

may not come as a surprise as this aspect has been appreciated by the organisa-

tions participating in this study as one of the main benefits of the Programmes. The

recommendation would therefore be to keep investing in building competences

of youth workers, youth leaders and other practitioners working with young

people in the Western Balkan partner countries in different areas of relevance.

What seems more challenging is the question of how these developed compe-

tences and capacities can be transferred more strongly from an essentially

personal benefit (with some temporary added value for the organisation) to sup-

porting the sustainability, recognition and indeed, the professional develop-

ment of youth work as such in these countries. Thinking of how the Programmes

could be used more effectively to contribute to efforts already being made at na-

tional levels in this direction should be a part of the strategy to address the recom-

mendations that are coming out of this study.

11 Experts include in particular members of the SALTO SEE pools of trainers and European Solidarity Corps Quality Label experts/assessors, but also researchers or other experts working with SALTO SEE.

54

7. Bibliography

Reports, Studies and Working Papers:

•

MOVIT and SALTO SEE Resource Centre (2019), Learning support within

volunteering projects in Slovenia and the Western Balkans: practices, challenges and

needs for development, available at: https://www.salto-youth.net/rc/see/resources/

learningsupport/.

•

Network of National Agencies in charge of the youth field of the Erasmus+

programme and the European Solidarity Corps (2019), Cooperation with

neighbouring partner countries within the European youth programmes:

recommendations for the new programmes 2021 – 2027, available at: https://www.

salto-youth.net/downloads/4-17-3995/Co-operation%20wirth%20NPC_FINAL%20

DOCUMENT.pdf

•

SALTO SEE Resource Centre (October 2018), Cooperation with Neighbouring Partner

Countries under Erasmus+: Youth in Action, Statistical Analysis, available at: https://

www.salto-youth.net/rc/see/resources/npcstatistics2014-2017/.

•

SALTO SEE Resource Centre (2015), Impact of the Cooperation with South East

Europe within the Youth in Action Programme, available at: https://www.salto-youth.

net/rc/see/resources/yiaimpactsee/.

•

SALTO SEE Resource Centre (2018), Recent Achievements and Current Challenges

in Youth Policies in the Western Balkans (WB6), by Sladjana PETKOVIC, Pool of

European Youth Researchers (PEYR), working document, available at: https://

www.salto-youth.net/downloads/4-17-3791/Youth%20policies%20in%20the%20

WB%2C%20Sladjana%20Petkovic.pdf.

•

Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (2019a), Youth Study Southeast Europe 2018/2019, available

at: http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id-moe/15274-20190408.pdf.

•

Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (2019b), Youth Study Albania 2018/2019, available at:

http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id-moe/15261.pdf.

•

Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (2019c), Youth Study Bosnia and Herzegovina 2018/2019,

available at: http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id-moe/15262.pdf.

55

•

Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (2019d), Youth Study Kosovo 2018/2019, available at:

http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id-moe/15264.pdf.

•

Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (2019e), Youth Study Montenegro 2018/2019, available at:

http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id-moe/15267.pdf.

•

Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (2019f), Youth Study Serbia 2018/2019, available at:

http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id-moe/15269-20190411.pdf.

•

The Ministry of Youth and Sport of the Republic of Serbia and the United Nations

Population Fund in Serbia (2014), Evaluation of the National Youth Strategy (2008) in the

Republic of Serbia and Action Plan 2009 – 2014, prepared by Yael Ohana & Marija Bulat,

available at: https://www.mos.gov.rs/wp-content/uploads/download-manager-files/

Evaluation_of_the_National_Youth_Strategy_eng.pdf.

Policy Documents:

Albania

•

The Ministry of Social Welfare and Youth (2015), NATIONAL YOUTH ACTION PLAN 2015-

2020, available at: http://www.un.org.al/sites/default/files/plani%20kombetar%20i%20

veprimit%20per%20rinine%202015-2020_ENG.pdf.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

•

The Draft Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Youth Strategy (2015) adopted by The

Government of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (not available online).

•

The Youth Policy of Republic of Srpska for 2016-2020 in the Republic of Srpska, available

at: www.vladars.net/eng/vlada/ministries/MFYS/Documents/The%25252520Youth%2525

2520Policy%25252520for%252525202016-2020,%25252520pdf_450916894.pdf.

•

The Law on Volunteering of the Republic of Srpska, available at: www.youthpolicy.org/

wp-content/uploads/library/No_Date_BiH_RS_Law_Volunteering.pdf.

•

The Law on Youth Organisation of the Republic of Srpska, available

at: www.vladars.net/eng/vlada/ministries/MFYS/Documents/

Law%25252520on%25252520youth%25252520organization_125445029.pdf.

•

The Youth Law of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (2010),

available at: https://mladi.org/v2/dokumenti/zakoni-o-mladima/

youth%25252520law%25252520fbih%2525252036-10.pdf.

•

The Law on Volunteering of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, available at:

https://advokat-prnjavorac.com/zakoni/Zakon_o_volontiranju_FBiH.pdf.

•

The Law on Youth of the Brick District, available at: https://skupstinabd.ba/ba/

zakon.html?lang=ba&id=/Zakon%25252520o%25252520mladima%25252520Brc--

ko%25252520distrikta%25252520BiH.

•

The Law on Volunteering of the Brick District, available at: https://skupstinabd.ba/ba/

zakon.html?lang=ba&id=/Zakon%25252520o%25252520volontiranju

56

Kosovo

•

Republic of Kosovo, Kosovo Strategy for Youth 2013-2017, available at: www.youthpolicy.

org/wp-content/uploads/library/Kosovo_2013_Youth_Strategy_Action_Plan_eng.pdf

•

Republic of Kosovo, The Law on Empowerment and Participation of Youth (2009) in

Kosovo (Zakon br. 03/L- 145 O OMLADINSKOM ORGANIZOVANJU, Skupština Republike

Kosovo), available at: www.youthpolicy.org/national/Kosovo_2009_Youth_Law.pdf.

Montenegro

•

The Ministry of Education, The Ministry of Sports, The UN System in Montenegro (2016),

YOUTH STRATEGY 2017-2021, available at: https://www.un.org.me/Library/Youth-Empow

erment/1a%2525252520Youth%2525252520Strategy%25252525202017-2021.pdf.

•

The Law on Youth (2019) in Montenegro, available at: www.katalogpropisa.me/wp-

content/uploads/2019/07/Zakon-o-mladima.pdf.

Serbia

•

The Ministry of Youth and Sports, National Youth Strategy 2015-2025, available at:

www.mos.gov.rs/mladisuzakon/attachments/article/389/nacionalna_strategija_za_

mlade0101_cyr.pdf.

•

The Law on Youth (2011) in Serbia, available at: www.mos.gov.rs/wp-content/

uploads/2014/04/Zakon_o_mladima.pdf.

Youth Wiki:

Contribution of Non-Programme Countries to EU Youth Wiki Chapter 1:

•

Bosnia and Herzegovina: Youth Policy Governance, Jasmin Jasarevic, EKCYP

Correspondent. Published: February 2017

•

Albania: Youth Policy Governance, Kreshnik Loka Published: April 2017.

•

Kosovo: Youth Policy Governance, Pajtim Zeqiri Published: December 2017.

•

Montenegro: Youth Policy Governance, Sladjana Petkovic, PEYR. Published: Febru-

ary 2017.

•

Serbia: Youth Policy Governance, Bojana Perovic, EKCYP Correspondent. Published:

February 2017.

All available at: https://pjp-eu.coe.int/en/web/youth-partnership/contribution-eu-youth-wiki

57

8. Glossary

Accreditation: In this study, it refers to the recognition of quality that an organ-

isation was required to receive in order to be able to apply for financial support

for Erasmus+, European Voluntary Service / Volunteering projects.

Beneficiary: In this study, this term refers to a person or an organisation partic-

ipating in any activity funded by the Programmes of the European Commission.

Capacity Building: In this study, it refers to a specific Action (within Key Action

2) of the Erasmus+: Youth in Action programme, which promotes developing

and strengthening the skills, competences, operational processes and resources

of the participating organisations and their staff.

Centralised action: Any action of the European Commission funded pro-

grammes that is managed by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive

Agency (EACEA).

Decentralised action: Any action of the European Commission funded pro-

grammes that is managed by National Agencies for Erasmus+ in Programme

Countries.

EACEA: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency of the European

Commission. It is the Executive Agency in charge of the decision-making pro-

cess and the management of some actions or calls under the Erasmus+: Youth

in Action programme and the European Solidarity Corps (centralised actions/

calls). In this study, reference is made in particular to Capacity Building projects

submitted within the so-called Western Balkans Youth Window.

Erasmus+: Youth in Action: Programme of the European Commission for edu-

cation, culture, youth and sports. Erasmus+: Youth in Action refers to the part of

the Programme covering the youth field.

European Solidarity Corps: European Commission funded programme replac-

ing EVS in 2018.

58

European Voluntary Service (EVS): One of the Actions of the Erasmus+: Youth in Action programme, which promoted transnational exchange of young volunteers

between organisations with the main aim to provide a learning experience for the

volunteer and a service experience for the hosting organisation and local communi-

ty. The European Voluntary Service was replaced by the European Solidarity Corps

in 2018.

Mobility of Youth Workers: Type of project funded by the Erasmus+: Youth in

Action Programme, which allows actors in the youth field to set up, together with

partners, activities for youth workers and youth leaders to support their profession-

al development and strengthen their competences of working directly with young

people.

Mobility Project: A project involving transnational activities.

National Agency: Structure(s) established by the national authorities in each Pro-

gramme country in order to assist the European Commission with most of the ac-

tions of the Erasmus+ programme and the European Solidarity Corps. The National

agency/-ies in each country assume/s full responsibility in the decision-making pro-

cess and the management of the decentralised projects (in case of several National

Agencies, related to their area of competence).

Partner country: Refers to each county that is not a Programme country but can

participate in some of the actions funded by the Erasmus+ programme.

Programme country: Each country that participates in all actions funded by the

Erasmus+ Programme. All European Union member states and some additional

countries are Programme countries (see Erasmus+ Programme Guide for list of

countries).

Quality Label (QL): In this study, it refers to the recognition of quality that an organisation must obtain to participate in some of the activities funded by the European

Solidarity Corps.

SALTO SEE: One of seven SALTO Resource Centres supporting the implementation

of the Erasmus+: Youth in Action Programme and the European Solidarity Corps.

The SALTO South East Europe Resource Centre (SALTO SEE) promotes and supports

the cooperation between organisations from Programme countries and the Pro-

gramme’s partner countries in the Western Balkans.

Strategic Partnership: An action of the Erasmus + Programme supporting the de-

velopment, transfer and/or implementation of innovative practices as well as the

implementation of joint initiatives promoting cooperation, peer learning and ex-

changes of experience at European level.

The Programme: In this study, it refers to the Erasmus+: Youth in Action Pro-

59

gramme.

The Programmes: In this study, it refers to the Erasmus+: Youth in Action programme and the European Solidarity Corps.

Western Balkans Youth Window: Specific centralised call for proposals addressed

to organisations established in Erasmus+ Western Balkan partner countries. It has

been regularly in operation since 2015. Organisations can apply directly to EACEA

for funds for Capacity Building projects (under Key Action 2 of the Erasmus+: Youth

in Action programme)

Youth Exchange: Type of project funded by the Erasmus+: Youth in Action Pro-

gramme, which promotes non-formal and informal learning in youth work. It en-

ables groups of young people from different countries to spend up to 21 days to-

gether, exploring topics that connect them.

Youth Organisation: In this study, the meaning refers to that commonly used by

the European Youth Forum: a social organisation set up to serve young people and

where young people are in charge of the organisational structure. Regarding the

general principles of operation, a youth organisation is democratic, non-govern-

mental and not for profit.

Youth Worker: A person whose job involves providing support and social activities

for young people (often belonging to vulnerable groups).

60

9. Annexes

The reports of the different parts of the study include more detailed information.

All available on the SALTO website here:

https://www.salto-youth.net/rc/see/resources/erasmus-study/

•

Annex 1: Selected Comparative Data, Mobility Projects (decentralised level),

2014 – 2018

•

Annex 2: Survey Analysis Report

•

Annex 3: Focus Groups Report

•

Annex 4: Political Analysis (summary report)

61

MOVIT and SALTO South East Europe

Resource Centre

MOVIT has been the Slovenian National Agency for EU programmes in the field of

youth, currently Erasmus+: Youth in Action and the European Solidarity Corps, since

May 1999. In this role, MOVIT is manages decentralised EU budget funds and sup-

ports different forms of learning mobility activities in youth work. It also runs ac-

tivities to promote the development of youth work and non-formal education, in

particular activities contributing to strengthening European cooperation in the field

of youth. Since 2018, the European Solidarity Corps has extended these fields also

to other spheres and actors organising solidarity activities as a means to contribute

to strengthening cohesion, solidarity, democracy and citizenship in Europe.

Along with its role as a National Agency, MOVIT also serves as an office of Eurodesk,

the European Commission’s info service offering EU-related information to young

people.

In 2002, MOVIT took over as the SALTO South East Europe Resource Centre (SALTO

SEE), which promotes cooperation with the Programmes’ Western Balkan partner

countries within the Erasmus+: Youth in Action programme and the European Soli-

darity Corps, through training and partner-finding activities and various other sup-

port measures, tools and resources. SALTO SEE aims to contribute to youth work

and youth policy development in the Western Balkan region, in collaboration with

other stakeholders and the help of pools of trainers, Quality Label experts and Con-

tact Points located in the Programmes’ partner countries in the region.

SALTO SEE is part of the network of SALTO Resource Centres. SALTOs provide re-

sources, such as tools and support materials and activities, for youth workers, train-

ers and other practitioners in the field of youth work to support organisations and

National Agencies in the frame of the Erasmus+ programme and the European Sol-

idarity Corps and beyond.

More information:

www.salto-youth.net

see@salto-youth.net; www.salto-youth.net/see

www.movit.si



MOVIT

SALTO South East Europe Resource Centre

National Agency of the EU Programmes

Erasmus+: Youth in Action

and European Solidarity Corps

Dunajska cesta 5

1000 Ljubljana

Phone: +386 (0) 1 430 47 47

www.movit.si; info@movit.si

www.salto-youth.net/see;

see@salto-youth.net

This publication was made possible with the support of the

European Commission and the Office of the Republic of Slovenia

for Youth. The information and views expressed in this publication

are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of

the European Commission or the Office of the Republic of Slovenia

for Youth. The European Commission, the Office of the Republic of

Slovenia for Youth and the Slovenian National Agency cannot be

held responsible for the use which may be made of the information

contained therein.

About this publication

As preparations for the new generation of EU youth programmes are ongoing, it is important

to see how the current Programmes have been implemented and what we can learn for the

future. SALTO SEE has investigated how Erasmus+: Youth in Action has been implemented

in the Programme’s partner countries in the Western Balkans, what are the trends and how

they can be explained. This study includes recommendations for measures that could further

support the cooperation with this region within the EU youth programmes and ensure that

they remain relevant and accessible for the organisations that would like to use it.





Document Outline


_GoBack

_Hlk17386647

_Hlk17107854

_Hlk17208330

_Hlk24916420

_Hlk17805787

_Hlk17823039