Aarlenstraat 22

1050 Brussels Belgium

+32 (0)2 511 50 40

Country reports analysis

Erasmus+ midterm evaluation Brussels, January 2018

Country reports analysis Erasmus+ midterm evaluation

3

Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3

Executive summary ................................................................................................................... 4

Analysis of Country reports ....................................................................................................... 6

Financing of the Programme ................................................................................................. 6

Administrative burden........................................................................................................... 8

Reach people with lower opportunities or special needs ................................................... 11

IT tools ................................................................................................................................. 12

Collaboration between different sectors and stakeholders ............................................... 14

Dissemination of results ...................................................................................................... 16

Vocational Education and Training (VET), school education and adult education ............. 17

European added value ......................................................................................................... 19

(De)centralisation ................................................................................................................ 21

International cooperation ................................................................................................... 22

Synergies with other programmes ...................................................................................... 22

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................. 23

Introduction

The present paper will outline and discuss 21 country reports that are part of the mid-term

evaluation of the Erasmus+ programme, assessed on national, institutional and individual

levels. It is not the purpose of this document to form an explicit opinion about the next

Erasmus+ programme, yet the comparison is made to give a clear overview of the current

developments on the different levels in which Erasmus+ operates. The following paragraphs

will summarise the general conclusions and recommendations of national evaluations and

analyse current and expected European action for the follow-up programme of Erasmus+.

The discussions will focus on higher education, vocational education, adult education.

The analysed national reports include those of the following European countries: Croatia

(HR), Czech Republic (CZ), Finland (FI), Flanders (Belgium - BE), France (FR), Germany (DE),

Hungary (HU), Iceland (IS), Ireland (IE), Italy (IT), Lithuania (LT), Luxembourg (LU), Norway

(NO), Portugal (PT), Romania (RO), Slovakia (SK), Slovenia (SI), Spain (ES), Sweden (SE) and

The Netherlands (NL). In addition, the Swiss (CH) feedback to the Erasmus+ mid-term

evaluation is considered in this analysis.

Country reports analysis Erasmus+ midterm evaluation

4

Executive summary

The mid-term evaluations of the Erasmus+ programme examined the programme’s

effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, added value and sustainability. To this end,

the programme is deemed effective by most and all countries present positive results.

Financing of the Programme

All national reports used in this comparison argue that the current budget does not allow a

sufficient amount of applications to be satisfied. However, there are nuances with regards to

the allocation of an increased budget. Whereas some countries would like to see more

budget to either KA1, KA2 or KA3, others specify the need for more budget towards the

Vocational Education and Training (VET) sector.

Administrative burden

Accessibility and efficiency of the programme are held back by the great administrative

burden in application processes. Most reports argue that a lighter, faster and easier track

has to be made available to make the programme accessible for organisations or individuals

that either have less resources or are disadvantaged in any other way. Furthermore, many

countries recommend to improve and simplify the digital tools so they communicate more

effectively. This could help reduce the administrative burden for institutions.

Reach youth with lower opportunities or special needs Reports recommend that specific initiatives be set up to create a better outreach to those

groups that are difficult to approach. Moreover, projects that encourage participation of

disadvantaged people could be promoted more.

IT tools

The digital tools of Erasmus+ are time-consuming and fragmented. It is highlighted that the

Commission should not develop new IT tools, but rather focus on the existing ones and

integrate them. Preferably this would result in the combination of all tools into one single

digital tool.

Collaboration between different sectors and stakeholders

There should be an increase in cross-sectoral projects. Synergies are already present and the

advantages are slowly emerging, yet NA’s could do more to promote these collaborations.

Joint activities can also help to disseminate project results, which is automatically a

promotion of those joint projects.

Dissemination of results Disseminating project results will result in better long-term effects and sharing knowledge

leads to qualitatively better projects and less overlap of work (i.e. repeating similar projects).

Too little attention is paid to the dissemination of results and there is need for a more

strategic approach to improve this. However, there are subtle differences with regards to

how to tackle this question. In order to make every Erasmus+ project sustainable, some say

that applicants have to be supported in disseminating the results of their projects, while

others mention that dissemination on a systemic level deserves priority.

Country reports analysis Erasmus+ midterm evaluation

5

VET, school education and adult education

There are different ways in which countries want Erasmus+ to be more inclusive towards the

VET and adult education sector. School education is mentioned in the reports but will not be

discussed in this analysis. It is stated that the VET sector needs more financial resources and

there needs to be a better system to reach VET students and schools to participate in the

programme. Moreover, flexibility for mobility periods would be better for the VET sector and

adult education should be better incorporated in the programme.

European added value The European added value brought about by Erasmus+ has different aspects:

• Erasmus+ enables and advances international collaboration opportunities;

• Erasmus+ is a driver of European economic growth;

• Erasmus+ carries forward a feeling of European citizenship and naturally promotes

tolerance and acceptance;

• Erasmus+ promotes lifelong learning;

• Erasmus+ improves the quality of national education programmes;

• Erasmus+ promotes the EU’s linguistic diversity.

(De)centralization, international cooperation and synergies

The discussion about (de)centralisation is divided and all countries have their own ideas

about what, if anything, needs to be changed about the system. It is scarcely mentioned that

the EU should put more effort into international cooperation outside of existing partner

countries or fostering synergies with other programmes.

Country reports analysis Erasmus+ midterm evaluation

6

Analysis of Country reports

Financing of the Programme

National reports

Croatia: An increase to the budget for KA2 is needed, as demand for funding exceeds

available grant monies considerably, resulting in low grant award rates. The relationship

between the size and number of grants may require some consideration. Downsizing at

least some of the grants may broaden the participant base. At the same time, the possibility

of assuring adequate funding for high-level projects aimed at systemic-level impacts should

not be omitted either.

Czech Republic: According to the National Authority, the Erasmus+ budget is not

proportionate with the objectives, that the Erasmus+ programme is set out to achieve.

Flanders (Belgium): For KA1 in Flanders, the available budget clearly does not suffice to

cover the demand in the fields of school education, adult education and higher education.

With regards to KA2 (cooperation for innovation and good practices) in Flanders, although

considered as essential for a systemic impact by all actors, its effectiveness seems to be

limited at this moment. This is, among others, is due to budgetary constraints […]

France: Confirm the current financial perspectives until 2020 and, in order to better respond

to the pressure of demand, increase the budget on the entire programme, while

maintaining a selection procedure for projects meeting the same level of requirements.

Germany: Significant budget growth is essential to maintain and further improve the

reputation of the individual programme areas acquired over decades.

Hungary: In general the size of the budget seems to be sufficient, however the planned

budget growth is expected by all the sectors.

Iceland: Although simplified grants and unit cost have benefited the projects financial issues

are seen as challenges and difficulties in implementing the projects. Institutions cannot pay

people to manage the projects take care of applications and financial issues and the funding

does not cover it.

Ireland: The budget available nationally to support the implementation of Erasmus+ is

thought to be adequate. The view emerging from the national agencies is that more

flexibility, within agreed limits, would be beneficial to the implementation of the

programme in Ireland and to the maximum utilisation of available budget.

Italy: The efficiency in the programme implementation will surely benefit from the overall

increase of the budget, which should also be accompanied by a rationalization of the

Country reports analysis Erasmus+ midterm evaluation

7

budget and by a further simplification of procedures, that would certainly facilitate the

involvement of a larger number of potential beneficiaries.

Lithuania: The share of budget allocated to Lithuania is insufficient to meet the demand in

all programme fields.

Norway: The NA leaderships find that the total budget for decentralised actions is

adequate. However, within some sectors, the funding for certain actions are inadequate. In

Norway, within education and training, there is in particular a need for more funding for VET

pupil mobility and Strategic Partnerships in higher education. Regarding the centralised

actions, SIU and the Ministry of Education emphasised that the funding for these actions is

insufficient and the competition to high, and therefore call for increasing the funding for

these actions.

Portugal: To reinforce the global budget of the programme, to allow including the

applications that have merit and are excellent proposals, but which financing is limited by

the scarce budget.

Romania: Overall, financial allocations are insufficient, and allocations between domains

and key actions could be reviewed. Extend the programme with additional financial

allocations for K2 and for projects involving mobility of students and adults in the learners

category.

Slovakia: We recommend to consider following: more flexible allocation of funds at the

national level to permit a more effective response to national specifications while

endeavouring to achieve these European objectives, e.g. transfer of funds for KA2 projects if

necessary [and] increase of a financial support for key actions KA2 and KA3 given their

tremendous potential to support systemic changes with a strong impact on the achievement

of European objectives.

Spain: The number of applications has grown in all the sub actions since 2014. Unfortunately

an important number of high quality applications have to be turned down due to lack of

funding.

Sweden: To further simplify administration, the budgeting should be more flexible so as to

facilitate reallocation of funds both between items within the programme and within

projects.

Switzerland: Swiss programme beneficiaries and the implementing bodies strongly call for

changes that improve the (financial) attractiveness of the programme and the resources

available for target groups. Provide enough funding for KA2 projects and reintroduce

funding possibilities for small-scale projects to start off with collaborations.

Country reports analysis Erasmus+ midterm evaluation

8

The Netherlands: There is a larger demand for funding of high quality applications than

available. For Key Action 1 and 2 the funding is insufficient, as the number of applicants

exceeds the available budget.

Conclusion All national reports used in this comparison argue that the current budget does not allow

a sufficient amount of applications to be satisfied. However, there are nuances with

regards to the allocation of an increased budget:

• KA1 (NL, BE, DE1)

• KA2 (NL, HR, SE, CH, SK, RO)

• KA3 (SK)

• VET2 (CZ, LT, FI) Some reports underline that priority should be given to an increase in funded projects

instead of an increase in grant support. For example, the national report by the Czech

Republic suggests a “ceiling” for financial support per project to minimise unsatisfied

demand. Moreover, some reports suggest to “downsize the grants” (HR) to get a broader

range and higher number of participants.

Administrative burden

National reports

Croatia: Applicants with different levels of financial, human and administrative capacities

should have equal access to the programme. Currently, access is limited not only by financial

constraints, but also by operational and technical aspects. One way to tackle these

challenges would be to introduce a separate track for newcomers and smaller applicants, i.e.

a simplified fast-track procedure based on the same rules and regulations, but with a

reduced administrative burden.

Czech Republic: Creating a low-administrative-burden environment is one of the Czech

Republic’s main requirements for the functioning of the Erasmus+ programme. The way to

reduce the administrative burden is to further improve the functioning of IT tools and

provide unified access to them.

Germany: Efficiency losses are particularly the result of the complexity of the application

process (especially in the area of partnerships) and the increased administration of the

programme.

1 See chapter, “Reach youth with lower opportunities or special needs.” The German report suggests that KA 103 specifically needs more budget for more inclusion of disadvantaged groups. 2 See chapter “VET, school education and adult education.”

Country reports analysis Erasmus+ midterm evaluation

9

Finland: The administrative workload should be lightened, for example through simplifying

the application process and reporting, [and] digital routines should be integrated into the

programme in a larger scale.

Flanders (Belgium): Factors limiting access appeared to be, in descending order of

importance: the administrative burden (mainly related to the application procedure), the

financial burden, the extra workload, the lack of interest and initiator within the

organisation, the uncertainty about the validation of foreign learning effects/experiences

(for students), lack of information, and finally language barriers.

Hungary: The administrative procedures of the NA should be made more coherent and the

types of data collected should be rationalised and then used to create indicators which are

easy to understand for the applicants. This is in particular important at the beginning of the

new programme phase.

Iceland: Simplify the application process, reporting procedures and agreements by offering

more user-friendly forms and IT tools. Increase the use of social media and training videos

and embed the agreements into the mobility tool online.

Ireland: It is recommended that the application process for Erasmus+ is streamlined and

that a more proportionate application process is introduced, particularly for certain first-

time applicants.

Lithuania: Online application and reporting is highly appreciated in Lithuania, but numerous

IT tools increase administrative burden, especially to National Agencies and coordinators of

Strategic Partnerships. […] Even though the objectives of the youth field of Erasmus+ are

aimed at youth, including disadvantaged youth, project application forms are too complex

for young people to be able to complete them independently, while young inexperienced

youth organisations have no opportunities to take part in the programme because of a

significant administrative burden.

Norway: Simplify and rationalise administrative processes across fields and sectors. Higher

education institutions find that mobility projects have become a bigger administrative drain

than previously, due to more micromanagement and the introduction of ICT‐systems that

do not communicate.

Romania: The administrative barriers for the mobility and recognition arise from: costs,

language barriers and recognizing the courses studied. Simplify application forms at least

for projects requesting little financing and aimed only at cooperation for good practice

exchange.

Spain: The administrative burden associated with the application and implementation

phases the Programme should be reduced, especially when it refers to small and / or

newcomers organizations. For this purpose, an access protocol could be developed for

Country reports analysis Erasmus+ midterm evaluation

10

those entities that want to access the Programme for the first time. In turn, it may be

appropriate to link the administrative burden to the financial support received and reduce

this burden for small organizations developing low-budget projects.

Slovenia: For the NA, the system of simplified grants has not resulted in a reduction of

administrative burdens due to the fact that the administrative burdens have increased

elsewhere. The improvement of the barriers in this segment (IT tools) would help the

stability of the IT tools to support greater flexibility, which is typical for the Erasmus+.

Sweden: At the same time, there continues to be a great need to simplify administration

regarding the application, processing, final reporting and follow-up procedure. The ideal

solution would be a common digital platform to which everyone – pupils, students and

sending and receiving organisations – has access.

Switzerland: Reduce administrative burden in the submission and project implementation

phases, particularly where reporting requirements conflict with national law, e.g. the

obligation to submit working con-tracts of all project staff.

The Netherlands: In order to make it more attractive for newcomers to apply, a separate

“light” application procedure, taking into account proportionality regarding applications,

may help reduce the administrative burden that discourages newcomers from applying.

Conclusion

Accessibility and efficiency of the programme are held back by the great administrative

burden in application processes. Most reports argue that a lighter, faster and easier track

has to be made available to make the programme accessible for organizations or

individuals that either have less resources or are disadvantaged in any other way (DE, NL,

HR, BE, IE, ES, RO). This will increase the number of newcomers that apply to the

programme so it can be more far-reaching than today. This also ties into the goal of

creating a more inclusive programme for all citizens in Europe and other programme

countries.

Further, many countries recommend to improve and simplify the digital tools so they

communicate more effectively (CZ, HR, FI, IS, LT, SI, NO). This could help reduce the

administrative burden for institutions. An example of a concrete recommendation made

by the Swedish report is to build one digital platform where all recipients and sending

individuals and institutions can centrally handle the administrative part of the application.

Country reports analysis Erasmus+ midterm evaluation

11

Reach people with lower opportunities or special needs

National reports

Croatia: In terms of participation on the part of specific target groups (i.e., participants with

fewer opportunities, special needs or disadvantage backgrounds), there is still a need to

widen access by means of more dynamic, targeted outreach at the institutional and

national levels.

France: Harmonize for all sectors and key actions how to take into account disability

situations.

Germany: In order to reach target groups which have not yet been funded, there has to be

an increase in resources for KA 103 and the monthly rates have to be increased especially

for financially disadvantaged students and other underrepresented groups.

Hungary: The involvement of target groups with disadvantaged background needs more

intense support.

Italy: Expanding the audience of the beneficiaries, allowing access to excluded targets (e.g.

high school students, etc.) and further supporting the participation of people with special

needs and social disadvantages (also migrants and refugees) would also make the

programme more inclusive and with greater potential for social impact.

Flanders (Belgium): Although our study shows that the Erasmus+ programme is well known

to the education and training community in Flanders, some target audiences and groups

appear difficult to reach. In addition to the indicated world of work, other groups include

students/trainees from disadvantaged backgrounds, students/trainees with disabilities,

staff from special education, adult/working students, small organisations, staff in pre- and

primary education and part-time arts education.

Iceland: Sports associations and disadvantaged young people have not been applying for

funds in the youth part and there is a need to reach those groups and organizations to

make them aware of this possibility.

Norway: Funds that have been allocated to persons with disadvantaged backgrounds and

fewer opportunities are often not utilised due to the lack of flexibility in reallocating funds.

Portugal: To promote more inclusion and more users of the programme, mainly through

democratization on access and orientation to disadvantaged groups.

Romania: Agency representatives claim that the target group of people with disabilities is

covered in a limited way. Strengthen the support systems for school and managerial teams

in disadvantaged areas or institutions and organisations working with children at risk of

social and school exclusion.

Country reports analysis Erasmus+ midterm evaluation

12

Spain: Erasmus+ reaches to a lesser extent certain groups and environments. For this reason,

it is important to continue to stimulate the participation of individuals and institutions

form disadvantaged environments. It is necessary to continue to focus on the most inclusive

part of Erasmus+.

Sweden: A review should also be conducted of objectives and tools to include groups with

limited opportunities to a greater extent. Special initiatives may also need to be put in place

so as to involve other groups that are hard to reach. One such initiative might be introducing

an opportunity to apply for funding for exchanges where a teacher travels with a whole

group of students.

The Netherlands: Dutch institutions have found it difficult to assess to what extent lower

opportunity students are reached for the programme. Nonetheless, approaching this group

in society can be changed through encouraging projects that include youth or students with

fewer opportunities or special needs. This will, in turn, result in more inclusion. Also, if we

better define this group it will be easier to measure inclusion of lower opportunity students.

This problem should be addressed in the face of societal goals such as inclusion and equality.

Conclusion Inclusion of disadvantaged groups is seen as a priority in nearly all the national reports.

Naturally, in the face of equality and inclusion, efforts have to be made to give more

opportunity to the disadvantaged and make the programme more accessible. Reports

recommend that specific initiatives be set up to create a better outreach to those groups

that are difficult to approach, such as the promotion of projects that encourage

participation of disadvantaged people (NL, HR, BE, SE). At the same time, support systems

can be strengthened to provide help for those students who risk exclusion of some extent

(RO).

IT tools

National reports

Croatia: Further simplification and adaptation of application and financial procedures are

needed, as are the regulation and integration of IT tools. The Commission is encouraged to

improve and integrate existing IT tools, rather than develop new ones. Simplifying project

applications and data entry would be particularly beneficial.

Czech Republic: An(…) important step would be to incorporate the comments made on IT

tools, in which conflicts frequently arise between contractual arrangements and the

technical limits of the respective IT tools.

Country reports analysis Erasmus+ midterm evaluation

13

Finland: […] the programme’s IT tools do not discuss with each other […] This may lead to

extra work, if the tools are not user-friendly or coordinate the operations.

Flanders (Belgium): The different stakeholders agree that the ideas behind the tools are

generally good, but that it is time to consolidate them and improve their user-friendliness

instead of developing new ones

France: Bring together all forms of communication with a project for a single French

information and promotion portal for the general public in close connection with European

platforms and spaces, for which it would facilitate knowledge and reading.

Hungary: The review of the ICT systems is strongly recommended. The tools should be

adjusted to the required contents and not the other way around.

Iceland: Beneficiaries would like to see a more simplified online system where they could

have everything they need online e.g. the learning/training agreements, were embedded

into the mobility tool and all institutions would use this same online tool.

Ireland: It is recommended that future IT developments are introduced first through a pilot

process, with the support of national agencies, to improve the user experience prior to

widespread roll-out.

Lithuania: Due to abundance of information systems, insufficient integration and constant

upgrades, the use of IT tools is time-consuming and burdensome, especially for staff of the

National Agencies and KA2 project coordinators. A single integrated IT tool would be an ideal

solution.

Norway: In respect to decentralised actions, the NA finds that cooperation with the EACEA is

very satisfactory, and that follow up and service regarding e.g. IT‐ tools is good.

Romania: Simplify and improve the online reporting system (final reporting).

Slovenia: Further improvements would be possible [in] stability: there are constant changes

within the tools themselves. Further, user-friendly instructions, flexibility and uniformity are

missing.

Spain: Integrating IT platforms in a single space is demanded unanimously. It is claimed that

this would be a facilitating element for application and for project management, both for the

ANs and for potential beneficiaries.

Sweden: To make administration easier, it is important to continue to develop the digital

tools, e.g. EMREX.

The Netherlands: NAs as well as applicants experienced many problems with the IT tools at

the start of the programme (including late availability, and tools that did not work). These

Country reports analysis Erasmus+ midterm evaluation

14

problems have been tackled, but the IT tools are still cause of a large administrative

burden. Institutions and organisations mention that the user-friendliness of the application

procedure would enhance the accessibility of Erasmus+ and lower the administrative

burden.

Conclusion IT-tools have to become more user-friendly and better coordinated, which is mentioned

by most country reports. The digital tools make up a large part of the administrative

burden, because they are time-consuming and fragmented. It is highlighted that the

Commission should not develop new IT tools, but rather focus on the existing ones and

integrate them (HR, BE, FI). Preferably this would result in the combination of all tools into

one single digital tool (FR, IS, LT, ES). Especially for smaller National Agencies, the IT tools

of the programme take a lot of effort and work (SI).

Collaboration between different sectors and stakeholders

National reports

Czech Republic: Most respondents believe that there should be greater cooperation

between the various fields. There is perceived to be untapped potential in the cooperation

between the school education and youth fields, which have the same target group, in order

to ensure greater interconnection between formal and non-formal education. According to

the stakeholders surveyed, the programme has the smallest impact in the field of

cooperation with the labour market, where there is still an opportunity to further increase

its effects.

Germany: A programme-related sub-committee for youth-specific aspects of systematic

and regular cooperation between the European Commission, National Agencies,

National Authorities and civil society is required. It is desirable to strengthen

partnership-based cooperation, which has been successfully implemented in the

predecessor programme.

Finland: Problems, such as the growing NEET group and the refugee crisis, will increase the

need for international, high-quality youth work and the related multidisciplinary

cooperation between youth work, educational institutions, social services and the labour

administration. The cooperative structures have improved in Finland during the past couple

of years, which is why increased resources would quickly lead to increased effectiveness.

Flanders (Belgium): The integration did not have the anticipated effects of promoting

synergies throughout the fields of education, training and youth, removing artificial

boundaries, fostering new ideas, attracting new actors from the world of work and civil

society, etc.).

France: Providing, on an experimental basis, a sixth "cross-sector" pillar with an own

envelope, in order to reinforce transversal cooperation with all levels of actors.

Country reports analysis Erasmus+ midterm evaluation

15

Ireland: It is important that the current configuration of Erasmus+ remains stable, to

maximize the resources that can be invested by both the national agencies and participants

in fostering the synergies that the programme is presenting. [The advantages of

engagement between the sectors nationally are […] beginning to emerge, as is the potential

for approaches, and even language, in one sector being used to inform the strategy and

practice of another.]

Hungary: The structure of the programme is clear at the level of the applicants as well as at

the level of the NA; the establishment of sectoral cooperation is underway.

Lithuania: Joint activities significantly increase programme’s accessibility to small and

inexperienced organisations. Moreover, they increase project implementation efficiency and

dissemination of results, promote cross-institutional cooperation.

Norway: At the policy level, Erasmus+ is contributing to youth participation in local and

regional politics. In the field of education and training, the programme is contributing to

increased cross‐sectoral collaboration against dropout rates.

Portugal: In School Education, competitions, championships and various collaborations

between schools should be promoted, valuing the thematic areas structuring the

development of young people. This should include thematic and scientific workshops that

put schools in healthy competition in key areas of citizen education: languages, math,

science and the arts, sport and the environment.

Spain: Reinforcing cooperation between business and education is necessary to link more

closely the business world to the education and training system. This connection is necessary

to improve the employability of the active population and avoid skills mismatches.

Sweden: In order to retain what works well into the next programme period, it is important

that Erasmus+ remains a cohesive and integrated programme. An integrated programme

stimulates cross-sectoral collaboration in a valuable way.

The Netherlands: Encouraging collaboration between different sectors and stakeholders is

believed to increase the impact of Erasmus+ programmes and the NAs could do more to

promote the development and possibilities of cross-sectoral projects. Further, more

budget for Key Action 2 would support the development and increase of collaborations.

Conclusion There should be an increase in cross-sectoral projects (NL, CZ, FI, BE, LT, PT, SP, SE). The

Irish report states that these synergies are already present and that the advantages are

slowly emerging, which is proof of its success. That is why NA’s could do more to promote

these collaborations (NL). Moreover, France suggests an experimental pillar especially for

Country reports analysis Erasmus+ midterm evaluation

16

this cross-sectoral cooperation in order to foster transversal partnerships between all

actors on all levels. Joint activities can also help to disseminate project results, which is

automatically a promotion of those joint projects (LT).

Dissemination of results

National reports

Croatia: In order to achieve sustainability and secure long-term impacts from programme

activities, there is a need for more strategic approaches and synergy at the institutional

and national levels alike. Similarly as in the Youth sector, in the HE and EDU sectors what is

frequently noted is the need to consider goals as policy-cycle, long-term efforts instead of

short-term objectives. To all respondents who were engaged in the discussion about the HE

and EDU sectors, it was obvious that the impacts fall mostly on the micro-level, and that

there is a lack of synthesis and joint effort in terms of reaching national goals, a lack of

continuity in terms of topics, and a lack of wider strategizing.

Germany: In addition, a European mechanism is also needed, which systematically

evaluates the projects of a thematic cluster and makes them accessible to a broader

public, thus contributing to the transfer and dissemination of the results.

Finland: Dissemination of the project results, a common challenge in all programme and

project work, is mentioned as one of the key areas for improvement in the programme

implementation in Finland. A successful dissemination process would increase the

effectiveness of partnership projects, which could also further a system level change within

the education sector.

Flanders (Belgium): The specific actions on dissemination that have been developed at the

European and national level are not considered very effective by most actors in the field,

especially as often only those that are already interested are reached.

Hungary: Applicants need to be supported in sustaining the results. […] It was mentioned by

the Hungarian NA and in the focus group discussions that there is insufficient time and

energy for ensuring sustainability and for the dissemination of results.

Ireland: The views of participants are that the most effective promotion comes from peers

within their sector who can speak about their experiences; the national agencies could

further utilise this extensive promotional resource. […] The introduction of the

dissemination platform by the Commission is welcomed; however, a more user-friendly

representation of the information is suggested to attract a wider audience.

Lithuania: […] Prepare tools for monitoring and dissemination of the results produced by

Strategic Partnership projects.

Norway: Boost the funding for dissemination activities in order to increase impact.

Country reports analysis Erasmus+ midterm evaluation

17

Romania: Identifying, by the Ministry of National Education, of mechanism for promotion

and valorisation of good practices resulted following the implementation of Erasmus+

projects, in order to allow scaling within strategic projects at national level.

Slovenia: Also it would be worthwhile to think about the greater involvement of the MESS

(Ministry of Education, Science and Sport) in KA3 and further strengthening and structuring

the dissemination and use of results.

The Netherlands: It is found that too little attention is paid to long-term effects of projects

in the application phase and to knowledge sharing of project results. Applications should

also focus on the intended outcomes and impact on the institutional level. Sustainability

requires continued attention, in particular because knowledge sharing regarding project

results is often limited. This also ties into the importance of dissemination of results to

ensure long-term effects of EU-funded projects.

Conclusion Disseminating project results will result in better long-term effects and sharing knowledge

leads to qualitatively better projects and less overlap of work. Too little attention is paid

to the dissemination of results and there is need for a more strategic approach to improve

this (NL, HR, DE, FI, HU, IE, LT, NO). However, there are subtle differences with regards to

how to tackle this question. In order to make every Erasmus+ project sustainable, some

say that applicants have to be supported in disseminating the results of their projects (NL,

HU, IE).

Others mention that dissemination on a systemic level deserves priority, which means a

revision of the system and the potential development of a new mechanism for

disseminating results (HR, DE). The Lithuanian report focuses on the dissemination of

results produced by Strategic Partnerships in KA2 and Norway argues for more funding for

dissemination activities.

Vocational Education and Training (VET), school education and adult

education

National reports

Croatia: More dynamic outreach campaigns could increase participation among these

groups in the SE and VET fields alike.

Czech Republic: Respondents agree that the vocational education field in particular

deserves a greater share of the financial resources.

Country reports analysis Erasmus+ midterm evaluation

18

Germany: In vocational and adult education, the overall structure of Erasmus+ has proved

its worth and should be maintained. All actions are effective and equally significant in their

respective specific objectives.

Finland: With regard to the increase in the programme funding, the possibilities to increase

vocational mobility, mobility of staff and global mobility should be taken into account.

Flanders (Belgium): In all fields, the level of key competences and skills of staff and/or

students, trainees and apprentices seems to have improved. This impact at the individual

level seems to be higher in those fields with a shorter history of internationalisation (school

education, adult education and vocational education and training or VET).

Ireland: The inclusion of specific strands of the programme into adult education, school and

VET policy would confirm to those sectors that participation is an integral contributor to

meeting their organisational objectives.

Lithuania: Active participation of Lithuanian VET organisations in Erasmus+ and its

predecessor programmes and gathered project management experience as well as a large

demand for mobility and Strategic Partnerships allows stating that significantly increased

programme budget could be efficiently absorbed in vocational training sector in Lithuania.

The need for Strategic Partnership projects in the adult education sector in Lithuania also

significantly exceeded the programme possibilities.

Norway: Another suggestion from informants at both the NAs and the participating

organisations in the education and training field, is to open up for small‐scale Strategic

Partnerships in the VET and the adult education sectors.

Portugal: Portugal´s commitment to Vocational Education and Training (VET) requires the

increase in the scope of this action, promoting trainees and graduate mobility, and the

accreditation of training carried out abroad.

Romania: The research data indicates the need to invest in directions such as structured

dialogue for the youth […] or adult education, which currently have insufficient budgets, by

comparison to the requests/needs of the beneficiaries. • According to the perception of the

respondents, supporting multilingualism is more than learning a language, it’s developing

the intercultural skills, the tools to help interaction with other cultures, and developing

tolerance. In this sense, the tool made available by the Commission for the academia and

for VET is restrictive and limited, compared to the needs.

Sweden: In the next programme period, [the programmes] should be expanded to new

target groups. At the same time, it is important that lifelong learning is prioritised and

expanded so as to more clearly incorporate adult education. Flexibility in the long-run on

mobility in vocational education should be retained to allow longer and shorter mobility.

Switzerland: Provide the possibility within KA2 to adapt different kinds of actions to sector-

Country reports analysis Erasmus+ midterm evaluation

19

specific needs. "Exchange of good practices" is e.g. adapted to the school sector, but not for

VET.

The Netherlands: Lifelong learning must be promoted through working with VET schools.

As lifelong learning is one of the main goals within Erasmus+ we should promote awareness

of lifelong learning. There is limited funding available for adult learning to comply with the

goals of increasing lifelong learning.

Conclusion There are many different ways in which countries want Erasmus+ to be more inclusive

towards the VET and adult education sector. It is stated that VET needs more financial

resources (CZ, FI, LT, RO) and there needs to be a better system to reach VET students and

schools to participate in the programme (NL, HR, IE).

Flexibility for mobility periods would be better for the VET sector and adult education

should be better incorporated in the programme (SE). Structured dialogue could be

fostered to fit programmes to the needs of the beneficiaries (RO).

European added value

National reports

Croatia: A majority of respondents agree that Erasmus+ promotes participation in

democratic life in Europe as well as the emergence and increasing awareness of a

European lifelong learning area, enhances the international dimension of education and

training, establishes cooperation among EU institutions in the VET and the HE, increases the

attractiveness of European HEIs, improves the teaching and learning of languages, and

promotes broad linguistic diversity and intercultural awareness in the European Union.

Czech Republic: Thanks to the Agency’s activities, the programme has demonstrable positive

effects both at the individual level and at the level of participating institutions and society at

large. The programme’s added value could be further increased mainly by making it

possible to take into account national priorities. Overall, Erasmus+ is considered a

flagship programme that not only delivers personal benefits, such as improved language

skills and increased prestige for the institution, but it also contributes to greater

tolerance, openness and mutual cultural understanding within society.

Finland: The policy level cooperation that has been conducted within Erasmus+ should be

enhanced in the future. The increased cooperation between policy makers is an example of

the added value produced by Erasmus+.

Flanders (Belgium): In our survey, a large majority of participating organisations (87%)

(totally) agree that Erasmus+ helped achieve results that could not have been achieved with

regional/national funding or programmes alone.

Country reports analysis Erasmus+ midterm evaluation

20

Germany: Youth in Action guarantees the full, explicit visibility and promotion of the

importance of European values for Erasmus+ and the strengthening of European citizenship

and offers a wide range of opportunities to experience democracy. Faced with the rise in

populism and its re-nationalization tendencies, these opportunities represent a major

European added value, reinforced by the Paris Declaration.

Hungary: An important benefit of the programme is that, as the focus group discussions

testify, these values are not only reflected in the attitude of programme participants, but

also have an impact on their parents, friends, colleagues, and immediate social environment

(local communities).

Ireland: Those involved in strategic partnerships identified a positive increase in their

subsequent engagement with international partners. Initial research also suggests that the

programme leads to further economic impacts through increased visitor numbers

associated with inward mobility participants.

Italy: Further to the joint analysis involving the Erasmus+ National Authorities and Agencies

in Italy, the added value of the programme is inconvertible. In a general context of political

and social uncertainties, where anti-European movements carry forward ideas of intolerance

and discrimination, European cooperation programmes in education, training and youth

continue to preserve the intrinsic ability to keep alive the spirit of belonging to a European

citizenship that shares common ideals of democracy and peaceful coexistence among

peoples.

Lithuania: The greatest European added value of Erasmus+ emerges from the clash of

different cultures and experiences, because it promotes openness, self-reflection,

continuous learning and solidarity. The dissemination of European values is a programme

goal of particular relevance in Lithuania.

Norway: Erasmus+ also supports policy development in the field of education providing real

added value through sharing best practices and by supporting initiatives that would not

have been possible at individual national level without Erasmus+.

Portugal: All Erasmus+ Programme actions promote better integration of the European

areas of education, training, youth and sports. It allows for the valuation of cultural

diversity and the adoption of active European citizenship. Through the programme, the

sense of community is strengthened within the European Union, and the relationship

between different cultures introduces characteristics of conviviality and tolerance.

Romania: Despite the obvious benefits, the authorities refrain/cannot yet provide data that

supports the added value brought at European level. For instance, impact assessment is still

too early for the KA1 responsibilities.

Country reports analysis Erasmus+ midterm evaluation

21

Slovenia: European added value in institutions: awareness of teachers about common

European heritage, European cultural and moral values, respect to different cultures,

knowing and understanding of different education and training systems in

programme/partner countries. Systematic European added value: promotion of broad EU’s

linguistic diversity and intercultural awareness.

Sweden: Collaboration within the programme often valuably supplements the country’s

own range of educational opportunities. The cross-border partnerships generate greater

understanding of different education systems, educational content and methods.

The Netherlands: The added value of Erasmus+ is the international collaboration

opportunities that it offers, which stimulates internationalisation, innovation and quality

improvements.

Conclusion The European added value brought about by Erasmus+ has different aspects:

• Erasmus+ enables and advances international collaboration opportunities (NL, IE, FI)

• Erasmus+ is a driver of European economic growth (IE)

• Erasmus+ carries forward a feeling of European citizenship and naturally promotes tolerance and acceptance (DE, IT, LT, HR, HU, PT, SI)

• Erasmus+ promotes lifelong learning (HR)

• Erasmus+ improves the quality of national education programmes (NL, NO, SE, SI)

• Erasmus+ promotes EU’s linguistic diversity (SI)

(De)centralisation

National reports

Finland: There is need for development in the centralised application process (sports and

youth). It is difficult for small grassroots-level organisations to succeed in the process due to

their scarce economic and organisational resources.

Flanders (Belgium): Consideration of the reintroduction of the centralised management of

the KA2 projects. Especially the Flemish higher education institutes see more added value in

the centralised management compared to the new decentralised application procedure

under Erasmus+.

France: Continue to promote cooperation between National Agencies and the Education,

Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency to promote centralized actions under Erasmus+.

Maintain a significant share of the budget for centralized actions in order to strengthen the

sustainability and impact of projects at European level.

Country reports analysis Erasmus+ midterm evaluation

22

Germany: Other international programming lines, such as capacity building should be

designed in such a way that they can receive a more comprehensive complementary support

through a stronger decentralized cooperation.

Ireland: […] The national agencies identified that it would be very beneficial to have more

information regarding national involvement in centralised activities and it is recommended

that this be explored further.

Italy: The two decentralized actions (Mobility and Strategic Partnerships) and the

centralized action to support policy reforms play a subsidiary role in the education and

training systems of the different Countries, and could be further refined in future prospects

in order to influence the systems of Member States more significantly.

Norway: NA and policy informants emphasise the potential of the centralised actions, e.g.

Knowledge Alliances. They welcome the continuation of the centralised actions in the

upcoming programme, and propose increased funding for these actions.

Portugal: However, internal and external coherence requires a better coordination between

Erasmus+ Programme centralized and decentralized actions, and the Portuguese education

and training and youth and sport programmes.

Sweden: The distinction between centralised and decentralised projects should be

reviewed.

Conclusion The discussion about (de)centralisation is divided and all countries have their own ideas

about what, if anything, needs to be changed about the system.

International cooperation

National reports

Switzerland: In order to achieve the programme’s aim of being open to the world, efficient

support is needed for international collaboration.

Synergies with other programmes

National reports

France: Strengthen links between Erasmus+, Horizon 2020 and the Structural Funds. Switzerland: Increase awareness among the target population of the possible synergies with other Erasmus+ (e.g. Jean Monnet) and research-related activities (e.g. Horizon 2020). Two HE representatives explicitly described how their experiences with research collaboration in Erasmus+ were used to also collaborate in Horizon 2020 and vice versa.

Country reports analysis Erasmus+ midterm evaluation

23

Bibliography

National reports Croatia, “National report on the implementation and impact of the Erasmus+ programme –

Croatia.” Ed. Branko Ancic and Marija Bradjic Vukovic. 25 May 2017.

Czech Republic, “The National Report on the Implementation and Impact of Erasmus+ in the

Czech Republic,” Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports. June 2017.

Finland, “Mid-term evaluation of Erasmus+ programme 2014-2020 Finland.” Ministry of

Education and Culture. Ed. Antti Eronen, Katri Haila, Katri Lahtinen and Tapio Kuure. June

2017.

Flanders (Belgium), “Mid-term evaluation Erasmus+,” IDEA Consult. Ed. Ella Desmedt,

Annelies Wastyn, Miriam Van Hoed, An De Coen and Tess Schooreel. 7 June 2017.

France, “Évaluation à mi-parcours du programme Erasmus+ 2014-2020.” Ed. Martine Gustin-

Fall et al. June 2017.

Germany, “Nationaler Bericht zur Halbzeitevaluation von Erasmus+ in Deutschland.”

Hungary, “National report on the implementation and impact of Erasmus+,” Ministry of

Human Capacities. 30 June 2017.

Iceland, “Evaluation of the Implementation and Impact of Erasmus+ in Iceland,” Ministry of

Education, Science and Culture. May 2017.

Ireland, “Mid-term Evaluation of Erasmus+ Programme 2014-2020,” Ed. O’Brien. 12 June

2017.

Italy, “National report on the implementation and impact of the Erasmus+ programme.”

Lithuania, “Interim evaluation of Erasmus+ implementation in Lithuania. Final report.” 26

June 2017.

Norway, “National report on the implementation and impact of Erasmus+ in Norway.” Ed.

Inger C. Nordhagen and Malin Dahle. 1 March 2017.

Portugal, “Portugal: Programme Erasmus+ National Evaluation Report. Executive Summary.”

30 June 2017.

Romania, “National Report on the Implementation of the ERASMUS+ programme between

2007- 2017 and its predecessors (Lifelong Learning, Youth in Action) 2007-2013.” Institute

of Educational Sciences. 30 May 2017.

Spain, “Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+.” Ministries of Education, Culture and Sport, and

Health, Social Services and Equity. Madrid: 17 July 2017.

Slovenia, “Interim National Report on Implementation and Impacts of the Erasmus+

Programme.” Ed. Eva Klemenčič. May 2017.

Sweden, “National Erasmus+ Mid-term evaluation.” Ministry of Education and Research.

Switzerland, “Erasmus+ mid-term evaluation – the Swiss feedback.” State Secretariat for

Education, Research and Innovation SERI.

The Netherlands, “Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+. National Report The Netherlands.”

Country reports analysis Erasmus+ midterm evaluation

24

Ministry of Education, Culture and Science & Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. Ed. Lisa

van Beek et al. 10 February 2017.