# data[].attributes.body
Sucess factors:

Youth have their own budget

Management fee should be at least 25%

Should the management fee be discussed each year?

Simpilfying, diversifying, giving newcommers a positive experience

Microgrants are a good idea, especially regarding to The European Year of Youth. It gives the youth organisations a good experience with the programme, as a low threshold to step into the programme.

Challenges/obstacles

IT tools both for the beneficiaries and the NAs still remain a challenge

It is too complicated for smaller organisations to understand the application forms, the reporting system, the contracts. Proportionality is needed: Smaller grants shold imply less bureaucracy.

The rates within the programme should be equal for all sectors

# data[].attributes.headline
What are the remaining challenges in the implementation of the European youth programmes? What do they impede?

# data[].attributes.subject
What are the remaining challenges in the implementation of the European youth programmes? What do they impede?

# data[].attributes.headline
What led to having the current financial resources of both European programmes insufficient?

# data[].attributes.subject
What led to having the current financial resources of both European programmes insufficient?

# data[].attributes.headline
What are the "hard" arguments/evidence needed to convince legislators of this and the need for more?

# data[].attributes.subject
What are the "hard" arguments/evidence needed to convince legislators of this and the need for more?

# data[].attributes.body
Administration

Simplification

Balance between tailor-made solutions and complicated access channels to the programmes

They impede access and management.

# data[].attributes.body
High demand of available funds

Size of initial grant

We are "victims of our own success". ;-)

# data[].attributes.body
Programmes are planned for 7 years. It is necessary to take into account the changing needs of young people and both programmes’ target groups, which are changing more quickly and more frequently. Both programmes should be more flexible. Programmes should respond to unforseen situations more rapidly (like war in Ukraine, Covid etc.). Also, NAs suggestions should be taken into account faster.

Yet - programmes should be simplified. Changes in the programmes should be consulted with the NAs as the administrative workload drives the NAs back from the projects' content and how to omprove project quality. Mental health of NA staff should also be a priority, not only mental health of project promoters. NAs are in the middle between beneficiaries and Commission and should be supported with a bigger fee to cater for the needs of all stakeholders.

the poor IT architecture and too many IT systems to manage the programmes (E+&ESC project platform, PMM, BM, Project Results Platform). After a bumpy start in 2014, the Erasmus+ programme experienced a similar, but even longer lasting crisis in the new programme period. The improper functioning of digital administrative tools, such as the Application Module, the Beneficiary Module and the Project Management Module, has made the processes of application, assessment, reporting, monitoring and project closure extremely demanding in both Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps programmes. This has led to frustration among potential beneficiaries (applicants), beneficiaries and National Agencies.

Better planning of future actions beforehand.

# data[].attributes.body
High demand of funds. The increase in the programme budget is, however, not in line with the increase in this growing interest of young people.

Greater financial support for NAs - greater management fee, bigger support of SALTO RCs.

Facilitating better connection between National Authorities, National Agencies and business (employers). NAUs should be "partners in crime" with the NA and if need be, help with inventing national regulations.

# data[].attributes.body
Investing in the future of young people: Increasing the budget will allow for more places and opportunities, enabling more young people to develop skills, gain intercultural experience and develop personally and professionally. This is especially important due to the rise of radical movements and growing unemployment in south of Europe. Whereas, the increase in budget allocation for both programs has not kept pace with the increase in interest from young people and youth organizations. In the Erasmus+ programme, the success rate decreases (eg. Poland. North Macedonia).

Support for local communities: Additional funding will enable more social and volunteering projects that benefit local communities by supporting them in solving social, cultural and environmental problems. The success of Solidarity Projects shows the need of such resources (eg. Poland remains in top three countries with the highest number of Solidarity projects granted in EU).

Entry ticket to the programmes vs. raise in the budget - problem for some countries.

# data[].attributes.headline
What are, without being necessarily direct responses to the challenges, the needed improvements for the contribution to the European programmes to fulfil their purpose?

# data[].attributes.subject
What are, without being necessarily direct responses to the challenges, the needed improvements for the contribution to the European programmes to fulfil their purpose?

# data[].attributes.body
the programs have a value and are succesful

# data[].attributes.body
see the whole picture of how much people are getting back (also outside of the borders of the MS)

Right now we are still not reaching a very large group of young people

If we want results with the positive effects of the programs, then we must also promote and invest in it. Nothing comes free

Building stable societies

# data[].attributes.body
Better, working IT systems for both the National Agencies and beneficiaries; unification of systems and better synergy between them

User-friendly programme guides for both applicants and young people.

# data[].attributes.body
the programs are complex for newcomers

The IT side is not functioning well enough

The contracts are too complex to understand

level of proportionality between different size projects

simplification of processes may lead to losses that need to be accepted in the end

Several application rounds, even if there are enough good quality projects in the first round (difference in big and small MS)

simplification and possibly joining the programs together could bring necessary synergies

still possibly having the same result

Higher management fees in youth should be possible

promotional activities etc.

predictability of the budgets

# data[].attributes.body
(Already) available facts and figures speak for themselves.

# data[].attributes.body
Data to measure the success of the programmes and the result: on values, participation, quality, outcomes, development of participants/the youth field in general.

Research on youth work (by countries).

Results and research outcomes are also available from beneficiaries (especially in KA2) which should be taken into account.

# data[].attributes.body
The programmes work, there is large interest in them.

In some countries this is the only tool for youth work.

The values of the programmes resonate with the target groups and organisations working with these groups.

# data[].attributes.body
al statistics, example of best practices and unique opportunities are really a solid proof that we need to safeguard programmes and invest more

# data[].attributes.body
Challenges for inviting in new applicants:

-            Difficult application process

-            IT systems

-            limit of NA resources

Many challenges of the programme management are strongly connected to the poor performance of the IT systems: beneficiaries receiving remaining grants; human resources of the NAs cannot handle the scale of the questions received from applicants/ beneficiaries/ assessors; data/ statistics are not always readily available.

# data[].attributes.body
Complexity and proportionality of the different actions is an issue (eg. Solidarity project applicants have the same burden in all stages of a project as a KA2 project). The proportional risk of projects should be taken into consideration in the new programmes.

Complex conversation between of DGs and NAs should be introduced periodically to the meetings; national youth panels should be more encouraged in order to bring the opinions of the target group into the conversation about the programmes; sector-specific actions should remain in place in the future.

# data[].attributes.body
More tailored programs for different kinds of projects

A more stable and easier IT-system

# data[].attributes.body
The growth curve of the current budget is a problem, especially with the big increase towards the end -> this could be solved by frontloading 2025-26 and in the future have a better balanced growth curve altogether

# data[].attributes.body
Bureaucracy - Possibly task force of COM, ministries and NA representatives need to really get it done (because it is not going to happen on its own). We always talk about it again and again and it does not improve a lot. Necessary to go page by page and cross whatever is not vital

we need to make it easier for both applicants and NAs

It scares small organisations and does not deter the dubious actors

Concerns IT tools, applications, agreements, guides...

During the Year of Youth we could find some inspiration in microgrants

Applying same rules to all EU fund programmes does not make sense and creates huge problems

# data[].attributes.body
DiscoverEU could maybe be re-prioratised as something that burdens the current programme and does not necessarily add the related value. The learning value? The inclusion difficulties?

# data[].attributes.body
synergies with other EU programmes are not strong enough, collecting data for youth achievements should also include different EU programmes open for youth and results made their (Leader, C.E.R.V, etc.), the E+ is not alone, Europe invests in other programmes connected with youth as well.

Should we be more strict in KA2 and not open it that much to different sectors since it's not so rare that companies and universities that know how to write a super project take over part budget devoted to youth.

# data[].attributes.body
Looking at how many individuals we actually reach.

# data[].attributes.body
Too many actions on the youth side - can they be simplified: E-SC back to programme? (disputed!) ->Solidarity projects and participation projects are very similar

The splitting of funds and managment fees can be challenging in some countries (especially when several countries) - depending on the importance put on youth - extremely divergent situations in countries

IT tools have been a problem of several years: Apllications got lost, no possiblity to hand in final reports, unrealiable data, freezing, it is a long term problem, still persisting. It is also a problem for beneficiarys receivind their money. This situation is atually getting rather worse then better.

# data[].attributes.body
Low treshold for grass roots and small organisations and proportionality in the project life cycle:

allow and combine text with other non-text based methods in applications and reports

train external evaluators in taking into account the diversity of applicants in writing skills

facilitated micro grants framework

simplified registration process

simplified and proportional checks

simplified agreements

...

# data[].attributes.body
Large demand

Lack of national funding

Rising costs and inflation

# data[].attributes.body
The big KA2 projects of 400 000 euros are a challenge for many small countries, as they eat up a lot of the budget and limit flexibility. Also one option could be to open up these bigger project's call only every second year.

# data[].attributes.body
Accreditation in E+ and Quality Label in ESC: multi-annual (often growing) planning of activities by organisations in tension with lack of budget to fulfil the long-term ambitions of organisations

# data[].attributes.body
To realise the objectives of the youth programmes and attract the target group we want to reach (small organisations (mostly lead by volunteers) and informal groups of young people) we need simplification / proportionality of formats and processes.

Use of IT tools is very challenging; Suggestion is also to look for other / additional more innovative ways to describe their projects (e.g. video).

# data[].attributes.body
The raise for youth has been lower than for education and training

The rates for youth workers ar much lower for teachers which is very problematic -> This ist also a signal not recognising youth work

Differences to education: Many of the youth projects really take place independently and it is not a studend/pupil coming to another country attending a normally anyways existing programmes.

Funders are used that youth sector does more with less. But: The group is extremely diverse and not professionalised and would need more support not less.

Inclusion need ressources allocated, not only financially, but also support from NA or experts etc.

# data[].attributes.body
administration should be proportional to the grant

ESC quality label and funding request are a positive development and should be maintained

evaluators should be able to take different factors into account

possibility to have an overhead costs for administration but also taking into account proportionality.

# data[].attributes.body
Youth chapter comparison (2022)

10 % Erasmus+ funding

18,5 % number of projects

30 % organisations

16,7 % participants

32 % young people with fewer opportunities

Arguments are needed, not just a request for the more money. Balance on money and management capacity has to be thought carefully. If the budget is bigger, does it mean also bigger projects?

# data[].attributes.body
Success of our programmes

Project rates are outdated because of inflation, but higher rates have impact on number of projects that can be approved. Mechanism needed in the next programmes to cater and anticipate the inflation in the overall budget.

# data[].attributes.body
Poor IT-architecture and too many systems overall.

Insufficient use of existing data in the development of the programmes.

simplification and streamlining vs. tailormade actions

# data[].attributes.body
Could we still clarify the difference between the Solidarity Projects and Youth Participation Projects, as they do now sometimes seem very much like duplicating the same thing?

# data[].attributes.body
too many projects are not financed, the financial capacity is not there, this is a wrong signal to young people.

communicate in a better way the results of the programme. Let legislators better know that many good quality projects are not being funded.

Push that national governments shoud support the programmes

# data[].attributes.body
Return on investment is high. See RAY results

More money for the progammes, is more money for European integration and democracy.

our programmes are very cost-effective: see cost per participant in the data presentation this morning (650 euro in E+ Youth versus 1300 euro in E+)

# data[].attributes.body
Re-define digital priority

Use of artificial intelligence

# data[].attributes.body
Higher management fee for NAs to maintain our supportive and as a consequence labour-intensive approach towards small scale organisations and safeguard the diversity of projects and applicants as we have them now (see 25% submitted projects are in E+ Youth).

# data[].attributes.body
Inflation

# data[].attributes.body
Complicated context

Essential to invest on these programmes

Visibility. Show the quality results of the programmes

Erasmus+ and ESC are really tangible for young people

# data[].attributes.body
Improve the IT tools (working IT tools, user friendly...)

Need more resources

# data[].attributes.body
keep the ESC as a standalone programme (or if not, fully ensure its financing is remained in full and not negatively impact the percentage division of Erasmus sectors)

better communication of Youth benefits and contributions to Europe to reach all tha national decision makers

Ensure continuity despite changes after various elections, have a strong voice of youth advocacy

on a daily basis - improving the rules according to NA and beneficiary feedbacks = provide all with means to do their work the best they can

keep in touch with reality and respond to challenges (AI for example...)

# data[].attributes.body
Simplification

Not enough budget for ESC

# data[].attributes.body
Introduce the possibility to fund projects partially

budget uptake could be raised if some contracts could be changed more aesily

# data[].attributes.body
In ESC we didn't have planned increase so we really can' promote the programme and include more organizations and participants - we can't spread nor be inclusive and this is even more needed in the ESC than in the E+.

We should also have steam increase of budget, current system where budget rises largely in last years and before that in small percentage is not sound financial management that could be planned and strategically used.

Don't forget youth chapter in frontloading process.

# data[].attributes.body
It is all about the evidence. Show the results, how Erasmus+ Youth and ESC is the answer to the problems the politicians are concerned about. Show the good practice, real experience stories and make the emotional links.

The purpose for the youngsters what they can achieve for the future.

The informal learning. It is important to show the hard facts to convinse those who mainly know the education field. Show the numbers and the purpose.

More young people involved, more organisations: SHOW SHOW SHOW the good results. Use RAY results very actively, Commision should also share dashboards, monitoring the results, connect the links between all the available data on the programmes.

# data[].attributes.body
Examples of regional NA's/official offices (AT) that are operating in different regions is something that should be more explored and invested in.

# data[].attributes.body
More support for projects outside of the European Union. Flexibility.

Lack of budget. Increase of good quality projects. Already spending 100% of funds. We need to scale a program that it is clear that works. 1 out of every 4 is under youth sector. We have quality projects that still are not granted because of lack of funds.

Recognition of skills, competence framework and validation (youthpass) we need to develop it more. European level.

European volunteer status. Rights and obligations. It is in the council recommendation but not specifically enough.

Proportionality in the administrative and IT procedures. They should be adapted to the size of the projects.

How to detect the quality of the projects on the assessment process. IA generated, or organizations that are good at writing projects. Then way of monitoring, checks or to know organizations and its operational capacity. Also the role of the officers of the NA and their skills.

Risk assessment also will need to be developed if we get bigger because more funds will attract more dubious actors.

# data[].attributes.body
Further discussion on the separation of Erasmus+ and ESC. What is the best model to achieve our goals?

# data[].attributes.body
Political support. For inclusion it helped in the actual programme. If we include whatever priority we need. Integrate mobility in all youth policies as it is stated in Europe on the Move, as a powerful tool to help youth and expand its potential.