It is a safe space for a participative approach - especially reinforcing of being there from the start to steer one's own projects. The participants are also the applicants.

E+ is very important as RAY research shows that therefore it is very important to continue doing it

The objectives are not much clear in the programme - should young people and practitioners relate more to the programme than values and objects are more focused and effective

In the Youth sector - we talk about quality and role of youth work - less on participation and democracy. Would be good that these two factors are put more explicitly in the objectives.

E+ is more than mere mobility programme - it is about improving democratic challenges and the practicing of democratic practices.

E+ is already contributing massively but it needs to be made more clear - with an increase in budget to enable an increase in participation.

Programmes contributes to local democratic process as it gives the possibility to contribute to the value on a local level especially through solidarity projects. Participating in a local community is also the acquisition of skills.

The opportunity of a mobility is an essential for learning outcomes related to European values. This depends much on quality and given weight through the assessment criteria.

should be embeded by the nature of it (EU values);

what itches - apples with pears together in terms of how you want to look at these two things - smth to be respected or smth to become a priority (how can you prioritise values); give a better structure (and explain) - if values are the basis, then from that you can start picking priorities

How to ensure that these things are practiced.

guidelines for breach of eu values are missing

More efficient to do it with the programmes then each of the countries run their own programmes

There should be more focus on the actors - at least one counterpart should be from the youth sector.

The objects is to increase the quality of youth work methods - therefore to apply you need to know the field in your county identify a project and have clear way forward how to use outcomes effectively.

We should not give people arguments against the programmes.

But still we should not hide the administrative complexity.

reshape participation criteria in projects (maybe mobility of youth workers) to have follow up effect; avoid just participation (one off) opportunities;

programmes does allow for young leaders in youth sector to develop and move into youth work (and there are more opportunities to build on that); maybe streamline age limits;

KA2 (220) - applicants are attracted to the money, but do we actually need the amount of similar results often produced by these projects; youth sectors is mostly partner - does it bring added value to youth work; (but there are continues that use this for U and youth sector cooperation on profesioanlization of youth workers)

are KA2 results are really visible? should multiplier events be mandatory in KA2 projects?

results platform should be more visible (maybe put TCAs in there also - connect with the new platform)

not enough good working tools for partner finding

It should be more clear that funding is for grass root civic action which can build a commitment to the community - possible through volunteering.

Volunteer-based organisations

18,5 % number of projects

30 % organisations

16,7 % participants

32% of the fewer opportunities

It can also be a beginning of a journey for young people to experience other possibilities through the programmes - the action has the potential to attract young people to the programme.

youth field can think more out of the box and can find ways to take things further (absorb funding); youth field is more flexible and open to broader audience

argument in favour of more money - healthy success rate of project applications to build on the development of the sector based on actual interest and capacity;

19 actions in youth field and so many checks and calls - who can manage that as opposed to other sectors?

• We should go to the next level, not only respect the EU values but be a sort of ambassadors of them and stand for them. For that it is important the community building among them. Bring them together to speak out rather than do it individually. As the program gets bigger we need to work more to help building this community.

• It is clear that a european programme should be standing for EU values but we need to define how are we doing that: should we directly “preach”/communicate them or should we provide a platform to allow that to happen?

• Build capacity of individuals and structure to be able to stand for them.

• Reflect on how to deal with those that are actually against those values. Although there are few we still need to do something.

• Protect our youth workers and work leaders when standing for those values.

• Youth participation activities have a potential that has not been fully developed in regard with EU values.

• The applicants are rather working on the priorities because it is easier. EU values are more abstract. Maybe we should have another priority specific of EU values or redefine the participation priority to include EU values more explicitly. It is there already but maybe we have to stress it more.

• Participation did not have an indicator associated to it Having an indicator on participation helps.

• The aim is not being only a learning programme but an active citizenship programme.

• Theres is still lack of information on opportunities (including TCA/NET)

• Reach all those organizations we have not yet reached.

• Help them with the administrative burden or simplify it. Although we’ve noticed that their perception of administrative burden is different in KA1 (youth workers mobility) than in KA2

• Provide the NA’s the backup that we need to be able to reject applicants and be covered.

• Youth workers mobility is intended to spread the knowledge achived that but are they actually understanding like that. We should work on that.