Administration

Simplification

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

They impede access and management.

High demand of available funds

Size of initial grant

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

the programs have a value and are succesful

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

(Already) available facts and figures speak for themselves.

More tailored programs for different kinds of projects

A more stable and easier IT-system

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

Looking at how many individuals we actually reach.

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.

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

• ...

Large demand

Lack of national funding

Rising costs and inflation

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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+)

Re-define digital priority

Use of artificial intelligence

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

Improve the IT tools (working IT tools, user friendly...)

Need more resources

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...)

Introduce the possibility to fund projects partially

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

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.