PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Europaudvalget 2011-12
KOM (2011) 0788
Offentligt

National Report on the Lifelong

Learning Programme (LLP)

Implementation 2007-2009

Denmark

ANNEX REPORT

May 2010

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Index

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

Survey data – frequencies and significant cross tabulations................................................... 2

Background information .............................................................................................................. 3

Knowledge and information about the Lifelong Learning Programme........................................... 4

Application procedure.................................................................................................................. 8

Participants’ outcome................................................................................................................ 16

2.4.1 Participants’ outcome (Comenius/Grundtvig Training and Comenius Assistantship) ......... 23

2.5 Institutions’/ organisations’ outcome from participating in the project.......................................... 26

2.5.1 Organisations’/institutions’ outcome (Comenius/Grundtvig Training and Comenius

Assistantship)........................................................................................................................... 31

2.6 Participant profile ...................................................................................................................... 34

2.7 Assessment: administrative procedures..................................................................................... 37

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

Activities implemented.......................................................................................................... 39

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

Number of applications and granted projects 2007-2009 ........................................................... 39

Granted funds ........................................................................................................................... 41

Coordinating organisations........................................................................................................ 42

Project participants and mobility beneficiaries............................................................................ 44

Nature of funded activities 2007-2009 ....................................................................................... 47

Challenges................................................................................................................................ 48

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

List of tables

Table 1: Programme and sub-programme. Percentage of answers............................................................... 3

Table 2: Which part of the educational sector do you represent? .................................................................. 4

Table 3: From where do you have your knowledge of the Programme? ........................................................ 4

Table 4: Have you visited www.iu.dk, the homepage of the Danish Agency for International Education (IU)

(formerly www.ciriusonline.dk) in connection with the educational programme?............................................ 5

Table 5: To which extent are you satisfied with the applicability of IU’s (formerly CIRIUS) homepage? ......... 6

Table 6: How satisfied have you been with the following elements of the IU's (formerly CIRIUS) information

service?....................................................................................................................................................... 6

Table 7: How satisfied have you been with the administrative procedure in connection with the following? ... 8

Table 8: Was the application form …...........................................................................................................10

Table 9: Did you receive personal support from the IU (formerly CIRIUS) in connection with the application

process and the implementation of the activities?........................................................................................11

Table 10: How satisfied have you been with the personal support from the IU (formerly CIRIUS) in

connection with ….......................................................................................................................................12

Table 11: All in all, how satisfied are you with the application process? .......................................................13

Table 12: Did you receive financial support for the activities from elsewhere than the EU? ..........................13

Table 13: To which extent has the assurance of financial support from the EU been an advantage in

connection with applications for further support from elsewhere? ................................................................14

Table 14: To which extent are the activities for which support can be applied through the EU educational

programme relevant in respect of the requirements of your organisation/association? .................................15

Table 15: To which extent do you find that the project activities for which support can be applied through the

EU educational programme complement what is offered in the area in Denmark? .......................................15

Table 16: To which extent do you find that the target group has benefitted professionally from the activities?

...................................................................................................................................................................16

Table 17: To which extent do you find that the young people have improved their qualifications within the

following areas through the Programme? ....................................................................................................16

Table 18: To which extent do you believe that ….........................................................................................18

Table 19: Has the target group participated in a study, traineeship or exchange visit in connection with the

educational programme? ............................................................................................................................20

Table 20: To which extent ….......................................................................................................................21

Table 21: How do you assess the duration of the target group’s study, traineeship and/or exchange visit? ..23

Table 22: To which extent do you find that you have benefitted professionally from the activities? ...............23

Table 23: To which extent do you find that you have improved your qualifications within the following areas

through your participation in the activities under the educational programme? .............................................24

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 24: To which extent do you believe that ….........................................................................................24

Table 25: To which extent ….......................................................................................................................25

Table 26: How do you assess the duration of the target group’s study, traineeship and/or exchange visit? ..25

Table 27: To which extent do you believe that the experience from the project has had a positive impact on

your institution/organisation?.......................................................................................................................26

Table 28: To which extent has your project activities in connection with the educational programme resulted

in the following in your institution/organisation .............................................................................................26

Table 29: To which extent was it possible to adapt the project activities under the educational programme to

the other national activities of the institution/organisation in respect of the following areas? .........................27

Table 30: To which extent has the project had a positive impact on the general development of the

institution/organisation? ..............................................................................................................................27

Table 31: To which extent has the project …...............................................................................................28

Table 32: To which extent do you believe that the participation of the institution/organisation in the project …

...................................................................................................................................................................30

Table 33: To which extent do you believe that the experience from the project has had a positive impact on

your institution/organisation?.......................................................................................................................31

Table 34: To which extent has your participation in the activities in connection with the educational

programme resulted in the following in your institution/organisation? ...........................................................31

Table 35: To which extent was it possible to adapt the project activities in which you have participated to the

other activities of the institution/organisation with respect to the following areas? ........................................32

Table 36: To which extent has the project in which you have participated had a positive impact on the

general development of the institution/organisation? ...................................................................................32

Table 37: To which extent has the project in which you have participated … ...............................................33

Table 38: To which extent do you believe that the participation of the institution/organisation in the project in

which you have participated …...................................................................................................................33

Table 39: Which category belonged to the primary target group of the project? ...........................................34

Table 40: From which region do the participants primarily come? ................................................................35

Table 41: To which extent did you face problems in recruiting participants for the project? ..........................35

Table 42: Which special needs have there been?........................................................................................36

Table 43: To which extent do you find it likely that the activities completed in the project would have been

completed, had there been no grant schemes under EU educational programmes? ....................................37

Table 44: To which extent has the size of the EU grant been adequate in respect of meeting the original

objective of the activities? ...........................................................................................................................37

Table 45: To which extent is there is a reasonable relation between the administrative tasks and … ...........37

Table 46: Please indicate up to three factors which have in particular impeded the completion of the project

activities......................................................................................................................................................38

Table 47: Please indicate three factors which have in particular been an incentive to project participation ...38

NIRAS

iii

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 48: Number of applications and percentage of granted applications 2007-2009 .................................39

Table 49: Number of granted projects 2007-2009........................................................................................40

Table 50: Granted funding (net) distributed on sector programmes and actions (December 2009) ...............41

Table 51: Participants by regions in Denmark (Leonardo Mobility)...............................................................42

Table 52: Type of organisation (Leonardo Mobility) .....................................................................................43

Table 53: Granted schools under Comenius distributed on organisation ......................................................43

Table 54: Which part of the educational sector do you represent? ...............................................................44

Table 55: Number of Erasmus students/teachers/participants distributed on sub-programmes ....................44

Table 56: Number of participants and percentage of female participants (Leonardo Mobility).......................46

Table 57: Category of the main target group................................................................................................47

Table 58: Percentage of applications by operational objectives ...................................................................48

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Introduction

This Annex report presents the underlying data for the Interim Evaluation of the LLP Programme in Denmark

2007-2009.

Chapter 2

provides an overview of the survey data in terms of frequencies and significant cross tabulations.

Chapter 3

describes the activities implemented in terms of a) the number of applications and approved pro-

jects, b) the granted funds, c) the nature of coordinating organisations and project participants, and finally d)

the nature of granted projects. It should be noticed that the available data is limited for the various sub-

programmes.

The context and methodology of the evaluation is outlined in the main evaluation report.

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Survey data – frequencies and significant

cross tabulations

This chapter presents all frequencies from the survey among project managers (N=361, 48% of the popula-

tion).

However, section 2.4.1 and 2.5.1 contains the frequencies from the survey among project participants from

Comenius Training, Grundtvig Training and Comenius Assistantship (N= 289, 51.% of the population)

For all frequencies NIRAS have analysed whether significant differences between sub-programmes exist.

Only significant cross tabulations are illustrated in this Annex report.

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

2.1

Background information

Percent

Table 1: Programme and sub-programme. Percentage of answers

Comenius

Regio

Multilateral Partnerships

Host Schools

61.5%

0.2%

14.8%

5.4%

Training

Assistantships

Leonardo

Partnerships

Transfer of Innovation

Mobility

Erasmus

Intensive Programmes

38.3%

2.9%

14.8%

4.3%

1.7%

8.8%

9.8%

0.9%

EILC

Mobility

Grundtvig

Visits and exchanges

Learning Partnerships

Training

Workshops

LLP Study Visits Programme

0.8%

8.2%

1.5%

3.2%

0.6%

4.9%

Total

Note: n = 650

100%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 2: Which part of the educational sector do you represent?

Percent

Primary school

Higher commercial examination (HHX) / higher technical examination (HTX)

Upper secondary school (STX)

Vocational educations

28%

24%

Short further education

Medium-long further education

Long further education

Vocational further training

Other

Total

Note: n = 344

10%

14%

100%

2.2

Knowledge and information about the Lifelong Learning Programme

Percent

Table 3: From where do you have your knowledge of the Programme?

IU, the Danish Agency for International Education (formerly CIRIUS)

EU Commission

Experience from previous applications

Colleagues

Specialist journals

Other media

Friends/networks

Others

Note: n = 337

64%

49%

33%

16%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 4: Have you visited

www.iu.dk

, the homepage of the Danish Agency for International Education

(IU) (formerly

www.ciriusonline.dk

) in connection with the educational programme?

Percent

Yes

Total

Note: n = 334

94%

100%

Tabel 4a: Cross tabulation on sub-programme: Have you visited

www.iu.dk

, the homepage of the Dan-

ish Agency for International Education (IU) (formerly

www.ciriusonline.dk

) in connection with the edu-

cational programme?

Have you visited

www.iu.dk,

the homepage of the Danish Agency for International

Education (IU) (formerly

www.ciriusonline.dk)

in connection with the educational

programme?

Yes

Comenius

112

93.3%

Erasmus

100.0%

Grundtvig

85.7%

LLP Study Visits

88.0%

Leonardo

97.9%

Total

309

94.5%

6.7%

0.0%

14.3%

12.0%

2.1%

5.5%

Total

120

100.0%

327

100.0%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 5: To which extent are you satisfied with the applicability of IU’s (formerly CIRIUS) homepage?

Percent

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

Do not know

31%

64%

Total

Note: n = 313

100%

Table 6: How satisfied have you been with the following elements of the IU's (formerly CIRIUS) in-

formation service?

Very

satisfied

Satisfied

Dissatis-

fied

Very

dissatis-

fied

Do not

know /

N/A

20%

14%

Total

Information meetings (n = 332)

45%

29%

33%

53%

100%

Written information material/brochures

(n = 331)

Electronic newsletters (n = 332)

31%

12%

43%

31%

20%

55%

100%

The www.udiverden.dk homepage

(n = 331)

The www.skoleniverden.dk homepage

(n = 329)

10%

24%

65%

100%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 6a: Cross tabulation on sub-programme: Satisfaction with IU Information meetings

How satisfied have you been with the information meetings of the IU's (formerly CIRIUS) information service?

Very satisfied

Comenius

58.0%

Erasmus

38.3%

Grundtvig

53.3%

LLP Study Visits

66.7%

Leonardo

68.6%

Total

150

57.9%

Satisfied

38.3%

61.7%

46.7%

33.3%

31.4%

106

40.9%

Dissatisfied

3.7%

.0%

1.2%

Total

100.0%

100,0%

100.0%

259

100.0%

Table 6b: Cross tabulation on sub-programme: Satisfaction with IU written information mate-

rial/brochures

How satisfied have you been with the written information materials of the IU's (formerly CIRIUS) information service?

Very satisfied

Comenius

32.6%

Erasmus

33.3%

Grundtvig

37.5%

LLP Study Visits

18.2%

Leonardo

43.2%

Total

35.5%

Satisfied

56.8%

66.7%

56.2%

81.8%

56.8%

166

60.1%

Dissatisfied

9.5%

,0%

6.2%

,0%

4.0%

Very dissatisfied

1.1%

.0%

.4%

Total

100.0%

276

100.0%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

2.3

Application procedure

Table 7: How satisfied have you been with the administrative procedure in connection with the fol-

lowing?

Very

satisfied

Satisfied

Dissatis-

fied

Very

dissatis-

fied

Do not

know /

N/A

Total

The application form (n = 330)

20%

13%

64%

59%

13%

22%

100%

The time span between the deadline for applications and ap-

proval (n = 330)

Final reporting of exchange/project activities (n = 329)

13%

22%

60%

57%

18%

10%

100%

Requirements of the financial reporting

(n = 329)

Requirements of the reporting as regards contents (n = 329)

Payment of the grant (n = 328)

17%

32%

63%

56%

100%

Table 7a: Cross tabulation on sub-programme: Satisfaction with the time span between the deadline

for applications and approval

How satisfied have you been with the administrative procedure in connection with the the time span between the

deadline for applications and approval

Very satisfied

Comenius

6.8%

Erasmus

11.8%

Grundtvig

20.6%

LLP Study Visits

16.0%

Leonardo

22.0%

Total

14.2%

Satisfied

54.7%

68.6%

67.6%

76.0%

56.0%

192

60.4%

Dissatisfied

30.8%

19.6%

11.8%

4.0%

22.0%

22.3%

Very dissatisfied

7.7%

.0%

4.0%

.0%

3.1%

Total

117

100.0%

318

100.0%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 7b: Cross tabulation on sub-programme: Satisfaction with requirements of the financial report-

ing

How satisfied have you been with the administrative procedure in connection with the requirements of the financial

reporting

Very satisfied

Comenius

35.2%

Erasmus

6.4%

Grundtvig

35.3%

LLP Study Visits

20.8%

Leonardo

22.6%

Total

25.9%

Satisfied

56.2%

78.7%

55.9%

75.0%

64.3%

187

63.6%

Dissatisfied

7.6%

10.6%

5.9%

4.2%

13.1%

9.2%

Very dissatisfied

1.0%

4.3%

2.9%

.0%

1.4%

Total

105

100.0%

294

100.0%

Table 7c: Cross tabulation on sub-programme: Satisfaction with Payment of the grant

How satisfied have you been with the administrative procedure in connection with the pay-

ment of the grant?

Very satisfied

Comenius

38.0%

Erasmus

14.3%

Grundtvig

40.0%

LLP Study

Visits

Leonardo

28.6%

46.2%

Total

110

36.2%

Satisfied

57.4%

81.6%

48.6%

61.9%

49.5%

177

58.2%

Dissatisfied

2.8%

4.1%

8.6%

9.5%

3.3%

4.3%

Very dissatisfied

1.9%

.0%

2.9%

.0%

1.1%

1.3%

Total

108

100.0%

304

100.0%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 8:

Was the application form ….

Percent

… electronic

… paper-based

Total

Note: n = 329

67%

33%

100%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 8a: Cross tabulation on sub-programme: Was the application form electronic or paper-based

Was the application form …

… electronic

Comenius

57.0%

Erasmus

81.1%

Grundtvig

80.0%

LLP Study Visits

80.0%

Leonardo

69.1%

Total

225

68.6%

…

paper-based

43.0%

18.9%

20.0%

30.9%

103

31.4%

Total

121

100.0%

328

100.0%

Table 9: Did you receive personal support from the IU (formerly CIRIUS) in connection with the ap-

plication process and the implementation of the activities?

Percent

Yes

71%

Total

Note: n = 330

29%

100%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 9a: Cross tabulation on sub-programme: Personal support from IU

Did you receive personal support from the IU (formerly CIRIUS) in connection with the application process

and the implementation of the activities?

Yes

Comenius

62.0%

Erasmus

73.6%

Grundtvig

71.4%

LLP Study Visits

56.0%

Leonardo

88.3%

Total

236

72.0%

38.0%

26.4%

28.6%

44.0%

11.7%

28.0%

Total

121

100.0%

328

100.0%

Table 10: How satisfied have you been with the personal support from the IU (formerly CIRIUS) in

connection with …

Very

satisfied

Satisfied

Dissatis-

fied

Very

dissatis-

fied

Do not

know /

N/A

14%

Total

… the application process? (n = 234)

… the completion of the activities? (n = 232)

73%

62%

22%

23%

100%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 11: All in all, how satisfied are you with the application process?

Percent

Very satisfied

Satisfied

Dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

Total

27%

66%

100%

Note: n = 330

Table 12: Did you receive financial support for the activities from elsewhere than the EU?

Percent

Yes

Total

14%

86%

100%

Note: n = 330

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 12a: Cross tabulation on sub-programme: Financial support for the activities from elsewhere

than the EU

Did you receive financial support for the activities from elsewhere than the EU?

Yes

Comenius

9.9%

Erasmus

34.0%

Grundtvig

11.4%

LLP Study Visits

8.0%

Leonardo

11.7%

Total

109

90.1%

66.0%

88.6%

92.0%

88.3%

281

Total

121

100.0%

328

14.3%

85.7%

100.0%

Table 13: To which extent has the assurance of financial support from the EU been an advantage in

connection with applications for further support from elsewhere?

Percent

To a great extent

To some extent

To a low extent

Not at all

Do not know / N/A

Total

Note: n = 327

12%

76%

100%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 14: To which extent are the activities for which support can be applied through the EU educa-

tional programme relevant in respect of the requirements of your organisation/association?

Percent

To a great extent

To some extent

To a low extent

Not at all

Do not know / N/A

74%

21%

Total

Note: n = 329

100%

Table 15: To which extent do you find that the project activities for which support can be applied

through the EU educational programme complement what is offered in the area in Denmark?

Percent

To a great extent

To some extent

To a low extent

Not at all

Do not know / N/A

Total

Note: n = 329

49%

29%

19%

100%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

2.4

Participants’ outcome

Table 16: To which extent do you find that the target group has benefitted professionally from the

activities?

Percent

To a great extent

To some extent

To a low extent

Not at all

60%

36%

Do not know / N/A

Total

Note: n = 327

100%

Table 17: To which extent do you find that the young people have improved their qualifications

within the following areas through the Programme?

To a

great

extent

To some

extent

To a low

extent

Not at all

Do not

know /

N/A

Total

Language

Communication

Intercultural competence

Conflict handling

Cooperation

Network formation

Personal maturity/development

Note: n = 327

50%

51%

68%

46%

43%

54%

37%

40%

26%

32%

43%

37%

31%

26%

11%

27%

100%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 17a: Cross tabulation on sub-programme: Improved language qualifications

To which extent do you find that the young people have improved their language qualifica-

tions within through the Programme?

To a great extent

Comenius

51.7%

Erasmus

63.3%

Grundtvig

31.0%

LLP Study Visits

42.9%

Leonardo

57.1%

Total

162

52.6%

To some extent

44.9%

36.7%

55.2%

33.3%

31.9%

123

39.9%

To a low extent

2.5%

.0%

13.8%

23.8%

11.0%

7.1%

Not at all

.8%

.0%

.3%

Total

118

100.0%

308

100.0%

Table 17b: Cross tabulation on sub-programme: Improved networking formation

To which extent do you find that the young people have improved their networking formation qualifications within

the following areas through the Programme?

To a great extent

Comenius

36.7%

Erasmus

59.6%

Grundtvig

54.8%

LLP Study Visits

73.9%

Leonardo

44.2%

Total

140

47.3%

To some extent

45.0%

34.0%

41.9%

26.1%

44.2%

122

41.2%

To a low extent

18.3%

6.4%

3.2%

.0%

11.6%

11.5%

Total

109

100.0%

296

100.0%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 17c: Cross tabulation on sub-programme: Improved personal maturity/development

To which extent do you find that the young people have improved their qualifications within personal matur-

ity/development the following areas through the Programme?

To a great extent

Comenius

43.9%

Erasmus

77.6%

Grundtvig

56.7%

LLP Study Visits

33.3%

Leonardo

73.3%

Total

174

To some extent

48.2%

22.4%

33.3%

66.7%

20.9%

106

To a low extent

7.9%

.0%

10.0%

.0%

5.8%

Total

114

100.0%

297

58.6%

35.7%

5.7%

100.0%

Table 18: To which extent do you believe that …

To a

great

extent

52%

To some

extent

To a low

extent

Not at all

Do not

know /

N/A

Total

… the target group will benefit from the experience in their future

education and/or profession? (n = 327)

40%

100%

… … the activities have added a European dimension to the

target group’s development and education? (n = 327)

62%

31%

100%

… the activities have given the target group some educational

and development opportunities that they did not otherwise

have? (n = 327)

50%

36%

100%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 18a: Cross tabulation on sub-programme: The target group’s benefit from the experience in

their future education and/or profession

To which extent do you believe that

the target group will benefit from the experience in their future educa-

tion and/or profession?

To a great extent

Comenius

45.3%

Erasmus

70.8%

Grundtvig

50.0%

LLP Study Visits

60.9%

Leonardo

59.8%

Total

172

55.1%

To some extent

49.6%

29.2%

43.8%

34.8%

40.2%

131

42.0%

To a low extent

5.1%

.0%

6.2%

4.3%

.0%

2.9%

Total

117

100.0%

312

100.0%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 18b: Cross tabulation on sub-programme: Whether activities have added a European dimen-

sion to the target group’s development and education

To which extent do you believe that the activities have added a European dimension to the target group’s devel-

opment and education?

To a great extent

Comenius

65.5%

Erasmus

68.1%

Grundtvig

61.8%

LLP Study Visits

73.9%

Leonardo

56.5%

Total

200

63.5%

To some extent

34.5%

23.4%

29.4%

26.1%

43.5%

108

34.3%

To a low extent

.0%

8.5%

8.8%

.0%

2.2%

Total

119

100.0%

315

100.0%

Table 19: Has the target group participated in a study, traineeship or exchange visit in connection

with the educational programme?

Percent

Yes

70%

Total

Note: n = 326

30%

100%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 19a: Cross tabulation on sub-programme: Has the target group participated in a study, train-

eeship or exchange visit in connection with the educational programme?

Has the target group participated in a study, traineeship or exchange visit in connection with the educational

programme

Yes

Comenius

58.7%

Erasmus

88.5%

Grundtvig

57.1%

LLP Study Visits

76.0%

Leonardo

75.3%

Total

226

69.3%

41.3%

11.5%

42.9%

24.0%

24.7%

100

30.7%

Total

121

100.0%

326

100.0%

Table 20: To which extent …

Not at all

To a low

extent

To some

extent

To a

great

extent

77%

Do not

know/

N/A

Total

… are you all in all satisfied with the target group’s study, train-

eeship and/or exchange visit? (n = 230)

18%

100%

… are you satisfied with the professional content of the target

group’s study, traineeship and/or exchange visit? (n = 230)

39%

55%

100%

… do you find that the Europass Mobility certificate is applicable

as documentation for traineeship or educational visits abroad?

(n = 229)

21%

23%

39%

100%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 20a: Cross tabulation on sub-programme: To which extent are you all in all satisfied with the

target group’s study, traineeship and/or exchange visit?

To which extent are you all in all satisfied with the target group’s study, traineeship and/or exchange visit?

Not at all

Comenius

.0%

Erasmus

To a low extent

1.4%

To some extent

13.9%

26.7%

10.0%

15.8%

26.1%

20.0%

To a great extent

84.7%

71.1%

85.0%

68.4%

71.0%

172

76.4%

Total

100.0%

225

100.0%

2.2% ,0%

Grundtvig

5.0% ,0%

LLP Study Visits

5.3%

Leonardo

2.9% ,0%

Total

2.2%

10.5%

1.3%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 21: How do you assess the duration of the target group’s study, traineeship and/or exchange

visit?

Percent

Far too long

Too long

Appropriate length

Too short

Far too short

Do not know/N/A

Total

Note: n = 226

90%

100%

2.4.1

Participants’ outcome (Comenius/Grundtvig Training and Comenius Assistantship)

Table 22: To which extent do you find that you have benefitted professionally from the activities?

Percent

To a large extent

To some extent

To a low extent

Not at all

Do not know/N/A

Total

66%

28%

100%

Note: n = 280

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 23

To which extent do you find that you have improved your qualifications within the follow-

ing areas through your participation in the activities under the educational programme?

To a

large

extent

Language (n = 281)

Communication (n = 280)

45%

39%

To some

extent

To a low

extent

Not at all

Do not

know/

N/A

Total

40%

48%

100%

Intercultural competence (n = 277)

Conflict handling (n = 277)

Cooperation (n = 279)

Network formation (n = 279)

Personal maturity/development (n = 279)

55%

26%

35%

40%

16%

49%

42%

44%

26%

12%

14%

10%

17%

38%

100%

Table 24: To which extent do you believe that …

To a

large

extent

64%

To some

extent

To a low

extent

Not at all

Do not

know/

N/A

Total

… you will benefit from the experience in your further education

and/or profession?

33%

100%

… the activities have added a European dimension to your de-

velopment and education?

49%

45%

100%

… the activities have given you some educational and develop-

ment opportunities that you did not otherwise have?

Note: n = 280

47%

39%

100%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 25:

To which extent …

To a

large

extent

76%

To some

extent

To a low

extent

Not at all

Do not

know/

N/A

Total

… are you all in all satisfied with your study, traineeship and/or

exchange visit? (n = 281)

21%

100%

… are you satisfied with the professional content of your study,

traineeship and/or exchange visit? (n = 279)

62%

29%

100%

… do you find that the Europass Mobility certificate is applicable

as documentation for traineeship or educational visits abroad?

(n = 280)

17%

25%

50%

100%

Table 26

How do you assess the duration of the target group’s study, traineeship and/or exchange

visit?

Percent

Far too long

Too long

Appropriate length

Too short

Far too short

Do not know/N/A

86%

10%

Total

100%

Note: n = 280

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

2.5

Institutions’/ organisations’ outcome from participating in the project

Table 27: To which extent do you believe that the experience from the project has had a positive

impact on your institution/organisation?

Percent

To a great extent

To some extent

To a low extent

Not at all

56%

36%

Do not know/N/A

Total

Note: n = 325

100%

Table 28: To which extent has your project activities in connection with the educational programme

resulted in the following in your institution/organisation

To a

great

extent

35%

To some

extent

To a low

extent

Not at all

Do not

know/

N/A

Total

Exchange of experience with work methods (including educa-

tional materials, educational theory and practice, etc.)? (n = 323)

47%

11%

100%

Exchange of experience with quality, perspective and focus in

the teaching/education? (n = 323)

29%

50%

14%

100%

Development of education modules/courses across borders? (n

= 322)

23%

41%

18%

11%

100%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 29: To which extent was it possible to adapt the project activities under the educational pro-

gramme to the other national activities of the institution/organisation in respect of the following ar-

eas?

To a

great

extent

Organisationally? (n = 323)

As regards contents? (n = 322)

As regards time? (n = 322)

Financially? (n = 323)

33%

40%

28%

22%

To some

extent

To a low

extent

Not at all

Do not

know/

N/A

12%

Total

50%

47%

53%

52%

11%

100%

Table 30: To which extent has the project had a positive impact on the general development of the

institution/organisation?

Percent

To a great extent

To some extent

To a low extent

Not at all

37%

48%

Do not know/N/A

Total

(n = 324)

100%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 31: To which extent has the project …

To a

great

extent

… had a positive effect on the professional environment? (n = 310)

… had a positive effect on the study environment? (n = 310)

28%

21%

47%

some

extent

54%

50%

42%

To a

low

extent

13%

12%

Not at

all

Do not

know/

N/A

15%

Total

100%

… added a European dimension to the institution/organisation? (n =

310)

… improved the profile and image of the institution/organisation at a

national level? (n = 310)

30%

45%

13%

100%

… improved the profile and image of the institution/organisation at

an international level? (n = 310)

33%

43%

13%

100%

… had a motivational and promotional effect on the development

and implementation of new ideas and projects? (n = 309)

35%

49%

100%

… contributed to the establishment of new partnerships with other

institutions/organisations? (n = 309)

44%

36%

100%

Table 31a: Cross tabulation on sub-programme: To which extent has the project improved the profile

and image of the institution/organisation at an international level?

To which extent has the project improved the profile and image of the institution/organisation at an inter-

national level?

To a great extent

Comenius

32.4%

Erasmus

40.0%

Grundtvig

36.4%

Leonardo

37.1%

LLP Study Visits

5.6%

Total

100

33.8%

To some extent

53.2%

48.9%

33.3%

42.7%

77.8%

144

48.6%

To a low extent

12.6%

11.1%

24.2%

15.7%

5.6%

14.2%

Not at all

1.8%

.0%

6.1%

4.5%

11.1%

3.4%

Total

111

100.0%

296

100.0%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 31b: Cross tabulation on sub-programme: To which extent has the project contributed to the

establishment of new partnerships with other institutions/organisations?

To which extent has the project contributed to the establishment of new partnerships with other institu-

tions/organisations?

To a great extent

Comenius

44.1%

Erasmus

60.4%

Grundtvig

38.2%

Leonardo

54.0%

LLP Study Visits

22.7%

Total

143

47.4%

To some extent

43.2%

27.1%

52.9%

27.6%

59.1%

116

38.4%

To a low extent

6.3%

12.5%

5.9%

14.9%

9.1%

9.9%

Not at all

6.3%

.0%

2.9%

3.4%

9.1%

4.3%

Total

111

100.0%

302

100.0%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 32: To which extent do you believe that the participation of the institution/organisation in the

project …

To a

great

extent

43%

some

extent

45%

To a

low

extent

Not at

all

Do not

know/

N/A

Total

… will have a long-term positive effect on the institu-

tion/organisation? (n = 309)

100%

… will create permanent cooperation relations with persons in other

countries which would otherwise not exist? (n = 310)

59%

30%

100%

… to a higher degree than before will mean that Europe and the

European cooperation will be incorporated in the work of the institu-

tion/organisation? (n = 310)

43%

100%

… will encourage increased participation in national activi-

ties/projects? (n = 309)

29%

48%

12%

100%

… will encourage increased participation in other international activi-

ties/projects in general? (n = 310)

53%

37%

100%

… will encourage increased participation in other international activi-

ties/projects under the EU educational programmes? (n = 310)

53%

39%

100%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

2.5.1

Organisations’/institutions’ outcome (Comenius/Grundtvig Training and Comenius

Assistantship)

Table 33: To which extent do you believe that the experience from the project has had a positive

impact on your institution/organisation?

Percent

To a large extent

To some extent

To a low extent

Not at all

Do not know/N/A

Total

27%

62%

100%

Note: n = 279

Table 34: To which extent has your participation in the activities in connection with the educational

programme resulted in the following in your institution/organisation?

To a

large

extent

27%

To some

extent

To a low

extent

Not at all

Do not

know/

N/A

Total

Exchange of experience with work methods (including educa-

tional materials, educational theory and practice, etc.)?

(n = 279)

56%

10%

100%

Exchange of experience with quality, perspective and focus in

the teaching/education? (n = 277)

14%

54%

18%

100%

Development of education modules/courses across borders? (n

= 278)

14%

31%

30%

17%

100%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 35: To which extent was it possible to adapt the project activities in which you have partici-

pated to the other activities of the institution/organisation with respect to the following areas?

To a

large

extent

To some

extent

To a low

extent

Not at all

Do not

know/

N/A

Total

Organisationally? (n = 279)

As regards contents? (n = 277)

As regards time? (n = 277)

Financially? (n = 277)

32%

44%

29%

28%

36%

40%

38%

31%

10%

12%

10%

17%

16%

25%

100%

Table 36: To which extent has the project in which you have participated had a positive impact on

the general development of the institution/organisation?

Percent

To a large extent

To some extent

To a low extent

Not at all

Do not know/N/A

Total

Note: n = 279

16%

52%

18%

12%

100%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 37: To which extent has the project in which you have participated …

To a

large

extent

23%

To some

extent

To a low

extent

Not at all

Do not

know/

N/A

Total

… had a positive effect on the professional environment? (n =

274)

… had a positive effect on the study environment? (n = 271)

55%

100%

14%

20%

41%

47%

14%

21%

26%

100%

… added a European dimension to the institution/organisation?

(n = 273)

… improved the profile and image of the institution/organisation

at a national level? (n = 274)

10%

27%

26%

12%

26%

100%

… improved the profile and image of the institution/organisation

at an international level? (n = 274)

30%

27%

13%

22%

100%

… had a motivational and promotional effect on the develop-

ment and implementation of new ideas and projects? (n = 274)

33%

49%

100%

… contributed to the establishment of new partnerships with

other institutions/organisations? (n = 274)

20%

28%

23%

14%

15%

100%

Table 38: To which extent do you believe that the participation of the institution/organisation in the

project in which you have participated …

To a

large

extent

24%

To some

extent

To a low

extent

Not at all

Do not

know/

N/A

10%

Total

… will have a long-term positive effect on the institu-

tion/organisation? (n = 274)

47%

14%

100%

… will create permanent cooperation relations with persons in

other countries which would otherwise not exist? (n = 273)

23%

40%

21%

10%

100%

… to a higher degree than before will mean that Europe and the

European cooperation will be incorporated in the work of the

institution/organisation?

(n = 272)

21%

49%

14%

11%

100%

… will encourage increased participation in national activi-

ties/projects? (n = 273)

23%

41%

17%

15%

100%

… will encourage increased participation in other international

activities/projects in general? (n = 272)

36%

46%

100%

… will encourage increased participation in other international

activities/projects under the EU educational programmes? (n =

272)

43%

100%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

2.6

Participant profile

Percent

Table 39: Which category belonged to the primary target group of the project?

Pupils/students/course participants

Teachers

Other

Total

61%

27%

12%

100%

Note: n = 342

Table 39a. Cross tabulation on sub-programme: Which category belonged to the primary target group

of the project?

Which category belonged to the primary target group of the project?

Pupils/students/course

participants

Comenius

73.3%

Erasmus

90.6%

Grundtvig

37.1%

Leonardo

52.1%

LLP Study Visits

12.0%

Total

201

61.5%

Teachers

26.7%

9.4%

28.6%

27.7%

68.0%

27.5%

Other

.0%

34.3%

20.2%

20.0%

11.0%

Total

120

100.0%

327

100.0%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 40: From which region do the participants primarily come?

Percent

Copenhagen

Zealand

Southern Denmark

Central Jutland

19%

15%

27%

23%

Northern Jutland

Do not know / the project has not included Danish participants

Note: n = 311

12%

Table 41: To which extent did you face problems in recruiting participants for the project?

Percent

To a great extent

To some extent

To a low extent

Not at all

Do not know/N/A

Total

Note: n = 305

34%

22%

30%

10%

100%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 41a. Cross tabulation on sub-programme:

To which extent did you face problems in recruiting participants for the project?

To a great extent

Comenius 35,6

2.6%

Erasmus 58,4

16.7%

Grundtvig 44,8

.0%

Leonardo 43,6

3.4%

LLP Study Visits 14,3

.0%

Total

4.8%

To some extent

33.0%

41.7%

44.8%

40.2%

14.3%

108

36.9%

To a low extent

22.6%

25.0%

20.7%

28.7%

28.6%

24.9%

Not at all

41.7%

16.7%

34.5%

27.6%

57.1%

33.4%

Total

115

100.0%

293

100.0%

Table 42: Which special needs have there been?

Percent

Physical disability

Mental disability

Reading difficulties

Language difficulties

Learning disabilities

Other special needs

Do not know / the project has not included participants with special needs

Note: n = 311

15%

13%

10%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

2.7

Assessment: administrative procedures

Table 43: To which extent do you find it likely that the activities completed in the project would have

been completed, had there been no grant schemes under EU educational programmes?

Percent

To a great extent

To some extent

To a low extent

Not at all

28%

64%

Total

Note: n = 305

100%

Table 44: To which extent has the size of the EU grant been adequate in respect of meeting the origi-

nal objective of the activities?

Percent

To a great extent

To some extent

37%

54%

To a low extent

Not at all

Total

Note: n = 302

100%

Table 45: To which extent is there is a reasonable relation between the administrative tasks and …

To a great

extent

28%

To some

extent

61%

To a low

extent

Not at all

Total

… the education’s/organisation’s benefit from the activities? (n =

304)

… the EU grant? (n = 300)

100%

23%

56%

16%

100%

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 46: Please indicate up to three factors which have in particular impeded the completion of the

project activities

Percent

Lack of guidance in the possibilities

Lack of resources (financing, time, etc.)

Lack of professionally interesting possibilities

Lack of support from the faculty or the management

10%

35%

11%

Lack of interest from the target group

Lack of support and/or interests from colleagues

The administrative requirements

Other matters

Note: n = 309

15%

28%

31%

11%

Table 47: Please indicate three factors which have in particular been an incentive to project partici-

pation

Percent

Strengthening the knowledge of the participants of other cultures

Strengthening the linguistic skills of the participants

Creating an attractive educational environment

Improving the qualifications of the teachers

Promoting the European dimension of the education

82%

51%

41%

33%

57%

Other

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Activities implemented

This chapter illustrates the number of applications and approved projects, the granted funds, the nature of

coordinating organisations and project participants, and, finally, the nature of granted projects. It should be

noticed that the available data is limited for the various sub-programmes on different subjects or themes.

3.1

Number of applications and granted projects 2007-2009

In total, 1,440 project applications were granted during the period 2007-2009.

The table below illustrates the number of applications as well as the percentage of granted applications for

some of the sub-programmes and for the specific actions when applicable. For three programmes

(Grundtvig, Erasmus and LLP Study Visits) the number of total applications is not available. The number of

granted projects in these programmes is found below.

Table 48: Number of applications and percentage of granted applications 2007-2009

2007

Comenius

Regio

Applications granted (%)

Training

Applications granted (%)

Multilateral partnerships

Applications granted (%)

Bilateral Partnerships

Applications granted (%)

Assistant

Applications granted (%)

Host schools

Applications granted (%)

Grundtvig*

Leonardo

Mobility

Applications granted (%)

Partnerships

Applications granted (%)

Transfer of Innovation

Applications granted (%)

ERASMUS*

LLP – study visits

220

(78.)

188

(67.6)

(8.3)

(73,.)

(58.2)

2008

221

(80)

139

(70.5)

(0)

(50)

(100)

2009

(71.4)

276

(62.7)

112

(58)

(42.9)

(78.6)

(22)**

(57.9)

(71.4)

(100)

(11.4)

(58.3)

(72.8)

(100)

(2)

(56.7)

(37.5)

(100)

Source: Data from IU.

* No available data on numbers of applications. Only granted applications are listed. See Table 49.

** preliminary number.

Table 48 shows considerable variation among sub-programmes and actions in terms of the percentage of

applicants who are granted financial funding. For instance, within some Comenius actions around 70 % of

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

the applicants receive funding each year, whereas within Leonardo Mobility projects only around 11% of

applications were granted in 2008.

Table 49Error!

Reference source not found.

shows the number of granted project all three years. The

table indicates that in some years no projects have received funding within specific actions. The table shows

that the number of grants varies over the years, but there is no clear tendency towards either a decline or an

increase in the number of granted applications in the sub-programmes.

Table 49: Number of granted projects 2007-2009

2007

Comenius

Regio

In-service training grant

Initial teacher training grants

Multilateral partnerships

Bilateral partnerships

Assistantships

Preparatory visits

Grundtvig

Partnerships

Assistantships

Preparatory visits

Visit and exchanges

In service staff training

Senior volunteering projects

Workshops

Leonardo

Mobility for professionals I VET

Placements for people in labour

market

Placement init. vocat. training

Partnerships

Transfer of Innovation

Preparatory visits

ERASMUS

Mobility*

Intensive programmes

EILC

Preparatory visits

LLP – study visits

Total

173

127

659

2008

177

638

2009

177

n.a.

657

Total

527

271

179

100

186

124

1954

Source: Data from IU.

* The decline in numbers of granted projects from 2007 to 2009 is primarily caused by merger of large educational institutions in Den-

mark. This has to some degree influenced the Leonardo Da Vinci programme as well.

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

3.2

Granted funds

The table below illustrates the distribution of grants between the sub-programmes.

Table 50: Granted funding (net) distributed on sector programmes and actions (December 2009)

2007

Comenius

Training

Training school education staff

Assistants

Multilateral partnerships

Bilateral partnerships

Preparatory visits

Regio

272,417.00

10,636.00

105,534.70

975,000.00

26,000.00

52,308.81

n.a.

1,441,896.51

Erasmus

Student mobility

Intensive programmes

Intensive language programmes

Preparatory visits

4,019,320.00

209,960.00

87,221.00

7,493.00

4,323,994.00

Grundtvig

Training

Learning partnerships

Preparatory Visits

Visit and exchanges

Workshop

Senior Voluntary Projects

27,650.00

418,500.00

20,597.00

n.a.

466,747.00

Leonardo da Vinci

Student mobility

Mobility – People in labour market

Teacher mobility

Partnerships

Transfer of innovation

Preparatory visits

1,294,267.00

15,300.00

106,900.00

n.a

1,764,505.00

25,625.00

3,206,597.00

Study visits

Total

47,536.00

9,486,770.51

1,552,737.00

0.00

235,100.00

226,000.00

1,601,820.00

47,802.00

3,663,459.00

60,864.45

10,468,854.22

1,603,490.00

13,000.00

140,857.00

273,000.00

1,475,269.75

54,917.00

3,560,533.75

45,534.48

11,301,142.92

34,920.00

341,000.00

19,563.00

n.a.

395,483.00

38,768.00

240,500.00

19,358.00

16,746.00

102,750.00

28,600.00

446,722.00

4,281,455.00

331,389.00

85,000.00

4,095.00

4,701,939.00

4,683,279.00

394,197.00

87,000.06

12,357.00

5,176,833.06

392,440.00

19,500.00

40,198.03

1,005,500.00

112,000.00

77,470.74

n.a.

1,647,108.77

362,037.81

0.00

54,393.82

1,228,000.00

122,500.00

89,672.00

214,916.00

2,071,519.63

2008

- EUR -

2009

Source: IU, n.a. not possible to apply to this action this year.

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

3.3

Coordinating organisations

This section shows information about the coordinating organisations, their geographical position and their

type. Primarily data from Leonardo Mobility is available, and therefore it is difficult to draw a covering picture

of the situation in other programmes.

The following table shows the participants of Leonardo Mobility distributed on regions in Denmark. For a

large part of the participants no region is listed. All regions are represented and no region seems to be un-

derrepresented. For Leonardo Mobility it seems like there is a fairly equal distribution of participants from all

over Denmark – it even contains participants from Northern Germany and Southern Sweden.

Table 51: Participants by regions in Denmark (Leonardo Mobility)

Denmark

Leonardo

Mobility

2007

2008

2009

Capital

Northern

Jutland

Southern

Denmark

Zealand

Central

Jutland

Other*

719

505

100

Source: Data from IU.

* contains Southern Sweden, Schleswig-Holstein and Extra Regio.

Tables 52 and 53 illustrate the categories and type of organisations that were reached in two of the Lifelong

Learning sub-programmes. Available data is found on Leonardo Mobility and Comenius.

Table 52 shows the types of coordination organisations in the Leonardo Mobility programme. It shows that a

lot of different organisations use the possibility of the EU grants. The majority of the participants in the pro-

gramme come from vocational training schools, centres or organisations. 1,340 participants come from that

type of organisation. However, a lot of different organisations are represented, from large enterprises to non-

profit associations. This shows that the Leonardo Mobility programme has managed to reach out to a large

part of the target group organisations.

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 52: Type of organisation (Leonardo Mobility)

2007

Leonardo Mobility

Social partner (trade un-

ion, etc)

University or higher edu-

cation institutions

Enterprise large (> 500

employees)

Enterprise SME (< 500

employees)

Public authority (regional

or local)

Centre for vocational

guidance and counselling

Vocational secondary

school

Vocational training school,

centre or organisation

Non-profit association

Association of VET institu-

tions, organisations,

schools or providers

Trainees' associations

Company training depart-

ment

Total

2008

2009

Total

740

262

459

166

141

503

1340

863

811

381

2055

Table 53 illustrates the number of granted schools distributed on type of organisation. They are primarily

schools that get funding from the Comenius programme. No non-profit associations or NFOs or NGOs have

received funding in the three years. The numbers for 2009 are very low, but it is probably due to unfinished

calculations.

Table 53: Granted schools under Comenius distributed on organisation

Comenius

Pre-primary school

Primary school

General secondary school

Vocational or technical secon-

dary school

Establishment for learners

with special needs

Non-profit association

NFO, NGO

Public authority, local, re-

gional, national

Other

Total

Source: IU data

2007

171

312

2008

143

2009

Total

224

149

502

The below table illustrates which part of the educational sector the survey respondents represent.

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 54: Which part of the educational sector do you represent?

Percent

Primary school

Vocational educations

Medium-long further education

Upper secondary school (STX)

Long further education

Short further education

Higher commercial examination (HHX) / higher technical

examination (HTX)

Vocational further training

Other

Total

Note: n = 344 project managers

28%

24%

10%

14%

100%

3.4

Project participants and mobility beneficiaries

The following section describes the project participants and their background data as far as possible with

existing data. Our data makes it possible to present facts mainly on Erasmus and Leonardo Mobility, and

only to a limited extent on the rest of the sub-programmes.

Table 55 shows the number of students and teachers in the Erasmus programme for the three years. It

shows that quite a large number of students (6,397) have received support and funding within the mobility

programme.

Table 55: Number of Erasmus students/teachers/participants distributed on sub-programmes

2007/08

Mobility

Students

Teachers/Staff

Intensive Pro-

grammes

Students

Teachers

EILC

Participants

Total

Source: Data from IU.

2008/09

2009/10

(estimated

numbers)

Total

1996

412

2126

369

2275

420

6397

1201

137

184

237

558

186

168

173

210

551

2760

2922

3254

8936

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

The figures below illustrate the number of participants in different age groups in the Leonardo Mobility pro-

grammes (IVT and VETPRO).With only four participants over three years the PL programme is not reported

in these figures. The Leonardo Mobility programme aims to give different people equal opportunities to ex-

perience Europe and to learn. The two reported programmes have different target groups and it can be seen

from the figures that different target groups are reached in the Leonardo Mobility programme.

Figure 1 clearly shows that the IVT programme to a large extent is used by younger people, which indicates

that the programme is used by the target group; students and pupils.

Figure 1: Percentage of participants distributed on age group (Leonardo Mobility – IVT)

100%

85%86%

80%

83%

60%

40%

20%

11%

9% 9%

3% 2%

15-24

25-34

35-44

Age in years

IVT 2007

IVT 2008

IVT 2009

45-54

55-64

1% 2% 2%

0% 1% 1%

Source: Data from IU. 2009 YR-A-3-Statistics-A- LDV -Mobility- 2007-2009

Up till 86 % of the participants in the IVT programme are between 15 and 24 years old. It is not reported in

this figure that the number of participants are declining over the three years, which might be caused by unfin-

ished registration in 2009. It can be difficult to see whether there is a real decline in the number of partici-

pants.

For another part of the Leonardo Mobility programme the picture looks different. The VETPRO action has

another target group, and as is seen in figure 2, the participants are on average older than the participants in

IVT.

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Figure 2: Percentage of participants distributed on age group (Leonardo Mobility – VETPRO)

60%

48%

41%

40%

32%

25%

22%

20%

22%

18%

32%

10%

0% 1%

15-24

10%

25-34

35-44

Age in years

VETPRO 2007

VETPRO 2008

VETPRO 2009

45-54

55-64

65-74

Source: Data from IU. 2009 YR-A-3-Statistics-A- LDV -Mobility- 2007-2009

Most of the participants are between 35 and 64 years old but it varies from year to year. In 2007 41% of the

participants were between 35 and 44. In 2008 the largest group was between 45 and 54, and in 2009 one

third was between 35 and 44 and another third between 55 and 64. It shows that there is a great age range

in the programme.

Beneath, the table shows the distribution of participants in Leonardo Mobility by gender. The LLP seeks to

make it possible for all men and women to go abroad or to get new knowledge and new inputs from the out-

side world. Therefore, equal access to these programmes is relevant. Unfortunately, it is only possible to

show the numbers for Leonardo Mobility due to the lack of data available.

Table 56: Number of participants and percentage of female participants (Leonardo Mobility)

2007

Leonardo Mobility

IVT

Female (%)

VETPRO

Female (%)

Total

838

(53.3)

(36.7)

(50)

921

(51.9)

2008

734

(45.9)

121

(65.3)

855

(48.7)

2009

373

(48.2)

(63.4)

(100)

415

(49.9)

Total

1,945

(49.6)

241

(55.6)

(60)

2,191

(50.3)

Table 56 indicates that there is a fairly equal distribution of men and women in the Leonardo Mobility pro-

gramme. If we look at the row of totals in the bottom of the table the average for all years is approximately 50

percent. The average for all years shows that 50.3 % of all participants were women. A closer look reveals

an overweight of women in the VETPRO programme in 2008 and 2009 while they were underrepresented

with only 36.7 % of the participants in 2007. It is difficult to see whether these fluctuations show a tendency

or it is just coincidence.

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

The next table presents one of the results from the survey among LLP project managers. They are asked to

define the main target group of their project. 327 project managers have answered the question.

Table 57: Category of the main target group

Category of the main target group of the project

Pupils/students/participants

Teachers/trainers

Other

73.3 %

26.7 %

90.6 %

9.4 %

37.1 %

28.6 %

34.3 %

52.1 %

27.7 %

20.2 %

12.0 %

68.0 %

20.0 %

201

61.5 %

27.5 %

11.0 %

Total

120

100 %

327

100 %

Comenius

Erasmus

Grundtvig

Leonardo

LLP Study visit

Total

Source: Survey among project managers, n = 327.

For Comenius and Erasmus it is clear that the main target group for the projects are students or pupils who

are in focus in especially mobility programmes. A smaller part are teachers and trainers who can also get

funding through Comenius and Erasmus.

For Grundtvig 37.1 % of the participants are students or pupils, 28.6 % are teachers or trainers while the last

34.3 % are categorised as ‘other’. ‘Other’ are most likely persons who receive funding for training or in some

way or the other are already part of the labour market. The same picture can be drawn for the Leonardo

programme. As seen above Leonardo, has different target groups in different ages due to the nature of the

sub programmes. LLP study visits has primarily teachers and trainers as participants which is expected as

the programme aims to transfer knowledge from institutions across Europe.

For further information on the profile of project participants, please consult section 2.2.5 in the main report.

3.5

Nature of funded activities 2007-2009

The quantitative survey shows that a number of different motivations have induced players to take part in the

programme. According to project managers the key incentives to project participation are 1) Strengthening

the participants’ knowledge of other cultures (82 %); 2) Promoting the European dimension of the education

(57 %); 3) Strengthening the linguistic skills of the participants (52 %); 4) Creating an attractive educational

environment (41 %); and 5) Improving the qualifications of the teachers (33 %) (Table 48 in the Annex).

The LLP has a long list of defined objectives and priorities that the projects and participants are encouraged

to work with. The below table shows the number of applications by operational objectives. For most of the

programmes only data from 2009 is available which makes it difficult to make comparisons. However, the

table still shows which of the objectives are in particular focus.

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Table 58: Percentage of applications by operational objectives

Programme

Improving

quality &

mobility

of staff &

learners*

Improving

quality &

partnerships

between AE

organisations*

Assisting

vulnerable

social

groups

Facilitating

innovative

practices

and their

transfer

Supporting

innovative

ICT

Supporting

improvements

in pedagogi-

cal ap-

proaches

Grundtvig –

Learning part-

nerships

2007

2008

2009

Grundtvig –

Senior volun-

tary projects

2009

n.a

95.6 %

83.3 %

n.a.

91.3 %

72.2 %

n.a

39.1 %

50.0 %

n.a

65.2 %

61.1 %

n.a

39.1 %

16.6 %

n.a

47.8 %

50 %

Improving

quality &

mobility

of staff &

trainees

50 %

Improving

quality &

partnerships

between VET

organisations*

Developing

innovative

practices

and their

transfer

Improving

transparency

and recogni-

tion of quali-

fications and

competences

Encouraging

learning

languages

50 %

Supporting

innovative ICT

Leonardo -

Partnerships

2009

17.6 %

Improving

Quality &

mobility

staff &

pupils

94.1 %

Improving

quality &

partnerships

between

schools

17.6 %

Encouraging

Learning

Languages

17. 6 %

Supporting

development

of ICT

based con-

tent

23.5 %

Enhancing

quality of

European

teacher

training

17.6 %

Supporting

improvements

in pedagogi-

cal

approaches

Comenius –

Regio

2009

Comenius –

Multilateral

partnerships

2009

80 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

78.5 %

75.,4 %

55.4 %

46.1 %

27,7 %

46.1 %

Source: Data from IU. Notice that available data is very limited. The rows do not sum to a 100 percent while one project can be contained in more

than one category.

The table shows that for all available years a large number of the applications have a relevant focus on op-

erational objectives. Up to 96 % of the granted projects focus on the LLP objectives. That means that a very

large part seek to implement the intentions of the EU programme. Even though the picture is limited by the

insufficient amount of data available the picture of the degree to which the operational objectives are

reached is clear.

3.6

Challenges

This chapter has presented an overview of the implemented activities, the number of applications and the

distribution of the grants on programmes and actions. To some extent it is also shown how the LLP reaches

its target groups by age and region and it is discussed to which degree the operational objects have been

reached.

Unfortunately, it has only to a limited extent been possible to collect and compare data on different pro-

grammes. There is a sufficient amount of data available on the Leonardo Mobility programmes, but the data

across sectors and actions is not registered in the same way which makes comparisons difficult. The extrac-

tion of information on gender, age, number and role of the participants in Comenius, Erasmus, Grundtvig and

NIRAS

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

LLP Study Visits has proven difficult and it is a challenge to account for the geographical distribution or

socio-economic background.

NIRAS