kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Europaudvalget 2025
KOM (2025) 0395
Offentligt

EUROPEAN

COMMISSION

Brussels, 15.7.2025

SWD(2025) 186 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

EVALUATION

Interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ programme and final evaluation of the

2014-2020 Erasmus+ programme

Accompanying the document

Report from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the

European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions

on the Interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ programme and final evaluation

of the 2014-2020 Erasmus+ programme

{COM(2025) 395 final}

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Table of contents

Introduction ...............................................................................................................4

1.1

URPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION

FITNESS CHECK

....................................... 4

1.1.1 R

EGULATORY AND LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATIONS

.................................................... 4

1.1.2 E

VALUATION CRITERIA AND FOCUS AREA

.................................................................... 4

1.1.3 M

ETHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES

............................................................................ 5

1.1.4 C

HALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS IN DATA ANALYSIS

................................................... 6

What was the expected outcome of the intervention? ............................................7

2.1

2.2

2.3

ESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVENTION AND ITS OBJECTIVES

....................................... 7

AIN CHANGES INTRODUCED IN THE

2021-2027

PROGRAMMING PERIOD

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

OINT

(

)

OF COMPARISON

........................................................................................... 17

How has the situation evolved over the evaluation period? ................................18

3.1

URRENT STATE OF PLAY

............................................................................................ 18

Evaluation findings (analytical part) .....................................................................25

4.1.1 E

FFECTIVENESS

............................................................................................................ 25

4.1.1.1 D

EGREE OF ACHIEVEMENT OF INTERVENTION LOGIC AGAINST KEY INDICATORS

. 26

4.1.1.2 I

MPACT AT INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

.................................................................................... 37

4.1.1.3 I

MPACT AT LEVEL OF ORGANISATIONS

....................................................................... 45

4.1.1.4 S

YSTEM AND POLICY IMPACT

...................................................................................... 50

4.1.1.5 E

FFECTIVENESS OF INCLUSION MEASURES

................................................................ 56

4.1.1.6 E

FFECTIVENESS OF PRIORITIES

’

IMPLEMENTATION

................................................. 59

4.1.1.7 V

ISIBILITY AND DISSEMINATION OF RESULTS

............................................................ 63

4.1.1.8 E

XTERNAL INFLUENCING FACTORS OVER BOTH PROGRAMMING PERIODS

............. 64

4.1.2 E

FFICIENCY

................................................................................................................... 67

4.1.2.1 S

IZE OF BUDGET

............................................................................................................ 67

4.1.2.2 I

MPLEMENTATION MODES AND USER

FRIENDLINESS

................................................ 72

4.1.2.3 E

FFICIENCY GAINS AND SIMPLIFICATION

................................................................... 76

4.1.2.4 C

OST

EFFECTIVENESS

.................................................................................................. 79

4.1.2.5 M

ONITORING MECHANISMS

......................................................................................... 88

4.1.2.6 A

NTI

FRAUD MEASURES

............................................................................................... 90

4.1.3 C

OHERENCE

.................................................................................................................. 91

4.1. To what extent was the intervention successful and why?

..................................25

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

4.1.3.1 I

NTERNAL

OHERENCE

............................................................................................... 91

4.1.3.2 E

XTERNAL COHERENCE

............................................................................................... 94

4.2. How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom?

.......................102

4.2.1 E

UROPEAN ADDED VALUE AS COMPARED TO WHAT COULD BE ACHIEVED AT

REGIONAL

NATIONAL OR OTHER INTERNATIONAL LEVEL

................................................. 102

4.2.2 E

UROPEAN ADDED VALUE OF

RASMUS

+ 2021-2027

COMPARED TO WHAT WAS

ACHIEVED BY

RASMUS

+ 2014-2020 .................................................................................... 106

4.2.3 E

UROPEAN ADDED VALUE AS COMPARED TO WHAT WOULD BE THE MOST LIKELY

CONSEQUENCES OF DISCONTINUING THE PROGRAMME

...................................................... 107

4.2.4 C

ONTRIBUTION TO

‘E

UROPEANNESS

’

....................................................................... 108

4.2.5 I

NTERNATIONAL ADDED VALUE

................................................................................. 110

4.3. Is the intervention still relevant?

.........................................................................111

4.3.1 R

ELEVANCE OF PROGRAMME OBJECTIVES AND PRIORITIES

.................................. 111

4.3.2 R

ELEVANCE TO EMERGING NEEDS FOR SKILLS AND GROWTH

............................... 113

4.3.3 R

ELEVANCE TO SOCIO

ECONOMIC NEEDS OF INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANISATIONS

121

What are the conclusions and lessons learned? ..................................................124

5.1

5.2

ONCLUSIONS

............................................................................................................. 124

ESSONS LEARNED

..................................................................................................... 133

5.2.1. P

ROGRAMME ACTIVITIES

.......................................................................................... 133

5.2.2. M

ONITORING AND EVALUATION ARRANGEMENTS

.................................................. 135

Annex I: Procedural Information ..............................................................................139

Annex II. Methodology and Analytical models used ..................................................143

Annex III. Evaluation matrix and, where relevant, Details on answers to the

evaluation questions (by criterion) ......................................................................154

Annex IV. Overview of benefits and costs and Table on simplification and burden

reduction.................................................................................................................170

Annex V. Stakeholders consultation - Synopsis report ..............................................185

Annex VI. Complementary information on the intervention logics of Erasmus+ 2014-

2020 and Erasmus+ 2021-2027 .............................................................................211

Annex VII. Overview of indicators ..............................................................................218

Annex VIII. Overview of Continued and Discontinued Actions between Erasmus+

2014-2020 and Erasmus+ 2021-2027....................................................................223

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Glossary

Term or acronym

Meaning or definition

Process to ensure that the organisations wishing to receive funding under

an Action of the Erasmus+ programme comply with a set of qualitative

standards or pre-requisites laid down by the European Commission for

that Action

All forms of non-vocational adult education, whether of a formal, non-

formal or informal nature

Any adult who, having completed or being no longer involved in initial

education or training, returns to some forms of non-vocational continuing

learning (formal, non-formal or informal). For the purpose of the

Erasmus+ projects, educational staff (teachers, trainers, educators,

academic and youth staff, etc.) in any of the Erasmus+ sector cannot be

considered as adult learners in adult education.

Literacy, mathematics, science and technology; these skills are included in

the key competences.

Combination of physical mobility and a virtual component, facilitating

collaborative online learning exchange/teamwork

An accreditation granted by the European Commission giving the

possibility to higher education institutions from EU Member States and

third countries associated to the programme to be eligible to apply and

participate in learning mobility and cooperation activities under

Erasmus+. The Charter outlines the fundamental principles an institution

should adhere to in organising and implementing high quality mobility

and cooperation.

Learning

resulting from daily activities and experiences which is not

organised or structured in terms of objectives, time or learning support; it may

be unintentional from the learner’s perspective.

In the context of Erasmus+, relates to any action involving at least one EU

Member State or third country associated to the programme and at least

one third country not associated to the programme.

Moving physically to a country other than the country of residence, in

order to undertake study, training or non-formal, or informal learning.

Any participating organisation that has not previously received support in

a given type of action supported by this programme or its predecessor

programme either as a coordinator or a partner.

A body in charge of managing the implementation of the programme at

national level in a Member State or in a third country associated to the

programme. One or more National Agencies may exist in each country.

Learning which takes place through planned learning activities where

some form of learning support is present, but which is not part of the

formal education and training system.

People with fewer opportunities means people who, for economic, social,

cultural, geographical or health reasons, a migrant background, or for

Accreditation

Adult education

Adult learner

Basic skills

Blended mobility

ECHE (Erasmus Charter

for Higher Education)

Informal learning

International

Learning mobility

Newcomer organisation

National Agency (NA)

Non-formal learning

Participant with fewer

opportunities

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

reasons such as disability and educational difficulties or for any other

reasons, including those that can give rise to discrimination under article

21 of the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union, face

obstacles that prevent them from having effective access to opportunities

under the programme.

Support, Advanced Learning and Training Opportunities

Resource centers aiming at improving the quality and impact of the

Erasmus+ programme through providing resources, expertise and training

to National Agencies in specific areas.

A person who, on either a professional or a voluntary basis, is involved in

education, training or non-formal learning at all levels. Includes

professors, teachers (including pre-school teachers), trainers, school

leaders, youth workers, sport staff, early childhood education and care

staff, non-educational staff and other practitioners involved on a regular

basis in promoting learning.

Support activities implemented by the National Agencies aiming to

improve the implementation of the programme in qualitative terms and to

make it more strategic by building closer links with the relevant elements

of policy development. The wording ‘Transnational Cooperation

Activities’ has changed to ‘Training and Cooperation Activities’ in the

2021-2027 programme

Countries which do not participate fully in the Erasmus+ programme, but

which may take part (as partners or applicants) in certain Actions of the

programme. The list of third countries not associated to the programme is

set out in the Programme Guide

In the context of Erasmus+, relates, unless otherwise indicated, to any

activity involving at least two EU Member States and third countries

associated to the programme

Include the ability to think critically, be curious and creative, to take

initiative, to solve problems and work collaboratively, to be able to

communicate efficiently in a multicultural and interdisciplinary

environment, to be able to adapt to context and to cope with stress and

uncertainty. These skills are part of the key competences.

Vocational education and training is to be understood as the education and

training which aims to equip young people and adults with knowledge,

skills and competences required in particular occupations or more broadly

on the labour market. It may be provided in formal and in non-formal

settings, at all levels of the European Qualifications Framework (EQF),

including tertiary level, if applicable.

A person enrolled in an initial or continuous vocational education and

training programme or a person who has recently graduated or obtained a

qualification from such a programme.

In the context of the Erasmus+ programme, individuals aged between 13

and 30.

A professional or a volunteer involved in non-formal learning who

supports young people in their personal socio-educational, and

professional development.

SALTO

Staff

TCA (Transnational

Cooperation activities /

Training and Cooperation

Activities)

Third countries not

associated to the

programme

Transnational

Transversal (soft; life)

skills

Vocational Education and

Training (VET)

Vocational education and

training (VET) learner

Young people

Youth worker

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

1.1

NTRODUCTION

Purpose and scope of the evaluation/fitness check

Erasmus+ is the European Union programme in the fields of education and training,

youth and sport.

It is one of the EU’s most visible success stories. The 2021-2027 programme

generation builds on the achievements of its 37 years of existence and on the success of the

2014-2020 programme, keeping substantial stability and continuity in the structure and

management mode of the programme compared to the 2014-2020 programme.

This evaluation is carried out in line with Article 24(2) of Regulation (EU) 2021/817 of the

European Parliament and of the Council (hereinafter ‘the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ Regulation)

which establishes ‘once

sufficient information about the implementation of the Programme is

available, but no later than 31 December 2024, the Commission shall perform an interim

evaluation of the Programme. That interim evaluation shall be accompanied by a final

evaluation of the 2014-2020 Programme, which shall feed into the interim evaluation’.

Therefore, this evaluation report covers actions in the period 2014-2020 (final evaluation) and

2021-2023 (interim evaluation) in all Member States, third countries associated to the

programme and third countries not associated to the programme

The baseline for the final evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020 is the mid-term evaluation

performed in 2017

, while the impact assessment for the 2021-2027 period

is the baseline for

the interim evaluation of Erasmus+ 2021-2027. In total, the period 2014-2020 corresponds to

a total budget of EUR 16.2 billion, while the period 2021-2023 to EUR 10 billion.

1.1.1

Regulatory and legislative considerations

As foreseen by Article 24(4) of the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ Regulation, the Commission may on

the basis of the evaluation put forward a legislative proposal to amend the Regulation. While

this is not deemed necessary based on the results, it nevertheless provides an opportunity to

revise budgetary allocations between actions for the final two years of the programme, taking

into account priorities that were not foreseen at the time of the adoption in 2021.

1.1.2

Evaluation criteria and focus area

The evaluation assesses the performance of the programme against the five evaluation criteria

established in the

Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox.

In line with the 2021-2027

Erasmus+ Regulation, the interim evaluation of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 assesses ‘the

overall

effectiveness and performance of the Programme, including as regards new initiatives and the

delivery of inclusion and simplification measures’.

The evaluation also assesses the flexibility

and agility of the programme to react to unexpected contextual elements such as the COVID-

19 pandemic (final and interim evaluation), the Russian invasion of Ukraine (interim

evaluation), rising inflation (interim evaluation), and looks at particular areas highlighted in the

2021-2027 Erasmus+ Regulation recitals, such as the progress of institutions financed under

Jean Monnet Actions towards delivering on the programme objectives (interim evaluation).

Regulation (EU) 2021/817 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 establishing

Erasmus+: the Union Programme for education and training, youth and sport and repealing Regulation (EU) No

1288/2013 (OJ L 189, 28.5.2021, p. 1).

https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/programme-guide/part-a/eligible-countries

SWD(2018) 40 of 31 January 2018.

SWD(2018) 277 of 30 May 2018.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Both the final and the interim evaluations assess the performance of the different (key) actions,

with higher focus on the activities implemented under key action 1 (KA1, learning mobility)

and key action 2 (KA2, cooperation among organisations) under indirect management

(approximately 80% of the programme budget of each programming period). They also cover

the extent to which findings and conclusions differ across the

programme fields

(education

and training- including higher education, vocational education and training (VET), school

education and adult education - youth and sport), across the different

target levels

(individual,

organisational and systemic),

key actions and objectives

under each programming period.

The actions that were discontinued during the 2014-2020 programming period or in the

transition to the 2021-2027 programme are only covered to determine whether their

discontinuation determined any loss in terms of EU added value.

1.1.3

Methodology and data sources

This Staff Working Document (SWD) on the interim evaluation of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 and

final evaluation of the predecessor programme has been carried out in line with the Call for

evidence published in July 2022

. It draws mainly, among other sources

, on the

National

Reports

submitted by the Member States and third countries associated to the programme on

the implementation and impact of Erasmus+ in their respective territories in accordance with

Article 24(3) of the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ Regulation, and the

support study

conducted by

ICF S.A,

(hereinafter ICF), under contract with the European Commission, Directorate-

General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (DG EAC)

. The final report delivered by

ICF provides answers to all

evaluation questions

defined in the Terms of Reference and

related to the five evaluation criteria. The final report of the contractor contains also

recommendations addressed to the Commission.

The support study used a broad set of data collection and analytical techniques, drawing on

both primary and secondary data collection:

•

Analysis of programme data, of project samples, a review of approximately 1 500

reports, scientific papers and programme documentation, and a social media analysis;

a public consultation gathering more than 1200 responses and 64 position papers;

targeted consultation addressing key stakeholders (more than 250 interviews; 44 case

studies; surveys to implementing bodies, more than 1 800 project assessors, more than

50 000 beneficiaries and 5 000 non-beneficiaries; 5 workshops);

three meta-analyses

, summarizing the conclusions of scientific studies looking at

individual level impacts linked to the programme’s participation, around skills

development, employability and values.

A counterfactual analysis was also run to assess the effects of participation across beneficiary

organisations and individuals compared to non-participants (control groups), or before/after

participation. Moreover, a behavioural analysis was carried out to explore why some learners

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/

Annex II. Methodology and Analytical models used.

See annex I Procedural information.

See annex III for evaluation questions.

The meta-analysis is a popular approach in research for synthesizing data across studies. It has also been used in

the field of study abroad (see, for instance, Di Pietro, G. (2022) "Studying Abroad and Earnings: A Meta-

Analysis", Journal of Economic Surveys, 36(4), 1096-1129).

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

and young people

participate in Erasmus+ while others do not, and to shed light on the factors

that hinder participation.

1.1.4

Challenges and limitations in data analysis

Several challenges affected the scope and precision of the evaluation.

For the final evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020, data were available for the majority of

projects, which had already been completed. However, 8% of projects under direct

management were still ongoing at the time of analysis. The overall impact of these projects

could not yet be fully assessed, though the final dataset for indirect management was nearly

complete.

For the interim evaluation of Erasmus+ 2021-2027, several limitations were noted, particularly

regarding incomplete data for 2023. Some recently launched initiatives—such as sport mobility

(first call in 2023) and the DiscoverEU inclusion action (launched in 2022)—could not yet be

fully assessed. Additionally, a large proportion of ongoing projects, especially large-scale

partnerships with durations of up to 48 months, remained at an early stage, limiting the ability

to measure their long-term impact. As of the evaluation cut-off date, 46% of indirectly managed

projects and 82% of directly managed projects initiated during 2021-2023 were still in progress.

Moreover, one key challenge in the interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ programme

stems from the recent adoption of its monitoring and evaluation framework. The Commission

Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2710

, adopted on 13 September 2023, introduced additional

indicators to improve the measurement of the programme’s various dimensions. However, at

the time of this evaluation, the necessary mechanisms, tools, and methodologies outlined in the

accompanying SWD

were not yet fully operational. This limited the completeness of

monitoring data, making it difficult to assess certain aspects of the programme in a systematic

way.

A major limitation, affecting both the final evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020 and the interim

evaluation of Erasmus+ 2021-2027, relates to challenges in survey-based and counterfactual

analyses. Survey respondents were recruited differently depending on their status: beneficiaries

were selected from programme contact databases, while non-beneficiaries were reached

through social media campaigns. This approach introduced potential comparability issues since

the two groups may differ in demographics, engagement levels, or motivations for

participation. Additionally, since only limited background characteristics were available in

programme dashboards, it was difficult to determine to what extent the responses reflected the

broader Erasmus+ participant population.

The counterfactual analysis, which aimed to compare beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries,

controlled for several characteristics. However, the smaller sample size of the non-beneficiary

group limited its effectiveness in fully accounting for all relevant factors. Although the analysis

found positive links between Erasmus+ participation and skills, employability, and behavioural

changes, it could not confirm a direct cause-and-effect relationship.

Despite these challenges, survey data remains crucial for evaluating Erasmus+, given the lack

of ability to track individual programme participants over time using administrative data on

The experiment addressed higher education students, VET learners and young people (youth mobility).

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2710 of 13 September 2023 supplementing Regulation (EU)

2021/817 of the European Parliament and of the Council with provisions on the establishment of a monitoring and

evaluation framework for the Erasmus+ programme, OJ L 2023/2710, 5.12.2023.

SWD(2023) 296 of 13 September 2023.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

key post-participation outcomes, such as employment rates, wages, and career progression after

learning mobility. Consequently, self-reported assessments continue to be the most widely used

method to gauge the programme’s impact across its various dimensions.

A possible improvement for future evaluations could be to explore, in collaboration with

Member States, the feasibility of using unique identifiers for programme participants. This

would allow them to be identified in administrative datasets, which could then complement

survey findings and enhance reliability. Such an approach could improve the ability to track

long-term outcomes, such as employment trends and career progression, beyond self-reported

data.

To address outlined limitations, the evaluation integrates findings from multiple data sources

and cross-references results to provide a balanced and comprehensive assessment. The final

evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020 has been instrumental in informing the interim evaluation

of Erasmus+ 2021-2027, particularly in areas where strong continuity exists between

programme generations, such as learning mobility.

This SWD provides a separate assessment for the final evaluation of the 2014-2020 programme

and the interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 programme for the bulk of the evaluation

questions. Given the high degree of continuity between the two programme periods, a joint

analytical approach was adopted for (external) coherence, EU added value, and relevance

criteria. However, also for these aspects, the report highlights key differences between the two

periods and new developments. This evaluation ultimately serves as a critical tool for assessing

the impact, effectiveness, and future direction of Erasmus+, ensuring that it continues to shape

education, training, youth, and sport policies in Europe and beyond for the remainder of this

programme period and beyond 2027.

HAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION

2.1 Description of the intervention and its objectives

Erasmus+ 2014-2020

The 2014-2020 Erasmus+ programme was established under Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013

of the European Parliament and the Council

(hereinafter ‘the 20214-2020 Erasmus+

Regulation’) as a result of the integration of all previously existing EU programmes

implemented during the period 2007-2013 in the fields of education, training, youth and sport:

Lifelong Learning

, Youth in Action, Erasmus Mundus, Edulink, Tempus, Alfa and

Preparatory Actions in Sport. Erasmus+ 2014-2020 had an overall indicative

financial

envelope

of EUR 14.774 billion

under Heading 1 (Sustainable growth) and of EUR 1.68

billion under Heading 4 (EU as global player) of the EU budget.

•

Challenges and needs

Through cooperation in formal, informal and non-formal learning, the programme aimed to

address the following

challenges:

economic recovery and high youth unemployment; skills'

mismatches, low employability and education poverty; global competition for talents;

Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013

establishing 'Erasmus+': the Union programme for education, training, youth and sport and repealing Decisions

No 1719/2006/EC, No 1720/2006/EC and No 1298/2008/EC, OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 50.

Life-Long Learning was itself composed of 6 sub-programmes including Erasmus, Comenius, Grundtvig, Jean

Monnet and Leonardo Da Vinci.

Article 18(1) of the 2014-2020 Erasmus+ Regulation.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Information and Communication Technology potential and digital divide; social exclusion and

intolerance; lack of trust in the EU and low participation in democratic life; threats to the

integrity of sport and, more generally, to common European values.

•

Objectives

The

general objectives

of Erasmus+ 2014-2020

were to contribute to the

Europe 2020

strategy for growth and jobs, including the headline education targets

, as well as the strategic

framework for European cooperation in education and training (‘ET

2020’),

including related

benchmarks. The programme also aimed to contribute to achieving the overall objectives of the

renewed framework for

European cooperation in the youth field

(2010-2018); to developing

the

European dimension in sport,

in particular grassroots sport, in line with the

Union work

plan for sport;

to promote the sustainable development of partner countries in the field of

higher education, as well as to promoting

European values

in accordance with Article 2 of the

Treaty on European Union.

The

specific objectives

were structured under the headings of (1) education and training, (2)

youth and (3) sport, in view of tackling:

•

the improvement of the level of key competences and skills, with particular regard to their

relevance for the labour market and their contribution to a cohesive society;

the promotion of participation in democratic life in Europe and active citizenship in youth;

the improvement of quality of youth work and enhanced cooperation in youth

the improvement of quality, innovation, excellence (including in European studies) and

internationalisation at the level of organisations and staff/practitioners in education and

training fields;

support to the modernisation of education and training systems, in particular through

evidence-based policy cooperation;

the enhancement of the European/international dimension of its sectors, including with

partner countries in complementarity with the Union's external action;

the promotion of the Union's linguistic diversity and intercultural awareness, in particular

in education and training;

cross-border threats to the integrity of sport; support to good governance in sport and dual

careers of athletes; and

the promotion of voluntary activities in sport.

•

Programme design

For

simplification

purposes, following the conclusions of the Impact Assessment for Erasmus+

2014-2020

, the programme was based on

three cross-cutting key actions.

These key actions

apply to all education and training sectors (higher education, vocational education and training

(VET), school education and adult education) and to the youth field. This integrated approach

does not apply to the two stand-alone strands for sport and for European integration studies

(‘Jean Monnet’). The 2014-2020 programme, therefore, had the following architecture:

•

Key Action 1: Learning mobility of individuals:

opportunities for students, trainees,

apprentices, young people and volunteers, as well as for professors, teachers, trainers,

Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013.

In EU average: rate of early school leavers below 10%; at least 40% of people aged 30–34 having completed

Higher education.

Articles 5, 11 and 16 of the Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013.

Erasmus+ Impact Assessment, Commission Staff Working Paper, SEC(2011) 1402 of 23.11.2011.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

•

youth workers, staff of educational institutions and civil society organisations to undertake

a learning and/or professional experience in another country.

Key Action 2: Cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices:

transnational or international projects promoting cooperation, innovation, exchange of

experience and know-how between different types of organisations and institutions

involved in education, training and youth or in other relevant fields.

Key Action 3: Support for policy reform:

actions supporting national authorities and

stakeholders in defining and implementing new and better coordinated policies in the field

of education, training and youth.

Jean Monnet activities:

actions aimed at improving the quality of teaching on European

integration studies, as well as projects and operating grants aimed at promoting discussion,

reflection on EU issues and enhancing knowledge about the EU and its functioning.

Sport:

cooperation projects, events, studies and other initiatives aimed at implementing

EU strategies and priorities in the field of sport.

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 relied on

management modes

inherited from predecessor programmes,

involving, as main implementing bodies, the European Commission, the Education,

Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) and the National Agencies

(implementing a large share of the budget through indirect management). No direct support is

given to individual beneficiaries

. All support is channelled through participating

organisations, which distribute it to individual learners or practitioners.

In 2019, Serbia joined Erasmus+ as a fully-fledged programme country after 2 years and a half

of preparatory measures. Therefore, at the end of the programming period, Erasmus+ 2014-

2020 was implemented in

34 countries:

27 EU Member States, 3 EFTA Countries

(Liechtenstein, Iceland and Norway), 3 candidate countries (North Macedonia, Türkiye and

Serbia), and the United Kingdom. In accordance with the provisions of the withdrawal

agreement between the EU and UK

, Erasmus+ 2014-2020 continued being implemented in

relation to the UK, or entities and persons established in the UK as if the UK remained a

Member State, without disruption until the closure of the programme

A graphic representation of the intervention logic of the 2014-2020 programme is summarized

in the picture below, while a more detailed description of its inputs is given in Annex VI.

Students, trainees, apprentices, pupils, adult learners, young people, volunteers, professors, teachers, trainers,

youth workers, professionals of organisations active in the fields of education, training and youth.

Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European

Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ L 29, 31.1.2020, p. 7).

See also 2020 Erasmus+ Programme Guide, p. 22 (https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2021-

09/erasmus_programme_guide_2020_v3_en.pdf).

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 - Intervention logic

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Articles 165 and 166

of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union define the EU

mandate in the education, training, youth and sport areas, as follows: develop a European

dimension in education, encourage learning mobility, stimulate cooperation between

organisations, develop exchange of good practices, encourage the participation of young people

in democratic life, develop a European dimension in sport, foster cooperation with third

countries. This sets the scope for the

intervention logic

of the programme.

While long-term impacts were not directly measured through programme data, the Erasmus+

intervention logic foresees that the programme could contribute to various long-term outcomes

in education, training, youth, and sport.

At the individual level,

the programme aimed to bring positive changes at both

learners

(students, trainees, apprentices, young people) and

staff/practitioners

(teachers, trainers,

youth workers). Erasmus+ could support higher education completion rates and smoother

transitions to further education. Participants may have experienced better career progression,

potentially benefiting from increased employability and a stronger commitment to active

citizenship. The programme was also seen as having the potential to promote multilingualism

and intercultural understanding, fostering skills that may have long-term benefits for mobility

and international collaboration.

At the organisational level,

the transnational cooperation opportunities offered by the

Erasmus+ aimed at helping develop sustainable institutional partnerships, improve teaching

quality, quality of youth work, and strengthen networks between educational institutions,

businesses, and policy actors. Over time, these outcomes may contribute to the

internationalisation of education and training and encourage the adoption of innovative

teaching and learning methods.

At the system level,

Erasmus+ aimed to strengthen policy coordination in education, training,

youth, and sport. The programme also aimed at generating stronger awareness about key policy

challenges in education and training, youth and sport; enhancing mutual learning and good

practice exchanges among policy makers and key stakeholders; supporting research and

training about the EU. It was also hoped that its influence could extend beyond education,

contributing to broader objectives such as social inclusion, equality, and democratic

participation.

Overall, Erasmus+ 2014-2020 aligned with EU strategic objectives, particularly in education,

training, and youth policy, as outlined in the Europe 2020 strategy and other European

priorities. By fostering mobility, cooperation, and innovation, Erasmus+ was expected to help

lay the foundation for stronger education systems, a more engaged youth, and a more cohesive

European society.

Spill-over between intervention levels

were also expected. For instance, it was hoped that the

mobility of learners and staff could – in addition to individual-level results – improve the

performance of the organisations. Also, the performance of individual organisations could

benefit from European cooperation in the fields of the programme, including through its

modernising effects on national systems and reforms.

These articles set the scope for EU intervention in Education, training, youth and sport: develop a European

dimension in education, encourage learning mobility, stimulate cooperation between organisations, develop

exchange of good practices, encourage the participation of young people in democratic life, develop a European

dimension in sport, foster cooperation with third countries.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

However, several external factors exist in the areas of the programme intervention, consisting

e.g. of Member States’ policy making and spending. This makes it challenging to clearly

attribute and quantify the specific effects and changes the programme aimed to achieved.

Erasmus+ 2021-2027

The 2021-2027 programme is established under Regulation (EU) 2021/817. The programme

has a budget of

EUR 26.526 billion

, complemented by about EUR 2.1 billion from EU

external cooperation instruments (IPA III and NDICI-Global Europe). The programme

provides learning mobility opportunities abroad for people of all ages and invests in

cooperation and policy development in the fields of education and training, youth and sport.

•

Challenges and needs

The 2021-2027 Erasmus+ programme emerged in response to Europe's evolving socio-

economic landscape. That context showed the importance of investing in lifelong learning to

equip

individuals with the necessary knowledge, skills and competences,

including

languages, and invest in digital literacy and other forward-looking fields (e.g. climate change,

clean energy, artificial intelligence, robotics, data analysis, arts/design), with the objective to

foster resilience and employability, contributing to economic growth and cohesion.

The impact assessment of the Commission’s proposal for Erasmus+ 2021-2027 identified the

need to address the Europe-wide trends of limited

participation in democratic life

and the

low levels of

knowledge

and

awareness

European matters

that have an impact on the lives

of all European citizens. By leveraging the pivotal role of education, the programme aimed to

bolster

EU values

such as freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination, fostering social cohesion.

The impact assessment also identified the need to make Erasmus+ more

inclusive,

by reaching

out more and better to people of different ages and from diverse cultural, social and economic

backgrounds. To close the so-called ‘inclusion gap’, the programme had to tackle the various

categories of obstacles hindering access to its learning opportunities, simplify access to funding

and broaden societal participation. The programme also needed to be

more accessible

for

newcomers with little or no experience, to organisations with smaller capacity, but also for new

types of organisations such as in regions, rural or deprived areas, people with disabilities and

community-based grassroots organisations that work directly with disadvantaged learners of all ages.

Against a background of global challenges and climate change, the 2021-2027 programme

generation seeks to make economies and lifestyles more sustainable; formal, non-formal and

informal education are key to

foster environmental awareness and promote behavioural

changes

towards a greener society. Additionally, high-quality

digital education, digital tools

and platforms,

educators with

digital skills

are essential for European societies to adapt to the

digital transition. The 2021-2027 Erasmus+ programme endeavours to address also these needs.

The impact assessment also stressed that

international mobility and cooperation with non-

associated third countries

– in particular enlargement, neighbourhood, industrialised and

emerging countries - should be intensified, to better support institutions and organisations in

Europe in facing the challenges of globalisation. To do so, ensuring synergies with the Union's

external instruments to pursue the goals of its external actions was highlighted as key to

contribute to human and institutional development in third countries, including in developing

countries, and to engage with their young people, as an essential element to building more

As established in 2021-2027 Erasmus+ Regulation, the financial envelope for the implementation of the

Programme for the period from 2021 to 2027 was set at EUR 24.574 billion (Article 17(1)), increased by an

additional allocation of EUR 1.7 billion in constant 2018 prices (Article 17(2)). The latter amount is estimated at

amounting to EUR 1.951 billion in current prices, for a total amount of EUR 26.526 billion.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

resilient societies and enhancing trust between cultures. Keeping

stability and continuity

the overall structure and management mode of the new programme compared to its predecessor

was another recommendation.

Based on the findings of the mid-term evaluation of the 2014-2020 programme and

stakeholders’ consultations, a number of improvements were put forward to address the

following challenges:

•

Closing the knowledge, skills and competences gap;

Making Erasmus+ more inclusive (inclusion gap);

Limited participation in democratic life and sense of European identity;

Limited opportunities for and access to cooperation between organisations from

different countries;

Insufficient scope and volume of international (non-EU) mobility and cooperation;

Simplify the access to the programme and reduce burden on beneficiaries;

Foster synergies with other funding instruments.

Objectives

The

general objective

of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 is to support, through lifelong learning, the

educational, professional and personal development of people in education, training, youth and

sport, in Europe and beyond, thereby contributing to sustainable growth, quality jobs and social

cohesion, to driving innovation, and to strengthening European identity and active citizenship.

The programme also has

three specific objectives,

each addressing specific fields:

•

Specific objective 1 in the field of education and training

(including higher

education, VET, school education and adult education): to promote learning mobility

of individuals and groups, as well as cooperation, quality, inclusion and equity,

excellence, creativity and innovation at the level of organisations and policies.

Specific objective 2 in the field of youth:

to promote non-formal and informal learning

mobility and active participation among young people, as well as cooperation, quality,

inclusion, creativity and innovation at the level of organisations and policies.

Specific objective 3 in the field of sport:

to promote learning mobility of sport staff,

as well as cooperation, quality, inclusion, creativity and innovation at the level of sport

organisations and sport policies.

•

The delivery on the programme objectives is ensured through

four horizontal priorities

encompassing all programme actions: inclusion and diversity; environment and fight against

climate change; digital transformation; and participation and civic engagement.

The 2021-2027 Erasmus+ programme was designed to be a key instrument for building a

European Education Area,

supporting the implementation of the European strategic

Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2021/817.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

cooperation in the field of education and training (ET 2030), with its underlying sectoral

agendas (in higher education, VET, school education and adult education), and delivering on

the

European Skills Agenda

for sustainable competitiveness, social fairness and resilience. It

supports Europe’s digital strategy and the

Digital Education Action Plan,

and the

European

Green Deal.

In addition, the programme is a crucial contributor to advancing youth policy

cooperation under the

European Union Youth Strategy

2019-2027 and to developing the

European dimension in sport in line with the

EU Work Plans for Sport.

The 2021-2027 programme also addresses challenges identified in the findings of the mid-term

evaluation of the 2014-2020 programme and in stakeholders’ consultations. It helps equip

Europeans with the necessary skills for an increasingly mobile, multicultural and digital

society; increases the inclusivity of and the accessibility to the programme; provides more

opportunities for participation in democratic life; increases the scope and volume of

international (non-EU) learning mobility and cooperation; fosters synergies with other funding

instruments. In line with the impact assessment of the Commission’s proposal for the 2021-

2027 Erasmus+ programme, the current programme has kept stability and continuity of the

2014-2020 programme in its overall structure with three key actions and its management mode.

The current programme has also integrated sport actions in this structure.

•

Programme design

The 2021-2027 programme is implemented under both

direct and indirect management in

33 countries,

i.e. 27 EU Member States, three EEA/EFTA countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein,

Norway) and three candidate countries (North Macedonia, Türkiye and Serbia). The actions

implemented under indirect management are largely entrusted to

National Agencies

(NAs)

designated by National Authorities in each Member State and third country associated to the

programme, while those under direct management are implemented by the

European

Education and Culture Executive Agency

(EACEA) and by the European Commission. The

programme is designed as followed:

•

Key action 1 (KA1) Learning mobility;

Key action 2 (KA2) Cooperation among organisations and institutions;

Key action 3 (KA3) Support to policy development and cooperation;

Jean Monnet Actions: aiming to support teaching, learning, research and debates on

European integration matters, including on the EU’s future challenges and

opportunities.

The programme is designed to address the

individual, organisational and systemic/ policy

levels,

in terms of actions, final target groups and short-term results respectively through KA1,

2 and 3 as well as Jean Monnet Actions. This logic is also reflected in the

programme

management and implementing modes.

The actions expected to deliver most results at

individual level, such as learning mobility, and requiring closer monitoring of organisations in

the national context are implemented under indirect management. Large-scale actions aiming

to produce systemic and policy effects, at national and European level, are mainly implemented

through direct management.

The diagram below provides a graphic representation of the intervention logic, summarizing

the main inputs, outputs, results and impact as well as their relations:

https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/contacts/national-agencies

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

A more detailed description of

inputs, outputs, results and impacts

in provided in

Annex VI.

For this interim evaluation, the focus will be on inputs, outputs and short-term results, where

data is already available at this stage of the programming period. The results of the final

evaluation of 2014-2020 and the interim evaluation of 2021-2027 will inform the development

of the final evaluation of 2021-2027. Further details are provided in section 5.2 ‘Lessons

Learned’.

n continuity with the 2014-2020 programme, potential

spill-over effects

can be identified

between the programme actions. For instance, learning mobility activities (KA1) of students,

teachers, trainers, and other staff could, in addition to individual-level results, can lead to

improvements in the performance of the institutions. This is due to the fact that mobility actions

are not contracted at the individual level, but at the level of their institution.

Similarly, while the cooperation projects (KA2) are focussing on the cooperation between

institutions and having effects at that level, the individuals that participate in the projects will

also indirectly develop a set of skills and competences. The policy support activities and

projects (KA3) can lead to concrete follow-up through pilots at the grassroots levels.

Finally, several external factors exist in the areas of the programme intervention, consisting of

e.g. Member States’ policy making and spending. This makes it challenging to clearly attribute

and quantify the specific effects and changes it aimed to achieved.

2.2 Main changes introduced in the 2021-2027 programming period

The changes introduced in the 2021-2027 programme, most of them resulting from lessons

drawn from the mid-term evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020, mainly consisted in:

•

Reducing the number of specific objectives from 13 to 3;

Establishing four overarching implementation priorities across its actions and fields, to

increase consistency in the delivery of programme objectives;

Embedding all programme fields, including sport, in the three key actions, to pursue the

programme objectives in a more streamlined manner;

Rearranging the programme actions among the three key actions, linking them with

more clarity to the changes that the programme aims to trigger;

Several flagship actions were introduced (such as the European Universities initiative,

and the Centres of Vocational Excellence), certain actions were renamed or moved from

one key action to another, while very few actions were discontinued in the transition

from the 2014-2020 programme

);

Providing more flexible formats (e.g. group and blended mobility);

Reinforcing the international dimension, extending it to a wider number of actions.

Furthermore, ‘DiscoverEU’ has become part of the Erasmus+ programme 2021-2027, building

on the experience of the DiscoverEU initiative, launched as a preparatory action in 2018 (see

Annex VIII for a more complete overview).

A number of

simplification measures

were introduced at various levels:

a) for

beneficiaries:

The European Voluntary Service was discontinued from Erasmus+ since the entry into force of the European

Solidarity Corps (ESC) programme in 2018.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

•

introduction of the

small-scale partnership

(lower grants, flexible formats, simplified

administrative requirements), an action specifically designed to increase accessibility

for small and newcomer organisations;

simplified funding rules for cooperation projects, providing organisations the

possibility to apply for a single

lump sum

for implementing their projects;

introduction of the

accreditation scheme

(‘Erasmus Accreditation’) for mobility

projects in VET, school education, adult education, and youth

to simplify accessibility

to funding and reduce the administrative requirements for recurrent beneficiaries;

revamped

IT architecture,

including for the implementing bodies, with the

introduction of the ‘single entry point’ for IT applications;

b) for

participants:

•

digitalised and simplified implementation, in particular through the

European Student

Card Initiative;

c) for

National Agencies:

•

introduction of multi-annual programming, shorter and more targeted annual reporting

(‘yearly reports’) and more user-friendly format for feedback;

•

simplified contractual requirements (‘contribution agreements’), with increased

flexibility for the management of the funds and a single share for transfers between

actions/sectors);

•

digitalisation of contractual, payment and amendment procedures, use of digital

signatures;

d) for

other bodies

supporting the implementation of the programme (national VET teams,

SALTO Resource Centres, Eurodesk, National Support Services for eTwinning and the

Electronic Platform for Adult Learning in Europe (EPALE)):

•

introduction of lump sum, simplified contractual arrangements.

2.3 Point(s) of comparison

The main point of comparison for the interim evaluation is the

impact assessment carried out

for Erasmus+ 2021-2027.

For the final evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020, the main points of

comparison are the findings of its mid-term evaluation and of the long-term impact of its seven

predecessor programmes from the period 2007-2013 (ex-post evaluation)

. The baseline

scenario for the 2021-2027 programme was to maintain the status quo of the 2014-2020 programme,

which had achieved good results and was on track in achieving its performance indicators

At the end of the 2014-2020 programming period more than

6 million individuals,

learners

and staff, had taken part in learning mobility

, in addition many more people benefited from

cooperation projects involving almost

140 000 organisations.

Despite the good achievements,

the programme was unable to meet the high demand, with only a minority of young people

benefitting from an Erasmus+ experience. Findings of the previous evaluation highlighted that

Already existing for Higher education. In VET, during the 2014-2020 programme, organisations could apply

for the ‘Erasmus+ VET Mobility Charter’ for simplified access to certain VET mobility actions, such as

ErasmusPro. In the current programme, this Charter has been replaced by the ‘Erasmus Accreditation’.

https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/resources/documents.evaluations_en

At the time of the mid-term evaluation, in the period 2014-2016 (without taking into account fully 2016 data),

the programme had already benefited over 1.4 million learners and 400 000 staff/practitioners.

Mobilities counted by call year. To be noted that thousands of projects have been impacted by COVID-19 in

2020. More details in Erasmus+ Annual Report 2020, Erasmus+ annual report 2020 - Publications Office of the

EU (europa.eu).

4% of young people living in Europe at the time of the impact assessment.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

learning mobility activities would have benefitted from more volume and scope, in order to

provide individuals with the right set of knowledge, skills and competences to support

employment and foster social cohesion. To tackle such challenges, Erasmus+ 2021-2027

introduced new opportunities for school pupils, adult learners, young people and sport staff.

The mid-term evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020 underlined the capacity of the programme in

reaching out to

disadvantaged young people

(11.5% of the total number of participants at the

moment of that evaluation

); however, it pointed out the need to further widen the access to

the programme, reaching out to more people with fewer opportunities and facilitating the

participation of smaller-sized organisation. The design of the 2021-2027 programme took these

needs into account introducing measures to increase outreach and participation for individuals

with fewer opportunities and of newcomer and low-resourced organisations.

The 2014-2020 programme introduced opportunities for

international mobility and

cooperation,

but these were limited in scope (only available for higher education and youth)

and in volume. Erasmus+ 2021-2027 has consolidated its international actions, including

activities open to the rest of the world; first through reinforced higher education mobility

to/from third countries non associated to Erasmus+, outgoing mobility towards third countries

for VET learners and staff, and dedicated scholarships for excellent students worldwide. The

capacity building actions were extended to the VET and sport fields, while continuing in the

higher education and youth fields.

OW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD

3.1 Current state of play

This chapter describes the state of play in implementing both programme generations,

explaining, both legally and on the ground, the situation of the period under evaluation.

Erasmus+ 2014-2020

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 had an overall indicative financial envelope of EUR 14.774 billion under

Heading 1 (Sustainable growth) of the EU budget, complemented by EUR 1.68 billion under

Heading 4 (EU as global player) and the European Development Fund (EDF), as opposed to a

total budget of slightly more than a total of EUR 9 billion allocated to its predecessors over

2007-2013 (+40%). The overall indicative financial envelope was then modified to

EUR 14 543 billion in current prices, following the entry into force of Regulation (EU)

2018/1475 establishing the European Solidarity Corps

Budget heading

MFF Heading 1 (billion EUR)

MFF Heading 4 (billion EUR)

Total (billion EUR)

Amount (billion EUR)

14.5

1.7

16.2

With the youth actions being the most successful in this regard, reaching out to 31% of participants with fewer

opportunities.

Regulation (EU) 2018/1475 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 October 2018 laying down the

legal framework of the European Solidarity Corps and amending Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013, Regulation (EU)

No 1293/2013 and Decision No 1313/2013/EU (OJ L 250, 4.10.2018, p. 1). Article 26 of this Regulation modified

Article 18(1) of the 2014-2020 Erasmus+ Regulation.

Coming from different external cooperation instruments funding Erasmus+ 2014-2020 under Heading 4 (i.e.

i) Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI), ii) the European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI), iii) the

Partnership Instrument for cooperation with third countries (PI), and iv) the Instrument for Pre-accession

Assistance (IPA)) as well as from the European Development Fund (EDF).

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

The budget profile of the 2014-2020 Erasmus+ programme was strongly backloaded, growing

at a regular, though not even, rhythm year-over-year, with a sharp increase in the last year of

the programming period.

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 financial envelope per year (billion EUR)

Source: Erasmus+ annual report 2020

The

legal framework of the 2014-2020 programme

was modified in 2018 following the

adoption of the European Solidarity Corps legal basis. As a result, Article 13 and Article 18,

paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, of the 2014-2020 Erasmus+ Regulation were amended through Article

26 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1475. This implied the following changes:

•

the volunteering activities implemented through the European Voluntary Service were

discontinued from Erasmus+ in view of implementation under the European Solidarity

Corps,

the overall indicative financial envelope was lowered to EUR 14.5 billion,

the share of allocations across sectors and actions were further adjusted.

Table 2 -- Key data of Erasmus+ 2014-2020

KA1

Number of contracted

projects

Contracted grants (in

million EUR)

Number of distinct

organisations

Number of participants

123 519

11 058

95 070

5 182 902

KA2

25 313

5 359

56 953

997 594

KA3

8 828

494

9 395

442 163

JMA

1 909

327

993

N/A

Sport

1 366

274

2 831

N/A

Total

160 935

17 512

136 155

6 622 659

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 has been monitored through a set of indicators, established in Annex I of

the 2014-2020 Regulation, measuring the level of achievement of the programme towards its

general and specific objectives. Table A in Annex VII of this SWD shows their level of

achievement at the end of the programming period, reported, in most cases, against yearly non-

cumulative targets in line with the corporate guidelines for the 2014-2020 programming period

(see section 4.1 for their assessment).

The overall completion rate of Erasmus+ 2014-2020 projects at the time of this evaluation is

99.4%, while the remaining projects are still in progress and due to submit their final report.

Programme monitoring data, frozen on 5 January 2024 to reflect the state of play for the period under evaluation.

Data are based on Call year.

Number of distinct organisations across all key actions. It does not correspond to the sum of the number of

distinct organisations per key action.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

The cumulative implementation rates at the time of the evaluation were 100.9% for Erasmus+

2014-2020 commitments and 97.25% for payments.

Out of the total number of 2014-2020 contracted projects, 147 594 projects (92%) were

implemented under indirect management, for total grants of EUR 14 billion. 77% of the

Erasmus+ funded projects have supported learning mobility under KA1

and 16% have

supported cooperation between organisations between 2014 and 2020 under KA2

Support to learning mobility is the core business of Erasmus+. In the 2014-2020 programme,

the programme benefited over

6.6 million participants,

out of which more than

720 000

(around 10%) were with fewer opportunities/disadvantaged background or had special

needs

across the three key actions. 80% were learners and 20% were educators and staff.

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 exerted unprecedented pressure on education

and training systems, impacted thousands of Erasmus+ projects and affected most mobilities

funded under 2019 and 2020 calls, as well as some under 2018 call. In 2020, the impact of the

pandemic on learning mobilities resulted in a 60% decrease compared with previous years

(average 2016-2019). A decrease of 85% was observed also in terms of activities undertaken

under KA2 in 2020, compared to the average number of activities in the period 2016-2019.

Between 2014 and 2020,

26 488 projects

were supported under

KA2,

involving more than

59 000 distinct organisations.

At the end of the programming period, the

success rate

for

learning mobility actions in the VET, school education, adult education and youth sectors

settled in average around 47%, with youth and school education being the fields registering the

lower success rates (respectively 33% and 39% in 2019 and 30% and 32% in 2020). In the VET

field, 89% of learning mobility projects were funded outside the VET mobility Charter system

(assimilated to the accreditation system) with a success rate of 47% in 2020. The table below

provides an overview of the success rates recorded in the last two years of programme

implementation for actions funded under KA2 (direct and indirect management), KA3 (indirect

management), as well as for Jean Monnet and Sport activities, showing an overall

oversubscription also across these actions.

The figure includes Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree projects under direct management.

The remaining 7% being KA3 projects and projects funded under Jean Monnet Actions.

Success rate is calculated based on the number of contracted projects over the number of received project

proposals. In the case of KA1 activities based on accreditation/charter system (i.e. higher education student and

staff mobility (KA103) and VET learners and staff mobility with VET mobility charter (KA116)), the success rate

is calculated based on the number of participants in contracted projects over participants in submitted project

proposals, and not on the number of projects. Consequently, given their non-competitive character both KA103

and KA116 are excluded from success rate calculations.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Table 3 - Erasmus+ 2014-2020 Success rate

Key Action

Management mode

FIELD

HED

VET

KA2

Indirect

SCH

ADU

YOUTH

Direct

Various sectors

2019

38%

31%

44%

39%

18%

21%

2020

34%

27%

36%

30%

17%

19%

31%

25%

28%

KA3

Indirect

YOUTH

33%

Jean Monnet activities

Direct

HED

22%

Sport activities

Direct

Sport

34%

Source: Erasmus+ annual reports 2014-2020 -statistical annexes.

In the period 2014-2020

, organisations from

third countries

- associated and not associated

to the programme - participated either as coordinators or partners in 42 800 projects, with a

total contracted grant amount of EUR 1.45 billion. In 2019, after two years and half of

preparatory measures, Serbia joined Iceland, Liechtenstein, North Macedonia, Norway and

Türkiye as fully fledged associated country. This brought the number of participating countries

to 34 (including UK). By the end of the programming period, organisations from these six

associated third countries participated either as coordinators or partners in 34 307 projects, with

a total grant amount exceeding EUR 1.17 billion. In total, third countries (both associated and

non-associated) hosted 471 106 learning mobilities funded by the 2014-2020 programme,

while 734 761 participants (learners and staff) originating from these countries benefitted from

an Erasmus+ mobility. Out of these numbers, the six associated third countries counted for

338 061 incoming mobilities and 501 765 outgoing learning mobilities.

Erasmus+ 2021-2027

The total financial envelope allocated to Erasmus+ in the MFF agreement for 2021-2027 is set

at EUR 26.5 billion

, with an additional indicative envelope of EUR 2.1 billion allocated from

External Cooperation Instruments (IPA III and NDICI-Global Europe) via a Multiannual

Indicative programme

Budget Headings

MFF Headings 2 (billion EUR)

MFF Headings 6 (billion EUR)

Total (billion EUR)

2021-2027

26.5

2.1

28.6

As in the 2014-2020 programming period, the budget profile of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 is

strongly backloaded, growing at a regular, though not even, rhythm year-over-year, with an

expected sharp increase in the last year of the programming period. Considering the 2021-2027

programme’s profile, the Commission proposed a frontloading of EUR 100 million from 2027

to 2023 (voted in the EU budget for 2023), to support projects facilitating the integration of

The data for HE and VET do not include accredited projects funded under KA103 and KA116.

Most part of the KA3 activities under direct management are not awarded through open calls for proposals,

therefore success rate is not applicable.

Data before 2020 includes also UK participation in the Erasmus+ programme.

See footnote 24, p. 12.

Based on the MFF mid-term review agreed in 2024, the indicative financial envelope allocated to Erasmus+

from the External Cooperation Instruments goes form EUR 2.2 billion to EUR 2.1 billion (https://international-

partnerships.ec.europa.eu/document/download/1d7e2bec-d688-49a1-bcfb-a67ba667514d_en?filename=ad-mip-

2024-c2024-7509-erasmus-annex_en.pdf).

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

people fleeing the war in Ukraine into their new learning environments, as well as activities

supporting organisations, learners, and staff in Ukraine

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 financial programming per year (billion EUR)

Source: Erasmus+ annual report 2023

The

legal framework

of the 2021-2027 programme was complemented as follows:

•

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1877 of 22 October 2021 on the

framework of inclusion measures

of the Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps

programmes 2021-2027

. It aims to support an easier access to funding for a wider range

of organisations and to better reach out to more participants with fewer opportunities. The

Commission also published implementation guidelines on the Erasmus+ and European

Solidarity Corps

inclusion and diversity strategy

, to further support the inclusion

dimension of the programme and help address the potential

barriers

hindering access to

Erasmus+ opportunities, either as a stand-alone factor or in combination among them: i)

disabilities, ii) health problems, iii) barriers linked to education and training systems, iv)

cultural differences, v) social barriers, vi) economic barriers, vii) barriers linked to

discrimination, viii) geographical barriers. The list is not exhaustive and aims to provide a

reference in taking action, with a view to increasing accessibility and outreach to people

with fewer opportunities.

The Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2710 on the

Monitoring and

Evaluation Framework

of Erasmus+, adopted in September 2023. This Delegated Act

supplemented the 15 indicators established in Annex II of the 2021-2027 Erasmus+

Regulation with an additional set of 12 indicators to allow a more accurate measurement of

the programme outputs, results and impacts (see tables B and C in Annex VII of this SWD

for a complete overview and level of achievement of all programme indicators and section

4.1 for their assessment).

Table 6 - Key data 2021-2023

Erasmus+ 2021-2023

KA1

KA2

KA3

JMA

Total

•

https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/news/reviewed-erasmus-2023-budget-brings-overall-eu443-billion-to-

support-the-education-sectors-with-specific-support-for-ukrainian-learners-and-staff

Solid bars represent the composition of the budget as endorsed in the relevant annual work programmes. “Other

fund sources” includes top-up fines and top-ups brought by the budget authority to the annual EU budget for

Erasmus+. Dashed bars represent the estimated projection of the budget for the upcoming years, in line with the

programme budget profile. They only include the MFF plans.

OJ L 378, 26.10.2021, p. 15.

Implementation guidelines - Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps Inclusion and Diversity Strategy -

Erasmus+ (europa.eu)

Programme monitoring data, frozen on 5 January 2024 to reflect the state of play for the period under evaluation.

Data are based on Call years.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Number of contracted projects

Contracted grants (in million EUR)

Number of distinct organisations

58 240

5 876

56 448

11 812

3 559

26 638

886

146

826

1 080

175

708

72 018

9 757

77 671

Approximately

72 000 projects

have been contracted in the period 2021-2023, which represent

a slight increase (5%) in yearly number compared to the 2014-2020 average

. Out of the total

number of projects contracted in 2021-2023, 68 009 (94.4 %) were implemented under indirect

management, for total grants of close to EUR 7.5 billion.

In the period 2021-2023, more than 14 000

organisations were awarded with the newly

introduced ‘Erasmus Accreditation’ in the VET, school education, adult education and youth

sectors

, equal to 26.6 % of the distinct organisations participating in KA1 activities in these

sectors. In total, 25 726 accredited projects have been contracted in the VET, school education,

adult education and youth sectors in the period 2021-2023, against 19 033 non-accredited

projects in these sectors.

Most programme actions are oversubscribed, whether in support of learning mobility

opportunities or of cooperation projects. Demand for mobility in accredited projects has

increased in all fields between 2021 and 2023. In particular, the demand for mobilities in

accredited projects for schools has almost doubled from 2021 to 2022 (from 1 949 received

projects in 2021 to 3 426 in 2022) and more than doubled from 2022 to 2023 (6 988 received

projects in 2023).

The average success rate

of KA2 was 18%, for actions under indirect management in 2023,

while for KA2 actions under direct management it was 23%.

Between 2021 and 2023, more than 81% of the Erasmus+ funded projects have supported

learning mobility and 16% have supported cooperation between organisations,

corresponding respectively to 60% and 36% of contracted grants

. In the 2021-2027

programming period, at the time of the interim evaluation (i.e. without taking into account fully

http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/about/statistics_en

The first Call of the Erasmus Accreditation (KA120 and KA150) took place in 2020 to allow organisation to be

able to submit grant requests for accredited projects in 2021 Call year. In the youth sector, the Erasmus

Accreditation (KA150) is not applicable for Youth participation activities (KA154).

Higher education institutions applying to mobility projects need to hold an Erasmus charter for higher education

(ECHE), which is the equivalent for higher education of the Erasmus Accreditation. This measure is in place since

the previous programme generations.

The success rate is calculated based on the number of contracted projects over the number of received project

proposals.

The remaining 3% (1 966 projects) being KA3 projects and projects funded under Jean Monnet Actions,

corresponding in total to 3.3% of contracted grants (EUR 321 million).

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

2023 data – cut-off date 31 December 2023), the programme had already benefited over

1.6 million participants

, out of which more than

245 000 (15.2%) were with fewer

opportunities.

77% were learners and 22% were educators and staff

The COVID-19 pandemic seriously impacted the first years of implementation of the 2021-

2027 programme. Throughout 2021 all mobility activities continued to be affected. A number

of mitigating measures addressing the restrictions of physical mobility were adopted and

flexibility was applied both in the implementation and in the eligibility of costs within the

applicable legal frameworks. In 2021, to compensate for the sharp decrease in mobility demand,

the main programme focus shifted to cooperation partnerships. It is estimated that, in 2021,

COVID-19 pandemic entailed a 36% decrease of learning mobility compared with the average

over the period 2016-2019. In 2022, the programme strived for a gradual return to a regular

implementation, notably in terms of learning mobilities, shifting the focus of the programme

from cooperation partnerships back to the mobility projects, and a return to pre-pandemic levels

with more than 1.2 million mobilities

across all sectors.

Between 2021 and 2023, 11 812 projects have been supported under KA2, involving more

than 28 000 distinct organisations and contracting over EUR 3.5 billion.

Around 20% of

Erasmus+ total granted amount (approx. EUR 546 million) went to newcomer organisations,

i.e. organisations that had not participated in any given Erasmus+ action in the predecessor

programme.

In the period 2021-2023, organisations from third countries - associated and not associated to

the programme - participated either as coordinators or partners in 12 790 projects, with a total

contracted grant amount of EUR 690 million. Organisations from associated third countries

participated either as coordinators or partners in 10 609 projects, with a total grant amount

exceeding EUR 557 million. In total, third countries (both associated and non-associated)

hosted 118 280 learning mobilities funded by the 2021-2027 programme, while 141 549

participants (learners and staff) originating from these countries benefitted from an Erasmus+

mobility during the 2021-2023 period. Out of these numbers, the six third countries associated

to the programme count for 82 442 incoming mobilities and 109 861 outgoing learning

mobilities.

Data refer to actual participants (completed mobilities).

Data at cut-off date of 31.12.2023 extracted by call year. To be noted that some categories of participants have

“unassigned” label, therefore the total of learners and staff does not sum up to 100%.

Learning mobilities in 2022 calendar year.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

VALUATION FINDINGS

(

ANALYTICAL PART

)

This chapter presents evaluation findings for both programme generations according to five

evaluation criteria – effectiveness, efficiency, coherence relevance and European added value.

4.1.

To what extent was the intervention successful and why?

4.1.1

Effectiveness

The assessment of the effectiveness of Erasmus+ is overall positive for both programming

periods. This assessment has looked into the extent to which:

•

The programme ensured that learners and staff, including people with fewer

opportunities, had access to and benefitted from its activities;

Spill-over, sustainable or unintended effects took place;

Results were disseminated and exploited;

The implementation of priorities was effective;

The response to external factors, such as COVID-19 pandemic, was effective.

An analysis of the level of achievement of outputs and results, as well as of impacts at

organisational and system level, is provided separately for the 2014-2020 final and 2021-2027

interim evaluations of Erasmus+. Impacts at individual level are, however, analysed jointly,

given the strong continuity of the design of most of the actions, and an important coexistence

of activities, funded by the two programming periods, but running in parallel in the first years

of implementation of the current programme due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Where applicable, differences are highlighted each time within the text. A distinct analysis is

also provided when major changes in the programme implementation impose a clear

breakdown, as it is the case e.g. of inclusion measures.

The evidence presented across the individual, organisational, and system levels suggests a

generally positive direction of impact, indicating effectiveness of the interventions and

activities examined. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution, as they are not

conclusive due to limitations in the scope and quality of the available data.

The evaluation assesses the stronger continuity that has featured both programme

generations (‘evolution

not revolution’)

as a strength.

The overall needs, priorities and types

of actions funded under Erasmus+ have not changed radically over the two programming

periods. Based on the collected evidence, exposure to and participation in similar types of

interventions over time is likely to achieve stronger results and impacts especially at

organisational and system levels due to the build-up of experience. Although it is too early to

make any assumption on the impact of the 2021-2027 programme, it can be anticipated that the

impacts of the 2014-2020 programme will carry on with the current programme, likely in a

more positive and sustainable manner.

Across both programme generations very

few unintended effects

were observed, which

were predominantly positive.

These include e.g. i) the increased healthy competition among

the institutions to form partnerships to participate in the programme activities and be more

prominent on the international stage; ii) the attraction of more learners to those institutions that

Finding based on stakeholder perception data only, such as key informant interviews and case study on Pilot

PoVE Water, CIV Water (NL).

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

carry out programme activities, iii) the accelerated digitalisation of activities funded by the

programme in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

4.1.1.1 Degree of achievement of intervention logic against key indicators

Erasmus+ 2014-2020

The 2014-2020 programme has been effective in achieving the expected outputs and

results measured against its objectives.

In line with the intervention logic, outputs can be

summarised based on their level of intervention:

ii)

iii)

individual level,

organisational level, and

system level.

The table below provides a simplified overview of the degree of achievement of outputs and

results from the intervention logic presented in the previous chapter, and the corresponding

evidence used to assess such achievements. The green shading means that the degree of

achievement is on track/attained, while yellow indicates that the achievement is somewhat

lagging behind, yet not to a major extent. The overview table contains no red shading, which

would have signalled significant underachievement.

Table 7 - Overview of the degree of achievement of outputs and results from the 2014-2020

intervention logic

Achievement of outputs

Mobilities for learners

Mobilities for staff

Evidence

Quantitative

and qualitative

Quantitative

and qualitative

Qualitative

evidence

Qualitative

evidence

Quantitative

evidence

Qualitative

evidence

Quantitative

and qualitative

Level

INDIVIDUAL ORGANISATIONAL

Achievement of results

Improved skills, knowledge, and

competences

Changes in attitude, personal

development, motivation

Quality improvements at

organisation level (new curricula,

new practices, better recognition,

new methods of youth work, etc.)

Stronger international networks

with other organisations,

businesses, international, etc.

Evidence

Quantitative

and qualitative

Quantitative

and qualitative

Quantitative

and qualitative

Small-scale cooperation

projects

Large scale cooperation

projects

Organisation

participation

Policy outputs (support

tools, experimentation

activities)

Jean Monnet activities

Quantitative

and qualitative

No short-term results expected in the intervention

logic

Research on EU studies, learning

and teaching about the EU

Quantitative

evidence

SYSTEM

•

Outputs

Since 2014, the programme reached in total more than 6.6 million participants across its

three key actions, funding more than 6.2 million learning mobilities

. The performance

indicators established in the legal basis of the programme were reported against yearly non-

cumulative targets, therefore no final (cumulative) target was established for the whole

programming period.

Under KA1 and KA2, the latter refers to pupils under the School exchange partnerships.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

At level of outputs, performance indicators were generally on track and performing well

until Call years 2019 and 2020.

During 2019-2020 Call years, results were heavily affected

by the COVID-19 pandemic in particular with regards to the number of participants (see also

section 4.1.1.8). As a result, quantitative indicators measuring the number of learners (pupils,

students, trainees and young people) participating in the programme show 2020 achievements

slightly below targets at the end of the programming period (617 000 participants, against

667 000 expected participants). In 2020, a lower number of participants was experienced in the

higher education (350 000 students versus a target of 412 000), and youth sectors (117 000

young people against a target of 124 000), while the number of VET learners (150 000) was

higher compared to the target (131 000).

Most of the types of actions funded in the 2014-2020 programming period continued in the

2021-2027 period. In the youth sector, the

European Voluntary Service

(EVS) supported

around 54 000 volunteers until 2018

. Although the Erasmus+ 2014-2020 mid-term evaluation

considered the EVS effective, the action was discontinued as a ‘brand’ and removed from

Erasmus+ in 2019, when volunteering activities started being supported under the European

Solidarity Corps.

By end of the programming period, the programme reached a total of

720 000 participants

with fewer opportunities, special needs or disadvantaged background

across applicable

fields and actions. This number fell short of the target in 2020, with 43 000 participants against

a target of 77 000, mostly due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The youth field

performed particularly well and above targets all along the programme implementation, with a

slight decline registered in 2019 (from 44 000 in 2018 to 39 000 participants in 2019) and

underachievement in 2020 (19 000 participants against a target of 37 000). The decrease in

2019 and 2020 is mostly due to COVID-19 (mobility periods take place between one and three

years after project starts), with projects end dates extended for 2019/2020 calls to allow

postponed mobility periods to take place. In the case of youth, the decrease is also related to

the creation of the European Solidarity Corps, and the consequent discontinuation of EVS from

Erasmus+ as from Call 2019.

The

Erasmus+ Student Loan Guarantee Facility

had an initial target to provide by 2020

some 200 000 students with access to EU-guaranteed loans for studying abroad. By the end of

2017, only 428 students had opted to take part in the scheme, with the majority of them coming

from Spain

. The action proved effective in supporting the needs of disadvantaged students

who were willing to go abroad for a full master’s programme

, but it never attracted enough

financial intermediaries offering student loans for studying abroad nor a sufficient number of

beneficiaries

. The Facility was discontinued in the 2021-2027 programming period as a

EVS was covered under Erasmus+ 2014-2020 under KA105 (mobility projects for young people and youth

workers) until 2017. In 2017, KA135 Strategic EVS was launched and in 2018, in preparation of the European

Solidarity Corps, volunteering was moved from KA105 to KA125 Volunteering projects.

The facility aimed at fostering higher education student degree mobility among programme countries by easing

access to student loans for students enrolling in a master’s programme abroad.

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/444828c6-7151-11e9-9f05-01aa75ed71a1/language-en

The “social inclusion” dimension of the EU-guaranteed loans is supported by the “2018 annual report on

beneficiaries of the Erasmus+ Master Loans and summary of developments 2015-2018: summary report” (which

is already referred to in the 1

section on SLGF (https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-

/publication/444828c6-7151-11e9-9f05-01aa75ed71a1).

European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Combined evaluation of

Erasmus+ and predecessor programmes – Final report – Evaluation of the student loan guarantee facility (Volume

2), Publications Office, 2017, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/2

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

stand-alone pilot initiative for transnational student mobility because it failed to gain significant

traction with financial institutions for this purpose.

The total number of

staff involved in education and training and youth organisations

participating in learning mobility was over 1 million

(against a baseline of 89 000 for all

sectors). Across the different sectors, the number of staff mobility steadily increased since 2017

until 2019, and remained overall stable in 2020. Between 2017 and 2019, the highest increase

was registered in the school (+69%) and the adult education sectors, which doubled the number

of mobilities

At the end of the programming period, the achievement is well above the

target set for 2020

(136 000), with 203 000 staff mobilities across all sectors.

Also, the 2020 targets set for the

international credit mobility in higher education

have been

largely surpassed, both in terms of students receiving support to study in non-associated third

country (25 000 against a target of 3 900) and of students from non-associated third countries

to study in a programme country (37 000 against a target of 15 000).

The organisation participations were measured for all expected outputs, across all key

actions, Jean Monnet activities and Sport, considering also the number of projects.

The

number of organisations’ participations in 2020 was 82 000 for actions under indirect

management and 3 000 for those under direct management, while the total number of

organisations’ participations largely exceeded 550 000 during the whole programming

period

. In addition, specific indicators were measuring the participation of

organisations

from non-associated third countries in the higher education and youth fields with regards to the

international dimension

of the programme. These indicators slightly deviate from the

expected targets. The one addressing the youth field shows a decrease in 2018, due to the

discontinuation of EVS from Erasmus+ and consequent adjustment of the final target.

However, as from 2019, the number of partner countries organisation participations increased,

allowing to achieve and surpass the target set for 2020 (almost 7 000 youth organisations

involved in international mobility and cooperation versus a 2020 target of 6 000). The indicator

addressing higher education lags slightly behind (partner country Higher Education institutions

involved in mobility and cooperation actions, achieving 1 235 participations against a target of

1 300), with general stability across the programming period.

System level outputs didn’t have any specific indicator for their measurement.

This is

because most of these actions were operating grants awarded to identified beneficiaries through

non-competitive procedures

. These outputs include for example yearly operating grants to

seven institutions designated in the 2014-2020 Erasmus+ Regulation

pursuing an aim of

European interest under Jean Monnet activities (total contracted grants: close to EUR 162

million). Other activities supporting the transparency and recognition of skills and

qualifications or the EU policy agenda on education and training in the context of the Open

Method of Coordination (e.g. dialogue with stakeholders, evidence-based activities) were

provided through national allocations, which by end of 2020 were equal to around EUR 237

Yearly progress is displayed in 2022 PPS data (ps_db2023_erasmus_h2.pdf).

See footnote 48. No target was established for this indicator.

Grants can be awarded to bodies considered as

de jure

monopoly on the basis of Article 198(c) of the EU

Financial Regulation (FR), to bodies identified as beneficiaries in the basic act on the basis of Article 198(d) FR,

or to bodies designated by national authorities on the basis of Article 198(f) FR for actions with specific

characteristics that require a particular type of body on account of its technical competence, its high degree of

specialisation or its administrative power.

Article 10(c) of the 2014-2020 Erasmus+ regulation. These institutions are: i) the European University Institute of

Florence; ii) the College of Europe (Bruges and Natolin campuses); iii) the European Institute of Public Administration

(EIPA), Maastricht; iv) the Academy of European Law, Trier; v) the European Agency for Development in Special Needs

Education, Odense; vi) the International Centre for European Training (CIFE), Nice.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

million contracted grants. The few system level outputs based on open calls for proposals

included experimentation actions aiming to fund initiatives for policy innovation (around 300

projects, involving over 2 500 organisations, for close to EUR 177 million contracted grants)

and the action European Youth Together (37 projects, involving 391 organisations, for close to

EUR 15 million contracted grants).

•

Results

The programme managed to achieve the expected results, in line with its logic of

intervention.

At individual level, four programme indicators (2 for education and training and

2 for youth) track quantitatively the programme performance in relation to

improved language

skills and key competences,

linked respectively with specific objectives 5 and 7 of the

programme

. Results at the end of the period are very positive, surpassing the set targets (80%)

across all fields, with 96% of participants declaring having increased their key competences.

Strong performance is observed also through the indicator measuring the increase in language

skills across programme fields (96% achievement in higher-education and 95% in the VET

field), contributing to the programme specific objective of improving teaching and learning of

languages and promoting the Union’s linguistic diversity.

Targets on the percentage of participants that have received certificates, diplomas or

other formal recognitions in higher education, VET and youth sectors have all been

achieved or significantly surpassed

(100% of participants in higher education, 91% in VET

and in youth), contributing to improve recognition of knowledge, skills and competences and

related specific objective. In the

youth

field, in particular, data recorded along the year of

programme implementation reflect the

increasing take up of Youthpass from 77% in 2014

to 91% in 2020

, the recognition tool for non-formal and informal learning. Youthpass was

launched in 2007 under Youth in Action, one of the predecessor programmes of Erasmus+

2014-2020, and in the course of Erasmus+ 2014-2020 issued more than 800 000 certificates

Stakeholders’ views also speak to the strong accomplishments of the programme on attitudes,

personal development and motivation of participants, as confirmed by programme monitoring

data: 95% of participants in youth actions consider having reached their expectations in terms

of personal development; over 83% of programme participants consider having improved their

learning competences, and 94% of staff participants in VET, school and adult education are

more motivated to develop their professional skills

The achievement of the expected results at organisational level

is confirmed by

quantitative evidence

and corroborated by studies

. 82% of staff in VET, school, adult

Specific Objective 1(a) on the improvement of the level of key competences and skills, Articles 5, 11 of the

Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013. The data feeding both indicators were collected through surveys submitted by

mobility participants at the end of the mobility period as part of the project final report.

Yearly progress is

available in the 2022 Programme Performance Statement (ps_db2023_erasmus_h2.pdf)

Yearly progress is available in the 2022 Programme Performance Statement (ps_db2023_erasmus_h2.pdf)

https://www.youthpass.eu/en/about-youthpass/statistics/

Data from participants reports submitted by participants in learning mobility as part of the project final reports.

These include the spreading of stronger organisational networks, the development of quality youth work, and

new methods of youth work, as well as in the area of new governance practices in sport.

Based on the logic of the programme, the participation of E&T and youth staff in learning mobility activities is

expected to provide benefit also at organisational level (see section 2.1). Participant reports (survey) are collected

under the projects’ final report as part of the regular monitoring of the Programme.

Quantitative evidence refers to programme monitoring data (participants reports submitted by E&T and youth

staff at the end of the mobility period), and to the network analysis and the socio-economic actors’ survey

conducted as part of the support study by the external evaluator. Among studies in the mentioned areas: RAY

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

education and youth declare having experienced or developed new learning/teaching

techniques during their learning mobility, with youth staff reporting the highest share (89%),

while 86% of staff in the same sectors have extended their professional network or built-up

new contacts. Organisations’ capacity grew following the participation of their staff in learning

mobilities: according to respondents to the survey of socio-economic actors, the participation

in the programme contributed to develop the capacity for international cooperation of their

organisations and to develop new learning and teaching approaches and tools

The connection with businesses also increased during the programming period.

The

number of strategic partnership projects involving companies or businesses has increased along

the years, reaching the highest participation towards the end of the programming period, in

particular in the VET field (over 2 400 businesses out of 6 700 across all sectors). The

Knowledge Alliances (KA2) aimed at bringing higher education institutions and business

together to collaborate on subjects of common interest. Based on the result of a recent study

these activities proved effective to strengthen intersectoral cooperation

, as they acted as first-

time enablers for organisations to experience university-business cooperation, or as supporting

mechanisms for organisations with prior intersectoral experience. SMEs were involved in 148

out of the 160 projects supported by the Knowledge Alliances, while NGOs/associations/social

enterprises were present in 84 projects.

Under the

Sport

sector, the programme aimed to tackle cross-border threats to the integrity of

sport, support good governance in sport and dual careers of athletes, and promote voluntary

activities in sport. By 2020, the

programme achieved the 75% targets

to address these

objectives, measured as the share of participants who used the results of cross-border projects

to combat threats to sport, to improve good governance and dual careers, supporting athletes

who have both their sport career and another professional or educational path at the same time.

This target (75%) was also achieved for the share of participants using the results of cross-

border projects to enhance social inclusion, equal opportunities and participation rates.

Evidence collected from stakeholders signal a strong performance of the programme with

regard to research and teaching about the EU.

These insights are further corroborated

CAP (2019). “Research project on competence development and capacity building of youth workers and youth

leaders” (https://www.researchyouth.net/projects/cap/); RAY MON (2022). “Research-based Analysis on

Monitoring of Erasmus+ Youth in Action – Comparative Research Report – 2014-2020: Effects and outcomes of

the Erasmus+ Youth in Action Programme” (https://researchyouth.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/RAY-

MON_Research-Report-20142020.pdf);

“Sport diplomacy:

identifying good practices”

(2018)

(https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/0efc09a6-025e-11e8-b8f5-01aa75ed71a1). “Study on the

European

sport

model

–

report

the

European

Commission”

(2022)

(https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/28433); Outputs produced by the Erasmus+ funded project Good Governance

in Sport:

https://www.eusport.org/goodgovernance/GGS_outputs).

European Commission: Directorate-General

for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Kirdulytė, G., Abozeid, O., Abraham, E., Buitrago, H. et al., Assessment

of the instruments, deliverables, results and impact of university business cooperation – Final report. Publications

Office of the European Union, 2024 (https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/514543).

Annex V of ICF support study. 79% of respondents to the survey considered that the result of development of

the capacity of their organisation for international cooperation was fully met, and 16% considered it was met at

some extent; while 64% considered that the result of developing new learning and teaching approaches and tools

was fully met for their organisations, while 27% considered that it was met to some extent.

European Commission: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Kirdulytė, G., Abozeid,

O., Abraham, E., Buitrago, H. et al., Assessment of the instruments, deliverables, results and impact of university

business cooperation – Final report. Publications Office of the European Union, 2024,

https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/514543

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

through reports studying the impact of Erasmus+ between 2014 and 2020

. In particular,

432 000 students received training through Jean Monnet activities by 2020, surpassing the

expected target (360 000), contributing to the achievement of the specific objective of promoting

excellence in teaching and research activities in European integration worldwide.

•

Impacts

The 2014-2020 programme generation didn’t include any indicator measuring the expected

impacts at individual and organisational level. System level impact was measured through

indicators addressing the Europe 2020 headline education target and mobility benchmarks, both

discussed in section 4.1.1.4 below.

Erasmus+ 2021-2027

The programme is on track for achieving the expected outputs and results in the current

programming period

, particularly regarding the volume of mobilities (despite the negative

impact of the COVID-19 pandemic), the improvement in participants’ skills and competences,

the influence of Erasmus+ on policy, and improvements in the practices of participating

organisations. Due to the continued impact of the pandemic in the first years of implementation,

the 2021-2027 programme had a relatively slow start, but at mid-term it is on track to meet

targets and expectations (see tables B and C of Annex VII, providing the overview of the

achievement level for all legal basis and delegated indicators at the end of 2023).

The

level of achievement of outputs and results has been measured through quantitative

evidence,

such as programme monitoring data and programme indicators as set in Annex II of

the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ Regulation and in the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU)

2023/2710, and

triangulated with qualitative evidence.

The table below provides a simplified

overview of the degree of achievement of outputs and results from the intervention logic, and

the corresponding evidence used to assess them. The green shading means that the achievement

is on track/attained, while the yellow shading indicates that, at the moment of the evaluation,

the achievement is somewhat lagging behind.

Table 8 - Overview of the degree of achievement of outputs and results from the 2021-2027

intervention logic

Achievement of outputs

Mobilities for learners

Mobilities for staff

Partnerships for cooperation

(small scale-partnerships and

cooperation partnerships)

Organisations (participation,

newcomers)

Evidence

Quantitative

and qualitative

Quantitative

and qualitative

Qualitative

evidence

Quantitative

evidence

KA1

KA2

Achievement of results

Improved skills, knowledge, and

competences (individual level)

Changes in attitude, personal

development, values, motivation

(individual level)

Quality improvements at

organisation level (new

curricula, new practices,

capacity-building, high-quality

practices, etc.)

Evidence

Quantitative

and qualitative

Quantitative

and qualitative

Qualitative

evidence

Erasmus+ Annual Reports 2014-2020, the Combined evaluation of Erasmus+ and predecessor programmes

(2018); Erasmus+ National Agency Lithuania (2019) “Longitudinal study on the impact and sustainability of the

Erasmus+ Programme key action 1 mobility projects for school education staff”; European Commission (2019).

“Erasmus+ higher education impact study”.

Key achievements and detailed progress against targets of core performance indicators are published yearly in

the

Programme

Performance

Statement:

https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-

budget/performance-and-reporting/programme-performance-statements/erasmus-performance_en

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Achievement of outputs

Evidence

Achievement of results

Stronger international networks

with other organisations,

businesses, international, etc.

Online platforms and tools for

virtual cooperation

Evidence

Qualitative

evidence

Quantitative

evidence

Capacity building projects and

large-scale partnerships

Policy outputs (support tools to

policy development, measures

for high quality programme

implementation, policy

experimentations)

Jean Monnet Actions

Qualitative

evidence

KA3

JMA

Qualitative

evidence

No short-term result is expected from KA3

activities, given their systemic and policy character

Research on EU studies,

learning and teaching about the

EU (at individual and

institutional level)

Quantitative

and qualitative

Quantitative

evidence

•

Outputs

KA1 outputs

are mainly measured at level of number of mobilities of learners and staff. The

reporting on programme indicators takes into account the number of contracted mobility under

each Call year, standing at respectively 2 566 000 and 680 360 for learners and staff at the end

of 2023, which are overall

on track with the yearly milestones.

The overall (cumulative)

achievement (3 246 360) is already at 40% of the target set for the end of the programming

period (8 215 900). Out of this number, by end of 2023, around 1.6 million mobilities were

completed (1 271 042 learners and 369 205 staff). Only some fields fall slightly behind targets

e.g. adult education learners and staff, VET learners and youth staff. The number of participants

in virtual learning activities (blended mobilities) is also on track, with an 80% progress in 2023

against the final 2027 target. At level of KA1 activities, the 2023 target concerning the share

of activities addressing climate objectives has been fully met for E&T, and sport and largely

surpassed for youth (86% against 16% target). The share of KA1 activities addressing digital

transformation was instead 14% in 2023, against a final target of 20%

KA1 projects and accreditations

are functional to ensure that individuals can benefit from

learning mobility activities across the relevant sectors. At the cut-off date of the interim

evaluation, one fourth of distinct organisations taking part in KA1 had received an Erasmus

Accreditation in the relevant fields. The school education sector is the one benefitting the most

from this novelty, given the increasing number of Erasmus Accreditation awarded from 2020

(2 344) to 2022 (3 113). In 2023, the number of accredited projects doubled the number of non-

accredited ones (12 236 against 5 812 non-accredited ones), with 96% of accredited projects

funded in the VET, school and adult education sectors

. The award of the Erasmus

accreditation confirms that the applicant organisation has set up a plan (‘Erasmus Plan’) to

implement high quality mobility activities as part of a wider effort to develop their organisation,

consequently the scheme is also supposed to contribute to the expected impacts at the

organisational level of the programme intervention logic.

Quantitative indicators tracking

KA2 outputs

concern mainly the number of organisations,

including newcomer organisations, involved in projects as well as the share of projects

Indicator introduced through the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2710 on the Monitoring and

Evaluation Framework, for which no yearly milestones or sectoral targets are foreseen.

Non final data, set at the cut-off date of the interim evaluation (end 2023).

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

addressing the programme horizontal priorities

(see also 4.1.1.6). Overall, these indicators are

performing well, in particular in terms of organisation participations and of number of

small-scale partnerships

(5 894, with 44% progress towards the final 2027 target), an action

specifically designed to increase accessibility for small and newcomer organisations. The total

number of newcomer organisations in KA1 and KA2 shows positive evolutions, in particular

under KA1. The number of newcomer organisations participating in KA1 both in 2022 and in

2023 is about three times (around 9 000 per year) as those participating in 2021 (around 3 000).

This may be partly due to the start of new actions in 2022 (e.g. DiscoverEU inclusion action)

and 2023 (Sport mobility) but also a sign of increased accessibility of the programme. For

further supporting the measurement of this dimension, an indicator measuring the

number of

less experienced organisations

was introduced in 2023, providing more comprehensive

insights on the programme accessibility after the very first participation in a given action as

well as on its capacity to accompany organisations in their growth. The achievement for 2023

(first year of measurement) is positive and encouraging; however, it is necessary to see the

progress in the following years for a more comprehensive assessment.

No specific output indicator is linked to

Capacity building projects

(funded under Heading 6

of the budget), beyond those already mentioned with regards to KA2 organisations and

horizontal priorities. Under Call years 2021-2023, 560 projects have been contracted, involving

2 889 distinct organisations, out of which 78% were from not-associated third countries

. In

total, 26% of contracted projects were coordinated by organisations from third countries not

associated to the programme.

specific indicators are set for KA3 outputs, other than the number of organisations

involved

(on track with 47% progress against the 2027 target). This is because most of these

activities are based on grant allocations awarded to identified beneficiaries through non-

competitive procedures. programme data analysis shows a sufficiently satisfying uptake of

Training and Cooperation Activities (TCA) in the youth field (more than 1 000 activities

planned between 2021 and 2022

), despite the challenges in the first years of the programme

implementation due to COVID-19

. Networks, such as the SALTOs, register a strong

appreciation well-evidenced through consultations activities.

Lastly,

Jean Monnet Actions do not have quantitative output targets associated with them

through programme indicators.

However, qualitative evidence collected through

consultation activities indicate that the activities are generally on track. The newly launched

actions in the school and VET fields encountered some initial difficulties in the number and

quality of proposals in the first years of the on-going programme. This was due to the combined

effect of COVID-19 pandemic as well as to issues linked to a lack of capacity and capability in

preparing applications within schools, and to legal issues limiting the capacity for public

schools to sign grant agreements. Despite these challenges, the Teacher Training activities and

Schools Networks received sufficient applications to fully utilise the available budgets, while

One legal basis indicator addressing climate objectives, complemented by three delegated act indicators

addressing the inclusion, digital and participation priorities. All four indicators are tracked in same way through

data in KA2 application forms.

Depending on the sectors and the call, these organisations come from Western Balkans, East neighbourhood, South

Mediterranean, Asia, Central Asia, Middle East, Pacific, Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean.

Source: Erasmus+ Annual Reports 2021-2022.

Response to COVID-19 pandemic required the extension of the eligibility period of TCAs funds (from 18 to 24

months) made available under 2020 and 2021 Call years. This implied the postponement of many activities and

difficulties for National Agencies to plan new activities with the funds made available under KA3 in the first years

of the programme implementation (see also section 4.1.2.2).

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Learning EU Initiative has seen a significant increase in applications in 2024, leading to the

full utilisation of the total budget available, supporting 94 projects.

Under Jean Monnet Actions, Erasmus+ provides operating grants to seven institutions

designated in the Regulation and pursuing an aim of European interest

. Under the 2023

Erasmus+ Annual Work Programme the total allocation was around EUR 41 million. These

operating grants make it possible for them to deliver their teaching, training, research and

dissemination activities focused on the EU.

•

Results

The achievement of the expected results is, at mid-term, generally on track.

At individual

level, short-term results are tracked through surveys (participant reports) submitted by mobility

participants at the end of their mobility period. A range of quantitative indicators signal the

good performance of the programme regarding

improved skills, knowledge, and

competences.

Based on programme monitoring data, 77.2% of participants in learning mobility

have declared having improved their foreign language competences, 73.5% have increased

cultural awareness and expression, while 79.4% have improved their personal and social skills

(organisational skills, capacity to reach decision, learning to learn…) and 64.3% their

entrepreneurship capacity.

Four result indicators were introduced in September 2023 through Commission Delegated

Regulation (EU) 2023/2710 to track

participants’ behavioural change and learning

outcomes linked to the four horizontal priorities

of the programme. Therefore, their tracking

and reporting started only recently. Such indicators do not have yearly milestones; however,

they seem in most cases to progress well towards the target set at the end of the programming

period. Following this interim evaluation, targets can be revised and yearly milestones for the

second part of the programming period can be set up for a more accurate follow-up of progress.

In the 2021-2027 programme, the number of

KA1 participants with fewer opportunities

measured at level of results, as an outcome following the implementation of strategies and

measures to enhance the inclusivity of the programme. In 2023, the relevant legal basis

indicator signals a 48% progress against the cumulative target set for 2027, with 445 635

participants with fewer opportunities across all fields (see also 4.1.1.5 regarding the

effectiveness of inclusion measures).

Regarding

KA2,

key results across all small- and large-scale partnerships actions are tracked

share of organisations and institutions that consider they have developed high-quality

practices

following their participation in KA2 activities. Preliminary data seem to point out to

a positive performance with a 96%

achievement in 2022,

versus

a 65% yearly target. Data on

this indicator are collected through final reports, therefore there is no sufficient critical mass

yet to draw firm conclusions on the performance of this indicator against the final target.

Additional feedback is provided through case studies, showing that

through participation in

KA2, teachers benefit from observing and learning from other school practices,

while

among learners there were improvements in participation and motivation, and both learned

In accordance with Article 8(c) of the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ Regulation, the programme provides support to the

following institutions pursuing an aim of European interest: the European University Institute, Florence, including

its School of Transnational Governance; the College of Europe (Bruges and Natolin campuses); the European Institute

of Public Administration, Maastricht; the Academy of European Law, Trier; the European Agency for Special Needs

and Inclusive Education, Odense; and the International Centre for European Training, Nice.

96% for Education and Training fields and 97% in the Youth field in 2022. 2023 data not available at the

moment of the evaluation, since they are collected at final report stage. Source: Programme Performance

Statement.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

from knowledge sharing

. In the

adult education

field, the main effects from KA2

participation include

improved networking opportunities and new approaches to

training

. In the

youth

sector, the case studies also highlight positive effects of Capacity

building projects, for both staff and young people, such as

improved self-confidence and

social skills and enhanced cultural awareness

The expected result in terms of

increased response to green transition, increased digital

capacity and the readiness of organisations and institutions

is not tracked by specific

indicators. However, programme data show that 260 KA2 projects, for total contracted grants

of over EUR 79 million, focused on the sectoral priority ‘supporting digital and green

capabilities of organisation/institutions’, in particular in the higher education field. Positive

qualitative feedback was also collected through case studies

: interviewed organisations

reported how new methods of approaching digital transformation and green transition have

been embedded in their organisational policies and practices, increasing capabilities and

readiness of the organisations. Participation in Erasmus+ has facilitated the embedding of

digital transformation and green transition in higher education institutions’ activities,

programmes and policies; improvements in digital capacity and readiness have also been

observed, contributing to the resilience of organisations to future challenges.

The results achieved by

virtual cooperation platforms

implemented under KA2 are measured

in relation to the number of users benefitting from these online communities, which is on track

for the European School Education Platform (ESEP) (previously the School Education

Gateway) but, mid-term, have fallen slightly short for EPALE. The funding of online platforms

appears effective in the establishment and support of extended communities of practitioners, and

crucial in building strong networks, including as an entry door to the programme to build initial

international cooperation

No short-term results are expected from KA3 activities, given their systemic and policy

character.

Therefore, no result indicator is set for these activities.

Regarding

Jean Monnet Actions,

data on results are mainly collected through final reports

However, given the long duration of these projects (36 months) very few data are available at

the moment. Other applicable indicators concern the introduction of teaching programmes: 828

modules and chairs and 101 Centre of Excellence (multi-disciplinary hubs) were awarded in

the field of EU studies worldwide under the 2021-2023 Calls. However, since none of these

indicators are established in the legal basis, no associated target exists.

The

JMA higher education strand is widely viewed by consulted stakeholders as a well-

established initiative

with recognition in academic circles. In particular, their role in

improving cross-sectoral cooperation, fostering dialogue between academia and policy-makers,

promoting civic participation and citizenship education, creating international networks, and

Case studies Istituto comprensivo Manzoni-Radice (SCH, IT), I Liceum Ogólnokształcące im. Henryka

Sienkiewicza w Kędzierzynie-Koźlu (SCH, PL), Pädagogische Hochschule Freiburg (SCH, DE), Primary school

Anton Skala (SCH, RS).

Case studies Afeji Hauts-de-France (ADU, FR), Społeczny Instytut Ekologiczny (ADU, PL), Asociația Sprijin+

(ADU, RO).

Case studies Društvo ustvarjalcev Taka Tuka (YOU, SI), E29 (formely, Ifjúsági Nomád Klub) (YOU, HU).

Asociatia Sprijin+” (ADU, RO); Universidad de Sevilla (HED, ES); Univerza v Mariboru (HED, SI).

Case study I Liceum Ogólnokształcące im. Henryka Sienkiewicza w Kędzierzynie-Koźlu (SCH, PL).

For all JMA: i) number of teaching hours, ii) number of students involved in the action; only for Learning EU

and Teacher training actions in the school and VET fields: i) number of teachers involved in the action, and ii)

success rate in learning test/assessment about the EU (%).

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

promoting teaching and learning about the EU

is appreciated. Given the early stage of the

JMA in the school and VET sectors, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions on their

effectiveness, although the beneficiaries consulted for the case studies

reported some early

success and good prospects for the future, such as:

•

Some effective results at the learner, professional and organisational levels;

Project outputs were considered superior (in terms of depth and scope) compared to

conventional approaches available within their country (e.g. through civic education,

history classes);

Suggestions that it would not have been possible to carry out the same activities and

outputs without the JMAs in schools.

In general, looking at qualitative and opinion-based findings, results regarding international

networks and improvements in organisational practices, teaching and research on EU-related

studies and teaching and learning about the EU are deemed strong by stakeholders, and

evidence from the literature review supports such views

•

Impacts

At level of

impacts, the intervention logic of the 2021-2027 programme is operationalised

through 4 impact indicators,

addressing the three levels of intervention of the programme. At

individual level, benefit for participants is measured by two impact indicators concerning i) the

share of participants that consider they have benefited from their participation in learning

mobility activities, and ii) those who have increased their European sense of belonging after

participation in KA1 activities (both applicable in the same way across all sectors). Both

indicators refer directly to the general objective of the 2021-2027 programme, with respect to

addressing educational, professional and personal development of people in education, training,

youth and sport and to strengthening European identity.

For both indicators, the level of

achievement at the cut-off date of the evaluation is surpassing the milestones set for 2023

in all fields,

being promising in view of meeting the final target. In particular, the results for

the sport mobility emerge very positively at the very first measurement of this new action,

respectively

99% of participants have benefitted from their mobility and 95% consider

they have increased their sense of belonging.

The indicators measuring the programme impact at organisational and system/policy level were

introduced through the delegated act on the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework in 2023: i)

increased capacity of organisations; ii) contribution to policy development, strategies and

cooperation in education and training, youth and sport. Both address the three specific

objectives of the programme with regards to the promotion of i.a. cooperation, quality,

These included interviews at EU (Commission services, EU delegations) and national level; Case studies with

Scuola superiore di studi universitari e di perfezionamento Sant'Anna (JMA, IT), Alma Mater Studiorum -

Università di Bologna (JMA, IT), College of Europe (JMA, BE and PL), European University Institute (JMA, IT),

European Institute of Public Administration (JMA, NL).

Relevant case studies and their action types are Casa do Professor (JMA, PT) - Teacher Training Action,

Profilirana Prirodo-Matematicheska Gimnazia Akademik Ivan Tsenov (JMA, BG) - Learning EU Initiatives, and

Istituto Statale d'Arte - Liceo artistico "Edgardo Mannucci" (JMA, IT) - Network for Schools.

See, for example, Erasmus+ Annual Reports 2021-2023, and the European Parliament report on the

implementation of the Erasmus+ programme 2021-2027 (2023); European Commission (2023). “Study on

Learning Mobility”; DAAD (2022) “Erasmus+ Cooperation Projects - Elements of Successful

Internationalisation”; Epos (2022) “Impact van Erasmus+ en eTwinning op scholen”.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

inclusion at level of organisations and policy, and are measured through a qualitative analysis

respectively in sections 4.1.1.3 and 4.1.1.4

4.1.1.2 Impact at individual level

KA1 activities are generally reported positively for both learner and staff mobilities in

both programming periods

and identified as affective across the different sectors

100

Programme monitoring data, collected from participants’ reports at the end of the mobility

period, show a positive constant trend across both programme generations in terms of

satisfaction of the participants (both learners and staff) with their mobility experience, as

displayed in the chart below. The satisfaction level only dropped slightly in 2020, affected by

the COVID-19 pandemic.

Participants (learners and staff) declaring their satisfaction with the Erasmus+ mobility

Source: Participants’ surveys Indicator dashboard. The data is displayed per mobility start year. The yellow

dots illustrate the number of replies (participants’ reports) submitted at the end of the mobility at project

final report stage (in total: 3.9 million responses for participants from Call years 2014-2020 and 611 874

from Calls 2021-2023). Submission of participants’ reports is not compulsory for all actions, consequently

the number of responses for the 2014-2020 programme is lower than the number of participants.

•

Learners

Across both programming periods, participation in Erasmus+ is associated with several types

of outcomes: problem-solving skills; sense of initiative and entrepreneurship; sense of

European identity; positive feelings towards the EU; digital competence; confidence in their

efforts in education, training or work; perception that employers value transnational

educational and mobility experiences; completion of studies/other activity

101

As stated in section 1.1.4, some limitations were experienced in the data analysis, affecting the

establishment of direct cause-and-effect relationship. Despite these methodological challenges,

a review of these outcomes across both programming periods was carried out through multiple

data sources: programme monitoring data, surveys, case studies, research papers, meta-

analyses, national reports.

▪

European values

Just over two thirds of respondents to the

Eurobarometer

carried out in 2017 agree that

European programmes and initiatives such as Erasmus+

and the European Solidarity Corps

As required by the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework of the 2021-2027 programme, an assessment on both

indicators is provided in ‘narrative’ only.

The main focus of this analysis is on 2014-2020 programme. A minority of the data collected in the period

2021-2023 may pertain to the 2021-2027 activities, however this is not considered an issue as most of the actions

under assessment continued across the two programming periods. Because of this, a split would not be feasible.

100

Based on Stakeholders’ perceptions and NA/EACEA survey.

101

Findings based on stakeholder perception data and supported by surveys with limited contrafactual analysis.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

make them feel more European

(67%). For young people participating in Erasmus+ 2014-

2020, youth projects functioned as ‘eye-openers’, deepened existing knowledge on

participation and citizenship,

and encouraged to follow up on social or political topics,

contributing to the development of skills important for participation and active citizenship

102

In particular, the participation in the Youth dialogue

103

is noted for its effects on participants

in terms of active citizenship, participation in civil society and democratic life, ranking the

highest in the survey run by the RAY research network (53% of response, compared to the

average of 33% for other youth actions)

104

, results confirmed in the beneficiary survey run by

ICF

105

. Furthermore, based on a survey carried by DAAD in 2023 on over 19 000 alumni from

the period 2014-2019, the intention of former mobility participants to take part in 2024

European election is quite high, with 85 % of respondents confirming their intention to vote

106

Box 1 – Example from National reports

Spain:

The data suggest that the [2014-2020] Erasmus+ programme has had a considerable impact on the

formation of a stronger European identity and the promotion of multiculturalism, especially in the youth field,

where the figures are particularly striking, reaching up to 80%, which reinforces the findings from the RAY

research network surveys, highlighting the importance of non-formal education in strengthening these aspects.

Participants not only acquire academic and professional skills, but also develop a

greater awareness and

appreciation of cultural diversity and European common values.

The positive trend in all categories can be

attributed to the structure of the Erasmus+ programme, which encourages

mobility, cultural exchange, and

international cooperation.

These elements are essential for building a more united and supportive Europe.

▪

Skills and competences

Learners participating in the programme since 2014 and surveyed by the external evaluator

reported that their mobility experience helped them acquire or improve professional skills in

teamwork, sector or field specific skills, planning and organisational skills, analytical and

problem-solving skills, innovative and entrepreneurial skills, with shares generally above 70%

across target groups

107

. On average, 80% of respondents across higher education students,

VET learners, adult learners and young people reported positive results regarding the

acquisition of ‘planning and organisational skills’. The teamwork skills received the highest

level of appreciation from young people participating in youth activities (93%) and positive

feedback from at least 80% of other target groups. The acquisition of innovative and

entrepreneurial skills had the most diversified feedback, from 59% of HE students reporting

positive outcomes (the only result below 70%) to 74% of young people with the highest share.

Survey results for learners identifying themselves as having

fewer opportunities

are overall

very similar, with some perceived differences within the different target groups. VET learners

102

RAY research study on long-term effects of Erasmus+ Youth in Actions on participation and citizenship (RAY

LTE):

https://www.researchyouth.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/RAY-LTE-FTA_20210324-research-report-

clean.pdf

103

KA3, ‘Dialogue between young people and policy makers’ also called ‘Structured dialogue’ before 2018.

104

RAY-MON, Comparative research report. Effects and outcomes of the Erasmus+ Youth in action programme

(https://researchyouth.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/RAY-MON_Research-Report-20142020.pdf ).

105

Finding to be read in the light of the limitations indicated in section 1.1.4.

106

DAAD (2024), Erasmus+: Wirkung der Studierendenmobilität (https://eu.daad.de/news/de/86030-erasmus-

wirkung-der-studierendenmobilitaet/).

107

Beneficiary survey for learners run by ICF (findings to be read in the light of the caveats indicated in section

1.1.4). Results are based on a total of responses “strongly agreeing” or “rather agreeing” to these statements from

a total of 16 740 participants in higher education, 5 255 in VET, 2 479 in youth, and 90 in adult education, out of

which the following declared themselves as having fewer opportunities: 48,7% in higher education, 59,9% in

VET, 69,3% in youth, and 61,1% in adult education. Survey run on programme participants with mobility start

years between 2014 and 2023 (inclusive). The feedback reported in this section is only based on programme

participants (no comparison is done with non-participants). The question was not asked to school pupils.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

are on average slightly more positive compared to their peers with fewer opportunities. On

average, both young people and students with fewer opportunities perceive more benefits

compared to their peers, in particular regarding analytical and problem-solving skills, followed

by sector- or field specific skills.

When breaking down this survey results by perceived barriers, learners declaring to face

cultural or economic barriers, and to a certain extent those facing geographic barriers, perceive

a higher benefit from the participation in the programme, in terms of acquisition of skills,

compared to those facing other types of barriers, in particular health problems. However, as

stated in section 1.1.4, given the differences in sample size of the different target groups, it is

not possible to generalise these results to the entire programme for either programming period.

Furthermore, the high share of respondents identifying themselves as having fewer

opportunities (around 50% of the sample) limits their representativeness compared to the

programme population over both programming periods (around 10% in 2014-2020, and 15%

by end 2023)

108

. Therefore, these results can only be indicative of achieved outcomes, not

allowing to claim causal links or to draw firm conclusions.

Examples of the range and types of effects of programme participation on people with fewer

opportunities

109

include, for example, becoming more proactive and engaged as a result of

project activities, acquiring new competences and skills, and progressing further in their

education and career paths. Similarly, several countries report positive effects in terms of

personal development

110

, skills enhancement

111

and career prospect

112

for disadvantages

participants, although comprehensive data on the specific impact of Erasmus+ on participants

with fewer opportunities is limited in most cases.

The beneficiary survey for learners shows positive results also for

school pupils,

with 70% or

more indicating an improved the range of competences (see chart below) following a mobility

experience, with similar shares both for pupils with fewer opportunities and for all other

pupils

113

. A recent study in the school sector in Germany shows that participation in Erasmus+

seems to benefit those who have less favourable learning profiles and less opportunities for e.g.

extracurricular school settings or to participate in ‘classic’ privately organised international

mobility abroad. In particular, the study highlights that participation in Erasmus+ benefits

pupils from non-academic track school types, as well as those who receive less support from

their parents on school matters, giving them the opportunity to be involved in outbound learning

mobility

114

108

This can be explained by the different way of collecting data on participants with fewer opportunities in the

survey (self-reported data from each respondent), compared to the programme (data entered by the beneficiary

organisations at mobility level).

109

Case studies: Pädagogische Hochschule Freiburg (SCH, DE), Oktatási és Szakértő Bt. Hungary. E29 (YOU,

HU), Youth wiki (Youth, CY, FR, MT). Findings based on stakeholders’ perceptions.

110

10 national reports mention increased self-confidence, autonomy and motivation as frequently cited benefits

for disadvantaged participants (AT, BG, DE, EL, ES, FI, IE, LV, MT, RO).

111

19 national reports mention improvements in language skills, intercultural competence and digital literacy as

commonly reported benefits for people with fewer opportunities (AT, BEnl, BG, CZ, CY, DE, ES, FR, HR, IT,

LI, LV, LT, LU, NO, PL, PT, RO, SK).

112

21 national reports indicate enhanced employability and clearer career aspirations as benefits, particularly in

the VET sector for disadvantaged participants (AT, BEnl, CZ, CY, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, HR, LI, LT, LU, MT,

NL, PL, PT, RO, RS, SE, TR).

113

Also for this target group, the results from this survey have to be read taking into account the caveats indicated

above and in section 1.1.4.

114

S. Hornberg, M. Becker, N. Sonnenburg, M. Peitz, C. Schreiber (2025). Lernmobilität in Europa

(https://erasmusplus.schule/fileadmin/Dateien/Bilder/Dossiers/Politische_Papiere/2025_Hornberg_et_al_Zusam

menfassung_Studie_Lernmobilitaeten_Europa.pdf).

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Share of pupils participating in the programme who agreed that their stay abroad helped them in:

Source: Beneficiary survey for learners (school pupils) run by ICF. Results are based on responses from 560

programme participants (pupils), out of which 46.30% (=259) declaring themselves as having fewer opportunities

The collected evidence demonstrates a number of sustained effects from participation in

learning mobility. The counterfactual analysis comparing participants over both programme

generations and non-participants

115

highlighted the following correlations between

participation in learning mobility and a series of outcomes:

•

For

higher education students,

participation in learning mobility across both

programme generations is associated with the increased likelihood of having a sense

of EU identity and believing that employers in their sector value the mobility

experience.

For

VET learners,

positive association is found with the increased likelihoods of

moving to another EU country permanently to study/work, finding a job within 3

months and completing studies/other activity. A positive association was also

observed regarding digital competences but only for learners taking part in physical

(not blended) mobility.

For

school pupils,

a positive association was found with individual’s problem-solving

and autonomy skills, and civic competences. A correlation was found between an

increase of individual’s likelihoods of future involvement in civic/volunteering

activities, and the reduced likelihood of believing that they will achieve poor

performance in education/training regardless of the efforts they put in (reduced

pessimism).

For

adult learners,

participation in Erasmus+ 2021-2027

116

is correlated with the

increased likelihood of reporting that the learning organisation facilitates social

contacts and believing that employers in their sector value the mobility experience.

For

young people,

participation in the programme is found to have increased the

individual’s social and civic competences. Participation in DiscoverEU (2021-2027)

is associated with an increased sense of initiative and entrepreneurship; similarly,

participation in the Youth Dialogue (2014-2020) is positively associated with

increased problem solving and autonomy of participants, as well as with active

citizenship and involvement in democratic life, in line with the objectives of the action.

Participation in the European Voluntary Service (2014-2020) was found to be

associated with an increased sense of initiative and entrepreneurship, positive feeling

•

115

116

Analysis based on the beneficiary survey for learners carried out by ICF (see 1.1.4 for related caveats)

Mobility of adult learners was only implemented in the 2021-2027 Programme.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

towards the EU and a positive association with increased cultural awareness and

expression.

At level of mobility entailing cooperation with non-associated third countries, participants in

Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees

benefitted from high-quality education and

international exposure, which enriched their educational and professional experiences; students

gained valuable skills in their respective fields, becoming more open-minded and independent.

According to a recent

Erasmus Mundus Graduate Impact Study

90% of surveyed alumni stated

high satisfaction

117

, consistently reporting individual impact in five key areas, such

intercultural competencies, improved career prospects, personal growth, more positive attitudes

towards Europe and the EU, and deeper subject matter expertise.

▪

Academic performance

Participation in 2014-2020 Erasmus+ student mobility is reported as enriching

academically, socially, personally, and in terms of the employability development

118

. The

periods spent abroad have a positive impact on openness to the world and on social cohesion,

with more students who identify themselves as global citizens, Europeans and EU citizens after

their stays abroad

119

. The meta-analysis carried out by the external evaluator on the topic ‘skills

development’ took into account 19 research papers looking at sample populations that

participated in study abroad anywhere from 2007 up to and including 2020. The analysis

measured three outcome type covered in all the 19 studies: i) academic achievement, ii)

language skills, and iii) intercultural cognitive competence. 46% of the outcomes reported in

the studies included in this meta-analysis suggest a positive and statistically significant

relationship between participating in international student mobility and educational attainment

or skills formation

120

, providing reasonable evidence that participating in Erasmus+ improves

language skills and possibly also cultural intelligence

121

. Out of the 19 studies included in the

meta-analysis, five

122

use sample populations directly referred to the 2014-2020 programme.

117

The study analysed the experience of 3 different cohorts of EMJMD graduates. In the GIS 2022/23, graduates

from cohorts 2012/13, 2017/18 and 2021/22 were invited to participate by e-mail and 3.396 of them completed

the survey. To enhance representativity, the data were weighted to reflect the overall distribution of gender, region,

field of study, and cohort. This edition of the survey included relevant topics, such as the impact of the COVID-

19 pandemic on studies and entry into the labour market. 90% of respondents reported high levels of satisfaction.

118

European Commission (2019). “Erasmus+ higher education impact study”

119

ESN, 2022, ESNsurvey. Understanding the Experience & Needs of Exchange Students in Challenging Times,

Bruxelles.

120

The meta-analysis carried out on the topic ‘skills development’ pooled independent variables (i.e. output types

used in the analysis) from the 19 eligible studies (for 80 coefficients in total). These coefficients were analysed to

determine whether they were statistically significant, and if so, whether they had a positive or negative effect. A

result was considered to be statistically significant if it met the criteria of p<=0.05. 43 out of the 80 estimates

suggest a positive and significant association, 33 are not statistically significant, and 4 are negative.

121

Within the considered outcomes, 51 out of 80 coefficients were specific to language skills (60% of which are

statistically significant and positive), 13 to cultural intelligence (92% of which are positive and statistically

significant), and 16 on academic achievement (which are largely not statistically significant, and those that are

significant are mixed between positive and negative results, with 3-3 cases each). The low number of coefficients

reported for academic achievement supports the documented challenges for researchers in the availability of data

that can be used to evaluate the impact of Erasmus+ and study abroad on academic achievement.

122

Among these, two studies report a positive correlation between Erasmus+ participation and improvement of

second-language proficiency (Kaya, F. 2021) and cultural cognitive competence (Mckay et al. 2022). However,

they both rely on non-contrafactual methodology, thus not allowing to claim causal-impact.

Kaya, F. (2021). Language Proficiency Development and Study Abroad Experience: A Study on EFL Learners.

GIST Education and Learning Research Journal, 23, 33 58.

Mckay, S., Lannegrand, L., Skues, J., Wise, L. (2022). International experience and cultural intelligence

development: A longitudinal assessment of Australian and French exchange students. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 91, 56-69.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Among these, a recent paper

123

explores academic performance, showing that participation in

Erasmus+ learning mobility does not delay graduation at the home university and, in addition,

it has a

positive and significant impact on undergraduates’ final degree mark.

In particular,

participation in Erasmus+ learning mobility

improves graduation results for undergraduate

students in scientific and technical fields (STEM) and for those who apply for the

Erasmus+ grant in the first year of their studies, for whom it was also observed a

reduction in time to graduation.

The paper makes use of administrative records from the

University of Bologna, the second-largest public university in Italy, through a counterfactual

methodology, allowing to claim causal-link

124

▪

Employability and career prospects

National reports indicate

positive and lasting effects of Erasmus+ participation at the

individual level,

without making major distinctions between programme generations.

Enhanced employability

125

and career prospects

were highlighted in 25 reports

126

Improved soft skills, such as intercultural competence, language proficiency and adaptability,

were indicated in all reports. Increased European identity and active citizenship were

mentioned in 21 reports

127

. Regarding aspects of future career prospects, 88% of learners

surveyed by the external evaluator believe that employers valued the personal skills gained

through the mobility experience

128

. More than 70% of learners who participated in mobility

activities in different programme fields since 2014 agreed that their stay abroad had improved

their opportunities for future employment (both for those survey respondents who identified

themselves as participants with fewer opportunities

129

and for all other learners).

123

Granato, S., Mazzarella, G., Schnepf, S. V., and Havari, E. (2021). Study Abroad Programmes and Students'

Academic Performance: Evidence from Erasmus Applications, IZA Discussion Papers, No. 14651, Institute of

Labor Economics (IZA), Bonn.

124

The paper exploits the allocation mechanism used by the university to select participants in Student mobility

in a fuzzy regression discontinuity design, which allowed to tackle the bias deriving from selection into the

Erasmus+ programme and to estimate its causal impact on short-term outcomes. It uses rich administrative data

on students’ applications to the Erasmus+ programme matched with administrative records on their performance

at university (information on time to degree completion and final graduation mark), becoming the first study that

uses administrative data on Erasmus+ applications and students’ outcomes at graduation.

125

See

European

Experts

network

Economics

Education,

https://eenee.eu/wp-

content/uploads/2021/05/EENEE_AR36.pdf

126

AT, BEnl, BG, CZ, CY, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, IT, LI, LT, LU, MT, NL, NO, PT, RO, RS, SE, TR.

127

AT, BEde, BEnl, CZ, CY, DE, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, IT, LI, LT, LU, PL, PT, RO, RS, SE, TR.

128

Beneficiary survey for learners run by ICF (see section 1.1.4 for related caveats).. Results are based on a total

of 16 740 respondents in higher education, 5 255 in VET, 2 479 in youth, and 90 in adult education. The question

was not asked to school pupils.

129

The respondents to this survey self-declared themselves as facing physical, economic, social, cultural or

geographical barriers and therefore were considered as participants with fewer opportunities in the analysis.

However, as previously explained, the data do not correspond to the monitoring data which are collected at

programme level on participants with fewer opportunities.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Share of participants by field who agreed that their stay abroad helped them improve

opportunities for future employment

Source: Beneficiary survey for learners run by ICF. Results based on a total of responses “strongly agreeing”

or “rather agreeing” to these statements from 16 740 respondents in higher education, 5 255 in VET, 2 479 in

youth, and 90 in adult education, out of which the following declared themselves as having fewer opportunities:

48,7% in higher education, 59,9% in VET, 69,3% in youth, and 61,1% in adult education. The question was not

asked to school pupils.

Studies looking at the effects of

Erasmus+ on labour market outcomes

struggle to find

definitive answers to this question. The meta-analysis carried out by the external evaluator on

the topic ‘employability’ aimed to measure the outcomes ‘employment success’ and

‘employment quality’. However, out of the 11 research papers filling in the criteria for inclusion

in the analysis, only five included samples participating in student mobility in the first years of

Erasmus+ 2014-2020

130

Around a quarter of outcomes contained in the 11 primary studies

included in this meta-analysis are positive and significant (i.e. have a positive statistically

significant effect), but methodologies and research design are heterogeneous and cannot firmly

identify impacts

131

, the extensiveness of the mobility period addressed in the papers doesn’t

allow a clear link with the intervention. The few research papers referring directly to the period

2014-2020 note that the participation in the programme improves employment prospects at

130

Crãciun D., Orosz K., Proteasa, V. (2020) Does Erasmus Mobility Increase Employability? Using Register

Data to Investigate the Labour Market Outcomes of University Graduates in European Higher Education Area.

Challenges for a New Decade.

Croce, G., Ghignoni, E. (2024). The Multifaceted Impact of Erasmus Programme on the School‑to‑Work

Transition:

Matching

Sensitivity

Analysis.

Research

Higher

Education;

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-024-09774-x

Iriondo, I. (2020). Evaluation of the impact of Erasmus study mobility on salaries and employment of recent

graduates in Spain. Studies in higher education, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1582011

Van Mol C., Caarls K., Souto Otero M (2021). International student mobility and labour market outcomes: an

investigation of the role of level of study, type of mobility, and international prestige hierarchies. Higher

Education, 82, 1145–1171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734 020 00532 3

Wiers Jenssen J., Støren L.A. (2020). International student mobility and the transition from higher education to

work in Norway. Higher Education, 82, 1119–1143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734 020 00564 9

131

Annex VI of ICF study. Estimates are considered to be statically significant if p<=0.05. Out of the 48 estimates

considered in this analysis, a positive significant effect was identified in only 10 cases, representing 21% of the

estimates. Heterogeneity in the results was noted when breaking down the findings by geographical scope –

namely, the relevant sending country. The highest number of estimates is found in studies that analysed southern

European countries, with Italy resulting in 21 estimates out of 48. This can be due by the fact that the Italian

National Institute of Statistics runs a survey on recent graduates, which includes their professional path and

whether they participate in mobility schemes. D’Hombres (2020) argues that the employability outcomes of

mobile students across the EU can be influenced by labour market conditions in their home countries, where

differences in education systems and labour market demands contribute to this variation. For example, in highly

saturated job markets with high youth unemployment rates, and/or a high number of graduates, the signalling

effect of ISM can be comparatively more important.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

least in the short term, as well as the quality of job, and has a positive long-term effect on the

participants' ability to find a job abroad. The wages of participants are persistently higher than

those of non-participants, while graduates coming from less educated families, lower social

classes, and regions with high youth unemployment rate also benefit from the Erasmus+

experience (Croce, G., Ghignoni, E. (2024)). Positive impact on the prospects of recent

graduates who undertook a learning mobility was found in the medium term in Spain, noting

salaries that were 10-12% higher than those who had not participated in the programme

(Iriondo, I. (2020)).

•

Staff

The evidence collected through the beneficiary survey for staff carried out by the external

evaluator

132

suggests that participation in the Erasmus+ programme over

both programme

generations

is associated with an increase in the following outcomes for staff members of

beneficiary organisations:

•

continued exchange with international networks

(development of other projects,

exchange of information related to their profession, keeping abreast of developments in

the professional community);

•

transnational partnerships

(having a clear strategy for the development of an

international network or international activities, cooperation and network size);

•

quality of work;

•

removing barriers

to (participation in) teacher/staff mobility and international

cooperation.

In particular:

•

For

higher education staff,

significant correlations with Erasmus+ participation is

noted in several areas, particularly in continued exchange with international networks

(e.g. social media, professional information) and in relation to transnational

partnerships.

For

VET staff,

positive correlation is noted in the continued exchange with

international networks, including social media and project development, with multiple

outcomes achieving statistical significance as well as in areas related to transnational

partnerships and the removal of perceived barriers to international cooperation.

For

school education staff

positive association is noted between Erasmus+

participation and various forms of continued exchange, incl. keeping abreast of

professional developments.

For

adult education staff and sport staff

133

, fewer significant correlation overall is

noted, though for sport staff some positive effects are reported in continued exchange

with international networks.

For

youth workers,

improvements are reported in the quality of youth work, while also

benefiting from significant advancements in continued exchange with international

networks, particularly regarding the development of projects.

•

Sustained effects for staff from participation in the programme are also noted. 78% of school

education staff surveyed in the beneficiary survey maintains contact with individuals they had

132

133

Findings to be read in the light of the caveats indicated in section 1.1.4.

The sample used for the survey addressing sport staff is largely based on participants in the 2014-2020

programme (at level of KA2 collaborative partnerships), therefore these outcomes are more likely to be attributed

to the 2014-2020 programme.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

met abroad

134

. The international experience often contributes to career advancements: 35% of

staff agreed or strongly agreed that their international experience helped them achieve a new

function or level of seniority (reported by 60% of staff in the sport sector, 35% in higher

education, 34% in adult education, 28% in VET and 25% in school education).

Box 2 - Sustained effects on staff from case studies

The primary school ‘Anton Skala’ (Serbia)

was the first Balkan school to open a department for the

upbringing and education of children with mild, moderate mental retardation and autism. Its staff has

extensive experience in teaching, understanding and knowledge of sensory and cognitive specifics of

children with intellectual disabilities and autism. According to the school, further participation in Erasmus+

since 2019, the work of teachers had improved by applying various digital applications aimed at the

development of cognitive, emotional, social, and motor skills in students. These were adapted and further

developed following the example of the institutions they visited during the programme activities.

TAKA TUKA EV

is a Slovenian NGO, established in 2002, specialized in working with hearing impaired

children and youth in the field of theatre. Practitioners, including highly experienced teachers and specialists

in special pedagogy, highlighted how the programme has allowed them to gain knowledge and new

perspectives in youth development and to promote new teaching methods in hearing impaired children

education within their teaching activity. Additionally, they emphasised the value of international experience

and network opportunities in their personal and professional growth. The organisation has coordinated five

Capacity building projects in the field of youth (respectively 3 and 2 in the 2014-2020 and 2021-2027

periods).

Based on programme monitoring data of the

period 2014-2020,

on average 84% of staff

participating in learning mobility indicated they had improved skills needed for their current

jobs, with the highest share among school staff (86%). Improvement of career opportunities are

reported by 60% of staff with no major differences across sectors.

4.1.1.3 Impact at level of organisations

Over both programme generations organisational benefits as contribution to increased

cooperation, internationalisation, improved practices of beneficiary organisations. The

continuity of the intervention, and the repeated participation of organisations over both

programme generations, makes it challenging to clearly attribute effects to one or the other

programme cycle. For this reason, in some cases, only differences and trends can be identified.

However, as impactful effects are rather generated following a prolongated action made of

several components, it is more likely that long-term effects are rather to be attributed to the

2014-2020 programme.

Progress at organisational level is positive across both programme generations, as measured

both quantitatively (where possible) and qualitatively. A large majority of beneficiary

organisations (81%) responding to the survey targeting socio-economic actors

135

stated that

their objectives were fully met, with an additional 17% stating that they were met to some

extent. None of the respondent organisations reported that their objectives were not met at all.

This question was only asked in the survey for School education staff. Question: ‘do you keep in touch with

the people you met during your stay abroad, and if so, how often do you keep in touch? The share is based on

3 158 respondents (Erasmus+ participants) in school education.

135

Annex V of ICF study. Non-contrafactual survey, registering a total of 1 550 valid responses.

134

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

A common feature at the basis of the intervention logic of both programme generations is the

expected spill-over effects

136

at the different levels of programme intervention. Several can be

identified at organisational level. It is observed that

repeated participation by organisations

in Erasmus+ can facilitate organisational learning,

by which organisations increase their

capacity and make it easier to absorb positive effects of participation, especially if partner

organisations also remain the same. Data on repeated organisation pairs

137

signals that from

2021 to 2022, 24% of organisations sent mobilities to each other more than once, and that 5%

of organisation pairs continued collaboration from the 2014-2020 programme throughout the

2021-2023 period. Stakeholders’ consultations highlight that participation in Erasmus+ actions,

including the interaction with peers or staff in other organisations, affects the teaching or

learning methods, resulting in spillovers effects both on the organisation they are active in and

on the learning of those in their classroom. This is in line with the results of the survey of socio-

economic actors, where 64% of beneficiary organisations responding to the survey stated that

the activities in which they participated contributed to achieving new learning and teaching

approaches.

At the organisational level, the

programme's effects across both programming periods are

considered sustained.

54% of staff surveyed in the beneficiary survey run by the external

evaluator indicated that the benefits of their international experiences in their organisations are

still in place, with only 15% indicating that these benefits were no longer in place

138

. Almost

80% of the beneficiary organisations responding to the survey of socio-economic actors

consider that participation in the programme fully facilitated the creation of new partnerships

and the development of capacity for transnational cooperation

139

National reports also highlight that common benefits for organisations include

enhanced

internationalisation, improved teaching practices and expanded networks

in all countries.

Organisational impacts like internationalisation strategies and improved teaching practices

show potential for sustainability, but require ongoing commitment, as reported in 16

countries

140

Erasmus+ 2014-2020

As defined in the 2014-2020 intervention logic, the opportunities offered by the programme

could help develop long-lasting partnerships and better quality of teaching/learning methods

and youth work, and strengthen networks and cooperation with businesses/policy actors and

contribute to the internationalisation of organisations. The 2014-2020 programme did not

include any impact indicator at level of organisations, so no targets are established.

Stakeholder insights and evidence from the literature speak to the strong accomplishments of

quality improvements in the organisations participating in the programme reporting the

establishment of organisational networks

141

. In higher education,

KA2 strategic

136

Under Erasmus+ specific objectives are expected to deliver results at more than one level of intervention and

across more than one key action. As a result of these ‘spill-over effects’ mobility of staff (individual level) can

e.g. support the development of better organisational practices, thus influencing the organisational level (see

section 2.1 for both programming periods).

137

Network Analysis carried out as part of ICF study.

138

Beneficiary survey for learners run by ICF (see section 1.1.4 for related caveats). Question: Are the immediate

benefits of participating in the mobility activity still in place? Replies based on a total of 26 332 Erasmus+

participants across all target groups.

139

Survey of socio-economic actors, annex V of ICF study report.

140

AT, BEnl, CY, DE, DK, ES, FI, IE, IT, LT, MT, NL, NO, PT, SE, SK.

141

European Commission (2019). “Erasmus+ higher education impact study”; DAAD (2022) “Erasmus+

Cooperation Projects—Elements of Successful Internationalisation”; Epos (2022) “Impact van Erasmus+ en

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

partnerships

have helped institutions increase their cooperation with actors outside of higher

education and establish new cooperations

142

. This is considered key for the initiation and

expansion of robust, topic-related international networks, which is instrumental to broad

internationalisation of higher education institutions

143

. Strategic partnerships have also enabled

higher education institutions to develop innovative teaching and curricula, to be more

interdisciplinary, more accessible and digital and to better deliver on labour market needs.

Knowledge Alliances

are found successful in their aim of building innovation capacities in

HEIs and businesses, through cooperation and knowledge flow

144

and to support the

development and implementation of innovative learning and teaching methods as well as the

incorporation of inter-disciplinary approaches

145

. The strategic partnerships have proved at all

educational levels to be a very important flywheel to introduce or consolidate methodologies

and practices which characterize the scope of the coordinating institute’s educational offering.

For coordinating institutions, KA2 projects often provided the trigger for new projects,

encouraging the involvement of a large number of different subjects, giving the opportunity to

create lasting synergetic networks

146

Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters Degree significantly

enhanced international cooperation among higher education institutions worldwide,

leading to new partnerships and strengthening existing ones, facilitating joint research projects.

Positive changes are observed also in learning and teaching methods.

Case studies also show that increased internationalisation and more opportunities for research

collaboration are among the main benefits of participation in KA2 for higher education

institutions, while for staff they include improvements in learning and knowledge sharing

147

In the VET field, KA2 activities are seen as essential to build the international profile of

organisations, and that they facilitate improvements in methodologies and practices of staff and

practitioners

148

. In the youth field, participation in Erasmus+ tends to increase practices of

youth organisations in the provision of non-formal education, improve their processes of

recognition and validation of competences of young people, foster knowledge transfer and

implementation of good practices within the organisation

149

. In the sport sector, key effects

identified in case studies include the professionalisation of organisations, improvement in

technical skills and knowledge sharing

150

eTwinning op scholen”; European Commission (2018). Study on the impact of Erasmus+ higher education

partnerships and knowledge alliances at local, national and European levels on key higher education policy

priorities – Final report (https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/87791).

142

European Commission (2019). “Erasmus+ higher education impact study”.

143

DAAD (2022) “Erasmus+ Cooperation Projects — Elements of Successful Internationalisation”.

144

For HEIs this took form of thorough knowledge innovation (i.e., by developing, deepening, or expanding

expertise and research) and experience with innovative teaching; for business this was achieved by stimulating a

better understanding of the functioning of HEIs and through a greater accessibility to knowledge. European

Commission (2024), Assessment of the instruments, deliverables, results and impact of university business

cooperation – Final report (https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/514543).

145

European Commission: Joint Research Centre, Esparza Masana, R. and Woolford, J., European universities

and knowledge alliances within their territorial innovation ecosystems, Publications Office of the European Union,

2023,

https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/429140

146

INDIRE (2020), Innovation in Erasmus+ Strategic Partnerships - A second study on the impact (https://2014-

2020.erasmusplus.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/erasmus_summary_q3_WEB.pdf)

147

Case studies Univerza v Mariboru (HED, SI), TU Berlin - ENHANCE Alliance (HED, DE), Universidad de

Sevilla (HED, ES), CHARM-EU, University of Barcelona (HED).

148

Case studies FH Joanneum (VET, AT), Chambre de Métiers et de l'Artisanat Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (VET,

FR), Kauno technologijų mokymo centras (VET, LT), Pilot PoVE Water, CIV Water (VET, NL).

149

RAY MON Research report, 2021 (based on data collected in 2019 and 2020), https://researchyouth.net/wp-

content/uploads/2021/04/RAY-MON_Research-Report-20192020.pdf

150

Case studies European Hockey Federation (SPO, BE), EuropeActive (SPO, BE), European Young Women

Programme, FIA (SPO, FR).

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Monitoring data from 2014-2020 participants’ reports show the contribution of KA1 staff

mobility to reinforced transnational cooperation. 83% of participants in staff mobility reported

reinforced cooperation with the partner organisation as a result of the mobility, with higher

education staff reporting the highest share (88%), followed by VET staff (84%). In the VET

sector, staff mobility contributed to strengthen cooperation of the sending institution with

players in the labour market, as reported by 67% of VET staff. Similar results are noted at level

of stakeholders in civil society, where reinforced cooperation was stated respectively by 66%

and 62% of youth and adult education staff.

While there is evidence that the cooperation opportunities fostered by the programme supported

effectively the creation of new partnerships, contributed to reinforce them and to bring forward

internationalisation strategies, based on the collected evidence it is not possible to quantify the

extent to which these partnerships lasted over time. Although only 5% of organisation pairs

participating in the 2014-2020 programme continued collaboration in the same format in the

2021-2023 period, this share cannot give a precise measure of the duration and sustainability

of partnerships, as these may continue or evolve beyond programme participation.

Erasmus+ 2021-2027

Expected organisational level impacts of the 2021-2027 programme concern increased capacity

of educational institutions by fostering internationalisation, long-lasting partnerships, the

progressive adoption of innovative teaching and learning methods and tools, adaptability of

twin transition.

The development of organisational networks and increased internationalisation are deemed

strong by stakeholders, and evidence from the literature review supports such views

151

. KA2

Cooperation partnerships were ranked by NAs/EACEA survey respondents among the top three

most effective actions for organisations and staff. The Small-scale partnerships are viewed as

very effective in the school and adult education fields, particularly for organisations and

learners. In the school sector, participation in Small-scale partnerships is reported to enhance

motivation for professional skill development, enrich professional and cultural awareness, and

strengthening the sense of belonging to the educational community

152

In continuity with the previous programme, and as likely results of participating in the same

type of action under both programme generations, consulted HEIs report

increased

internationalisation and visibility and research collaboration opportunities

as the main

organisational benefits of KA2 participation

153

. In the higher education field, European

Universities alliances are ranked as the most effective action for organisations and systems

across all of Erasmus+ activities in the NAs/EACEA survey. Similar views were expressed in

the public consultation with 76% of respondents representing the higher education sector

agreeing that European Universities alliances highly contribute to support excellence,

creativity, and innovation at the level of organisations and policies. In the VET field, 61% of

VET respondents of the public consultation agreed that Centres of Vocational Excellence

highly contribute to

support excellence, creativity, and innovation at the level of

organisations and policies.

Respondents to the NAs/EACEA survey ranked it as the most

effective VET action. Also in the case of VET institutions, organisations participating in KA2

151

See Erasmus+ annual reports 2021-2023, the European Parliament report on the implementation of the

Erasmus+ programme 2021-2027 (2023); European Commission (2023) “Study on Learning Mobility”; RIA-AE

(2024), Transnational analysis of the impact of Erasmus+ on the Adult Education Sector.

152

Istituto Comprensivo Manzoni-Radice (SCH, IT).

153

Case studies Univerza v Mariboru (HED, SI), TU Berlin - ENHANCE Alliance (HED, DE), Universidad de

Sevilla (HED, ES), CHARM-EU, University of Barcelona (HED, ES). These organisations have taken part in KA2

projects in both programming period highlighting the same type of feedback on the effectiveness of KA2 activities.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

report similar feedback, highlighting the importance of KA2 activities to build their

international profile, and facilitate improvements in methodologies and practices adopted by

their staff

154

. The Erasmus Accreditation is reported to have positive effects at organisational

level as it provides institutions with a structured framework for continuous improvement,

facilitating long-term planning, ensuring sustained educational excellence and international

collaboration

155

The Commission’s Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2710 introduced a

new impact indicator

for the 2021-2027 programme to assess, from a qualitative point of view, the increased capacity

of organisations. This indicator links to the

three specific objectives of the 2021-2027

programme,

addressing the promotion of cooperation, quality, inclusion and innovation at

level of organisations. Consulted stakeholders indicate overall positive effects on organisation

capacity linked to participation in the programme, with qualitative findings summarized in the

box below

156

. Although at this stage no quantification can be done, progress is noted in the

improvements of practices and cooperation as

direct and indirect consequence of

participation in projects,

especially when participation in the programme was repeated over

time and continued over both programmes. This makes it very challenging to clearly attribute

effects to either the previous or the on-going programme.

Box 3 - Findings on the increased capacity of organisations

The programme increased the capacity of organisations through access to and application of innovative

teaching methods and technologies, development of technological infrastructure, a strengthened capacity

for staff to participate in new projects and cooperate with other organisations, improved staff expertise and

skills, development of new tools, increased leadership skills and strategic planning

157

Factors contributing to improved capacity-building through project activities

158

are collaborative

workshops, resource support, broadening of networks, fostering collaboration, a culture of continuous

learning and knowledge sharing. For example, under the European Universities alliance ENHANCE, partner

higher education institutions enhanced their capacity and capabilities and raised excellence and innovation

levels by pooling expertise, knowledge, and resources, including equipment and joint support services,

combining complementary strengths not available at any single institution, to the benefit of their students,

staff and communities. The University of Sevilla reports a similar experience, highlighting that the strong

transnational alliances established following the participation in Erasmus+, facilitated the exchange of

knowledge, resources, and best practices among universities across Europe. This also resulted in enhancing

the quality and scope of the research projects that the university has secured under Horizon Europe.

159

154

Case studies FH Joanneum (VET, AT), Chambre de Métiers et de l'Artisanat Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (VET,

FR), Vegova Ljubljana (VET, SI), Pilot PoVE Water, CIV Water (VET, NL). With exception of Vegova

Ljubljana, all these organisations have participated in KA2 activities in both programme generations. Their

feedback did not highlight any major difference in the experienced effects.

155

Case study BHAK/BHAS Oberpullendorf (SCH, AT), Primary school Anton Skala (SCH, RS), Chambre de

Métiers et de l'Artisanat Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (VET, FR), Bildungsdirektion Steiermark, Board of Education

of Styria (AT).

156

Findings largely based on stakeholders’ perception data.

157

Case studies: Istituto Comprensivo Manzoni-Radice (SCH, IT); Primary school Anton Skala (SCH, RS);

Pädagogische Hochschule Freiburg (SCH, DE); I Liceum Ogólnokształcące im. Henryka Sienkiewicza w

Kędzierzynie-Koźlu (SCH, PL); European Hockey Federation (SPO, BE); EuropeActive (SPO, BE); FH

Joanneum (VET, AT); Chambre de Métiers et de l'Artisanat Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (VET, FR); E29 (formerly,

Ifjúsági Nomád Klub) (YOU, HU); Agenzija Zghazagh (YOU, MT); Profilirana Prirodo-Matematicheska

Gimnazia Akademik Ivan Tsenov (JMA, BG); College of Europe (JMA, BE and PL); CHARM-EU, University of

Barcelona (HED, ES); key informant interviews with NEOs, SALTOs, and EU Delegations, third country organisations.

158

Case studies: TU Berlin - ENHANCE Alliance (HED, DE); European Hockey Federation (SPO, BE);

EuropeActive (SPO, BE); Chambre de Métiers et de l'Artisanat Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (VET, FR); Agenzija Zghazagh

(YOU, MT); Profilirana Prirodo-Matematicheska Gimnazia Akademik Ivan Tsenov (JMA, BG); Key informant

interviews with NEOs, SALTOs, and EU Delegations; Commission services/Agencies, six stakeholder organisations.

159

See Case studies on TU Berlin – ENHANCE alliance (HED, DE) and University of Sevilla (HED, ES).

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

In the school education field, the ‘Good Practice’ label awarded at stage of final report assessment is

highlighted as an example of the programme boosting motivation to further boost capacity, experience and

confidence

160

. Moreover, interviewed EU Delegations highlighted significant institutional impacts in Latin

America, contributing to academic diplomacy and regional integration in higher education. Latin American

universities are forming consortia, which build trust and foster collaboration.

The organisations participating in the programme also raised capacity of other organisations, including

through network-building, knowledge-exchange, training, and curriculum development

161

. In the school

education field, for example, the ICSE academy, funded in 2021 under the Erasmus+ Teacher Academies

and bringing together 13 higher education institutions, 13 policymaking organisations and 65 schools, offers

job shadowing summer schools and a workshop series, which contribute to capacity building of the

educational work force. Through this work, the academy has disseminated innovative teacher approaches in

STEM education and built capacity within the organisation hosting the ICSE Academy itself.

Points of improvement were mentioned by a few stakeholders, which mainly noted the limited capacity for

many organisations to engage with the process of applying for and running projects, and suggested grants

to invest in support for organisational operations (operating grants) to improve project applications,

utilisation of EU funding, and the sustainability of project results

162

4.1.1.4 System and policy impact

Over both programme generations, system and policy level impact is defined as a contribution

to support policy cooperation in programme fields to influence improvements of national

education, training, youth and sport systems. The findings analysed under this chapter are in

large part based on programme monitoring data, consultation activities and literature review.

Erasmus+ 2014-2020

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 aimed to contribute to the

Europe 2020 headline target in

education

163

, namely (a) higher education attainment and (b) tackling early school leaving. As

also observed in the mid-term evaluation, the contribution of the programme to their evolution

indirect,

putting in question the testability and plausibility of these indicators with regards

to the programme intervention (see also section 4.1.2.5). Nevertheless, the programme

contributes to the achievement of both targets, reaching a high number of learners via KA1 and

KA2

164

, increasing their

attitude towards education/training

165

. Such a positive attitude can

be analysed as a precursor of education retention and as reducing the risk of dropouts.

Early school leavers or people not attracted by higher education are more likely to be found

among disadvantaged people. At this level, the programme has performed well in non-formal

and informal learning, putting inclusion at the heart of youth activities. In addition, the

identification of the KA2 priorities particularly relevant in the national context by National

Case study: I Liceum Ogólnokształcące im. Henryka Sienkiewicza w Kędzierzynie-Koźlu (SCH, PL).

Case studies: College of Europe (JMA, BE and PL), Pädagogische Hochschule Freiburg (SCH, DE); European

University Institute (JMA, IT); Regional Capacity for Adult Learning and Education, EAEA (ADU, BE).

162

Case studies: Agenzija Zghazagh (YOU, MT); Afeji Hauts-de-France (ADU, FR); Youth for exchange and

understanding international (YOU, BE); Casa do Professor (JMA, PT); CHARM-EU, University of Barcelona

(HED, ES); Bildungsdirektion Steiermark, Board of Education of Styria (SCH, AT); Pilot PoVE Water, CIV

Water (VET, NL).

163

The Europe 2020 strategy aimed to reduce early school-leaving rates to a level below 10% (9.9% in 2020) and

to enable at least 40% of 30-34 years-old to have completed tertiary or equivalent education by 2020 (40.3% in

2019). (see:

04c88d0b-17af-cf7e-7e78-331a67f3fcd5).

164

Mobility of pupils was implemented under KA2 in the 2014-2020 programme.

165

Based on the Erasmus+ higher education impact study (2019:

https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/162060),

around 80% of participants in their first cycle reported that they plan to continue their studies to the next level –

in particular those students who experienced greater impact of mobility on their studies (acquisition of

competences relevant to study, experience of new teaching methods, etc.) were more likely to want to continue to

a higher educational level.

160

161

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Agencies helped raise the attention of potential applicants on areas with higher needs. As a

result, in the 2014-2020 period, approximately EUR 672 million were contracted to support

close to 9 000 projects addressing the topic of early school leaving.

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 improved attractiveness of participating higher education institutions, by

adding value to their academic offer and the exposure to innovative learning/teaching

methods

166

. According to consulted stakeholders, the association with a prestigious brand like

‘Jean Monnet’ increased the prestige of beneficiary universities, while engaging in Jean

Monnet projects enhanced the depth and quality of studies, improving academic outcomes and

practical skills development

167

. This effect continues over time, as a result of the continuation

of the action in the 2021-2027 period.

The programme has strived to support initiatives with high transformational impact for

education and training systems to further increase attractiveness of higher education institutions

and the quality of the educational offer, including for a more systemic approach to learning

mobility.

In 2019 and 2020, Erasmus+ tested the European Universities Initiative

168

through two calls for proposals, paving the way for its full rollout under Erasmus+ 2021-2027.

The initiative aims to boost the transformation of European higher education to enhance its

quality, inclusion, digitalisation and attractiveness through deeper cooperation between

institutions, their students and staff. The key achievements of the European Universities

alliances selected under the pilot calls include the involvement of a diverse spectrum of HEIs,

the presentation of common long-term strategies on education, with links to research and

innovation, the offer of student-centred and flexible curricula, which marked their aspiration

for a systemic, structural and sustainable impact

169

Indirect influence can be attributed also to the achievement of

other ET2020 European

benchmarks

170

mentioned in the general objectives of the programme, with no possibility to

establish a causal link on the basis of available evidence. Based on the Education and Training

Monitor 2019, employment rate of recent graduates was at 81,6% against a target of 82%, with

improvements compared to the state of play of the mid-term evaluation (77%). In contrast, the

progress towards the EU target on underachievement in basic skills was at 20% against an EU

target of 15%

171

. Both topics were addressed by the programme with over 10 000 projects

addressing labour market issues and youth unemployment and more than 6 000 tackled the

overcoming skills mismatching and basic skills.

Furthermore, by 2020, around 8 300 projects tackled specifically improving quality and

efficiency of education and training systems, including the quality of youth work, sometimes

influencing policy changes with the integration of innovative educational practices into national

systems. In Slovenia, Erasmus+ 2014-2020 has influenced the understanding of youth policy

by solidifying a horizontal youth policy approach and becoming an important driver for policy

166

European Commission: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture,

Erasmus+ higher

education impact study – Final report,

Publications Office, 2018 (https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/162060).

167

Case study on Scuola superiore di studi universitari e di perfezionamento Sant'Anna (JMA, IT).

168

The initiative was announced in the European Council conclusions of 14 December 2017.

169

SWD accompanying the Communication on achieving the European Education Area by 2025 (SWD(2020)

212 final).

170

Council conclusions on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training ("ET 2020")

of 12 May 2009. The strategy had the four strategic objectives: 1. Making lifelong learning and mobility a reality;

2. Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training; 3. Promoting equity, social cohesion and active

citizenship; 4. Enhancing creativity and innovation, including entrepreneurship, at all levels of education and

training (https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/107622.pdf).

171

https://education.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document-library-docs/volume-1-2019-education-and-

training-monitor.pdf

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

making

172

. It triggered initiatives pursuing professionalisation and recognition of youth work

as an occupational qualification, promotion and comprehension of learning mobility, becoming

the tool for renewing policy mechanisms, testing new ideas and innovative approaches.

Box 4 - Influence of regional and national policies through policy experimentations

The policy experimentation ‘Novice

Educator Support and Training’

(NEST),

funded under KA3 2020 Call,

was implemented by a transnational consortium of 15 partner organisations. The

project

aimed to design,

implement, evaluate and propose a

system of new adaptive mentoring for novice teachers in disadvantaged

schools.

Informed by the NEST project, the government of

Catalonia

tapped into ESF+ funding to up-scale an

induction program for novice teachers in the region. This innovative programme called “Sensei” was designed to

provide high-quality support to novice teachers during their first year in the profession, leveraging on the results

of NEST’s implementation across regions. The findings from the NEST evaluation informed the development and

content of the Sensei program's mentor training. In

Romania,

the NEST results were used to feed in the Law of

Education that was enacted in September 2023, which ensures mentoring is at the core of the teaching career.

Local authorities in

Bulgaria

are currently exploring the possibility of up-taking components of the NEST

mentoring approach.

Spill-over effects

can be observed

at the system-level,

or through cross-action and cross-

sectoral lens. These spillover effects are only identified through qualitative sources, such as

key informant interviews and case studies, and hence rather constitute ‘perceptions’ of

spillovers by a range of stakeholders. In some cases, their effects last over time influencing

future projects under the successor programme of Erasmus+ 2014-2020, showing the added

value of a continued intervention across programming period to generate stronger effects. For

example, the European Universities initiative, piloted under the 2014-2020 programme and

fully rolled out in the 2021-2027 programme, influences national policy and legislation with

benefits for the entire higher education sector, notably to enable more conducive environments

for seamless transnational cooperation, including to cater for simplified processes for

establishing joint educational programmes and degrees

173

. In Spain, European transnational

cooperation under the alliances led to legislative progress in relation to degrees and

accreditation

174

. Other examples include the involvement of public employment services and

social services in adult education, and the expansion of an established ecosystem of Centres of

Vocational Excellence into a third country not associated to the programme (South Africa).

Box 5 - Examples of spill-over effects

The KA3 project

Regional Capacity for Adult Learning and Education

(RegALE)

175

, awarded under the Social

inclusion 2020 Call, aimed to strengthen the networks of adult education organisations and create synergies with

regional and local authorities. Spill-over effects beyond the project’s remit were achieved by influencing EU

policy initiatives on individual learning accounts (ILA) and micro-credentials, a strengthened collaboration and

visibility of stakeholders through better inter-ministerial collaboration, and better informed regional network,

allowing for more shared information among different actors involved in adult education provision, more

opportunities for future projects, collaboration, or synergies.

The

Pilot Platform of Vocational Excellence Water

(Pilot PoVE Water

176

), a 2-year project from the 2019

Centres of Vocational Excellence pilot call, and the following PoVE Water Scale-Up

177

from the 2021 Call, led

172

Staff Working Document on the results of the open method of coordination in the youth field 2010-2018, p. 50

(SWD(2018) 168).

173

Gunn, A. (2020). The European Universities Initiative: A Study of Alliance Formation in Higher Education.

In: Curaj, A., Deca, L., Pricopie, R. (eds) European Higher Education Area: Challenges for a New Decade.

Springer, Cham.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56316-5_2

174

See Case study on EdLab project (HED, ES).

175

https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/projects/search/details/621444-EPP-1-2020-1-BE-EPPKA3-IPI-SOC-IN.

See also case study on the ‘RegALE’ project (ADU, BE).

176

https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/projects/search/details/612632-EPP-1-2019-1-NL-EPPKA2-SSA-P.

See

also Case study on the PoVE project (VET, NL)

177

https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/projects/search/details/101055851

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

by CIV Water (Netherlands), aimed to support innovation for water education by developing a regional water

skills ecosystem and better align the education programmes with needs of the labour market. In particular, the

Scale-Up project has supported the expansion of regional collaborations to a national context in the Netherlands,

and supported the expansion by a new partnership in a third country not associated with the programme (South

Africa). In the Netherlands, a supportive policy environment has been created at the national level through a

memorandum of understanding signed with the Ministry of Education and department of water and sanitation. In

Latvia, government resources have been redirected from 10 VET schools to three, which has allowed significant

investments in facilities, equipment and tools in support of the Latvian water sector, as well as developing a new

curriculum in the sector in collaboration with employers in the water sector.

In the youth field, the Youth Wiki

178

is recognized for supporting evidence-based policy making

by providing knowledge and expertise for policy design and implementation across both

programme generations. Interviewed organisations

179

acknowledge its contribution to youth

policy awareness and advocacy at systemic level, promoting cooperation among ministries, and

advocating for the integration of youth concerns across various policy areas, aligning with EU

strategies. In Cyprus, for example, it has created a culture of knowledge and evidence-based

policy supporting the mainstreaming of youth policy across other policy fields.

The influence of the programme on national education policies and practices is mentioned in

19 national reports

180

. Although the reports do not highlight any distinction between both

programme generations, it can be reasonably assumed that these effects can be attributed to the

2014-2020 programme. Contributions to modernisation and internationalisation of education

systems were noted in most countries

181

. However, 21 reports

182

indicate limited systemic

impacts due to the scale of the programme or challenges in translating project-level successes

into broader national systemic change. Systemic impacts on national policies and education

systems are evident, but their longevity is less certain and requires continued support, as

reported in most countries

183

Erasmus+ 2021-2027

System level impact is measured against a new indicator established in Commission Delegated

Regulation (EU) 2023/2710. This indicator measures in a qualitative manner,

the programme

contribution to policy development, strategies and cooperation in education and training,

youth and sport,

linking directly to the three specific objectives (promote cooperation, quality,

inclusion, excellence, creativity, innovation at level of policy)

184

. Consultation activities show

positive contributions to policy development, strategies and cooperation, highlighting

contributions to quality assurance, political priorities, degree recognition, and cooperation

between education and the labour market, among others.

178

179

https://national-policies.eacea.ec.europa.eu/youthwiki

CS on Youth Wiki (YOU, MT, FR, CY).

180

BEfr, BEnl, CY, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, IT, LT, LU, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, SK.

181

AT, BEde, BEnl, BG, CZ, CY, DE, DK, EE, EL, FI, FR, IE, IT, LV, LT, MT, PL, RO, SE, SI, SK, IS, NO,

RS, TR.

182

BEde, BG, CZ, CY, DE, DK, EE, FI, FR, IE, IT, LI, LT, LU, NL, PL, RO, RS, SE, SI, SK.

183

Mentioned in all reports except BEde, BEfr and LU.

184

The following policy areas are specified in the SWD(2023) 296 regarding the metadata of this indicator: i)

contributing to building the European Education Area; ii) contributing to the European Skills Agenda; iii)

advancing youth policy cooperation under the European Youth Strategy; iv) achieving advanced and developed

policies and strategies in the fields of education, training, youth and sport, including contributing to policy sectoral

agendas in these fields; v) increased dialogue and cooperation among stakeholders; vii) increased policy

cooperation between countries; and viii) development of a European dimension in Sport. At interim stage, the

measurement is mainly based on qualitative elements, based on consultation activities, literature review or

programme monitoring data.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

The study supporting the mid-term evaluation of the European Education Area stresses the role

of Erasmus+ as key for its achievement

185

. Erasmus+ 2021-2027 was indeed shaped to be a

key component of building the

European Education Area,

to contribute to the

European

Skills Agenda,

in line with the

European Pillar of Social Rights.

Erasmus+ flagships actions,

such as the European Universities, the Centres of Vocational Excellence and the Erasmus+

Teacher Academies are key to achieve the European Education Area and contribute to the

European Skills Agenda. The Commission’s communication on a European strategy for

universities

186

called to have at least 60 alliances gathering 500 universities by mid-2024 and

EUR 626 million under the 2022 and 2023 Calls

187

; this goal has been reached and even

exceeded; by mid-2024, 65 European Universities alliances were operational and supported

under Erasmus+, encompassing more than 570 higher education institutions from 35 countries,

taking transnational cooperation to a different level and forging a novel understanding of the

way higher education institutions can work together across borders, with long-term vision

going beyond regular cooperation settings. In school education, close to 30 Erasmus+ Teacher

Academies are already funded under Erasmus+ for EUR 37.5 million contracted grants (the

initial objective set up in policy documents was to support 25 academies by 2025

188

) and

contribute to tackling some of the most relevant issues in the teacher community. In the VET

field, the Centres of Vocational Excellence are pillars of excellent vocational education and

training in Europe, showing added value with a growing number of projects and networks

created. The Erasmus+ programme provides funding for 100 Centres of Vocational Excellence

for the period 2021-2027

189

; 41 have already been funded by end 2023. Currently, about 1 100

organisations, VET providers, higher education institutions, social partners, trade

organisations, businesses, public authorities, etc. participate in the ongoing projects, for a total

allocation of EUR 148 million under 2021-2023 Calls

190

. Erasmus+ also supports 13 (out 14)

actions of the European Digital Education Action Plan (DEAP), which from its side also

contributes to the achievement of the European Education Area.

Through its international dimension, Erasmus+ also contributes to the delivery of the

EU’s

Global Gateway strategy

191

. Launched in 2021, the Global Gateway is the EU’s values-based

offer to partner countries across the world, aimed to fund investments in five priority areas:

digital, climate and energy, transport, health, education and research. By contributing to a

skilled workforce, knowledge sharing and quality higher education and vocational education

and training in third countries, Erasmus+ assists the implementation of the Global Gateway and

its investment objectives. For example, the most recent Erasmus+ calls for capacity building

actions in higher education and VET (KA2) make a direct reference to the Global Gateway,

aligning with its investment priorities. In addition, since 2023, Erasmus+ calls for capacity

185

186

Study not published yet.

COM(2022) 16 final (Commission

Communication on a European strategy for universities - European

Education Area (europa.eu))

187

To this it should be added a total funding allocation of EUR 180 million under the 2019 and 2020 pilot Calls.

188

Commission’s Communication on achieving the European Education Area by 2025, COM(2020)625 final

(EUR-Lex

- 52020DC0625 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu)

189

The Communication on Labour and skills shortages (COM(2024) 131 of 20 March 2024) called to co-

finance more Centres of Vocational Excellence with a target of at least 100 projects by 2027, to support

European and regional development, innovation and smart specialisation strategies.

190

Under the 2019 and 2020 Calls the total funding was EUR 34 million.

191

Global Gateway - European Commission

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

building in VET underline the priority to the projects that contribute to A new Agenda for the

Mediterranean

192

and its Economic and Investment Plan

193

Case studies carried out by the external evaluator highlight the contributions of Erasmus+ to

the objectives of the European Education Area for example in terms of contributing to

developing a

Blueprint for a European degree

outlining a vision and objectives for a common

European framework for the design and delivery of joint degree programmes and the award of

joint degrees matching a set of common European criteria

194

as well as to the European Skills

Agenda through the Centres of Vocational Excellence, witnessing spill-over effects

195

Box 6 –EdLab project (European Degree Label institutional laboratory) supporting the development of a

European degree (label)

196

The policy experimentation project

EdLab, funded under KA3

(2022 Call year), aimed to test European criteria

for a European degree (label), providing recommendations towards a possible European degree. As part of this

project, significant contributions were made by 26 higher education institutions involved in four European

Universities alliances (the ARQUS, ENLIGHT, EUTOPIA and SEA-EU alliances). EdLab, as well as the other

five policy experimentation projects

197

supporting the development of a European degree (label), have collectively

contributed to fostering an environment more conducive to legislative changes at the national level through close

collaboration with national authorities (ministries), higher education stakeholders, students’ unions, and Quality

Assurance agencies, also showcasing the role of the European Universities alliances in driving progress for the

entire higher education sector. The collective effort of these policy experimentation projects has prompted

systemic shifts and cultural changes paving the way towards a possible European degree.

University policy and strategy were adapted in a number of institutions as a result of

participation in the programme,

for example by integrating horizontal priorities into the

educational programme and policy for example on sustainability through whole-institutional

approaches or adapting the inclusion and diversity policy and programmes based on learnings

from other institutions

198

. The programme has generated

policy recommendations

and

fostered policy learning in a number of actions, including by mapping reports on LGBTIQ+

discrimination, an e-learning training platform for VET teachers, policy workshops and

conferences, and integration of policy briefs to translate research findings into educational

offerings

199

Areas for improvement identified by consulted stakeholders are the need for strengthened

connections between project outcomes and policy formulation

200

, the need for national and

European legislation and funding systems that allows for an effective European Education

Area, notably when it comes to removing barriers to transnational cooperation

201

As for youth policy agenda, the evaluation of the

European Union Youth Strategy (EUYS)

202

defines Erasmus+ as a

key programme

that contributes to achieving its objectives and

192

Joint Communication on Renewed partnership with the Southern Neighbourhood - A new Agenda for the

Mediterranean, JOIN/2021/2 final.

193

Joint Staff Working Document: Renewed Partnership with the Southern Neighbourhood Economic and

Investment Plan for the Southern Neighbours - European Commission.

194

Case study CHARM-EU, University of Barcelona (HED, ES).

195

Case study Pilot PoVE Water, CIV Water (VET, NL).

196

Case study EdLab, University of Granada (HED, ES).

197

These are i)

ED-AFFICHE;

ii)

ETIKETA;

iii)

FOCI;

iv)

JEDI;

SMARTT.

198

Case studies: Universidad de Sevilla (HED, ES); Satakunnan ammattikorkeakoulu (HED, FI); key informant

interviews with representatives from 19 countries.

199

Case studies AKMI Anonimi Ekpaideftiki Etairia (VET, EL); College of Europe (JMA, BE and PL); key

informant interviews with European stakeholder organisations.

200

Based on key informant interviews with 5 respondents from Commission services.

201

Case study CHARM-EU, University of Barcelona (HED, ES).

202

SWD(2024) 90 final of 11 April 2024.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

advancing youth policy cooperation and concludes that Erasmus+ is key to support its

implementation at EU level. It underscores the very clear relationship with Erasmus+, stating

that, together with the European Solidarity Corps, Erasmus+ is the main and best-known

instrument for the EUYS and that ‘funding opportunities have become better focused and more

strategic, e.g. as concerns new actions such as Youth Participation Activities, and the renewed

Youth Worker Mobility action under Erasmus+’. Erasmus+ contributes to the strategy also

through the participation of third countries in the programme, with the EUYS evaluation stating

that this ‘demonstrates the international reach of the EUYS’.

Within the EU sport policy agenda, Erasmus+ is instrumental in strengthening the

European

dimension of sport

and in advancing EU sport policy by addressing the policy objectives set

in the

2021-2024 EU Work Plan for sport

203

, in particular as it comes to protecting the

integrity and values of sport, promoting its socio-economic and sustainable dimensions, and

encouraging participation in health-enhancing physical activity. Erasmus+ cooperation projects

and the newly established staff mobility have supported the policy objectives set in this Work

Plan through targeted actions aligned with its priorities. This is confirmed in Commission’s

report on the implementation and relevance of the European Union Work Plan for Sport 2021-

2024, which states that Erasmus+ actions provide a substantial basis for furthering European

cooperation

204

. In particular, the initiative

HealthyLifestyle4All

(2021 to 2023) further

supported EU sport policy priorities, while linking sport and active lifestyles with health, food

and other EU policies in a holistic approach aimed at promoting well-being.

Support to the development of

sectoral policy agenda,

dialogue and cooperation among

stakeholders and to evidence-based policy cooperation between countries

is mainly

provided through KA3 activities managed under direct management, with almost

EUR 144 million distributed across the different strands in the 2021-2023 period (data 2023 is

still partial).

At mid-term, based on available evidence, the progress of the 2021-2027 programme towards

contributing to EU policy development, strategies and cooperation in education and training,

youth and sport is satisfying and in line with the expectations. Although no clear-cut

quantification can be provided, and the assessment is mainly based on qualitative evidence, the

level of contribution is estimated as high.

4.1.1.5 Effectiveness of inclusion measures

Erasmus+ 2014-2020

The 2014-2020 Erasmus+ programme aimed at promoting equity and inclusion by facilitating

the access to participants with disadvantaged backgrounds and fewer opportunities compared

to their peers. In the

youth

field, an

Inclusion and Diversity Strategy

was designed in

cooperation with the SALTO Inclusion and the SALTO Cultural diversity as a common

framework to support the participation and inclusion of young people with fewer opportunities

in Erasmus+. Since 2014, the strategy was rolled out through continuous follow-up, with an

Inclusion and Diversity Steering Group meeting twice a year. Furthermore, it was consolidated

at national level by national inclusion strategies, based on specific country needs. A number of

promotion tools were developed to highlight the support offered by Erasmus+ when working

with young people with fewer opportunities or when tackling inclusion and diversity in projects.

203

Resolution of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within

the Council on the European Union Work Plan for Sport, OJ C 419, 4.12.2020, p. 1.

204

COM(2024) 73 of 14 February 2024.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

However, the 2014-2020 programme did not have a harmonised approach to inclusion themes.

SALTO resource centres were active in the youth field only. The VET and youth sectors were

using the definition ‘fewer opportunities’, while the higher education sector was rather referring

to ‘disadvantaged background’. Neither of these definitions was used in the school and adult

education sectors, since the programme only supported staff mobility. Only the definition of

‘special needs’, with related financial support, was applied across all sectors.

The average share of participants with fewer opportunities or special needs reached out in the

youth sector at the end of 2014-2020 was equal to 29%, against 7% in VET and 6% in higher

education

205

. This marks the success of the youth inclusion strategy considered ‘instrumental

in providing a conceptual understanding of inclusion and diversity having served as a key factor

both in improving inclusion in youth work and in developing a common operational framework

for initiatives, approaches and activities

206

’. Similarly, Commission’s evaluation on SALTO

resource centres carried out in 2023 found the SALTO I&D and the Inclusion & Diversity

Strategy effective in promoting inclusion and diversity in Erasmus+

207

When looking at the programme as a whole, the share of participants with fewer

opportunities/special needs/disadvantaged background has evolved positively across years,

going from 10% in 2014 to 14% in 2020 (average around 10%). Based on NAs’ yearly reports,

between 2015-2020, the proportion of NAs implementing activities to foster the inclusion

dimension of the programme increased from 38% to 78%, while almost all NAs conducted

horizonal activities to support ‘equity and inclusion’, in particular, focusing on newly arrived

migrants, asylum seekers and refugees

208

. Furthermore, around 170 Transnational Cooperation

Activities (TCA) were organised around these themes since the start of the programming

period. As part of Erasmus+ Online Linguistic Support (OLS)

209

, the initiative ‘OLS for

refugees’ was launched in 2016 and offered up to 100 000 online language courses between

2016 and 2019 to newly arrived refugees supporting them through the acquisition of new

languages skills.

This strengthened focus on social inclusion themes since 2016 led to funding over 31 000

projects, corresponding to more than EUR 2 billion contracted grants under indirect

management across the three key actions. Between 2016 and 2020, a specific call on social

inclusion and common values was published on a yearly basis under KA3, supporting 178

projects for total grants of EUR 78 million

210

Overall, Erasmus+ 2014-2020 managed to strengthen the participation of young people with

special needs or fewer opportunities in Erasmus+ projects and to develop inclusion-related

support instruments for Erasmus+ applicants and beneficiaries, but there was a need for further

expansion of access and inclusiveness of these categories. Moreover, the approach remained

sectoral, with the youth sector being the most equipped to address inclusion challenges.

205

206

The average share of staff mobility participants in the school and adult education sector was 1%.

European Parliament (2021), Inclusion measures in the Erasmus+ programme (2014-2020)

(https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/694225/EPRS_STU(2021)694225_EN.pdf)

207

European Commission: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Assessment of the

existing Support, Advanced Learning and Training Opportunities (SALTO) structures’ effectiveness, relevance

and EU added value – Final report, Publications Office of the European Union, 2023,

https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/649859

208

See e.g. the projects supporting ICAM - Including children affected by migration funded since 2016

(https://school-education.ec.europa.eu/en/discover/resources/icam-including-children-affected-migration).

209

OLS promotes language learning and linguistic diversity. It allows Erasmus+ participants to improve their

knowledge of the language in which they will work, study or volunteer abroad, and measure their progress between

the start and the end of their mobility period.

210

See example of successful project in box 5, section 4.1.1.4.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Erasmus+ 2021-2027

Programme data shows that the share of participants with fewer opportunities

211

has increased

during the 2021-2023 period compared to the previous programme. In 2023, around 15% of

participants in KA1 were individuals with fewer opportunities, vs. around 10% in the 2014-

2020 period. 47% of respondents to the NAs/EACEA survey

212

considered that the rate of

participation of people with fewer opportunities in Erasmus+ is higher or at least similar to

other comparable initiatives.

Despite this progress,

challenges remain for the participation of people with fewer

opportunities,

with differences among countries and sectors reported in the 26 national reports

that note a general increase in their participation

213

According to national reports, additional funding and ‘top ups’ for participants with fewer

opportunities are widely implemented; however, their effectiveness varies depending on the

cost of living in the host country

214

. While this indicates a recognition of financial barriers, it

also suggests that a more nuanced and targeted approach to the provision of supplementary

financial support may be needed.

Box 7 – Examples from National reports

Romania:

‘In the new Erasmus+ programme cycle 2021-2023, progress has been made in Romania in

involving disadvantaged groups. In the school environment, the school inspectors responsible for European

education projects confirm that the projects carried out have largely, and very largely, included the following

target groups: participants from rural and/or remote/isolated areas (76%); socioeconomically disadvantaged

participants (from poor families, Roma) (76%); and participants at risk of dropping out of school (53%). The

participation of people with special needs/disability (23%), and those from refugee, migrant and asylum-

seeking families (35%), was relatively lower, requiring a careful approach in subsequent programmes.’

Czechia:

‘The first effects of the Framework of Inclusion Measures and of the Inclusion and Diversity Strategy

were evaluated. [The] current programme attracts [a] wider range of organisations. There is a clear strategy to

reach out participants with fewer opportunities, and very effective measures have been put in place by the

National Agency.’

Most public consultation respondents highlighted the success of the programme in enabling the

participation of individuals facing cultural, social, and economic barriers. On the other hand, a

significant portion of respondents expressed uncertainty or had no opinion regarding the

programme's ability to include individuals dealing with health issues and challenges within

education and training systems. Key informants interviewed expressed the view that remaining

challenges relate to insufficient funds to address the often complex need for more targeted

forms of support as well as the need to further clarify the definition of ‘fewer opportunities’

215

Article 2(25) of the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ regulation establishes that ‘people with fewer opportunities’ means

people who, for economic, social, cultural, geographical or health reasons, due to their migrant background, or for

reasons such as disability or educational difficulties or for any other reason, including a reason that could give rise

to discrimination under Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, face obstacles

that prevent them from having effective access to opportunities under the Programme’. See also section 3.1 of this

SWD (changes in the legal framework of the 2021-2027 programme) regarding the approach defined in the

framework of inclusion measures adopted in 2021.

212

NAs/EACEA survey, annex III of ICF study. Q22: ‘When considering the monitoring data available in your

sector, how do you judge the level of participation of people with fewer opportunities in Erasmus+?’.

213

AT, BEfr, BEnl, CZ, CY, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, IE, IS, LI, LV, LU, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, RS, SE, SI, SK, TR.

214

AT, BEfr, BEnl, CY, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, HR, IT, LU, PL, PT, RS, TR.

215

Key informant interviews at European (stakeholder organisations, SALTO Resource Centres, Commission’s

services) and national level (representatives from 21 countries). In national interviews, stakeholders in around a

third of the countries selected for interviews report a broader understanding of this group, encompassing

211

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Overall, Erasmus+ has progressively placed more emphasis on inclusion, moving from the

sectoral approach of the 2014-2020 programme to a structured and uniform approach

implemented across all fields. The framework of inclusion measures, adopted in 2021, and its

implementation guidelines

216

provided a shared definition across sectors and target groups,

specific related inclusion objectives, a set of measures to ensure broad accessibility and

guidance to National Agencies. This strategy includes additional funding provided to

participants with fewer opportunities in form of top-up, the requirement for all National

Agencies to develop inclusion plans and for the SALTO Resource Centres

217

to share

knowledge and evidence on promoting inclusion and diversity.

4.1.1.6 Effectiveness of priorities’ implementation

Erasmus+ 2014-2020

Two of the European Commission’s 2014-2019 priorities, targeting economic and labour

market outcomes, lie at the heart of the 2014-2020 Erasmus+ programme (‘A new boost for

jobs, growth and investment’ and ‘A deeper and fairer internal market with a strengthened

industrial base’). These priorities are reflected in the core of the outputs, results, and impacts

defined in the 2014-2020 programme’s intervention logic. The programme contributed to them

by engaging participants in learning mobilities that may facilitate future labour mobility and

support building skills, contributing to positive labour market outcomes for participants. This

has ensured full alignment also to the 2019-2024 EU priority ‘an economy that works for

people’.

Three remaining priorities, targeting the digital market, climate change, and EU civil rights and

rule of law

218

, are indirectly covered in the objectives of the programme and in its intervention

logic, through activities aiming to improve skills and competences, and to address research and

teaching about the EU. In the 2014-2020 programme, the focus on digital skills was more

limited and mainly covered in the higher education sector

219

, there was also no mainstreamed

focus on the environment and climate change.

Attention to

environmental themes

appeared more restricted to specific actions, addressed

mainly in the youth sector. From 2014 to 2018, 4 226 projects tackled the topics ‘environment

and climate change’ and ‘green skills’, funded in majority (76%) under KA1 and in the youth

sector (71%). In the last two years of the programme, when the European Green Deal was set

as one of the EU political priorities, the number of projects addressing these topics increased

to 3 087. A similar pattern was followed for

digital skills.

Between 2014 and 2020, 13% of

funded projects tackled the topic ‘ICT - new technologies - digital competences’, with 38% of

which being funded in the last two years of the programme implementation. In parallel, the

attention on digital skills increased towards the end of the programming period with additional

socioeconomic factors, geographical location, and social backgrounds, beyond traditional definitions focused on

disabilities.

216

See also Annex VI.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

to reach out. All national reports mention the work of National Agencies and the beneficiaries’

high level of satisfaction with their support, particularly in terms of knowledge and information

sharing, and prompt assistance during project preparation and execution. For example, 80% of

Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps participants were satisfied with the support received

by National Agencies during COVID-19 pandemic, rating it as ‘good or ‘excellent’

275

The overall information flow and communication among the actors of the Erasmus+

ecosystem is assessed positively by the consulted stakeholders.

The mode and frequency of

communication are clearly defined and allow for an effective flow of information in most cases.

The main area warranting attention relates to communication between the National Agencies

and EACEA. In 2023, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between EACEA and

National Agencies. Since December 2023, National Agencies have been given full access to

data on selected projects under direct management via dedicated dashboards. These measures

will probably show their effects in the coming years; therefore, their effectiveness should be

assessed at later stage.

Applicant and beneficiary organisations view the efficiency and clarity of programme

communication in a positive way.

Two-thirds of beneficiary organisations responding to the

survey of Socio-economic actors

276

declared having received some form of support during the

application process, with 82% receiving support from National Agencies. The assistance

provided to organisations primarily included programme guides (67%), information days

(65%), and helpline support, acknowledged by slightly over half of the organisations (57%).

Data collected through the survey of expert assessors

277

indicates also overall satisfaction. 99%

of surveyed experts stated having received guidance on assessing applications and projects,

assessing the received guidance very or somewhat useful for their work, indicating an overall

high-quality guidance system.

Erasmus+ 2014-2020

In the 2014-2020 programme, most of the administrative steps for the management of the

project lifecycle were performed efficiently by National Agencies.

With exception of Call

years 2014 and 2020, which - for different reasons – presented a number of management and

implementation challenges, the indicator ‘time to award’

278

remained quite stable across years,

with an average of 132 days across the programming period. Project contracting

279

was

performed in average 73 days across the programming period; however, this indicator was

highly impacted by the complex management of the KA2 School exchange partnership,

normally requiring more than 90 days to be finalised.

Improvements across years are noted at level of executing the first pre-financing

payments

for indirectly managed actions, with 95% of timely performed pre-financings in

2019 (+6% compared to 2014) and a slight decrease to 92% in 2020 due to COVID-19 impact.

In average, only 57% of final payments were performed within 60 days deadline across the

programming period; notable improvements are noted across years, passing from 40% of 2014

Call to 64% of 2020 Call, while the average number of days for performing final payments

275

Survey run by the Commission in May 2020, addressing over 57 000 participants representing all types of

mobility supported under Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps and corresponding to 40% of the estimated

number of people in mobility at the time of the Covid-19 outbreak. The response rate 21% of the survey’s

population

(11 800

participants

over

both

programmes).

https://erasmus-

plus.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2021-09/coronavirus-mobility-impact-results-may2020_en.pdf.

276

Socio-economic actors’ survey, annex V of ICF study.

277

Expert assessors’ survey, annex IV of ICF study.

278

Number of calendar days between the project submission deadline and the grant award decision.

279

‘Time to contract’: number of calendar days between project award date and project contract date.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

decreased from 113 days of 2014 Call to 68 of 2020 Call

280

. Across the programming period,

the average share of timely received final reports is 80%, which is considered satisfying.

The efficiency of the implementation modes put in place for the management of the

programme, and of their coherence in the programme infrastructure, can also be measured

against the

distribution of staff in terms of full-time equivalents (FTEs)

employed by the

different implementing bodies. In the period 2014-2020, out of the total number of FTEs

employed by NAs and EACEA

281

, 90% worked for the implementation of actions under

indirect management, which appears substantially in line with the volume of budget and

number of projects implemented under direct and indirect management (92% of projects and

77% of the budget concerned actions indirect management).

Another key indicator of efficiency are the

administrative and management expenditures.

In the 2014-2020, the administrative costs for EACEA represented 5% of the operational

budget executed under direct management, while, for indirect management, the EU

contribution to NAs’ management costs (‘management fees’) represented around 4% of the

budget entrusted to the National Agencies for the implementation of indirectly managed

actions. The cost for the functioning of National Agencies tends to be higher in the first years

of the programme, due to the need to hire and train staff, set up tools and internal procedures

for the remaining part of programme implementation. The amount of management fees also

tends to increase proportionally with the yearly increase of the entrusted budget. Nevertheless,

the share of management fees has remained largely stable during the programming period, with

a slightly decrease between 2014 (4.66%) and 2019 (4.46%). In 2020, the publication of two

exceptional Calls to respond to the impact of COVID-19 pandemic, determined a slight increase

at 4.60% to support these additional tasks, confirming in any case a general trend of stability.

Erasmus+ 2021-2027

2021-2023 data indicates improved time efficiency for most the administrative steps

required for the management of indirect management actions.

In the 2021-2023 period,

project awarding (‘time to award’) is performed in average 111 days (-21 days compared to the

average of the previous programme), with improvements over years (average of 105 days in

2023). Under 2023 Call, 97% of pre-financing payments were performed on time (+5%

compared to 2020 and +6% compared to 2021 Calls), with a reduction of the average number

of days passed between grant agreement signature and first pre-financing (from 15 days in 2021

to 10 in 2023 against 14 days in 2019). Regarding final payments, data for Call years 2021-

2023 show improvements compared to the 2014-2020 period. The percentage of final payments

processed within the deadline stands at 79% for 2021 Call, 87% for 2022 Call and 75% for

2023 Call, requiring an average of 50 days, which represents a remarkable reduction compared

to the previous programming period. Improvements are also noted regarding the share of timely

received final reports, which stands at 89% in 2023. However, this indicator should be assessed

on a longer timeline to draw more reliable conclusions.

The improved performance appears more evident in the light of the

overall stability of the

number of FTEs employed at the National Agencies between programming periods,

with

only a 3% increase compared to 2020

282

. In parallel, the number of National Agencies entrusted

280

Covid-19 impact can be seen in particular in the treatment of the payments related to 2019 and 2020 Calls,

which – due to project duration – were processed between 2020 and 2023, overlapping with the start of the 2021-

2027 period.

281

In 2020, the FTEs employed by EACEA were 272, while those employed by NAs were 2 363.

282

FTEs employed by National Agencies have increased from 2 363 in 2020 to 2 430 in 2022 (+3%), while those

employed by EACEA have increased from 272 in 2020 to an average of 296,6 (+8%) in the period 2021-2023

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

with the implementation of the programme, across the 33 participating countries, has decreased

from 58 in 2020 (including UK) to 54 in 2024 due to the merging of the youth and E&T NAs

in Austria, Liechtenstein and Cyprus. This implies more synergies in the implementation of the

programme in these countries and a more efficient use of resources

283

Importantly, the share of payments made on time stands at a higher level as regards directly

managed actions, as presented in

EACEA’s Annual Activity Reports.

Overall, the term for

receiving pre-financing and final payments (for both directly and indirectly managed actions)

was considered very reasonable or somewhat reasonable respectively by 55% and 35% of

participants in the survey of socio-economic actors

284

The distribution of FTEs employed by NAs and EACEA has remained balanced

and very

close to the previous programming period, with 89% of the FTEs employed by National

Agencies

285

. This share appears in line with the budget distribution (73% of the budget is

implemented under indirect management) and the number of projects contracted in the period

2021-2023 (94.4% were under indirect management), considering also that as part of their tasks

National Agencies deal with information activities at national level of directly managed actions,

including promoting synergies with other funding instruments and the Seal of Excellence

286

For the 2021-2023 period, the

administrative costs amount at 3% and 5%, respectively for

direct and indirect management.

Similarly to the 2014-2020 programme, the cost for the

functioning of National Agencies is higher in the first years of the programme implementation.

However, compared to the volume of the entrusted budget, the share of management fees has

decreased from 5.54% in 2021 to 5% in 2022 and 2023

287

, with further decreases in the

subsequent years up to the average shares of 2014-2020 programme

288

. This shows substantial

stability of the administrative expenditure between programming periods.

A set of

IT tools

has been designed to support the actions managed by the National Agencies

during the different stages of the project lifecycle, as well as the contractual and financial

management of the National Agencies. These tools are accessible through a single-entry point

and consist of five modules

289

. This set of tools is complemented by Commission’s corporate

(see also Annex IV). The number of FTEs employed by EACEA have been calculated based on the Erasmus+

budget delegated to EACEA (significantly increased for the 2021-2027 MFF) according to the cost-benefit analysis set up

by the Commission. Moreover, other new Erasmus+ actions not foreseen in the cost-benefit analysis were delegated to

EACEA during the current MFF, without modification of the Specific Financial Statement.

283

Financial support is provided to National Agencies as a contribution to their management costs for the

implementation of the entrusted budget implementation tasks (‘management fees’). This EU contribution is

allocated at country level in the Erasmus+ Annual Work Programme and contracted to each National Agency

separately via contribution agreements. In countries where more than one National Agency has been designated

for the implementation of the programme, this EU contribution is split by the responsible National Authorities

according to the number of National Agencies set up in their country. In line with Article 27 of the 2014-2020

Erasmus+ regulation and Article 26 of the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ regulation the designation of National Agencies

falls under the responsibility of National Authorities.

284

Socio-economic actors’ survey, annex V of ICF study.

285

The shares of FTEs distribution do not take into account the human resources at Commission’s level, devoted

to actions implemented directly by DG EAC as well as those allocated to few other actions under indirect

management not entrusted to National Agencies (Cooperation with OECD, Council of Europe).

286

The Seal of Excellence is awarded to flagship actions under direct management (European university alliances

and Centres of vocational Excellence).

287

The frontload of EUR 100 million from the 2027 annual budget to address the consequences of the war in

Ukraine implied also a proportional increase of Management Fees in 2023 due to the additional tasks.

288

4.68% in 2024 and 4.33% in 2025.

289

i) Project Management Module (PMM), ii) Beneficiary Module (BM), iii) Assessment Module (AM), iv)

National Agencies’ Module (NAM) and the v) Qlik Sense Hub Dashboard.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

tool eGrants, used for the management, monitoring and reporting of actions under direct

management by EACEA.

Evidence suggests that functional problems with some crucial parts of the IT landscape and the

underlying infrastructure for indirect management actions have been experienced until the end

of 2023. This is echoed in the European Parliament’s 2023 Implementation Report on

Erasmus+ 2021-2027

290

, which called for immediate corrective actions. The systems were not

fully developed to support the various project stages at the beginning of the programming

period. Additionally, functional issues, such as errors, time-outs, and lack of communication

between systems, hindered data collection necessary for programme monitoring and

management. However, efforts have been made to address the most pressing issues and

improvements are observed more recently (early 2024), as shown by the number of signalled

and resolved issues, which have dropped to lower numbers. Such efforts and corrective actions

are to be continued.

The onboarding to the corporate IT tool eGrants at EACEA, aiming at streamlining business

processes across programmes managed at centralised level for the sake of simplification, also

resulted in a temporary increase of workload for applicants and beneficiaries, in particular

during the contracting phase, mostly due to the novelty of the tool

291

. As highlighted by

interviewees consulted for the recent evaluation of EACEA, the challenges resulting from the

tool complexity affect in particular smaller organisations with lower grants.

4.1.2.3 Efficiency gains and simplification

The design of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 took into account the call for increased administrative

simplification

to make it easier for participants, newcomers and smaller or low-capacity-

organisations to benefit from the programme.

The results of the public consultation indicate that the most familiar funding mode under

Erasmus+ is still ‘actual cost’ (68%), followed closely by ‘unit costs’ (65%). Fewer respondents

had experience with lump sum contributions (43%), and an even lower share had used a

combination of unit costs and actual costs (37%) or lump sums and actual costs (22%). 55%

indicated that actual costs provide adequate funding, yet the majority of respondents either

‘strongly agreed’ or ‘somewhat agreed’ that unit costs are user-friendly (63%). Stakeholders

appreciate the efficacy of unit costs and lump sum funding for adequacy of funding and user-

friendliness, confirming the appropriateness of transitioning away from the actual cost model.

290

Report of the European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education (A9-0413/2023) of 6 December

2023 on the implementation of the Erasmus+ programme 2021-2027 (2023/2002(INI)).

291

European Commission: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Study supporting the

evaluation of CHAFEA, EACEA, EASME, ERCEA, INEA & REA 2017/2018-2021 – Final report – EACEA,

Publications Office of the European Union, 2024 (https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/440417).

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Public consultation feedback on funding models

Source: Public consultation

The wider introduction of the lump sum funding model is generally appreciated and

brings important simplification

(for instance, speeding up of award procedure for National

Agencies

292

, quicker and straightforward resource planning, no need to collect and submit

supplier invoices, provide payslips, etc.) for both contracting authorities (National

Agencies/EACEA) and beneficiaries. Together the unit costs (KA1), which were already in use

in the 2014-2020 programme, the use of lump sums in KA2 has considerably simplified the

calculation of the grant amounts, offering greater predictability for grant beneficiaries,

simplifying reporting requirements and reducing administrative burden for implementing

bodies. However, it is too early to fully assess the adequacy of lump-sums allocations and

provide a quantification of the efficiency gain, due to the incompleteness of data at this stage.

No financing year has been closed yet and monitoring data is still insufficient, due to the length

of the projects’ lifecycle.

Views expressed in interviews and in position papers submitted via the public consultation

confirm that the introduction of new types of smaller grants under the current programme is

welcomed and that the Erasmus Accreditation, introduced in the fields of school education,

VET, adult education and youth, constitutes another important area of simplification.

Furthermore, public consultation respondents very familiar with the programme either

‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ that the user-friendliness of the grant application to the

programme has improved (64%); the management of the programme has been effectively

simplified (61%); and the user-friendliness of the guidance and support tools (namely IT tools,

Programme Guide, etc.) has generally improved over time (57%).

The indicator ‘time to award’ has passed from an average of around 142 days for 2014-2020 KA2 actions to

around 130 for KA2 actions in the period 2021-2023, reaching 115 days under Call 2023. Considering that the

overall number of number FTEs employed at the NAs has remained stable across both programming periods (only

a 3% increase), this improvement is likely to be (at least partially) attributed also to the simplification brought by

the assessment of the new funding model, considering also the challenging start of the 2021-2027 programme.

292

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

According to consulted stakeholders, further areas for simplification and improvement related

to funding modalities include:

•

Simplification of grant agreements is needed, particularly for smaller-size grants, for

which they appear to be disproportionately complex;

Green top-up for individual mobilities is insufficient to cover the actual costs that green

mobility entails;

The administrative workload for the project submission under KA2 directly managed

actions is too heavy for grassroots organisations with limited capacity.

All national reports suggest that there have been some improvements in the efficiency of

the programme’s management architecture;

preliminary results of the legal base indicator

monitoring the ‘share of organisations and institutions considering that procedures for taking

part in the programme are proportionate and simple’ are promising and well above targets

(settling around 92% across sectors in 2022

293

). However, all countries participating in the

programme describe challenges in the administration, implementation and reporting architecture.

The new accreditation scheme is assessed very favourably across most (28) national

reports

294

. The reports acknowledge its role in significantly streamlining the application

process and programme management, facilitating long-term planning and financial security and

increasing trust among (potential) partners. The simplification logic of accreditations is based

on avoiding repetitive procedures that do not bring an added value for quality of

implementation. The approach is based on the experience of the 2014-2020 programme and its

predecessors where accreditation schemes were present in some

295

, but not all fields.

The most directly visible savings take place at application stage.

Recurrent beneficiaries,

which make up a large portion of Erasmus+ target groups, are accredited once and can then

apply for funding under a simplified procedure, which does not require repetition of the

qualitative part of the assessment, which is time-consuming and incurs significant costs for

payment of external assessors. In fact, grant requests for accredited projects are assessed by

NA staff only, while applications for non-accredited project proposals are normally assessed

by 2 external expert assessors, this translates in shorter and less expensive assessment

procedures for non-accredited projects. It is estimated that the indicative savings for assessing

accredited projects under 2021-2024 Calls is between EUR 1 million and EUR 5 million

296

These estimated savings increase every year when accredited applicants use their accreditation

to make a new simplified funding request, thus becoming higher and more visible in the second

part of the programming period. In fact, an ‘Erasmus accreditation’ is assessed only once in the

programming period (one-off cost), potentially generating several projects over 7 years. This

293

294

Programme Performance Statement, EU core performance indicators table.

AT, BEde, BEfr, BEnl, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IS, IT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PT, RO, RS,

SE, SK, SI, TR.

295

In higher education mobility (ECHE) and partly in VET mobility.

296

This estimation is based on a total of 40 659 accredited projects (contracted at 24 February 2025) and 17 491

organisations awarded with an Erasmus Accreditation in the period 2020-2023 (the accreditations issued in 2024

are excluded from this calculation because they are issued at the end of year for the next call). The estimation is

calculated by assuming that in absence of accreditations, all accredited projects would have to be evaluated at a

cost ranging between evaluation cost for a non-accredited project application and an accreditation application.

Indeed, accredited projects include applications of varying sizes from small simple projects with grants below

EUR 60 000 to large consortia with high grants and hundreds of mobility activities. For example, the average

grant for accredited projects contracted in the period 2021-2024 is slightly above EUR 70 000, while the one for

non-accredited projects is around EUR 34 000. Similarly, the number of learning mobility supported by the

accredited projects (KA121 and KA151) contracted in the same period is more than the double of those facilitated

by the corresponding type of non-accredited projects (KA122, KA152 and KA153).

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

generates savings, as without the scheme, the number of projects undergoing a full assessment

process would be much higher than currently is.

At level of beneficiary organisations, accredited organisations may gain indicatively about 70%

time to prepare a grant request instead of submitting a full application form

297

. Despite the

incompleteness of 2023 data at the cut-off date of the evaluation, the number of accredited

projects contracted under 2023 Call is three times compared to those contracted in 2021 (from

4 567 in 2021 to 12 236 in 2023), while the number of non-accredited projects has remained

quite stable (from 5 399 in 2021 to 5 812 in 2023)

298

Efficiency gains are also noted at level of performance indicators applied to the selection

procedure performed by NAs. The average time to award and notify selection results of non-

accredited projects in VET, school, adult education and youth sectors is slightly higher

compared to accredited ones and is even bigger within E&T sectors, which include the highest

proportion of accredited projects, compared to non-accredited one

299

4.1.2.4 Cost-effectiveness

The cost-effectiveness analysis is conducted using a multi-step approach, identifying inputs

and benefits (results and added value) and, where possible, comparing with other similar

instruments. The analysis is carried out for the main actions, though to a different extent based

on available data and evidence. However, due to the absence of monetised outcomes, a formal

cost-benefit analysis could not be performed. The analysis should also be read in the light of

the caveats described in section 1.1.4, particularly for key action 2, key action 3 and Jean

Monnet actions, where part of collected evidence is qualitative and based on perceptions.

Erasmus+ 2014-2020

•

Cost-effectiveness of key action 1

Under the 2014-2020 programme the average cost of learners’ mobility was

approximately EUR 16 per day, while the average daily cost of staff mobility was

EUR 180

(KA1, indirect management). Compared to the average cost highlighted in the mid-

term evaluation of the 2014-2020 programme, the average cost per day has remained quite

stable in second part of the programming period (from EUR 16 per day in 2016 to around

EUR 17 per day in 2020), while for staff, the daily cost has increased from an average of

EUR 171 in 2016 to EUR 204 in 2020. Notable differences among sectors can be observed, in

particular, for staff mobilities, with an average daily cost ranging from EUR 230, in the adult

and school education sectors, to EUR 102 in the youth field.

297

This is calculated on the basis of structure of the grant request for accredited organisation (4 tables, out of which

3 concern activities and costs, no textual information required) against the structure of a full application form for KA1

proposals (27 free text questions, 9 tables out of which 8 concerning activities, participants and costs).

298

Contracted accredited projects are as follows: 4 567 under Call year 2021, 7 923 under Call year 2022, and 12 236 in

2023. Non-accredited projects were contracted as follows: 5 399 under Call year 2021, 7 822 in 2022, and 5 812 in 2023.

299

On average, the results of non-accredited projects in VET, SCH, ADU and Youth require about +20 days to be

notified compared to accredited ones, while the indicator ‘time to award’ presents a +4 days difference for non-

accredited projects. The difference is higher in the E&T sectors: in average, the award and results notification of

non-accredited projects required respectively +9 and +26 days compared to accredited ones. This difference

reflects the time savings only partially because the National Agencies tend to wait with notifications to accredited

projects until the non-accredited selection reaches a late stage and they are able to identify any leftover funds that

should be transferred to accredited projects. The quicker notification of selection results is also confirmed by at

least one Case study (E29 (formerly, Ifjúsági Nomád Klub) (YOU, HU))

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

This difference between the average cost of staff and learners’ mobility is due to the shorter

average duration of staff mobility (6.2 days) and the higher subsistence costs

300

. Compared to

the mid-term evaluation, between 2016 and 2020, the average grant per mobility has increased

of 19% for learners and 20% staff, ending with an average grant of EUR 1 743 for learners and

EUR 1 274 for staff in 2020

301

A benchmarking has been carried out against the funding for learning mobility provided by the

Nordplus programme in the higher education sector (students and teachers)

302

. The average

mobility grant provided by Nordplus for teachers in the academic year 2018/2019 amounted to

EUR 610, with an average daily grant of EUR 119 for an average duration similar to Erasmus+,

which is lower than the average grant provided by Erasmus+ for higher education staff in the

same period (EUR 950, for an average duration of 5.2 days, EUR 184 per day). On the other

hand, the daily cost of student mobilities appears higher under Nordplus (EUR 22.84 per day,

average grant of EUR 1 176, and average duration of 51.5 days) compared to Erasmus+ (EUR

12.17 per day, average grant of 1 880,64, average duration of 154.5 days). Close to 70% of the

student mobility awarded under Nordplus in the same period had an average duration of 6.9

days, with a daily grant of EUR 169.49, while only 28% of Nordplus student mobility had a

comparable average duration (151 days) with a much lower daily grant of EUR 7.78/day.

Considering the proportion of grants for longer mobilities, the broader geographical scope, the

volume of mobilities, the variety of activities and the benefits derived in terms of skills

acquisition, Erasmus+ costs appear highly competitive.

Box 8 - The Fulbright programme

303

The Fulbright Program is an international academic exchange program administered by the US Department of

State in partnership with more than 160 countries worldwide. The Fulbright student program is open to U.S. and

non-U.S. graduate students, graduating seniors, artists, and early-career professionals. The Fulbright also support

Teacher Exchanges providing opportunities for U.S. and international educators to develop their educational

practice. Colleges, universities, and research institutions, both in the United States and abroad, serve as hosts and

share costs to support the academic and professional development of Fulbrighters.

In the period 2018-2020, the Fulbright programme benefitted only around 28 000 grantees, both US citizens and

foreign grantees, including students, research scholars, teacher exchanges, lecturing scholars, Hubert H.

Humphrey Program, seminars. The total funding for this period was around EUR 1.2 billion. In the fiscal year

2019-2020, teacher exchanges were 348, while students were 5 788.

In the same period 2018-2020, Erasmus+ funded learning mobility activities of more than 2.3 million learners and

staff (KA1) in the higher education, VET, school education, adult education and youth sectors, contracting more

than EUR 5.7 billion. Out of this, only in the higher education sector, Erasmus+ supported more than 1.2 million

students and staff, including from third countries not associated to the programme, contracting EUR 3.2 billion.

300

Staff mobilities might be used mainly for the short-term, which may be easier to access mobilities (e.g. shorter

absence from place of employment, family reasons…). Evidence is, however, insufficient to understand whether

this is due to lack of awareness or more practical reasons). Another factor influencing the lower mobilities costs

for learners is the large numbers of learner mobilities in higher education, which have relatively long duration and

are relatively low cost (since they are designed to supplement other sources of funding/income).

301

Differences with mid-term evaluation of the programme are also due to the incompleteness of the dataset used

at that time regarding the number of completed mobility, which is likely to determine the difference in average

cost for staff mobility.

302

Nordplus offers mobility activities within three sub-programmes: Higher Education, Adult (informal, unformal,

formal adult education including vocational training), Junior (preschool, school up to upper secondary level

including vocational training). Higher Education being the largest sub-programme regarding both grants and

mobility followed by Junior. Cost per individual is only possible in Higher Education when it comes to individual

mobility (for teachers and students).

303

Source : ICF support study and Fulbright 2020 annual report:

fulbrightar_2020_web.pdf

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

KA1 activities are consistently identified as the most effective actions targeting learners

and staff across all fields,

according to NA/EACEA survey

304

, with high performance at level

of output and result indicators and

no substantial areas of inefficiency,

thanks also to the use

of simplified cost (unit costs), providing predictability of cost coverage to final beneficiaries.

Observed benefits of participation in learning mobilities are described under section 4.1.1.2

and touch a wide range of skills and competences. Although no quantification is possible, these

benefits can contribute to build more skilled labour forces and more cohesive societies,

providing benefits much beyond the individuals who directly benefit from them. The

competitiveness of the cost and the EU added value generated by the lack of comparable

alternatives show the very high cost-effectiveness of KA1 learning mobilities.

Differently from the other KA1 mobility actions,

Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees

(EMJMD)

was implemented under direct management and partially funded, through external

policy instruments

305

. In the 2014-2020 programming period, it offered to over 17 000

scholarship holders from all over the world the opportunity to take part in high-level integrated

international study programmes. In total, over 60 000 mobilities took place

306

. The average

grant of mobility was EUR 74 per day (increasing from EUR 69 in the first two years of the

programming period to EUR 96 in 2020), while the average grant per mobility amounted at

EUR 12 500

307

, which is higher than the average amount granted to students for international

credit mobility (indirect management) (EUR 4 273.65). The available evidence (mainly

qualitative) suggests that the action delivered

positive changes, both at individual and

organisational levels,

ranging from enhanced competencies, improved career prospects,

personal growth, more positive attitudes towards Europe and the EU, deeper subject matter

expertise and enhancing international cooperation among higher education institutions

worldwide.

•

Cost-effectiveness of key action 2

By the end of the programming period, Erasmus+ had granted EUR 5.4 billion to over

25 300

308

cooperation projects among organisations and institutions (KA2).

As observed

during the mid-term evaluation carried out in 2017, the variety of projects and activities funded

under this key action, the difference between types and size of projects across sectors, as well

as the differentiated budget items, makes the analysis more complex and prevents to generalise,

contrarily from learning mobility activities. Furthermore, no comparable intervention was

identified for benchmarking project costs.

304

Respondents to this survey were asked to identify the three most effective and least effective types of action

for learners, staff, organisations and systems per sector: higher education (n=28), VET (n=27), school education

(n=32), adult education (n=26), youth (n=29), sport (n=19).

305

An EMJMD is a high-level integrated international study programme, delivered by an international consortium

of HEIs from different countries and, where relevant, other educational and/or non-educational partners with

specific expertise and interest in the study areas/professional domains covered by the joint programme. The action

supports the following activities: i) the delivery of an EMJMD programme corresponding to 60, 90 or 120 ECTS

credits, organised through an international consortium of HEIs including the participation of invited scholars

(guest lecturers) for teaching, training and/or research purposes; ii) the award of scholarships to excellent students

worldwide for their participation in one of these EMJMD programmes.

306

One scholarship holder takes part in several mobilities during the enrolment in the study programme, apart

from the fact that the great majority of them are recruited from a different country than the one where the

programme begins; therefore, the format is substantially different from learning mobility activities implemented

under indirect management.

307

The average grant per scholarship for the overall duration of the EMJMD study programme (normally 2

academic years) amounts at EUR 25 000.

308

The figure does not include projects funded under the Sport chapter.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Strategic partnerships (indirect management) were the main KA2 action type,

representing 90% of KA2 contracted projects and 72% of contracted grants. The average grant

of Strategic partnership projects ranged between EUR 190 000, at the beginning of the

programming period, to EUR 175 000 in 2020. Although the average grant per project varied

quite importantly across sectors, programme data show a higher average grant in sectors such

as higher education, VET and school education, lower ranges for adult education projects, and

much smaller (but increasing) average grants in the youth field. The number of contracted

projects increased steadily in the seven years of programme implementation for all sectors

involved. The low success rates, ranging from 17% in youth to 36% in the school sector,

demonstrate the high interest and the high demand for the action, which should be matched

with the benefits generated for organisations and staff illustrated in sections 4.1.1.1. and 4.1.1.4.

Knowledge Alliances

were among the large-scale partnerships funded under KA2 since the

beginning of the 2014-2020 programming period under direct management. In total, 160

projects involving 1 769 organisations have been contracted until 2020, for a total of over

EUR 147 million, and an average cost of around EUR 920 000. The yearly allocation to the

action was increasing from year to year, together with the number of funded projects and

average size of grants, showing the tendency to go towards bigger scale projects. The action

only represented 1% of KA2 contracted projects and 3% of contracted grants, but contributed

significantly to achieve programme objectives, particularly in boosting cooperation between

universities and business. The cost-effectiveness analysis carried out for the action in a recent

study

309

shows that the number of countries and participating organisations had little impact on

the size of the awarded grant, highlighting that the cost-effectiveness of the action should be

analysed in terms of the achieved project goals. Most projects were well focused on the

intended goal of the action, addressing the development of new innovative and

multidisciplinary approaches to teaching and learning, promotion of entrepreneurship and

knowledge exchange, highly contributing to the different areas of university-business

cooperation. On average, the funded projects obtained high evaluation score regardless of the

size of the grant, suggesting their successful implementation.

Capacity building actions

were implemented in the higher education and youth sectors under

direct management, through funds from external cooperation instruments. The action

represents 7% of KA2 contracted projects and 17% of KA2 contracted grants, supporting in

total 1 830 projects, with an average grant of EUR 190 000 in higher education and between

44 000 and 135 000 in youth. The action provided European added value in enhancing

international cooperation in the fields of higher education and youth, promoting EU values and

supporting the role of EU as global actor leveraging the role of education.

Under KA2, the programme was also funding

platforms to facilitate the online cooperation

in the school and adult education sectors, such as eTwinning and EPALE.

The cost for set-

up, maintenance and community management amounted at EUR 15.5 million for the

eTwinning platform and at EUR 9.7 million for EPALE for the whole 2014-2020 programming

period, generating a large community of users for virtual cooperation across Europe and

beyond. The relative low cost of this collaborative platform, compared with the increased

functionalities and the continuous growth in terms of registered users, suggests that these

activities are particularly cost-effective. The eTwinning community continued to grow,

reaching towards the end of the programming period an overall number of over 760 000

European Commission: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Kirdulytė, G., Abozeid,

O., Abraham, E., Buitrago, H. et al., Assessment of the instruments, deliverables, results and impact of university

business cooperation – Final report. Publications Office of the European Union, 2024,

https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/514543

309

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

registrants, proving how the platform stepped up the support to teachers and fostered

exchanges. Similarly, in the last few years of programme implementation, EPALE developed

further the discussion and exchange of good practice between stakeholders involved in areas

such as basic skills, outreach and guidance as well as innovative teaching methods. The number

of users continued growing reaching 61 000 by the end of 2019

310

Based on available (mainly qualitative) evidence,

KA2 activities have been instrumental to

contribute to programme results and impacts at organisational level,

supporting

programme objectives on international cooperation with third countries in higher education and

youth, reinforcing cooperation with business, enhancing internationalisation, and improving

learning and teaching methods. The high demand and the lack of comparable interventions,

both in terms of scope and types of activities covered, mark its European added value, showing

a general cost-effectiveness. The funding model in place for KA2 activities, mostly based on

unit costs and real costs, led to some inefficiencies which have been tackled in the current

programming period through the introduction of a lump-sum funding model. Other

inefficiencies concern the complex mechanism of the School Exchange Partnership (KA229,

indirect management), which required that each participating organisation involved in a

selected project had to sign a separate (mono-beneficiary) grant agreement. The action was

facilitating exchanges of school classroom and mobility of pupils, which in the 2021-2027 has

been moved under KA1, thus harmonising the format of the KA2 school cooperation

partnership to those of the other sectors.

•

Cost-effectiveness of key action 3

KA3 includes a very diversified spectrum of actions and activities, both in terms of outputs

(e.g. transnational projects, networks, evidence-based activities), and funding mechanisms (e.g.

open calls for proposals, calls addressing identified beneficiaries, public procurements,

contribution agreements with international organisations). This makes it challenging to perform

an analysis at level of the key action and draw uniform conclusions. Because of these features,

the analysis below only takes into account some of the main actions implemented under KA3,

which can be representative of its costs and benefits.

In total, EUR 494.5 million have been granted to KA3 activities, corresponding to around

3% of the total contracted grants during the 2014-2020 programming period.

90% of KA3

contracted grants went to activities under direct management, while one youth action ‘Youth

dialogue’

was under

indirect management.

This activity granted around EUR 51.7 million to

over 1 900 projects, benefitting around 442 000 young people. It fostered the active

participation of young people in democratic life in Europe, offering opportunities of interaction

and dialogue with decision-makers on topics and themes aligned with those set in the EU Youth

Strategy. The action had similar implementation and funding rules as learning mobility, making

use of unit cost. The average daily cost per participant was around EUR 44, therefore higher

than learning mobilities for learners under KA1. This was due to the shorter duration of the

activities, which was on average 2-3 days (mostly participation in meetings, events, seminars,

consultation activities or debates). Despite the limited budget, the action proved effective in

supporting the programme (youth) objectives of fostering active citizenship and involvement in

democratic life, benefitting participants in terms of acquisition of soft skills (problem solving,

autonomy) beyond its objectives and generating high demand (31% success rate in 2020).

310

The number of users continues growing in the current programming period reaching 139 000 at the end of

2023, showing that this one-off cost continues producing benefit over time and beyond the programming period.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

The activities implemented by means of open calls for proposals under direct management

included

experimentation actions funding initiatives for policy innovation,

aimed to

develop new policies or prepare their implementation. Under this heading, the programme

contracted 36% of KA3 grants, funding around 300 projects and involving over 2 500

organisations. More than half of the projects supported under this heading were contracted

under the Calls on social inclusion and common values, implemented between 2016 and 2020

to contribute to the Paris Declaration. The action supported 180 projects, involving 1 380

organisations, for total grants of EUR 78 million, with the highest value of contracted grants in

2020 (close to EUR 22 million). Examples from funded projects show effectiveness in

supporting programme objectives and deliver systemic impact, influencing EU policy

initiatives (see section 4.1.1.4, box 5). Similarly, effective contribution to the delivery of

policy/systemic impact is shown by policy experimentation activities

311

, supporting the

development of practices with impact on national education systems (see section 4.1.1.4, box 4).

Another action implemented by means of open Calls for proposals (direct management) was

European Youth Together.

The action aimed at creating networks promoting regional

partnerships for youth organisations, both from grassroot to large-scale level, to share their

ideas about the EU, encourage wider civic participation and help foster a sense of European

citizenship. 37 of such cross-border partnerships were supported by the programme, for a total

grant of over EUR 14 million (average size in terms of grant around EUR 400 000). The number

of applications raising from call to call between 2018 and 2020, showed the appreciation and

high interest for this action. In line with the EU Youth Strategy 2019-2027 and the European

Youth Goals, the action built or strengthened partnerships focusing on solidarity and inclusive

democratic participation and empowered youth organisations by supporting new innovative

ways of cooperation.

Around 48% of KA3 contracted grants (around EUR 237 million) was awarded through

national allocations, with grants awarded through non-competitive procedures. These included

activities supporting transparency and recognition of skills and qualifications,

which

included support to e.g. the implementation of the EQF recommendation

312

. The programme

provided grants for EQF National Coordination Points (“NCPs”), with a total multi-annual

allocation of EUR 4.5 million under the 2018 Erasmus+ Annual Work Programme for three

years implementation (national allocations to 38 countries, withing a range of EUR 39 000 and

EUR 268 000). The average contracted amounts were within a range of EUR 20 000-60 000

per year/country, representing a maximum EU co-financing of 75 % (requiring a national

contribution of at least 25%). These grants are deemed adequate by the EQF evaluation, which

reports the EU funding provided by Erasmus+ as often mentioned as a main source for activities

for EQF implementation

313

. An area of improvement lies in the use of real cost, which made

the implementation burdensome for beneficiary organisations.

Under KA3,

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 also supported activities contributing to evidence-based

policy knowledge and coordination in the E&T and Youth field,

providing financial support

311

These activities were normally led by high-level public authorities, involving field trials on policy measures in

several countries, based on sound evaluation methods. Overall, 37 policy experimentations projects (EUR 58.8

million) were funded in the period 2014-2020.

312

Council Recommendation of 22 May 2017 on the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning

and repealing the recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on the

establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning, OJ C 189 of 15.6.2017.

313

Evaluation of

the Council Recommendation of 22 May 2017 on the European Qualifications Framework for

lifelong learning

(SWD (2024) 141).

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

to the national Eurydice network units

314

and the Youth Wiki National Correspondents

Network

315

. The funding provided for these activities corresponds to about 6% of KA3

contracted grants (EUR 31 million). Qualitative evidence suggests these actions are effective

to support knowledge-based policy coordination and provided European added value, as

without programme support Member States alone wouldn’t be able to support tools for

knowledge sharing like the youth wiki.

The collected evidence is not sufficient to express firm conclusions on the cost-effectiveness

of the entirety of KA3. However, the available evidence suggests a reasonable cost-

effectiveness, given by the limited funding they represent coupled with significant system level

benefits , support to policy objectives and fostering active citizenship. Consulted stakeholders

perceive them as delivering high added value due to their role in supporting EU policy

coordination in programme fields, implementation of EU tools, creation of networks, which

could not be achieved without the programme intervention. The challenges related to these

actions rely in their diversified character, which generates multiple sub-actions with small

budgetary envelopes and the use, in some cases, of real costs.

Erasmus+ 2021-2027

•

Cost-effectiveness of key action 1

The

average cost of learners’ mobilities under the current programme (2021-2023) is

approximatively EUR 22 per day, while staff mobilities cost around EUR 215 per day.

Similarly to the 2014-2020 programme, the higher cost of staff mobility is largely due to their

shorter average duration and higher subsistence costs (shorter mobilities tend to have a higher

average cost per day, moreover, by design of the actions, individual support for staff is often

higher than the corresponding unit costs for learners)

316

. The short-term

benefits

of staff

mobilities extend beyond personal development, as they also deliver immediate benefits for

their organisations, colleagues and the learners they engage with. Short-term benefits and

impacts of learner mobilities primarily focus on development of skills and competences as well

as employment prospects

317

, although longer-term and higher-level benefits are expected from

supporting the development of a more skilled, cohesive, innovative and competitive society

through more skilled individuals.

Despite the lack of directly comparable alternatives

318

, the

unit costs of learner and staff

mobilities appear competitive and comparable to those for the previous programming

314

The goal of Eurydice network is to contribute towards a better mutual understanding of education systems in Europe

through the production of country specific information, comparable country descriptions, indicators and comparative

studies in the field of education and training (https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems).

315

In line with the EU Youth Strategy and the objective of improving the knowledge on youth issues in Europe,

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 provided an action grant to the structures of National correspondents ensuring the support

needed to create and maintain a Youth Wiki tool on youth policies in Europe. The National correspondents are

designated by each national authority, located in a participating country (https://national-

policies.eacea.ec.europa.eu/youthwiki).

316

See footnote 321. The design of staff and learners’ mobility has not changed much between programming

periods, therefore the same explanation regarding the different duration and costs of between staff and learners’

mobility apply also to the 2021-2027 programme.

317

Around half of the case studies provided evidence of short-term benefits for learners that were focused on the

individual and this was consistent across all fields.

318

Programmes taken into account for comparing learning mobility costs are CEEPUS, Visegrad Fund, Nordplus

and EEA and Norway grants, while EU added value has been compared with additional 15 programmes as

indicated in section 4.2.1. As noted in ICF support study, Erasmus+ presents a much more extensive coverage

across multiple countries, sectors, fields, target groups and activities. Other programmes tend to have a more

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

period,

as estimated in the mid-term evaluation of the 2014-2020 programme and in the section

above

319

. The rising inflation and increasing costs of living from 2021 have led to an 8%

increase in average grants value between 2021 and 2023, both for staff and learners mobilities

across all fields

320

. Challenges linked to rising inflation are not unique to Erasmus+ and are not

considered likely to have negatively affected the cost-effectiveness of KA1 activities compared

to other similar programmes. Stakeholders suggest that further increasing both the ‘green top-

ups’ and the top-ups for participants facing fewer opportunities, could ensure a better coverage

of these costs. These aspects could further improve the programme’s effectiveness with regards

to its sustainability and inclusivity.

Stakeholder consultations also suggest that the cost-effectiveness of mobility activities has

improved between both programming periods. This is largely due to the accreditation scheme,

which has simplified access to KA1 funding in all E&T sectors and youth, and reduced the cost

and administrative burden for beneficiary organisations and implementing bodies. As indicated

in section 4.1.2.2, the Erasmus Accreditation has produced savings related to the assessment of

KA1 proposals estimated between EUR 1 and 5 million for the period 2021-2023, reducing of

indicatively 70% time required by beneficiary organisations to submit grant request. These

elements together with the benefits yielded as organisational growth for the holding

organisations and the implementation of high-quality mobility activities for learners and staff

mark a very high cost-effectiveness.

•

Cost-effectiveness of key action 2

The variety of

KA2

outputs makes it challenging to assess costs and to draw meaningful

comparisons with other programmes. Nevertheless, the analysis suggests a positive cost-

effectiveness judgement. Drawing on the assessment carried out under the effectiveness

criterion, Cooperation Partnerships are viewed as effective across a broad spectrum of

stakeholders

321

, particularly in VET, school education, and sport. Small-scale partnerships are

similarly viewed as effective, in particular in school education and youth. Data show a trend

towards funding fewer projects, involving fewer organisations, with larger grants. This trend is

more evident for Small-scale Partnerships in school education and youth, and for Cooperation

Partnerships in youth and sport. Also, the demand for KA2 activities has exceeded the initial

funding allocated in the 2021-2023 period (EUR 1.79 billion), despite the 20% increase

compared to the predecessor programme.

The introduction of the

lump sum model

was positively received as it reduces the

administrative burden, however, some concerns are raised. Some national reports mention that

this funding model encourages “application factories” to submit more proposals for financial

gain

322

, and stressed the importance of fraud prevention procedures for participating

specific focus on particular sectors and/or geographies, and do not have the same broad scope as the Erasmus+

programme, which remains the largest programme of its kind in terms of participant numbers and coverage of

different countries and sectors. For this reason, a proper benchmarking analysis can only be done with a

programme similar in scope and activities, such as the predecessor programme.

319

Under 2021 Call, the average grant of both learners and staff mobility is slightly lower compared to those

performed under 2020 Call (respectively -7% and -2%); however, both 2020 and 2021 Calls were heavily impacted

by Covid-19, therefore this factor should be taken into account in the comparison both between these two years

and the rest of the period. Furthermore, the number of completed mobility under 2022 and 2023 Calls is still very

high, which doesn’t allow at the moment a more complete comparison with the 2014-2020 programme.

320

Average grant value increasing from EUR 1 626 in 2021 to EUR 1,632 in 2022 and EUR 1 760 in 2023 per

mobility for learners, and from EUR 1 245 in 2021 to EUR 1,318 in 2022 and EUR 1 341 for staff mobilities.

321

Evidence from the NA/ECEA survey, key informant interviews, and case studies.

322

AT, IE, NO.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

countries

323

. Few reports indicate that the use of the lump sum model has introduced

uncertainty regarding activity eligibility, justification and flexibility, potentially reducing its

advantages, with further clarifications needed

324

. Further simplifying the requirements for

application, implementation and reporting of actions under direct management could also allow

wider participation of small organisations in the youth and sport field

325

, improving the cost-

effectiveness of these activities.

•

Cost-effectiveness of key action 3

The cost-effectiveness analysis of

KA3

is partial and mainly based on a qualitative analysis,

due to the diversified character of the activities it supports (see also in Annex VI).

Given their support and policy character, KA3 activities, predominantly institutionally

focused, are perceived as more effective at system level

(see also section 4.1.1.4), while their

effectiveness appears lower or harder to assess at the level of individual participants. This also

entails lower awareness from the majority of Erasmus+ stakeholders and citizens, as reflected

in the public consultation, where the majority of respondents (62%) had no opinion or were

uncertain in relation to their cost-effectiveness, and only one third of respondents (35%)

considered them cost-effective

326

. Evidence from case studies confirms that these activities are

viewed positively in terms of effectiveness at system and policy level. In the

youth

sector, case

studies suggest that KA3 projects have brought benefits in bringing learners and policy makers

together, improved engagement and participation, and have led to increased knowledge and

skills. Overall, the outputs of KA3 activities have helped develop and shape strategies and

policies at both organisational and systemic level, with consequent benefits on both levels

327

Based on views and experiences shared by stakeholders, a broader adoption of lump sum for

the activities under indirect management could provide additional simplification. A shift from

real cost to lump sum was applied to Eurodesk information centres, national VET teams and

SALTO resource centres in 2022, while Training and Cooperation Activities (TCAs) are still

implemented with real cost. While evidence is still preliminary, the adoption of simplified

grants seems to have increased the cost-effectiveness of the funded activities, reducing the

administrative burden for National Agencies.

•

Cost-effectiveness of Jean Monnet Actions

Also, in the case of

JMAs,

only a partial cost-effectiveness analysis could be carried out,

mainly based on qualitative feedback from case studies and interviews. Furthermore, no

comparable activities funded through other programmes were identified. The budget

allocations for JMAs shows that the funding distribution across its different strands is similar

to the previous programming period, while the qualitative evidence from interviews and case

studies suggests that JMAs are generally perceived to be effective, thanks in particular to the

solidly established higher education strand. JMAs are also deemed to yield European added

value in terms of raising awareness, knowledge and understanding of the EU and increase

participation in democratic processes, both within Europe and beyond (see section 4.1.1.4).

Despite some initial difficulties, the new actions in the school and VET fields have seen

323

324

AT, DE, IE, LI, NO.

DE, LV, NL.

325

Highlighted in particular in the stakeholders’ workshop on the draft final report of ICF study of 9 July 2024.

326

Out of 1 092 respondents to the public consultation, 35% agreed’ or ‘fully agreed’ that support policy reforms

in the education, training, youth and sport sectors (KA3) are cost-effective.

327

Case studies Youth for Exchange and Understanding International (YOU, BE), Edlab, Universidad de Granada

(HED, ES), Youth Wiki (YOU, MT, FR, CY).

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

progressive improvements and show some initial positive results. The delivery mechanisms of

these new actions could be re-assessed once more data is available to further improve their

cost-effectiveness.

4.1.2.5 Monitoring mechanisms

Erasmus+ 2014-2020

Stakeholders consulted for the mid-term evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020 found the

monitoring framework of the previous programme overly complex and called for streamlining,

particularly regarding the monitoring responsibilities of National Agencies for actions under

indirect management (about 80% of the programme’s budget). Similarly, while acknowledging

improvements compared to the predecessor programmes, various limitations were highlighted

regarding the 23 indicators in Annex I of the 2014-2020 regulation. These limitations

encompassed the inadequate coverage of specific actions, such as KA2, of the organisational

level of the intervention

328

and difficulties to link the measurement of system level indicators

to the interventions

329

. This underscored the need for a more refined and comprehensive

approach.

Erasmus+ 2021-2027

The monitoring framework of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 has seen important improvements

compared to the previous programming period and appears overall appropriate, with clearly

established mechanisms, tools and responsibilities which have been described and further

clarified in the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework of Erasmus+ adopted in 2023.

The Monitoring and Evaluation Framework took into account the scope for simplification

identified in the interim evaluation of the 2014-2020 Erasmus+ programme, while addressing

key areas aligned with the programme's intervention logic and the requirements established in

Article 23 of the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ Regulation. The 15 indicators laid down in the 2021-

2027 Erasmus+ Regulation, supplemented with 12 additional indicators introduced with the

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2710, enabled a more

complete overview of

programme performance.

The newly introduced indicators allowed to cover in a uniform way

aspects related to all Erasmus+ horizontal priorities, with a special focus on inclusion (in line

with the Erasmus+ regulation) and improved the tracking of performance and impact of the

programme through the introduction of specific results and impact indicators

330

. This

represented one of the major improvements compared to the monitoring framework of the

previous programme. A gap at level of formally established indicators is identified for Jean Monnet

Actions, for which used indicators are not associated with yearly milestones or final targets.

328

The only indicators addressing KA2 refer to the number of organisations and pupils participating in the School

Exchange Partnerships (KA229).

329

This is the case of the four indicators concerning i) Europe 2020 headline education target, which were based

on national data not linked with Erasmus+ intervention, and ii) Mobility benchmark, in line with the Council

conclusions on a benchmark for learning mobility to which Erasmus+ clearly contributed but that were supposed

to include also data stemming from other interventions (see section 4.1.1.4).

330

The additional output and result indicators are operationalised in the same way as the legal basis indicators

they complement, i.e. on the basis of data from application forms, programme tools, and participants reports. As

indicated in the SWD(2023) 296, reporting on the two additional impact indicators is planned in narrative only.

Their measurement is carried out based on activities run by contractors in charge of the evaluations with additional

data collected through ad hoc studies performed by the Commission or evaluations and studies run by the National

Agencies and the RAY network (Youth). The activities described in section 5.2.2 also aim to enhance the

measurement of these indicators in view of the final evaluation of the programme.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Overall,

satisfaction in terms of the effectiveness of monitoring indicators and reporting

is expressed by 71% of respondents to the NAs/EACEA survey, who agreed that the monitoring

indicators defined in the current Erasmus+ legal framework ensure an effective measurement

of the progress made in the implementation of the programme. This represents a considerable

improvement (up from 30%) compared to the results of the same survey carried out for the

mid-term evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020

331

. At the same time, several National Agencies

and some national reports

332

consider that the emphasis on quantitative outputs is still high,

whilst qualitative information is used to a much lesser extent. This approach is considered to

fall short of capturing the impact of the programme, particularly in the areas like behavioural

change, development of soft skills and long-term influence on participants and organisations.

The meta-analyses and desk research carried out for the evaluation confirmed such gaps.

Quantitative studies making use of counter-factual methodology for the analysis of the

organisational and system-level impacts of Erasmus+ are scarce. A research gap exists also

around the topic of EU values, where no research paper making use of recent datasets and

fitting with the required methodology could be found. This highlights the need of more targeted

research activities to ensure improved monitoring and evaluations in the future, based on

comparable cross-country analyses.

Overall, the

monitoring mechanisms of the current programme are effective

when it comes

to providing an up-to-date view of programme implementation to the Commission services,

implementing bodies and national authorities, but also to the general public, through the

recently launched

data visualisation page

on Europa. Furthermore, as part of their tasks under

both programme generations, National Agencies implement a range of monitoring activities,

combining project on-site visits, primary checks, financial audit and ongoing support to ensure

project quality and compliance, as underlined in national reports. In parallel, National Agencies

carry out evidence-based activities through surveys, studies and research concerning the fields

under their responsibility. In the youth field, these activities are coordinated under a single

network covering all National Agencies managing the youth field (RAY); however, with

exception of a recently set up network under the adult education sector

333

, no similar

coordination exists across National Agencies managing Education and Training sectors.

Some

areas for improvements

for the 2021-2027 programme have been identified, namely:

•

Continue the simplification effort in reporting and monitoring requirements, that are still

perceived by stakeholders as workload-heavy and sometimes cumbersome;

Further strengthen monitoring mechanisms, going beyond output and results indicators,

undertaking robust quantitative studies examining Erasmus+ long-term results and impacts

at individual, organisational and system-level

334

;

Ensure stability and continuous improvement of IT landscape used for actions under

indirect management (see also section 4.1.2.3). This emerges as one of the main issues that

has hindered the first years of current programme implementation, impacting data

collection, and increasing the administrative burden of National Agencies and beneficiaries;

Better utilise the wealth of monitoring data collected and integrate feedback into

programme design and policymaking.

•

331

332

Combined evaluation of Erasmus+ and predecessor programmes, Annex 4 Results of programme agencies survey.

Seven reports (BEde, BEnl, BG, CY, EE, LU, PL) state that the current programme indicators are primarily

financial and output-oriented, focusing on quantifiable results mostly.

333

Research-based Impact Analysis of Erasmus+ Adult Education programmes (RiA-AE).

334

Emerging from the NAs/EACEA survey, analysis of national reports and meta-analyses results.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

4.1.2.6 Anti-fraud measures

This section analyses jointly both programming periods, highlighting differences or trends, where

needed. This approach is required by the strong continuity of the intervention, with limited changes

between programme generations, reflected in feedback from stakeholders and national reports.

The mid-term evaluation of the 2014-2020 programme determined that the anti-fraud measures

in place were robust for the most part, with the Commission’s

anti-fraud strategy

providing the

overall framework for preventing and detecting fraud.

National Agencies have clear guidelines

335

on dealing with fraud and minimum requirements,

with high compliance rates reported in their yearly reports, particularly as regards the follow-

up of identified cases of irregularity and fraud. 45% of respondents to the NAs/EACEA survey

find the current anti-fraud measures appropriate for preventing and timely detecting suspicions

of irregularity and fraud, while the remaining share considers them partially appropriate (47%)

or not appropriate (9%). The survey also revealed some concerns and suggestions for

improvement, identified in the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to create applications,

multiple submissions from the same organization, and the new 'lump sum' grant scheme. To

address these issues, respondents suggested improving the anti-plagiarism software available

for EACEA and National Agencies, providing clearer rules and guidelines, and increasing

cooperation between National Agencies. They also suggested establishing a specialized working

group to address fraud and provide enhanced guidance and training for National Agencies’ staff

336

The mid-term evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020 found that the number of fraudulent cases

was very low compared to the total number of projects. This is coherent with the results of the

NAs/EACEA survey carried out for this evaluation, in which most respondents from both

EACEA and NAs indicate spotting suspicion of irregularity no more than once or twice a year

(54%) or even never (29%).

Overall, the review of statistics confirms that the number of fraud and irregularity cases remains

low without much variation across the two programming periods. For actions under indirect

management, there were no OLAF cases referred by the European Court of Auditors as a result

of its audit sampling both for the period 2014-2020 and for 2021-2023. As for actions under

direct management, the review of EACEA annual activity reports 2014-2022 reveals a small

number of cases and recoveries. This holds also true to indirectly managed actions.

The Commission has taken action to ensure that projects are carried out in line with the highest

ethical standards and European values, and the applicable EU, international and national rules.

Mechanisms framed by the EU Financial Regulation have been put in place to protect the EU

values, including by adding new provisions in the Erasmus+ documents and grant agreements.

In line with these provisions, National Agencies are tasked to ensure that indirect management

beneficiaries commit to and ensure the respect of basic EU values (such as respect for human

dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and human rights, including the rights

of minorities), as set out in the grant agreement as from 2023

337

. EACEA ensures similar

vigilance to protect EU budget against breaching these obligations. Rigorous monitoring

NAs’ responsibilities and ways of dealing with fraud are defined in the ‘Guide for National Agencies implementing the

Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps Programmes’, annex VI of the Contribution Agreement signed every year

between the Commission and each National Agencies. The document is not publicly available.

336

A consultative National Agencies’ working group on risk management has been established in 2024 to discuss

in co-creation mode the treatment of dubious cases in view of preventing fraud and irregularities.

337

These provisions were introduced in the 2023 Guide for National Agencies (annex VI of the Contribution

Agreement signed between the Commission and each National Agency).

335

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

procedures are implemented through checks and follow-ups on compliance with EU values.

This includes regular audits and feedback from individual participants. An assessment of these

measures should be carried out at a later stage, after more years of implementation and in the

light of the recast of the Financial Regulation, adopted in 2024

338

The efficiency of anti-fraud measures across both programming periods was covered also in 16

national reports, with 7

339

considering effective the anti-fraud measures in place and 8

340

reporting a mixed picture and bringing examples of measures of success and remaining

challenges. Identified challenges include the need for more efficient cooperation and

information sharing at transnational and national level

341

, clearer and more operational

guidelines including for risk assessment, inspections and controls

342

, and improved digital

infrastructure

343

4.1.3

Coherence

The assessment of the coherence of Erasmus+ is

overall positive,

both internally (compared to

its predecessor) and externally (compared to other interventions). This assessment has been

informed by 5 evaluation questions that looked into the extent to which:

•

the programme’s internal coherence improved compared to its predecessor;

the Erasmus+ objectives were consistent and mutually supportive across fields;

synergies or duplications between fields and actions existed and were dealt with;

the structure of KA2 is appropriate and coherent;

the actions complemented each other;

Erasmus+ is coherent with relevant policies and programmes and complementary to

other interventions in the same fields at EU or national/international levels respectively;

the evolution of external coherence between the two programming periods is positive.

4.1.3.1 Internal Coherence

Erasmus+ 2014-2020

The final evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020 confirms overall the findings of its mid-term

evaluation, with good level of internal coherence. This results from the strong learning

dimension that informs all its activities at transnational level, in view of supporting better skills,

competences and EU values through learning mobility. The funding addressing

internationalisation of organisations and the support to policy development and cooperation in

the programme fields is instrumental to the objective of improving E&T, youth and sport

systems, for the benefit of individuals and the entire society. From this point of view, the

programme overall architecture with its three levels of interventions appears logic and coherent

for the delivery of its objectives.

338

The 2024 Financial Regulation recast introduced an explicit ground under the early detection and exclusion

system for excluding entities from receiving EU funds if they have engaged in activities contrary to the values on

which the EU is founded, such as incitement to discrimination, hatred, or violence (Article 138(1)(c)(vi) of

Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2024 on

the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (recast), OJ L 2024/2509, 23.9.2024.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2509/oj).

339

CZ, MT, LT, PL, PT, RO, RS.

340

BEnl, DE, ES, FI, FR, IS, IT, NO. CY report considers too early to assess the impact of these measures.

341

ES, FI, FR, IT, PT.

342

ES, FI, IT.

343

FI, LT, NO.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Support to grassroot sport is coherent with the programme objective of supporting social

inclusion through non formal learning with closer links with the youth sector. The sport sector

was, however, the only one not directly benefitting from an individual dimension, and not

included in the key action system. Both gaps have been addressed in the 2021-2027 programme.

Similarly, the separation of Jean Monnet activities from the key actions is found confusing and

impractical by stakeholders, with suggestions to integrate them into the structure of key actions

344

The level of cross-sectoral cooperation has improved throughout the programming

period.

The connection with businesses has increased, especially in the VET sector, while the

adult education sector was the second – after VET – registering the higher level of participation

of SMEs in KA2 indirectly managed actions

345

. In line with their objectives, the Knowledge

Alliances supported well the university business cooperation, while youth and adult education

activities strengthened ties with NGOs and organisations with civic engagement. Moreover,

around 5 700 higher education institutions participated in close to 6 000 KA2 projects

implemented under indirect management in sectors other than higher education.

The pilots for the Centres of Vocational Excellence and the European Universities alliances,

launched in the last two years of the programming period, have further reinforced this cross-

sectoral dimension. Their ambition to bring strong systemic and organisational impact in the

higher education and VET systems, to enhance learning mobility, support the building of high-

quality skills and competences, boost internationalisation and long-term cooperation appears

coherent the objectives of the programme and has positively contributed to their achievement.

Erasmus+ 2021-2027

The overall structure of the 2021-2027 programme has remained largely unchanged compared

to its predecessor, with most actions being continued, simplified, or only slightly refined. Only

few actions were discontinued or newly added

346

, thus maintaining a stable and familiar

framework for participants. This continuity has contributed to the internal coherence of the

programme, which results improved compared to the 2014-2020 programme. Erasmus+ 2014-

2020 was the result of the merge of several programmes, which were consolidated into a single

comprehensive structure. This merger required substantial adjustments and learning, resulting

in initial challenges. In contrast, the changes introduced in Erasmus+ 2021-2027 (see section

2.2) contribute to a more streamlined and integrated structure with a higher degree of

consistency and logical alignment with its objectives, facilitating smoother implementation and

better stakeholder navigation (‘evolution

not revolution’).

This structure is generally viewed as coherent by stakeholders. Echoing the findings of the mid-

term evaluation of the 2014-2020 programme, the majority of respondents to the NAs/EACEA

survey (87%) agreed that the programme has, in the current programming period, a good

internal coherence, that its architecture is coherent (74%), and its actions do not overlap with

each other (73%). The objectives and intended effects of all actions are well thought through,

each contributing to achieving objectives set out in the programme’s intervention logic.

The programme architecture comprising of a mix of directly and indirectly managed actions,

of three levels of intervention, with specific opportunities for individuals, organisations and

policy development and cooperation, is deemed sufficiently clear and consistent. The overall

value of the Jean Monnet Actions is clearly recognised; however, as noted in the context of the

344

Source: scoping interviews, workshop with National Agencies held in June 2023, workshop on draft final report

held in July 2024.

345

1 592 SMEs participated in 1 631 KA2 adult education projects, and 2 148 SMEs in 2 166 KA2 VET projects.

346

See overview in Annex VII.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

final evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020, their current separation from the key actions is found

confusing, with suggestions to integrate them into the structure of key actions

347

The current Erasmus+ offer is considered comprehensive and complementary. Consulted

stakeholders

348

generally agree that there are no patently missing actions. However, the wide

scope and – to some extent inevitable – complexity of the programme can make it difficult for

newcomers and less experienced organisations to grasp the full range of opportunities available.

The current programme presents strong focus on

cross-sectoral collaboration,

which is seen

in line with the programme’s core objectives and strengthening its internal coherence. The

cooperation between the higher education and the VET sector is an essential part of the

Alliances for Innovation, as embedded in the design of the action; cross-sectoral cooperation is

fostered under the Centres of Vocational Excellence and the European Universities alliances

349

and encouraged in the other types of partnerships funded under Erasmus+. Knowledge flow

and cooperation across the school and higher education sectors takes place among others

through the newly established Jean Monnet Actions for the school and VET fields

350

. Cross-

sectoral cooperation occurs also frequently between the youth and sport sectors, considering

target audiences often show similarities.

The coherence and appropriateness of the structure of KA2 was also investigated. Results of

the NAs/EACEA survey and key informant interviews suggest a good level of coherence

between KA2 and the rest of the programme. However, while it is appreciated that KA2

provides distinct types of funding opportunities under both direct and indirect management,

some stakeholders find that its scope has become overly broad, resulting in a loss of its prior

focus on driving innovation. Further, as stated in section 4.1.1.3, the collected evidence doesn’t

allow to affirm with certainty the extent to which the partnerships formed under the 2014-2020

programme lasted over time, which may question KA2’s capacity to deliver longer-term results.

While the role and place of KA2 show coherence with the programme intervention logic (i.e.

deliver change at institutional and organisational level), questions arise regarding its strong

emphasis on producing tangible outputs in many actions (e.g. apps, websites, manuals, learning

material). Projects have a specific contractual duration and often grants are not sufficient to

ensure the continuity of the results and their further dissemination after the end of the funding

351

The experienced challenges in supporting the sustainability of these tangible outputs across

both programming periods, as well as stakeholders’

352

views on an excessive focus of their

requirement, suggest that, in many instances, the

collaboration process may be more

important than the concrete outputs to meet programme objectives,

as it can lead to the

347

Source: scoping interviews, workshop with National Agencies held in June 2023, workshop on draft final report

held in July 2024.

348

Source: workshop with National Agencies held in June 2023, NAs/EACEA survey, EU-level key informant

interviews.

349

European Commission (2025), Report on the outcomes and transformational potential of the European

Universities

initiative

(https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/db43f6ca-da14-11ef-be2a-

01aa75ed71a1/language-en),

pp. 87-88: ‘European Universities alliances also engage with education and training

institutions, university networks, research institutions, national and regional governments and public authorities,

quality assurance bodies, businesses, SMEs, civil society organisations, various associations and other entities as

associated partners’.

350

JMA Schools Network and Teacher Training actions aiming to develop training modules and advanced tools

for teachers. See also the case study on Istituto Statale d'Arte - Liceo artistico "Edgardo Mannucci" (IT).

351

INDIRE (2019), Strategic partnerships for innovation in Erasmus+. A study on the impact

(https://www.erasmusplus.it/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Erasmus-2-ENG-X-WEB.pdf)

352

These views were shared during the workshop with National Agencies staff of June 2023. In addition, the

analysis of a sample of 180 projects across both programming periods, conducted by ICF as part of the external

consultancy study, found that a good share of the project websites developed were no longer accessible.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

establishment of an extended community of practitioners. This collateral benefit is crucial to

build strong networks that can contribute to the development and implementation of policies in

the fields covered by the programme, in line with the relevant expected result in the intervention

logic. In that spirit, also the funding of online portals facilitating cooperation (i.e. the European

School Education Platform, including eTwinning, EPALE, the European Youth Portal) under

KA2 is logical and coherent.

KA2 demand remains high with an average success rate

353

for KA2 actions under indirect

management dropping from 38% in 2021 to 18% in 2023 (26% in 2022). This has to be seen

against the background of the budget shift towards KA2 during the pandemic when mobilities

could not be implemented. After the end of the pandemic, the budget has again been re-focussed

on KA1 mobility activities since 2022.

Based on the feedback collected through case studies, NAs/EACEA survey, key informant

interviews, KA2 coherence and its contribution to programme objectives could be further

enhanced by:

•

Fostering the participation of newcomer and small organisations:

through e.g. limiting

the number of projects per organisation also for actions under direct management, or

allocating a share of the budget specifically to new organisations.

•

Increasing the budget available for KA2

to satisfy the demand and ensure achievement

of programme results.

•

Introducing KA2 sport projects under indirect management:

to contribute to further

professionalisation and enable smaller sport organisations to apply at national level.

•

Reconsidering the difference in lump sum size

between KA220 (cooperation

partnerships) and KA210 (small-scale partnerships) introducing intermediate grant size.

•

Improve sustainability of KA2 project results,

reflecting on support measures or funds

provision to ensure lasting collaborations and sustained exploitation of developed results.

4.1.3.2

External coherence

Given the high continuity between programmes, most of the analysis pertaining to the external

coherence is carried out jointly for both programming periods, while highlighting differences or

elements of evolution between the two programmes.

The final evaluation of the 2014-2020 programme confirms the conclusions of its mid-term

evaluation, noting

high external coherence

between Erasmus+ and other relevant EU policies

and programmes (e.g. European Social Fund, Horizon 2020). Erasmus+ 2014-2020 had a clear

and institutionalised position across EU interventions. The programme invested in individuals

enrolled in all levels of formal education and in those participating in informal and non-formal

education activities, it supported organisations active in education, training, youth and sport

fields and promoted policy development across its fields. The educational dimension

encompassing all its activities, the focus on strengthening skills and competences to support

growth and jobs, as well as its transnational character marked a clear element of distinction

with respect to other EU interventions investing in education at national or regional level with

a different perspective. This determined its coherence with ESF (strong focus on labour

market), ERDF (focus on infrastructures, and equipment and cooperation across borders in the

case of Interreg), Horizon 2020 (focus on research dimension), ensuring complementarities of

objectives (support to EU values, skills and competences contributing to better employability

and a more cohesive society). The large-scale actions piloted in the last years of the

programming period, i.e. European Universities alliances and Centres of Vocational

353

Success rate is calculated based on the number of projects contracted versus the number of projects received.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Excellence, have further increased coherence with other EU instruments, strengthening

programme support to innovation and smart specialisation strategies

354

At policy level, the mid-term evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020 highlighted a clear and

satisfactory alignment with different EU-level policies. This was the case for the Europe 2020

strategy, the Strategic Framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET

2020), Copenhagen process and tools in the context of VET actions, modernisation of higher

education agenda, Communications on ‘New Skills Agenda for Europe’, the European Youth

Strategy, EU Work Plan for sport. The review of project topical coverage carried out in the

mid-term evaluation showed a higher trend towards ET2020 themes, in particular social

inclusion, while topics of early school leaving of the Europe 2020 strategy were covered in

lower number of projects. Contribution to other policy areas is identified with regards to the

participation in democratic life and active citizenship, in particular in the youth field (2015

Paris Declaration), the support to integration of refugees and asylum seekers (migration

policies), while in the second part of the programme period, there was an increasing focus on

digital skills (European digital education action plan) and on sustainability (Life programme).

The strong continuity between the previous and the current programme generations in term of

architecture and key objectives (focus on learning mobility in a lifelong learning perspective)

has confirmed the aspects of external coherence with respect to the 2021-2027 generation of

EU funding programmes. The new mobility actions of adult learners and sport staff funded

under the 2021-2027 programme have further increased programme coherence vis-à-vis other

instruments, supporting skills formation on a wider spectrum of target groups. These new

actions reinforce support to grassroot sport (mobility of sport staff), offer mobility opportunities

to adults enrolled in adult education (mobility of adult learners), and offer non-formal learning

to 18-years old young people (DiscoverEU), all putting a strong emphasis on social inclusion.

These activities appear coherent and complementary with the objectives of other funding

instruments, in particular ESF+.

According to the 2023 European Parliament study on the early implementation of Erasmus+

2021-2027, the programme

demonstrates a high degree of alignment with all six priorities

of the 2019-2024 Commission and relevant EU policies

355

. Erasmus+ 2021-2027 appears

well-embedded in EU policy agendas and thus provides strong support for their implementation

(see also section 4.1.1.6). For example, 77% of public consultation respondents either ‘strongly

agreed’ or ‘agreed’ that Erasmus+ is supporting EU policies and priorities. The horizontal

priorities established under the 2021-2027 programme mark a strong commitment to support,

through a lifelong learning perspective

356

, skills development and behavioural changes

addressing the areas of social inclusion (Erasmus+

inclusion framework),

climate change and

sustainability (European

Green Deal),

the digital transformation (European

Digital

Education Action Plan),

including tackling disinformation, active citizenship and

participation in democratic life (2015

Paris Declaration).

Erasmus+ flagships actions, such as

European Universities alliances, Centres of Vocational Excellence (both already piloted under

the 2014-2020 programme) and Erasmus+ Teacher Academies are key to achieve the

European Education Area

and contribute to the

European Skills Agenda.

To date, the

354

In their study, Esparza Masana and Woolford consider that initiatives like the European Universities and the

Knowledge Alliances offer a means to increasingly integrate HEIs into regional development and innovation

policies, including S3, and integrate them within their innovation ecosystems, through facilitating their

contribution across research, teaching and outreach/community and in S3 governance (Esparza Masana, R. and

Woolford (2023), https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/429140)

355

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2023/747442/EPRS_STU(2023)747442_EN.pdf

356

As described in the EU Framework on key competences:

https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-

topics/improving-quality-equity/key-competences-lifelong-learning

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

quantitative targets set for Erasmus+ contribution from these actions have been achieved or

show high progress (see section 4.1.1.4). While at this stage a full assessment of the impact of

these actions towards these key policy initiatives is not yet possible, the collected evidence

shows positive signs of spill-over effects producing changes and driving progress at systemic

level. Thanks to its international dimension, Erasmus+ is also coherently contributing to

external policies, including the Global Gateway strategy, which has education and research as

one of its investment priorities. Furthermore, the interim evaluation of the EU Youth Strategy

2019-2027 found that Erasmus+, together with the EU Youth Dialogue and European Solidarity

Corps, is the instrument fostering the most synergies

357

The collected evidence points at a very high level of complementarity between both generations

of Erasmus+ and

other EU programmes with similar objectives.

66% of the public

consultation respondents indicated that Erasmus+ is fully or partially coherent with other EU

funding opportunities, while only 3% believe it is not and close to one third of respondents

(31%) didn’t know

358

. Furthermore, almost 80% of respondents to the NAs/EACEA survey

stated that Erasmus+ complements other EU programmes, while 28% indicated that it overlaps

with similar actions under those programmes. Coherence with other EU initiatives is pointed

out as good in reports from 14 countries

359

At level of projects, about one third of the beneficiary organisations responding to the survey

of socio-economic actors stated that they took part previously (35%) or were taking part

currently (30%) in another EU-funded programme

360

. Among these, 45% indicated that this

project had a link with their Erasmus+ participation a total of 34% indicated that this project

was the continuation and/or upscaling of a previous project, showing a good level of

connections between Erasmus+ and other EU programmes.

Links between projects under Erasmus+ and other programmes

361

Among respondents to this survey who had previously participated in other EU-funded

programmes, the most common were the

European Social Fund

(ESF/ESF+) (31%),

Interreg

(21%), and

Horizon 2020/Horizon Europe

(13%), with similar patterns regarding the

participation in on-going projects funded by other programmes. These funding instruments

357

358

SWD(2024) 90 of 11 April 2024, p. 46.

Respondents well or partly familiar with the programme were asked to indicate whether they found Erasmus+

fully coherent, partially coherent, not coherent at all (or didn’t know) with other EU funding

opportunities/instruments addressing the education, training, youth, and sport sectors (such as the European Social

Fund Plus, European Solidarity Corps, Interreg programmes, the National Recovery and Resilience facility, etc.).

The question, not mandatory for respondents partly familiar with the programme, gathered 1225 responses.

359

AT, BE, CY, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, IT, LU, NL, PL, PT, RO.

360

Survey of Socio-economic actors, annex V of ICF study. Q9: ‘Before participating in Erasmus+ activities, have

you been involved as a partner or coordinator in another EU-funded project?’; Q10: ‘Is your organisation currently

involved as a partner or coordinator in another EU-funded project?’.

361

Survey of socio-economic actors, annex V of ICF study. Question: You said that your organisation has

participated/ is participating in other EU-funded project(s). Does this have any link with your Erasmus+

participation?

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

were also the most mentioned by the stakeholders consulted for case studies and interviews and

emerge as those having the highest potential for synergies and complementarities

362

Horizon Europe

was mentioned in international and national level interviews, case studies and

national reports as being very coherent with Erasmus+, complementing Erasmus+ with its

research dimension, in particular with regards to the higher education sector, while some

complementarity exists also with the VET sector too

363

. Similar findings emerged from the

study ‘Innovative Europe’ contributing to the interim evaluation of Horizon Europe. The

quantitative analysis carried out on the basis of common beneficiaries encoded in the eGrants

system indicated Erasmus+ as one of the most complementary programmes with the actions

supporting innovation under Horizon Europe Pillar III ‘Innovative Europe’

364

. However, this

analysis only took into account the Erasmus+ actions under direct management (approximately

20% of the Erasmus+ budget). Under Pillar III of Horizon Europe, the study also highlights

synergies between Erasmus+ and the

European Institute of Innovation and Technology

(EIT).

For example, the

EIT Food

has partnered with other organisations in its network to

submit bids for Erasmus+ funding, leading to successful Erasmus+ projects such as

I-

RESTART

and

GEEK4Food.

The study ‘Excellence science’ addressing Pillar I of Horizon

Europe highlights that the collaborative networks established under Erasmus+ often also serve

as platforms for collaborations under Horizon Europe. Further synergies were identified under

Pillar II of Horizon Europe (Global Challenges & European Industrial Competitiveness) in

relation to addressing inequalities in green and digital transitions, skills, and labour shortages.

Synergies and complementarities with Horizon 2020/Horizon Europe were also identified

regarding capacity-building for research excellence and learning mobility between universities

located within and outside of Europe

365

. Erasmus+ presents strong complementarities with

Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA)

(Horizon 2020 / Horizon Europe, Pillar I), with

the possibility for Erasmus+ participants to take part in MSCA research teams and for MSCA

researchers to participate in Erasmus+ activities

366

. Interviewees in EU Delegations indicated

for example that Erasmus+ facilitates mobility for PhD students previously involved in

Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters (EMJM) and that it contributes to excellence in research. The

European Excellence initiative

under Horizon Europe provides complementary support for

the development of the research dimension of the

Erasmus+ European Universities

362

National studies like those carried out by INDIRE in 2020 confirm that most synergies happened with

ESF/ERDF

national

programmes.

(https://2014-2020.erasmusplus.it/wp-

content/uploads/2020/05/erasmus_summary_q3_WEB.pdf

)

363

International mapping study on good practices of applied research in vocational education and training | ETF,

https://www.etf.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/publications/international-mapping-study-good-

practices-applied-research

364

European Commission (2024): Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Naujokaitytė, R., Cakić, M.,

Didžiulytė, M., Zharkalliu-Roussou, K. et al., Evaluation study of the European framework programmes for

research and innovation for an innovative Europe – Report phase 2 (support study for the interim evaluation of

Horizon Europe),

https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/499132,

p. 88-89.

365

The Case study on the University of Sevilla shows that participation in Erasmus+ facilitated the participation

in Horizon Europe, with positive effects on the quality of the projects granted under Horizon. The Unite! European

Universities alliance, funded under Erasmus+, secured funding for the development of its research and innovation

dimension under the European Excellence initiative with the project ‘Unite.! Widening’. The Unite! alliances also

set up an MSCA Doctoral Network ‘Energy Storage Network’ aiming to nurture a new generation of enterprising

researchers, fostering integration of hydrogen in the energy sector through interdisciplinary excellence.

366

The ex-post evaluation of Horizon 2020 also confirms that in education Horizon 2020 complemented Erasmus+

well (SWD(2024) 29 of 29 January 2024). The guidance on ensuring synergies between MSCA and Erasmus+

actions in the field of higher education provides examples of such synergies. European Commission, DG for

Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Synergies between the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions and Erasmus+ in

the

area of higher education, Publications Office

of the European

Union, 2021,

https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/958920.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

alliances

367

. The ability to supplement core Erasmus+ funding with complementary support

from Horizon 2020 / Horizon Europe is seen as instrumental to enable higher education

institutions to access additional funding for the development of their research and innovation

capabilities.

Programmes funded under the

European Social Fund (ESF)+ and European Regional

Development Fund (ERDF)

are generally viewed as very coherent with Erasmus+, supported

also by different types of synergy examples. The ESF+ Regulation

368

explicitly emphasises

collaborative efforts with Erasmus+ in supporting various initiatives, particularly in facilitating

the participation of disadvantaged learners in learning mobility. This alignment extends to the

ESF+ focus on human resource development, which encompasses upskilling and reskilling,

including digital skills and green initiatives, echoing the priorities of Erasmus+. The ESF+

Regulation also provides an incentive in the form of a higher EU co-financing (up to 95%) for

scaling up innovative approaches tested on a small scale and developed under other Union

programmes, including Erasmus+

369

. Regarding ERDF, investments in infrastructure and

equipment strengthen equal access to quality and inclusive services with a focus on addressing

socioeconomic and territorial disparities. Such support can complement Erasmus+ objectives

and actions by reinforcing the enabling environment for mobility opportunities and cooperation

in the fields of education, youth, and sport. As novelty in 2021-2027, ERDF can also directly

fund skills development opportunities in the framework of smart specialisation strategies, thus

increasing complementarities beyond investments in education infrastructures and equipment.

The opportunities for synergies between Erasmus+ and Cohesion policy funds have been

enhanced in 2021-2027 programming period through mirroring provisions establishing new

tools and mechanisms, such as the Seal of Excellence

370

and the possibility of transferring

funds from programmes under shared management to those under direct or indirect

management, like Erasmus+

371

, to facilitate the building of effective synergies.

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 is piloting the implementation of the Seal of Excellence as from the 2023

Call through its flagship actions, such as European Universities alliances and Centres of

Vocational Excellence. The tool aims to facilitate the alternative funding of high-quality

proposals awarded with a Seal of Excellence under Erasmus+ from ESF+/ERDF in case of

insufficient funding under a given Erasmus+ Call for proposals. However, despite the potential

of this tool, its uptake appears challenging given the transnational (multi-beneficiary) character

of Erasmus+ proposals. Mainstream cohesion policy programmes have a clear national and

regional scope. The provision established in 2021-2027 Common Provisions Regulation for the

funding of Seal holders under Cohesion policy funds do not apply to Interreg programmes.

While there is opening from ESF+ to fund Erasmus+ transnational proposals with impact at

national level, there is no information yet of schemes launched by ESF+ Managing Authorities

367

Currently, the European Excellence initiative is the sole initiative allowing the alliances to receive support at

the institutional level for the development of their alliance’ research and innovation dimension (around 13% of

existing alliances receive funding support under this Horizon initiative).

368

Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the

European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1296/2013, OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 21.

369

Article 14(2) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1057.

370

See Article 32 of the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ Regulation and Article 73(4) of the 2021-2027 Common Provisions

Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 laying

down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the

Cohesion Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and

financial rules for those and for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the

Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy, OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 159).

371

See Article 26 of the 2021-2027 Common Provisions Regulation and Article 17(8) of the 2021-2027 Erasmus+

Regulation.

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

to fund Erasmus+ Seal holders. Consulted stakeholders showed limited awareness of the Seal

under Erasmus+. However, as the launch of the Seal under Erasmus+ is still quite recent, it is

not possible to provide firm conclusions on the effectiveness of this tool.

The new mechanism for budgetary transfer has been used by Germany, which decided to

transfer a share of its ESF+ resources amounting to EUR 57 million for the period 2022-2027

to support higher education student mobility, targeting students with fewer opportunities

372

This mechanism allows the transferred resources to be managed under a single budget on the

basis of the rules of the receiving programme (i.e. Erasmus+), thus providing a high degree of

simplification both for the National Agency and the beneficiary organisations. However,

despite its potential, to date this possibility has been used by Germany only. Other mechanisms

for the injection of ESF/ESF+ funds into Erasmus+ and requiring separate budget management

have been used in other countries, for instance in Lithuania (2014-2020 programme), Poland

and Italy (both programming periods).

The Interreg programmes addressing the

European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) objective

under ERDF

aim at fostering cooperation and cohesion across border regions. Interreg

promotes economic, social, and territorial integration by supporting cross-border, transnational,

and interregional cooperation projects. Human capital support (such as skills development and

language trainings, joint education and training schemes and cross-border school exchanges),

infrastructure and equipment support and measures to reduce legal and administrative obstacles

(such as joint recognition of qualifications and joint delivery of services) are eligible under

Interreg making it complementary to Erasmus+, with Interreg being more territorially focused,

whereas Erasmus+ fosters stronger internationalisation aspects

373

The

European Solidarity Corps

was established in 2018, with the incorporation of the

European Voluntary Service (EVS), implemented under Erasmus+ until 2018

374

. The objectives

and beneficiaries of Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps are similar and the

importance of synergies between the two programmes is paramount. The two programmes

share a joint

framework of inclusion measures

and an

inclusion and diversity strategy;

they are

managed under a single National Agency in the countries participating in both programmes

375

and share the same IT landscape for the management of actions under indirect management.

National Agencies managing both programmes have reported actions to foster synergies, such

as joint events, trainings, and information sessions.

The European Parliament report on the implementation of Erasmus+ 2021-2027

376

December 2023 asked for greater synergies between both programmes. Furthermore, the

evidence collected from key informant interviews, the public consultation, and the

NAs/EACEA survey show that the differences between these two programmes are not always

clear to all stakeholders and that some concerns exist about risks of overlaps. Both programmes

cover similar goals and challenges stemming from the 2019-2027 EU Youth Strategy by

supporting youth participation and non-formal learning. At the same time, while they address

372

Commission Implementing Decision of 18.9.2023 on the financing of Erasmus+: the Union Programme for

Education, Training, Youth and Sport and the adoption of the work programme for 2024.

https://erasmus-

plus.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-09/eplus-awp-20240-C-2023-6157_en.pdf

373

This was pointed, for instance, in the case study on the Chambre de Métiers et de l'Artisanat Auvergne-Rhône-

Alpes (VET, FR).

374

EVS was covered under Erasmus+ 2014-2020 under KA105 (mobility projects for young people and youth

workers) until 2017. In 2017, KA135 Strategic EVS was launched and in 2018, in preparation of the European

Solidarity Corps, volunteering was moved from KA105 to KA125 Volunteering projects.

375

Serbia and Norway do not participate in the Corps.

376

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2023-0413_EN.html

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

similar target groups, the European Solidarity Corps has lower barriers to participation, making

it more accessible to young individuals outside formal institutional frameworks, as observed in

the evaluation of the programme.

A potential area of duplication concerns Erasmus+ Youth Participation activities and Solidarity

projects funded under the European Solidarity Corps, both supporting youth-led initiatives run

by informal groups of young people, fostering active citizenship and sense of initiative.

Solidarity projects have a stronger solidarity component, supporting mostly bottom-up local

solidarity activities with a view to addressing key challenges within the communities the young

people carrying the project live in. Nevertheless, the many common areas of action suggest the

need to reflect on potential overlaps and improve communication on the differences to potential

applicants. The support activities aiming at increasing the quality implementation of the two

programmes

377

also emerge as examples for possible overlaps. Both activities are run by the

same National Agencies, active in the youth field, and fund very similar activities, reaching out

to target groups that are often the same

378

. These activities represent opportunities for synergies

between the programmes, they could also be looked at to seek for some economy of scale and

improve efficiency.

Regarding

Creative Europe,

in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a specific selection

round was held under the 2020 Call of the Erasmus+ Strategic partnerships, called ‘Partnerships

for creativity’, with the allocation of an indicative EUR 100 million budget to address the

priority “Skills development and inclusion through creativity and the arts”. In the current

programme, areas of synergies are found in the Erasmus+ projects supporting skills for the arts

and cultural sectors, for architecture and design and the fashion sector

379

Complementarities with the

RRF

are developed under pillar I (green transition), II (digital

transformation), IV (social and territorial cohesion) and pillar VI (policies for the next

generation, children and the youth, such as education and skills) of the Facility. There is good

alignment with Erasmus+ objectives, particularly in fostering digital skills and supporting the

green transition through educational initiatives. Most of Erasmus+ KA3 activity types

supporting policy development and coordination in programme fields have the potential to

stimulate reforms at national level, thus showing complementarity with pillar VI of the RRF.

Support to national educational reforms is also provided through National Agencies, which, as

part of their yearly work programmes, are requested to identify Erasmus+ priorities of particular

relevance in their national context in view of addressing European Semester country-specific

recommendations. In 2023, the Ministry of Education in Italy developed an Operational Plan

to support through RRF funds more Erasmus+ mobility projects in the school education sector

(EUR 150 million, to be managed by the Italian National Agency INDIRE). The synergy targets

schools in disadvantaged areas with limited participation in Erasmus+ to foster skills and

internationalisation through mobility projects (pillars IV and VI of the RRF).

Only few respondents to the public consultation drew attention to some missed opportunities

and potential areas of overlap between Erasmus+ and the

CERV

programme at level of the

377

Training and Cooperation Activities (TCA) under Erasmus+ and Networking Activities (NET) under European

Solidarity Corps.

378

60% of National Agencies dealing with the youth sector reported taking specific actions to ensure synergies

between the two programmes, such as joint events, trainings, information sessions or similar types of activities,

NAs/EACEA survey, annex III of ICF study.

379

For example, more than 70 Erasmus+ projects support skills for sustainable fashion, around 150 concern the

textile industry and more than 3 700 relate to ‘arts and culture’ (source: Erasmus+ project result platform. Search

made using keywords ‘arts and culture’, ‘sustainable fashion’ and ‘textile industry’).

100

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Erasmus+ priority on democratic participation and civic engagement and similar strands in

CERV. However, the collected evidence was not sufficiently large to build a stronger case.

Regarding the

Life programme,

the strongest evidence of synergies appears in the 2014-2020

programme, when the Life programme made available EUR 9 million to fund further long-term

European Voluntary Service opportunities in the areas of environment, nature conservation and

climate action in 2017 and 2018. In the 2014-2020 programme, complementarities are built at

level of the horizontal priority ‘environment and fight against climate change’ through activities

aiming to raise awareness around environmental matters and boost more sustainable behaviours.

The collected evidence also suggests that Erasmus+ is generally coherent with and

complementary to

national interventions

in the programme fields. A vast majority (88%) of

the public consultation respondents considered Erasmus+ and national funding

opportunities/instruments addressing the education, training, youth and sport sectors fully or

partially coherent

380

. The analysis of national reports also shows that the programme aligns

well with national education and youth policies

381

, as confirmed in the evaluation of the EU

Youth Strategy

382

. In some cases, national programmes are specifically designed to

complement Erasmus+ by providing additional funding to supplement Erasmus+ grants or by

focusing on bilateral mobility. This complementary approach can enhance the overall

effectiveness of mobility and educational opportunities, suggesting that a higher exploitation

of synergies with national interventions could further enhance the impact of Erasmus+.

Respondents to the public consultation also considered that, in both programming periods,

Erasmus+ is coherent with other

international funding opportunities/instruments

in the

education, training youth and sport fields (53%), although a high share of respondents (42%)

had no opinion

383

EEA and Norway Grants

and

Nordplus

emerge as the ‘international’

instruments having the highest degree of complementarities with Erasmus+.

Synergies between Erasmus+ 2014-2020 and

EEA and Norway Grants

384

can be identified in

the funding of additional learning mobility (Poland), upscaling of innovative practices tested

under Erasmus+ (Romania

385

) or the funding of projects and learning modules with future

evolutions under Erasmus+ (Czechia

386

). The EEA and Norway Grants are often managed by

Public consultation report, annex II of ICF study: Question: ‘Please comment whether, and if so to which

extent, the Erasmus+ programme is coherent with: National funding opportunities/instruments addressing the

education, training, youth and sport sectors’. The question was asked to respondents familiar and partly familiar

with the programme, gathering a total of 1,227 responses. The full range of replies was as follows: 43% fully

coherent, 35% partially coherent, 7% not coherent at all, 15% don’t know.

381

Highlighted in 13 reports: AT, BE, CY, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, LU, NL, PL, PT, TR.

382

See p. 48 of SWD(2024) 90.

383

Public consultation report, annex II of ICF study: Please comment whether, and if so to which extent, the Erasmus+

programme is coherent with Other international funding opportunities/instruments for the education, training, youth and

sport sectors (such as from the World Bank, Unesco, EEA and Norway Grants, Nordplus etc.). Overall, the share of

respondents with no opinion (42%) was highest in comparison to EU level and national level instruments.

384

At the time of running the evaluation the EEA & Norway Grants 2021-2028 generation had not started yet;

therefore, findings concern the 2014-2021 generation, mostly in link with the Erasmus+ 2014-2020.

385

The EEA and Norway grants project, “Digitalisation of the water sector and water education (DIGIWATRO)

in Romania, successfully built on the Erasmus+ Knowledge Alliances project “Digitalisation of water industry by

innovative graduate water education” to address more specific national challenges, demonstrating the potential for

complementary, rather than overlapping funding.

386

The EEA and Norway Grants project “Supporting threatened plurality: Languages and Medieval Literatures”

(Czechia) was designed to prepare a Master’s degree programme that aimed for future funding under the Erasmus

Mundus Joint Master’s degree. This exemplifies the sequential funding approach, where initial projects funded by

EEA and Norway Grants pave the way for further development under Erasmus+. Similarly, the project, ‘Use of

modern technologies in vocational education’ project, also in Czechia, highlights successful long-term

partnerships initiated under EEA and Norway Grants having in mind future developments under Erasmus+.

380

101

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

hosting organisations of Erasmus+ National Agencies, which facilitates coordination across

programmes. However, as indicated in the national report of Norway, the coordination among

these instruments should be reinforced to further exploit synergies.

Nordplus

promotes Nordic and Baltic cooperation in education, offering funding to projects

that enhance collaboration between educational institutions in the Nordic and Baltic countries.

Stakeholders’ feedback highlights several synergies between Nordplus and Erasmus+. For

example, initiatives first funded by Erasmus+ are often continued through Nordic cooperation

projects or receive complementary funding through Nordplus to enhance cooperation and impact

387

Nordplus can fund shorter mobilities compared to Erasmus+, thereby complementing each other.

The

evolution of the external coherence

between both programming periods is assessed

positively. Erasmus+ 2021-2027 has successfully built on the strong foundation of the

predecessor programme, continuing being well aligned with policies and instruments at EU,

national or international level. The emphasis on synergies given by the inclusion of specific

provisions in the legal bases of the different EU funding instruments has strengthen the effort

for building more effective synergies producing fruitful experiences, though to a lower extent

than potentially expected.

4.2.

How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom?

The analysis has been carried out jointly for both programming periods, while highlighting

differences or elements relevant to the final or the interim evaluation, and stressing elements

of evolution between the two programmes. Evidence points to the

strong European added

value

of both programme generations. The analysis was informed by 5 evaluation questions

that examined to what extent Erasmus+ 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 support:

•

a scale of actions between countries which would not otherwise be achieved (volume effects);

target groups or sectors that would not be otherwise covered (scope effects);

processes translated into own practice by participating countries (process effects);

internationalisation of organisations, systems and policies (role effect);

contribution to ‘Europeanness’;

international added value.

4.2.1

European added value as compared to what could be achieved at

regional, national or other international level

The strong European added value of the programme is demonstrated when it comes to its

volume, scope and benefits.

Among other evidence, this is showcased by the national reports

which highlight that

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 provided significant European added value

beyond what could be achieved through national or regional initiatives alone and that this

added value continues in the 2021-2027 programme.

Its unique contributions in fostering

learning mobility, promoting European identity and driving innovation in education are widely

recognised across participating countries.

The support study conducted by ICF compared Erasmus+ to 19 other programmes selected

based on their geographical diversity, the type of collaboration, sector, and actions they

See for example the Erasmus+ project “STEM skills and competences for the new generation of Nordic

engineers” (2018, KA2):

https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/projects/search/details/2018-1-SE01-KA203-039142

387

102

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

cover

388

. With an average annual budget of EUR 2.6 in the period 2014-2020, and a MFF total

envelope of EUR 16.2 billion (including both heading 1 and heading 4 budget) for the 2014-

2020 programming period,

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 had, by far, the largest number of

participants and budget for mobility, cooperation and capacity building activities in the

fields of education and training, youth and sport.

The same applies to

Erasmus+ 2021-

2027, thanks to its annual budget of EUR 4.4 billion in 2023, and EUR 28.6 billion,

including both heading 2 and heading 6 budget, for the period 2021-2027.

At least 60% of NAs/EACEA survey respondents estimated that more than half of the learning

mobilities in their sector are supported by Erasmus+

389

Share of Erasmus+ learning mobilities compared to other programmes according to NAs /EACEA

Source: NAs/EACEA Survey

UNESCO-OECD-Eurostat data on learning mobility in higher education

390

shows that

Erasmus+ funds over half of credit mobilities in the Member States. There is no comparable

data in other sectors. However, as most funding schemes outside Erasmus+ are focussed on

higher education, it can imply that the shares of mobilities funded by Erasmus+ in VET, school

education, adult education, youth and sport sectors are substantially higher. For example, unlike

any other scheme identified, Erasmus+ 2021-2027 is the only one funding sport staff mobility

at grassroots level.

Box 9 - Credit mobility under different funding schemes

391

The Education and Training Monitor 2023 indicates that credit mobility financed under EU programmes involved

most credit-mobile graduates at the bachelor and master levels (52.8%). There are only four countries where less

than 50% of the credit-mobile graduates took part in programmes financed by the EU: the Netherlands (40.0%),

Denmark (37.8%), France (37.5%), and Sweden (37.0%). By contrast, programmes financed by the EU supported

more than 80% of credit-mobile graduates in 16 EU countries. Mobility at bachelor level (60.9%), but it accounts

for less than half of the credit mobility taking place at master level (45.8%). The corresponding percentages for

short cycle tertiary education (data from 13 EU countries) and doctoral or equivalent level (data from 21 EU

countries) are 48.7% and 32.3% respectively.

388

These are: 1) African Research Universities Alliances, 2) Association of Commonwealth Universities grants, 3)

Association of Southeast Asian Nations, 4) Ausbildung Weltweit, 5) Baltic-American Freedom Foundation professional

internship programme, 6) Carnegie Foundation, 7) Central European Exchange Program for University Studies (CEEPUS),

8) EEA and Norway Grants, 9) Franco-German Youth Office DFJW, 10) Fulbright, 11) DAAD scholarship programme,

12) German Polish Youth Office DPJW, 13) Programmes de mobilité du Bureau International Jeunesse, 14) Nordplus, 15)

NORPART - Norwegian Partnership Programme for Global Academic Cooperation, 16) OKM (Club support (OKM)),

17) Turing Scheme, 18) Visegrad Scholarship Programme, 19) Visegrad Grants and Visegrad+ Grants. See also box 8,

section 4.1.2.4 for a comparison for the Fulbright programme.

389

NAs/EACEA survey, annex III of ICF study. Question: ‘Taking into consideration other programmes/ funding

schemes operating in your sector, what proportion of the learning mobilities are supported by Erasmus+?’.

390

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/EDUC_UOE_MOBC01__custom_6711802/bookmark/table?l

ang=en&bookmarkId=b6a9ff9f-9a24-499e-ba94-1a2d51b27df6&page=time:2021

391

Education and Training Monitor 2023, Box 18. Credit mobility under different funding schemes. Link:

https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eac/education-and-training-monitor-2023/en/comparative-report/chapter-5.html

103

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Both programme generations are unparalleled in terms of

volume

fostering the educational,

professional, and personal development of individuals

and

boosting cooperation

in education,

training, youth, and sport across Europe and beyond, setting it apart from other similar schemes.

Findings from ICF study point out that the European added value of the Erasmus+ programme

lies not only in its volume but also in

its wide scope,

which encompasses an extensive range

of activities that complement and enhance each other,

its broad fields and target groups as

well as its geographical coverage.

While other national and international schemes exist, very

few cover the fields and the type of opportunities provided by Erasmus+. This is particularly

the case of the adult education, youth and sport fields, where Erasmus+ covers activities that

are less likely to be addressed by other initiatives

392

, thus playing a more vital role for these

target groups.

Comparison with other comparable initiatives

Source: NAs/EACEA Survey (score out of 10). Question ‘To what extent to you agree with these statements about

the comparison between Erasmus+ and other comparable initiatives’

Furthermore, case studies show that, across both programme generations, stakeholders highly

value the programme's unique scope and that organisations would not have been able to

undertake similar activities or the activities would have been on a much smaller scale without

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 or Erasmus+ 2021-2027. This is also confirmed by 84% of the

respondents to the public consultation. Erasmus+ 2021-2027 also offers specific added value

in supporting individuals with fewer opportunities, thanks to its comprehensive and

mainstreamed approach to inclusion. This is particularly the case in the adult education and

youth sectors, where respectively 24% and 28% participants belong to this category. Inclusion

and diversity is also the most predominant priority addressed across all key actions of the 2021-

2027 programme.

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 served as a reference in many cases and positively influences national

schemes. This is noted also in the current programme, as an effect of the continuation of the

intervention. Several

spillover effects

processes

have been identified with relevant

examples of other programmes aligning with best practices from Erasmus+ and harmonising

their rules with the programme’s. For instance, Bulgaria has set similar priorities, objectives

and procedures to Erasmus+ for their national programmes; Spain is developing a programme

to promote the inclusion of people with disabilities based on Erasmus+ applications forms

393

;

some 2021-2027 Cohesion policy programmes in Portugal refer to Erasmus+ unit costs funding

392

NAs/EACEA survey, annex III of ICF study. Participants were asked if they aware of other national or non-

EU programmes in their country providing similar activities. For higher education, VET and school education, at

least half of the respondents answered positively. However, less than a third were aware of schemes funding

mobility of learners, staff or cooperation activities in the fields of adult education, youth and sport.

393

Source: key informant interviews at national level.

104

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

model

394

; EEA and Norwegian Financial Mechanisms 2014-2021 require that ‘the national

practices for the management and financing of the educational programmes shall be established

following the principles of Erasmus+ and/or Horizon 2020 EU programmes’

395

, similarly

Nordplus learning mobility in higher education are shaped as complementary to those funded

by Erasmus+. At EU level, across both programming periods, Erasmus for young entrepreneurs

shares comparable approaches with Erasmus+ mobility. As showed in the mid-term evaluation

of the 2014-2020 programme, the schemes launched in the 2014-2020 period, such as the

European Solidarity Corps or the EU AID scheme for volunteers in humanitarian aid, follow

similar selection principles as the European Voluntary Service (EVS). This extended further

with the inclusion of EVS under the European Solidarity Corps, when the Corps was formally

established as a fully-fledged programme in 2018, and continues in the 2021-2027

programming period, with the Corps adopting the same types of support structures used by

Erasmus+, such as SALTO Resource Centres and schemes such as ‘networking activities’

(reflecting very closely the model of Erasmus+ TCAs).

Over both programme generations, the programme has facilitated cooperation among

organisations across countries, enabling transnational exchanges, mutual learning, and

dialogue. This allows for an

expansion in involved organisations’ perspectives and

enhances their internationalisation.

Internationalisation takes the form of support to

transnational mobility and partnerships that would not be achievable through national schemes

alone, as reported in 24 national reports

396

. Erasmus+ also has an effect on the

internationalisation of policies and education systems, which would not have happened to the

same extent or at all, without Erasmus+. 86% of respondents to the public consultation were of

the opinion that Erasmus+ contributed to improving the national, European and international

support measures for the education, training, youth and sport sectors.

The programme

influences national policies and systems

in most countries, albeit to a varying

degree, with many examples being reported by Member States in their national reports

397

. The

long-term and systemic effects of KA3 activities is consistently highlighted for both

programming periods. The European Parliament study

398

on the early implementation of EU

programmes such as Erasmus+, issued in 2023, indicates that a number of countries uses

Erasmus+ as a “serious co-contributor to address certain national challenges such as

internationalisation of the higher and vocational educational establishments in Bulgaria or

Spain”. Across both programming periods, Erasmus+ has played a unique role in supporting

evidence-based policy cooperation in the fields of education, training, youth and sport. In the

youth field, the

Youth Wiki

is recognised for facilitating comparative analyses of youth policies

across different countries, aiding youth policy stakeholders in understanding international

youth policies. The case study carried out under the support study highlighted this role,

stressing that it fosters peer learning and cooperation among stakeholders, enabling the

394

395

See e.g.

Norte Regional Programme 2021-2027.

See EEA Financial Mechanism and Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2014-2021, Guideline for educational

programmes. Rules for the establishment and implementation of programmes falling under programme area 3

“Education,

Scholarships,

Apprenticeships

and

Youth

Entrepreneurship,

https://eeagrants.org/sites/default/files/resources/2014-

2021%20Guideline%20for%20educational%20programmes.pdf

396

AT, BEde, BEfr, BEnl, BG, CZ, DE DK, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LU, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, SE, SK, TR.

397

For example, strengthening of the adult education field in Austria, development of national policies on mobility

in upper secondary education in France, policy changes in the youth field on quality of youth work in Estonia.

398

‘Early implementation of four 2021-2027 EU programmes: Erasmus+, Creative Europe, European Solidarity

Corps and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (Strand 3)’, European Parliament, Directorate-General for

Parliamentary

Research

Services,

July

2023.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_STU(2023)747442

105

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

identification of good practices and the establishment of a network of information providers

399

The Youth Wiki is seen as

essential for understanding and comparing youth policies across

Europe, which would not be achievable through national resources alone.

The programme

has a unique and strong impact on fostering a sense of European identity

and belonging.

Evaluation findings consistently demonstrate its value in developing

knowledge for European integration, raising awareness of EU common values, and cultivating

a sense of belonging to the EU. Building or maintaining European identities and European

values provides key benefits for participating countries, in terms of supporting social cohesion,

the preservation of democracy and the rule of law, but also for building relationships as well as

supporting capacity building across the world and strengthening the geopolitical standing of

the EU. This is also supported by the European Parliament study mentioned above that reports

that the programme has

increased relevance in strengthening the EU strategic autonomy,

including in building a European identity.

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 have a range of other benefits, including supporting

inclusion, diversity, fairness and equal opportunities

(89% of respondents to the public

consultation agreed or strongly agreed with this statement) and contributing to

innovation

(86% agreed or strongly agreed). Evidence collected through different sources (beneficiary

surveys, case studies, meta-analysis, national reports) all show that participation in Erasmus+

offers numerous benefits for individuals. According to 29 national reports

400

, Erasmus+ fosters

the development of intercultural competences, language skills and international networks.

Moreover, Erasmus+ supports learners' ability to learn, especially for VET learners, school

pupils, adult learners, participants in youth activities and those with fewer opportunities. The

programme also reduces the likelihood of poor performance despite effort and enhances social

integration among students.

Monitoring data from participants’ surveys and national reports point that the programme

increases self-confidence, problem-solving, autonomy, initiative, entrepreneurship and civic

engagement in participants, the degree of which vary depending on the sectors.

4.2.2

European added value of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 compared to what was

achieved by Erasmus+ 2014-2020

The Erasmus+ programme 2021-2027 has been built on the success of the 2014-2020

programme, keeping substantial stability and continuity in the structure and management mode

compared to its predecessor. The continuity between the two generations of programmes and

well-known branding, ensures overall

increased awareness, greater visibility and positive

perception

401

When comparing the two programming periods, Erasmus+ 2021-2027 shows a

clearer added

value in terms of its scale, scope, effects and cooperation with third countries.

As outlined in section 2.1, the 2014-2020 programme was designed to support the objectives

of the Europe 2020 strategy and the ET 2020, responding and adapting well to the emerging

challenges of the increased digitalisation and the migration crisis. Similarly, the 2021-2027

programme was designed to better respond to the newest challenges and needs aligning well to

399

400

Case Study on Youth Wiki (You, FR, CY, MT). Finding based on stakeholders’ perception.

AT, BEde, BEnl, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, IE, IT, LI, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, NO, PT, RO,

RS, SE, SI, SK, TR.

401

The Report from the European Parliament on the implementation of the Erasmus+ programme 2021-2027 and

the social media analysis carried out by the external evaluator report popularity of the programme and positive

sentiment towards it.

106

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

most of the 2019-2024 EU political priorities, while the analysis in section 4.3 shows that its

relevance has evolved positively compared to the 2014-2020 programme. The

learning

mobility opportunities

offered by the programme can be considered its

most significant

added value,

magnified by the sustained actions between the two programmes. The high

numbers of programme beneficiaries add up over time, expanding the benefits of mobility to

an increasing share of learners, as well as staff and organisations. This applies also to

international mobility

which has in general increased over the period 2014-2020, particularly

from third countries associated and not associated to the programme as sending countries,

except a down point in 2020 due to COVID-19 pandemic, providing an important legacy for

the current programme and further reinforced by the expansion of available opportunities in

terms of funding and type of actions.

Furthermore, the evidence collected does not point to any lost added value as a consequence of

the discontinuation of actions from Erasmus+ 2014-2020. In 2018, the European Voluntary

Service was moved from Erasmus+ to the European Solidarity Corps. As the action still exists

in a similar form, it cannot be said that its added value has been lost. Similarly, the Student

Loan Guarantee Facility (higher education) was discontinued at the start of the 2021-2027

programming period, following the detection in the mid-term evaluation of 2014-2020

programme of several factors that were hindering its effectiveness, including the overlaps with

national schemes. Consequently, it was considered that its added value could be more suitably

achieved in the context of the InvestEU programme. On this basis, no loss in the European

added value of the Erasmus+ programme can be advocated.

Participants in the 2021-2027 programme have also benefited from a

greater alignment

between Erasmus+ and national priorities.

Representatives from around half of the countries

consulted as part of national level interviews report that the alignment between Erasmus+ and

national priorities has strengthened in the current programming period compared to the

previous one. This improvement is often attributed to the clearer and more focused priorities

set by the programme, which have better resonated with national policy objectives.

Even if challenges persist, Erasmus+ 2021-2027 shows

specific added value to the benefit of

disadvantaged groups.

The increased focus on inclusion and diversity, combined with the efforts

for simplification introduced in the current programme, have provided clear benefits. The programme

has become more accessible for smaller organisations and newcomers with new actions and

measures, such as the use of lump sums in KA2 and the Small-scale Partnerships. The 2023 European

Parliament study

402

reports positive outcomes from these measures, with significant appreciation

from national stakeholders. Case studies carried out in the frame of the support study also suggest

that the 2021-2027 programme has become more user-friendly.

4.2.3

European added value as compared to what would be the most likely

consequences of discontinuing the programme

In terms of funding, the

discontinuation of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 would remove in average

EUR 4 billion of annual funding across education and training, youth and sport sectors

and would thus drastically limit financial support for mobility, cooperation and

internationalisation in these sectors in most participating countries. The programme’s funding

is particularly crucial in countries and fields where no similar schemes are available, while in

countries where comparable schemes are available maintaining the current levels of support

without Erasmus+ would require considerable budgetary efforts at national level.

402

See p. 34 (EPRS_STU(2023)747442_EN.pdf

(europa.eu)).

107

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

No other national or EU level programme has a comparable scope, capacity and scale,

thus making the Erasmus+ programme unique.

The evidence analysed for this evaluation

demonstrates that without the Erasmus+ programme, the activities currently funded via the

programme in the relevant sectors would not be supported to a comparable extent and the level

of relevant activities taking place would be significantly lower.

In higher education, Erasmus+ is the primary funding tool for short-term (at least three months)

learning mobility across the programme countries. Based on Eurostat data, EU programmes

like Erasmus+ supported around 2 out of 3 (65.6%) of the credit mobile graduates from

bachelor’s or equivalent at EU level, including Serbia and Norway, in 2022

403

. EU

programmes are the only possibility to go abroad for a short period during studies in countries

like Cyprus and Ireland, where 100% of short mobility is financed by Erasmus+. This share is

higher than 90% in 11 countries

404

according to data from Eurostat. If Erasmus+ were to be

halted, and no similar alternatives were to be provided, 12 programme countries would see

higher education international mobility virtually disappear (with under 100 grant-supported

mobilities a year

405

Without Erasmus+, it is likely that the benefits deriving from programme actions for

individuals and organisations are drastically reduced. Internationalisation of education and

training, youth and sport sectors would be reduced to close to zero in several countries,

especially in sport and youth. The positive results achieved for individual participants and

beneficiary organisations would not be achieved to the same extent.

4.2.4

Contribution to

‘Europeanness’

The Erasmus+ programme plays an essential role to support the development of knowledge of

the EU, raise awareness of the EU common values and foster a European sense of belonging.

Evaluation findings show

widespread recognition

of Erasmus+ in

promoting shared values,

EU identity, and intercultural understanding.

Participation in the programme is positively associated with a sense of European identity and

positive feelings towards the EU. 23 national reports refer to the positive impact of the

programme on promoting awareness of shared European values, EU identity, and intercultural

understanding and openness

406

. 91% of the public consultation respondents agreed or strongly

agreed with the fact that Erasmus+ contributes to building a sense of European identity/sense

of belonging and raises awareness of European values

407

The 2014-2020 programme monitoring data show that more than 70% of HE, VET and youth

mobility participants declared being more aware of European values and European topics after

their mobility, with the highest share (82%) registered by participants in youth mobilities.

Under Erasmus+ 2014-2020, participation in the KA3 Youth Dialogue is positively associated

with increased active citizenship and involvement in democratic life, while participation in the

403

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Learning_mobility_statistics#Credit-

mobile_graduates

404

RO, SK, EL, BG, MT, LV, PT, SI, PL, HR, HU.

405

Bulgaria, Czechia, Greece, Croatia, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, and

North Macedonia. Data source: Eurostat,

educ_uoe_mobc01

(ICF

own calculations).

406

AT, BEde, BEfr, BEnl, CZ, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LU, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, SE, SK, TR

407

Public consultation report, annex II of ICF study. Respondents familiar or partly familiar with the programme

(N = 1 231) were asked to what extent they agreed with a series of statements, including that Erasmus+ contributes

Erasmus+ building a sense of European identity/sense of belonging and raises awareness of European values. 60%

strongly agreed, 31% agreed, only 7% had no opinion and the remaining 2% disagreed/strongly disagreed.

108

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

European Voluntary Service is associated with a positive feeling towards the EU, compared to

non-participants

408

In the higher education field, the 2020/21 and 2022/23 Erasmus Mundus Graduate Impact

Surveys

409

consistently report that attitude towards Europe and the EU was among the areas of

main personal impact following Erasmus Mundus studies. In both surveys, the area of greatest

personal impact was the development of intercultural competences, which appears important

given the strong international dimension of this action. Also, the XV ESN Survey

410

concluded

that, before mobility, HE students have the weakest sense of belonging to the EU, and rather

felt strongly connected to their hometown and their country. In contrast, post-mobility data

show that those feelings and perceptions change. Students with a learning mobility experience

feel strongly connected to Europe and to the world as a whole, with a striking increase in their

sense of belonging towards the EU. On a wider institutional scale, 76% of the European

University alliances support the development of democratic competencies and citizenship,

reinforcing the role of higher education in strengthening democratic European values

411

Results from the beneficiary (learners) survey run by ICF show that 88% of the participants in

mobility over the period 2014-2023 felt that they had increased their sense of belonging to the

EU. Programme participation is positively associated with respondents’ sense of European

identity and positive feelings towards the EU, particularly for participants from higher

education and the youth sector. 49% of surveyed participants since 2014 indicated that they

saw themselves as European, compared to 40% of non-participants. Also, 79% of surveyed

participants indicated positive feelings towards the EU, compared to 74% of non-participants.

Box 10 – Examples from National Reports

Portugal:

‘Erasmus+ is key in promoting the European values of tolerance and acceptance and can be seen as

a major investment in the promotion of participation in democratic life and civic involvement, on a more

immediate and individual context, and promotion of peace and conflict management, on a broader and global

arena. By encouraging the mobility of people, under any of its Key Actions, the Erasmus+ programme provides

participants from Portugal with the opportunity to learn about the history, culture, and values of the host

countries, thus stimulating tolerance and open-mindedness, a raised awareness of the EU's common values and

citizenship, a sense of belonging to a diverse Europe/world, and, ultimately, peace’.

The added value of the Erasmus+ 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 is undisputable when it comes to

focusing on

teaching and research on the EU.

Across both programme generations, Jean

Monnet Actions focus specifically on spreading knowledge about European integration

matters. The operating grants received by the seven Jean Monnet Designated Institutions under

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 enable them to deliver teaching, training, research and

dissemination activities focused on the EU, with a scale of impact that would not otherwise be

408

409

Source: beneficiary surveys for learners run by ICF.

Juhlke, R. & Unger, M. (2022). Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Graduate Impact Survey 2020/21.

Comprehensive report of results. Institut für Höhere Studien – Institute for Advanced Studies (IHS). Pp. 40 and

43 (https://www.esaa-eu.org/fileadmin/esaa/content/news/files/2022/gis_202021_definite_report.pdf); Robert

Jühlke R., Dau J., Unger M. (2023). Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Graduate Impact Survey 2023. Comprehensive

report of results (https://www.em-a.eu/post/graduate-impact-survey-2023-results). The 2020/21 impact survey

analysed Erasmus Mundus (EM) Joint Master Degree graduates from graduation cohorts 2010/11, 2015/16 and

2019/20 (2 015 responses). The 2022/23 impact survey was conducted among Erasmus Mundus Master Alumni

who graduated in one of three double cohorts 2012/13, 2017/18 and 2021/22 (3 396 responses).

410

ESN survey XV is a quantitative and deductive research based on an online questionnaire that was launched

on 29 May and closed on 31 July 2023, constituting a collection period of 2 months for the survey. The data

collected are from students who were enrolled in Higher Education in the academic year 2021-2022 and/or the

academic year 2022-2023

(https://esn.org/sites/default/files/news/participation_in_learning_mobility_as_a_driving_force_to_change_the_eu.pdf)

411

European Commission (2025), Report on the outcomes and transformational potential of the European

Universities

initiative

(https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/db43f6ca-da14-11ef-be2a-

01aa75ed71a1/language-en

109

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

possible. The College of Europe, the European University Institute, the European Institute of

Public Administration (EIPA) and the International Centre for European Training (CIFE)

actively contribute to promoting cultural diversity, cohesiveness and inclusiveness,

intercultural and multilingual understanding, and provide a space for research and debate. They

also support professionals entering into EU careers. For example, the European University

Institute has run the Max Weber programme for talented postdoctoral researchers with an EU-

focused research interest. It has created the School of Transnational Governance, running a master

in Transnational governance and training mid-career professionals on this topic with a focus on the

EU. All these specific activities would not have been possible without Erasmus+ funding.

4.2.5

International added value

Across both programming periods, the programme

conveys international added value

through

cooperation

between EU Member States and third countries not associated to the

programme. Furthermore, it

fosters people to people contacts and global connections.

Mobility activities to/from non-associated third countries represent a small share of the total

number of mobilities supported by the programme, yet they benefit participants from almost

all countries in the world. Various interviews with beneficiary organisations from the higher

education field in non-associated third countries highlight that the projects funded under

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 have had a positive impact in facilitating peer learning, upgrading and

modernising higher education curricula in countries such as Georgia, Uzbekistan, as well as in

some African countries, and in supporting institutional capacity building across various fields.

For candidate countries, interviewees also mentioned that the programme has influenced the

perception of citizens in candidate countries, aligning with EU priorities during accession

negotiations.

Box 11 - Examples of added value for non-associated third countries

Erasmus+ has significantly impacted individuals, organisations, and the higher education system in

Sri

Lanka.

Participants experienced personal and professional growth, such as securing internships abroad and

pursuing higher education opportunities. The programme facilitated the development of new courses,

master's courses, and MOOCs, enhancing university-industry collaborations and improving graduates'

employability. Additionally, it boosted language skills, intellectual competence, and global competitiveness,

with positive effects including a sense of European identity, social cohesion, and breaking down cultural

barriers.

Thailand,

the programme promoted higher education internationalisation, establishing it as a key quality indicator

at both institutional and national levels, and strengthening relationships with European institutions and the EU.

Ukraine,

Erasmus+ has led to revisions to the curriculum for VET teacher training, incorporating more

practical elements to enhance work-based learning. Erasmus+ funding is also used to develop the offer of

micro-credentials and to use micro-credentials for the professional development of teachers in higher

education. On a general level, interviewees stressed the importance of their participation in the programme

and the measures taken to adapt to the needs of Ukrainian participants, as a sign of solidarity with their

country in times when it is suffering from the Russian aggression.

Source: key informant interviews performed under ICF support study

Some remaining barriers to participation were also mentioned such as:

•

Difficulties to take part in joint activities due to visa requirements, limits to eligibility

(third countries not associated to the programme do not have access to the same funding

opportunities as programme countries), or variations in exchange rates;

Need for increased coordination, communication and awareness of programme

opportunities. Reinforcing the capacity of Erasmus+ National Focal Points (ENFPs),

established in the current programme, could contribute to address these needs.

110

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Since 2014, Erasmus+ is

leveraged in EU international relations,

with the programme's

mobility component facilitating

people to people contacts, international cooperation and

boosting relations with other countries.

The 2021-2027 capacity building actions in higher

education and VET sectors support the delivery of the Global Gateway in third countries, in

particular in Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean. It also plays

a role in

attracting talent and bridging gaps in international mobility.

The programme can

be further used to extend EU influence in third countries, with suggestions to further expand

cooperation in VET and increase synergies with bilateral actions.

4.3.

Is the intervention still relevant?

The analysis has been carried out jointly for both programming periods, while highlighting

differences or elements relevant to the final or the interim evaluation, and stressing elements

of evolution between the two programmes. The assessment was performed against 5 evaluation

questions regarding:

•

relevance to socio-economic needs and challenges;

relevance to emerging needs for skills and growth;

relevance to stakeholder needs;

relevance to people with fewer opportunities;

evolution of relevance between the two evaluation periods.

The assessment

is generally positive.

Stakeholders generally agree that the relevance of the

2021-2027 programme has increased compared to 2014-2020 programme, in particular due to

clear and explicit horizontal priorities set in the current programme. Two-thirds of the

respondents to the NA/EACEA survey

412

confirmed that the 2021-2027 programme is more

relevant to the current and emerging needs than the 2014-2020 Erasmus+ generation.

Respondents to this survey also reported an improved alignment of programme actions with

EU priorities (90%) and with national priorities (62%) compared to the previous programme.

All 32 countries submitting a national report

413

assessed positively the evolution of the

programme relevance between programming periods, with regards in particular to: i) the

diversification of participants and increased participation in previously underrepresented

sectors, such as youth and sport; ii) additional funding for social inclusion; iii) the programme’s

focus on digital transformation and environmental sustainability.

4.3.1

Relevance of

programme objectives and priorities

Based on the consultations carried out for the programme’s evaluation, stakeholders generally

agree that the

objectives and priorities

set by the current Erasmus+ programme

address well

the most pressing socio-economic needs and challenges Europe is facing today.

Around

80% of respondents to the public consultation rated the objectives and priorities of Erasmus+

as relevant. Respondents to the NAs/EACEA survey generally expressed positive views, with

48% affirming its full relevance in the context of today's socio-economic needs and challenges,

and an additional 51% finding it partially relevant

414

. Respondents to this survey also perceived

strong alignment between individual actions and projects funded by the programme and

specific EU priorities such as ‘increasing the number of learners and staff who spend some time

NAs/EACEA survey, annex III of ICF study. Question ‘Overall, how relevant do you find the Erasmus+

Programme considering today’s socio-economic needs and challenges?’ (Respondents N=164).

413

MK did not submit a national report.

414

NAs/EACEA survey, annex III of ICF study. Question: ‘Overall, how relevant do you find the Erasmus+

Programme considering today’s socio-economic needs and challenges?’ (Respondents N=164).

412

111

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

abroad’ (80%), ‘improving the quality of education and training’, ‘promoting equity, social

cohesion, and active citizenship”; and ‘improving green and digital skills’ (69% each)

415

. The

mid-term evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020 showed that the pogramme was

better aligned

with EU policies

than its predecessor programmes and that it entailed sufficient flexibility to

adapt to EU-level emerging needs. This is confirmed in the final evaluation, when looking in

particular to the last part of the programme implementaiton. The programme showed a good

alignment with the EU political priorities 2019-2024 in its last two years of implementation,

paving the way for the 2021-2027 programme and showing adaptability to emerging needs.

The

Digital Education Action Plan

416

, adopted in 2018, relied on Erasmus+ and Horizon

2020 for the implementation of its priorities aiming to help education and training systems

make better use of innovation and digital technology and support the development of relevant

digital competences (see 4.3.3)

417

. The

Communication on preventing radicalisation

adopted in June 2016

418

emphasised the preventive role of the educational and youth sectors

by tackling the root causes of radicalisation leading to violent extremism and terrorism.

Erasmus+ reflected the objectives and challenges addressed by the 2015 Paris Declaration in

the implementation of all three key actions of the programme, as well as in the actions in the

field of Sport. This permeated the programme action throughout most of the programming

period, with further emphasis on the promotion of multicultural dialogue as from 2018 with the

launch of Erasmus+ Virtual Exchanges, funded with Heading 4 of EU budget, also contributing

to priorities of EU as a global actor. The piloting of the European Universities initiative was

set as a follow up to the European Council conclusions of 14 December 2017, laying the

foundations for the European Education Area.

As for Erasmus+ 2021-2027, the promotion of learning mobility in formal, informal and non-

formal settings, including its embedded inclusive dimension, addresses both individual and

societal needs supporting the building of skills for life and for jobs, and their circulation to form

and attract talents worldwide. In parallel, the programme includes ‘excellence’ and ‘innovation’

in education as part of its objectives, translated into deepened transnational cooperation among

educational institutions. These activities contribute to pursue a set of objectives that, since its

early implementation stage, has shown flexibility and adaptability to respond to major

challenges (see 4.1.1.8) and effectively contributing to key policy areas, such as the European

Education Area, the European Skills Agenda, including the Pact for Skills (see 4.1.1.4).

Therefore, they appear relevant to continue support the adaptation of education systems to the

rapidly evolving world and to supply the European single market with the skills required by the

technological changes and to support EU competitiveness (see 4.3.2).

Broad

support is highlighted for the four horizontal priorities,

which were praised by many

stakeholders as highly relevant. EU-level stakeholders, in particular, agreed that the

programme’s priorities aligned well with EU-level socio-economic goals. Four of the 2019-

2024 Commission’s priorities are embedded into the programme’s horizontal priorities,

showing a direct correspondence among them

419

. Erasmus+ priorities address those aspects of

the broader European agenda that are most relevant to the needs of people in education,

training, youth and sport. Between 2021 and 2023, a significant part of both the total number

NAs/EACEA survey, annex III of ICF study. Question: ‘To what extent are the individual actions and projects

funded under Erasmus + aligned with key EU policy priorities?’ (Respondents N=113).

416

COM(2018) 22 final.

417

The plan set three priorities for the Commission’s work on digital education: (1) Making better use of digital

technology for teaching and learning; (2) Developing relevant digital skills and competences for the digital

transformation; (3) Improving education systems through better data analysis and foresight.

418

COM(2016) 379 final.

419

Priorities of the European Union 2019-2024 | European Union (europa.eu)

415

112

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

of projects funded and grants awarded by the programme were allocated to some of the main

EU priority areas. In particular, 12% and 17% of all the projects relate to the ‘European Green

Deal’ and ‘Europe fit for the digital age’ respectively, with a total of 43% of the total grants

spent on these two areas. A mapping of the programme’s priorities against public opinions as

measured in the

Eurobarometer survey

in 2022 further confirms their relevance as respondents

mentioned ‘working on environmental issues and climate change’ (22%) and ‘defending

European values’ (18%) as the fourth and fifth most pressing challenges facing Europe today.

The relevance of the 2021-2027 horizontal priorities is confirmed by the results of the public

consultation, with more than 90% of respondents agreeing that the programme’s horizontal

priorities are ‘extremely relevant’ or ‘relevant’ to the current needs and challenges of our

societies.

Relevance of horizontal priorities

Source: Public consultation report

As regards the international dimension, the interviews carried out with EU delegations in Sub-

Saharan Africa countries also show a general good alignment of Erasmus+ priorities with

overarching ones. In Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Kenya, South Africa and Tanzania, alignment

is reported with Erasmus+ priorities, with links to the Global Gateway strategy, particularly

regarding support for digitalisation and the green transition. Enhancing connectivity,

digitalisation, and innovation are key areas of alignment with Erasmus+, also reflecting broader

trends in global education and development.

4.3.2

Relevance to emerging needs for skills and growth

According to the recent Letta Report

420

on strengthening the EU Single Market, learning

mobility is part of the environment suitable for knowledge transfer, and acquisition of much

needed skills for sustainable growth that Europe should focus on. Skills are also a key pillar of

the Draghi report on strengthening European competitiveness

421

, representing an essential

investment for building a thriving, competitive, and fair economy. This report underlines that

over the years, the EU has regularly reiterated the importance of skills’ provision and has

intervened to promote general policy frameworks for investment in skills and stimulate the

formation of general and sector-specific skills across a broad coalition of actors, with a major

part of this investment in skills coming from ESF+ and the Erasmus+ programme. The

acceleration of the twin – green and digital – transitions has been among the top priorities for

the European Union, together with boosting the skills needed for it. Under Erasmus+, two out

of four horizontal priorities address the twin transitions. As displayed in the chart above most

420 Enrico Letta (2024), Much more than a market.

421 Mario Draghi (2024), The future of European competitiveness.

113

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

respondents to the public consultation consider “the environment and the fight against climate

change” and “digital transformation” priorities as either “extremely relevant” or “relevant”).

These results are confirmed also by other stakeholders’ consultations which show that the 2021-

2027 programme is more relevant to green transition and digital transformation than the

previous one and that the alignment of project and priorities has improved

422

. 69% of

respondents to the NAs/EACEA survey found that Erasmus+ actions and projects have a strong

alignment with the EU policy priority “improving digital and green skills” for education and

training, right after “increasing the share of students and staff who spend time abroad”

423

. When

requested to compare with the previous programme generation, this share rises to 84%,

appearing as the priority gaining with the strongest alignment with Erasmus+ projects and

actions compared to the previous period. The programme's focus on digital transformation and

environmental sustainability is widely recognised as an improvement in the 2021-2027 period

in national reports, with 18 explicitly mentioning this

424

, although 9 countries

425

noted that

these priorities are not yet fully integrated into participant experiences or project

implementations.

•

Relevance to digital transformation

Erasmus+ is heavily mobilised to respond to the necessary

digital transformation

of education

and training, youth and sport fields. Digital aspects of learning mobilities have been progressing

in all education sectors in particular since 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic hampered physical

learning mobility activities and led to the rapid development of new learning mobility patterns,

including remote elements, emphasising the need to accelerate the digital transition and the

acquisition of digital competences. The pandemic accelerated the use of blended mobility, as

well as the community’s debates and efforts to utilise the digital aspects of mobilities more

broadly and efficiently

426

. 42% of respondents to the survey run by the Commission in May

2020

427

to collect views of mobility participants on the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak

replied that they continued their activities with different arrangements, such as distance or

online learning, with variation between sectors. All 32 countries submitting a National Report

have indicated that the pandemic catalysed and accelerated the adoption of digital tools and

platforms for project management, communication and virtual learning in Erasmus+. For

example, the online self-reflection tool

SELFIE for schools,

launched in 2018 to help schools

reflect on their digital readiness, saw a rapid growth following Covid-19 pandemic, going from

150 000 users in 2018 to more than one million users in April 2021, and up to two million in

November of the same year. In July 2023, the tool has reached 6.6 million users

428

The importance of digitalisation has also been growing in the youth sector. The Council

conclusions on digital youth work

429

encouraged the exchange of best practices and peer

learning activities, inviting to carry out research to increase knowledge in the field as well as

to improve digital competences through non-formal learning and training. Building on the

Council conclusions, and in response to such needs for innovation and competence

422

423

Survey of expert assessors, annex IV of ICF study.

Survey of NAs/EACEA, annex III of ICF study. Question 6: “To what extent are the individual actions and

projects funded under Erasmus+ aligned with key EU policy priorities?”

424

AT, BE, CY, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO.

425

AT, BE, CY, DE, DK, IE, NL, NO, PT.

426

European Commission (2023), Study on supporting learning mobility: progress, obstacles and way forward

(https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/036d1f45-82ad-11ee-99ba-01aa75ed71a1/language-en).

427

https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2021-09/coronavirus-mobility-impact-results-

may2020_en.pdf

428

2021 and 2023 Erasmus+ Annual Reports.

429

Council conclusions on digital youth work (OJ C 414, 10.12.2019, p. 2).

114

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

development, since 2021 17 National Agencies and 4 SALTOs have led a long-term Training

and Cooperation Activity on the topic

430

. The project has been cooperating closely with the

RAY

431

network, in particular with the RAY DIGI research

432

, exploring dimensions of

digitalisation in European youth work. Since 2019, the Erasmus+ programme guide highlights

digital youth work among the competences and methods relevant for youth workers’

professional development, becoming one of the criteria for assessing the relevance of mobility

projects of youth workers. Around 500 youth projects, funded between 2021 and 2023, for a

total of over EUR 39 million contracted grants, focused on the topic of digital youth work.

The programme nowadays complements physical mobility by promoting distance and blended

learning. In the period 2021-2023, 90 000 mobilities were flagged as blended. It also includes

a broad offer of learning opportunities focusing on basic and advanced digital competence

development (see section 4.1.1.6.) and virtual exchanges, and it supports cooperation projects

on digital education, with around 40% of contracted KA2 projects addressing this priority. The

overall contribution of the programme to digital transformation priority amounts at EUR

2 018.1 million at the end of 2023 (equal to 21% of the total 2021-2027 implementation)

433

Particularly important appears the role of the newly set

SALTO Resource Centre on Digital

produce resources and materials to help applicants integrate the digital transformation priority

in their projects.

KA2 actions such as the Centres of Vocational Excellence contribute to the

development of

skills for the digital transformation

by promoting the creation of ecosystems for sustainable

collaboration between education and training providers and other stakeholders, including

companies in this area. They provide opportunities for initial training of young people as well

as the continuing up-skilling and re-skilling of adults, through flexible and timely offer of

training that meets the needs of a dynamic labour market, in the context of the green and digital

transitions. The 2023 ETF reports on building evidence to support vocational excellence for

the digital and green transitions

434

focus on the role of Centres of Vocational Excellence in the

green and digital transition, exploring how national Centres of Vocational Excellence are

managing the whole-institution change connected to these transitions.

Among the actions supported by Erasmus+ under the

Digital Education Action Plan,

the

Erasmus+ Teacher Academies support the creation and application of digital pedagogies and

teachers’ digital expertise.

SELFIE for Teachers,

launched in October 2021, helps primary and

secondary school teachers assess their digital competences and plan further training, reaching

more than 100 000 users by January 2023. Erasmus+ also funds activities related to the

priorities of the Digital Education Action Plan, such as the Digital Opportunity Traineeships.

430

The project aims, among others, to make suggestions for developing national youth strategies with links to

digitalisation, to analyse and promote STEAM activities in youth work, develop new practices for online youth

work as well as for virtual and blended mobilities in the framework of EU Youth Programmes:

https://www.oph.fi/en/education-development-and-internationalisation/long-term-cooperation-projects/digital-

youth-work

431

Research-based analysis of European youth programmes. The RAY network is an open and self-governed

European research network of the Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps National Agencies. Funded under

TCA (KA3), the network conducts research on international youth work and youth learning mobility and

contributes to evidence-based youth policy development in the youth field:

https://www.researchyouth.net/

432

The research project conducted more than 60 digital youth work case studies, in and beyond Europe, between

2022 and 2024. The RAY DIGI report was published in October 2024.

https://www.researchyouth.net/wp-

content/uploads/2024/10/RAY-DIGI_Key-Findings_20241020.pdf

433

Source: 2023 Programme Performance Statement (https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-

budget/performance-and-reporting/programme-performance-statements/erasmus-performance_en

434

https://www.etf.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-11/CoVEs%20in%20the%20digital%20transition.pdf

and

https://www.etf.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-11/P233084_ETF_Green%20transition_EN_v2-4COL_0.pdf

115

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

In 2022, one of the cross-sectoral priorities of the

Forward-looking projects

Call was

specifically dedicated to supporting

high quality and inclusive digital education,

in line with

the aims of the Digital Education Action Plan, with projects called to address at least one of the

following three areas: a) Key success factors for inclusive and high quality digital education

and training; b) Artificial Intelligence in Education; c) High quality digital education content.

The

Erasmus Charter for Higher Education

(ECHE) require institutions to undertake the

necessary steps to implement digital mobility management. Contribution to digital and green

priorities is considered in award criteria. The

European Student Card Initiative

(ESCI)

introduces digital solutions, such as Erasmus Without Paper (EWP) and the Erasmus+ App, to

facilitate the exchange of student data and mobility information in a digital, secure and efficient

way; it also sets standards to enable the cross-border authentication of students on mobility

through the European Student Card. By the end of 2023, 2.3 million European Student Cards

had been issued and the Erasmus+ App had registered 218 546 downloads, whereas 3 342

higher education institutions were connected to the Erasmus Without Paper network, leading

to 152 253 interinstitutional agreements and 185 027 learning agreements completed fully

digitally

435

. Between the end of 2022 and the end of 2023, there was a 12% increase in the

number of higher education institutions connected to the EWP network; a two-fold increase in

the number of interinstitutional agreements completed digitally; and a 165% increase in the

number of learning agreements approved through EWP.

Similarly, organisations awarded with an

Erasmus Accreditation

have to align with ‘Erasmus

quality standards’ including digital education, relevant to the facilitation of the digital

transformation priority, as well as green transition aspects.

The programme is supporting the digital transformation in education, leading to the adoption

of digital tools, applications and innovative methodologies enabled by digital technology, often

following practices discovered during international mobility activities. In certain cases, the

programme has contributed to organisations adopting digital transformation as an objective

436

Digitalisation is also fostered through European Universities alliances. Their long-term joint

strategies, which include the development of shared governance structures and pooling of

resources to create new

digital resources and virtual campuses,

or further develop their

blended learning provision to increase collaboration between institutions across borders

437

Overall, since 2014, Erasmus+ funded around 29 000 projects on themes related to digital (e.g.

digital safety, digital skills, digital content), ICT and artificial intelligence. About one third of

these projects were funded in the 2021-2023 period. The programme also supports projects

dealing with the use of

artificial intelligence in education.

The number of projects specifically

addressing themes related to artificial intelligence is close to 900, out of which 15% specifically

address the topic ‘Artificial intelligence and data usage’, while the remaining ones treat this

theme in relation to topics such as ‘digital skills and competence, ‘new learning and teaching

methods and approach’, ‘creating new curricula’, as well as in relation to inclusion topics. This

number is still limited but the yearly increase (from only 2 projects contracted in Call year 2014

to 266 in 2023) is a clear sign of increasing relevance. For example, looking beyond the

435

436

Erasmus+ annual report 2023,

https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/833629

Case study on Asociația Sprijin+ (ADU, RO) as well as the case study on the European University alliance

CHARM-EU, led by the University of Barcelona.

437

Some Alliances have a particular focus on technology, including digital innovations, while others have placed

a focus on the environment, to develop skills but also to transform higher education itself. Examples of these

include Unite!, EU GREEN and UNI Green. Uni Green Alliance provides an overview of actions to reduce carbon

balance in their activities.

116

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

evaluation period, the number of projects contracted under 2024 Call and specifically tackling

the topic ‘artificial intelligence’ has doubled compared to 2023.

Box 12 - Jean Monnet Module on ‘Europe Regulates Robotics’ and the ‘Centre of Excellence on the

Regulation of Robotics and Artificial Intelligence’ (EURA)

Europe Regulates Robotics

(ERR), funded in 2015, focused on the regulation of robotics in Europe, (i)

identifying applicable regulation, suggesting reforms where needed; (ii) fostering a multidisciplinary debate on

its legal, ethical and economic implications; and (iii) developing ‘robolaw’ as a new field of EU studies. It

reached these goals through teaching activities, academic events, research, and by fostering a dialogue with

policy-makers.

The

Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence EURA,

run from 2018 to 2022, successfully established itself as a focal

point of competence in the field of the regulation of robotics and AI and is today widely recognized for its

unique expertise and multidisciplinary methodology. EURA underwent research in many domains, leading to

scientific publications. At the same time, it directly impacted policy making by drafting in-depth studies upon

request of Italian and EU institutions. Many such considerations are today part of the debate as well as of the

solutions advanced by the EU policymakers in their proposals for regulating AI (e.g. the AI Act and the

directives on civil and product liability associated with the use of AI).

The case study carried on the projects highlights the role of the Erasmus+ funding, received under Jean Monnet

activities, to foster studies, teaching and research on topics of EU interest. The interviewed representatives of

the Centre of Excellence, researchers and learners highlighted that in the period 2014-2015 the regulation of

technology was not a recognised field of study within European studies. Since then, largely because of the Jean

Monnet module on ERR and Centre of Excellence EURA, the EU has emerged as a global leader by

introducing legislation in the field of artificial intelligence,

evidenced by the recently approved AI Act, along

with other pieces of legislation.

The Centre of Excellence filled in a critical knowledge gap in the field. This positioned the researchers as

forerunners in this area of expertise, benefiting both participating students and the overall organisation of

teaching within this action. The Centre of Excellence EURA facilitated the formation of a multi-disciplinary

research community that did not exist before, and which continues to contribute to and participate in the Centre's

activities, helping to advance the field further. According to the interviewees, both projects

significantly

elevated understanding of European issues,

particularly within the area of expertise of the Centre of

Excellence on the regulation of robotics and AI.

Although it is outside the evaluation period, the programme is preparing to further support the

emerging needs linked to the challenges posed by artificial intelligence. For example, in 2025,

the Erasmus+

Forward Looking Project Call

(KA2) will have a dedicated priority on

generative AI

in education and training, aiming to upscale and promote the innovative,

efficient and ethical use of generative AI in education. Similarly, attention is given to digital

well-being, one of the priorities of the 2024 Policy experimentation Call (KA3). Furthermore,

in 2025, Erasmus+ will fund cooperation with OECD on developing an

Artificial Intelligence

Literacy Framework for primary and secondary level of education to address emerging

trends and skills needs stemming from the AI disruption,

contributing to Commission’s

work on AI literacy guidelines.

•

Relevance to green transition

In line with the Council recommendation on learning for the green transition and sustainable

development adopted in June 2022

438

, Erasmus+ provides opportunities to promote, support

and enable formal and non-formal education and training for the green transition and

sustainable development, facilitating cooperation and peer learning for the green transition and

sustainable development. Learning mobility, cooperation projects, flagship actions, and

activities supporting policy cooperation, contribute to this goal. For example, Cedefop report

‘Meeting skill needs for the green transition’

439

provides examples of Centres of Vocational

438

Council recommendation of 16 June 2022 on learning for the green transition and sustainable development,

OJ C 243, 27.6.2022, p. 1.

439

https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/files/4220_en.pdf

117

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Excellence projects supporting (i) collaboration of regional and local stakeholder to address

green skill gap, (ii) the introduction of new collaboration practices for skills development or

(iii) the promotion of systemic reform of education and professional training via innovative

approaches in areas of green transition. This is key to ensure that Europe has highly competent

professionals to support the green transition

440

Support to green objectives is also ensured by Erasmus+ through the basic principles included

in its quality standards

441

and the requirements that organisations need to meet when applying

for the accreditation. For example, the programme requires higher education institutions to

adopt environmentally friendly practices, support sustainable means of travel and reduce the

negative impact of mobility on the environment. Higher education institutions are encouraged

to develop their own sustainability strategies and connect these strategies with mobility

activities. In particular, the negative environmental impact of transnational and international

learning mobility needs to be considered

442

. To mitigate the impact of plane travels the

programme promotes more sustainable means of transport as a norm for travel below 500 km

and provides an increased green travel support since 2024 Call

443

(see also section 4.1.1.6).

DiscoverEU offers participants a travel pass and travel opportunities predominantly by train.

On the other hand, the programme supports hundreds of projects working on improving

learning and teaching practices in the area of education for sustainable development and the

green transition. A

SALTO Resource Centre on sustainable development

was launched in 2023

to provide guidance and support to National Agencies and beneficiaries on the implementation

of both dimensions of this priority. Nevertheless, the horizontal priority addressing the green

transition is considered the least developed in 8 national reports

444

, with growing awareness and

interest in environmental issues, identified especially in the school, youth and VET sectors

445

Efforts to promote green travel are ongoing, as some countries consider the programme’s

incentives for green travel to be insufficient to have a significant impact on travel choices

446

The digital and green priorities are also connected as shown by references to the ‘twin

transition’. Around two-thirds of Europeans think that digital technologies are important to

combat climate change

447

. There is, however, also a need to better assess the environmental

impact of digital technologies

448

as well as balance the relationship between all horizontal

priorities of the programme, for example by considering how inclusion may be affected by

longer journey durations, when these could negatively impact the participation of educational

440

See also recital 7 of the Council recommendation on learning for the green transition and sustainable

development.

441

https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/document/erasmus-quality-standards-mobility-projects-vet-adults-schools;

https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/fr/document/erasmus-quality-standards-mobility-projects-youth

442

Shields, R (2019) 'The sustainability of international higher education: Student mobility and global climate

change',

Journal of Cleaner Production,

vol. 217, pp. 594-602.

443

Since 2024 Call, green/low emission travel is considered the norm and non-green travel the exception, whereas

in the previous ‘top up’ system low emission travel was the exception. The Case-study on the Pädagogische

Hochschule Freiburg noted how learners have preferred in some cases to take the train (up to 3 days) to avoid the

environmental impact of flying.

444

AT, CY, DE, DK, ES, NL, NO, SE.

445

AT, CY, DE, DK, ES, NL, SE.

446

DK, IE, NO.

447

See Special Eurobarometer 2959. See also the case-study on Oktatasi es Szakerto Bt. (ADU, HU).

448

See COM(2023) 570 of 27.9.2023. Some Erasmus+ projects are also examining the relationship between digital

technologies and the environment. For example, the ‘Green-Co’ KA2 project aims to provide educational

resources to raise awareness on the environmental impact of the use of digital technologies, not only as a global

impact by companies and organizations, but even in the mere role of users. Literature also explores clashes

between the twin transitions in a range of other fields outside of education - see Muench, S., Stoermer, E., Jensen,

K., Asikainen, T., Salvi, M. and Scapolo, F., (2022) Towards a green and digital future, Publications Office of the

European Union, Luxembourg, JRC129319.

118

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

institutions with fewer resources to cover staff absences, and for individuals with caring

responsibilities or those living in remote areas, including outermost regions.

•

Relevance to competitiveness

In the evolving socio-economic context, and as also stressed by the Letta and Draghi reports

mentioned above, new needs emerge emphasizing the

key role of education and skills

development

for current and next generations, to support Europe’s competitiveness, economic

resilience, innovation capacity and prosperity. A recent study by the Institute of German

Economics (IW), surveying over 800 German companies, highlights that, in the current process

of transformation of the European economy, the types of skills developed by students during

learning periods abroad, such as flexibility, resilience or intercultural competences are

becoming increasingly important and particularly valued by ‘digital’, ‘innovative’ or

‘international’ companies

449

. The IW study says that, to survive the tough global competition,

the economy and state institutions need university graduates with a high degree of

independence, problem-solving skills and proactive behaviour. These are exactly the types of

skills more likely to be developed by Erasmus+ participants (see 4.1.1.2). In other words, the

skills developed during Erasmus+ mobility activities are fundamental for what the economy

needs today.

In the same vein, the

Letta Report

on the future of the single market argues that

a fifth

freedom,

encompassing research, innovation, knowledge, and education, should be added to

the existing four fundamental freedoms of the Single Market. By embedding those at the core

of the Single Market, including learning mobility for all, Europe can according to Enrico Letta

create an environment suitable for knowledge transfer, acquisition of much needed skills for

sustainable growth.

Skills

are also a key pillar of

Mario Draghi’s recommendations,

and

represent an

essential investment

for building a thriving, competitive, and fair economy.

In this context, it is important to stress that Erasmus+ is instrumental for supporting the

implementation of the

European Skills Agenda

450

aiming to support people to develop the

skills needed to take full advantage of the opportunities provided by the green and digital

transitions. The Skills Agenda covers several building blocks supported by Erasmus+ such as

the

Pact for Skills,

supporting

relevant private and public stakeholders to partner up and

take action for lifelong skills development.

Since the 2014-2020 programme, the Erasmus+

Sector Skills Alliances

(2014-2016), then the

Blueprint Alliances for sectoral cooperation

on skills

(2017-2020) and in the 2021-2027 programme the Alliances for Innovation – Lot 2

support collaboration between businesses, trade unions, research institutions, education and

training with the aim of developing and implementing strategies to address

skills gaps in

specific sectors and industrial ecosystems.

Since 2018, Erasmus+ has funded

40 Blueprints

alliances,

out of which 27 under the 2021-2027 programme, addressing skill gaps in e.g.

automotive sector, maritime technology, aerospace and defence, textile industry, steel industry,

construction, cybersecurity, work integration social enterprises, software services

451

. These

large-scale projects gather sectoral skills intelligence, design sectoral skills strategies, review

and develop occupational profiles and vocational programmes related to these occupations, and

set up a long-term action plan for the local and regional roll-out of their results. Thus,

they

449

Die Bedeutung studienbezogener Auslandsaufenthalte im Transformationsprozess der deutschen Wirtschaft,

DAAD-IW-Studie,

2025

(https://eu.daad.de/medien/eu.daad.de.2016/dokumente/service/medien-und-

publikationen/studien-und-auswertungen/unternehmensbefragung_2024_25_daad_iw.pdf).

450

COM(2020)274.

451

European Commission (2024), Bridging projects and policy: Blueprints for sectoral cooperation on skills

(c27d24c3-e435-43fc-9200-0fb92ab11c88_en).

119

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

foster innovation and competitiveness in areas that experience severe skills gaps,

promoting greater preparedness and adaptability to changes in the labour market.

Several Blueprints have also formed connections with

Centres of Vocational Excellence

(CoVEs) and

Forward-Looking projects

creating a synergetic path for driving innovation,

fulfilling reskilling and upskilling commitments in specific ecosystems and widening their

impact. Centres of Vocational Excellence are innovative and comprehensive transnational

partnerships to set up skills eco-systems that make VET agile, innovative, attractive, excellent

and inclusive. The initiative is strongly linked to the opportunities and needs of regions and

local territories and covers a variety of activities such as innovation hubs, applied research,

provision of digital skills at all levels, among others.

Box 13 - Skills4CMT

The

KA2 strategic partnership ‘Sector-specific

skills development in Coastal and Maritime Tourism’

(Skills4CMT), funded in 2020 and coordinated by SAMK university (Finland) in partnership with five

organisations, addresses

skills needs for coastal and maritime tourism sector.

Limited awareness of the specific

skill needs, existing skill gaps and mismatches currently hamper the competitiveness of this sector, featured for

its importance in the European economy as a driver for sustainable growth, jobs and social cohesion.

Thanks to Skills4CMT, new sector-specific curricula and innovative forms of professional teaching were

developed to match the supply of skills with the demand of the labour market. The project aimed to make a

fundamental change to sector-specific skills development by improving the quality and digitalisation of thematic

higher education in coastal and maritime tourism, since investing in people is a condition for its sustainable and

competitive growth.

In this context,

European Universities alliances

also play an essential role. The Draghi Report

emphasises that “competitiveness today is less about relative labour costs and more about

knowledge and skills embodied in the labour force” while “labour shortages will be most

pronounced in high-skilled, non-manual occupations – i.e. those requiring high level of

education”

452

. In this context, the alliances can effectively support EU competitiveness and

attain EU critical mass of talent, offering access to several European higher education

institutions rather than just one institution. The European Universities also embody the Letta

Report fifth freedom vision and are seen as central for realising the ambition of opening both

learning and labour mobility in the European Single Market, necessary to fill skills and labour

market gaps and leverage its opportunities. As shown in a recent study on the Outcomes and

transformational potential of the European Universities initiative

453

, the European Universities

initiative is contributing to bridging skills gaps by equipping students with key future-proof

skills and competencies, including in key fields for Europe’s competitiveness and strategic

autonomy such as STEM, AI, clean technologies, energy, health, notably through student-

centred and challenge-based joint educational programmes, some leading to joint degrees,

flexible learning pathways, micro-credentials, etc. For example, the alliances boost visibility

and attractiveness of European education offer in engineering

454

, developing and testing a

general European engineer profile defining a set of high-level technical and scientific

competencies combined with environmental, social, and multicultural skills, integrating EU

values

455

and fit for the competitive global market. Alliances also play an important role for

452

453

M. Draghi, The future of EU competitiveness, part A, p. 36.

European Commission (2025), Report on the outcomes and transformational potential of the European

Universities

initiative

(https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/db43f6ca-da14-11ef-be2a-

01aa75ed71a1/language-en).

454

Fuchs, L., Cuevas-Garcia, C. and Bombaerts, G., ‘The societal role of universities and their alliances: the case of the

EuroTeQ Engineering University’, Tertiary Education Management, Vol. 29, 2023, pp. 263–277,

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-023-09126-x.

See also the Case study on TU Berlin - ENHANCE Alliance (HED, DE).

455

Frame, A., and Curyło, B., ‘Bringing Erasmus home: the European universities initiative as an example of

‘Everyday

Europeanhood’’,

Journal

Contemporary

European

Studies,

2023,

https://doi.org/10.1080/14782804.2022.2134986 67

120

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

lifelong learning, offering opportunities for re-skilling and upskilling, helping to meet the

demand for new skills

456

in the labour market, and engaging learners regardless of their previous

qualifications or backgrounds. This multiplies opportunities for students, offering them cutting-

edge trans- and inter-disciplinary education opportunities with embedded mobility, which

contribute to balanced knowledge flows and talent attraction. Their extended network of over

2 200 associated partners all across the EU and beyond allows those students, academics and

researchers to further

foster innovation in regions and cities, contributing to job creation

and competitive and attractive local economies,

balanced brain and talent mobility, while

interconnecting the ecosystems of the partner universities in different countries.

Last but not least, to ensure that the future generations have the right skills to address emerging

challenges, it is essential that teachers are well-equipped to handle skill gaps and technological

changes. The

Erasmus+ Teacher Academies

(KA2) promote excellence in teacher education

in Europe, tackling some of the most relevant issues in the teaching community. For example,

the Erasmus+ Teacher Academy ‘ContinueUp’ aims to support the development of digital

competences for teachers based on DigCompEdu and through a Massive Open Online Course

(MOOC) module; the Teacher Academy ‘acaSTEMy’ aims to develop a systemic support

structure for high-quality, research-based STEM teacher education, providing STEM teachers

with skills and competences to prepare students for their future careers; similarly, ICSE

Academy supports the EU’s endeavours to minimize the amount of low-performing STEM

learners investing in a high-quality STEM teacher workforce, becoming an international centre

for research and best practice exchange for innovative STEM pedagogy

457

4.3.3

•

Relevance to socio-economic needs of individuals and organisations

Individual level needs

Across both programming periods, Erasmus+ is considered successful in addressing the needs

of individuals from the various target groups. National Agencies and EACEA rate Erasmus+

learning mobility and KA2 activities

458

highly relevant for the majority of their target groups’

current and emerging needs. For learners, evidence from the NAs/EACEA survey suggests that

the needs and challenges faced by learners with fewer opportunities require further attention.

Consulted stakeholders highlighted the relevance of programme actions to the needs of

individuals in non-associated third countries through its international dimension. Interviews in

EU delegations or programme structures dealing with non-associated third countries (NEOs

and regional SALTOs) recognise that Erasmus+ contributes to the employability of young

people and graduates as mobility allows them to gain international experience, develop new

skills, and broaden their horizons. EU Delegations to Brazil, Bangladesh and Pakistan highlight

that Erasmus+ offers significant opportunities for vulnerable groups. There is also consensus

among consulted NEOs (Kosovo, Bosnia, Ukraine) and EU Delegations (Asian and African

countries) that Erasmus+ projects bring different perspectives to teaching and learning. They report

For example, the European University alliance ‘UNA Europa’ offers a micro-credential programme in

Sustainability which gives a holistic understanding of global sustainability challenges and how to address them

(https://www.una-europa.eu/study/microcredential-sustainability).

457

Case study Pädagogische Hochschule Freiburg (SCH, DE).

458

NA/EACEA survey, annex III of ICF study. Questions: i) To what extent are Erasmus+ mobility actions (KA1)

relevant to the current and emerging needs of the different target groups concerned? ii) To what extent are activities

under KA2 relevant to the current and emerging needs of the target groups concerned? iii) Do they address key

issues/needs the target groups are facing?’  Respondents were requested to evaluate the relevance of KA1 and

KA2 to the needs of specific target groups. Depending on their involvement with the various sectors, different

groups of respondents received different questions to make sure they only evaluate the actions’ relevance for target

groups in their sectors of activity.

456

121

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

that in higher education, professors can gain access to resources and exchange with professors

working in their fields of knowledge abroad, which directly influences the quality of teaching.

The majority of respondents to the public consultation agreed that Erasmus+ 2021-2027 is

successfully facilitating the

participation of people with fewer opportunities

facing various

barriers. This is confirmed by the increasing share of participants with fewer opportunities that

has risen from around 10% in the 2014-2020 programme to 15% in 2023. The highest level of

agreement concerns the success in facilitating the participation of people who face cultural

differences, social barriers, and economic barriers. Health problems and barriers linked to the

education and training system were considered to be the least positively handled, but still with

an overall level of agreement of around 60%. Overall, the views are positive but still pointing

to room for further strengthening the inclusivity of the programme.

Barriers faced by people with fewer opportunities

459

Interviewed stakeholders broadly acknowledged the enhanced focus and efforts to reach people

with fewer opportunities. Studies highlight the role of Erasmus+ for involving in learning

mobility school pupils with less favourable learning profiles who would otherwise not have the

chance of benefitting from such opportunities

460

. The use of blended learning and digital tools

is seen as a positive step to increase outreach. At the national level, stakeholders from several

countries noted that the 2021-2027 programme made significant efforts to encourage

participation among people with fewer opportunities, responding better to the needs of these

groups, compared to the previous period.

Financial barriers emerge as a key concern from the various stakeholder consultations as well,

further emphasised by the recent high inflation rates across Europe. These observations are

also underpinned in the national reports, with insufficient and sometimes ineffective support

for inclusion being discussed in 17 reports

461

. In the various consultations, financial barriers

Public consultation report, annex II of ICF study: Question ‘To what extent do you agree with the following

statements: Erasmus+ is an inclusive programme as it facilitates participation of people with fewer opportunities

facing the following barrier(s)’ (Respondents: N=1231).

460

S. Hornberg, M. Becker, N. Sonnenburg, M. Peitz, C. Schreiber (2025). Lernmobilität in Europa

(https://erasmusplus.schule/fileadmin/Dateien/Bilder/Dossiers/Politische_Papiere/2025_Hornberg_et_al_Zusam

menfassung_Studie_Lernmobilitaeten_Europa.pdf).

461

AT, BEfr, CY, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, IE, IT, LT, LU, MT, NL, NO, PL, SE.

459

122

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

are often mentioned in relation to other barriers, reinforcing the programme’s emphasis on the

correlations between the various difficulties.

Overall, the definition of people with fewer opportunities as provided in the inclusion and

diversity strategy is considered adequate. However, challenges were highlighted by

interviewed stakeholders in aligning the criteria for fewer opportunities across diverse contexts,

requiring further guidance in the application of the broad EU definition as well as on the

implementation and utilisation of the relevant indicators. For example, international key

informants stressed that the term ‘social inclusion’ may be understood differently in third

countries participating in the programme.

•

Organisation level needs

Public consultation respondents generally expressed positive views about the relevance of the

organisational-level specific objectives of the programme

462

. According to NAs/EACEA

survey

463

, the programme’s activities under KA2 and KA3 are the most relevant for education

and training, youth and sport organisations and, to a moderate extent, for many other types of

organisations, including social partners and civil society organisations. In the sport sector, the

need to further strengthened cooperation between grassroots sport organisations was addressed

through the new mobility activities available for sport staff since 2023.

The importance of promoting cooperation was further underlined by the socio-economic actors’

survey

464

. Across the different organisation types, the primary motivations for participating in

the programme included providing new opportunities for learners (80%), an interest in

cooperation with other European and third countries (78%), and a desire to establish

partnerships with organisations from other countries (75%).

At the same time, interviewees from European level stakeholder organisations perceived the

programme as being better oriented towards larger, better-resourced organisations as opposed

to smaller ones that would need more support. Limited engagement of smaller organisations,

particularly in KA2 projects, was also reported in the national reports from 15 countries

465

, due

to lack of administrative capacity or limited resources to manage complex project requirements.

The organisations interviewed in third countries not associated to the programme confirmed

that learner and institutional needs are addressed via Erasmus+, especially regarding

internationalisation, which remains a priority for many universities. In addition, they repeatedly

recognised Erasmus+ for its role in supporting institutional capacity-building across various

fields. This was particularly noted in African countries as well as in Georgia and Uzbekistan,

where the programme has significantly contributed to upgrading and modernising teaching

curricula. Policy stakeholders in these countries often use Erasmus+ to enhance their training

structures, pedagogical programmes, and mobility schemes.

10 National reports

466

explicitly mention the need to

enhance the programme’s flexibility and

adaptability to better meet evolving needs and challenges.

For instance, they highlight the

need for more flexibility in funding applications, based on the amount of funding requested to

462

463

Public consultation report, annex II of ICF study.

NAs/EACEA survey, annex III of ICF study. Question: ‘To what extent are activities under KA2 and KA3

relevant to the current and emerging needs of the following organisations? Do they address the key issues these

organisations are facing?’. 

464

Socio-economic actors survey, annex V of ICF study. Question: ‘What was the main motivation for your

organisation to participate in the programme?’.

465

BE, CY, DE, ES, HR, IE, IT, LT, LV, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, SK.

466

AT, BEde, BG, CY, DE, EE, ES, FI, HR, PL.

123

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

further promote inclusion, adapting the programme’s design to better cater to the diverse needs

of adult learners, or further exploiting blended intensive programmes (BIPs) as a suitable

format to support inclusion.

Furthermore, despite the strong support to programme focus on inclusion expressed in the

national reports from 28 countries

467

, 23 countries

468

underline that reaching out to people

with fewer opportunities is challenging. The identified challenges include the lack of awareness

about the programme, complex application procedures, financial barriers, uneven regional

participation, limited participation of small organisations in KA2 projects, insufficient, and

sometimes ineffective support for inclusion, cultural and linguistic barriers, psychological and

mental health concerns. The recommendations put forward in the national reports to address

these challenges include simplifying application procedures and reducing administrative

burdens, increasing targeted outreach and awareness campaigns, providing additional financial

support and resources for inclusion initiatives, developing more comprehensive support

systems, including mentoring and guidance and enhancing collaboration with local

organisations and stakeholders who are hard to reach.

HAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED

5.1 Conclusions

Across both programme generations, Erasmus+ has proven to be successful in delivering a

strong European added value, performing well

across key evaluation criteria.

However, the

conclusions presented below reflect the limitations in the evidence base, particularly in relation

to causality and efficiency, as detailed in Chapter 4. At the same time,

some areas could be

improved

for which the external support study made recommendations, focussing on:

Expanding the reach of the programme, to support greater inclusiveness and broader

international scope;

Enhancing management and implementation: proposed improvements to ease access,

simplify management, strengthen monitoring processes, including optimising related tools;

Increasing sustainability and scalability, through reinforced dissemination and exploitation

of results and synergies with other EU programmes;

Strengthening resilience through increased flexibility.

Erasmus+ 2014-2020

•

Effectiveness

Based on available (mainly qualitative) evidence,

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 has effectively

delivered on the expected outputs and results.

These have been achieved despite significant

disruptions from COVID-19 pandemic that heavily affected the end of the 2014-2020

programming period. The success of the programme lies both in the volume of mobilities, with

some 6.2 million mobility participants supported in the period 2014-2020,

and in the impact

generated including improvements in participants' skills, the advancements in organisations’

practices and influence on policies.

The 2014-2020 programme aligned well with relevant EU political priorities set for this

period,

advancing them either directly or indirectly. The priorities addressing jobs and growth

467

AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO,

SE, SI, SK.

468

AT, BE, BG, CY, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, SE, SK.

124

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

were at the core of the programme implementation, thanks to programme support to learning

mobility, the delivery of skills and competences for better employability and support to

education systems. The international dimension of the programme contributed to these

objectives, in addition to the priorities specifically focusing on strengthening Europe role as a

global actor. Priorities related to environmental themes, digital market, civil rights and rule of

law were addressed through a sectoral approach and registered increasing importance and

number of projects from year to year. Leveraging its role of education programme, Erasmus+

indirectly contributed to the migration policy priority, supporting the integration of newly

arriving immigrants. The promotion of fundamental values and multicultural dialogue was

further enhanced with the strong alignment to the Paris Declaration since 2016.

The programme activities have demonstrated effectiveness at the different levels of intervention,

with strong outcomes delivered through mobility activities and transnational partnerships.

•

At individual level:

the programme yielded significant benefit for individuals, generating

positive effects for learners’ skills development and supporting ability to learn, critical

thinking, resilience. Erasmus+ enhanced academic performance, with programme

participants experiencing better results than those who had not taken part in learning

mobility. Based on the available evidence, causal link can be identified in few instances in

relation to higher education student mobility, on the basis of national data, showing

improved graduation results for undergraduate students in STEM fields. Erasmus+ is found

effective to foster European identity and deepen knowledge on civic participation,

supporting the development of skills important for active citizenship, in particular through

the activities implemented in the youth field, where positive outcomes were reported across

most of its actions. Effects on individual participants appear sustained. For staff, across

various sectors, the programme enhanced international networking and fostered

transnational partnerships.

At organisational level:

the programme managed to effectively support quality

improvements in the participating organisations, fostering the creation of new practices and

methods. The establishment of organisational networks with the involvement of a large

number of different actors from diverse sectors helped create flow of knowledge between

educational organisations and business. KA1 staff mobility also contributed to reinforce

transnational cooperation, allowing to strengthen ties among organisations. There is

evidence of newly created partnerships, and the setup of internationalisation strategies

fostered by the programme activities. Outcomes for organisations appear sustained, even

though available evidence doesn’t allow to establish causal links and quantify impact as well

as the extent to which the partnerships formed as an effect of the participation in the

programme last over time.

At policy/systemic level:

programme objectives at systemic level were linked to Europe

2020 headline targets for education and ET2020 European benchmarks. Although no causal

link can be identified, the programme indirectly influenced the achievement of these targets

reaching a high number of learners through its activities and improving attractiveness of

higher education institutions, including via the piloting of initiatives with high

transformational impact, such as the European Universities alliances. Qualitative evidence

shows that the programme influenced policy changes with the integration of innovative

educational practices into national systems and triggered initiatives pursuing

professionalisation and recognition of youth work as an occupational qualification.

Although no precise quantification is possible due to the unavailable data, several spillover

effects can be observed at the system-level through cross-sectoral action or through the

evolution of actions and projects between programme generations. At the same time, while

systemic ‘spill-over’ effects demonstrate the extensive reach of Erasmus+ beyond individual

•

125

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

participants and organizations, challenges persist in upscaling successful project outcomes

and translating them into meaningful national changes.

•

Efficiency

The 2014-2020 programme funded around 160 000 projects for a total of EUR 17.5 billion.

Despite the 40% budget increase compared to its predecessor programmes,

the programme

was not able to fully address the high demand

across its different sectors, with low success

rates. In particular, the youth sector registered the lowest success rates across the different key

actions (32% for KA1, 17% for KA2, 31% for KA3 in 2020). It is estimated that around

EUR 8.9 billion would have been necessary to fund more than 44 000 quality projects which

were rejected for lack of funds.

The

management structure of Erasmus+ 2014-2020

relying on a combination of direct and

indirect management modes has

proven efficient and fit for purpose,

with overall good

coordination and communication mechanisms. The distribution of resources, accounting for

FTEs and administrative expenditure, appears balanced between both programme management

modes, considering the volume of budget and number of projects managed. Overall, the

administrative costs for the functioning of the implementing bodies appears reasonable,

considering the volume of implemented budget and linked tasks.

National Agencies have confirmed their key role in supporting the implementation of the

programme at national level,

shaping support activities on the basis on specific needs and

national priorities, and providing tailored assistance to participants and beneficiary

organisations during the project lifecycle. This role was particularly important during Covid-

19 pandemic and widely appreciated by stakeholders. The performance of most of the

administrative steps by National Agencies has generally seen improvements from year to year,

until the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, which had repercussions also on management

aspects. Despite improvements, on average the timely performance of final payments has

remained below 60%, requiring further improvements.

The 2014-2020 Erasmus+ programme showed cost-effectiveness,

although at varying levels

throughout its actions. KA1 (mobility) is confirmed to be highly cost-effective, providing high

benefits to a large number of learners and staff benefitting from learning mobility in Europe

and beyond. The limited availability of other similar interventions underscores its EU added

value. When – despite limitations - this comparison is carried out, the cost of the programme

appears highly competitive. The cost-effectiveness is further enhanced by the absence of significant

areas of inefficiencies, coupled with the use of simplified cost and high demand throughout sectors.

The cost-effectiveness of KA2 (cooperation) and KA3 (policy support) is more difficult to

evaluate as a whole, given the variety of outputs, both in terms of types and size, they deliver

across sectors. This, together with the predominance of qualitative evidence, limits the

possibility of generalising and providing strong conclusions at the level of key actions.

Nevertheless, KA2 has provided a strong contribution for the achievement of programme

results at organisational level, contributing to fostering international cooperation with third

countries in higher education and youth, reinforcing cooperation with business, enhancing

internationalisation, and improving learning and teaching methods, and leading to the creation

of organisational and professional networks. These benefits, coupled with the high demand, show

a good cost-effectiveness, despite the presence of some areas of inefficiencies identified in the

funding model and the complex management of one specific action (school exchange partnership

- indirect management), both addressed in the succeeding 2021-2027 programme generation.

A comprehensive assessment of KA3 cost-effectiveness is hindered by the highly diversified

character of these activities, made of multiple sub-actions with small budgetary envelopes as

126

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

well as by the predominance of qualitative evidence. Despite the small funding share they

represent (only 3% of the programme contracted grants), the available evidence shows that

these activities yielded substantial benefits generating systemic impact, supporting policy

objectives and fostering active citizenship. These activities are appreciated for their added value

due to their role in supporting EU policy coordination in programme fields, implementation of

EU tools, creation of networks, which would not be otherwise possible through national

interventions alone. This gives indications of reasonable cost-effectiveness.

The generalised use of unit cost in KA1, representing the biggest share of programme funding,

has enhanced the efficiency of the whole programme; however, the use of real cost under part

of KA2 and KA3 activities made the management and reporting complex both for beneficiaries

and implementing bodies, leading to some inefficiencies. The monitoring system of the

programme also showed some limitations due to inadequate coverage of specific areas of the

programme intervention, and difficulties to link the measurement of system level indicators to

the interventions, underscoring the need for a more refined and comprehensive approach (this

led amongst others to the development of a new monitoring and evaluation framework for the

2021-2027 successor programme).

•

Coherence

The programme confirms a good internal coherence, thanks to the strong learning dimension

informing its activities, functional to improve education, training, youth and sport systems for

the benefit of individuals and the creation of more skilled societies. The pilots for the Centres

of Vocational Excellence and the European Universities alliances in the last two years of the

programming period reinforced the cross-sectoral dimension of the programme, and appear

coherent with programme objectives.

The final evaluation also confirms the results of the interim evaluation regarding the high

external coherence of the programme. The 2014-2020 programme has been complementary

with other policy areas and funding instruments delivering on similar objectives, creating

synergies in particular with ESF and Horizon 2020. Compared to the mid-term evaluation,

synergies with other funding instruments have slightly increased.

•

EU added value

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 delivered

substantial European added value,

surpassing what could

have been achieved by individual countries operating at their national level through other

schemes. This is due to Erasmus+

unique framework for mobility, cooperation, and policy

development in the fields of education, training, youth and sport across Europe and

beyond.

With an average annual budget of EUR 2.6 in the period 2014-2020, and a MFF total

envelope of EUR 16.2 billion, including both Heading 1 and 4 budget, Erasmus+ 2014-2020

resulted unmatched in scale, scope, and ability to foster collaboration among diverse

beneficiaries, influencing processes in other EU programmes, in Member States and beyond.

The programme yielded added value for individuals and organisations who took part in it,

compared with those who did not. For individual participants, it contributed to academic

performance, to developing skills and competences, including soft skills, willingness to engage

in civic life. For beneficiary organisations, participation in Erasmus+ brought benefits in terms

of enhanced opportunities for cooperation across borders, creation of networks, enhanced

organisational development, and internationalisation.

In addition, Erasmus+ 2014-2020 was found to play an essential role in raising awareness of

shared EU values and EU topics, with stronger results in youth activities. Through Jean Monnet

127

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Activities, the programme supported the development and spreading of knowledge on European

integration matters for a better understanding of the functioning of the European Union.

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 conveyed added value through promoting EU policy cooperation and

coordination between EU Member States, fostering peer-learning and evidence-based policy

development, which would not be achievable through national resources alone. Furthermore,

added value was also conveyed through cooperation between Member States and third

countries associated to the programme, providing equal participation opportunities and

supporting some of these countries in their EU accession preparations. Although only limited

to the higher education and youth fields, the cooperation with non-associated third countries

facilitated cooperation with organisations across the world, contributed to build capacity and

to strengthen the EU’s role as global actor on the international scene.

•

Relevance

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 showed a good level of relevance with EU priorities and emerging

challenges, adapting well over time. The programme reacted well to the migration crisis of

those years, putting emphasis on intercultural dialogue and prevention of radicalisation,

supporting integration of refugees by leveraging the role of education. The increasing emphasis

on the digital transformation in the last years of programme implementation enabled the

programme to react more effectively to the challenges posed by Covid-19 pandemic. By

remaining increasingly relevant and adapting to the changing world, the programme paved the

way for its successor programme supporting measures that have become more and more

relevant over years. This was the case for example of the pilots for future flagship actions, for

digital tools like Selfie, and of blended mobilities, the latter introduced to face Covid-19

consequences for then becoming an embedded part of the successor programme.

•

Cross-cutting issues

Inclusion

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 performed well to promote equity and inclusion in the youth sector with

a high number of projects and support activities. This was possible thanks to the setup of a

dedicated strategy, tools and structures allowing to deploy dedicated support to youth

participants and organisations and to provide guidance to National Agencies. This

comprehensive set of measures proved effective allowing to reach 29% of participants with

special needs and fewer opportunities in the youth sector by 2020. The lack of a harmonised

definition, approach and strategy at programme level however limited the possibility to enhance

the participation of people with special needs and fewer opportunities in the education and

training sectors too. The approach remained largely sectoral, with the youth sector being the

most equipped to address inclusion challenges.

Response to unforeseen events

During the 2014-2020 programming period, several unforeseen events influenced its

implementation, triggering response and adaptation. The programme showed flexibility to react

to 2015 terrorist attacks and the refugee crises that became salient in the same year,

incorporating the March 2015 Paris Declaration as a new priority area and reinforcing its focus

on the promotion of tolerance, non-discrimination, social inclusion and on the prevention of

radicalisation leading to violent extremisms. During the same period, the uncertainty generated

by Brexit determined a significant decrease in the number of both outbound and inbound

mobilities from the UK. The withdrawal agreement guaranteed that all projects could continue

until their completion and that the UK could continue participating as a fully-fledged

programme country until the end of the programming period. This mitigated somehow the

128

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

impact on the programme, which only registered a minor decrease in the number of UK

organisations. The 2014-2020 programme reacted promptly to the outbreak of Covid-19

pandemic adopting swift measures to support participants and organisations, showing

flexibility and adaptation, which was judged positively by stakeholders.

Erasmus+ 2021-2027

•

Effectiveness

With around 1.6 million participants who completed their mobility in the period 2021-2023,

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 is on track to meet its key outputs, results, and impacts.

Most of the

expected outputs and results show good progress to achieve their targets, despite the significant

disruptions from Covid-19 pandemic in the initial rollout of the 2021-2027 programme.

At an early stage of implementation, the 2021-2027 programme shows good progress in

supporting skills development, fostering EU values and sense of belonging, advancing

organisations’ practices and influencing policies.

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 aligns well with the 2019-2024

EU political priorities

and has made an

important contribution to advancing them, including at international level. The four horizontal

priorities of the 2021-2027 programme have positively influenced systems and norms among

participants and organisations. Particularly, the Programme managed to deliver on

inclusion,

with an increasing participation of people with fewer opportunities arising from around 10% in

the 2014-2020 programme to 15% in 2023. Additionally, the programme has increased

awareness and engagement around inclusion and diversity across participants and

organisations.

Digital transformation

efforts have supported participants’ digital skill

development and promoted the digital evolution of education systems, even if the needs are

still high, especially to support digital skills development. The

green transition

priority has

increased environmental awareness and encouraged sustainable travel, though results in climate

action and carbon footprint reduction remain somewhat limited. Efforts to foster

democratic

engagement

have led to greater civic awareness and commitment to democratic values among

participants.

KA1 (learning mobility) and KA2 (cooperation among organisations) have demonstrated

effectiveness, with strong outcomes in mobility and partnerships, while KA3 (policy support)

is seen as somewhat less impactful on individuals and organisations, but valuable in fostering

sector-wide benefits. Jean Monnet Actions effectively promote EU knowledge, civic

engagement, and cross-national academic dialogue.

The strong continuity of most

programme actions between programming periods is assessed as a strength, allowing

stability in the management and implementation.

Although at mid-term it is too early to

make assumptions on impact, it can be anticipated that the effects of the 2014-2020 programme

will carry on with the current programme, likely in a more positive and sustainable manner,

particularly on organisations and systems.

•

At individual level:

Erasmus+ yields significant added value for individuals, including

participants with fewer opportunities. The programme continues delivering on learners’

skills development and supporting learners' ability to learn, critical thinking, resilience.

For staff, across various sectors, the programme enhances international networking and

fosters transnational partnerships. At this stage, the programme shows very positive results

in fostering a sense of European identity and belonging, raising awareness of EU common

values and on increasing knowledge for European integration.

At organisational level:

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 is progressing well in view of driving

improvements for participating organisations, enhancing internationalisation, expanding

networks, and supporting increased organisational capacity across Europe and beyond.

129

•

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

•

Notably, smaller organisations often experience the most substantial benefits, and

organisations in the education, training, youth, and sport sectors report durable benefits

from their participation.

At system level:

The 2021-2027 programme shows progress towards contributing to EU

policy development, strategies and cooperation in education and training, youth and sport,

providing significant contribution to building the European Education Area, and

supporting the Skills Agenda and European Pillar of Social Rights.

•

Efficiency

In continuity with the previous programming period, the

Erasmus+ management structure,

with its mix of direct and indirect management modes, confirms its efficiency and

appreciation by stakeholders.

The performance of National Agencies has seen improvements

compared to the previous programming period, despite Covid-19 impact at the start of the

programme implementation. The introduction of the

Erasmus Accreditation

in the VET,

school education, adult education and youth sectors has reduced costs for the assessment of the

KA1 proposals and time required for project selection, as well as for submitting grant requests.

Simplified grant forms have reduced administrative burdens and are viewed positively,

although further guidance and

simplification of procedures

are needed to enhance efficiency.

The IT landscape for actions under indirect management experienced issues until the end of

2023, requiring corrective actions, which should be continued.

The interim evaluation highlights the need for additional funding to fully reach the

programme’s objectives and especially for engaging participants with fewer

opportunities.

It is estimated that, in the period 2021-2023, EUR 5 billion of additional budget

would have been needed to fund around 29 400 quality proposals which were rejected for lack

of funds. Flexibility in budget management has been increased in the current programme

compared to its predecessor, allowing National Agencies to perform greater transfers among

actions under indirect management to ensure optimal absorption. Stakeholders would welcome

even greater flexibility in budget allocation.

The 2021-2027 Erasmus+ programme demonstrates a

commendable, albeit varying, level of

efficiency across its key actions. KA1 shows high cost-effectiveness,

with clear connections

between mobility activities and resulting benefits for both learners and staff involved. The key

action’s evident European added value is coupled with the absence of significant inefficiencies.

The cost-effectiveness of mobility activities has improved since the previous programming

period, even with COVID-19 mobility restrictions. Demand for mobility surged once activities

resumed, raising concerns about whether the programme’s budget is sufficient to meet its

ambitious objectives and demand for funding across various sectors. The extended

accreditation scheme beyond higher education and VET has simplified access to funding and

reduced cost and administrative burdens, contributing to increase the cost-effectiveness of

KA1. Conversely, the cost-effectiveness of activities under KA2, KA3 and Jean Monnet

Actions is more difficult to evaluate given the multi-faceted type of outputs they deliver.

Overall, the assessment didn’t show areas of inefficiency, suggesting an extension of the lump

sum model to further improve cost-effectiveness.

•

Coherence

The Erasmus+ 2021-2027 programme has significantly improved both its

internal and

external coherence

compared to the previous programming period.

With its three key actions, and blend of direct and indirect management, the 2021-2027

Erasmus+ programme has a clear and

well-structured design

that aligns well with its

objectives and supports strong cross-sectorial cooperation. The role and place of KA2 show

130

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

coherence with the programme intervention logic, but challenges emerge to support the

sustainability of its tangible outputs. The collaboration process fostered by KA2 activities is

highlighted for its importance to meet programme objectives, as it can lead to the establishment

of an extended community of practitioners.

Coherence would still be improved by addressing the separate handling of Jean Monnet

Actions, which occasionally leads to confusion among stakeholders.

Erasmus+ has

high external coherence

with other interventions addressing education, training

youth and sport at EU, national or international level. Among EU programmes with

complementary objectives, ESF+, Horizon Europe and Interreg show the highest potential for

synergies with Erasmus+. Although opportunities for synergies have been reinforced under the

2021-2027 programming period, so far they still appear underutilized. The evaluation identifies

further opportunities for enhancing external coherence, particularly in relation to the European

Solidarity Corps programme, which presents risks of overlaps.

•

European added value

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 delivers

substantial and undisputed European added value,

significantly surpassing what could be achieved by individual countries at national or

international levels. Erasmus+ stands out from other education and training support schemes

due to its

unique and consistent framework for mobility, cooperation, and policy

development across Europe and beyond.

The programme is unmatched in scale, scope, and

ability to foster collaboration among diverse beneficiaries.

The 2021-2027 programme has enhanced its added value compared to the previous

programming period, covering target groups (such as adult learners and sport staff) not

otherwise addressed under other types of interventions, effectively addressing emerging needs

and expanding its reach. The discontinuation of certain actions between the two programming

periods has not diminished the programme's overall value.

Erasmus+ is found to yield significant added value for individuals and organisations who take

part in the programme, compared with those who do not. For individual participants, Erasmus+

contributes to skills development, including transversal skills such as intercultural awareness,

self-confidence, problem-solving skills, autonomy. For beneficiary organisations, participation

in Erasmus+ brings benefits in terms of enhanced opportunities for cooperation across borders,

capacity building and quality, organisational development and internationalisation.

In addition, Erasmus+ is found to play an essential role in promoting shared EU values,

intercultural understanding and fostering a European sense of belonging. For example, through

Jean Monnet Actions, the programme supports the development of knowledge of European

integration matters and supports understanding of the functioning of the European Union,

beyond the academic environment, reaching schools and the younger generations.

Erasmus+ also conveys added value through promoting cooperation between EU Member

States and third countries associated to the programme, providing equal participation

opportunities and supporting some of these countries in their EU accession preparations. The

cooperation with non-associated third countries has extended compared to the 2014-2020

programme. Although more limited compared to other programme dimensions, the

international dimension facilitates cooperation with organisations across the world, contributes

to build capacity in many countries and to strengthen the EU’s international relations on a

global scale. Erasmus+ contributes to the EU’s public diplomacy and to promoting EU values

and views globally.

Discontinuing the Erasmus+ programme would have massive and detrimental consequences.

Annually, the programme currently provides in average around EUR 4 billion in funding for

131

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

education, training, youth, and sport, supporting activities which would be drastically reduced

or - in some countries/sectors - completely non-existent without it. Support for learning

mobility, cross border cooperation and internationalisation would be severely limited.

•

Relevance

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 is seen as highly

relevant to the socio-economic needs and challenges

in Europe, reflecting both high-level EU priorities and emerging issues from recent crises,

doing better than its predecessor in this regard.

The four overarching priorities introduced in the 2021-2027 programme are widely viewed as

relevant at both European and national levels and highly contributed to enhancing Erasmus+

alignment with EU priorities; the programme places a strong emphasis on the

digital and green

transition,

successfully supporting the development of digital and green skills and the

digitalisation and greening of education systems in all sectors. The programme took on board

the increasing emphasis on digitalisation, including in response to the consequence of Covid-

19 pandemic, which further boosted blended mobility and the uptake of self-reflection tools for

assessing digital competences of teachers. However, the evaluation noted that a more balanced

approach across all four priorities would increase their impact. Erasmus+ is also found to be

highly

responsive

to the diverse

needs of its participants and beneficiary organisations

across the various sectors,

although larger, better-resourced organisations often find it easier

to navigate the funding and application processes. Further efforts for greater accessibility and

inclusiveness are needed.

The programme is also responding to emerging needs related to new challenges posed by

technological developments, in particular the emergence of generative artificial intelligence

and the provision of skills to support EU competitiveness. The number of projects and

initiatives tackling artificial intelligence as well as the themes of digital safety and digital well-

being is increasing over years. Similarly, the programme is investing in supporting the

development of skills needed to provide the EU single market and industrial sectors with the

skills needed to boost EU competitiveness, as highlighted in Draghi and Letta reports. The

funding of learning mobility, at the heart of the programme, appears key in this sense and proof

of continuous relevance.

Erasmus+ wide recognition and awareness remains higher in higher education; more

targeted

communication strategies

are needed to raise awareness on opportunities for all sectors, and

to promote access to categories of individuals and organisations with lower participation levels.

•

Cross-cutting issues

Inclusion

The evaluation indicates significant progress in embedding inclusion and diversity in the 2021-

2027 programme, across all sectors and actions. Following the adoption of its framework of

inclusion measures, the programme put in place mechanisms, including additional funding, to

support the inclusion of individuals with fewer opportunities, whose participation has increased

during 2021-2023 period compared to the previous programme. The introduction of this

framework is assessed positively as it enabled more structured outreach to more participants

with fewer opportunities, with benefits in terms of personal development and skills acquisition,

in particular for those facing cultural or economic barriers. Challenges persist in reaching

specific target groups; recommendations include increasing guidance on inclusion definitions,

improving data collection methodologies, sharing best practices, and stepping up funding for

actions benefiting underrepresented participants.

132

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Response to unforeseen events

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 has demonstrated resilience and adaptability in responding to significant

external challenges. The start of the programming period was heavily affected by

Covid-19

pandemic

with all 2021 mobility being impacted. The response of the programme included

mitigating and flexibility measures, continuing from the previous programme, was found

effective and appreciated by stakeholders.

Rising inflation

also negatively affected the first years of the 2021-2027 programme

implementation, while the impact of

Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine

was lower.

The programme was able to respond and adapt quickly thanks to flexibility in its

implementation and enhanced support mechanisms. It showed resilience and adaptability

through digitalisation, online collaboration, and the development of new formats such as

blended mobilities; it adjusted the rates of individual support for 2023 call for proposals to

cushion inflation, it refocused project activities and opened mobility schemes to incoming

participants from Ukraine in all fields of education and training. Only the programme’s

response to inflationary pressures was considered less effective as stakeholders found that

Erasmus+ grants were not sufficiently rapidly adjusted to rising inflation rates.

Future improvements could include more flexible financial planning mechanisms and greater

operational flexibility for beneficiary organisations.

International Dimension

Erasmus+ plays a crucial role in fostering cooperation between EU Member States and third

countries not associated to the programme, contributing to institutional development and

capacity building. While its international dimension has become more significant, with

increased opportunities, there is still potential for strengthening this aspect to bolster the EU’s

global influence amid increasing geopolitical uncertainties. Recommendations include further

reinforcing the international dimension of the programme, by supporting international mobility

and cooperation with non-associated third countries through programme actions, as well as by

pursuing synergies with the relevant EU external action instruments and strategies, such as the

Global Gateway or A new Agenda for the Mediterranean.

5.2 Lessons learned

The final and the interim evaluations have identified several topics to inform and support

improvements to the programme. These lessons will be at the core of an

action plan

to be

approved at senior management board level, once this evaluation is adopted and regularly

monitor through set milestones, in line with its internal procedures.

5.2.1. Programme activities

The consistent programme architecture between the 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 periods and the

horizontal priorities introduced in the latter programming period have proven effective. This

has allowed for continued exposure to similar types of interventions over time, fostering

stronger results and impacts and increasing the programme’s contribution to broader EU

priorities. Both the direct and the indirect management mechanisms are effective in supporting

the programme’s objectives, contributing as well to its flexibility in addressing unexpected

challenges.

Despite the clear progress made in making the programme more

inclusive,

evidence shows

some still existing barriers to the participation of people with fewer opportunities. A number

of measures and mechanisms have been implemented and brought positive results in the 2021-

2027 period. Their regular review and close monitoring by both the Commission and the

133

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

National Agencies are recommended by the external support study. Erasmus+ should keep

addressing

accessibility

challenges, continuing to expand its reach to participants with fewer

opportunities. Further clarifying definitions of people with fewer opportunities and providing clearer

guidance on the measures available to support their participation would also enhance inclusivity.

While digital transformation efforts have supported participants’ digital skill development and

promoted the digital evolution of education systems, the needs are still high. Considerations

should thus be given to further enhance the digital dimension and especially digital skills.

The evaluation identified opportunities to

improve coherence with the European Solidarity

Corps.

A more in-depth analysis is needed to identify ways to address potential overlaps,

improve overall efficiency and increase clarity for stakeholders. More in general, the

establishment of clear coordination, cooperation, and communication mechanisms is a key

endeavour to enable complementary funding and

strengthen synergies

between Erasmus+ and

other EU, national, and regional programmes. Ensuring a wider and systematic dissemination

of good practices, both at level of projects and implementation practices, could facilitate

synergies among funding instruments and foster projects’ upscaling. The evaluation also

identified needs for simplifying alternative funding, facilitating transfer of funds between

instruments and breaking down barriers between different operational modes and funding rules

to build more synergies with other instruments.

There is scope to refine the

focus of some actions.

KA2 has a justified role within Erasmus+,

offering funding opportunities producing organisational level impact. However, measures

should be considered to enhance impact of produced outputs and their sustainability post-

funding, including by re-evaluating the emphasis placed on tangible outputs

versus

the value

of the collaborative process that drives innovation.

The evaluation shows the

international added value

of the programme, essential for

promoting EU values, intercultural learning, raising awareness of democratic and active

participation but also facilitating peer learning and bringing European expertise in the fields of

education, training, youth and sport to other regions. As per the recommendation of the external

study, Erasmus+ could consider

widening its cooperation with non-EU countries,

enabling

more international cooperation with and learning mobility from and to third countries not

associated to the programme. It could also significantly contribute to the preparedness and

integration of accession countries, with support to capacity building, knowledge-sharing, and

management of EU funds, contributing as well to the positive perception of the EU, as

highlighted in the evaluation findings. Furthermore, increased mobility experiences and

cooperation opportunities between EU Member States and industrialised third countries could

strongly contribute to strengthening EU competitiveness.

Erasmus+ is a well-known EU programme. However, further efforts are needed to

increase

the visibility

of the opportunities it offers. Outreach could be further improved by sharing and

better targeting information about the programme to reach out to new participants and

organisations across all sectors. The process of

disseminating and exploiting project results

would require a greater focus to ensure more effective uptake and long-term impact. In the

future, the programme should invest in mechanisms that ensure project results are further

shared and promoted, enabling future projects to build to a greater extent on existing

achievements, rather than duplicating efforts and recreating the same outcomes. Such an

approach could not only foster innovation and continuous improvement but also ensure a more

efficient and strategic use of EU funds. Improvements are needed as well to extend the reach beyond

immediate beneficiaries, thereby contributing to greater visibility, sustainability, and overall impact.

The current programme has undergone significant

simplification.

However, administrative

burden remains a barrier to participation and the programme is still perceived as better oriented

134

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

towards larger, more-resourced organisations. Improvements should be focused on offering an

even more user-friendly and streamlined programme. Simpler reporting procedures, less

administrative burden and a streamlined set of rules across the various actions and fields should

be assessed to

simplify access for small and newcomer organisations.

Further support is needed

through guidance and training on the lump sum system, not fully understood by some beneficiaries.

The rollout of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 introduced an entirely new

IT landscape.

For actions

under indirect management, the evaluation highlights important issues which affected the

functioning of the IT tools. Building on the efforts made to gradually introduce qualitative

improvements, it is crucial that the IT infrastructure remains a key priority for the successful

continuation of the current programme and for its successor, ensuring continuity, stability, high

performance, and alignment with simplification and user-friendliness objectives.

5.2.2. Monitoring and evaluation arrangements

Several lessons have emerged as well regarding the

regular monitoring, evaluation and data

availability.

The adoption of the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework in 2023 for Erasmus+

2021-2027 has been appreciated by stakeholders as it streamlined the measures for its regular

monitoring, providing a set of additional indicators on key areas of programme performance.

While the interim evaluation of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 highlights notable improvements of the

monitoring framework compared to the previous programme, some indicators remain of not

easy measurement. The absence of indicators for the Jean Monnet Actions makes it challenging

to fully evaluate their performance based on targets. Existing monitoring data are not sufficient

to measure the causal link of Erasmus+ activities on its outcome, so that the evaluation of the

Erasmus+ activities is difficult to conduct. Both the final and interim evaluations have

highlighted these challenges, which need to be addressed in view of the final evaluation of

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 and any future evaluation.

National reports on the implementation and impact of Erasmus+ have provided a wealth of data

and analyses from national perspectives, representing a great added value for this evaluation.

However, the variety of activities and analytical methods at the basis of these reports limit their

full comparability and consolidation. The final evaluation of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 would

benefit from redefining the role of these reports, emphasizing the need for more comparable

and methodologically robust studies. National Authorities could be encouraged to design

impact analyses using representative sample sizes and to expand the use of counterfactual

methodologies at the country level. This action could be performed with support of the

Expert

Group on the 2021-2027 Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps programmes,

which would

provide the forum for discussing indicators for future evaluations and needs for additional data

collections to feed impact indicators. The group could also support the preparation of structured

guidance to National Authorities for the preparation of national reports, through harmonised and agreed

methods and data collections, ensuring comparability and cross-country analyses.

As part of their tasks, National Agencies carry out a number of studies, survey and reports.

However, almost none of these studies could be retained in the final list of papers used for the

three meta-analyses carried out for this evaluation. The meta-analyses also highlighted research

gaps in areas of great relevance for Erasmus+. The lack of quantitative research papers on the

topic of EU values, making use of data directly linked to both the 2014-2020 and the 2021-

2027 programming periods, limited the possibility of exploiting the outcomes on this topic for

both the final and the interim evaluations. Another major gap highlighted by the meta-analyses

concerns the difficult of assessing and quantifying the programme impact on employability,

career prospects and labour market outcomes. For higher education student mobility, which

represents the biggest portion of Erasmus+ budget, this gap stems from the lack of unique

identifiers that would enable linking Erasmus+ applicant data to other administrative sources,

135

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

such as employment records, across Member States and associated countries, which are

essential for tracking long-term outcomes. In addition, the assessment of the organisational and

system level impact of the programme was also limited by lack of quantitative data and studies

with contrafactual methodologies on the outcomes generated by these dimensions of the

programme. Reflection is needed on how to close these gaps and ensure a sound assessment of

programme impact and higher usability of the evidence-base activities carried out by National

Agencies for the evaluation of the programme. Monitoring and evaluation activities conducted

by National Agencies should be better coordinated, drawing on the existing RAY network in

the field of youth. The RIA-AE

469

network, recently established by National Agencies to

coordinate evidence base research activities in the adult education sector, represents a good

practice to be further expanded across fields. The existing working groups gathering

Commission and National Agencies’ representatives will tackle this issue as a follow up to this

evaluation indicatively as from 2026 to ensure that coordinated analyses can take place across

all programme fields, with appropriate methodologies and adequate timing to feed the impact

analysis of the final evaluation for the three levels of intervention of the programme. While

administrative data connections are essential for tracking long-term outcomes at individual

level and cannot be easily replaced by systematic surveys due to limitations in coverage and

the high costs involved, in the short term, surveys could still serve as an interim measure until

more robust data-linking mechanisms are in place. Therefore, regular survey activities

involving both participants and non-participants, facilitated through their respective

organisations and coordinated by National Agencies, in cooperation and under supervision

from EAC, should also be implemented to enrich the evaluation process, ensure cross-country

contrafactual analyses and provide more comprehensive impact analyses.

A more systematic and structured approach to reporting is also needed to ensure easy access to

up-to-date data and information, in particular for key action 2 and key action 3 activities. The

enhanced reporting should include both quantitative and qualitative data on achievements,

outcomes and challenges experienced by funded projects, and complemented by examples of

best practices to strengthen accountability and drive policy results. A review of application

forms and final reports of programme actions is already on-going. This review aims to facilitate

data extraction and to reinforce the monitoring of project results in particular for key action 2

activities, where less data is currently available. This exercise will also support the feeding of

the two impact indicators established through Commission Delegated Regulation (EU)

2023/2710, with regular quantitative data.

Furthermore, the setup of a

resource centre

will be explored to systematically tackle the

monitoring, survey design, data collection for impact evaluation and analysis of the impact of

the programme. The resource centre could be operational as from 2028 and work in close

cooperation with and under supervision of Commission services, creating the link between the

EU level evaluation (Commission) and national level impact analyses (National Agencies and

National Authorities), supporting them with guidelines and expertise through a university-

based team of researchers. The resource centre could also support the coordination of activities

and analyses aiming to feed the final evaluation of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 and coordinate the

execution of longitudinal studies based on follow-up surveys addressing participants and non-

participants, ideally at 1, 3, and 5 years post-application.

Furthermore, the following additional options as well as options for improving analysis of costs

in the final evaluation will be explored in the mid-term to support the preparation of final

evaluation of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 and enable further steps for the establishment of a long-term

strategy based on comprehensive data strategy, thereby moving away from

ad hoc

data collection

469

Research-based Impact Analysis of Erasmus+ Adult Education programmes. Founded in 2022, the network

counts NAs from 15 Member States and Türkiye at the beginning of 2024.

136

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

for each evaluation. The set up of these activities may indicatively kick off in 2026 on the basis

of a roadmap included in the action plan that EAC will approve as a follow up to this evaluation:

•

Carrying out counterfactual studies at national level and meta-analyses of

Erasmus+ effectiveness, at individual and organisational level:

as outlined above, it

is essential to conduct counterfactual analyses to assess the effectiveness of Erasmus+

and the causality of the intervention. To complement and enhance the evidence-based

activities carried out by National Agencies, national-level studies could be carried out

on a limited but representative sample of institutions by university consortia, based on

gaps identified in existing research. Where feasible, cross-country comparisons through

meta-analyses could be carried out to enhance the robustness of findings and enable

generalisations of findings at transnational/programme level.

Feasibility study on data availability and integration, linking education data with

data on labour market outcomes:

the study will serve as a basis to identify data

sources within the Erasmus+ data platforms for direct and indirect management actions

and assess feasibility of linking Erasmus+ participant data with participants’ labour

market outcomes in Member States and associated countries. The study may also

address data availability for tracking costs.

Feasibility study on how to collect data not only on Erasmus+ participants but also

achieve a representative sample of non-participants

which are in their characteristics

close to Erasmus+ participants. Reaching out to non-participants is key for any future

impact evaluation. The feasibility study would focus on how the data could be collected

to reach representative samples, which incentives could be used, which variables would

need to be collected and identify the most feasible data collector.

•

In the context of the preparation of the post-2027 programming period and the evaluations of a

successor programme, reflection is on-going on a set of additional long-term measures, aiming

to provide a strategic and more systematic approach to enhance programme data collection,

integration, and analysis. These measures could build on a series of targeted options to enable

integrated data analysis complementing the current evidence base. The options currently under

reflection are:

Assess potential changes of the Erasmus+ application and reporting system

to reinforce

data collection at individual level, i.e. track all individual applicants for learning mobility

activities achieving longitudinal samples, regardless of funding status (i.e. both selected

and non-selected mobility participants).

Expanding Data Collection from Erasmus+ individual mobility applicants:

depending

on the outcomes of the feasibility study explored at mid-term, a modification of the

Erasmus+ application process could be implemented in the post-2027 programme to track

both selected and non-selected individual mobility applicants for causal impact assessment.

Follow-up surveys at 1, 3, and 5 years post-application could be carried out using data

directly stored in the programme tools (instead of those stored in organisations’ databases).

Introducing Unique Identifiers in Erasmus+ Applications (e.g. Social Security

Number for individuals, VAT for companies):

this option is a pre-condition to link

students/learners outcomes to labour market databases, and quantify Erasmus+ impact on

employability based on administrative data. Its potential implementation would be linked

to a feasibility study on regulatory and technical aspects of collecting and securely storing

unique identifiers at the level of individuals and organisations, and the development of

encryption and storage protocols.

Policy engagement and roundtables on data sharing in view of linking mobility data

to labour market outcomes:

linking data on Erasmus+ learning mobility participants with

labour market databases will require close collaboration with Member States and associated

137

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

third countries, inter-institutional cooperation, policy and financial support. To this aim,

consideration will be given to the organization of technical as well as ministerial-level

roundtables to discuss data-sharing frameworks. The Expert Group on Erasmus+ and

European Solidarity Corps programmes could provide an initial forum to test the feasibility

of this projects, while raising attention on the challenges and needs, to be carried out with

interlocutors at different levels and from different institutions depending on the country.

Further established cooperation with Member States and associated third countries, the

feasibility of data-sharing should be tested and pilot projects should be conducted.

Simplifying counterfactual analysis through interoperable data frameworks.

enhance counterfactual analysis while reducing administrative burden, it could be explored

the implementation of interoperable data collection and storage approaches that minimize

reporting requirements for Member States. This decentralized approach would align with

GDPR compliance, ensuring data privacy while maintaining analytical flexibility. By

allowing on-demand access to harmonized data without requiring direct transfers, the

system would simplify evaluation processes and reduce duplication of reporting efforts.

Technical feasibility, legal frameworks, and implementation challenges should be assessed

as a preliminary step.

138

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

NNEX

I: P

ROCEDURAL

NFORMATION

The interim evaluation of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 and the final evaluation of the predecessor programme (Decide reference: PLAN/2022/281) have been

steered by Directorate-General Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (DG EAC) since May 2022

470

under the scrutiny of an inter-service group (ISG)

comprising of representatives of 15 DG (BUDG, SJ, SG, CLIMA, CNECT, EMPL, ENV, INTPA, JRC, JUST, MARE, MOVE, NEAR, RTD and REGIO).

The ISG was consulted at each stage of the evaluation process and reviewed each deliverable produced by the contractor as well as this SWD. Overall,

nine ISG meetings

took place as well as several written consultations on key outputs of the evaluation work, such as: 1) Guidelines for the National reports

on the implementation and impact of Erasmus+; 2) text of the publication consultation; 3) factual summary report of the public consultation; 4) Synopsis

report; 5) Synthesis of National Reports (‘Synthesis report’).

The first ISG meeting took place on 31 May 2022 to get a common understanding of what the evaluation should deliver as well as to discuss the evaluation

mandate, the distribution of roles and tasks, the evaluation timetable and the draft call for evidence. Following this meeting, the Call for evidence was

published on 28 July until 12 September 2022 for seven weeks and received 195 individual replies. The ISG met again on 29 September 2022 to discuss

the Technical Specifications (including the intervention logic and the evaluation questions) for the external consultancy study supporting the evaluation

work.

In total, six ISG meetings focused on the supporting study and the key deliverables foreseen under the service contract signed with ICF:

23 March 2023: kick-off meeting with ICF

23 May 2023: inception report

13 October 2023: first interim report

15 March 2024: second interim report

1 July 2024: draft final report

9 September 2024: final report

The ISG met last on 8 November 2024 to discuss the draft Commission’s evaluation report (SWD) before submission to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board

(RSB).

470

Ares(2022)3394783.

139

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

No exception from the usual procedural requirements of the better regulation guidelines was requested for this evaluation.

This evaluation is based on evidence gathered via different channels and an overview is presented in Annexes II and III. The main sources of evidence

are internal analyses by the European Commission, reports submitted by the Erasmus+ national authorities on the implementation and impact of

Erasmus+ in their territories (‘national reports’), analysis and reports by other European Institutions and by the external evaluator who worked on the

supporting study, carried out between 2023 and 2024.

CONSULTATION OF THE RSB

A meeting with the RSB took place on 29 January 2024. Following this meeting, the RSB provided a series of comments requiring revision of the draft

SWD, with re-submission to the RSB on 16 April 2025. A positive opinion with reservations was issued on 19 May 2025 highlighting some areas of

improvements.

The changes introduced in the draft SWD to address RSB observations are described in the table below.

What to improve (RSB comments)

(1) The overall conclusions remain overly far reaching and positive, given the

acknowledged evidence gaps. The conclusions should fully reflect

(un)available evidence base regarding effectiveness (limited demonstration

and causal attribution of benefits) and efficiency (no monetisation of benefits,

incomplete account of costs) of the programme.

(2) The report should be clear about the robustness of evidence used and

related limitations. It should distinguish those statements and conclusions

which build solely or primarily on opinion stakeholder data, self-assessment

survey data and those which are underpinned by counterfactual methodology

based on observational data, and on limitations linked to the methodology

such as limited external validity.

How and where comments have been addressed

A statement has been added at the beginning of section 5.1, while conclusions have

been revised to take further account of the caveats stated in section 1.1.4.

(3) The benefits at the organisational and systemic/policy levels should be

systematically critically analysed beyond selective evidence from several

case studies. The results and impacts should be better operationalised to

reflect organisational learning (improving quality, changes of methodologies,

pedagogies, practice and content) and policy-level improvements based on

supported activities such as policy experimentation and evidence-based

The caveats described in section 1.1.4 have been recalled where relevant in the

analysis of both the effectiveness and efficiency criteria. The type of sources

supporting the evidence base (e.g. studies, surveys, case studies, interviews,

programme data) is stated at each occurrence either in the text or in the footnotes.

Additional clarifications either in the text or in footnotes have been added, where

relevant, on findings that are only based on qualitative evidence, stakeholder

perceptions or surveys with non-contrafactual methodology (see e.g. section 4.1.1,

4.1.1.2, 4.1.1.3, 4.1.1.4…).

Operational definitions of organisational and system level impact have been added at

the beginning of sections 4.1.1.3 and 4.1.1.4 to further clarify what should be

expected in terms of analysis and outcomes.

The evidence collected in the support study from the external evaluator on these

dimensions, in great part qualitative and opinion based, was further complemented

with programme data and a more in-depth literature review, covering additional

140

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

What to improve (RSB comments)

approaches. The methodology of the evaluation should allow to assess the

identified causal links between activities, results, impacts and progress on the

objectives including of sustainability of benefits at least in quantitative terms.

(4) The cost-effectiveness analysis fails to move beyond a qualitative,

perception-based narrative. The report should be transparent that the absence

of quantitative efficiency analysis does not allow efficiency and value for

money to be demonstrated.

(5) The analysis of relevance should better capture the evolving needs

regarding skills, in particular regarding competitiveness, AI and technology

developments, and what it means for the objectives and design of the

programme.

(6) A clear implementation roadmap for outlined monitoring and evaluation

framework improvements should be included in view of the upcoming 2021-

2027 final evolution. The lessons learned on evaluation and monitoring

should be developed in relation to data and methods to allow for assessing

effectiveness of staff mobility, and interventions at organisational and

systemic/policy levels. The lessons regarding collection of data on costs to

beneficiary organisations should be added.

How and where comments have been addressed

studies and policy documents on top of those exploited by the Contractor. However,

given the lack of administrative data on these dimensions of the programme, at this

stage it is not possible to collect further data and produce additional analyses.

The limitations have been stated in section 4.1.2.4.

Additional analytical elements on the relevance of programme objectives and its

design to competitiveness and technological change have been integrated in section

4.3.1 to complement the analysis provided in section 4.2.3.

Sections 5.2 and 5.2.2 have been revised as follows:

- The action plan foreseen in line with EAC internal procedures as follow up to the

recommendations stemming from this evaluation has been mentioned in the

introductory paragraph of section 5.2 and re-stated in relation to the additional

monitoring measures (section 5.2.2). This action plan will include precise

milestones and will be set up once the Erasmus+ evaluation is adopted.

- Where possible, indicative time references have been added (section 5.2.2).

- Clarifications have been added on the activities aiming to address the

organisational and system level impact.

The indicators adopted in 2023 through the Delegated Act on the Monitoring and

Evaluation Framework are all operationalised and their achievements were included

in this SWD (see table C of annex VII). In addition:

- More explicit references to the 2023 DA have been added at each occurrence

throughout the text.

- In section 4.1.2.5 on Monitoring mechanism, a footnote has been added,

explaining how they are operationalised.

- Section 5.2.2 includes additional clarifications on how the activities aiming to

reinforce the monitoring and evaluation system of the programme apply also to

the impact indicators introduced through the 2023 DA.

All quantitative data based on programme data are fully split between the period

2014-2020 and 2021-2023. It is not possible to further split certain survey data due

(7) While the report acknowledges the 2023 Delegated Regulation and

recognises its potential, it still fails to explain how the new indicators will be

operationalised. The report should include a clear explanation of how the new

indicators will be integrated in practice and how they correspond to proposed

improvements.

(8) The distinction between the two programme periods in terms of structure

should be also done for all quantitative data.

141

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

What to improve (RSB comments)

How and where comments have been addressed

to the design of the questionnaires, which do not allow a clear distinction between

programming periods.

The text has been slightly reduced, removing repetitions.

(9) With 148 pages the report is too long, even taking account of the fact that

it covers both a final and an interim evaluation. With a view to ensuring

readability it should be significantly shortened, including by taking out

redundancies and repetitions throughout the document.

142

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

NNEX

II. M

ETHODOLOGY AND

NALYTICAL MODELS USED

The final evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020 and the interim evaluation of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 was coordinated by the Erasmus+ Coordination unit, in

cooperation with the unit Evidence-Based Policy and Evaluation, of the Commission’s Directorate-General Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (DG

EAC), with the support of: (i) a technical working group, gathering together representatives of 13 DG EAC units involved in the implementation of

Erasmus+ as well as the Executive Agency EACEA; (ii) and an interservice group comprising 15 Commission DGs and chaired by DG EAC. The evaluation

process started in 2022 and was guided by the Terms of Reference drawn up for contracting the external evaluator, consulted with the ISG and approved

by EAC board of directors.

The evaluation builds on: (i) a large amount of quantitative and qualitative evidence collected through a variety of methods described below; and (ii) a

thorough evaluation analysis, applying triangulation of evidence from different sources, ensuring an objective and robust assessment.

Main data sources

The study of the external evaluator was organised around a set of evaluation questions (EQs) under each evaluation criterion. A total of 63 evaluation

questions were set in the terms of reference, which were grouped into 27 themes or ‘macro-questions’: seven under the effectiveness criterion and five each

under the efficiency, relevance, coherence and European added value criteria. An evaluation framework was developed by the external evaluator in the

inception phase of the study to link the evaluation questions with relevant data sources, indicators and judgment criteria.

To answer the evaluation questions, a broad set of data collection and analytical techniques were used, building on the lessons learnt from the previous

combined evaluation of Erasmus+ (mid-term evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020 and final evaluation of its predecessor programmes), and introducing new

methods reflecting evolving evaluation requirements and techniques.

The data collection and analysis activities carried out to perform the evaluation have drawn on both

primary and secondary data,

as follows.

1) Secondary data

(pre-existing or collected/produced independently from the support study):

•

Programme data,

collected by the Commission in the programme’s internal dashboards and tools managed by DG EAC and in publicly

available platforms and data collection activities managed by DG EAC – in particular:

Non-public available data - DG EAC dashboards

Programmes' Results dashboard

Data of Erasmus+ of all Erasmus+

contracted

projects under

direct and indirect management

both 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 programming periods

143

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Erasmus+ reporting (MFF 2014-2020)

Erasmus+ and ESC (MFF 2021-2027)

Erasmus+ ‘Participant’s Survey Indicators'

Dashboard

Erasmus+ ‘Country Factsheet' Dashboard

Operational Dashboard collecting data of Erasmus+ actions under

indirect management,

at all stages

of the selection process, for the 2014-2020 period

Operational Dashboard collecting data of Erasmus+ actions under

indirect management,

at all stages

of the selection process, for the 2021-2027 period

Dashboard displaying monitoring data from Participants surveys 2014-2023 (i.e. survey submitted by

programme participants at completion of their mobility experience)

Dashboard providing data at country level of

contracted projects

under

direct and indirect

management

of both 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 programming periods.

Publicly available data sources

Review of key programme data published since 2014 as part of the Erasmus+ annual report

Public platform displaying information and results of Erasmus+ projects, since 2014, for actions under

direct and indirect management

Statistical annexes of the Erasmus+ annual

reports

471

Project data from the Erasmus+ Project Results

Platform

472

•

The non-publicly available data was extracted by the external evaluator from DG EAC dashboards on the basis of an extraction protocol approved

by DG EAC. The dashboards were ‘frozen’ on 5 January 2024 to reflect the state of play of the period under evaluation (2021-2023) and ensure

that data would not be updated while the extraction process was ongoing and could be replicated in any moment. In parallel, the main programme

dataset extracted in January 2024 has been in certain cases complemented by

ad hoc

extractions performed by EAC and EACEA at a later stage

to complement and provide a more accurate picture, in particular for those indicators where changes in the calculation or adaptations in the tools

were implemented during the evaluation period. Data extracted from the

2024 Programme Performance Statement

have been also taken into

account following the publication of the latter in June 2024. The sources and parameters for data extraction, including the time of extraction,

have been made clear at any step to ensure transparency and clarity. Differences among programming periods have been clarified and stated,

when applicable.

The evaluation used the wealth of the programme data available as regards

inputs

(funding),

outputs

(numbers of projects, numbers of

beneficiaries, etc.),

results

(satisfaction rate, specific benefits for programme participants),

impacts

(benefits for programme participants).

471

472

https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/ro/resources-and-tools/statistics-and-factsheets

https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/projects

144

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

•

The monitoring surveys of beneficiaries carried out by DG EAC concern all learners and staff who take part in mobility activities under KA1

over the period 2014-2023. The reliability of the data is strong for the 2014-2020 period and good for the current period. Given the sample sizes

(first two years of the programme) the data is considered to be reliable even though 2023 data is still partial.

Where applicable, the data and extraction methodology reflected the parameters of the Programme Performance Statement. For the 2021-2027

programme, the analysis reflected the full set of indicators covered in the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework, with exception of two legal

basis indicators

473

, for which a critical mass of data was not available yet.

The continuity between the two programming periods of most actions made possible to ensure comparability to a quite large extent.

The main limitation of this analysis consists in the

incompleteness of 2023 data,

which applies in particular to the most recent actions (e.g.

Staff mobility in the sport sector). Nevertheless, the replicability and constant verification of data make the reliability of the underlying analysis

sufficiently strong.

A network analysis

was carried out by the external evaluator using publicly available data sources as well as programme monitoring data to

identify participation patterns in the programme, understand the degree of cross-sectoral cooperation and interconnectedness of country and

organisational networks, and compare network characteristics across actions, fields and time.

Literature review,

i.e. structured analysis of literature relevant to the evaluation, including the following types of documents i) key

programme documentation (Regulation, guides, Annual work programmes, Erasmus+ annual reports, National Agencies’ yearly reports,

National Authorities’ annual reporting (‘October reports’)); ii) documentation on programme management, monitoring tools, audit

reports, dissemination tools; iii) documentation on other related EU funding instruments and relevant policy agenda developments; iv)

documentation on similar national and international policy instruments; v) studies, evaluations, research reports on Erasmus+ carried out

both at EU and national level, mainly by National Agencies throughout both programming periods. In total, over 1 500 sources were

identified and analysed by the external evaluator using natural language-processing techniques and automated extraction. Additional

studies were reviewed for the meta-analyses performed as part of the evaluation (see later).

Project sample analysis,

i.e. review of the outputs and outcomes of a sample of 180 finalised projects (162 under Erasmus+ 2014-2020

and 18 under Erasmus+ 2021-2027) to provide a statistical overview of: the thematic coverage of Erasmus+ projects, the relevance of

those topics to key challenges in education, training, youth and sport and the programme’s four horizontal priorities; the types of project

outputs produced (beyond the basic classification available in the programme database); the availability of project outputs in the public

domain; and the level of citation or references to project outputs. The sample was selected randomly based on statistical criteria with

Other desk research activities:

“The share of organisations and institutions that consider they have developed high-quality practices as a result of their participation in KA2” and “the share of organisations and

institutions that consider that the procedures for taking part in the Programme are proportionate and simple”. Data is collected through final reports of funded projects, therefore there was

no critical mass of data available at the time of the evaluation; moreover, data related to these indicators has been processed and displayed in the relevant dashboard as from February

2024 only.

473

145

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

some manual adjustments to ensure a more appropriate coverage of a variety of actions. The analysis was carried out through desk

research on public available sources. The analysis, initially intended to identifying system-level effects from the projects examined or

systemic-effects linked to the horizontal priorities of the programme, encountered some implementation challenges, which limited its

scope and its use for data triangulation.

2) National Reports:

In accordance with Article 24(3) of the Erasmus+ Regulation, Member States and third countries associated to the programme have

submitted reports on the implementation and impact of Erasmus+ in their respective territories. Their findings are summarised in the so-called ‘Synthesis

report

474

’ drawn by the external evaluator. The reports were prepared by National Authorities on the basis of a guidance note sent by the Commission in

January 2023, including a list of evaluation questions, grouped under the five evaluation criteria. It was not mandatory for National Authorities to answer

all questions, nor were they limited to answering those questions.

The national reports mainly cover the actions which are being implemented under indirect

management by the National Agencies. At the same time, National Authorities were invited to comment, when relevant, on implementation of actions

under direct management in the country, though this was not compulsory.

The preparation of national reports on the implementation and impact of Erasmus+

involved a range of data collection activities and analytical methods in participating countries. Those used most often included:

interviews (individual or group, used by 29 out of 32 countries),

surveys (26 countries),

focus groups (15 countries)

workshops (12)

qualitative literature/document reviews (18 countries),

quantitative analysis of programme data (15 countries)

Scope

National evaluations on the implementation and

impact of Erasmus+, submitted between end of

February and early June 2024, as per Article 24(3) of

the Erasmus+ Regulation, addressing mainly actions

under indirect management, covering all sectors and

all evaluation criteria.

Volume

34 reports from 32 participating countries

NB: Belgium submitted 3 distinct reports

representing the Flemish, French and German-

speaking communities.

North Macedonia did not submit any report.

Source

National reports

on the implementation and impact

of Erasmus+

(‘Synthesis report’ drawn up by ICF)

3) Primary data,

collected for the support study through stakeholder consultations and including

475

474

475

Stand-alone report [not published yet]

Consultation activities are summarized in the synopsis report.

146

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Public Consultation and Call for Evidence:

•

A public consultation

was conducted to gather opinions, including forward-looking perspectives, from citizens and stakeholders on the

programme’s performance across all evaluation criteria as well as on programme response to recent unforeseen events. Different (closed and

open-ended) questions were asked depending on the level and scope of knowledge of the programme declared by each respondent. Most

respondents were either organisations or practitioners, who declared to be familiar with Erasmus+. All programme sectors were represented,

although with quite different levels of participation. Consultation findings are not considered representative due to the selection bias inherent to

any open recruitment, but they can be triangulated with other sources to inform the evaluation.

•

The feedback collected through the

call for evidence,

conducted by the Commission in 2022 was also analysed and retained as part of the

evidence base.

Source

Scope

To gather the opinions and perspectives of citizens

and other stakeholders, the public consultation was

available in all official EU languages on the

dedicated European Commission website from 15

September to 8 December 2023.

To collect stakeholder views on the programme

performance and help define the scope of the

evaluation.

Conducted by the Commission from July to

September 2022.

Volume

1243 contributions

from all participating countries,

sent either by individuals replying in their personal

capacity (40%) or on behalf of their organisations

(60%), and representing all programme fields.

64 position papers,

analysed in annex II of ICF

study report

195 submissions

Public consultation

(Annex II of ICF study report and synopsis report)

Call for evidence

(Annex X of ICF study report – not published – and

Synopsis report)

Targeted consultations,

focusing on target groups of programme beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries as well as on different types of stakeholders:

•

Surveys of beneficiaries and control groups:

To analyse the effects of participation in the programme, the external evaluator conducted a

set of surveys addressing beneficiary learners (higher education students, VET learners, school pupils, adult learners, youth outside of formal

education/ training) and staff (in higher education, VET, schools, VET, adult education, youth and sport organisations). A total of 11 surveys

were conducted among all categories of individuals who participated in an Erasmus+ projects from 2014 (post-mobility in the case of

participation in mobility activities). In the case of staff, the survey touched upon also KA2. A corresponding survey was carried out among

non-participants in all target groups to evaluate and analyse the effects of taking part in the programme in terms of outcomes, experiences,

and attitudes (counterfactual analysis). The Erasmus+ monitoring survey (‘participants report) shows a subjective evaluation by beneficiaries

147

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

•

themselves of their experience, whereas these set of surveys was run through factual questions whether learners or staff demonstrate different

attitudes, competences or beliefs compared to a control group, which was asked the same questions.

The surveys were disseminated to contactable beneficiaries of the current and previous programme. However, findings cannot be always

generalised to the whole programme with sufficient confidence because of the varying size of the samples of the target groups and related

control group, which in some cases were not large enough to make judgements.

Control groups of non-beneficiaries with similar profiles were set up to compare their responses with those Erasmus+ participants. This has

been achieved in matching respondents in the treatment group (i.e. Erasmus+ beneficiaries) with ‘similar’ individuals in the control group,

to come up with a ‘matched sample’ where subjects are alike in some background characteristics, called covariates, such as gender, age, etc.

Regression analysis was used to compare the outcomes for the two groups while controlling for compositional differences in terms of the

demographics/characteristics considered, making it possible to statistically measure the existing correlation with participating in Erasmus+

(i.e., whether participation in the programme contributed to improving outcomes for programme participants).

pre/post-mobility survey targeting school pupils and young people

outside of formal education/training was also carried out to obtain

a finer measurement of short-term effects of programme participation on the youngest target groups taking part in mobility activities. For

young people outside formal education/training, the ‘pre-mobility’ component of the survey did not gather a sufficient number of replies to

ensure the implementation of the ‘post-mobility’ component. Hence, the post-mobility survey was only carried out for school pupils.

The surveys of learners and staff were complemented with

a survey of socio-economic actors,

i.e. organisations taking part in the

programme: companies, public authorities, civic organisations, sectoral bodies, etc. in addition to the traditional target group organisations.

Source

Scope

Individual beneficiaries of mobility actions

(learners and practitioners) and cooperation

actions (practitioners) as well as control groups

(non-beneficiaries)

Pupils before and after their mobility as well

control group in the same school/class

Volume

Learners’ survey: 25 413 Erasmus+

participants (test group) and 2,094 non-

participants (control group)

Staff survey: 26 332 participants (test group)

and 2 894 non-participants (control group).

366 pupils took part inf the survey (261 in the

‘pre-mobility’ component and 105 in the ‘post-

mobility’ component), as well as 149 non-

participants (123 in the ‘pre-mobility’

component and 26 in the ‘post-mobility’ one)

1 550 valid replies

Beneficiary surveys of learners and

staff

(Annexes XV and XVI of ICF study

report, both not published, and

synopsis report)

Pre-post mobility survey of school

pupils

(Annex XVII of ICF study report,

not published, and synopsis report)

Survey of socio-economic actors

Organisations (companies, public authorities,

civil society organisations, NGOs) taking part

148

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

(Annex V of ICF study report and

synopsis report)

in the programme in addition to those

representing the primary target group across all

sectors and action types.

Surveys of staff involved in the programme implementation,

including:

•

Erasmus+ National Agencies and EACEA.

The survey covered extensively all evaluation criteria and types of actions, from the specialised

perspective of the key managing bodies.

•

Erasmus+ expert assessors

of project proposals and final reports for actions under direct and indirect management. The survey was used to

complement data on projects, in particular about the quality of applications, including the new accreditation scheme, final reports as well as

the efficiency of the selection process.

Source

Scope

Volume

Survey of National Agencies and EACEA

Agencies’ staff in charge of programme 164 valid responses (156 from National

(Annex III of ICF study report and synopsis implementation (55 National Agencies and the Agencies and 8 from EACEA respondents)

report)

Executive Agency EACEA). One response per sector

designated by each agency

Survey of Expert assessors

Assessors supporting project selection and those 1 842 valid replies (70% of the respondents

(Annex IV of ICF study report and synopsis supporting evaluation of final reports across both dealing with indirect management, 20% with

report)

programming periods (actions under direct and indirect direct management actions, 10% with both)

management)

Qualitative data collection through interviews to key informant and case studies

•

Key informant interviews

aimed at collecting information from key informants at international, European and national levels, targeting

respectively i) EU delegations and stakeholder organisations in third countries not associated to the programme, ii) Commission’s and EU

agencies officials as well as EU key stakeholder organisation representative, and iii) national policy officers and stakeholder organisations in

25 countries. The interviews focused on the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and coherence evaluation criteria.

•

Case studies

served to complement insights gained from key informant interviews and surveys, in particular about how the programme

generates organisational and system level changes including spill over effects from individuals participating in mobility to other individuals

and to organisations. Case studies focused on projects and organisations, randomly selected based on a combination of pre-determined criteria

(e.g. variety of countries, experienced and newcomer organisations, balanced coverage of programme actions). The 44 case studies covered

149

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

all five evaluation criteria collecting experiences from interviewees and the main changes they noted following the participation in Erasmus+

on themselves as individuals, on their organisations and on systems.

Source

Scope

Volume

267 interviews:

42 with international level

interviewees, 60 with European-level

interviewees, and 165 with national-level

interviewees.

44 case studies,

of which 29 at organisational

level in all programme fields, 8 on Jean

Monnet Actions (JMA), 7 ‘system-level’.

186 stakeholders were interviewed

Interviews of key informants

Semi-guided interviews at international, EU and

(Annex XIV of ICF study report, not published, national level involving stakeholders from 38

and synopsis report)

countries (21 Member States, 4 associated third

countries; 13 non associated third countries) across

all programme sectors

Case studies

Case studies mainly at organisation and system level

(Annex VIII of ICF study report, not published, to assess spillover effects and changes at organisation

and synopsis report)

and system levels and to analyse different

perspectives (staff, learners, organisation, project and

system)

•

Social media analysis:

it was used to understand and measure awareness about the programme and its actions among different audiences on

various social media platforms, track and analyse audience reaction to programme communications, campaigns or events, capture engagement

metrics, as well as collect and analyse insights around sentiment and themes relevant to the programme and its actions. In addition, data from

relevant social media accounts managed by DG EAC was also analysed.

Source

Scope

Volume

Over 150 000 social media posts were collected

for the analysis, mentioning one or more

programme-related keywords; some sectoral

keywords were used too.

Social media analysis

X/Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and

(Annex XII of ICF study report – not published) TikTok were analysed over the period going from

August 2021 to January 2024.

The privacy settings in Instagram, Facebook reduced

a lot the input from these social media. As a result,

97% of the traffic taken into account was from X

(Twitter). The user profiles were impacted too,

resulting in a lower number of posts that could be

collected from the target groups making larger use of

Instagram or Facebook.

150

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

In addition to these ‘traditional’ data collection and analysis activities, more advanced and innovative methods were also used to complement the evidence

base:

•

Three Meta-analyses were carried out

to summarise in a structured way the conclusions of several scientific studies looking at individual

level impacts linked to the programme’s participation and focusing on three topics: skills development, employability and European values. The

meta-analyses carried out provide insights into the effectiveness and EU-added value evaluation criteria, specifically concerning the individual-

level effects of the programme. They also helped test the causal links between the participation in the programme and the effects observed at

the individual level. The application of this method in the context of the Erasmus+ programme presented several challenges due to lack of high-

quality primary studies meeting all the methodological requirements and enabling three full meta-analyses on three distinct Erasmus+ related

topics. By applying a range of remedies (e.g. a careful selection and definition of the topics, inclusion of studies in other languages, consideration

also of ‘grey literature’, etc.), it was possible to reach – and for two topics to even to exceed – the minimum threshold of ten papers for the three

research questions looking into higher education student mobilities. Still, in none of the three cases did the pool of studies include a minimum

of 10 papers with a directly comparable outcome measure. Therefore, a sign and significance meta-analysis was carried out instead of a

traditional effect- size analysis. Regarding mobilities outside higher-education student mobility, the systematic literature review and the

following selection process identified no more than one paper each.

Behavioural analysis,

conducted as an information provision experiment to evaluate the effectiveness of providing key information to

individuals who had never participated in Erasmus+ in view of encouraging them to participate in Erasmus+. The experiment was run through

an online survey on a panel of over 10 000 non-participants, using rigorous methods from behavioural and experimental economics. The

experiment also aimed to shed light on the factors that hinder participation with a counterfactual approach.

Source

Meta-analysis

Annex VI of ICF study report

Scope

Volume

•

Individual level effects mainly of higher education Final retained papers after application of

student mobility around three topics: i) skills inclusion and exclusion criteria were 19 papers

development, ii) employability and iii) European for the topic ‘skills development’, 11 for the

values

topic ‘employability’ and 10 for the topic

‘European values’

Analysing factors for non-participation in Erasmus+ 10 985 non-participants, aged between 18 and

targeting higher education students, VET learners and 30 years old in 10 countries

young people through an information provision

experiment

Behavioural experiment

Annex VII of ICF study report, synopsis report

151

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Main methods used

The evidence collected through these various data collection and activities was then analysed using the approach of systematic synthesis and triangulation

to review, systemise and confirm findings and to provide robust answers to the evaluation questions. To this end, various methods were used to analyse

and synthetise the collected data, including the following:

•

Textual analytics

using natural language processing to automatically pre-process large amounts of structured or unstructured text data, extract

information relevant for the evaluation, and quantify text data where relevant. These techniques were used across several activities of the support

study, including in particular the literature review, the analysis of answers to open questions in the various consultation activities, and the analysis

of position papers submitted by respondents to the public consultation, as well as to extract and process information from the national reports on the

implementation and impacts of the programme, to support the production of the report summarising the national reports (‘synthesis report’).

•

Qualitative comparative analysis

to analyse patterns in qualitative data. This was in particular used to analyse the write-ups of key informant

interviews and the national reports to retrieve relevant information and produce usable summaries.

•

Benchmarking analysis,

using the data collected on comparator programmes to address evaluation questions on the efficiency of grants and

participant volumes of Erasmus+ with respect to other programmes; coherence and complementarity of Erasmus+ with other national and

international programmes; and assessing the added value of Erasmus+. In each case, only the programmes and metrics relevant for the specific

question were used. To enhance the analysis, insights from public consultations and key informant interviews were incorporated to compare

Erasmus+ with other programmes or to assess its synergies, and complementarities with. The activity determined a shortlist of 32 programmes,

including both bilateral (two-way) and multilateral (multi-way) cooperation or exchange programmes. The data collected by the external evaluator

on comparator programmes is largely based on desk research and publicly available information. The granularity of this data is therefore variable

and limited for most comparator programmes. As a result, the depth of the benchmarking exercise resulted limited. Actions were put in place to

ensure the best-match possible with the characteristics of the Erasmus+ programme under analysis in the relevant evaluation questions and the best

‘like-for-like’ comparison possible. However, the quality and granularity of the data available made necessary a trade-off between the number of

comparator programmes retained for the analysis and the depth of the analysis itself. Consequently, data at different levels was applied to each of

the evaluation questions tackled for this analysis to ensure accuracy and alignment with the objectives of the relevant question.

•

Cost-effectiveness analysis:

The cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) performed for the previous combined evaluation of Erasmus+ has shown that a

‘one size fits all’ CEA approach is not appropriate given the diversity and specific characteristics of actions supported under Erasmus+ over two

programming periods, meaning that different approaches need to be applied to different actions/clusters of actions. A classic CEA calculation of

cost per unit (output or result achieved) is not meaningful across the programme. As a result:

152

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

The depth and breadth of analysis undertaken for each action/cluster of actions is proportionate to their budget allocation, resulting in a

primary focus on learning mobility activities (KA1). For learning mobility, a full CEA was undertaken, incorporating internal

benchmarking for more granularity (analysis at the level of sectors/fields, distinguishing between short-term and long-term actions).

Cooperation activities (under KA2) and policy support activities (under KA3) generate a multiplicity of effects that cannot always be

aggregated and compared, and it is not possible to identify and isolate the costs of the specific effects generated by an action. These

projects generate a diversity of effects that are often of a ‘soft’ or intangible nature and are therefore neither measurable nor comparable

across projects. This called for a ‘lighter’ CEA approach offering a more limited level of granularity and relying more on qualitative

evidence and evaluators’ judgement, as well as on case studies.

The application of both approaches was carried out through a multi-step approach requiring i) the identification of inputs, ii) the gathering of

evidence relating to the effectiveness and the added value of the cluster of actions, iii) determining whether the volume of expenditure appears

reasonable and cost-effective also in comparison with comparator programmes, where applicable, iv) identifying any evident inefficiencies and

identifying the potential to improve the efficiency. For KA2, KA3 and JMA, the difficulty of identifying comparable programmes did not make it

possible to apply all the steps above, limiting the analysis to a qualitative assessment.

The process of

data triangulation

was applied throughout the support study carried out by the external evaluator, by systematically analysing and reviewing

the findings from different sources of evidence as they came in. Both methodological and data triangulation were used, to build on the outputs of the

different quantitative and qualitative research methods used, and to compare and consolidate data from various sources, with a view to provide a complete

and reliable picture and enhance the validity of the findings.

This process made it possible to cross-check evidence as well as to identify and examine possible bias and inconsistencies, thus making it possible to

differentiate the evidence arising from single sources from the one corroborated by several sources and thus underpin the evaluation findings. It also helped

identify remaining gaps in the evidence base, allowing appropriate action to be taken to fill them.

In addition,

five stakeholder workshops

were organised at various stages of the evaluation process, which were used to review, fine-tune and confirm

the study findings at various stages of their elaboration, as well as to capture additional expert input to support their further development.

153

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

NNEX

III. E

VALUATION MATRIX AND

WHERE RELEVANT

, D

ETAILS ON ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS

(

BY CRITERION

)

EFFECTIVENESS

Main

evaluation

question

Degree of

the

achievemen

t of the

programme

intervention

logic

Sub-questions

1.1 To what extent have the expected outputs,

results and impacts been achieved in both

evaluation periods?

Is there a need to streamline the programme’s

objectives? Are there any objectives missing from

the Erasmus+?

[applicability: both programming periods]

Judgement criteria and indicators of

success

▪

The programme is on track (or shows

progress) in achieving its targets in both

evaluation periods

▪

The programme has been effective in

achieving its objectives

▪

There are no gaps in the programme’s

objectives

▪

Data collection methods

Programme data analysis

Beneficiaries surveys; targeted

consultations to NAs/EACEA and

socio-economic actors.

Scoping interviews

Case studies

Key informant interviews

Analysis of public consultation results

Analysis of behavioural experiment

Analysis of national reports

Network analysis

Meta-analyses

Literature review

Surveys

Key informant interviews

Network analysis

Case studies

Review of studies/evaluations

Meta-analyses

Programme data analysis

Key informant interviews

Analysis of public consultation results

Targeted consultations: NA/EACEA

survey, socio-economic actors’ survey

Section of the

SWD

4.1.1.1

1.2 Identify, describe and quantify (if possible) the

spill-over effects between various actions (clusters

of actions) of Erasmus+ 2021-2027, as described in

the intervention logic.

[applicability: 2021-2027]

1.3 To what extent has Erasmus+ 2021-2027 had a

transformative effect on systems, values and norms,

particularly with respect to the four horizontal

priorities of the programme?

1.4 To what extent do the actions/activities/projects

supported by Erasmus+ 2021-2027 contribute to

mainstreaming climate actions and achieving

climate objectives? To what degree are they

designed in an eco-friendly manner and incorporate

green practices?

[applicability: 2021-2027]

▪

Spill-over effects are identified, or are

recognised by stakeholders, at various

intervention level.

▪

The programme demonstrates positive

impact in promoting its four horizontal

priorities

▪

Participants show increased knowledge

and behavioural change related to the

four priorities

▪

Stakeholders

recognise

the

transformative effect of the programme

on the four horizontal priorities

4.1.1.3

4.1.1.4

4.1.1.6.

154

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Main

evaluation

question

Sub-questions

1.5 How effective are the forms of cooperation and

the types of action under Erasmus+ 2021-2027 and

Erasmus+ 2014-2020 for the purpose of supporting

the political priorities, including its international

dimension? Could the international dimension of

Erasmus+ be strengthened?

[Applicability: both programming periods]

•

Judgement criteria and indicators of

success

The thematic coverage of the

programme and its actions supports the

political priorities

Outputs, results and impact are

thematically aligned with political

priorities

The international dimension of

Erasmus+ responds to region-specific

priorities and strategies and contributes

to political priorities

The programme actions/fields address

needs and challenges of their target

groups

There is clear link between programme

actions and the resulting outcomes and

impact

for

participants

and

organisations

There is evidence of impact for those

actions of Erasmus+ 2014-2020 which

continued in Erasmus+ 2021-2027;

Discontinued actions did not create

important gaps in Erasmus+ 2021-2027

effectiveness;

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 covers all

activities that are associated with strong

positive effects

There is evidence of continued

effectiveness and future impact of

actions continued from Erasmus+ 2014-

2020

Comparison between the reported

outcomes for discontinued and

continued actions;

•

Data collection methods

Programme data analysis

Key informant interviews

Review of programme documentation

Section of the

SWD

4.1.1.4.

4.2.5

1.6 Which fields and actions of the programmes are

the most effective considering the needs?

[Applicability: both programming periods]

•

Targeted consultations: NA/EACEA

survey

Case studies

4.1.1.

1.7 Can conclusions be drawn on the effectiveness

of actions that have been continued and those that

were discontinued between the two periods?

1.8 What conclusions can be drawn on the likely

impact of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 given that

significant parts of its actions are a continuation of

Erasmus+ 2014-2020?

[Applicability: both programming periods]

•

Key informant views at national level

Analysis of national reports

Case studies

Programme data analysis

Not covered in

SWD

•

155

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Main

evaluation

question

Sub-questions

•

Judgement criteria and indicators of

success

Comparison of scale of actions

discontinued and continued: numbers of

participants; numbers of applications

The action is well known

The action has been delivering effective

results

Stakeholders recognise effective results

of activities performed under the actions

Extent, scale of action, reach and impact

of support activities and bodies

Stakeholders recognise relevance and

usefulness of support activities and

bodies

▪

Data collection methods

Section of the

SWD

1.9: Jean Monnet in schools: how well is the action

known? What added value does it bring and what re

the first results?

[applicability: 2021-2027]

2.1: How effective are the measures that contribute

to the high-quality and inclusive implementation of

the programme, including support for activities and

bodies in enhancing the strategic implementation of

Erasmus+?

What additional measures or changes to the existing

support actions may contribute to further supporting

the high-quality implementation of the programme?

[applicability: 2021-2027]

2.2: To what extent are programme results

adequately disseminated and exploited?

[applicability: 2021-2027]

▪

Case studies

Not covered in

SWD.

EQ2

Programme

implementa

tion and

architecture

▪

Programme data on support activities

and bodies

Analysis of programme documentation

Key informant interviews

Targeted consultation: NA/EACEA

survey

Analysis of public consultation results

Not covered in

SWD

▪

•

Type, extent and take-up of

dissemination activities of programme

results

Stakeholders consider EU and national

dissemination efforts useful and

adequate

The project results are available and

used

Volume and relevance of references to

the programme in social media

Number of visitors and visits to the

EPRP

Stakeholders show overall positive

perception of the programme

There is evidence of positive evolution

of the programme reputation and

▪

Mapping and analysis of dissemination

tools and actions

Analysis of programme documentation

Key informant interviews

Surveys of participants

Analysis of Public Consultation results

Review of projects sample

Social media analysis

Analysis of national reports

4.1.1.7.

2.3 How has the perception and reputation of the

programme changed among stakeholders since the

mid-term evaluation of Erasmus+ 2014-2020 and

what were the key factors in that change?

▪

Targeted consultations

Social media analysis

Scoping interviews

Key informant interviews

4.1.1.7.

156

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Main

evaluation

question

Sub-questions

Judgement criteria and indicators of

success

perception between programming

periods

Social media channel show evidence of

positive sentiment on the programme

Evidence of factors with a positive

influence on the level of outputs, results

and impacts

Evidence of factors with a negative

influence on the level of outputs, results

and impacts

The programme is successful in

addressing areas where negative factors

have been identified

Stakeholders’ perceptions of the most

significant external influencing factors

The programme has adapted well to

external

factors

with

limited

repercussions on its implementation;

Stakeholders

consider

good

the

flexibility and resilience of the

programme to external factors

The measures taken in response to the

pandemic have been effective;

The measures taken in response to

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have been

effective;

Evidence shows the positive impact of

measures undertaken by the programme

Unintended effects that have occurred

are positive

No negative unintended effects have

been identified

Participants with fewer opportunities

report benefits from their participation

in the programme

▪

•

Data collection methods

Workshop with National Agencies

Case studies

Section of the

SWD

[applicability: both programming periods]

•

EQ3

Influencing

factors

(external

environmen

3.1. What negative and positive factors (internal

and external) seem to influence outputs, results and

impacts?

•

3.2. How did the COVID-19 pandemic impact the

implementation of the two generations of the

programme, and what was the effect of the

measures taken in response to the pandemic?

3.3. What was the effect of the measures taken in

the frame of the programme implementation in

response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?

[applicability: 2014-2020 for 3.2, 2021-2027 for

the whole EQ]

•

▪

EQ4

Unintended

effects

4.1. What, if any, have been the unintended effects

(and their magnitude) on Erasmus+ 2021-2027 and

Erasmus+ 2014-2020?

[applicability: both programming periods]

5.1. What are the differences in the impact of

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 actions on people with fewer

opportunities (including people living in remote

▪

Scoping interviews and literature

review

Analysis of programme data

Case studies

Key informant interviews

Analysis of national reports

Analysis of public consultation results

Targeted consultation: socio-economic

actors survey, beneficiaries’ surveys

Literature review and review of

programme documentation

The SWD only

covers external

influencing factor

in section 4.1.1.8.

The

remaining

elements

are

covered in the

study from the

external

evaluator

▪

Key informant interviews

▪

Analysis of national reports

4.1.

EQ5

Impacts on

people with

▪

Beneficiaries’ surveys

Behavioural experiment

Analysis of National reports

4.1.1.2.

157

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Main

evaluation

question

fewer

opportuniti

Sub-questions

regions such as the EU outermost regions and

overseas countries or territories) who traditionally

do not engage in transnational or international

activities?

[applicability: 2021-2027]

▪

Judgement criteria and indicators of

success

Participants with fewer opportunities

show higher or lower impacts than

others participants

Share of people with fewer

opportunities participating in the

programme

The effects of participation (of

individuals and organisations) in the

programme are likely to last in the

long-term

The programme generates tangible and

long-lasting impact

Without Erasmus+ the activities funded

by the programme in the relevant

sector would not be supported/would

be supported at a lower extent

Comparison of the outcomes for

learners and staff participating in the

programme versus those not

participating

▪

Data collection methods

Meta-analyses

Analysis of programme monitoring

data

Analysis of public consultation results

Case studies

Key informant interviews

Targeted consultations: NA/EACEA

survey

Targeted consultations: beneficiaries’

surveys; NA/EACEA survey

Case studies

Analysis of public consultation results

Meta-analyses

Project sample analysis

Review of programme documentation

Programme monitoring data

Targeted consultations: Surveys to

NAs/EACEA, Survey of socio-

economic actors

Beneficiaries’ surveys (learners/staff)

Analysis of public consultation results

Section of the

SWD

EQ6

Sustainabili

6.1. To what extent are the effects likely to last after

the intervention ends, both cumulatively and the

level of each implemented grant?

[applicability: 2021-2027]

4.1.1.1.

4.1.1.2.

4.1.1.3.

▪

EQ7

Counterfact

ual

7.1. What if the Erasmus+ programme had not

existed? Would the relevant sectors (higher

education, school education, adult education, VET,

youth and sport) be supported to a comparable

extent?

[applicability: both programming periods]

4.1.1.2.

▪

EFFICIENCY

Main

evaluation

question

EQ8 Cost-

effectiveness

of different

actions

Sub-questions

8.1 What is the cost-effectiveness of various actions

of Erasmus+ 2021-2027 and Erasmus+ 2014-2020?

How do the relative costs and outcomes (effects) of

various programme actions compare within and

across the programme fields?

Judgement criteria and indicators of success

▪

Activities funded under Erasmus+ generate

reasonable changes or effects in relation to

their costs;

The volume of expenditure appears

reasonable and cost-effective in light of the

performance and EU added value delivered

Data collection methods

▪

Programme data analysis

Programme documentation

analysis

Key informant interviews

Case studies

Survey to NAs/EACEA

▪

Section of the

SWD

4.1.2.4.

158

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Main

evaluation

question

Sub-questions

[applicability: both programming periods]

Judgement criteria and indicators of success

▪

Evidence of EU added value

Data collection methods

▪

Analysis of national reports

Analysis of public consultation

results

Programme data analysis

Key informant interviews

Targeted consultations:

beneficiaries, NA/EACEA

surveys, Expert assessors

surveys

Case studies

Analysis of public consultation

results

Section of the

SWD

EQ9 Size of

programme

budget

9.1 To what extent is/was the size of the budget

appropriate and proportionate to what Erasmus+

2021-2027 and Erasmus+ 2014-2020 set out to

achieve?

9.2 To what extent is/was the distribution of funds

across the programme fields and key actions

appropriate in relation to their level of effectiveness

and utility?

9.3. What are the budget absorption rates and capacity

per sector and key action, and how do they affect the

quality of proposals?

[applicability: both programming periods]

10.1. What is the prospect of other policy instruments

or mechanisms providing a better cost-effectiveness

ratio?

[applicability: 2021-2027]

▪

The resources allocated to the different

fields/actions is appropriate and justified on

the basis of cost-effectiveness and

achievement of intended outputs, outcomes

and results

Stakeholders consider budget adequate at

action/field/project level

Extent to which a different mix or lower

funding would have reduced the scale of

benefits achieved (projects scaled back or

implemented over a longer timeframe with

lower levels of funding) or would have

compromised the quality of results

The volume of programme expenditure

appears reasonable and cost-effective

compared to other policy instruments

There is evidence of other policy

instruments that could fund similar types of

actions/activities and achieve similar or

better results at lower costs

▪

4.1.2.1.

▪

EQ10

Alternatives

▪

•

Programme data analysis

Analysis of programme

documentation

Targeted consultations:

NA/EACEA surveys

Key informant interviews

Not covered in

SWD

EQ11

Efficiency of

management

architecture

11.1 To what extent is the implementation and

management structure of actions implemented under

direct and indirect management appropriate, efficient,

and well-functioning?

Are there differences in efficiency of programme

management and implementation between the bodies

in charge of indirect and direct management or

between different programming periods? If so, what

•

The programme implementation and

management structures have proven to be

appropriate, efficient, non-burdensome and

cost-effective, both under direct and indirect

management

•

The differences, if any, in the costs of

programme

management

and

implementation between national agencies

and EACEA are justified

Programme data analysis

Key informant interviews,

Targeted consultations:

Beneficiaries’ surveys;

NA/EACEA survey

Programme documentation

analysis

Analysis of national reports

4.1.2.2

159

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Main

evaluation

question

Sub-questions

are the differences and what are the underlying

reasons?

[applicability: both programming periods]

Judgement criteria and indicators of success

•

Comparison of the programme

management and implementation structure,

the roles and responsibilities among the two

programming periods shows evidence of:

Clearly defined roles and

responsibilities

No overlaps/duplications

Effective and efficient cooperation

between management bodies

•

Analysis of key administrative steps as

indicator of programme management

efficiency

▪

Supervision and implementation roles and

responsibilities of the various actors are

clearly defined and understood by

stakeholders

▪

Division of functions is logical, with no

overlaps/duplication observed

▪

Distribution of programme supervision

functions is well understood by the different

management bodies

▪

The cooperation between the different

management bodies is efficient

▪

Most stakeholders are satisfied with current

management structure

▪

EACEA, national agencies, Erasmus+

Committee satisfied with the Commission’s

guiding role

▪

The

current

management

structure

represents an improvement on the previous

programming period

▪

There is little or no evidence of

inefficiencies in management structure

▪

Information and communication roles and

responsibilities of the various actors are

Data collection methods

Section of the

SWD

11.2 How efficient is the cooperation between the

different actors and entities involved in

implementation and supervision of the programme,

and to what extent does the Commission fulfil its

guiding role in the process?

How has this changed between the two programming

periods? What are the reasons for potential changes?

What are the areas for improvement?

[applicability: both programming periods]

▪

Programme data analysis

Analysis of programme

documentation/reporting

Targeted consultations:

NAs/EACEA survey, socio-

economic survey

4.1.2.2.

11.3. To what extent is the information flow and

communication efficient, fast and well-organised

between different actors?

▪

Programme data analysis

Key informant interviews

4.1.2.2.

160

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Main

evaluation

question

Sub-questions

Judgement criteria and indicators of success

clearly defined, and there are no overlaps/

duplication in their functions

Distribution

information

and

communication functions is well understood

by the different stakeholders (particularly

applicants and beneficiaries)

The flow of information and communication

between the different actors is effective and

efficient

Most stakeholders are satisfied with

communication structure

The current information and communication

flow represent an improvement on the

previous programming period

There is little or no evidence of

inefficiencies

information

and

communication flows

There is evidence that simplified grants have

reduced administrative burden for national

agencies,

EACEA

and

programme

beneficiaries and participants

Stakeholders are positive about the used of

simplified grants

Data collection methods

▪

Surveys: NA/EACEA survey,

expert assessors survey

Section of the

SWD

What are the obstacles or challenges (if any) in the

good flow of information and how can it be

improved?

[applicability: 2021-2027]

▪

11.4. To what extent has

the system of simplified

grants

resulted in a reduction of the administrative

burden for national agencies, the EACEA and

programme beneficiaries and participants? Are there

differences across actions or fields?

What elements of the programme could be changed

to further

reduce the administrative burden and

simplify

the programme's implementation, without

unduly compromising its results and impact?

[applicability: 2021-2027]

11.5. To what extent are the

management support

tools

adequate and sufficient to support sound

management of the programme?

[applicability: both programming periods]

▪

Key informant interviews

Workshops with NAs and

stakeholders

Targeted consultations:

NAs/EACEA survey, socio-

economic actors survey

Desk research

Literature review

Programme monitoring data

Analysis of national reports

4.1.2.3.

▪

There is evidence that management support

tools (including IT landscape of both direct

and indirect management, the complete set

of programme and guidance documents) are

adequate and sufficient

Stakeholders’ perception of management

support tools is positive

•

Overview of existing

management tools

•

Key informant Interviews

•

Targeted consultations:

NA/EACEA survey, expert

assessors’ survey

•

Workshops with NAs and

programme stakeholders

4.1.2.2

161

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Main

evaluation

question

Sub-questions

Judgement criteria and indicators of success

Data collection methods

•

Analysis of national reports

▪

Key informant interviews

▪

Secondary data review

Annual

Activity Reports; Anti-Fraud

strategy; Supervision Strategy

▪

Analysis of national reports

▪

Targeted consultation:

NAs/EACEA survey

▪

Key informant interviews

Targeted

consultations:

NA/EACEA surveys, socio-

economic actors survey

Analysis of national reports

Secondary data review of

mechanisms and tools for project-

level monitoring; mechanisms

and tools for programme-level

monitoring

Analysis

programme

documentation/reporting

Secondary data review of

monitoring

indicators

and

reports, the legal base

Key informant interviews

Section of the

SWD

4.1.2.6.

11.6. To what extent have

the antifraud measures

allowed for the prevention and timely detection of

fraud?

[applicability: both programming periods]

▪

The anti-fraud measures in place are

appropriate and robust

Stakeholders’ perceptions of decreasing

prevalence and nature of fraud

The number and scale of fraud incidents

reduced over time

Monitoring mechanisms are relevant and

useful for managing the programme and

making policy decisions

Stakeholders’ perception of the available

monitoring tools and outputs is positive

Participants/beneficiaries do not regard the

reporting requirements as onerous and

satisfied with format and frequency of

reporting

Monitoring tools are fit for purpose

Monitoring at programme and project level

is efficient

Monitoring systems are sensible and

proportionate

Indicators have a clear purpose and are

related to the priorities/objectives/activities

of the programme

Indicators chosen for monitoring purposes

are proportionate and meaningful

EQ12

Efficiency of

monitoring

12.1. Efficiency of monitoring mechanisms:

a. To what extent are the monitoring mechanisms

applied by the Commission, the EACEA, and the

national agencies efficient/cost effective, and

have they been simplified in the programming

period 2021-2027?

b. To what extent are the monitoring mechanisms

of the beneficiaries and participants by national

agencies and the EACEA effective and

proportionate?

c. To what extent are internal monitoring

mechanisms of activities of the national agencies

and the implementation of the programme at

nationl effective and proportionate? What are the

areas for improvement, considering the need for

smooth and effective implementation of the

programme? Is there scope for further

simplification in all programme dimensions or

actions?

12.2. Efficiency of indicators

To what extent do the indicators identified for the

programme in the legal base correspond to the

monitoring purposes? How could the overall

management and monitoring system be improved?

[applicability: both programming periods]

▪

4.1.1.5.

▪

162

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

COHERENCE

Main

evaluation

question

EQ18

Internal

coherence

Sub-questions

18.1. To what extent are the objectives of different

programme fields within Erasmus+ consistent and

mutually supportive? What evidence exists of

synergies between the different programme fields

and actions? How well do different actions work

together? To what extent are there duplications,

overlaps, or other clashes between the programme

fields and how are they dealt with?

18.2. To what extent are the actions implemented

under direct and indirect management coherent?

How do they interact/complement each other?

18.3. Key Action 2: How appropriate is the structure

of KA2? How complementary are the Actions and

what contributions do these make in reaching the

Erasmus+ objectives?

[applicability: both programming periods]

19.1 To what extent is Erasmus+ 2021-2027

coherent with relevant EU policies and programmes

with similar objectives, such as Creative Europe,

European Solidarity Corps, Horizon Europe (in

particular EIT, MSCA and ‘Widening participation

and strengthening the ERA’ parts), ALMA, 2021-

2027 Cohesion Policy programmes funded under

European Social Fund (ESF)+ and European

Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (including

mainstream and ETC programmes)

19.2 To what extent is Erasmus+ coherent with

other EU funding programmes, such as InvestEU,

Recovery and Resilience Facility, Citizens,

Judgement criteria and indicators of success

▪

There are logical linkages between the

programme fields and actions

Stakeholders confirm the existence of

synergies between different programme

fields and actions

There are no duplications or overlaps

between programme actions or fields

Stakeholders appreciate the coherence and

complementarity of the different actions

Actions complement each other.

Data collection methods

▪

Programme data analysis

Scoping interviews

Workshops with NAs and

stakeholders

Targeted

consultations:

NAs/EACEA

survey,

beneficiaries’ survey

Key informant interviews

Case studies

Analysis of public consultation

results

Analysis of national reports

Section of the

SWD

4.1.3.

4.1.3.1.

•

KA2 is coherent with the rest of the

programme/actions

and

contributes

delivering on programme’s objectives

EQ19

External

coherence

EU level

▪

–

Programme objectives are complementary

with objectives of other EU funding

instruments

There is no evidence of overlap in actions

funded in the programme and other EU

funding instruments

EU-level stakeholders’ perception on

complementarity across EU funding

instruments is positive

The Programme is coherent with relevant

EU policies

The Programme’s design and mechanisms

feed into EU policies and vice-versa

▪

Literature review and desk

analysis of other EU funding

programmes and EU policy

agenda documents

Secondary data on programme

actions funded and actions funded

by other EU funding instruments

Key informant interviews

Targeted

consultations:

NAs/EACEA survey, socio-

economic actors survey

Analysis of national reports

Analysis of public consultation

results

4.1.3.2.

163

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Main

evaluation

question

Sub-questions

Equality, Rights and Values (CERV), EU4Health,

Digital Europe, Life

19.3 To what extent is Erasmus+ coherent with

external financing instruments, such as the

Neighbourhood, Development and International

Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) – Global Europe,

Instrument for PreAccession (IPA III)?

19.4. To what extent has Erasmus+ 2021-2027

proved complementary to other EU

interventions/initiatives in the fields of education

and training, youth and sport? To what extent is it

building effective synergies or interactions with

other EU funding programmes or financing

instruments?

19.5. To what extent does the design of Erasmus+

2021-2027 (including needs, objectives, activities,

outputs and effects) provide appropriate links and

support to

the EU policy agendas, both internal

and external?

[applicability: 2021-2027]

Judgement criteria and indicators of success

▪

EU-level stakeholders’ perception on

coherence at the EU policy level is positive

There is evidence of synergies between the

programme and other EU funding

programme or financing instruments

Data collection methods

Section of the

SWD

EQ20

External

coherence –

national level

20.1. To what extent is Erasmus+ 2021-2027

coherent with various interventions pursued at

national level which have similar objectives? To

what extent has it proved complementary to

countries’ interventions/initiatives in the fields of

education and training, youth and sport?

[applicability: 2021-2027]

21.1. To what extent is Erasmus+ 2021-2027

coherent with various international-level

interventions with similar objectives?

▪

Collected evidence shows that the objectives

and nature of actions under Erasmus+ are

coherent with other national interventions

Stakeholders’

perception

complementarity

between

national

programmes/initiatives and Erasmus+ is

positive

Collected evidence shows that the objectives

and nature of actions under Erasmus+ are

coherent

with

other

international

programmes

▪

Literature review

Key informant interviews

Targeted

consultations:

NAs/EACEA survey

Analysis of public consultation

results

Analysis of national reports

Literature review

Key informant interviews

Analysis of public consultation

results

4.1.3.2.

EQ21

External

coherence

▪

4.1.3.2.

–

164

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Main

evaluation

question

international

level

Sub-questions

[applicability: 2021-2027]

Judgement criteria and indicators of success

▪

Stakeholders identify synergies between

Erasmus+ and other international-level

programmes/initiatives

There is evidence of increased programme

coherence between the two programming

periods, as measured through aspects of

internal and external coherence

Stakeholders recognise the increase in

coherence and its key contributing factors

Data collection methods

▪

Targeted

consultations:

NAs/EACEA survey

Analysis of national reports

Literature review

Key informant interviews

Analysis of Public Consultation

results

Targeted

consultations:

NAs/EACEA survey

Analysis of national reports

Section of the

SWD

EQ22

Evolution of

coherence

(internal and

external)

22.1. What is the coherence of Erasmus+ 2021-2027

compared to the coherence of Erasmus+ 2014-2020?

Has it improved in the new programme generation?

[applicability: both programming periods]

▪

4.1.3.2.

▪

EU ADDED VALUE

Main

evaluation

question

EQ23 Overall

added value

Sub-questions

23.1. What is the additional value and benefit from

EU activities, compared to what could be achieved

by Member States and other countries at regional

and/or national and/or international level?

23.2 What does Erasmus+ 2021-2027 offer in

addition to other education and training support

schemes available at both national and international

level?

23.3 What would be the most likely consequences of

stopping the Erasmus+ programme?

[applicability: 2021-2027]

Judgement criteria and indicators of success

▪

Evidence on volume, scope and benefits of

the programme confirm its overall added

value

The analysis of size, target group coverage

and geographical coverage of similar

national/international programmes show

Erasmus+ offers the biggest added value

Stakeholders’ perception of the programme

added value against other comparable

national/international schemes is positive

Stakeholders consider that similar activities

could not be undertaken (or would be

undertaken in smaller scale) without

Erasmus+

▪

Data collection methods

Programme data analysis

Key informant interviews

Analysis of public consultation

results

Analysis of national reports

Case studies

Targeted

consultations:

NAs/EACEA

survey,

beneficiaries’ surveys

Workshops with NAs and

stakeholders

Section of the

SWD

4.2.1.

▪

4.2.3.

165

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Main

evaluation

question

EQ24

Contribution

Europeanness

Sub-questions

24.1 To what extent does the Erasmus+ programme

contribute to developing knowledge of European

integration matters, raising awareness of EU

common values, and fostering a European sense of

belonging?

24.2 What is the benefit of direct support to

designated institutions named in the Erasmus+

Regulation?

[applicability: 2021-2027]

Judgement criteria and indicators of success

▪

The programme contributes to develop

knowledge of European integration, to raise

awareness of EU common values and to

foster a European sense of belonging

There is evidence of increased European

sense of belonging among participants

Evidence shows that direct support

(operating grants) to designated institutions

allows activities focused on the EU with a

scale and impact which would not have been

possible otherwise.

Participating in the programme produces

significant benefits for individuals and

organisations compared to non-participation

The programme generates tangible results

and long-lasting impact

▪

Data collection methods

Programme data analysis

Literature review

Key informant interviews

Analysis of public consultation

results

Analysis of national reports

Targeted consultations:

NAs/EACEA survey,

beneficiaries’ surveys

Analysis of national reports

Case studies

Programme data analysis

Key informant interviews

Analysis of public consultation

results

Analysis of national reports

Meta-analysis

Targeted consultations:

beneficiaries’ surveys

Case studies

Programme data analysis

Analysis of public consultation

results

Key informant interviews

Analysis of national reports

Case studies

Section of the

SWD

4.2.4.

▪

EQ25

Benefits

participation

25.1 What is the benefit and added value of

Erasmus+

2021-2027

for

individuals

organisations participating in the programme,

compared to non-participants?

25.2. To what extent are the results of Erasmus+

sustainable beyond the projects’ duration?

[applicability: 2021-2027]

▪

4.2.1.

EQ26

International

added value

26.1 To what extent does Erasmus+ 2021-2027

promote cooperation between Member States and

third countries associated with the programme?

26.2 To what extent does Erasmus+ 2021-2027

promote cooperation between these countries and

third countries not associated with the programme?

26.3 How has the EU leveraged the Erasmus+

programme in its international relations?

[applicability: 2021-2027]

▪

Extent to which the programme provides

equal opportunities (access to mobility and

cooperation opportunities) to associated

third countries as to Member States.

The extent to which the programme provides

opportunities to third countries not

associated to the programme

Extent to which the participation patterns of

third countries (associated and not

associated) evolved during the evaluation

period.

Stakeholders recognise the programme

leverage in EU’s international relations

4.2.5.

166

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Main

evaluation

question

EQ27

Evolution of

added

value

Sub-questions

27.1 What is the benefit and added value of

Erasmus+ 2021-2027 compared to the benefit of

Erasmus+ 2014-2020? What is the added value of

repetitive actions/activities in the two programmes?

27.2 Was any EU added value lost as a consequence

of the discontinuation of some actions from

Erasmus+ 2014-2020?

[applicability: both programming periods]

Judgement criteria and indicators of success

▪

Extent to which the programme added value

increased between the two evaluation

periods, measured through volume, scale,

scope and process effects, participation

aspects, as well as international and

Europeanness

Extent to which key informants and

stakeholders agree on the increase in EU

added value and key contributing factors

compared to the baseline situation

▪

Data collection methods

Findings of EU added value

analysis

Key informant interviews

Section of the

SWD

4.2.2.

▪

RELEVANCE

Main

evaluation

question

EQ13

Programme

relevance to

the

socio-

economic

needs

and

challenges

Section of the

SWD

•

4.3.

4.3.1.

4.3.2.

Sub-questions

13.1. To what extent are current and emerging

key

socio-economic needs and challenges

that Europe

is facing internally and globally reflected in the

policy priorities, objectives and actions/activities of

Erasmus+?

[applicability: both programming periods]

Judgement criteria and indicators of success

▪

The programme design supports the

reflection on current and emerging key

socio-economic needs and challenges that

Europe is facing

Share of stakeholders considering that the

programme is relevant to the key socio-

economic needs and challenges

Share of funding allocated to projects in

those areas that correspond to key strategic

priorities

The programme design supports the green

and digital transitions

Stakeholders consider that the programme is

appropriately addressing green and digital

transitions

▪

Data collection methods

Programme data analysis

Review of key EU strategic

documents and programme

documentation

Key informant interviews

Targeted consultations:

NAs/EACEA survey, expert

assessors’ survey

Analysis of public consultation

results

Analysis of national reports

Case studies

Programme data analysis

Review of key EU strategic

documents and programme

documentation

Key informant interviews

▪

EQ14

Relevance to

addressing

green

and

digital

transitions

14.1. To what extent are the needs and challenges

linked to Europe’s

green and digital transitions

reflected in the actions/activities of Erasmus+ 2021-

2027?

[applicability: 2021-2027]

▪

4.3.2.

(the section’s

coverage is

larger than the

evaluation

question,

167

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Main

evaluation

question

Sub-questions

Judgement criteria and indicators of success

▪

The share of funding/projects in areas that

address green and digital transitions

▪

Data collection methods

Targeted consultations:

NAs/EACEA survey, socio-

economic actors’ survey, expert

assessors’ survey, beneficiaries’

surveys

Analysis of Public Consultation

results

Analysis of national reports

Case studies

Programme data analysis

Social media analysis

Targeted consultations:

NAs/EACEA survey, socio-

economic actors’ survey, expert

assessors’ survey

Key informant interviews

Analysis of Public Consultation

results

Analysis of national reports

Behavioural experiment

Section of the

SWD

referring also to

emerging needs

for skills and

growth)

▪

EQ15

Relevance to

stakeholder

needs

15.1. To what extent are

needs of different

stakeholders and sectors

addressed by Erasmus+

2021-2027 objectives?

15.2. How successful is the programme in attracting

and reaching target audiences and groups within

different fields of the programme's scope?

15.3. How well is the Erasmus+ programme known

to the education and training, youth and sport

communities?

15.4. In case some target groups are not sufficiently

reached, what factors are limiting their access and

what actions could be taken to remedy this? What are

the reasons of non-participation of certain target

groups, are there groups who chose not to participate

or are there always external factors preventing them?

[applicability: 2021-2027]

16.1. To what extent is the design of Erasmus+ 2021-

2027 oriented and adapted towards the hard-to-reach

groups, people with fewer opportunities (including

inter alia people living in remote regions such as the

EU outermost regions and overseas countries or

territories) or specific disadvantaged groups of the

population who traditionally do not engage in

▪

The extent to which the topics covered by

funded projects correspond to policy

priorities in the different sectors

Stakeholders across sectors agree that the

programme addresses and contributes to their

needs

Practitioners agree that the programme

contributes to their professional needs;

stakeholders and policy makers agree that the

programme responds to the main policy

needs

There is high volume of discussion about the

programme on social media

The programme is talked about on social

media in the context of all fields of action and

by varied target groups

4.3.3.

▪

EQ16

Relevance to

people with

fewer

opportunities

▪

The programme design facilitates the

involvement of participants with fewer

opportunities facing various barriers

▪

Programme data analysis

▪

Network analysis

▪

Social media analysis

▪

Targeted consultation:

beneficiaries’ surveys, NAs/EACEA

survey

▪

Key informant interviews

4.3.3.

168

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Main

evaluation

question

Sub-questions

transnational or international activities as compared

to other groups that benefit from the programme?

[applicability: 2021-2027]

Judgement criteria and indicators of success

Data collection methods

▪

Behavioural experiment

▪

Analysis of Public Consultation

results

▪

Analysis of national reports

▪

Literature review

Section of the

SWD

EQ17

Evolution of

relevance

between the

two periods

17.1. What is the relevance of Erasmus+ 2021-2027

compared to the relevance of Erasmus+ 2014-2020?

Has it been improved in the new programme

generation?

[applicability: both programming periods]

▪

There is evidence of an increased relevance

in the Programme between the two evaluation

periods measured through the aspects of

responding to key socio-economic needs,

stakeholder needs and participation, compared to

the baseline situation

▪

Share of stakeholders considering that

relevance of the programme across the various

fields improved since the previous programming

period

▪

Key informant interviews

▪

Targeted consultation:

NAs/EACEA survey, expert assessors

survey

▪

Analysis of findings per each

evaluation period

4.3.

169

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

NNEX

IV. O

VERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS AND

ABLE ON SIMPLIFICATION AND BURDEN REDUCTION

Table 1. Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation (Erasmus+ 2014-2020)

Citizens/EU society

EU Public Administration

Implementing bodies

Quantitative

Comment

I.COSTS

Financial

envelope for the

programming

period 2014-

2020: 18.5

billion

476

Spending

477

Under indirect

management:

EUR 14 548 653

167

Under direct

management:

EUR

4 120 424 157

National co-

funding for

actions under

indirect

management

(grant support):

EUR

174 458 718

Erasmus+ beneficiaries

Erasmus+ participants

Quantitative

Comment

Quantitative

Comment

Quantitative

Comment

Erasmus+ budget

Type: One-

off and

recurrent

476

477

Heading 1: EUR 16.9 billion (all credits included), Heading 4: EUR 1.6 billion (all credits included).

The figures cover executed commitments at the end of the programming period, Heading 1 and 4 included.

170

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Costs of

administrating

Erasmus+ are

incurred by the

public sector at

European level

but are

ultimately a cost

to the EU

society

Administrative costs of

implementing Erasmus+

Type:

recurrent

Administrative

line (executed

commitments

2014-2020):

EAC: EUR

91 865 156

EACEA: EUR

188 234 759

NAs

Management

fees

478

: EUR

612 287 871

(2014-2020)

Budget Heading

1 (and Heading 4

as from 2019)

and the relevant

national co-

financing in line

with the

programme

regulation

EACEA FTEs:

272 (in 2020)

NAs FTEs: 2 363

(in 2020)

479

Costs for Erasmus+

Type:

applicants and beneficiaries

recurrent

Not possible to Administrative

quantify

costs linked to

the application

process and

meeting the

eligibility

requirements.

Not possible

to quantify

Administrative costs

related to the

application,

89% of

implementation and

surveyed

reporting

beneficiaries requirements.

consider the

net costs of

project

activities

borne by the

478

NAs management fees are retrieved in this line (administrative costs of implementing Erasmus+) to provide the full picture of the running costs of the programme, including both

management modes, however, in the programme budget structure, they are part of the operational budget.

479

Out the total of FTEs working in NAs in 2020 (2 617, covering both FTEs allocated to Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps in agencies responsible for youth). The figure has

been calculated proportionally, based on the management fees in the two programmes, to exclude staff allocated to the European Solidarity Corps.

171

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

organisation

“fully

proportionate”

or “somewhat

proportionate”

compared to

the benefits

obtained by

the

organisation.

[Source:

socio-

economic

actors survey]

Co-financing

ranges

between 5%

and 20% of

the project

budget,

depending on

the action.

II.BENEFITS

Contribution Contribution to

to Europe

policy priorities

2020 Smart

set under

Growth

ET2020

480

(innovation, and Europe 2020

education,

strategy

481

digital society) including the

and Inclusive headline

Growth

education target

Number of

distinct

organisations

supported in

funded

projects:

131 000

Projects beneficiaries

must complement the

project budget with

sources of co-

financing other than

the EU grant, which

vary depending on the

action.

Increased capacity of

organisations:

common benefits

include enhanced

internationalisation,

experience in

transnational and

international

cooperation,

Improved skills

and

competences;

personal growth

94% of

and soft skills;

participants in increased sense

youth mobility of European

activities

belonging;

declared

language

6.2 million

actual

participants

Direct benefits

Type:

recurrent

480

481

Strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training

Europe 2020: the European Union strategy for growth and employment | EUR-Lex

172

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

(employment

and skills,

fighting

poverty)

priorities:

EUR 2 665

million

[source: PPS

2019]

Contribution to

Commission’s

priorities

Number of

funded

projects:

161 000

More than

80% of

academics

report that

their

Erasmus+

experience

abroad has led

to the

development

of more

innovative

teaching

practices and

curricula in

their faculties

[source:

E+

higher

education

impact study]

strengthen their

capacities, produce

innovative

approaches, exchange

good practices,

expanded networks,

etc.

having

proficiency,

increased skills cultural

under the

awareness and

2014-2020

enhanced

programme

intercultural

[source:

competence

Programme

Performance

Statement]

80% of

Erasmus+

students were

employed

within three

months of

graduation

[source:

E+

higher

education

impact study]

Contribution

mainstreaming

of climate

Contribution to

action: over large scale

12 000

policy

projects

progresses at EU

addressing

and national

environment levels,

and climate

supporting the

change

sectors’ needs

and supporting

Gender

more cohesive

equality:

policy

women

approaches

represent 58% across Member

of learners

States

over the period

2014-2020

[source:

Erasmus+

Annual Report

2020]

38 000

projects (EUR

2.3 billion

Contribution to

grant) tackling building a sense

173

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

the priority of

participation,

common EU

values and

civic

engagement

of European

identity and

awareness of EU

values across

participating

countries

Contribution

to SDGs 1-3- Contribution to

4-5-8-10-16 SDGs

[source:

Programme

Performance

Statement]

Not possible to Multiplier effect:

quantify

participating

organisations

raise capacity in

other

organisations

(through

network-

building,

knowledge

exchange,

training and

curriculum

development).

Indirect benefits

Type:

recurrent

174

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Table 2. Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation

(ERASMUS+

2021-2027)

Citizens/EU society

EU Public Administration

Implementing bodies

Quantitative

Comment

II.COSTS

Financial

envelope for the

programming

period 2021-

2027: EUR 26.2

billion

Spending as of

31 December

2023:

Under indirect

management:

EUR

8 770 880 435

Under direct

management:

EUR

2 389 576 576

National co-

funding for

actions under

indirect

management

(grant support):

EUR

140 839 478

Costs of

Administrative

administrating line (executed

Erasmus+ are commitments

incurred by the 2021-2023):

Erasmus+ beneficiaries

Erasmus+ participants

Quantitative

Comment

Quantitative

Comment

Quantitative

Comment

Erasmus+ budget

Type:

One-off

and

recurrent

Administrative costs of

implementing Erasmus+

Type:

recurrent

175

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Not possible

to quantify

Costs for Erasmus+

applicants and

beneficiaries

Type:

recurrent

public sector at EAC: EUR

European level 71 919 437

but are

EACEA: EUR

ultimately a cost 77 096 690

to the EU

society

NAs

Management

fees

482

: EUR

406 666 193

(2021-2023)

Budget

Headings 2 and

6 Relevant

national co-

financing to

National

Agencies’

management

costs, in line

with the

programme

regulation: EUR

198 920 995

Administrative

costs linked to

the application

process and

meeting the

eligibility

requirements

EACEA FTEs:

296.6

483

NAs FTEs:

2 430

[source:

NAs

multiannual

work

programme

2022]

Administrative costs

related to the

application,

89% of

implementation and

surveyed

reporting

beneficiaries requirements.

consider the

net costs of

project

activities

borne by the

organisation

Not possible

to quantify

482

NAs management fees are retrieved in this line (administrative costs of implementing Erasmus+) to provide the full picture of the running costs of the programme, including both

management modes, however, in the programme budget structure, they are part of the operational budget.

483

Average for the period 2021-2023

176

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

“fully

proportionate”

or “somewhat

proportionate”

compared to

the benefits

obtained by

the

organisation.

[Source:

socio-

economic

actors survey]

Projects beneficiaries

Co-financing must complement the

ranges

project budget with

between 5% sources of co-

and 20% of financing other than

the project

the EU grant, which

budget,

vary depending on

depending on the action.

the action.

III.BENEFITS

Contribution to

policy priorities

set under the

European

Education Area

Direct benefits

Type:

recurrent

Climate

objectives:

Contribution to

EUR 1 049

Commission’s

million (2021- priorities

2023)

Contribution to

Digital

large scale

contribution: policy

progresses at

Number of

Increased capacity of 1.6 million actual

Enhanced skills

distinct

organisations:

participants (at cut- and

organisations common benefits

off date 31/12/2023) competences;

supported in include enhanced

of which 15% with personal

funded

internationalisation, fewer opportunities growth and soft

projects:

experience in

skills;

77 671 (at cut- transnational and

98% of participants increased sense

off date

international

consider they have of European

31/12/2023) cooperation,

benefited from

belonging;

strengthen their

participation

[source:

language

Number of

capacities, produce

2022 Erasmus+

proficiency,

funded

innovative

annual report]

cultural

projects:

approaches, exchange

awareness and

72 000 (at cut- good practices,

enhanced

177

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

EUR 2 018

million

EU and national

levels,

supporting the

Gender

sectors’ needs

equality: 60% and supporting

of mobility

more cohesive

opportunities policy

taken up by approaches

women

across Member

[source:

States

Programme

Performance

Statement]

Contribution to

building a sense

Over 3 000

of European

identity and

contracted

projects (EUR awareness of

EU values

169 ml

across

contracted

participating

grant) working countries

on the topic

“European

identity,

citizenship

and values”

(at cut-off date

31/12/2023)

Over 1 600

Youth

Participation

Activities

(EUR 61 ml

contracted

grant)

involving

off date

31/12/2023)

expanded networks, More than 90% have intercultural

etc.

an increased

competence

European sense of

belonging

85% of participants

declare having

increased their key

competences

[source: 2022

Erasmus+ annual

report]

83% stated improved

competences useful

for their current

work/studies

[source:

2022 Erasmus+

annual report]

78% have improved

their foreign

language

competence

[source: 2022

Erasmus+ annual

report]

178

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

more than

250 000

young people

(call years

2021 to 2023)

88% of PC

respondents

agreed or

strongly

agreed that the

programme is

performing

well in

promoting

common EU

values and

strengthened

European

identity

Not possible Multiplier

to quantify

effect:

participating

organisations

raise capacity in

other

organisations

(through

network-

building,

knowledge

exchange,

training and

curriculum

development).

Indirect benefits

Type:

recurrent

179

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

TABLE 3:

Simplification

and burden reduction (savings already achieved)

Citizens/EU society

EU Public Administration

Implementing bodies

Quantitative

Comment

Erasmus+ beneficiaries

Erasmus+ participants

Quantitative

Comment

Quantitative

Comment

Quantitative

Comment

Burden reduction following the introduction of simplification measures: lump-sums

The use of lump sums, unit costs and flat-rate funding has considerably simplified the calculation of the grant amounts in comparison to the 'traditional' system of basing the amount of

the grant on a detailed budget of eligible costs per cost category

82% of

Reduced

Not possible to quantify at Greater predictability for

Type: recurrent

respondents

administrative this stage

grant beneficiaries who

considered that burden at

can take the pre-

the lump sum application and 92% share of organisations established rates into

system

payment stage and institutions considering account when submitting

simplifies the reducing

that procedures for taking their applications making

administration overheads for part in the programme are the actions more attractive;

for

NAs and

proportionate and

simplified reporting

NAs/EACEA facilitating

simple (2022 data)

requirements

[NAs/EACEAs

productivity

survey]

gains

Burden reduction following the introduction of simplification measures: accreditation

The introduction of the accreditation scheme for mobility projects in school education, adult education, and youth improved programme accessibility to funding and reduced

administrative requirements for recurrent beneficiaries

61% of

Reduces

Accredited organisations Reduces application time

respondents

administrative may gain indicatively about (and costs).

agree to a high burdens for

70% time to prepare a grant

Type: recurrent

extent that it

implementing request instead of

simplifies the bodies

submitting a full

application

application form

484

process

[NAs/EACEAs

45% of respondents agrees Streamlines project

survey]

that it simplifies project

management, fosters long-

management for

term planning and

beneficiaries

financial security for

484

Estimation based on the structure of the application form for non-accredited projects, compared to the request for funds for accredited projects.

180

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Estimated

Reduces

[NAs/EACEA survey]

beneficiaries, reduces

indicative

assessment costs

administrative burdens for

savings for

(savings

92% share of organisations beneficiaries.

assessing

increasing

and institutions considering

accredited

yearly and are that procedures for taking

projects under expected to be part in the programme are

2021-2024

more visible in proportionate and

Calls: between the second part simple (2022 data)

EUR 1 million of the

and EUR 5.9

programming

million [details period)

under 4.1.2.4]

Accreditation

system assessed

very positively

across most (31)

national reports

Burden reduction and increased accessibility following the introduction of simplification measures: small-scale partnerships

The introduction of the action widened the access to the programme to small-scale actors, grassroots organisations and newcomers to Erasmus+, reducing entry barriers to the

programme for organisations with smaller organisational capacity thanks to lower grant amounts awarded to organisations, shorter duration and simpler administrative requirements

compared to the cooperation partnerships.

Not possible to quantify

Greater predictability for

grant

beneficiaries;

simplified administrative

requirements; flexibility of

the format.

Type: recurrent

Increased accessibility for

small

and

newcomer

organisations

Revamped IT architecture,

including for implementing bodies, with the introduction of the “single entry point” for IT applications

100% of users

(NAs and

Commission

users)

Type:

one-off

Facilitated

100%

Erasmus+ Facilitated access for all

access for all

applicants/beneficiaries

applicants/beneficiaries,

users, who can

who can easily navigate,

easily navigate,

from one single entry page,

from one single

through

different

entry page,

modules

(previously

through different

181

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

IT modules

accessible

through

(previously

different hyperlinks)

accessible

through different

hyperlinks)

Administrative costs savings of programme implementing bodies (NAs) through introduction of several simplifications:

introduction of multi-annual work programme, shorter and

more targeted annual reporting (yearly reports); simplified contractual requirements (contribution agreements) with increased flexibility for the management of funds; digitalisation of

contractual, payments and amendment procedures, use of digital signature; simplified rules for the implementation and reporting of certain tasks (TCA activities, funding rules for

SALTOs, Eurodesk, national VET teams)

Quantification Reduced

of savings (in administrative

Type: one-off and

terms of FTE) burdens for

recurrent

are not yet

implementing

measurable: for bodies (indirect

indirect

management)

management,

NAs

communicate

their resources

(FTE) in the

multiannual

work

programme at

the beginning of

the

programming

period and will

revise in 2025.

Time to process Digitalisation of

amendments

processes at

related to

level of NAs

budgetary

brought to

transfers: 11

increased

days in 2023 (10 efficiency in

days in 2024), processing

against the

contribution

contractual

agreements and

amendments

182

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

deadline of 30

days).

Digitalised and simplified implementation of the programme for participants, in particular through Erasmus Without Paper

Type: recurrent

efficient 218 546

Simplified

student mobility

Potential savings of over

management of student downloads

mobilities

for

higher and close to through the

€13.5 million prints

education

institutions, 10 million

completion of

annually across the

Erasmus+ programme

reduced data entry errors, webpage loads learning

agreements

and a consequent 55%

accelerated approvals and of

greener processes.

the Erasmus+ onlineand easier

workload reduction for

app.

access to

university administrative

information and

staff.

485

services for

students.

PART II: II Potential simplification and burden reduction (savings)

Identify further potential simplification and savings

that could be achieved

with a view to make the initiative more effective and efficient without prejudice to its policy objectives

Citizens/EU society

EU Public Administration

Erasmus+ beneficiaries

Erasmus+ participants

Implementing bodies

Quantitative

Comment

Quantitative

Comment

Quantitative

Comment

Quantitative

Comment

Further simplification measures to cater for the needs and nature of newcomers and small-sized applicants, including exploring new action formats

Type: recurrent

Not possible to quantify Expected impact/savings

for applicants and

beneficiaries.

Expected wider outreach

of newcomers/small-sized

applicants.

Ongoing simplification assessment action to alleviate reporting burden on participants, beneficiaries and implementing authorities:

Commission is working together with the

National Agencies and EACEA in order to explore simplification of administrative documents, application, monitoring and reporting processes having always in mind the need to keep

a correct balance between reporting obligations and accountability rules.

485

López-Nores, Martín, José J. Pazos-Arias, Abdulkadir Gölcü, and Ömer Kavrar. 2022. "Digital Technology in Managing Erasmus+ Mobilities: Efficiency Gains and Impact Analysis from Spanish,

Italian, and Turkish Universities"

Applied Sciences

12, no. 19: 9804. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12199804

183

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Type: recurrent

Not possible to Expected

Not possible to quantify Expected impact/savings

quantify

impact/savings for

for applicants and

implemented bodies

beneficiaries

Not possible Expected

to quantify

impact/savings

for participants

(reporting)

184

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

NNEX

V. S

TAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION

- S

YNOPSIS REPORT

1. Introduction

Erasmus+ is the European Union (EU) programme in the fields of education and training, youth, and sport. Covering both an intra-European and an

international dimension, Erasmus+ aims to support, in particular through learning mobility, the educational, professional and personal development of

people in education, training, youth and sport, in Europe and beyond. Erasmus+ was established in 2014 as a result of the integration of the prior Erasmus

programme with all previously existing EU programmes implemented in the fields of education, training, youth and sport. Building on the achievements

of its 35 years of existence, as well as on those of other pre-existing programmes and previous initiatives, it is one of the EU’s most visible and well-

known success stories.

This document presents a synopsis of the consultation activities carried out in the context of the support study performed by ICF under a contract to

support the European Commission (EC) in conducting an interim evaluation of the Erasmus+ programme 2021-2027, accompanied by a final evaluation

of the Erasmus+ programme 2014-2020.

This synopsis report covers the public consultation, targeted consultations as well as feedback received during workshops. The stakeholder consultations

took place between July 2022 and September 2024. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to analyse stakeholder input.

This report has the following aims:

•

to inform policymaking of the outcome of the consultation activities and of the views expressed by the different categories of stakeholders; and

inform stakeholders about how their input has been considered.

2. Consultation strategy

The aim of the support study was to assess the programme against five evaluation criteria:

the

effectiveness

of the measures taken to achieve the programme’s objectives, especially with regards to new initiatives;

the continued

relevance

of all objectives of the programme;

the programme’s internal and external

coherence

with other programmes with similar or complementary objectives;

the

efficiency

of the programme, including the inclusion and simplification measures put in place, as well as the scope for further simplification

and burden reduction; and

5) the

European added value

resulting from the actions and activities supported by the programme, especially in terms of sustainable impact,

compared with what could reasonably have been achieved by Member States at national and/or regional levels.

185

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

In line with the European Commission’s Better Regulation guidelines, a consultation strategy was elaborated to gather input from all interested parties

on the programme’s performance against the five evaluation criteria. To this end, the consultation strategy was designed and implemented to support

the assessment of different programme aspects in line with the objectives of the evaluation, but also to collect views on possible improvement options

and on their impact on all relevant stakeholder groups.

To ensure a balanced consultation process and to capture the full diversity of the ‘Erasmus+ ecosystem’, the following stakeholder groups were

identified across all programme fields:

•

EU institutions (i.e. Commission services, EU Delegations, Commission’s Agencies);

rvices, EU Delegations, Commission’s Agencies);

International organisations(such as OECD, UNESCO, ILO, Council of Europe, World Bank);

National, regional and local public authorities;

Erasmus+ National Authorities;

Erasmus+ National Agencies, and other programme structures, such as SALTO resource centres and National Erasmus+ Offices (NEOs);

Erasmus+ expert assessors (both for actions under direct and indirect management);

Individual programme participants (both learners and staff) across all programme sectors and fields;

Potential programme participants, not or not yet participating in the programme

486

;

Beneficiary organisations across all programme fields, including education and training institutions/providers, sport and youth organisations;

European stakeholders in education, training, youth and sport (sectoral networks, professional bodies, social partners, youth and sport

organisations, NGOs, civil society organisations);

National stakeholders in education, training, youth and sport (sectoral networks, professional bodies, social partners, youth and sport

organisations, NGOs, civil society organisations);

Stakeholders in education, training, youth and sport in third countries not associated with the programme;

Citizens (EU and non-EU).

A number of consultation activities were implemented, including:

•

a Call for evidence;

a Public consultation;

a set of targeted consultations:

scoping interviews,

486

Non-participants were targeted to support a counterfactual analysis aimed at assessing the impacts of participation in the learners and staff surveys, and to analyses the barriers to

participation in the behavioural experiment.

186

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

survey of beneficiary learners,

survey of beneficiary staff,

pre-post survey of pupils and young people,

behavioural experiment with individuals who did not participate in the programme,

survey of Erasmus+ National Agencies and the EACEA,

survey of expert assessors,

survey of socio-economic actors,

interviews of ‘key informants’ at international, European and national levels,

case studies.

In addition, five stakeholder workshops were organised as part of the study conducted by ICF to gather feedback on specific aspects of the evaluation.

The different stakeholder categories targeted and consulted for each of the consultation activities are shown in the table below.

Table 1: Stakeholder categories targeted and consulted for each of the consultation activities

Stakeholder

type

Call for

evidence

Public

consultatio

Scoping

interviews

Survey of

beneficiary

learners

Survey of

beneficiari

es (staff)

Pre-post

survey

Survey of

National

Agencies

and

EACEA

Survey of

expert

assessors

Survey of

socio-

economic

actors

Behavioural

experiment

Key

informant

interviews

Case

studies

Workshops

EU institutions

International

organisations

Public

authorities

Erasmus+

National

Agencies

Erasmus+

National

Authorities

Erasmus+

expert assessors

Individual

programme

participants

Potential

programme

participants /

187

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

non-

participants

Beneficiary

organisations

European

stakeholders

National

stakeholders

International

stakeholders

Citizens

188

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

The following table shows the timeline of the consultation activities implemented by ICF, and

the level of stakeholder participation achieved for each of them.

Table 2: Stakeholder participation in consultation activities

Consultation activity

Call for evidence

Scoping interviews

Public consultation

Survey of beneficiary learners

across programme fields

Survey of beneficiary staff

across programme fields

Pre-post survey of pupils and

young people

487

Timeline

From 28 July to 12 September 2022

Between 29 March and 26 May 2023

From 15 September 2023 to 8

December 2023

From 16 October 2023 to 11

December 2023

From 16 October 2023 to 11

December 2023

From 16 October 2023 to 11

December 2023 (pre-survey) and

from 07 June 2024 to 05 July 2024

(post-survey, school pupils only)

Between October and December

2023

From 15 November 2023 to 22

December 2023

From 26 October and 15 December

2023

Between 3 April and 10 May 2024

Level of participation

195 responses

24 interviews

1,243 responses

64 position papers

25 413 Erasmus+ participants (test

group) and 2,094 non-participants

(control group)

26,332 Erasmus+ participants (test

group) and 2,894 non-participants

(control group)

Pupils: 261 (pre-) and 105 (post-)

Erasmus+ participants; 123 (pre-)

and 26 (post-) non-participants

(control group)

164 valid responses, including 156

from National Agencies and 8 from

the EACEA

1 550 valid responses, of which

1 130 complete and 420 partial

1 842 valid responses

10 985 responses from individuals

who have not previously taken part

in the Erasmus+ programme

264 interviews with 313 key

informants at national (165),

European (60) and international (42)

level

44 case studies covering all

programme fields, focusing on

organisational level impacts (29

case studies) and system levels

effects (7) as well as on Jean

Monnet Actions (8). A total of 186

stakeholders were interviewed to

perform these case studies (58 from

organisations’ leadership, 80

members of staff, 48 learners).

Over 540 participants in total

Survey of Erasmus+ National

Agencies and the EACEA

Survey of socio-economic

actors

Survey of expert assessors

Behavioural experiment

Key informant interviews

Between October 2023 and July 2024

Case studies

Between April 2024 and July 2024

Stakeholder workshops

5 stakeholder workshops between

June 2023 and September 2024

487

A pre-mobility survey of young people took place as well in parallel with the pupils pre-mobility survey;

however since it yielded insufficient response (7 participants and 5 non-participants), the post-component was not

implemented.

189

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

3. Consultation activities

The following section provides an overview of each consultation activity indicating the types

of stakeholders that were targeted, a short description of the employed methods and procedures,

as well as a brief presentation of the results.

3.1.

Call for evidence

A call for evidence was conducted by the European Commission between 28 July 2022 and 12

September 2022 on the Europa website

Have your say

portal

488

to collect inputs and evidence

from programme stakeholders, with a view to help framing and scoping the upcoming

evaluation exercise.

195 submissions

were received, from

11 stakeholder groups,

mostly Academic/research

institutions (26.67%), EU Citizens (20.51%), and NGOs (18.46%).

Call for evidence – Profile of respondents by stakeholder category

489

Source: Europa website, Have your say portal

490

181 responses were received from Erasmus+ programme countries (177 from EU Member

States and 4 from third countries associated to the programme), while 14 were from third

countries not associated to the programme. Overall, the countries providing the highest number

of contributions were Cyprus (25, 13%), Germany (16, 8%) and Estonia (13, 7%). Out of the

195 submissions received, 22 (11%) included a position paper, 36.36% of which were

submitted by NGOs.

Across the stakeholder groups, there was very strong support for the Erasmus+ programme and

the opportunities it provides from an academic, professional, training, and personal perspective.

Respondents also reported on issues concerning some areas of practical implementation, in

particular administrative burden and IT tools.

Among respondents from academic/research institutions 62% expressed support for the

changes introduced in the 2021-2027 programme. Specific areas viewed positively include: the

focus on sustainability and inclusion, the additional funds for sustainable travel, or the

additional flexibility in the use of funds.

Feedback from EU citizens was also predominantly positive, mostly highlighting the many

opportunities provided by Erasmus+. Among respondents from NGOs, over a third explicitly

expressed support for the improvements made in the 2021-2027 programme, such as the

488

See :

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13454-Erasmus+-2021-27-

interim-evaluation-Erasmus+-2014-20-final-evaluation_en

489

These stakeholders’ categories reflect pre-defined categories based on the Better Regulation standard template.

490

Erasmus+ 2021-27 interim evaluation & Erasmus+ 2014-20 final evaluation (europa.eu)

190

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

introduction of small-scale partnerships or the enhanced inclusion and diversity measures.

Besides the programme’s IT tools, areas of attention reported by NGO participants included

remaining obstacles to the participation of vulnerable persons.

3.2.

Scoping interviews

The scoping interviews were carried out at the inception stage with a selection of officials from

EU institutions (European Commission, European Parliament, EACEA), National Agencies

and National Authorities representatives.

The main objective of this set of interviews was to gather high-level views on and ensure a

better understanding of the perceived relevance and achievement of Erasmus+ objectives and

priorities as well as the structure and management of the programme. They aimed at identifying

overall trends, success factors and areas for improvement.

A total of

24 interviews

were completed between 29 March and 26 May 2023, conducted

mostly online and following a semi-structured approach. The results and analysis of these

interviews were presented in the Inception Report, submitted in June 2023 as part of the study

conducted by ICF.

The insights obtained from the scoping interviews enabled the study team to better understand

the key objectives of the evaluation, to finalise the analytical frameworks and adjust data

collection activities as applicable, and to generate interest and participation in the study.

3.3.

Public consultation

A public consultation was held to collect the views of the main programme stakeholders (e.g.,

stakeholders active in the education, training, youth and sport fields, individual programme

beneficiaries and alumni, beneficiary organisations, national, regional and local public

authorities and organisations) as well as EU and non-EU citizens. Running for 12 weeks, from

15 September until 8 December 2023, the public consultation was made available on the

European Commission’s ‘Have your Say’ portal

491

and was disseminated and promoted

through various channels by the Commission, National Agencies, National Authorities and

other programme stakeholders, including social media posts, news items on the programme

websites, and announcements at events to ensure a large response rate across relevant

stakeholders and among interested citizens.

The consultation questionnaire was designed around three possible response paths reflecting

the respondents’ level of knowledge of the programme: i) very familiar with the programme’s

objectives and actions, ii) partly familiar with the programme, iii) no knowledge. Respondents

well familiar with the programme received the most in-depth questionnaire; those partly

familiar were provided with a curated set of questions; and those with no knowledge of

Erasmus+ received a much shorter and simplified questionnaire, focusing on the need for the

programme and its possible continuation.

The full questionnaire contained 22 questions in total, most of them broken down into sub-

questions, concerning the programme’s relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, and EU

added value, as well as its future. A set of questions concerning the impact of contextual

elements on the Erasmus+ programme was also included, focusing on the programme’s

responsiveness and resilience in light of the disruptive events of recent years (COVID-19

pandemic, war in Ukraine, inflation surge). The questions related to the ‘efficiency’ and

491

Erasmus+ 2021-27 interim evaluation & Erasmus+ 2014-20 final evaluation (europa.eu)

191

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

‘coherence’ criteria, as well as those on the ‘impact of contextual elements on Erasmus+’, were

only asked to respondents with detailed knowledge of the programme.

Some questions had a range of answer options (Likert scale) while others were requesting open

feedback; most questions were mandatory, while few were optional.

A total of

1,243 respondents

contributed to the public consultation in their individual capacity

(40%) or on behalf of an organisation (60%). All 33 countries associated to the programmes

492

responded to the public consultation with at least one contribution. The country with the highest

number of contributions overall was Germany (175), followed by Portugal (144) and Spain

(129).

The distribution of respondents by stakeholder category is shown below.

Public consultation – Profile of respondents by stakeholder category

493

In addition to answering the questionnaire, respondents could submit position papers, outlining

their views on the Erasmus+ programme, or on some of its aspects most relevant to them. In

total, 67 position papers were submitted by several types of organisations (e.g., umbrella

organisations representing the education and training, youth and sport sectors, NGOs, schools,

university networks, VET providers). In addition, 8 papers were submitted outside the

consultation mechanism (i.e., by email), which the Commission decided to accept as part of the

consultation process. A total of 75 papers were therefore received and considered. 11 of these

submissions were found to be duplications, hence

64 position papers

were analysed.

factual summary report

was drafted in line with the Better Regulation requirements and

published on the Europa website

Have your Say

portal

494

within eight weeks from the closure

of the public consultation.

492

27 EU Member States and 6 third countries associated to the programme: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway,

North Macedonia, Serbia and Türkiye.

493

These stakeholders’ categories reflect pre-defined categories based on the Better Regulation standard template

for EU public consultations.

494

See:

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13454-Erasmus%2B-2021-27-

interim-evaluation-Erasmus%2B-2014-20-final-evaluation/public-consultation_en

192

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Summary of findings

The

relevance

of the specific objectives of the programme for 2021-2027 to current challenges

and needs in the education and training, youth, and sport sectors is viewed very positively

overall, however significantly more for the education and training sector than for the youth and

sport sectors. These differences are, nonetheless, mostly due to a higher proportion of ‘no

opinion’ shared for the youth and sport sectors, rather than a result of negative views. This

likely reflects the fact that fewer respondents to the public consultation stemmed from those

sectors and, hence, were familiar with the programme’s objectives as well as with their current

challenges and needs. In fact, the analysis of answers by sectors shows that the objectives in

the youth and sport sectors are considered as extremely relevant by the respondents involved

in those sectors.

Similarly, the relevance of the programme’s horizontal priorities to current challenges and

needs was assessed very positively across all stakeholder categories and sectors.

The continued relevance of the structure of the programme and the type of actions it supports

in pursuit of its future objectives was assessed positively by a vast majority (94%) of

respondents, across all stakeholder categories and sectors.

A majority of respondents also assessed very positively the

coherence

of Erasmus+ with other

funding instruments addressing the education, training, youth and sport sectors available at

national, EU, or international levels, yet to a varying degree (i.e. 78% for funding instruments

at the national level, 66% for funding instruments at the European level and 53% at the

international level). It should be noted that the lower level of agreement on the coherence of

the programme with other funding instruments available at the EU and especially, the

international level mostly results from a higher share of respondents indicating that they have

no knowledge of the matter, suggesting that public consultation’s respondents were generally

more familiar with national funding instruments addressing the education, training, youth, and

sport sectors than with instruments available at EU and international level.

Concerning the programme’s

effectiveness,

most respondents indicated that the programme

was fulfilling its objectives from a ’very large’ to a ‘large’ extent, yet with some slight

differences between sectors. Overall, the level of agreement was significantly higher for

objectives in the education and training sector (i.e., close or over 80%) than for objectives in

the youth (around 60%) and especially the sport sectors (close to 30%). Also in this case, these

differences are due to a higher proportion of ‘no opinion’ for the youth and sport sectors (close

to 25% and over 50% respectively), likely reflecting the fact that fewer respondents to the

public consultation were stemming from those sectors. The analysis of answers by sectors

shows that respondents involved in the youth and sport sectors perceive the programme’s

fulfilment of its objectives in their respective sectors very positively.

A significant majority of respondents indicated that the programme was performing particularly

well in the following areas:

•

promoting common EU values and strengthened European identity (88% strongly

agreeing or agreeing);

supporting EU policies and priorities (83%);

fostering mobility and cooperation opportunities with the rest of the world, thanks to its

international dimension (81%); and

providing flexible mobility formats, such as group mobility and blended mobility

(80%).

193

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Respondents were more uncertain about the performance of the programme with regards to:

•

ensuring the participation of grassroot and newcomer organisations through simplified

grants (53% strongly agreeing or agreeing); and

reducing its carbon footprint, for example by supporting sustainable transport modes

(47%).

In terms of inclusion and diversity, most respondents indicated that the programme is

particularly effective in

facilitating participation of people with fewer opportunities

that

face cultural, social, or economic barriers (74% strongly agreeing or agreeing for each), and a

bit less so for barriers related to health problems and to education and training systems (about

30% for each). This seems to be due to a higher share of respondents answering ‘uncertain’ or

having no opinion concerning the latter barriers.

In terms of

efficiency,

public consultation’s respondents expressed mixed views on the cost-

effectiveness of actions funded by the programme, with a largely positive assessment

concerning KA1 and less for KA2 and especially KA3, with a much higher share of respondents

having no opinion or being uncertain in relation to the cost-effectiveness of this key action.

Overall, respondents positively assessed the programme’s evolution and, specifically, the

changes occurred from the 2014-2020 programming period to the 2021-2027 one.

majority indeed agreed that:

•

the user-friendliness of the grant application to the programme had improved (55% of

respondents strongly agreeing or agreeing),

the management of the programme had been effectively simplified (53%), and

the user-friendliness of the guidance and support tools had generally improved over

time (52%).

Views were mixed on the sufficiency of the programme’s budget to achieve its objectives, with

50% of respondents in agreement and 38% disagreeing, or on the distribution of the budget

between directly managed actions and those managed indirectly by National Agencies, and

between programme actions, for which a significant share of respondents were uncertain or had

no opinion.

Concerning

EU added value,

a vast majority of respondents positively assessed:

•

the programme’s contribution to the internationalisation of participating organisations

(97% strongly agreeing or agreeing),

its contribution to building a European identity/sense of belonging and to raising

awareness of EU values (91%),

the fact that Erasmus+ is funding activities which would not have been funded

otherwise (90%), and

the programme’s contribution to improve inclusion, diversity, fairness, and equal

opportunities at national, European, and international level (89%).

Concerning the

future of the programme,

over 50% of respondents indicated that all existing

activities under KA1 (Learning mobility) should be maintained in a possible successor

programme to Erasmus+, as well as most activities under KA2 (Cooperation among

organisations and institutions). On the other hand, over half of respondents did not know/had

no opinion about maintaining most of existing activities under KA3 (Support to policy

development and cooperation) and under the Jean Monnet Actions. The majority of respondents

194

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

also agreed from ‘a very large’ to a ‘large’ extent, that the following aspects would have to be

addressed to maximise the impact of a possible successor programme to Erasmus+:

•

increasing the overall programme budget (82%);

simplifying the administrative requirements to access funding (82%);

increasing the level of individual grants (76%);

providing better access to people with fewer opportunities (74%)

increasing the opportunity for international mobility and international cooperation with

countries outside Europe (74%).

3.4. Surveys of beneficiaries

A set of online surveys, referred to as ‘beneficiaries’ surveys’, were conducted with the

beneficiaries of the Erasmus+ programme, from both programme and non-programme

countries, including both learners (school pupils, higher education students, VET learners, adult

education learners, young people outside of formal education/ training) and staff (from school,

higher education, VET, adult education, youth organisations and sport organisations).

Specifically, the following surveys were implemented:

•

post-mobility survey among programme participants,

i.e. individuals who

participated in an Erasmus+ learning mobility activity, in all target categories of

learners and staff, and a corresponding survey among individuals who did not take part

in any Erasmus+ learning mobility activity (non-beneficiaries) in the same categories

of learners and staff (control groups). The survey was aimed at measuring experiences,

attitudes and effects of taking part in the programme (i.e., for learners: effects in relation

to skills, employability and progression to further education; for staff: effects on

professional development, adoption of new teaching methods).

combination of pre- and post-mobility surveys

among school pupils and young

people outside of formal education/training, and corresponding control group surveys

among non-participating pupils and young people

495

, to allow for a more fine-grained

measurement of short-term effects of taking part in an Erasmus+ experience in the

school education and youth sectors and compare attitudes/ skills/ beliefs shortly before

and right after the participation.

•

Survey participants were recruited on the basis of databases of programme participants and

beneficiaries provided by the European Commission. For the learners’ control groups, survey

participants were recruited via snowballing and social media recruitment as no contact database

of non-participants exists. Social media recruitment was implemented through banners on

platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and Google Ads (Search, Display and YouTube) in five

programme countries

496

. Furthermore, communication and information actions were performed

by the Commission through its own communication channels (e.g. social media, advertising

during events, news items) and by requesting support to National Agencies to act as multipliers

and further support the dissemination of the surveys through their own communication

channels. A significant aspect of the recruitment involved leveraging existing contacts to

facilitate snowball recruitment to further recruit participants within the participant and non-

participant groups.

The following table provides the detail of target and achieved sample sizes for each survey and

category after the performance of data cleansing:

495

496

See footnote 2.

RO, IE, PT, PL, DK.

195

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Table 3: Beneficiary surveys - fieldwork dates and target and achieved sample sizes

Learners survey - Fieldwork: 16/10/2023 to 11/12/2023

Survey

Programme

fields

School

education

Higher

education

VET

Target groups

Pupils

Test group

(participants)

Target

Achieved

111

15,200

4,800

2,250

571

16,761

5,281

2,710

Control group

(non-participants)

Target

Achieved

N/A

284

819

796

167

Higher education students

and recent graduates

VET students, apprentices

and recent graduates

Adult education

Adult learners

Youth

Young people outside

formal education/training

Total

22,390

25,413

N/A

2,094

Staff survey - Fieldwork: 16/10/2023 to 11/12/2023

Survey

Programme

fields

School

education

Target groups

Test group

(participants)

Target

Achieved

3,000

3,900

Control group

(non-participants)

Target

Achieved

150

719

School staff (e.g. teachers,

headmasters,

administrative staff)

Higher

Higher education staff

education

(e.g. administrative and

teaching staff)

VET

VET staff (teachers,

trainers…)

Adult education

Adult education staff

Youth

Sport

Youth workers and staff

of youth organisations

Coaches and staff of sport

organisations

11,000

14,884

400

1529

2,500

1,350

2,350

200

3,243

1,501

2,473

331

200

100

150

235

122

241

Total

20,400

26,332

1,050

2,894

Pre-post survey - Fieldwork: 4/10/2023 to 11/12/2023 (pre-survey) and 7/06/2024 to 5/07/2024 (post-

survey, school pupils only)

Survey

Programme

fields

School

education

Youth

Target group

Pupils

Young people outside

formal education/training

Target

Test group

(participants)

Achieved

(Pre-)

(Post-)

261

105

N/A

Control group

(non-participants)

Target

Achieved Achieved

(Pre-)

(Post-)

123

N/A

Total

114

268

N/A

128

N/A

For the learners’ survey, the target sample sizes were achieved for all categories, both for the

test groups (participants) and the control groups (non-participants). The number of respondents

in the adult education sector was much lower than the other categories due to the limited budget

of the action, as well as to its recent start in 2021, in pandemic times, and the consequent much

smaller size of the available contact database.

For the staff survey, the target sample sizes were achieved for all categories, both for the test

groups (beneficiaries) and the control groups (non-beneficiaries), with the exception of the

sport staff control group (48 respondents recorded against a target of 50).

196

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

For the pre-post survey, given the small numbers of respondents achieved in the pre-mobility

survey of the youth category, it was decided that the post-mobility survey for this category

would not be carried out. The post-survey was only implemented for school pupils.

Summary of findings

Beneficiary survey of learners:

The analysis of survey data indicates a positive correlation

between participation in the Erasmus+ programme and some of the outcomes investigated for

learner participants. The statistical evidence suggests that participating in the programme

increased participants’ problem-solving and autonomy skills, and their level of digital

competence. It also suggests that participating in Erasmus+ increased the participants’ sense of

European identity, being confident in their efforts in education or training, recognising that

employers value mobility and transnational educational experiences, and completing their

studies or other learning activities.

Beneficiary survey of staff:

The data analysis indicates a positive correlation between

participation in the Erasmus+ programme and some of the outcomes investigated for staff

participants. The statistical evidence suggests that participating in the programme has had

varied but significant effects across different sectors, with particularly strong outcomes in areas

related to international networking (e.g., development of other projects, continued exchange of

professional information, keeping abreast of developments in the professional community) and

transnational partnerships (strategy, cooperation and network size).

Pre-post mobility survey of school pupils:

The data analysis indicates that participation in

the Erasmus+ programme has a positive correlation with some of the outcomes explored for

school pupils. Specifically, statistical evidence suggests that participation in the programme

was found to have increased the likelihood of participants taking action to live more sustainably

and the participant’s level of cultural awareness and expression.

3.5.

Survey of National Agencies and EACEA

A survey addressing the 55 Erasmus+ National Agencies across the 33 programme countries

497

and EACEA was conducted between October and December 2023 to collect feedback from the

bodies in charge of the implementation of the programme actions

498

Each National Agency was requested to submit one reply per country and per sector/field

499

under their responsibility, while EACEA was requested to submit one reply per programme

sector/field, plus one reply for the Jean Monnet Actions.

A total of

164 valid responses

were received, including 156 from National Agencies (95%)

and 8 from the EACEA (5%).

Summary of findings

The survey results show that the Erasmus+ programme is perceived by National Agencies and

EACEA as being

highly relevant

in the context of today's socio-economic needs and

challenges. Erasmus+ was also assessed very positively in terms of

internal and external

coherence.

In particular, it was seen as strongly aligned with EU policy priorities as well as

highly complementary to other EU-funded programmes and international initiatives.

497

27 EU Member States and 6 third countries associated to the programme, i.e. Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway,

North Macedonia, Serbia and Türkiye.

498

National Agencies for actions under indirect management, and the EACEA for actions under direct

management.

499

School education, VET, higher education, adult education, youth, and sport.

197

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

Concerning

effectiveness

and related factors, 36% of survey respondents indicated that the

programme fully attains its goals within their respective sectors, and an additional 63% argued

that it does so partially. Concerning the

programme architecture,

55% of respondents

consider it fully appropriate and 42% partially appropriate for achieving its objectives.

The survey found that 63% of respondents deem the programme’s

financial envelope

either

fully (17%) or partially (46%) appropriate and proportionate to Erasmus+ objectives regarding

their sector of competence,

vs.

36% stating that the funding was either not really or not at all

appropriate and proportionate. When asked for suggestions to improve programme efficiency,

respondents identified several crucial areas requiring enhancement, including further

simplification of grant agreements, administrative procedures, and programme guidelines, with

the aim of reducing complexity and improving overall efficiency; establishment of reliable IT

tools to minimise errors and delays; improved communication channels between the EACEA

and National Agencies; or encouragement of collaboration and knowledge-sharing among

National Agencies.

3.6.

Survey of socio-economic actors

The socio-economic actors surveyed included education and training organisations, civil

society organisations, public authorities (at national, regional and local levels), companies, and

other sectoral and professional organisations having participated in the programme in the

period 2014-2023.

The target group was composed by organisations identified on the basis of the survey design

and contacted through a randomly selected sample of organisations from the Erasmus+

programme database, covering actions under both direct and indirect management. The survey

invitation was disseminated by e-mail only, reaching out to over 8 000 contacts.

The survey was made available in six languages (ES, DE, EN, FR, IT and PL), from 15

November to 22 December 2023 (including deadline extensions). After data cleansing, in total,

1 550 valid responses

were received, of which 1,130 were complete (73%) and 420 (27%)

were partially complete. 50% of responses were submitted by respondents from education and

training organisations, followed by representatives of civil society organisations (18%) and of

public authorities (local, regional, and national) (13%).

Summary of findings

The survey results indicate that the Erasmus+ programme is essential to the implementation of

the projects it finances, with about 70% of respondent organisations stating that their projects

would not have been undertaken without Erasmus+ funding. The survey results also indicate a

high level of satisfaction among respondent organisations that participated in the programme,

most of which are highly motivated to participate again in the future, both in similar and

different activities (over 90% considering it likely or highly likely in both cases).

Socio-economic actors were also asked to identify the main barriers hindering similar

organisations from participating in the Erasmus+ programme. Approximately half of

responding organisations identified the lack of available staff to get involved in such activities

as the main barrier. This barrier was the most frequently cited across all types of organisations

addressed through the survey. The second most cited barrier was application procedures,

mentioned by 40% of organisations, but emphasised particularly by civil society, youth

organisations and public authorities. Among companies, the lack of knowledge about the

programme was cited by 43%. For sport organisations, the main barriers were identified as

198

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

application procedures, grant levels to cover the actual costs, knowledge about the Erasmus+

programme, and a lack of staff (all cited by 45% of sport organisations).

When asked about their involvement in other EU-funded projects, only about a third of

respondents indicated having previously participated or being currently participating in such

projects. Among respondents who participated in other EU-funded programmes in the past, the

most common were the European Social Fund programmes (ESF/ESF+, 31%), the Interreg

programmes (21%), and Horizon 2020/Horizon Europe (13%). These EU funding programmes

were also those respondents were currently participating the most: ESF+ programmes (34% of

respondents), followed by Horizon Europe (17%) and the Interreg programmes (16%).

3.7.

Survey of expert assessors

The survey addressed the experts responsible for assessing applications for the calls for

proposals and final reports of projects implemented under Erasmus+ actions under direct and

indirect management over both programme generations.

The survey was conducted between 26 October and 15 December 2023 in English only. The

survey link was disseminated through National Agencies and EACEA, who were asked to

forward the survey invitation to their mailing lists of expert assessors in charge of evaluating

applications and final reports, respectively, for projects under indirect and direct management.

In total,

1 842 valid responses

were received and analysed, distributed as follows:

•

70% of the total respondents were from experts in charge of assessing Erasmus+ project

applications and final reports of indirectly manged actions,

20% of respondents were conducting these assessments for actions under direct

management,

the remaining 10% of respondents was dealing with the assessment of project proposals

and final reports of both directly and indirectly managed actions.

35% of respondents indicated that they conducted assessments for the Erasmus+ programme

applications/projects originating in Spain, followed by Italy (16%), France, Belgium (both

13%) and Portugal (11%). Conversely, none of the respondents indicated that they had assessed

Erasmus+ applications/ projects in Malta, The Netherlands, or Norway.

4.7.1 Summary of findings

The survey results provide insights into the role of the

guidance

received by expert assessors

in enhancing the assessment process of project proposals and final reports within the previous

and current Erasmus+ programme. The vast majority of respondents find this guidance to be

very useful for their assessments (81%) and agree or strongly agree that it provides agreed and

clear standards to use for their assessments (96%). 67% of respondents indicated that the

guidance received under the current Erasmus+ programme generation has improved the way

they assess applications/projects. 92% of respondents also perceive a positive evolution

concerning the IT tools supporting the assessment of applications/projects over the two

programming periods, with 29% indicating a significant improvement and 63% a moderate

improvement.

33% of respondents indicated that the overall

quality of project applications

has improved in

the current generation of Erasmus+ compared with the previous programme, while 10% stated

that it has worsened, and 24% that it has remained the same. 33% indicated that they do not

know as they have not assessed projects under one of the two programme generations.

199

kom (2025) 0395 - Ingen titel

85% of respondents expressed a positive stance towards the

project award criteria,

indicating

that they either strongly agree (34%) or agree (51%) that the criteria effectively capture the

essential features crucial for delivering high-quality project results, and 74% (out of which 22%

strongly agree and 52% agree) find the award criteria sufficiently clear for those preparing

applications. In addition, 79% of respondents either strongly agree or agree that the weighting

of the award criteria appropriately reflects the importance of each quality aspect in the project

application.

3.8.

Behavioural experiment

A behavioural experiment was designed and implemented as part of the support study to

analyse the factors that prevent learners in higher education, VET and youth from taking part

in the Erasmus+ programme.

The behavioural experiment was implemented through a pre-selected panel of 10 000

individuals in 10 EU Member States (Czechia, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy,

Poland, Romania, Spain, and Sweden), aged 18-30 and who never participated in the

programme. The aim was to:

•

explore factors preventing learners’ participation in Erasmus+, and

test behavioural interventions designed to influence learners’ beliefs and their

willingness to participate in the Erasmus+ programme.

The experiment targeted learners from both disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged backgrounds

to study the determinants of Erasmus+ participation among the general learners’ population, as

well as more specifically among those considering themselves as having ‘fewer opportunities’

due to facing one or several barriers to participation, in line with the Erasmus+ definition of

‘fewer opportunities’ as set out in its framework of inclusion measures

500

A total of

10 985 valid responses

were registered (between a minimum of 1 065 and a

maximum 1 147 participants in the 10 participating countries). 49.2% of respondents were

male, 50.3% female, and 0.4% and 0.2% indicated “other” and “prefer not to say” respectively.

75.7% declared being affected by one or more of the 8 barriers allowing to classify participants

as having fewer opportunities.

The experiment aimed to estimate the causal effects of providing information (at a high or low

extent) about:

i) the benefits of Erasmus+ mobility actions addressing learners in the higher education,

VET and youth fields; as well as

ii) the effects of explaining how to acquire information, on both learners’ beliefs and

willingness to participate in the programme.

In addition, it also aimed to estimate the causal effects of changing learners’ beliefs on their

willingness to participate, using random treatment assignment as an instrument for beliefs.

The outcomes of this analysis were aimed to help better understand the relevance of the

Erasmus+ mobility actions for potential participants in the youth, higher education, and VET

sectors with fewer opportunities compared to those without, as well as their responsiveness to

prompts about the benefits of the programme and about access to more information about it.

500

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1877 of 22 October 2021 on the framework of inclusion

measures of the Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps Programmes 2021-2027, OJ L 378, 26.10.2021, p. 15.