M I D - T E R M E V A L U A T I O N O F T H E E R A S M U S + P R O G R A M M E

Integrated national report for Slovenia

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Erasmus+ and its predecessor programme contributed significantly to the enhancement of theinternational dimension of youth activities and the enhancement of the capacity of youth workersand organisations in their support of young people. Contrary to its success in nurturing interculturalcompetences and professionalising the youth sector, the programme is perceived to be less effectivein terms of helping young people to become more competitive in the labour market. Congruently,the acquired evidence indicates the important impact of learning mobility schemes; shorter ones aremore successful in their efforts to include young people with fewer opportunities, though longerones have a stronger impact on the individual learners, the hosting and sending organisations and(local) communities. There is a widespread consensus among the stakeholders that the future imageof the programme should be more in line with the new European youth strategy, be more attentiveto the needs and specificities of the national contexts (e.g., underdeveloped and malnourished youthsector) and concentrate on making a stronger impact at the local level. This implicitly translates into:(a) raising the management fee to maintain the current quality under conditions of an inflatedErasmus+ budget, (b) retaining a separate programme for youth, or at least a stand-alone budget linefor youth chapters, (c) more transparent and inclusive cooperation among the EuropeanCommission, national authorities and agencies, (d) specific objectives for youth that are coherentwith the new youth strategy, (e) adaptation of the programme and its tools and methodologies tothe needs of the youth sector and (f) recognition of the different national realities and flexibility inaddressing them.Similar findings on Erasmus+ and its predecessor programme are valid for the education and trainingsector. The programme is well known among applicants, beneficiaries and different stakeholders, andits impact has been detected as a long-term positive, especially on the institutional level. It hascontributed significantly to the enhancement of the internationalisation of education and traininginstitutions, educators’ professional development, participants’ personal development, the quality ofteaching and learning and building the capacity of institutions and quality of education in general.The programme has also made an impact on the institutions’ reputations in the environment. At thesystem level, Erasmus+ has made an impact on the Slovenian educational system. Erasmus+ projectssupport the development of national policies, complement other national and internationalprogrammes available in Slovenia, affect the internationalisation of the system, promote a Europeanlifelong learning area and have contributed a great deal to the promotion of the EU’s broad linguisticdiversity and intercultural awareness efforts. Results in the youth sector are similar, where communication between European institutions (mainlythe DG EAC and EACEA) and national authorities/agencies is occasionally meagre. This aspect couldresult in a more successful programme implementation. One challenge for the future is how toidentify, transfer and disseminate quality results and their use among the various stakeholders in thefield of education and training, so that they are relevant at the national and international levels andfor the transfer to the actual educational policy on the national (systemic) level. The programme isperceived as most effective in regards to its learning mobility scheme, which has contributed to thegeneral and specific aims of Erasmus+ by identifying the spill-over effects of different levels thathave, until now, mostly been between the individual and institutional levels. With this in mind,broader and more intensive spill-over effects on the systemic level still seem to have the potential toenhance institutional capacity.

Ref. Ares(2017)3148244 - 23/06/2017

MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THEERASMUS+ PROGRAMME:

I n t e g ra t e d n a t i o n a l r e p o r t fo r S l o v e n i a

EVALUATION EXPERTS:

EVA KLEMENČIČ, Pedagogical Institute (EDUCATION)

TOMAŽ DEŽELAN, University of Ljubljana (YOUTH)

Ljubljana, Maj 2017

Ref. Ares(2017)3148244 - 23/06/2017

Table of contents

2

METHODOLOGICAL NOTE

In the evaluation study, which has resulted in the Interim national report on the implementation andimpact of Erasmus +, we used a combined quantitative and qualitative approach. Based on thetheoretical basis and initial qualitative analysis, we have identified indicators and variables that wereexamined in the empirical part of the research.

In the ‘Education” part of the evaluation exercise, we have created the following instruments:

a) The quantitative part of the evaluation study: questionnaires for preschool education, elementaryschool education (primary and lower secondary),1 upper secondary schools (general and vocationaleducation and training), higher education, and adult learning, national agency CMEPIUS (NA)employees (expert workers), and questionnaire for external experts (national evaluators) of Erasmus+(LLP) project applications for decentralized actions. In all questionnaires, conditional options wereadded – when respondents assessed that they do not have sufficient knowledge on something, in thefollowing questions those constructs (statements) were not included.

b) The qualitative part of the evaluation study: qualitative content analysis of national and Europeandocuments, semi-structured interviews, consensual group, other sources (financial analysis of the NAexpenditures/reports, analysis of final reports from the LLP, qualitative content analysis national callsfor European structural and investments funds in the financial perspective 2014-2020.

The units in our sample were identified from the publicly available databases of the Ministry ofEducation, Science and Sport (for the fields of general, vocational and higher education), in the case ofadult education; the database was retrieved from the public institution named Institute for AdultEducation of Slovenia. Additionally, in the empirical part of the evaluation study we have also includedexternal experts, for which a database was provided from the NA. We investigated the implementationand impacts of the Erasmus + (and LLP) at the institutional and systemic level. Additionally, we focus onthe issues recommended by the document "National Reports on the Implementation and Impact ofErasmus + Guidance Note" and "Evaluation Roadmap". Due to the difficulties in examining theconcrete impact LLP and / or Erasmus + have on the development of the school system, which is oftenimpossible to isolate from other impacts that also contributed to the development of the system, wehave to determine that the latter rely on the views of the respondents (respondents from thequestionnaires and interviewees). The combined approach was also taken into account in the dataanalysis. Additionally, we used the description of the individual statements when it was not possibleand/or reasonable to present data by indicators.

The ‘youth’ segment of this report aimed at identifying the national idiosyncrasies, with a closer look atthe beneficiaries of the program and program participants as well as assess the process ofimplementation as the bulk of program activities are implemented in a decentralised manner. Weconducted a holistic Youth in action/E+ Youth in Action national report that is structured according tothe EC guidelines (cover page, table of contents, executive summary, methodology, answers tostandard questions, conclusions and suggestions for improvements, annexes) and will serve as the bestpossible input to compile a single integrated Erasmus + national report. As a result, the E+ Youth inAction was developed as a standalone national report, which was easily transformed into an E+integrated report.

1 In Slovenia this is unified.

3

As the EC (E+/0402015) does not foresee a predetermined methodological research design, weimplemented a mixed-methods methodological research design that rests on triangulation ofqualitative and quantitative methods in order to capture the implementation of E+ program asaccurately as possible. To be precise, we utilised a diachronous method triangulation, which initiallyallowed us to detect the main patterns in evaluation of the E+/YiA program and consequently enabledus to conduct an in-depth analysis of these initially identified patterns. As a result, the followingresearch design was applied:

1. In-depth literature review on the implementation and impact of the E+ Youth in Action inSlovenia (inventory of existing knowledge)

2. Exploratory interviews with the main stakeholders on the implementation and impact of theE+ Youth in Action in Slovenia

3. Survey questionnaire with E+ Youth in Action project participants

4. Survey questionnaire with E+ Youth in Action project leaders

5. Survey questionnaire on the on the implementation and impact of the E+ Youth in Action inSlovenia conducted on beneficiaries of the programme

6. Survey questionnaire on the on the implementation and impact of the E+ Youth in Action inSlovenia conducted on non-beneficiaries of the programme (control group compiled of youthsector organizations not benefiting from the E+ Youth in Action program)

7. A series of in-depth interviews with key beneficiaries and key stakeholders in the field of youth

8. Two validation workshops (with key beneficiaries and key stakeholders) with the purpose ofvalidation of acquired results and deliberation on the recommendations for future design ofthe program

4

(A) EFFECTIVENESS

1. TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE ERASMUS+ AND ITS PREDECESSOR PROGRAMMES CONTRIBUTED TO THE REALIZATION OF THE ERASMUS+ SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES? ARE THERE DIFFERENCES ACROSS FIELDS?

At the level of Slovenia, certain milestones resulting from the specific objectives of the Erasmus + inthe field of education and training have been achieved (e.g. the share of early school leavers,percentage of pupils / students with low achievements in science, the tertiary education attainment(age 30-34)) or we are at least approaching to achieve them. The external experts view (who are alsothe evaluators of LLP / Erasmus+ decentralized actions) is as follows, 56% believe that the LLP andErasmus + contributed to the realization of the specific objectives of the Erasmus+ at large and 41%that had contributed somewhat. The view that LLP and Erasmus+ has contributed very little to therealization of the specific objectives is presented as very low, only 3% of respondents expressed thisview, none of the respondents believed that the LLP and Erasmus+ did not contributed at all to therealization of these specific objectives.

E+ Youth in Action and its predecessor programme contributed significantly to the realization of the E+Youth in Action specific objectives in the field of youth. However, the impact of the programmes variesacross objectives. In terms of realization of specific objectives in the field of youth, the objective that isperceived to be the most effectively met is the enhancement of the international dimension of youthactivities and enhancement of the capacity of youth workers and organisations in their support foryoung people. The objectives of (1) fostering quality improvements in youth work, in particularthrough enhanced cooperation between organisations in the youth field and/or other stakeholders and(2) the ability to complement policy reforms at local, regional and national level and to support thedevelopment of knowledge and evidence-based youth policy as well as the recognition of non-formaland informal learning, in particular through enhanced policy cooperation, better use of EUtransparency and recognition tools and the dissemination of good practices are according to the mainstakeholders as well as survey respondents still visibly pursued, but faced some obstacles due tonational idiosyncrasies or international agendas we are going to explain in the below. On the otherhand, the specific objective of improving the level of key competences and skills of young people,including those with fewer opportunities, as well as to promote participation in democratic life inEurope and the labour market, active citizenship, intercultural dialogue, social inclusion and solidarity,in particular through increased learning mobility opportunities for young people, those active in youthwork or youth organisations and youth leaders, and through strengthened links between the youthfield and the labour market appeared to be less visibly met by survey participants and key stakeholdersas they perceived it to be too over-encompassing as well as excessively focused on the labour marketperformance. The difference in perception of the impact the programme had in the youth fieldoriginates from the actual origins of individual objectives and coherence with the epistemology ofyouth work. To be precise, certain objectives did not originate in the youth field and are sometimesconsidered to be an invasion of either formal education or the labour market/employability mentalityinto the underprivileged field that nurtures non-formal education, volunteering, lessons for life and nottransition to the labour market. There is a prevailing belief among the stakeholders in the youth fieldthat youth is forced to cope with formal educational goals and employability agenda even thoughthese are not inherent to the youth field. Practitioners in the field hence perceive that their modalityof work, pedagogical paradigms, terminology, prevailing concepts, methodologies of youth work andprimarily core mission is simply not appropriately appreciated. Rather than focusing on the labour

5

market they feel they should progressively focus on social responsibility and social cohesion. As a resultof this trend, the impact of those specific objectives with a tendency to address abovementionedagendas tends to be weaker.

2. TO WHAT EXTENT HAS THE PROGRESS OF THE REALIZATION OF THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES CONTRIBUTED TO THE REALIZATION OF THE ERASMUS+ GENERALOBJECTIVES?

The expert’s view is that progress in the realization of the specific objectives has contributed to therealization of the general objectives, 50% of respondents believe that progress in the realization of thespecific objectives contributed at large to the realization of the general objectives, and 41% of themthat contributed somewhat.

LLP / Erasmus+ in Slovenia contribute to the (answers at large exposed only):

a) Improve the level of key competencies and skills: most respondents (89%) answeredthat Erasmus+ contribute to improvement key competencies and skills with increased opportunities forlearning mobility, the second most common answer was that it contributed through strengthenedcooperation between the world of education and training and the world of work (but at least bycontribution to a cohesive society, only 23% of respondents answers).

b) Promotion - fostering: most of the respondents view is that Erasmus+ has contributedto a large extent on internationalization of educational institutions, through enhanced transnationalcooperation between education and training providers and other stakeholders, followed by qualityimprovements (80%, 74%, and 71% of respondents), and at least 37% of the respondents thought thatthe programme is fostering excellence in innovation. In individual semi-structured interviews,innovations were mentioned as an opportunity of Erasmus+, also in a much higher agreement wheninvestigating the programme’s impacts on innovations when they were exposed via questionnaires forother stakeholders (educational institutions).

c) The creation of a European lifelong learning area: most respondents answered that theErasmus+ contributes to a large extent to the creation of a European lifelong learning area through thedissemination of good practices (71%) and the better use of EU transparency and recognition tools(37%), the respondents view is that the programme contributes to a large extent to complement policyreforms at national levels (20%) and through enhanced policy cooperation (11% of respondents).

d) Foreign languages: the respondents view on Erasmus+ contribution at large is asfollows; the promotion of EU’s broad linguistic diversity and intercultural awareness (77%), improve theteaching and learning of foreign languages (69% respondents).

e) International dimension: a) Vocational education and training (VET): 38% ofrespondents agreed that Erasmus+ is contributing at large extent to enhance the internationaldimension of education and training, in particular through the cooperation between Programme andPartner-country institutions in the field of VET; b) Higher education (HE): through the promotion ofmobility (100% respondents), cooperation between Programme and Partner-country institutions in thefield of HE (82%), and by increasing the attractiveness of European higher education institutions (55%).

The assessments of external experts (programme project evaluators for decentralized actions)regarding the general and specific objectives of the Erasmus+ are:

6

a) General objectives:- the minimum impact of decentralized actions: dropouts;- the maximum impact: respondents indicated different general objectives.b) Specific objectives:- minimum and maximum impact: respondents indicated different specific objectives.

From which it follows that it is impossible to identify the general objective to which the LLP / Erasmus+had maximum impact, the same applies to the identification of the specific objective, on which,according to respondents, LLP / Erasmus+ had maximum or minimum impact.

In the youth field the surveys conducted on project participants, project leaders as well as youthorganizations point out to the fact that Erasmus + general objectives are differently met. When youth isconcerned, the most visible progress is considered to be in terms of achieving one of the goals of theoverall objectives of the renewed framework for European cooperation in the youth field (2010-2018).This goal is to encourage young people to actively participate in society. On the other hand, thestrategy’s goal to provide more and equal opportunities for young people in education and in thelabour market is perceived to be mostly pursued in terms of creating more opportunities to youngpeople with less opportunities and less in terms of making young people more competitive in thelabour market. That being said, the surveyed individuals as well as stakeholders hold a strong beliefthat the efficiency of the cooperation and actions already put in place is improved and that theprogramme does provide increased benefits to young people in the EU. As far as the general objectiveof the promotion of European values in accordance with Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (i.e.values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect forhuman rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities) is concerned, there is a generalunderstanding that E+ and its predecessors support(ed) these values that are increasingly under stressin contemporary Europe. They actually believe that the programme is one of the rare opportunities todefend and promote these values as well as presents one of the main sources where young peoplecould actually learn and experience these values from first hand. The only reservation about achievingthis goal stakeholders put forward is the fact that the value dimension tends to be instrumentalized invarious projects and activities. As a result, the mechanisms of assessment, review and control have tobe in place to separate between window-dressing and true commitment to these values. Thisconsequently demands additional effort from the side of the National Agency. Other E+ generalobjectives tend to be less visibly met and are mostly perceived to be implicitly addressed and achievedas the nature of youth work is about the process and not the explicit goals as well as about the lessonsfor life and not for immediate transition to the labour market. There is also a general belief that E+general objectives are simply too broad and that unrealistic expectations have been set for thisprogramme due to underperformance of other programmes that were/are more appropriate toaddress contagious issues of contemporary Europe.

3. TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE ERASMUS+ ACTIONS INFLUENCED POLICY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE DOMAIN OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING? WHICH ACTIONS WERE MOST EFFECTIVE IN DOING SO? ARE THERE MARKED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DIFFERENT FIELDS?

The link between the LLP / Erasmus+ and national policies (or policy development) can be identified,for the latter we collected the data through questionnaires. Most of the beneficiaries and potential

7

beneficiaries of the Erasmus+ actions on a 5-point Likert scale of agreement (where 1 is stronglydisagree, 6 strongly agree) in the majority responded that they agree that the objectives of the LLP /Erasmus+ are consistent with national objectives in the field of education (no differences betweendifferent fields of education were found). Also, the majority of respondents agreed that the LLP /Erasmus+ is complementary to and an upgrade of the national focuses and policies of education. Inboth questions, the dominant response by the respondents’ in preschool education, elementary(primary and lower secondary), and adult learning was that they agree with those two statements(consistency of national and European objectives, and complementarity and upgrading of nationalobjectives by the European one). In all groups of respondents and in both two statements, we found arelatively large group of undecided (category neither agree nor disagree; from 4 to 30%). The linkbetween the latter was also examined by semi-structured interviews, which showed that respondents(different stakeholders in the field of education) in most cases can not decide what are the nationalpriorities.

In addition, semi-structured interviews exposed that Erasmus+ actions are more effective at theinstitutional and individual levels than in the field of educational policy development. Qualitativedocument analysis showed that for some of the Erasmus+ actions impact on policy development isunexpected (KA1) and, due to the specificity of the action the potential of this impact is smaller – inKA2 the impact on the national level could be bigger by using more structured dissemination. For theKA3 action policy impact is expected by design, but semi-structured interviews showed that thisimpact on the national level is smaller than expected – the potential of this action is not fully exploited.The identified challenge with this action is also the duration of the projects (the proposal was toincrease the duration to four years; this could strengthen the impact on policy development). One ofthe important finding is that the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport (MESS) does not strengthenthe system and systematic level in the formulation of educational priorities sufficiently (this view wasprevalent between different groups of stakeholders). However, the MESS participates in some KA3projects, but does not monitor what is going on in the KA2 projects (although to monitor all of thoseprojects is impossible and not realistic to expect). A possible proposal for resolving the currentsituation in KA3 is to identify the person "pioneer" who would be in charge at the MESS to solve thesechallenges (better policy implementation based on the projects findings etc.). For the VET level, theCMEPIUS opinion is that through the project in KA2, it is possible to determine the trends ofdevelopment (the finding is based on their long-year monitoring on applications and projectimplementations). A consensual group with various experts (representatives of professional supportinstitutions in the field of education) and policy officials raised a certain discrepancy between theexpectations of the MESS and the Ministry of Finance (MF) regarding regulations, for which theconsensual group found out that this discrepancy could hinder the effective integration andcoordination of the actions KA3 at the MESS. Similar barriers were highlighted by other direct budgetusers’ representatives. The solution would make sense to align before the new Public Finance Act.

Nevertheless, a structured transfer to the level of policy development is a challenge for the future, it ispossible to see the impact in two different ways: a direct and indirect effect. For the latter, it iscertainly possible to identify the potential impacts - already that different stakeholders in the field ofeducation cooperate with each other, share experiences, views, results, etc. it may have a later impacton the design of some policies. However, the practical effect of this is impossible to measure.

The argument of the weak impact of Erasmus+ on policy development in education is reinforced by theresults of a questionnaire for external experts – project application evaluators for decentralized actions(54% of respondents think that there is no impact or very little impact of Erasmus+ on national policydevelopment in education).

8

On content areas (taking into consideration Erasmus+ objectives), the impact of the Erasmus+ oninternationalization (on all fields of education should be exposed, even despite the statutory languageof instruction, which to some extent constitutes an obstacle to greater internationalization), as well aswith the areas and focuses on quality, professional development of teachers and other professionals ineducational institutions, and civic and social skills. Those three areas are well covered with specificactions from the Erasmus+ programme (centralized and decentralized actions). Of those three areas, itis possible to find compliance with national policies (in terms of content), which is (obeying therestrictions of double financing) largely financed by the European Structural and Investment Funds(especially from the European Social Funds).

In the youth field, there are visible traces E+ Youth in Action left in terms of policy developments at thenational or local level. The programme importantly influenced developments in the way youth policy isunderstood, by solidifying the horizontal youth policy approach, as well as triggered initiatives pursuingprofessionalization of youth work, recognition of youth worker as an occupational qualification,promotion and comprehension of learning mobility etc. In many ways the programme has become thetool for development of new policy mechanisms approaches, for testing new ideas in this policy fieldas well as a fountain of new and innovative approaches that are discussed about and frequently alsoplaced on the policy agenda due to the programme. The programme, according to the mainstakeholders, hence has a significant systemic impact and acts as an important driver of the policymaking process, although, to many, proves to be less pivotal and influential than the previous one, alsodue to integration of youth under the common E+ hat. Nevertheless, the programme achieves clearsynergetic effects with the national call for activities in the field of youth work. The programme is alsoperceived to have major influence in terms of improving the capacity of the sector as well asorganizations acting in it. This is primarily true for the National Agency MOVIT, which became aninfluential policy agenda setter due to its elevated influence (it is perceived that MOVIT very efficientlyutilizes its TCA resources to influence (trans)national policy developments that contribute to therealization of E+ objectives as well as supports youth sector by addressing its most problematic issues),but also other organizations that managed to professionalize to a higher degree even though theyreport severe lack of resources for their basic operations. As the E+ Youth in Action programme isfrequently perceived to be the pivotal and the main programme in the field of youth, and notsupplemental to the national one, this puts organizations under severe stress when they implement E+Youth in Action projects as they simply lack resources for their everyday operations. Stakeholders alsobelieve that the programme contributed to the ‘literacy’ of organizations active in the youth sector aswell as set a clear array of operating principles that improved the efficiency of organizations as well asimproved capacity of the entire sector. It is widely believed that, when the key actions are concerned,that the KA2 (strategic partnerships) and the KA3 (structured dialogue) have the most potential. KA2 isespecially favoured by organizations themselves as it allows them to test the limits of theirorganizations in terms of innovation, development and the impact on the entire sector. However, theimpact of KA2 is still to be seen as the main results of this action are still to come. KA3, on the otherhand, proved very important in terms of putting some key issues on the policy agenda that actuallyresulted in policy shifts. The drawback of KA3 is the fact that it eventually rests also on thecommitment of politicians even though this is only one of anticipated impacts of the action.Participants, projects leaders and youth organizations see it as one of the most important ones,though. That being said, KA1, primarily mobility of youth workers, contributed a lot to the process ofprofessionalization of youth work as it allows youth workers to improve in terms of capacity andagency.

9

4. WHAT SPECIFIC APPROACHES (SUCH AS CO-FINANCING, PROMOTION OR OTHERS) HAVE YOU TAKEN IN ORDER TO TRY TO ENHANCE THE EFFECTS OF ERASMUS+? TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE THESE APPROACHES BEEN EFFECTIVE? CAN ANY PARTICULAR POINTS FOR IMPROVEMENT BE IDENTIFIED?

The approach is as follows; focusing on the promotion of the Erasmus +: Apples of Quality (NA), 2

Programme for future headmasters, Thematic trainings for principals (National School for Leadership inEducation (NSLE) and NA), in-service training programs for professionals in the field of educationapplied in national database Katis (project management, leadership, internationalization, learningoutcomes, intercultural competences) (NA), cooperation in the cultural bazaar (NA), the presence ofNA in the annual national professional conferences for different areas of education (NSLE, MESS,annual professional national conferences), attendance at national meetings for principals (organized byNSLE). At those meetings Erasmus+ with its objectives and practical arrangements is directlypromoted. In addition to the above, the successful approach related to the objectives of the Erasmus+(in particular to the introduction of innovations in the educational work) can be considered for theaward of Blaž Kumerdej (National Education Institute).

The results from the questionnaires and semi-structured interviews show a good presence ofErasmus+. The familiarity on the new programme is better than (it was) for its successor programme(LLP) – which is evident from the Erasmus+ beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries respondents whoare familiar good or very good, the Erasmus+ (the same respondents were simultaneously assessingtheir familiarity on the LLP). However there are differences between different educational levels whentesting statistical significance between those groups of respondents. The LLP results showed that LLPare at least familiar within kindergartens and elementary schools, but are significantly more familiar inupper secondary schools and at the level of higher education. Whereas the comparison betweenfamiliarity on LLP and Erasmus+ showed that the Erasmus + (as LLP) are significantly more familiarwithin elementary and upper secondary schools, at other levels statistically significant differenceswithin the groups of respondents were not found. The results from the external expert questionnaireshowed a statistical significant difference in their opinion on how well Erasmus+ is known in theirrespective fields – experts in VET and the adult learning field believe more that Erasmus+ is well knownin those two fields than experts from general education and higher education. Comparing all the fieldsof experts from the HE field, there is a belief that Erasmus+ is well known in this field (however, 55% ofthem think that Erasmus+ is well known in HE field).

The ‘youth’ part of the programme introduces several practices in order to enhance the effects of theprogramme. It is difficult to assess them in terms of their impact on the eventual attainment of the setobjectives; however, these activities recorded positive feedback and were perceived to be a step intothe direction in the eyes of stakeholders, organizations and project leaders. One such measure is aclose monitoring of the implementation of confirmed projects in order to assess the actualconsumption of the allocated budget. This allows the National Agency to have more reliable predictionof the actual budget consumed as well as improved capacity to absorb the budget allocated to it. Thismeasure of increased monitoring/forecasting in combination with ‘over commitment’ – measure alsoassisted by the contractual relation of the National Agency with the National Authority – improved thelevel of absorption by several per cents and provided additional resources to already underfinancedsector that would otherwise be lost. Other important activities also aimed at enhancement of theeffects of the programme were series of workshops for various actors within the sector to learn about

2 Apples of Quality award are one of the criteria for measuring project quality of Erasmus+. In those project impact on individuals and institutions is visible (individual experiences and knowledge, professional knowledge etc.), but is not sufficient base for identification of national priorities.

10

the programme and its opportunities as well as workshops, mandatory for new applicants andvoluntary for experienced organizations, to improve their capacity in terms of preparing, managing,implementing projects and reporting about them. In this sense, increased attention is also put on theErasmus+ Project Results Platform that offers a comprehensive overview of projects funded under thenew Erasmus+. The National Agency has in fact taken a step further and started with a series ofactivities, including specially designed workshops, to promote the ‘DEOR’ (dissemination andexploitation of results) dimension of projects. In this sense, also international trainings within themobility of youth workers have been organized and promoted. When talking about measures withwhich the National Agency supported applicants, we need to stress: providing advice over phone, viae-mail (from 500 to 800 for both modes per year) and in-person (around 30 per year), general Youth inAction information workshops (from 10 to 20 per year), financial workshops for beneficiaries (aboutseveral per year), workshops for applicants (from 8 to 12 per year). Additional actions to improve theeffects of the programme were also production of various brochures, journals, newsletters, improvedassessments/monitoring of projects in terms of quality checks and increased presence of the NationalAgency’s staff ‘on the ground’. As the recognition of the programme is high in the youth sector, theNational Agency also moved from universal promotion activities to targeting activities that includemore effort put into DEOR by the agency itself, checks in terms of appropriateness of individualsattending trainings, productions of information with the intention of influencing policies and policy-making processes as well as improving the capacity of youth work, the essence of youth sector. TheNational Agency also put significant attention to promoting the evidence-based youth policy making byutilizing research results deriving from the E+ Youth in Action monitoring activities conducted by theRAY research network.

5. DO YOU CONSIDER THAT CERTAIN ACTIONS OF THE PROGRAMME ARE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN OTHERS? ARE THERE DIFFERENCES ACROSS FIELDS? WHAT ARE THE DETERMINING FACTORS FOR MAKING THESE ACTIONS OF THE PROGRAMME MORE EFFECTIVE?

The effectiveness of the actions needs to be examined only in conjunction with specific purposes thatspecific actions have. Indeed, actions KA1 (and KA2) are intended more for individual institutions, andKA3 is more encouraging the participation of ministries. For the individual and institutional level, basedon semi-structured interviews, respondents exposed that the more effective action is KA1 (that itseffect on learners is the greatest – especially in the case of their mobility, as well as the effect onteachers in cases of their mobility). Experience also shows that the results of KA2 remain more at thelevel of individual institutions participating in the project. Due to gaps in the transfer of KA3 results inthe national educational policies, it could be highlighted that the results of these actions also remainsmore on the level of involved institutions (this was also the exposed opinion of the consensual group,as can be seen from semi-structured interviews with those participants that were or are involved in theKA3 projects). A challenge for the future is how to identify and transfer quality results between thevarious stakeholders in the field of education (together with their usage) as well as in the transfer tothe actual educational policy on the national level.

For KA3 interest for more intensive participation of the MESS in this action was indicated, as well as afew challenges for direct budget user institutions: the allocation of financial resources obtained viaEuropean funding into integrated budget, a reduction of national resources for direct budget userinstitutions due to the successful performance in European calls, employment restrictions for new staff(although Erasmus+ actions allow that) etc.. The transfer of all activities on public institutions is also

11

not an optimal solution (especially for the action KA3). The challenge for the future can only be solvedby constructive cooperation between MESS and MF.

The impacts on participants and institutions directly involved in the actions are the determining factorsthat make certain actions more effective. Considering promoting the mobility of the so-called "silentpartners" (those not receiving financial sources from the budget, but still play an important role in thesuccess of the project) in the centralized actions (KA3) – on the international and national level, oninternational level - the enlargement of the eligible institutions for KA1 (professional educational/supporting institutions staff, besides the educational staff and learners - that they can independentlyapply for mobility projects).On the national level, the challenge is to eliminate the barriers to bringabout a more intensive cooperation of MESS in the KA3 actions.

As expressed in the ‘education’ part, different actions of the programme have different purposes. Interms of KA1, it is clear that the focus is on individual and less on the systemic effects. However, todate, the project leaders as well as most of the main stakeholders expressed the belief that this actionis still producing the most tangible results. To be precise, it offers first-hand mobility experience to a‘regular’ young person, to many young persons with fewer opportunities as well as enables youthworkers to improve their agency. In addition, the monitoring survey also indicates that with long-termmobility experience it also improves capacity of organizations, significantly impacts individuals in themobility programme as well as can significantly impact hosting communities, particularly in smallercommunities offering less intercultural contacts and experience. At the same time, we have to pointout that majority of stakeholders expressed a concern that the new programme offers lessopportunities to individuals, primarily more vulnerable ones, as some actions ceased to exist. This isprimarily the case with former local youth initiatives that allowed many young individuals with lessopportunities to enter the programme and are now not in a position to do so due to various obstacles(e.g. young Roma people that experience language barriers due to their lower educational attainmentand knowledge of foreign languages). In addition, the new programme proves to be less friendly toinformal groups of young people that tended to apply heavily under the previous programme. This isparticularly important in localities where there is simply a lack of youth organizations or organizationsacting in the field of youth or where existing organizations lack capacity. In terms of the systemiceffects majority of surveyed respondents, organizations as well as stakeholders believe KA2 to be theaction offering innovation to the sector as well as impact on the sector and policy-making in general.The latter is also an aspect highly cherished in terms of KA3 as it ‘spilled-over’ in structured dialoguesbeyond what is foreseen by the programme and importantly influenced the way policy-making is seenand performed in the youth field. It also contributed to some tangible policy outputs that improvedthe position of youth as well as increased the agency of young people and their representatives.

6. TO WHAT EXTENT HAS THE INTEGRATION OF SEVERAL PROGRAMMES INTO ERASMUS+ MADE THE PROGRAMME MORE EFFECTIVE? DO YOU SEE SCOPE FOR CHANGES TO THE STRUCTURE OF ERASMUS+ OR ITS SUCCESSOR PROGRAMME THAT COULD INCREASE EFFECTIVENESS?

The opinions of the majority of respondents of semi-structured interviews are divided, but themajority of those who have their own opinion on that responded that the integration of severalprogrammes into Erasmus+ made the latter more transparent, although the largest contribution is inthe promotion of the programme. The opinions of external experts – evaluators of proposal fordecentralized actions are similar, most of them have the opinion that the integration of several

12

programmes into a single programme made Erasmus+ more effective, most of them also agreed thatthis made the programme more effective (somewhat or much more effective) on a level ofbeneficiaries and participants, with the exception of VET experts where the most non-decidedrespondents were (whereas there is no significant difference between experts of different fields ineducation on that statements). The respondents of semi-structured interviews also pointed out thatthe increased flexibility of the rules, which apply to decentralized actions - less administration due tofinancial simplification (in terms of cost - at the application stage and later in proving the cost), but thatthe application is more complex. However, decentralized action contractors warn that a contribution tothe cost per unit is often not sufficient to cover the real costs. Institutions that have centralized anddecentralized actions have pointed out that financial simplification in KA3 has not yet beenimplemented. They are confronted with different rules in the financial (administrative) management ofprojects - in centralized and decentralized actions (although some of them cannot decide if this is goodor not). The success of the program would increase more transversal and overall operation of theEuropean Commission. It is obvious that cooperation is mostly still a sector one (e.g. meetings bysector, not by key activities), which is exposed in the opinion of the NA. The results of semi-structuredinterviews (mainly with representatives of the NA) also pointed out that in the national context, itshould be taken into account the power to participate in working groups and committees at the EUlevel and the establishment of a systematic mutual information sharing, at least between the NA andMESS (which was exposed and agreed upon also at the consensual group). The additional possibilitywould be more a systematic transfer of information between Sectorial Erasmus+ Commission and therepresentatives of the sectors that could systematically transmit information within each sector ofMESS.

The integration of several programmes into Erasmus + had several effects. In the youth field, there arepositive and negative effects that marked the inclusion of Youth in Action programme under theErasmus + umbrella. To start with the positive ones, the integration of different programmes presentedalso an opportunity to promote cooperation and transfer of good practices across sectors. There weresome bright examples of cross-sectorial cooperation, primarily the initiative called ‘Key to inclusion’promoted by both E+ National agencies, but in general this aspect of the programmes still needs to beheavily improved as it failed to reach its potential. One of the proposed practices to increase suchintegration and transfer of practices is to organize national as well as EU level event to promote sharingof best practices as well as networking with the success stories in the field. Trainings and workshops totransfer knowledge across sectors are also something majority of stakeholders argue for. The otherpositive side of the integration of the programme is also perceived to be the increased attention ofstate bodies to youth. It seems that the elevated importance of the programme, also due to its size,also created conditions in which the voice of youth is heard more easily. The third and most importantmain impact of programme integration is perceived to be the symbolic recognition of youth work andits position being side-by-side with formal education; as two equal partners addressing the main issuesconcerned.

At the same time, key stakeholders believe the youth sector suffered several negative consequencesdue to programme integration. Firstly, they expressed concern that youth sector lost its identity underthe big Erasmus + framework. Many believe that Erasmus + failed as a method of promotion of youth,youth issues and the position of youth as it juggles with too many priorities and goals that are simplytoo broad. They believe the objectives should be more precise, more focused on youth, and alsoreflecting a clear move from the current priorities that promoted the issues related to the position ofyouth at the labour market too aggressively. Stakeholders believe that as such, the Erasmus +programme offers too little room to address national idiosyncrasies and simply uses approaches toaddress and reach youth that are too lined-up with the mentality of formal education. This translatedinto introduction of concepts, terminologies, working methodologies and standards that are not

13

implicitly present in the youth sector and were perceived to be an invasion into the core identity ofyouth sector, youth work and non-formal education. This created a clear and omnipresent perceptionthat the youth sector is being secondary, an ‘addition’ to the formal education. Primarily youthorganizations believe that these attributes of the Erasmus + created a situation where the sector is nolonger about ‘the youth for youth’ approach, but rather returned to the traditional ‘patronizing’ modelof work being done for youth, primarily by highly professionalised organizations that sometimes haveno genuine link to the youth sector/youth field. As a result, the tools used within the programmeproved to be very challenging for newcomers to the programme who do not have appropriate projectmanagement capacity to apply, manage and report about the activities they implement. A steptowards de-bureaucratization and de-professionalization of program when project management (andnot youth work as such!) is concerned is therefore seen as imperative since a step forward for bigorganizations in terms of applying, reporting and managing projects, by providing them with new ITtools etc., can as easily – and so it is – be seen as a step backwards for organizations and groups youthsector is traditionally trying to include and activate. This resulted in a general criticism of programmeintegration, i.e. that the integration itself led to the introduction of organizations into the youth fieldthat reflect clear comparative advantages compared to the traditional organizations in the youthsector. As the stakeholders perceive these organizations have no demonstrated track record of beingcommitted to youth work, they uniformly believe this creates a situation of having ‘a pack of wolves inthe sheep’s territory’ who will leave immediately when the food (resources) will be gone. On the otherhand, the ones needing an extra hand (i.e. informal groups of young people) appear to be left aside. Awidely expressed view is therefore that the new programme should have (1) a standalone budget linedevoted specifically for youth, (2) should have specific objectives for youth that are coherent with thenew youth strategy that is currently being drafted, (3) that the programme and its infrastructure (tools,methodologies) is adapted to the needs and idiosyncrasies of the youth sector, and (4) that the newprogramme recognizes different national realities and allows them to be appropriately addressed.

7. IS THE SIZE OF BUDGET APPROPRIATE AND PROPORTIONATE TO WHAT ERASMUS+ IS SET OUT TO ACHIEVE? IS THE DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS ACROSSTHE PROGRAMME’S FIELDS AND ACTIONS APPROPRIATE IN RELATION TO THEIR LEVEL OF EFFECTIVENESS AND UTILITY?

So far, it seems that there is enough interest in Slovenia, therefore it is possible to count on the fullabsorption of the budget (for education). This is implied also in the analysis of annual reports and issupported with data from external experts’ questionnaire that evaluated the proportion of grantapplications in their expert fields. However, in certain fields most of the eligible institutions are alreadyincluded in the programme (e.g. VET - vocational secondary schools, in addition also in HE theproportion of eligible institutions is height), which was raised by the interviewees at the NA.Otherwise, as shown in the annual reports, there were little transfers between fields and actions withregards to the approved budget of Erasmus+. The system for school partnerships is assessed asinadequate (described below).

When it comes to the beneficiaries of the programme, a big number of them (42 per cent) believe thatthe budget is not of the appropriate size compared to the goals that have to be met. The rationalebehind their continued activity under the programme is the fact, that the budget available to youthunder the Erasmus + programme is one of the rare sources of funding for youth organizations andorganizations active in the youth sector. As the government funding of youth sector fails to address theneeds of the organizations active in the sector, this programme acts as a lifeline to these organizations

14

to survive and evolve. This is very evident already from project acceptance rates the National Agencysince, according to the national agency’s records, on average the rate is around 25 per cent and getseven down to 16 per cent when projects under the KA2 are concerned. At the same time, a clearassurance of the quality are also very high point thresholds for successful projects as it is clear that thegeneral level of quality of submissions is high. However, these records are also a consequence ofintensive and targeted efforts of the National Agency not only to improve visibility of the programme,but mainly improving the quality of projects by running a series of preparatory, reporting, finalizing,DEOR etc. workshops for beneficiaries and applicants. The Agency also invests a lot of effort by beingpresent at the ground and also by performing ground-checks in order to ensure appropriate level ofquality assurance. However, such quality assurance also comes at a price as the Agency’s humanresources are limited and understaffing could become an issue as well as there is not enoughresources for the staff to be properly trained and educated to run these support activities thatcontribute to the high level of quality. As a result, there is a clear need for additional management feethat would allow the National Agency to be properly staffed to maintain the level of quality it iscurrently holding as well as to allow the staff to be properly trained. This is going to become even morerelevant with the anticipated increase of the budget. In addition, another important change would be agreater level of flexibility in deciding the distribution of resources across key actions as the structure ofthe sector varies from country to country, which in effect also means that the needs of the sectors aredifferent. In this sense, maintain a high level of quality is disproportionally harder under the KA1 thanin KA2 as it is clear that the resources are very scarce under the KA2 and that only proposals withextremely high level of quality fall through.

8. WHAT CHALLENGES AND DIFFICULTIES DO YOU ENCOUNTER WHILE IMPLEMENTING THE VARIOUS ACTIONS OF ERASMUS+? WHAT CHANGES WOULD NEED TO BE INTRODUCED IN ERASMUS+ OR ITS SUCCESSOR PROGRAMME TO REMEDY THESE?

According to NA they assess the system for school partnerships as inappropriate (school - school), bothfrom a financial and an organizational point of view: one application, approved by the entireconsortium; a coordinator does not have a real coordinating role - financially each runs its part of theproject, including reports, each national agency has its own rules. Problems have arisen in completingthese projects - the final reports (schools until final stage did not know to who or what will bereported), during the implementation these problems could not be identified. This part of the programis not as efficient as it was in the LLP. It would be better if coordination would be placed in otherprojects. Some school principals have expressed this opinion also. The Slovenian Quality AssuranceAgency for Higher Education (NAKVIS) during the consensual group meeting warned that they supportthe mobility of students and professors, while also warning of the the high level of administration inexchange for the quality of projects (some HE exposed this on a semi-structured interviews too).

As mentioned in the previous point, when it comes to youth, the greatest challenge appears to be thelack of flexibility in deciding the distribution of resources across key actions. As the sector has itsspecific structural idiosyncrasies, the National Agency has to invest unanticipated amount of effort toaddress and fulfil the quotas set for individual key actions and maintain the quality of projects. At thesame time, other key actions have more than a critical mass of high-quality submissions, but theresimply is not enough resources to address these needs. At the same time, the management fee has toreflect the extra input invested in the project quality, particularly when having in mind the anticipatedincrease of the budget for youth and a set of intensive and targeted support activities focused on

15

DEOR and similar agendas that need to become rooted in the sector. When it comes to organizations,on the other hand, 45 per cent of them express a concern because they face difficulties whileimplementing project activities. These difficulties mainly relate to visa issuing problems, unreliablepartners, lack of motivated project participants and the burden of excessive bureaucracy. Among themost frequent recommendations the organizations expressed were a revision of a system of travelexpenses as they feel that the cost of travelling are not always entirely covered as well as moreopportunities to share good practices among projects, nationally and internationally, as this wouldcreate an opportunity for them to get the state-of-the-art developments in the field as well as givethem the ability to network and access individuals and organizations where these practices originatefrom.

9. TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE APPROACHES AND TOOLS THAT ARE USED FOR DISSEMINATING AND EXPLOITING THE RESULTS OF ERASMUS+ AND ITS PREDECESSOR PROGRAMMES EFFECTIVE? WHERE CAN YOU SEE POSSIBILITIESFOR IMPROVEMENTS?

The effective dissemination and use of results already in the application stage is for applicants themost difficult to justify, in the opinion of external experts – evaluators of the LLP / Erasmus+decentralized actions projects applications. This group of respondents also evaluated how successfulapproaches and tools used for the dissemination and exploitation of results are. The majority of themexpressed that they are somewhat successful (72% of respondents). Also, respondents from semi-structured interviews identified deficiencies in the system of dissemination and exploitation of results.Especially after the completion of a particular project, more institutions do not monitor the effectsafter the project ends (this relates to different educational levels), as shown in the questionnaires.These groups of respondents are also not very familiar with the approaches and tools used for thedissemination and exploitation of results (e.g. Erasmus+ platform for project results – which isrequired, but is not a transparent enough platform, would need a more detailed search options, asshown in some semi-structured interviews); School Education Gateway). We asked about thefamiliarity with of other tools, namely eTwinning (school education), which is known or well known in68% of relevant respondents (20% had heard about eTwinning, but they did not know what it is for)and EPALE (adult education) which is known or well known in 41% of relevant respondents (18% hadheard about EPALE, but did not know what it is for).

The organizations implementing projects in the field of youth believe that approaches and tools thatare used for disseminating and exploiting the results of Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes arefairly effective. To be precise, 39 per cent of organizations perceive them as effective and 41 per centas neither effective nor ineffective. On the other hand, the National Agency continuously perceivedthis aspect of financed and proposed projects to be their Achilles heel. As a result, the National Agencyhas in fact taken a proactive position about this dimension of projects and started with a series ofactivities, including specially designed workshops, to promote the ‘DEOR’ (dissemination andexploitation of results). Apart from investing into the DEOR component of applicants and beneficiaries,the Agency also invested into its own comprehension and skills related to DEOR as it became one ofthe main issues on their agenda. As the Agency recognises its potential for organizations – providing itbecomes useful for applicants and other users – it put increased attention to the Erasmus+ ProjectResults Platform that offers a comprehensive overview of projects funded under the new Erasmus+. Asa result, various support activities continuing along these lines could prove important when decidingwhether or not such an agenda should be maintained and at what input. On the other hand, the

16

organizations believe the tool has to become recognised by the broader public as well as perceiveworkshops and trainings on DEOR aimed at improving their capacity as a very important and necessarymeasure.

(B) EFFICIENCY

10. TO WHAT EXTENT IS THE SYSTEM OF COOPERATION AND DIVISION OF TASKS BETWEEN THE COMMISSION, EXECUTIVE AGENCY, NATIONAL AGENCIES, EUROPEAN INVESTMENT FUND, NATIONAL AUTHORITIES, INDEPENDENT AUDIT BODIES, AND ERASMUS+ COMMITTEE EFFICIENT AND WELL-FUNCTIONING? WHAT ARE THE AREAS FOR POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENT OR SIMPLIFICATION IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ERASMUS+ OR A SUCCESSOR PROGRAMME?

Cooperation with the European Investment Fund is irrelevant for Slovenia for Erasmus+. Otherwise,the system of cooperation and the division of tasks is well structured (in the opinion of all stakeholdersinvolved), challenges sometimes arise during concrete cooperation (challenges of feedback loop). Inshort, the improvements are possible mainly on the operational level. The representative of Slovenia inthe Committee of the Erasmus+ evaluated the cooperation between different institutions asexemplary. Considering that the Erasmus+ combines two programmes (education, youth) and addedalso sport, the teething problems at programme introduction were reasonable (e.g. poorly functioninginformation system), but unfortunately, they were a little bit too much prolonged. On European levelthe representative wants to a certain degree of inconsistency (e.g. short deadlines for the NAs, whilethe European Commission often takes a lot of time to answer), refractory (in particular EACEA as NA isreporting a lot of times "falls asleep"). It is also estimated that the cooperation between the variousbodies (Erasmus+ Committee, European Commission, etc.) are often very weak, that certain actionsand solutions are vague even at the presentations stage. As a consequence, it transferred on a work ofNA, indeed their level of load is twofold: they are committed to good execution of the tasks, informingthe users even if themselves do not have enough information or often they kept changing. Werecommend increasing communication between the different institutions at EU level and thepossibility that in the event of ambiguity NA in accordance with their national situation, make theirown decisions. We also believe that IT solutions are too rigid, because it is impossible to cover all thelife situations in a computer application. We also believe that the Erasmus+ is used for too manyactions that are gradually added, with this it will slowly reached the point where it can undermine thebasic purpose of Erasmus+. At the national level, the representative estimated cooperation with theNA as very well, as the system of communication on an everyday base is established, enabling real-time overview of the implementation of the Erasmus+. Areas of possible improvements could be seenprimarily in the greater use of representatives at the EU level (e.g. Erasmus+ Programme Committee)in the implementation of possible solutions for a better implementation of the Erasmus+.

The NA draws attention to the following:- Committee of the Erasmus+: for smaller countries is more difficult to achieve an effect;- the European Commission, EACEA: the system level is not the most efficient, while two aspectsremain, namely: 1. From both institutions getting information, according to the national calendar ofactivities, is very late; 2. The amount of information from the EACEA, on centralized actions, is verymeagre. The desire for greater cooperation was identified (e.g. the provision of summaries of

17

individual projects, evaluations, feedbacks). At the operational level, they exposed the observation thatthe European Commission (mainly DG EAC) are susceptible to high staff turnovers, therefore theyemploy newcomers, without the knowledge or experience from the programme (only desk officersremains constant), also at the sectoral level leaders often change. The feedback received is thereforeoften only information contained in the Guide for Applicants.- MESS: at the system level more structured cooperation is missing, at the operational level this meansthat cooperation often depends only on the individual, therefore feedback is at times weak. The NAexpects better cooperation in priority discussions and more widespread promotion of Erasmus+ by theMESS, indeed with some sectors, they cooperate better (as an example of good practices they listedHE) than with others. The same applies for the cooperation with different public expert institutions(supportive institutions in different fields of education) – the system level here has not beenestablished, but at the operational level, there is well-established cooperation with some of theinstitutions.

The independent audit body: underlines the good cooperation with various stakeholders at both thesystemic and operational level. MESS: during the meeting of the consensual group, stakeholdersidentified key activities in which they wish to continue to cooperate closely (especially MESS and NA),namely the identification of national priorities for decentralized actions, which could be covered bycalls of Erasmus+ and the identification and dissemination of high-quality results from Erasmus+projects.

On the youth side of the programme several positive as well as negative aspects of cooperation withinthe youth field have to be pointed out. Firstly, the National Agency feels the European Commissionconceives the role of national agencies as mere fund operators when in fact they are also importantpolicy stakeholders in many countries. As a result, there is a perception that the European Commissiononly informs the National Agencies, without prior consultations and/or discussions on the issue. This isalso the reason why some stakeholders believe the Commission lacks direct contact with issues/actorson the ground. There is a widespread belief that the inclusion of national agencies in the process ofdrafting of measures would improve their effectiveness and efficiency, as these measures would thenfit better to different national environments. The National Agency perceives that the lack ofinformation then also continues to other areas, for example, they lack information about centralisedcalls even though they promote them. Hence, as in the case with the Commission itself, the NationalAgency believes communication with the executive agency needs to improve. One step into the rightdirection would be to include back the national agencies into the programme committee of theErasmus +, as it has been in the part, since there is a strong conviction that this facilitates the flow ofvital information.

When it comes to the relationship with the national authority, the same issue of informationdeprivation is exposed. To be precise, the National Authority is convinced that the process of informingthe national authorities by the Commission needs to be improved, primarily by allowing them to havemore on-site informing and contacts, more intensive briefing about what is happening in the field. Inthe same vein, the National Authority as well as the National Agency believe that the EuropeanCommission should trust them more and define clear and non-overlapping roles for them as thisprovides fertile grounds for addressing various youth issues across sectors and countries (e.g. when itcomes to monitoring, it has to be clear what is the role of the National Authority and what of theCommission since there is otherwise a big overlap, which creates the feeling of distrust). On the otherhand, when it comes to the national level, there is a general belief that the established monitoringgroup for the implementation of the Erasmus+ programme works well, although it could be more(pro)active. In addition the relationship between the National Authority and the National Agency for

18

youth proves to be exemplary in terms of information sharing as well as implementation of certainactivities.

11. TO WHAT EXTENT HAS THE INTEGRATION OF SEVERAL PROGRAMMES INTO ERASMUS+ RESULTED IN EFFICIENCY GAINS AND LOSSES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMME, BOTH AT THE LEVEL OF THE NATIONAL AGENCY/IES AND ON THE BENEFICIARIES’ AND PARTICIPANTS’ LEVELS? DO YOU SEE SCOPE FOR CHANGES TO THE STRUCTURE OF ERASMUS+ OR ITS SUCCESSOR PROGRAMME THAT COULD INCREASE EFFICIENCY?

Erasmus+ is more efficient in the implementation for participating institutions in the program and NA.The differences are perceived between those beneficiaries who have more experience with theErasmus+ (the implementation is as a rule more efficient), than to those beneficiaries that are lessfamiliar with the programme who do not have direct experience with it (or very little), being unable todetect those changes (which was also evident from interviews conducted).

For the NA, the implementation of the Erasmus+ program is more efficient compared to previous yearsand especially compared to its successor programme. For KA1 and KA2 the same logic applies- this isalso reflected in the support of NA employees’ feedbacks on specific issues those beneficiaries have.This is especially true for countries (including Slovenia), where the NA operates as an integratedagency (all fields in education are covered within one agency). The EU could restrict dispersion andincreased efficiency in the countries in a way that in all countries either a single (integrated) agency oran agency organized around the field would exist – currently the system in each country is runningseparately.

Increased efficiency could be envisaged, while ensuring greater programme stability and reducing theconstant changes within the programme.

The integration of various programmes into Erasmus + did unify the ‘language’ within the youth sectorappears to be more successful at including youth with less opportunities, however, the programmealso allowed countries to have separate National Agencies for youth. As this was one of the maindemands of youth sector at the time, we shall put forward a reflection on the impact of sucharrangement. There is a widespread belief across the youth sector that the decision to keep a separatenational agency also heavily safeguarded the youth field in general. To be precise, stakeholders believethat the separation retained the relevance of the target group and enabled the actors in the youthsector to pursue sectoral goals more easily, to – at least to a degree – retain specific features of thesector as well as retained a very fragile and already diminishing (also due to the features of theErasmus +) identity of the youth field. Besides safeguarding the identity and certain specificities of theyouth field, the separation also allowed the National Agency to solidify its status as one of the keystructures in the youth field, one of the most influential actors shaping the policy and the developmentof youth work. A separation also meant that the National Agency better corresponds to the logic of thenational programmes in the field of youth and safeguards its autonomy also from this point of view.

When we discuss specific measures that allowed more efficient use of resources, one such measure isa close monitoring of the implementation of confirmed projects in order to assess the actualconsumption of the allocated budget. This allows the National Agency to have more reliable predictionof the actual budget consumed as well as improved capacity to absorb the budget allocated to it. This

19

measure of increased monitoring/forecasting in combination with ‘over commitment’ – measure alsoassisted by the contractual relation of the National Agency with the National Authority – improved thelevel of absorption by several per cents and provided additional resources to already underfinancedsector that would otherwise be lost. However, the recommendations that were most frequently voicedin terms of achieving the greatest efficiency in the implementation of the programme is the fact thatthe programme needs stability and constant changes, revisions and modifications have a very negativeimpact. Providing stability of the programme, with measures being drafted on the basis of evaluationsand evidence, and in close cooperation with the relevant actors involved – including the entireimplementation chain –, while at the same time taking into account the goals and ambitions of thenew youth strategy, could prove pivotal.

12. DO YOU CONSIDER THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CERTAIN ACTIONS OF THE PROGRAMME IS MORE EFFICIENT THAN OTHERS? ARE THERE DIFFERENCES ACROSS FIELDS? WHAT GOOD PRACTICES OF THESE MORE EFFICIENT ACTIONS OF THE PROGRAMME COULD BE TRANSFERRED TO OTHERS?

The impact of Erasmus+ and its successor programme is visible, as it is seen via a very high percentageof institutions in the field of education involved in the various activities of the Erasmus + (andpredecessor programs).

Implementations of the various actions are effective - depending on the purpose and the specifics ofeach of the action. From educational institutions (schools) in principle, system thinking cannot beexpected, besides that it is expected from them that their applications in the KA1 actions is conductedwith the aim of improving practice (which is also defined by law). Therefore it makes sense to increaseactivities in KA3 actions (when having in mind the national level), with this it would be possible toachieve a pilot implementation of innovations, for those activities that are on a level of innovation.

The same applies to the field. As noted (based on data from questionnaires and some semi-structuredinterviews) actions are the most efficient for individuals directly involved in the action, and later on atthe institutional level. As the transfer of efficient practices would be worthwhile to consider promotingmobility of the so-called "silent partners" in the action KA3 (which are those partners who do not havetheir finances in the project budget, but are very important for the successful implementation of theproject), as determined by other participating organizations in KA3 actions. Also it would beworthwhile to think about the greater involvement of the MESS in KA3 and further strengthening andstructuring the dissemination and use of results (valid for all actions), establishing a clear nationaldirection (bottom-up approach to the problems, which would also require a change inculture/paradigms), which was found during consensual group and in each semi-structured interview.

As far the youth part of the programme is concerned, we have to note that different actions havedifferent purposes as well as different traditions within the European programmes. In terms of KA1, itis clear that the focus is on individual and it also has the greatest impact on a young individual. To date,the project leaders as well as most of the main stakeholders expressed the belief that this action is stillproducing the most tangible results. To be precise, it offers first-hand mobility experience to a ‘regular’young person, to many young persons with fewer opportunities as well as enables youth workers toimprove their ability to act. In addition, the monitoring survey also indicates that with long-termmobility experience it also improves capacity of organizations, significantly impacts individuals in themobility programme as well as can significantly impact hosting communities, particularly in smallercommunities offering less intercultural contacts and experience. In terms of the systemic effects

20

majority of surveyed respondents, organizations as well as stakeholders believe KA2 to be the actionoffering innovation to the sector as well as impact on the sector and policy-making in general. Thelatter is also an aspect highly cherished in terms of KA3 as it ‘spilled-over’ in structured dialoguesbeyond what is foreseen by the programme and importantly influenced the way policy-making is seenand performed in the youth field. It also contributed to some tangible policy outputs that improvedthe position of youth as well as increased the agency (ability to act) of young people and theirrepresentatives. That being said, the general perception in the sector is that it is necessary to maintainthe focus on the individual, however, the systemic effects provided by KA2 and KA3 also need to bereinforced, particularly by promotion of inclusion of groups that got left out of the programme due toits innovations (non formal groups of young people, local level initiatives).

13. TO WHAT EXTENT HAS THE SYSTEM OF SIMPLIFIED GRANTS RESULTED IN A REDUCTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN FOR NAS AND PROGRAMME BENEFICIARIES AND PARTICIPANTS? ARE THERE DIFFERENCES ACROSS ACTIONS AND FIELDS? WHAT ELEMENTS OF THE PROGRAMME COULD BE CHANGED TO FURTHER REDUCE THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN, WITHOUT UNDULY COMPRISING ITS RESULTS AND IMPACTS?

For the NA, the system of simplified grants has not resulted in a reduction of administrative burdensdue to the fact that the administrative burdens have increased elsewhere. Because of IT tools, eventhough these tools have been updating and improving, NA still incurs a greater workload. Theimprovement of the barriers in this segment would help the stability of the IT tools to support greaterflexibility, which is typical for the Erasmus +.

The beneficiaries of the program and participants enjoy reduced administrative burden, but this is onlyvisible for decentralized actions, as reported in the semi-structured interviews.

In the field of youth, when asked whether the system of simplified grants resulted in a reduction of theadministrative burden for NA and programme beneficiaries and participants, beneficiary organizationsrecognize the change of simplified grants as a positive change. More than 37 per cent of organizationsreported that they perceive this step as a step that reduced their administrative burdens, while 30 percents perceive the burdens to be the same. Only 4 per cents of organization see this step as a step ofcreation of additional burdens. In general, the perception is that the system of simplified grants didreduce administrative burdens immensely, however, the national legislation still prevents it to have thefull effect (strong elements of doing business on paper). On the other hand, the calculation of travelcosts does raise some concerns as there is a general perception that these approximations could beimproved. In addition, some organizations complain about the apparent lack of understanding thedifference between eligible and ineligible costs. In terms of the National Agency, the workloadperformed on “paper” shrunk severely with transition to electronic operations, however, in generalstayed the same or even increased due to obligation to perform tasks on different tools. Thissignificantly reduced the burdens also on the beneficiaries’ side, although smaller organizations withless skilful individuals also tend to experience the negative sides of this step. Organizations also pointout the need to link databases in the mobility tools and Youthpass as well as the need to reduceapplications and reports in terms of apparently unnecessary details. Many organizations also point outthe need of the mobility tool to be more user friendly as well as the need to link it to quality (impact)as it lacks this dimension in the current condition.

21

14. TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE IT TOOLS PROVIDED BY THE COMMISSION ADEQUATE FOR THE EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMME? DO THEY ANSWER YOUR NEEDS? GIVE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES WHERE THEY CAN BE IMPROVED. IS THE SET OF IT TOOLS APPROPRIATE OR SHOULD IT COVER MORE/LESS ELEMENTS OF THE PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION?

The NA assessed the following IT tools: EPL, Mobility Tool, EU Survey, OEET, BO Reports, E+DASHBOARD, Erasmus+ Project Results Platform. After initial difficulties, when all the tools workedinadequate and unreliable, the situation in 2016 dramatically improved. Call Erasmus+ KA1 for 2017took place entirely without problems; we expect the same for KA2.3

Despite the improvement in usability and reliability of the tools, NA highlighted some areas wherefurther improvements would be possible:

- Stability: there are constant changes within the tools themselves. According to some, NA is not eveninformed in advance respectively or given an explanation as to why something has changed or ismissing;- Instructions for use: for certain steps/procedures user-friendly instructions do not exist (thoseinstructions are missing or they are very professional/technical; the best aids are webinars);- tools do not allow all the flexibility that is allowed by the rules (certain things NA cannot approvebecause they cannot be done by using the available tools);- uniformity: too many different tools exists, NA must specialize to use at least 5 different tools (whichin the case of small NA where they do not have a single IT expert, this task is very difficult, hiredoutside technicians cannot do this work either because the technical work is very much associatedwith the content).The IT tools for the effective implementation and monitoring of the program otherwise provide manygood and necessary aspects and are welcome, but currently they take a lot of effort and work,sometimes for a minimal result.

When asking youth organizations about the appropriateness of the IT tools, 57 per cent of themexpressed the believe that they are appropriate and 7 per cent that they are very appropriate. On theother hand, less that 4 per cent of them perceive the IT tools as inappropriate or completelyinappropriate. The National Agency equally appreciates improvements in this field. Initially, in 2014there were some hiccups with the transition to the electronic system (mobility tool), however, thisimproved immensely in 2016 and allowed the beneficiaries much cherished one-entry point as well asprovided the staff at the National Agency important support with NA connect. Erasmus+ ProjectResults Platform still needs to be improved in terms of getting recognition by potential users andbeneficiaries, however, the infrastructure is there. When talking about the potential improvements ofIT tools, organizations believe IT tools could be adapted to be compatible with the open code softwareand to be able to write applications online without the PDF interface.

15. TO WHAT EXTENT IS THE LEVEL OF HUMAN AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES THAT IS AVAILABLE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMME ADEQUATE?

3 Interview was conducted before the call for KA2.

22

WHAT STEPS DID YOU TAKE TO OPTIMIZE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE RESOURCESDEPLOYED FOR THE ERASMUS+ IMPLEMENTATION?

The level of human resources in the financial resources available for implementation of theprogramme in the future is less than appropriate. Due to the lack of financial resources, there isconsequently a lack of staff in order to carry out all tasks. The responsibilities for the NA from theEuropean Commission also arrive unexpectedly, even for activities where NA does not have enoughprofessional staff. An additional challenge is that for the new roles, it is not possible to predict theshares or number of employees, due to the fact that it is not possible to predict the responses of thoseactions within the state. There is concern for the next three consecutive years mainly due to thefollowing: before the predicted increase of tasks/shares on programme management (for which anincrease in the budget is already planned) would be necessary to provide an appropriate level ofhuman resources that can be timetabled to acquire the necessary skills and later on could immediatelyafter the start of a new action independently and efficiently start to work. Only with this kind ofplanning would it be possible to assure the implementation of increased workload. Therefore theproposal is to increase the budget for the management of the programme one year before theincrease of the budget for actions.

As in the case of ‘education’ part of the programme, the National Agency for Erasmus + Youth in Actionprogramme is constantly adapting its organizational logic to better implement the programme with thehuman and financial resources that they have. As it was already mentioned before, since the staff putsin significant workload in terms of improving the quality of the applications – also due to the currentrigid distribution of the budget across key actions – the staff is already under a lot of stress and alreadyat this moment need their support units to cope with the immense bureaucratic workload as well as tomaintain the level of engagement at the ground, at the local level, also by promoting the transfer ofpositive practices and creating thematic groups that serve as networks facilitating peer learning amongorganizations. Even at the current workload, it is clear that additional management fee is imperativefor the National Agency to properly invest into the staff by providing them training and EU-levelnetworking with their peers working on the same issues, but primarily to maintain the level of qualityapplications reflect at the moment. The anticipated increase of the budget, without the increase of themanagement fee, will put the National Agency under severe stress making the staff mereadministrative and financial officers offering little support to the applicants and beneficiaries as well ashaving little or no contact with the organizations on the ground.

(C) RELEVANCE

16. TO WHAT EXTENT DO THE ERASMUS+ OBJECTIVES CONTINUE TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS OR PROBLEMS THEY ARE MEANT TO SOLVE? ARE THESE NEEDS OR PROBLEMS (STILL) RELEVANT? HAVE THE NEEDS OR PROBLEMS EVOLVED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE OBJECTIVES OF ERASMUS+ OR ITS SUCCESSOR PROGRAMME NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED?

According to the data from the respondents' questionnaires and semi-structured interviews theobjectives of the Erasmus+ address the needs and problems that should be solved to large extent.Those needs and problems are for Slovenia still relevant. In general, the objectives cover all the needsand problems that should be solved. This is so, also because the objectives are very general. For an

23

even better coverage of the problems and needs, some additional objectives are needed or theexisting ones need to be updated: e.g. transversal skills (several models in Europe covering these skillsexist), open and safe learning environment. 31% of external experts – evaluators of the proposal indecentralized actions somewhat agree with the statement that the needs/problems have developed insuch a way that objectives of the Erasmus+ must be adapted and 16% of respondents strongly agreewith this statement. The data collected with the questionnaires showed that the needs of institutionsare consistent with national focuses (categories agree and strongly agree are presented, andproportion of respondents who could not decide): preschool education (66%; 29% undecided),elementary and secondary school level (59%; 33% undecided), higher education (50%; 38%undecided), and for adult education (38%; 49% undecided). The data showed that assessing theobjectives of VŽU/Erasmus+ and national objectives are even more consistent and also a lowerproportion of respondents who could not decide regarding this statement can be seen: preschooleducation (75%; 24% undecided), elementary and secondary school (67%; 30% undecided), highereducation level (77%; 15% undecided), and adult education (71%; 22% undecided). A similar opinion ofexternal experts was indicated. Most of these respondents strongly agree with the statement that theobjectives of the Erasmus+ continue to address the needs or problems that would have to be resolved(by strongly agree 55% of respondents), that in Slovenia these needs and problems still existed(strongly agree 59 %). It is also possible to identify the consistency in the analysed documents andfrom the broad thematic areas covered by European and national calls (especially European SocialFunds), with which primarily, it is meant in terms of the following areas: quality, teachers professionaldevelopment, social and civic / multicultural competences.

When looking at the youth field more than 64 per cent of surveyed organizations active in the youthfield believe the Erasmus+ objectives continue to address the needs or problems they are meant tosolve. At the same time, only 9 per cent of organizations believe the objectives address the needs to alittle or very little extent. However, there is a caveat in this information as it was the objectives of theErasmus + -- as was previously explained – tend to be too broad and all-inclusive. Hence organizationalso propose certain new potential objectives that are either more refined or do add an added value tothe current selection. Among those are: more active inclusion of youth with fewer opportunities, moreintensive participation of juvenile offenders, increased competence of critical and competent use ofthe internet, inter-local youth cooperation as well as focus on global justice and solidarity. On the otherhand, key stakeholders in the youth field pressed for stable objectives that are more defined, in linewith the character of the youth sector and youth work and coherent with the new youth strategy.When talking more specifically, they expressed the need to connect more with the local level and beactive on the local level, to include more non-formal groups of young people, to have the flexibility toadapt to the national context as well as to systematically and increasingly actively include youngpeople with fewer opportunities and disabilities. An omnipresent recommendation is also to includenational youth initiatives and primarily to focus more on social inclusion, participation of youth as wellas citizenship education of young people that should be achieved through the integration of formaland non-formal pedagogies.

17. TO WHAT EXTENT ARE NEEDS OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS AND SECTORS ADDRESSED BY THE ERASMUS+ OBJECTIVES? HOW SUCCESSFUL IS THE PROGRAMME IN ATTRACTING AND REACHING TARGET AUDIENCES AND GROUPS WITHIN DIFFERENT FIELDS OF THE PROGRAMME SCOPE? IS THE ERASMUS+ WELL KNOWN TO THE EDUCATION AND TRAINING, AND YOUTH COMMUNITIES? IN CASE SOME TARGET GROUPS ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY

24

REACHED, WHAT FACTORS ARE LIMITING THEIR ACCESS AND WHAT ACTIONS COULD BE TAKEN TO REMEDY THIS?

The needs of different stakeholders and sectors addresses by the Erasmus+ objectives are wellcovered. The programme is also successful in attracting and reaching target audiences and groupswithin different fields of education. In the education Erasmus+ is well known. The familiarity on thenew programme is better than (it was) for its successor programme (LLP) – which is evident from theErasmus+ beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries respondents who are familiar good or very good,the Erasmus+ (the same respondents were simultaneously assessing their familiarity on the LLP).However there are differences between different educational levels when testing statistical significancebetween those groups of respondents. The LLP results showed that LLP are at least familiar withinkindergartens and elementary schools, but are significantly more familiar in upper secondary schoolsand at the level of higher education. Whereas the comparison between familiarity on LLP andErasmus+ showed that the Erasmus + (as LLP) are significantly more familiar within elementary andupper secondary schools, at other levels statistically significant differences within the groups ofrespondents were not found. The results from the external expert questionnaire showed a statisticalsignificant difference in their opinion on how well Erasmus+ is known in their respective fields –experts in VET and the adult learning field believe more that Erasmus+ is well known in those twofields than experts from general education and higher education. Comparing all the fields of expertsfrom the HE field, there is a belief that Erasmus+ is well known in this field (however, 55% of themthink that Erasmus+ is well known in HE field).

External experts – evaluators of the application for decentralized actions held the following opinions:47% strongly agree that the needs of various stakeholders are addressed by Erasmus+ objectives andthat the Erasmus+ is very successful in attracting various target groups in education (61% ofrespondents strongly agree with the statement, whereby the categories of agreement are notstatistically significant or different when comparing general, vocational, higher education and adulteducation).

However in this area, an improvement could be made. The continuation of promotional activities canbe achieved, especially with adequate dissemination and exploitation of results. As for the greaterinvolvement of the MESS, a more systematic cooperation between MESS and NA and also theelimination of barriers to ensure a greater involvement of MESS in the KA3 action, this could help toachieve an even better implementation and impact of the Erasmus+.

When we are talking about the needs of different stakeholders in the youth sector and the way theycontinue to be addressed by the Erasmus+ objectives, we may identify the need for the objectives toconnect more with the local level, to include more non-formal groups of young people, to have theflexibility to adapt to the national context as well as to systematically and increasingly actively includeyoung people with fewer opportunities and disabilities. An omnipresent recommendation is also toinclude national youth initiatives and primarily to focus more on social inclusion, participation of youthas well as citizenship education of young people that should be achieved through the integration offormal and non-formal pedagogies. In terms of success of the programme in attracting and reachingtarget audiences and groups within the youth field, primarily youth with fewer opportunities, 44 percent of the surveyed organizations believe that the programme is either successful or very successful.On the other hand, only 12 per cent of organizations believe the programme is unsuccessful or veryunsuccessful. Even though organizations active in the sector positively evaluate the ability of theprogramme to reach these groups – according to the key stakeholders the current programme is alsomuch more successful in reaching these groups than the previous Youth in action program – there isstill some room for improvement. The key stakeholders believe that in order for the programme to

25

reach different groups of youth with fewer opportunities to a greater degree, the programme wouldactually need to make a systematic effort to invite/attract organizations working with these groups tothe programme and also acknowledge their contribution in terms of scoring. This could happen byoffering these organizations more organizational support that could come from the increase of themanagement fee due to increased support provided to these organizations, the ability to utilize TCAfinancial resources also for activities at the national level (as this would be a concentrated effort totarget certain types of organizations within the country), but also more effort invested into outreachand monitoring of these organizations in the youth field. The programme would also be moreattractive to the organizations working with youth with fewer opportunities had the financialcompensation within the programme recognise the extra input they have to invest by working withthese group of young people. This is also in line with what organizations expressed since they firmlybelieve that reaching to and working with youth with fewer opportunities demands more resources,but at the same time they also express the need to cut the administrative burden and toredefine/refine the category of young people with fewer opportunities that would also correspondwith the extra effort organizations are putting into when working with some groups within thiscategory.

When looking at the degree the youth field is familiarized with the programme, the survey conductedon organizations in the sector reveals that more than 70 per cent of organizations believe that theprogramme is well known or very well known within the sector. On the other hand, less than 10 percent of them believe the sector is not well familiarized with the programme. When being more specificand talking about the familiarity of young people with the programme, organizations believe that theprogramme is less well recognised. Only 21 percent of them believe young people know theprogramme well or very well. At the same time, more than 45 per cent of them believe young peopleare unfamiliar or very unfamiliar with the programme. In this sense, it is clear that the programmewould need to invest more into its general familiarity and recognition within the young people.

(D) INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL COHERENCE ANDCOMPLEMENTARITY

18. TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE VARIOUS ACTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TOGETHER IN ERASMUS+ COHERENT? CAN YOU IDENTIFY ANY EXISTING OR POTENTIAL SYNERGIES BETWEEN ACTIONS WITHIN ERASMUS+? CAN YOU IDENTIFY ANY TENSIONS, INCONSISTENCIES OR OVERLAPS BETWEEN ACTIONSWITHIN ERASMUS+

Actions integrated in the Erasmus+ are coherent (this argument is also supported by the data –external experts agree at large with this statement, namely 56% of them; in addition no statisticallysignificant differences between general, vocational, higher and adult education were found); also notensions or inconsistencies between actions were found. Potential synergies between actions exist, butsome are not sufficiently exploited, e.g. KA3 and incentives for mobility of so-called "silent partners", inthis particular action also a recommendation of greater inclusion of the MESS at national level wasindicated. The realization of the latter is possible with the elimination of the obstacles described

26

above, with the establishment of the structural determination of priorities and the monitoring ofresults (for KA1 and KA2 as well).4 The consensual group meeting has developed a concrete proposal:a) MESS top managers should decide about the leading of KA3 project at the ministry.b) If the decision would be positive, it is necessary to prepare everything necessary for theimplementation of the project (the removal of barriers, setting of the possible project leaders,implementation, priorities...).c) In case of a negative decision, the activities could be transferred to public institutions with a formaldecision of MESS top managers.

Another proposal of this group was on the regular (weekly) presentation of Erasmus+ projects at theMESS. The large gap between national and European policies and knowledge on those was indicatedtoo (different stakeholders, but mainly schools, are often not even aware of this, or they have verylimited knowledge about it), semi-structured interviews showed that this particular knowledgeincreases as you move up the educational levels.

In terms of internal coherence of the programme, the stakeholders in the youth field believe that thereis not enough support given to the cross-sectorial cooperation that would actually connect differentsectors and allow even more universal way the objectives of the programme are addressed. This lackof systematic support is also combined with the general perception that the youth field is going toenter such cooperation as a ‘junior partner’ and will get a secondary role in partnership. This is backedup with the perception that the other sectors believe youth field should do the first move in bridgingthat gap as well as that there is no tangible commitment to cooperate on the ‘education’ and ‘sport’side of the programme. Organizations also frequently express the general attitude of schools and theeducational sectors as very paternalistic, as if youth organizations are a ‘bunch of kids’ that shouldserve the ‘proper’ education system whenever there is a need for that. They also express concern thatschool teachers and the persons they usually work with fail to recognise the value of youth work andnon-formal educational pedagogies. This presents a serious obstacle to meaningful cooperation withsectors and avoidance of duplicated efforts to address the same problems. Nevertheless, there is someevidence of fruitful cooperation between organizations as well as sectors themselves. When talkingabout KA2, formal educational institutions, particularly HE, do provide additional input and an addedvalue to the strategic cooperation in the field of youth. In addition, the two agencies supported cross-sectorial cooperation that also included the state and university to promote social inclusion through acoherent cross-sectorial cooperation model. This initiative called ‘Key to inclusion’ brought togetherrepresentatives of various sectors to jointly discuss the issue of social inclusion as well as devise acommon approach of how to jointly address it with a coherent set of measures.

19. TO WHAT EXTENT DOES ERASMUS+ COMPLEMENT OTHER NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMES AVAILABLE? CAN YOU IDENTIFY AND TENSIONS, INCONSISTENCIES OR OVERLAPS WITH OTHER PROGRAMMES?

The data shows that the Erasmus+ complements/upgrades national objectives and policies. In all levelsof education when asking this statement, the category of agreement was selected in most of the casesregarding different educational levels: preschool education (51% respondents agreed), elementaryeducation (45%), secondary education (53%), higher education (73%) and adult education (61%).Tensions and inconsistency (also in the semi-structured interviews) were mainly not detected.

4 Possible needs for »peer counselling» were expressed by the consensual group.

27

Teaching in a foreign (English) language at a higher level (at least to a greater extent) showed perceivedtensions, which were limited by the national legislation. Erasmus+ complements other national andinternational programs that were available in Slovenia. Also external experts supported this statement(with no statistical differences between fields in education). Above all, this applies to three areasmainly to which attention was especially paid in the evaluation study, primarily quality, teachers’ (andother professionals in education) professional development and social and civic/multiculturalcompetences. Complementarity is to be found primarily through projects financed from the EuropeanStructural Fund. In any case, it is necessary at the national level, especially at the level of the MESS toidentify priorities, monitor the results of centralized and decentralized actions (in this way thecomplementarity between Erasmus+ and national projects can be even more strong), and basically todecide whether the goal is or not about increasing MESS leadership participation in the KA3 actions.

In the youth field, when it comes to the coherence of the programme with other national andinternational programmes available, the general perception of organizations active in the field is thatthe programme does connect to the other national programmes relevant to the field, primarily thenational programme on youth, but this connection could be improved. 40 per cent of organizationsbelieve that the programme connects to a great degree with the national programme on youth, butthey mostly express the belief that the two programmes only partially overlap. This also correspondswith the perception of key stakeholders in the field who believe that there are many synergiesbetween the Erasmus + and the national programme on youth and the public call for co-financing ofprogrammes in the field of youth work. However, there is also a general belief that these synergiescould be far greater had certain condition been met. Firstly, majority of stakeholders and mostorganizations are convinced that the government does not support the youth sector to a degree thatwould allow the Erasmus + programme to be a supplement addressing additional and programmaticrather than basic existential needs of the organizations active in the sector. Hence, support for basicoperations has to come from the national and local budgets in order for the synergies to be at a moredesirable level. Secondly, there is a perception that the European Commission should allow theprogramme to be more flexible in addressing the local/national needs and adapt to nationalidiosyncrasies. On the other hand, thirdly, an important part of stakeholders believe that the nationalgovernment should adapt the national programme on youth to be more compatible with the Erasmus+ programme and actually address its own objectives better and with a greater support provided bythe resources available under the Erasmus + programme.

(E) EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE AND SUSTAINABILITY

20. TO WHAT EXTENT ERASMUS+ AND ITS PREDECESSOR PROGRAMMES PRODUCE EFFECTS THAT ARE ADDITIONAL TO THE EFFECTS THAT WOULD HAVE RESULTED FROM SIMILAR ACTIONS INITIATED ONLY AT REGIONAL OR NATIONAL LEVEL? WHAT POSSIBILITIES DO YOU SEE TO ADJUST ERASMUS+ OR ITS SUCCESSOR PROGRAMME IN ORDER TO INCREASE ITS EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE?

Respondents (in semi-structural interviews, questionnaires) are convinced that the LLP / Erasmus+produce effects that serve to upgrade specific actions which would be limited to the national levelonly. This is applicable for decentralized and centralized actions. With regards to the statement - theeffects of Erasmus+ are additional to the effects that would have resulted from similar actions initiated

28

at the national (or regional) level – respondents on different education levels agreed as follows:kindergartens (49%), elementary schools (45%), secondary schools (45%), higher education institutions(46%), and adults education institutions (49%). With this statement, external experts somewhat agreed(56%) and strongly agreed (41%). In order to further increase the efficiency and particularly theEuropean added value, the promotion of Erasmus+ project should be strengthen in schools (and otherinstitutions connected with education), at the MESS. Additionally, it should be noted that the Erasmus+does not just cover the European geographical area (or even the EU); eligible applicants are outsidethis geographical area too. In this way the enhanced European added value of Erasmus + is strengthenas well.

In the youth field, the European dimension and European added value is one of the most recognisedpositive impacts of the programme. The stakeholders are unanimous that this dimension isundoubtedly one of the strongest and that the project achieves impact that would be otherwiseabsent from the field. This is also heavily supported by organizations acting in the field since more than70 per cent of organizations believe that the programme creates very strong or extremely strongimpact that would otherwise not have been achieved with national and local programmes. On theother hand, only 6 per cent of organizations believe that the programme has small or negligent impactin terms of the European added value. When looking at the results of the survey conducted on projectparticipants and project leaders, on the individual level this translates to the ability to communicate inanother language, positive relations with individuals from other cultural backgrounds (interculturaldimension) and respect of cultural diversity. On the organizational level this is reflected in intensifiedpartnership with partners from other countries and other cultural environments, with the sense ofappreciation towards cultural diversity, to improved capacity of organizations in terms of projectmanagement and addressing the intercultural topics as well as in intensified participation in Europeanmatters, either in terms of youth policy or policies in general. On the community level the projectsparticularly introduced the intercultural dimension that resulted in a higher level of openness of localcommunities to future projects with the European/intercultural dimension as well as in greaterconcern for the issues youth is concerned about.

21. TO WHAT EXTENT ERASMUS+ WILL BE ABLE TO ABSORB IN AN EFFECTIVE WAY THE SHARP INCREASE IN THE BUDGET THAT IS FORSEEN IN THE COMING YEARS UP TO 2020? COULD THE PROGRAMME USE EVEN HIGHER BUDGETS INAN EFFECTIVE WAY? DO YOU SEE CHALLANGES TO EFFECTIVELY USE MORE MONEY FOR PARTICULAR ACTIONS OR FIELDS OF THE PROGRAMME?

In principle, Erasmus+ in Slovenia is able to absorb the expected increase in the budget. 2017 and2018 are not problematic, because the energy of the work will focus on increasing the quality ofapplications. Still there are a lot of projects that are on the reserve list or are unsuccessful. Otherwise,the same recommendations apply as for question 15 (before the increase in the budget for actions, anincrease in the budget for the management of the program would be beneficial). As far as allocation,challenges are not expected, but the actual consumption of funds is somewhat questionable, e.g. inthe field of higher education, the absorption percentage fell from 98 to 94% (which means that it isnecessary to strengthen management at the level of institutions and their reflection and planning atthe existing financial provisions).

In general, youth field desperately needs additional resources as the national and local budgets fail toprovide enough resources for the organizations in the youth field to function without financial

29

deprivation. At the same time the quality of the projects proposed and the current acceptance ratesclearly indicate that additional resources provided to the programme would be absorbed withoutdifficulties and that the quality of the accepted projects would not decrease. However, there weresome concerns expressed by the key stakeholders regarding this budget elevation, since higher budgetfor projects would have to imply also certain other changes. Firstly, the budget rise would have to beaccompanied by the elevation of the management fee for the National Agencies since larger numberof administered projects would inherently reduce the support activities to financial controlling andadministration if additional resources for staffing are not provided. In addition, secondly, maintainingthe current quality of the projects with the rise in budget also demands additional effort for thetransfer of good practices within and across the sector as well as putting more attention todissemination and exploitation of results, which would also have to be additionally supported by themanagement fee. Thirdly, in order for this transition to be smooth and create desired impact, greaterflexibility in terms of distribution of resources across different key action would have to be reached asit is clear that primarily the KA2 is heavily undernourished. To many, this would assure that this changewould not only result in quantity but also in quality.

30

Interim National Report on

Implementation and Impacts of the

Erasmus+ Programme

(EDUCATION AND TRAINING)

SLOVENIA

June, 2017 Eva Klemenčič

Ref. Ares(2017)3148244 - 23/06/2017

2

Abbreviations

● CMEPIUS: The Centre of the Republic of Slovenia for Mobility and European Educational and

Training Programmes

● EACEA: Educational, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency

● EPALE: Electronic Platform for Adult Learning in Europe

● ERASMUS+: European Union programme for education, training, youth and sport (period

2014–2020)

● ICT: Information and Communication Technology

● KA1: Key Action 1 – Mobility of individuals

● KA2: Key Action 2 – Cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices

● KA3: Key Action 3 – Support for policy reform

● MESS: Ministry of Education, Science and Sport

● NA: National agency (CMEPIUS)

● VŽU: Lifelong Learning Programme (period 2007–2013)

3

Table of Contents

SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................. 8

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 11

1.1 Initial theoretical model ..................................................................................................................... 16

EMPIRICAL PART .................................................................................................................................... 19

2 AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ....................................................................................... 19

2.1 Basis of the study – indicators with variables ................................................................................... 19

3 METODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................... 23

3.1 Sample ............................................................................................................................................... 23

3.2 Description of the instruments........................................................................................................... 24

3.2.1 Quantitative part of the study ..................................................................................................... 24

3.2.2 Qualitative part of the study ....................................................................................................... 26

3.2.3 Other sources .............................................................................................................................. 27

3.3 Implementation of empirical research ............................................................................................... 27

3.4 Methods of quantitative data analysis ............................................................................................... 28

4 THE MAIN RESEARCH FINDINGS .................................................................................................. 29

4.1 Knowing LLP/Erasmus+ programmes ......................................................................................... 29

4.2 Erasmus+ (and LLP) impacts on institutions ............................................................................... 30

Variables and index of teaching (professional development) ............................................................. 30

Variables and indicator of organizational climate ............................................................................... 32

Variables of international learning mobility ........................................................................................ 33

Variables of institution reputations (local visibility) ........................................................................... 34

Variables of cooperation with others ................................................................................................... 34

Variables of quality on a level of institutions (measuring of projects impacts) .................................. 35

Variables and index of national projects ............................................................................................. 35

Variables of internationalization- activities in organization that contributes to the internationalization

of institutions ....................................................................................................................................... 36

Variables and index of European added value .................................................................................... 36

4.2.1 Factors that positively effects on intensity and duration of impacts of Erasmus+ (LLP) .......... 37

4.3 Assessments of Erasmus+ impacts on the system level ................................................................ 41

Variables of impact assessment on the different areas of the education system ................................. 41

Variables of Erasmus+ compliance with national objectives, guidelines............................................ 42

Variables and index of internationalization – in relation with quality ................................................ 43

Variables of innovations ...................................................................................................................... 44

Variables of quality ............................................................................................................................. 45

4

Variable of professional development – systemic level ...................................................................... 45

Variables of national policies in education.......................................................................................... 45

Variables of promotion the emergence of European lifelong learning area ........................................ 46

Variables of good practices ................................................................................................................. 46

Variable of European added value ...................................................................................................... 47

4.3.1 Factors that affect positively intensity and duration of Erasmus+ impacts (systemic level) ...... 47

4.4 Variables of other characteristics of the Erasmus+ programme in Slovenia ............................ 50

5 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 53

6 APPENDICES (QUESTIONNAIRES AND COMPUTATIONS) ..................................................... 70

A. QUESTIONNAIRES ........................................................................................................................ 70

6.1 APPENDIX 1: LLP/ERASMUS+ BENEFICIARIES QUESTIONNAIRES ................................... 70

6.2 Appendix: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR EXTERNAL EXPERTS – EVALUATORS OF

DECENTRALIZED ACTIONS .............................................................................................................. 86

6.3 APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NATIONAL AGENCY EXPERTS ................................... 93

B. COMPUTATIONS FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRES................................................................ 96

6.4 Appendix: Comparisons of indicators between different levels of education ................................... 96

6.5 Appendix: Comparisons of differences between groups of respondents based on Chi-square and

Kruskal-Wallis test ................................................................................................................................ 101

6.6 Appendix: Percentages of responses on statements about impact of Erasmus+ (LLP) at the

institutional level ................................................................................................................................... 111

6.7 Appendix: Measures of project impacts on institution after the project is finished ........................ 120

6.8 Appendix: Comparisons of statistically significant differences between different educational levels

– comparisons of indices (institutional level) ........................................................................................ 121

6.9 Appendix: Organisational activities which contribute to the internationalisation ........................... 124

6.10 Appendix: Compliance of Erasmus+ objectives with national objectives, guidelines .................. 127

6.11 Appendix: Analyses of statistically (non) significant differences in response of external experts

(general, vocational, higher, and adult education)................................................................................. 130

6.12 Appendix: Impact of Erasmus+ on different areas in education system ....................................... 147

6.13 Appendix: Beneficiaries’ assessments of the impact of internationalization on quality ............... 149

6.14 Appendix: Comparisons of statistically significant differences between different educational levels

– index of quality (systemic level) ........................................................................................................ 150

6.15 Appendix: External experts’ opinion on impact of Erasmus+ (LLP) ............................................ 151

7 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................ 155

Diagram 1: Initial theoretical model on implementation and impacts of the Erasmus+ in Slovenia …….17

Table 1: Indices vith variables…………………………………………………………………………….20

5

List of tables (Appendices)

Table 1: Indicators for preschool education ................................................................................................ 96

Table 2: Indicators for elementary education .............................................................................................. 97

Table 3: Indicators for secondary education ............................................................................................... 97

Table 4: Indicators for higher education ..................................................................................................... 98

Table 5: Indicators for adult education ........................................................................................................ 99

Table 6: Q9a (Comenius) * Q26a (LLP) ................................................................................................... 102

Table 7: Q9a (Comenius) * Q26b (Erasmus+) .......................................................................................... 102

Table 8: Q9a (Comenius) * Q26c (eTwinning) ......................................................................................... 102

Table 9: Q9a (Comenius) * Q26aRec (LLP) ............................................................................................ 103

Table 10: Q9a (Comenius) * Q26bRec (Erasmus+) .................................................................................. 103

Table 11: Q9a (Comenius) * Q26cRec (eTwinning)................................................................................. 103

Table 12: Q9b (Leonardo da Vinci) * Q26a (LLP) ................................................................................... 103

Table 13: Q9b (Leonardo da Vinci) * Q26b (Erasmus+) .......................................................................... 104

Table 14: Q9b (Leonardo da Vinci) * Q26c (eTwinning) ......................................................................... 104

Table 15: Q9b (Leonardo da Vinci) * Q26aRec (LLP) ............................................................................. 105

Table 16: Q9b (Leonardo da Vinci) * Q26bRec (Erasmus+) .................................................................... 105

Table 17: Q9b (Leonardo da Vinci) * Q26cRec (eTwinning) ................................................................... 105

Table 18: Q4 (elementary/secondary school) * Q26a (LLP) .................................................................... 106

Table 19: Q4 (elementary/secondary school) * Q26b (Erasmus+) ........................................................... 106

Table 20: Q4 (elementary/secondary school) * Q26c (eTwinning) .......................................................... 107

Table 21: Q4 (elementary/secondary school) * Q26aRec (LLP) .............................................................. 107

Table 22: Q4 (elementary/secondary school) * Q26bRec (Erasmus+) ..................................................... 107

Table 23: Q4 (elementary/secondary school) * Q26cRec (eTwinning) .................................................... 108

Table 24: Instrument (education level) * Q26a (LLP) .............................................................................. 108

Table 25: Instrument (education level) * Q26b (Erasmus+) ..................................................................... 109

Table 26: Instrument (education level) * Q26aRec (LLP) ........................................................................ 109

Table 27: Instrument (education level) * Q26bRec (Erasmus+) ............................................................... 110

Table 28: Beneficiaries’ assessment of Erasmus+ (LLP) impact on the areas in their institutions (in %) 111

Table 29: Beneficiaries’ assessment of Erasmus+ (LLP) impact on the work of educators in their

institutions (in %) ...................................................................................................................................... 114

Table 30: Measures of project impacts on institution after the project is finished (in %). ........................ 120

Table 31: Index of teaching and professional development (institutional level) ....................................... 121

Table 32: Organizational climate index (institutional level) ..................................................................... 121

Table 33: Index of national projects (institutional level) .......................................................................... 122

Table 34: Index of European added value (institutional level) ................................................................. 122

Table 35: Organisational activities which contribute to the internationalisation (in %) ........................... 124

Table 36: Assessment of beneficiaries on compliance of Erasmus+ (LLP) and national objectives (in %)

................................................................................................................................................................... 127

Table 37: eTwinning and realization of the Erasmus+ (LLP) objectives (in %) ....................................... 128

Table 38: EPALE and realization of the Erasmus+ (LLP) objectives (in %) ............................................ 128

Table 39: Impact of EPALE on adult education – systemic level (in %) .................................................. 128

Table 40: Q5 (field of education) * Q10a (regard to their relevance for the labour market) .................... 130

Table 41: Q5 (field of education) * Q10b (regard to their contribution to a cohesive society) ................ 130

6

Table 42: Q5 (field of education) * Q10c (increased opportunities for learning mobility) ....................... 131

Table 43: Q5 (field of education) * Q10d (strengthened cooperation between the world of education and

training and the world of work) ................................................................................................................. 131

Table 44: Q5 (field of education) * Q11a (quality) ................................................................................... 132

Table 45: Q5 (field of education) * Q11b (innovations) ........................................................................... 132

Table 46: Q5 (field of education) * Q11c (internationalization at the level of education institutions) ..... 133

Table 47: Q5 (field of education) * Q11d (internationalization at the level of training institutions) ........ 133

Table 48: Q5 (field of education) * Q11e (enhanced transnational cooperation between education and

training providers and other stakeholders) ................................................................................................ 134

Table 49: Q5 (field of education) * Q12a (complementing policy reforms at national level) .................. 134

Table 50: Q5 (field of education) * Q12b (supporting the modernization of education and training system)

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

Table 51: Q5 (field of education) * Q12c (enhancing policy cooperation) ............................................... 135

Table 52: Q5 (field of education) * Q12d (bettering the use of EU transparency and recognition tools) . 136

Table 53: Q5 (field of education) * Q12e (disseminating good practices and raising awareness about that

in European area)....................................................................................................................................... 136

Table 54: Q5 (field of education) * Q13a (better teaching and learning of foreign languages) ................ 137

Table 55: Q5 (field of education) * Q13b (promoting the EU’s broad linguistic diversity and intercultural

education) .................................................................................................................................................. 137

Table 56: Q5 (field of education) * Q17a (LLP/Erasmus+ contribute to the realization of the specific

objectives of Erasmus+) ............................................................................................................................ 138

Table 57: Q5 (field of education) * Q17b (progress on the realization of the specific objectives contributed

to the realization of the Erasmus+ general objectives) .............................................................................. 138

Table 58: Q5 (field of education) * Q17c (Erasmus+ actions influence national policy developments) .. 139

Table 59: Q5 (field of education) * Q17d (integration of several programmes into Erasmus+ made the

programme more effective) ....................................................................................................................... 139

Table 60: Q5 (field of education) *Q17e (integration of several programmes into Erasmus+ contributed to

the efficiency of programme implementation at the level of beneficiaries and participant) ..................... 140

Table 61: Q5 (field of education) * Q17f (integration of several programmes into Erasmus+ reduced the

efficiency of programme implementation at the level of beneficiaries and participants) ......................... 140

Table 62: Q5 (field of education) * Q17g (approaches and tools that are used for the disseminating and

exploiting of the results of Erasmus+/LLP are effective).......................................................................... 141

Table 63: Q5 (field of education) * Q17h (Erasmus+ objectives continue to address the needs or problems

they meant to solve) .................................................................................................................................. 141

Table 64: Q5 (field of education) * Q17i (the identified needs/problems, which Erasmus+ meant to solve,

are still relevant in Slovenia) ..................................................................................................................... 142

Table 65: Q5 (field of education) * Q17j (needs or problems evolved in such a way that the objectives of

Erasmus+ need to be adjusted) .................................................................................................................. 142

Table 66: Q5 (field of education) * Q17k (needs of different stakeholders are addressed with Erasmus+

objectives) ................................................................................................................................................. 143

Table 67: Q5 (field of education) * Q17l (Erasmus+ is, in attracting and reaching target audiences and

groups, successful) .................................................................................................................................... 143

Table 68: Q5 (field of education) * Q17m (Erasmus+ is in the field of education well known) .............. 144

Table 69: Q5 (field of education) * Q17n (various actions in Erasmus+ are coherent) ............................ 144

7

Table 70: Q5 (field of education) * Q17o (Erasmus+ complement other national programmes (projects)

available in Slovenia) ................................................................................................................................ 145

Table 71: Q5 (field of education) * Q17p (Erasmus+ complement other international programmes

(projects) available in Slovenia) ................................................................................................................ 145

Table 72: Q5 (field of education) * Q17q (Erasmus+ (LLP) produce effects that are additional to the

effects that would have resulted from similar actions initiated only at the regional or national level) ..... 146

Table 73: Impact of Erasmus+ (LLP) on different areas in education system (in %) ............................... 147

Table 74: Beneficiaries’ and potential beneficiaries’ assessments of the impact of internationalization on

quality (in %) ............................................................................................................................................. 149

Table 75: Index of quality (systemic level) ............................................................................................... 150

Table 76: External experts’ assessments on different statements on Erasmus+/LLP (in %) .................... 151

Table 77: External experts’ assessments on Erasmus+ (LLP) contribution - key competences and skills (in

%) .............................................................................................................................................................. 152

Table 78: External experts’ assessments on Erasmus+ (LLP) contribution … (in %) .............................. 153

Table 79: External experts’ assessments on Erasmus+ (LLP) contribution - European lifelong learning

area (in %) ................................................................................................................................................. 153

Table 80: External experts’ assessments on Erasmus+ (LLP) contribution – foreign languages,

intercultural awareness (in %) ................................................................................................................... 154

Table 81: External experts’ assessments on Erasmus+ (LLP) contribution – international dimension of

education and training (in %) .................................................................................................................... 154

Table 82: External experts’ assessments on Erasmus+ (LLP) contribution – international dimension of

education and training (in %) .................................................................................................................... 154

8

SUMMARY

The scope of this evaluation study was to prepare “Interim National Report on Implementation

and Impacts of Erasmus+”, at the institutional level and the systemic level. To include both levels

while investigating the implementation and impacts, due to the large potential of spill-over

effects between those two levels. An awareness of the possibility of those spill-over effects even

between an individual level and other levels is incorporated into the study, therefore we are, to a

certain extent, also investigating the effects on the individual level, but only through the

perceptions of the heads of those institutions at various education levels included in the study

(kindergartens, schools, adult learning institutions; for higher education institutions, the

participation of other staff, not only heads was expected).

Based on the theoretical basis and initial qualitative analysis, we have identified indicators and

variables that were examined in the empirical part of the research. Based on that, we have created

the following instruments:

a) The quantitative part of the evaluation study: questionnaires for preschool education,

elementary school education (primary and lower secondary),1 upper secondary schools (general

and vocational education and training), higher education, and adult learning, CMEPIUS (NA)

employees (expert workers), and questionnaires for external experts (national evaluators) of the

Erasmus+ (LLP) project applications for decentralized actions.

b) The qualitative part of the evaluation study: qualitative content analysis of national and

European documents, semi-structured interviews with different stakeholders, consensual group,

other sources (financial analysis of the NA’ expenditures/reports, analysis of final reports from

the LLP, qualitative content analysis national calls for European structural and investments funds

in the financial perspective 2014-2020.

The findings suggest that Erasmus+ in Slovenia, at various levels of the education system, is

well known (although during the interviews, the majority of respondents named the program

Erasmus – without the “plus”) and successful in attracting and reaching target audiences and

groups. Among the groups there are some significant differences in the knowledge of the

program. However, different groups of stakeholders have highlighted that the challenge for the

future is in the identification of good practices and the dissemination of high-quality results.

The study showed that the Erasmus+ at the institutional level has a large effect. This effect is

mainly recognized as long-term and positive, especially in the areas of teachers’ and other

participants’ professional and personal development, organizational climate, quality and the

internationalization of education institutions.

At a systemic level, the study showed that the Erasmus+ has an effect on the Slovenian

educational system. The coherence between European and national objectives and priorities

is visible. Erasmus+ projects, although with some differences based on opinions of different

1 In Slovenia this is unified.

9

stakeholders and different levels of the education system, support the development of national

policies, complement other national and international programmes available in Slovenia,

affect the internationalization of the system, promote a European lifelong-learning area

(particularly through the dissemination of good practices and raising awareness of this in

Europe), affect the quality of the education system on different levels and on different

perspectives and promote the EU’s broad linguistic diversity and intercultural awareness.

Respondents from different education levels most often agreed that the objectives of the

Erasmus+ are consistent with national objectives/priorities, that the effects are an upgrade of the

possible effects that would be incurred only in the context of national projects. They mainly

agreed with the compliance of requirements and national guidelines (higher education

respondents – most of the respondent could not decide about this compliance). However, the

interviews showed that the respondents did not know (or were less sure) of what the national

objectives are in their respective fields, the latter is especially significant for preschool education,

elementary school level and secondary education. When Erasmus+ objectives were shown to

them, their opinion was that those objectives continue to address the needs and the problems that

they meant to solve, as well as the target audiences and groups. A minority suggested that

Erasmus+ objectives should be complemented (it was more that some focus could be specifically

highlighted). EPALE and eTwinning have also been recognized as a tool to assist in the

realization of the objectives of the Erasmus+ (although not all of the relevant respondents are

familiar with those two tools). Familiarity with other tools e.g. School Education Gateway is

even less known, indeed in one of the interviews it was rated as deficient, due to the lack of

possibilities for identifying high-quality results (which would help participants to choose the

most quality learning mobility programmes). This is the same for Erasmus+ Project Results

Platform, the search engine was recognized as limited (too many results - lacking of further

classification). Erasmus+ projects have been recognized as ones that also affect the

internationalization of the education system. Namely, the impact has been assessed as a long-

term positive. The same when assessing the impact of internationalization on quality (the

quality of teaching institutions, learning and the system as such), the respondents’ majority

opinion was that the impact is positive over the long-term. Secondary education level indicator of

the impact of internationalization on quality statistically significantly differs from the level of

pre-school education and adult education - at the secondary level respondents are more confident

that the Erasmus+ has had a positive (short and long term) impact on these dimensions of quality.

The impact on innovation is also perceived as a long-term positive. Other variables of quality

also confirmed the long-term positive effect of Erasmus+. One of the variables for professional

development (system level) asked about the teaching and learning of foreign languages, The

Erasmus+ impact on that was assessed as positive and long-term, and the differences between

general, vocational, higher and adult education were not significant. The majority of external

experts - the evaluators of applications of decentralized actions, believe that Erasmus+ has a great

10

influence on promoting the EU’s broad linguistic diversity and intercultural awareness.

This was also the prevailing opinion of the interviewees.

The integration of several programmes into Erasmus+ is, more often than not, seen as

effective (particularly at the level of beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries) and coherent, but

with some proposed amendments such as for KA2 school partnerships (for the international

level). At the national level, different incentives that are associated with the identification and

dissemination of high-quality projects and their results were exposed and reflected the more

active participation of the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport, primarily for the Action

KA3, therefore possibilities to lead such a project in a future should be investigated. In addition,

it seems that more effort should be put into the identification and especially the

dissemination of national priorities, especially for “lower” levels of the education system, and

the identification of national priorities for Erasmus+ projects as well.

11

1 INTRODUCTION

The Lifelong Learning Programme was the European Union programme for education and

training in the period 2007–2013. The general objective of the Lifelong Learning Programme was

to contribute through lifelong learning to the development of the Community as an advanced

knowledge-based society, with sustainable economic development, more and better jobs and

greater social cohesion, while ensuring good protection of the environment for future generations.

In particular, it aims to foster interchange, cooperation and mobility between education and

training systems within the Community so that they become a world quality reference (Action

programme in the field of lifelong learning, 2006: 48).

The Programme continued the main actions launched under previous action programmes (in

particular, it brought together the various actions financed under the Socrates programme and the

Leonardo da Vinci programme). It was composed from four sectoral subprogrammes (1), the

Transversal Programme (2) and the Jean Monnet Action (3).

1. Sectoral subprogrammes:

(a) the Comenius programme, which addressed the teaching and learning needs of all those in

pre-school and school education up to the level of the end of upper secondary education, and the

institutions and organisations providing such education;

(b) the Erasmus programme, which addressed the teaching and learning needs of all those in

formal higher education and vocational education and training at tertiary level, whatever the

length of their course or qualification may be and including doctoral studies, and the institutions

and organisations providing or facilitating such education and training;

(c) the Leonardo da Vinci programme, which addressed the teaching and learning needs of all

those in vocational education and training, other than at tertiary level, as well as the institutions

and organisations providing or facilitating such education and training;

(d) the Grundtvig programme, which addressed the teaching and learning needs of those in all

forms of adult education, as well as the institutions and organisations providing or facilitating

such education.

2. Transversal programme:

(a) policy cooperation and innovation in lifelong learning;

(b) promotion of language learning;

(c) development of innovative ICT-based content, services, pedagogies and practice for lifelong

learning;

(d) dissemination and exploitation of results of actions supported under the programme and

previous related programmes, and exchange of good practice.

3. Jean Monnet Action:

(a) operating grants to support specified institutions dealing with issues relating to European

integration;

12

(b) operating grants to support other European institutions and associations in the fields of

education and training (Action programme in the field of lifelong learning, 2006: 50-51).

In Slovenia two exstensive evaluation studies of the Lifelong Learning Programme’ impacts were

published. Results from the study entitled “Evaluation of the impact of the Erasmus Programme

on higher education in Slovenia” showed that internationalization of higher education in Slovenia

is still in its early phases of development, even if the ambitions of government officials and

institutional leaders are not in any way lacking. Joining the Erasmus Programme in 1999 helped a

lot, especially in creating mobility opportunities, summer schools, language training and

occasional thematic networks, but it did not result in paradigmatic shifts in how

internationalisation is conceived and practiced. The impact of the Erasmus Programme has been

overwhelmingly positive particulary on the individuals who participated in the exchanges or

intensive programmes, institutional networking and strengthening the capacity of international

offices. Much less visible are the direct effects of the Erasmus Programme on the

internationalisation of study at home and thus on the quality of teaching and learning.

Participation in Erasmus alone does not automatically result in the internationalisation of study at

home or contribute to quality teaching and learning. Hovewer, the Erasmus Programme is best

utilised in the institutions which have a clear internationalisation strategy and are ambitious in

their international orientation. The study concluded that it is not Erasmus that drives the

internationalisation of Slovenian higher education, but it is a strong internationalisation strategy

(both national and especially institutional) that creates enabling conditions for the full utilisation

of Erasmus and its contribution to and impact on internationalisation (Klemenčič, Flander, 2013:

4-12). The study “Impact of the Lifelong Learning Programme on primary and secondary

education with respect to national priorities” focused on the education and training institutions

and participants, namely on the impacts of the Comenius and the Leonardo da Vinci. The results

showed that participation in Lifelong Programme activities has a positive impact on the majority

of variables at the levels of schools, teachers and pupils / students, which were identified by

comparing the national strategic goals for the development of education with the main aims of the

Lifelong Learning Programme. Among the most significant factors with respect to schools for

which a high percentage of headmasters and teachers surveyed assessed that they had a long term

positive impact and which are the most important from the aspect of this study are primarily

those, which contribute to the building of a learning community and thus a more successful

introduction of reforms; i.e. the school headmaster’s support to teachers, cooperation between

teachers and the headmaster, the headmaster’s interest in teachers’ work, teachers’ commitment

to common goals, and the development of a culture of collegiality amongst the staff. When

assessing the impact of project participati on on the work and competencies of teachers a high

share of the surveyed headmasters and teacher coordinators assessed that the participati on in the

Lifelong Learning Programme also has a high long-term impact on the variables which contribute

to the readiness of teachers to adopt innovations. In relation to the impact on pupils a high share

of respondents assess that the participati on in the Lifelong Learning Programme activities has a

13

high long-term impact on the non-cognitive aspects of learning. The interviews indicated that the

intensity and duration of the observed impact depends on a number of key factors, such as the

role of school headmaster, school coordinator, and by ensuring the continuity of international

collaboration (Sentočnik, 2013: 5-6).

In 2011, the European Commission prepared a Communication (COM (2011) 787 l) proposing a

new single Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport for the 2014-2020 period. The

Programme was initially called “Erasmus for All” and then changed to “Erasmus+” (Klemenčič

and Flander, 2013).

Erasmus+ is the result of the integration of the following European programmes implemented by

the Commission during the period 2007-2013:

- The Lifelong Learning Programme

- The Youth in Action Programme

- The Erasmus Mundus Programme

- Tempus

- Alfa

- Edulink

- Programmes of cooperation with industrialised countries in the field of higher education.

Erasmus+ aims to go beyond these programmes, by promoting synergies and cross fertilisation

throughout the different fields of education, training and youth, removing artificial boundaries

between the various Actions and project formats, fostering new ideas, attracting new agents from

the world of work and civil society and stimulating new forms of cooperation (Erasmus+

Programme Guide, 2017: 8). The programme reflects the priorities of the Europe 2020 strategy

and its flagship initiatives (Education and Training 2020), Youth Strategy and priorities of the EU

external actions (Klemenčič in Flander, 2013: 18). The fields of the programme consist of

education and training, youth, and sport.

For its implementation, the programme supports following key actions: a) The learning mobility

of individuals (KA1), b) Cooperation for innovation and good practices (KA2), c) Support for

policy reforms (KA3), d) Jean Monnet Activities, e) Sport.

Erasmus+ programme activities are coordinated at the European level (centralized actions) and at

the national level (decentralized actions): for decentralized actions in Slovenia, two national

agencies are responsible, namely The Centre of the Republic of Slovenia for Mobility and

European Educational and Training Programmes (CMEPIUS, hereinafter NA) managing fields of

education, training, and sport and Institute for the development of youth mobility (MOVIT)

managing the youth field.

The purpose of the study "Interim National Report on the Implementation and Impacts of

Erasmus+" is to investigate the implementation and impact of Erasmus+ on the education and

training institutions and system in the Republic of Slovenia (hereinafter the Interim Report),

especially in general education, vocational education and training, higher education, and adult

education. This focus of the study arises from the instructions of the European Commission in

14

"National Reports on the Implementation and Impact of Erasmus+ Guidance Note" and

"Evaluation Roadmap", keeping in mind the findings of the previous Lifelong Learning

Programme as well. The objectives of the study, which resulted in the preparation of the Interim

Report, focus on support for Erasmus+ for the development of education and training in terms of

the impact on the institutions and on the system level,2 and especially in terms of the impact of

internationalization and international cooperation as a tool to strengthen the following three

areas: 1. Quality - raising and strengthening the quality of education 2. Professional development

- international cooperation as an opportunity for professional development of educators3 in the

field of education and training, 3. Social and civic/competences - international cooperation as a

tool for empowering teachers4 on multicultural competences and the promotion of European

citizenship. In addition, the programme’s specific objectives can be grouped into three broad

categories, according to the level at which the results are likely to occur: individual, institutional

and system level. Distinguishing between these three levels of intervention facilitates the

identification of the different types of effects that each specific objective is expected to produce

(Evaluation roadmap, 2015: 3):

- at the individual level, the intervention seeks to increase participants’ competences as well as

change their attitudes and perceptions;

- at the institutional level, the intervention seeks changes in services, pedagogies, methodologies,

content and practices;

- at the systemic level, the intervention aims to improve national systems and develop a European

dimension.

Among these three levels, there are potential spill-over effects, e.g. the mobility of individuals

(learners, teachers, trainers, researchers and other staff) could – in addition to individual-level

results – lead to improvements in the performance of the institutions and impact on national

systems, especially in terms of outcome recognition. Also, the performance of individual

institutions could be affected by European cooperation initiatives in the areas of education and

training policies, including through their effects on national education and training systems and

2 The questionnaires for different beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries take into account specialties for those

sectors, indeed adaptations or additional items were added in certain parts of those questionnaires. 3 Teachers, academics, adult educators and others.

4 Whereby institutional or meso level is analyzed in conjunction with the system level. Institutional level represents

to us a meso level, within the meaning intermediate (agent) between individuals (such as program participants and

potential participants) and the school system (i.e. the national system). The decision to include this level in the

evaluation study is based, in addition to the levels depending on where the results of the Erasmus+ projects is likely

to occur, on the assumption that for the individual participants (e.g. each teacher), it would be difficult and not

realistic to expect to assess the impact of Erasmus+ on the system level (e.g. on school policies). We also took this

into account while requesting the completion of the questionnaires. Potential respondents were in fact asked if the

questionnaire could be completed by management staff (in schools principals etc.). In so far as it does not have an

overview of the Erasmus+ activities within the institution, we asked for a person who is familiar with the Erasmus+

(or LLP) projects. The latter is especially relevant for preschool and general education, vocational education and

adult education. At the institutions of the higher education level, potential respondents were asked if the

questionnaire could be completed together with a person who has experience in the Erasmus+ and international

cooperation.

15

through reforms prompted by the open method of coordination at EU levels (Evaluation roadmap,

2015: 3).

In addition to scientific writings, variables and indicators5 were defined by mapping the national

guidelines/goals/priorities, and those at the EU level.

a) National guidelines/priorities/objectives

The national strategic objectives were identified6 from: legislation (ZOFVI, Official Gazette RS

16/2007), national strategic documents (White paper on education in Republic of Slovenia, 1995,

and 2011; partially from Basis of Curricular Reforms, 1996), different national evaluation studies

and the report of Council for quality and evaluation, from which the identification of different

strategic priorities in the area of the individual and systemic view of education and training was

possible; resolutions and other documents (Strategy of lifelong learning in Slovenia, 2007;

National Programme of Higher Education in Republic of Slovenia (NPVS), 2002; Resolution on

the National Programme of Higher Education 2011-2020 (ReNPVŠ11–20), 2011; Strategy for

the internationalisation of Slovenian higher education 2016-2020 (2016); Resolution on the

National Research and Development Programme 2011-2020 (ReRIS11–20), 2011; Resolution on

the National Programme for Language Policy 2014-2018 (ReNPJP14–18), 2013; Resolution on

the Master Plan for Adult Education in the Republic of Slovenia for 2013–2020 (ReNPIO13–20),

2013; Operational Program for the implementation of European cohesion policy for the period

2014-2020, 2014; Digital Slovenia 2020 - Development strategy for the information society by

2020, 2016); direct confirmation of the operations or calls for tender, especially the European

Social Funds in Financial Perspective 2014-2020; National Reform Programmes from 2013-2014

do 2016-2017. Collected statistical data and reports of NA’ were of help too: collected statistical

data, previous reports (Evaluation of the Impact of Erasmus Programme on Higher Education,

and Impact of the Lifelong Learning Programme on primary and secondary education with

respect to national priorities, published in 2013); Study of the effects of eTwinning on school

education in Slovenia (2016) and other reports prepared by the NA; final project reports from

LLP, on the basis of which we also identified the possible impacts on Erasmus+ projects. The

national strategic objectives were “faced” with Erasmus+ objectives (and LLP). In addition,

European documents were of help (section b).

b) EU guidelines/priorities/objectives

For the identification of the EU guidelines, Erasmus+ and LLP documents were especially of

help: Action programme in the field of lifelong learning, No. 1720/2006; Interim Evaluation of

5 Which serve as a base for our questionnaires.

6 Also with help of the study Impact of the Lifelong Learning Programme on primary and secondary education with

respect to national priorities (Sentočnik, 2013).

16

the Lifelong Learning programme 2007–2013: Final Report, 2011; Erasmus+: the Union

programme for education, training, youth and sport (1288/2013), 2013; Erasmus+ Programme

Guide, 2016, 2017; The Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No. 1288/2013): European

Implementation Assessment, 2016) and other documents or guidelines on European level (Treaty

on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2012; EUROPE

2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, 2010; Strategic Framework –

Education & Training 2020 (ET 2020), 2010; ET 2020 National Report: Slovenia, 2014; Joint

Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the strategic framework for

European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020): New priorities for European

cooperation in education and training, 2015); Education and Training Monitor 2016 – Slovenia

(Monitor, 2016).

1.1 Initial theoretical model

The evaluation study follows the initial theoretical model developed especially for this study. It is

necessary to recall the different understanding of concepts used for the identification and analysis

of the implementation and impacts of the Erasmus+ programme, as well as the effects of different

levels (and potential spill-overs) of the Erasmus+ or so-called interventions. These findings are

also taken into account in the development of instruments for the study.

In the design of the initial theoretical model, the mapping of various European and national

guidelines/objectives/priorities was used: a) general objectives of the Erasmus+ b) specific

objectives in the field of education and training, with a special focus on two objectives: 1. to

foster quality improvements, innovation excellence and internationalization at the level of

education and training institutions, in particular through enhanced transnational cooperation

between education and training providers and other stakeholders, 2. to promote the emergence

and raise awareness of a European lifelong learning area designed to complement policy reforms

at the national level and to support the modernization of education and training systems, in

particular through enhanced policy cooperation, better use of Union transparency and recognition

tools and the dissemination of good practices; c) national guidelines/priorities/objectives.

17

Diagram 1: Initial theoretical model on implementation and impacts of the Erasmus+ in Slovenia.

Effectiveness

Efficiency

Relevance

Internal and external coherence and complementarity

European added value and sustainability

ERASMUS+ (education and training)

NATIONAL GUIDELINES EUROPEAN GUIDELINES

LLP

General

e.

Vocational Higher

edu

Adult

SYST

EM L

EVEL

INTER

NA

TION

ALIZA

TION

In

stit

uti

on

al r

aven

1. To foster quality improvements,

innovation excellence and

internationalization.

2. To complement policy reforms at

national level and to support the

modernization of education and

training system.

QUALITY PROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT

SOCIAL AND CIVIC

/ INTERCULTURAL

COMPETENCES

Qualitative

metodology

Quantitative

metodology

18

In the qualitative and quantitative part of the study, focus is given to the general elements and

concepts of intervention logic, namely: effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, internal and external

coherence and complementarity, European added value and sustainability.7 For the assessments

of the more long-term impacts of the Erasmus+ programme, some findings from the study

evaluating the Lifelong Learning Programme (hereinafter LLP) in Slovenia were taken into

account (especially its findings relating to the institutional level), some specific statements related

to the LLP in the questionnaires were also included. In this study, the institutional and systemic

levels are combined, in the specific cases where this is reasonable and possible. The above

diagram shows the initial theoretical model, whereby it should be noted that the focus of

particular topics are adapted to the level of education and training and also for different

stakeholders in this area (e.g. internationalization in higher education comprises several

dimensions, as a rule, more intensity, as is typical for the level of general education). The

prevalent part of the study is based on self-assessments of the Erasmus+ implementation and

impacts in Slovenia.

The study focus is on decentralized actions of Erasmus+, but for a more comprehensive

assessment of the interventions, it is necessary to examine the component of coherence - in terms

of assessment of the impact of Erasmus+ in the formulation of national policies and support for

national programs that are consistent with the objectives and priorities of the Erasmus +. To this

end, we have tried to explore the connection of decentralized and centralized actions and analyse

the compatibility of the study results with (provided) financing of national programs/projects -

especially projects financed from the European Social Funds 2014-2020.

7 Specific questions are stated in the document “National Reports on the Implementation and Impact of Erasmus+

Guidance Note”, and answered under conclusions of this report.

19

EMPIRICAL PART

2 AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The aim of this study was to identify the implementation of the Erasmus+ programme and its

impacts, on the systemic level, to be more precise on the level of general education, vocational

education and training, higher education and adult education. In this task, investigating the

implementation and effects on the institutional level was necessary.

Study objectives and preparation of the Interim Report are in compliance with its aim:

− assess the implementation of the Erasmus+ programme (in conjunction with previous

LLP programme);

− assess the intensity and duration of the effects observed;

− identify the factors that positively affect the implementation of the intervention, the

intensity and sustainability of the effects of participation in Erasmus+ activities (at

institutional but mainly at the systemic level);

− assess the effects of participation in the activities of the Erasmus+ (mainly decentralized

actions and connections of centralized and decentralized actions) from a systemic

perspective (unidirectionality, two-way; at the institutional and systemic level);

− assess the different understanding of key concepts (e.g. internationalization), assess the

reality and realization of effects of the Erasmus+ according to the different levels of

education and according to different stakeholders.

2.1 Basis of the study – indicators with variables

Starting from the initial theoretical model (described above) variables and indicators were

defined, based on the assessment of the compatibility of the objectives of the Erasmus+, the

specificities of its actions, national objectives as well as on the study’ focus, which was

previously agreed. For each level of educational system, some adaptations were needed

(according to the often used terminology in this specific level of educational system and with

regard to the reasonableness of use, e.g. Electronic Platform for Adult Learning in Europe

(EPALE) is used at adult education level, therefore stakeholders from other levels were not asked

to assess this platform. To determine the variables, and in particular indicators, final reports from

the previous programme were used (impact on the institution, the local environment, European

added value). Since exploring concrete impacts of the LLP and/or Erasmus+ on the development

of the educational system is often impossible to isolate from other effects, which also contributed

20

to the development of the system, we have to determine the latter rely on the (dominant) opinions

of the respondents (in questionnaires and interviews).

As mentioned already in the evaluation study, restrictions to two levels, institutional8 and

systemic, were optimal.

Table 1: Indicators with variables

Level Indicator Variables

INSTITUTIONS Teaching (professional

development)

Cooperative learning

Promotion of individual work

Inter-curricular linking

New teaching forms and methods, use of new

learning tools and resources

Provision of the compulsory programme at the

institution

Provision of additional activities

Use of ICT in the institution

Communication skills of staff in a foreign language

Organizational climate Staff dedication to common objectives

Culture of collegiality among staff

Cooperation of educational practitioners (teachers)

with management staff

Management staff support to teachers

Management staff awareness of teachers’ work

Dialogue among staff

Cooperation among teachers (project work,

international cooperation)

International learning mobility Exchange of teachers

Exchange of pupils/students

Learning mobility of different stakeholders abroad

(management staff, teachers, pupils, students)

(Local) visibility

Visibility of the institution in the environment

Openness of the institution towards the local and

broader community

Cooperation with others Cooperation with other institutions in Slovenia

Readiness of staff to participate in new projects

Cooperation with parents of pupils and students

Contacts of students/learners with foreign

students/learners

Contacts of practitioners/teachers/academics/ with

foreign practitioners/teachers/academics

Cooperation with other researchers from abroad (in

general, preparation of common publications,

8 To some extent the mediator of this level is also the individual level (teachers). Although this group of respondents

was not specifically sampled, the impacts of this level were assessed as a rule via heads of the institutions – how they

see this effect on teachers in their institutions.

21

developing joint/double degree programmes)

Quality Measurement of the project impacts at the level of

institutions

National projects

Identification of topics for participation in national

projects

Functioning in national projects

Selection success in national projects

Internationalization

European added value

Organization activities that contributes to the

internationalization of organization

Internationalization at the level of institutions

Awareness of teachers about common European

heritage, European cultural and moral values,

respect to different cultures, knowing and

understanding of different education and training

systems in programme/partner countries

SYSTEM National

priorities/guidelines/objectives

Compatibility of institutions’ needs with national

guidelines

Compatibility of LLP/Erasmus+ objectives with

national objectives

Complementarity/upgrade/tensions of

LLP/Erasmus+ objectives with national objectives

Upgrading LLP/Erasmus+ effects on impacts of

actions at national level

Alliance of Erasmus+ general and specific

objectives

Internationalization– impact

of internationalization on

quality

Impact of internationalization on national education

and training system (quality of institutions in the

field of education and training, quality of teaching,

learning and quality of education system)

Innovations Impact on innovations

Impact on excellence in innovations (the quality of

innovations)

Quality Impact on promoting quality improvement,

enhancing quality

Impact on the overall increase in the quality of

learning, teaching

Quality of project applications and the results of the

LLP/Erasmus+ projects

International cooperation between education and

training providers and other stakeholders

Professional development of

practitioners in education

(teachers)

Impact on professional development of educational

practitioners (teachers and other staff)

Improving teaching and learning of foreign

languages

National policies and Support for national policies

22

promotion of emergence of a

European lifelong learning

area

Impact on development of national policies

Upgrades to national policies

Complementing policy reforms at national level

Supporting modernization of education and training

system

Enhance cooperation regarding policies

Good practices Dissemination of good practices in Slovenia

Dissemination of good practices in Europe

European added value Promotion of broad EU’s linguistic diversity and

Intercultural (multicultural) awareness

(Improvements of teaching and learning foreign

languages)

Variables of other

characteristics

Cooperation of different stakeholders (teachers,

policy-makers, local community …)

Awareness of importance of lifelong learning

Better use of EU transparency and recognition tools

Improvement of the level of key competences and

skills

23

3 METODOLOGY

In the evaluation study, a combined quantitative and qualitative approach was used. Based on the

theoretical basis and initial qualitative analysis, we identified indicators and variables that were

examined in the empirical part of the research. Based on that, we created the following

instruments:

a) The quantitative part of the evaluation study: questionnaires for preschool education,

elementary school education (primary and lower secondary),9 upper secondary schools (general

and vocational education and training), higher education, and adult learning, NA employees

(expert workers), and questionnaires for external experts (national evaluators) of Erasmus+ (LLP)

project applications for decentralized actions. In all questionnaires, conditional options were

added – when the respondents perceived that they did not have sufficient knowledge to answer

certain questions, those constructs (statements) were not included.

b) The qualitative part of the evaluation study: qualitative content analysis of national and

European documents, semi-structured interviews, consensual group, other sources (financial

analysis of the NA expenditures/reports, analysis of final reports from the LLP, qualitative

content analysis of national calls for European Structural and Investments funds (European Social

Funds) in the financial perspective 2014-2020).

The aim of the quantitative part of the study was to obtain objective and reliable results about the

implementation and impact of Erasmus+10

on predefined variables (depending on the initial

theoretical model). The aim of the qualitative part of the study was to deepen certain findings,

which were previously obtained by the data analysis of the quantitative part and to obtain

additional views on the implementation and impact of Erasmus+ in Slovenia.

3.1 Sample

The units in our sample were identified from the publicly available databases of the Ministry of

Education, Science and Sport (for the fields of general, vocational and higher education), in the

case of adult education; the database was retrieved from the public institution called The Institute

for Adult Education of Slovenia. Additionally, in the empirical part of the evaluation study, we

also included external experts – the evaluators of applications for decentralized actions and

education experts’ employees of NA (responsible for different sectors in education), for which a

database was provided from the NA.

a) Beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries:

9 In Slovenia this is unified.

10 In some items statements about LLP were included.

24

− kindergartens (public and private, kindergartens as units of schools11

): 396 units12

212

respondents were answering the questionnaire. For the analysis 129 units were useful

(some respondents did not finish the questionnaire or did not start it, therefore their

data was not included in the statistical analysis) (396/212/129);

− elementary and secondary schools (all elementary and secondary schools in Slovenia

were included in the sample) (452 elementary schools, 28 schools for pupils/students

with special needs, 157 secondary schools): 637 units in total, a realization of 365

respondents answering the questionnaire, for the analysis 242 units were useful (169

elementary schools and 68 secondary schools) (637/365/242);13

− higher education institutions (university member institution, independent institution,

higher vocation college – short-cycle higher vocational institutions: 117 units, 80

respondents answering, 47 units were useful for the analysis (117/80/47);

− adult education (folk high schools, units at the secondary schools, other private

institutions):14

301 units, 152 respondents answering, for the analysis 89 units were

useful (301/152/89).

b) External experts and experts – NA employees

− external experts – evaluators of applications for decentralized actions: 55 units, 49

respondents were answering the questionnaire, 39 units were useful for the analysis

(55/49/39);

− expert staff at NA – responsible for different educational sectors (general, vocational,

higher and adult education): 10 units were answering the questionnaire and for the

analysis 10 units were useful (10/10/10).

3.2 Description of the instruments

3.2.1 Quantitative part of the study

In this part of the study different instruments (questionnaires) were produced. Those were partly

adopted regarding different levels of education and training system (used terminology, some

particular statements were added/deleted).

a) Questionnaire for kindergartens, school, higher education institutions and adult

education institutions15

11

Where the management of the kindergarten is the responsibility of a school principal. 12

From 411 units. Some of the kindergartes do not operate anymore. That or an email could no be retrieved. 13

In the analysis, this database was also divided into two parts based on the educational level– elementary school and

secondary school. 14

99 private kindergartens. 15

6.1 Appendix: LLP/Erasmus+ beneficiaries questionnaires.

25

The questionnaires had the following parts:

− general information: demographic data, participation in the programmes LLP and/or

Erasmus+, experiences with project applications – reasons for not applying;

− assessments of knowledge on Erasmus+ (and LLP) and different IT tools;

− assessment of the project’s impact on institution: areas of work (cooperation between

different stakeholders, exchanges – learning mobility, impact on teachers’ work, the

measuring of project impacts), cooperation with other institutions, openness to (local)

environment, national projects;

− assessments of Erasmus+ (and LLP) coherence with national guidelines;

− assessments of impact on the educational system: quality, innovations, the

internationalization of the system, national policies, professional development of

practitioners in education (teachers), the cooperation of different stakeholders, lifelong

learning;

− Internationalization: activities that contribute to the internationalization of an institution,

the impact of internationalization on education and training system.

b) Questionnaire for external experts – national evaluators of decentralized actions of

Erasmus+ 16

Sets of questions:

− quality of project applications (new questions, new methods etc.);

− award criteria and evaluation;

− assessment of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, internal and external coherence and

complementarity, European added value and sustainability of Erasmus+ (and LLP).

c) Questionnaire for NA experts17

Sets of questions:

− general information (specific years of monitoring evaluations of applications, monitoring

the projects implementation (LLP and Erasmus+), reporting, actions, expert area);

− quality of approved projects (reports);

− award criteria;

− coherence of projects and project results with national and European objectives/priorities;

− achievements of project results and impacts.

In the questionnaires, conditional sentences were added. If the respondents felt that they are not

familiar or do not have experience with a particular aspect, in that particular part of the

questionnaire we did not ask them about those specific topics that formed higher order construct.

Implementing this means that certain items or statements in the questionnaire did not occur, in

fact respondents were automatically redirected to the next relevant question. Also, certain

16

6.2 Appendix: Questionnaire for external experts. 17

6.3 Appendix: Questionnaire for NA experts.

26

questions included open-ended items, to which the respondents had the opportunity to write

additional answer or explanation.

3.2.2 Qualitative part of the study

In the qualitative part of the study, the focus was on semi-structured interviews, which were

mainly following the questions recommended by the European commission, and focus was also

placed on the analysis from the questionnaires. This part of the study was also partially adapted

based on the stakeholders included in the study.

a) Document analysis

Different documents relevant for the educational system in Slovenia and European documents

were analysed (as exposed in the introduction of the Interim Report).

b) Semi-structured interviews

Interviews were conducted with different stakeholders:

− institutions – final beneficiaries (institutions from different educational levels);18

− professional institutions in education – support institutions (Slovenian institute for adult

education (ACS), Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Vocational Education and

Training (CPI), National Education Institute (ZRSŠ), Educational Research Institute

(ERI), National School of Leadership in Education (ŠR), Slovenian Quality Assurance

Agency for Higher Education (NAKVIS);

− NA (interviews with different stakeholders – Erasmus+ management, accounting);19

− The representative of national independent audit body for Erasmus+ programme;20

− policy officers in education (Ministry of Education, Science, and Sport), covering

different areas: ICT in education / KA3 experiences, quality and continuing professional

development in education and training;21

the question for cooperation between different

institutions and bodies in the Erasmus+ programme was addressed to member of

Erasmus+ Committee.

c) Consensual group

The purpose of the consensual group was that the invited experts discuss the topic of

implementations and impacts of Erasmus+ in Slovenia. The invited experts were representatives

of professional institutions in education (support institutions) and policy officers from the

Ministry of Education, Science and Sport. The meeting was attended by the representatives of the

following institutions: ZRSŠ, ŠR, and NAKVIS. From the ministry, participants were leading

18

Realization of 22 interviews (group or individual) were done (with final beneficiaries, some of them were also

employees at professional – support institutions in education). Most of the interviews, except four, were face-to-face

interviews. 19

Those interviews are not counted in the final number of interviews, as they do not present final beneficiaries. 20

Via telephone and email communication. 21

3 interviews, one of the respondents is also participating in KA3 action.

27

policy officers/experts: Director of Directorate for preschool and elementary school, Head of the

Department of Higher Education, Head of Human Resources Development in Education, Head of

the Erasmus+ programme at the ministry (and member of Erasmus+ Committee), an expert in the

field of vocational and adult education, and professional staff from the ministry, one covering the

area of internationalization, the second one preparation, supervision and the implementation of

projects related to the Operational program for the implementation of European cohesion policy

for the period 2014-2020.

3.2.3 Other sources

In the analysis other (secondary) sources were used as well.

a) Analysis of financial expenditures

Analysis of financial reports of NA and project applications league tables.

b) Analysis of final reports

Analysis of final LLP reports, from which we identified additional indicators for the quantitative

part of the evaluation study.

3.3 Implementation of empirical research

After reviewing and analysing previously collected data and defining strategic framework,

methodological identification and the preparation of instruments (questionnaires and

subsequently protocols for semi-structured interviews) started. When items for the questionnaires

were set, instruments were validated by the member of Erasmus+ Committee and by the NA.

Overseen by a small group of experts for each educational level, and at the end, before data

collecting, the instruments were checked by the experts of NA. After a field trial for a small

group of respondents and NA experts, questionnaires were finalized. The 1KA tool was used as a

delivery system for the questionnaire.22

The request for a main study data collection was sent out.

Upon data collection, files were exported from 1ka23

into Excel and in the next step into SPSS,

followed by converting the databases and recoding some variables.

After initial data analysis, protocols for a part of the qualitative study were prepared, followed by

data collection with semi-structured (individual and group) interviews,24

editing audio clips,

transcriptions, coding, categorization, classification and the preparation of basic conclusions.

Based on the analysis of data collection in the main study, a decision for two additional

questionnaires was accepted, namely a questionnaire for external experts – evaluators of

22

Except for the questionnaire for NA experts, this was delivered in a printed version. 23

Some initial analyses were computed in 1ka. 24

The durations of the Interviews for final beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries and three of the policy officers

were on average a little bit more than one hour.

28

applications for decentralized actions, and for NA experts. While identify the specific items for

those two questionnaires, ICF E&A Assessor Survey25

was used too, as well as recommended

questions that national reports on implementation and impact of Erasmus+ programme should

include.

At a final stage the validation event, prepared as a consensual group, was conducted.

The qualitative part of the study (data collection with questionnaires for final beneficiaries) was

conducted in December 2016 and January 2017, and the quantitative part from January till March

2017 – semi-structured interviews were conducted in January and February, and the consensual

group on 21st March 2017.

3.4 Methods of quantitative data analysis

The data obtained from the questionnaires were analysed in an application for an online survey

1ka and software package SPSS. Basic descriptive statistics were computed, the statistical

significance of differences between groups of respondents was checked by appropriate tests - in

most cases, due to the specifics of the output of the sample and the distribution of responses

between each of the categories, using non-parametric tests was applied. With a use of Kruskal-

Wallis, Dunn post-hoc test (with Bonferroni adjusted significance) and Chi-square test, it was

checked whether the differences between the various groups were statistically significant or not.

In cases where it was possible,26

variables were combined into indicators, the reliability of these

checked by the "Cronbach alpha" coefficient of reliability. In other cases, the results of statistical

analyses are presented as mean values.

Analysis is divided into:

- level of institutions: part of the analysis addresses also individual level (teachers,

professionals) as a mediator for an institutional level,

- systemic level.

Secondary education level was in some cases divided to general and vocational education and

training.

25

Prepared by the European Commission contractor to evaluate implementation and the impacts of Erasmus+

internationally. Source: internal document. 26

Depends on the number of variables included in the certain indicators.

29

4 THE MAIN RESEARCH FINDINGS

4.1 Knowing LLP/Erasmus+ programmes

First we will present some data on how well respondents know Erasmus+, LLP, eTwinning (for

kindergartens and schools - up to secondary level), and EPALE (adult education).

In preschool education, 40% of respondents know Erasmus+ well and 6% of respondents very

well. In elementary schools 46% know Erasmus+ and 29% know the programme very well. At

the secondary school level (meaning upper secondary level, hereinafter) 43% knows Erasmus+

well, and 55% know it very well. In higher education Erasmus+ is known by 37% and well

known by 63% of respondents. At the level of adult education, 37% of respondents know

Erasmus+ and 31% know it very well. The same respondents answered the question on EPALE;

31% know it well, and 31% know it very well.

Despite the fact that the results showed good knowledge of Erasmus+, a further analysis was

conducted to check if there are any statistically significant differences between these groups of

respondents.

Two different tests were applied. LLP is less well known or known in preschool and elementary

school, and best known at the level of secondary and higher education. Erasmus+ is less well

known or known again at the level of preschool education and adult education, and more well-

known or known in the secondary schools and at a level of higher education. Are there any

differences within particular educational levels? The results showed that statistical significant

differences are in the elementary and secondary school levels – both groups of respondents know

Erasmus+ better than LLP. In addition, at the secondary school level, there are greater

statistically significant differences with Erasmus+ being known very well or known well than

those at elementary schools. In knowing eTwinning there is no statistically significant difference

between elementary schools and secondary schools. In the next phase, the database from the

school questionnaire was divided. The results showed that those with experiences in Comenius

assess their knowing of LLP, Erasmus+ and eTwinning with better statistically significance than

those that did not have any Comenius project. Schools that participated in Leonardo da Vinci,

have statistically significant better knowledge of LLP and Erasmus+ than those with no Leonardo

da Vinci project, in knowing eTwinning no statistically significant differences were found.27

How well is Erasmus+ known in the field of education and training was assessed by external

experts – evaluators of decentralized actions, replying for the systemic level.28

Their results show

that Erasmus+ is well known in the education and training filed. 81% of them responded that they

27

Appendix: Comparisons of differences between groups of respondents based on Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis

test. 28

Appendix: External experts’ opinion on impact of Erasmus+ (LLP).

30

strongly agree with the statement, 19% of them to some extent agree, none of the respondents

answered that they do not agree or agree very little. However, are there any statistical differences

between the fields of education (general, vocational, higher education, and adult education)?

Vocational and adult education experts agreed a lot that Erasmus+ in the field of education in

Slovenia is well known. Statistically significantly weaker agreement was found for the groups of

experts from general and higher education (although 55% of the experts form higher education

agreed a lot that Erasmus+ is very well known in their respective field).

4.2 Erasmus+ (and LLP) impacts on institutions

Below we present the results of impacts of Erasmus+ (and LLP) in relation to the various

statements, and (where possible) indicators, which define the different areas that affect the work

in educational institutions,29

namely the impact on: teaching (professional development), climate

in the institutions, international learning mobility, visibility in the environment, cooperation with

others, quality, coherence with national projects, internationalization and European added value.

Variables and index of teaching (professional development)

Different level respondents' opinions about the positive impact of LLP/Erasmus+ projects (short-

term and long-term) on cooperative learning is dominant. None of the respondents believed that

these projects would have a negative impact on cooperative learning (either in the short or long

term).

The majority of respondents in preschool, elementary school and at higher education level see a

large impact of Erasmus+ (LLP) projects on the promotion of individual work in classes and that

they have a long-term positive effect. The opinion of majority of respondents from secondary and

adult education is that those projects have a positive effect on individual work but that this effect

is a long-term. None of the respondents recognized the Erasmus+ (LLP) project as having a

negative effect on the individual class work. Although there were some percentages of

respondents that assessed that the Erasmus+ (LLP) projects do not have any impact on the

promotion of individual work in class.

Similar, none of the respondents think that Erasmus+ (LLP) projects would have a long-term

negative impact on the implementation of inter-curricular activities or study cycles (for adult

education level). However, a high proportion of respondents from adult education level think that

there is no impact. The biggest proportion of those who think that this impact is a long-term

29

Results in percentages are presented in Appendix: Percentages of responses on statements about impact of

Erasmus+ (LLP) at the institutional level (mediated by individual level).

31

positive one comes from respondents of preschool education level (also high percentages of

respondents from elementary and secondary schools see this impact as either a long-term or

short-term positive).

A great deal of respondents from different educational levels identify different statements about

new methods and didactics (tools, methods, approaches, forms, motivation for use new

knowledge from methods acquired) as effected by Erasmus+ (LLP) projects in a long-term

positive perspective. None of the respondents expressed the opinion that Erasmus+ (LLP)

projects would have a negative impact on the development of ICT skills and training on the use

of ICT, although their opinions between different educational levels differ on this topic most.

The effect on acquiring language competencies, trainings and communication skills in foreign

language is mostly perceived as a long-term positive effect of Erasmus+ (LLP) projects. The is a

prevailing agreement on long-term positive effects on the foreign language is not surprising,

because Erasmus+ represents activities of international cooperation, involving the use of a

foreign language.

The results revealed an interested specific topic within professional development of teachers. The

majority of respondents believe that Erasmus+ (LLP) projects have no impact on the ability of

teachers at different levels, including adult educators to teach individuals with special need (or on

vulnerable groups as asked in questionnaire for adult education). This is opinion from 48% of

respondents from kindergartens, 47% from elementary school, 67% respondents from secondary

schools, 77% from higher education institutions and this is also the opinion of half of the

respondents in adult education. This could be interpreted, as well as for the ICT topic, that

respondents were not exposed to those two topics in the projects (ICT, special needs).

Respondents do not think that Erasmus+ (LLP) would have any negative impact (neither short-

term, neither long-term) on social competences of educators. On the contrary, the majority of

respondents (within all educational levels) believe that those projects have a long-term positive

effect on social competences of educators. This is the opinion of 71% of respondents from

kindergartens, 62% percentage of elementary school respondents and the same proportion of

secondary school respondents; more than half of the respondents from higher education and adult

education are also in favour of this view (59% respondents at higher education level, and 56%

respondents from adult education). Besides that none of the respondents chose the possible

answer that Erasmus+ (LLP) projects would have negative effects (neither short-term, neither

long-term) on social competences of teachers. Indeed, the proportion of those who believe that

there is no impact on social competences of teachers is relatively small (from 10% in preschool

education respondents and up to 27% for higher education respondents). The proportion is even

smaller (between 7% and 23%) when speaking about the impact of Erasmus+ (LLP) on teachers

organizational or leadership skills. Indeed, the majority of respondents at different education

levels believe that Erasmus+ (LLP) has a long-term positive impact. The effects on inclusion of

one’s own cultural heritage in teaching, not surprisingly, were differently perceived. Statements

were more in favour for preschool and elementary education, followed by the secondary

32

education. Whereas the remaining two levels were more in favour of the belief that Erasmus+

(LLP) has no effect on the inclusion of one’s own cultural heritage in teaching.

For comparison purposes of the entire construct of teaching and professional development at

different levels of educational system, from above described statements, an index of teaching and

professional development was designed.30

We were interested whether the views as to what

impact Erasmus+ (LLP) has on teaching and professional development of educators differs

between groups of respondents. Results showed that opinions between groups of respondents are

similar; on average the opinion was that Erasmus+ (and/or LLP) has a positive impact on

teaching and professional development of educators. However the results showed that statistically

significant differences between some groups of respondents exist: 31

- kindergarten and elementary school: elementary school respondents perceive this impact

as more positive (short-term or long-term) in comparison to respondents from

kindergartens;

- secondary school level with all the rest groups of respondents: respondents from

secondary schools perceived this impact as more of a positive (short-term or long-term) in

comparison to other groups of respondents.

Variables and indicator of organizational climate

The majority of respondents believes that Erasmus+ (LLP) projects have long-term positive

effects on staff dedication to common objectives, with the exception of respondents from adult

education where the highest proportion of respondents believe that this effect is short-term and

positive. Similar findings were found for dialog among staff. For the Erasmus+ (LLP) effect on

culture of collegiality among staff – all of the respondent groups on average expressed the

opinion of a long-term positive effect.

With variables on the organizational climate, we examined also statements about the relationship

between the various stakeholders, namely: teaching staff - learners, teaching staff between each

other and between teaching staff and management staff. Although the results were not identical,

they prevalently showed that the majority of respondents in different groups believe that those

relationships are (long-term) positive. But not for all statements and all educational levels- e.g. in

some statements, higher and adult education respondents beliefs are distributed between long and

short-term impact or there is perception that it has a short-term impact – adult education

respondents for relationships with management staff etc. However, opinions on the relationship

between educators and learners are perceived as long-term positive within all groups of

respondents.

30

Regression scores for each single person that took the questionnaire principal component analysis were used to test

if the items for each scale belong to the same dimension. The same procedures were applied for other indicators. 31

Appendix: Comparisons of statistically significant differences between different educational levels – comparisons

of indices (institutional level).

33

For comparison purposes of the entire construct of organizational climate, an organizational

climate index was designed from different statements. The results showed that opinions between

groups of respondents are similar. On average the opinion was that Erasmus+ (and/or LLP) has a

positive impact on organizational climate within the institution. However the results showed that

statistically significant differences between some groups of respondents exist:32

- kindergarten and elementary school: elementary school respondents perceive this impact

as more positive (short-term or long-term) in comparison to respondents from kindergartens;

- secondary school level with all the rest groups of respondents: respondents from

secondary schools perceived this impact as more positive (short-term or long-term) in

comparison to other groups of respondents.

Variables of international learning mobility

Respondents of higher education were asked for their assessments of the Erasmus+ (LLP) impact

on students’ learning mobility abroad. 82% agreed that this impact is long-term and positive, for

the learning mobility of foreign students, they agreed with assessment of a long-term positive

impact at 59%. The same context was investigated also for academics and researchers. The

prevailing opinion is that Erasmus+ (LLP) has a long-term positive impact on learning mobility

of academics and researcher from home to abroad (68%), and vice versa learning mobility from

abroad to home institution (64%).

The prevailing opinion from different groups of respondents (except preschool education – which

was not asked to assess this) is that Erasmus+ (LLP) has, with children/pupils/students/learners

exchange with partner institution, a long-term positive effect on work of their institution.

The impact of learning mobility was investigated in the context of institution internationalization

as well. Opinions in all groups (preschool, elementary school level, secondary, higher and adult

education level) of respondent is affirmative – cooperation in international learning mobility

projects was perceived as an important activity that supports internationalization of home

institution. Census in this response was reached by the group of secondary education respondents.

Also other variables of learning mobility (e. g. management staff and educators learning

mobility) were perceived as important activities that supports internationalization of home

institution.

32

Appendix: Comparisons of statistically significant differences between different educational levels – comparisons

of indices (institutional level).

34

Variables of institution reputations (local visibility)

None of the respondents answered that Erasmus+ (LLP) would have a negative impact on

reputation of their institution in the environment neither in the long-term, nor the short-term. The

majority of respondents think that Erasmus+ (LLP) has a long-term positive impact on

institution’ reputation, with the except of adult education respondents, from which the majority of

respondents answered that this impact is a short-term positive one (opinion of 53% of

respondents).

On average, respondents of different education levels agree with the statement, that Erasmus+

(LLP) has a long-term positive impact on the openness of their institutions towards the local and

broader community. The highest proportion on the long-term positive impact is visible for groups

of preschool and secondary school level respondents, other groups agreed with this statement of a

long-term positive impact in around half of the cases. Opinions that this impact would be

negative are almost not expressed, only 4% of respondents in higher education think that those

impacts are short-term and negative.

Variables of cooperation with others

73% of respondents from higher education believe that Erasmus+ (LLP) has a long-term positive

impact on cooperation with other researchers from abroad and 18% believe that there is a short-

term positive impact and 9% believe that there is no impact of Erasmus+ (LLP) on cooperation

with other foreign researchers from abroad. Half of the respondents believes the programme

(Erasmus+ projects) has no impact on developing joint/double degree programmes, and the rest

of them that this impact is either short-term positive or long-term positive. On the contrary, the

majority of respondents in this group (59%) believe that the impact on the preparation of

common publications with co-authors from abroad is long-term and positive.

The biggest proportion of preschools institutions respondents represents believes that Erasmus+

(LLP) has a long-term positive impact on cooperation with children parents. Respondents from

secondary schools in a bigger proportion believe that this impact is a short-term positive one and

the opinion of respondents from elementary schools is equally divided between short- and long-

term positive impacts (40% of respondents in each category).

From the data, it is clear that the programme has its impact also on cooperation with other

institutions in Slovenia, however the opinions of respondents are widespread between different

categories while assessing this impact. Respondents from preschool education were divided in

their opinion between long-term and short-term positive impacts, respondents of elementary

schools on average believe that there is no impact on cooperation with other institutions in

Slovenia, although groups of respondents with the opinion of a positive impact are also big.

Respondents from secondary schools are almost equally divided between the positive-long term,

positive-short term and no impact category.

35

Mainly a long-term positive impact of Erasmus+ (LLP) on contacts of students/learners and

educators with other students, learners and educators from abroad were expressed too.

It seems that the impact of Erasmus+ (LLP) to the readiness of staff to participate in new project

is mainly perceived as a long-term positive, with the exception of respondents from adult

education, which prevalently think that this impact is a short-term positive one.

Variables of quality on a level of institutions (measuring of projects impacts)

In this part we focused only on statements about the measurement of impacts of the project after

the project lifetime.33

More respondents said that this impact is not measured after the completion

of a project than those that they are measuring this (in all groups of respondents), although the

difference was not big in their responses. From the opened ended question it was visible that the

measuring of impacts after the project cycle finishes is very differently understand by the

respondents.

Variables and index of national projects

Shares of respondents that believes that Erasmus+ (LLP) has a long-term positive impact on the

easier identification of topics for national projects was the biggest in groups of respondents from

kindergartens, secondary and adult education level. The beliefs of elementary school respondent

are divided between long-term and short-term impacts. On the contrary, the respondents from

higher education level most often believe that there is no impact on the identification of topics for

national project.

There is also some identification of the impact of Erasmus+ (LLP) projects on functioning in

national projects. A long-term positive impact was seen mainly by respondents from preschool,

elementary and secondary education, whereas respondents from higher and adult education

expressed more that those projects do not have an impact on functioning in national projects

(although it needs to be noted that there are respondents that think that there are also positive

effects on that).

Out interest also extended to whether the Erasmus+ (LLP) impacts the selection success in

national projects. Respondents from kindergartens and elementary schools believe that the impact

is a long-term positive one but also a large proportion of those think that the impact is short-term.

On contrary respondents from higher and adult education most often think that there is no impact

of Erasmus+ (LLP) on the selection success in national projects. Opinions of respondents from

secondary schools are most often divided between no impact and long-term positive impact.

For comparison purposes of the construct of the entire impact on national projects, an index of

national projects was designed from different statements. The results showed that opinions 33

Appendix: Measures of project impacts on institution after the project is finished.

36

between groups of respondents are similar, on average the opinion was that Erasmus+ (and/or

LLP) has a positive impact on national projects (on the institutional level). However, results

showed that statistically significant differences between some groups of respondents exist:34

- kindergarten and elementary school: elementary school respondents perceive this

impact as more positive (short-term or long-term) in comparison to respondents from

kindergartens;

- secondary school level with all the rest groups of respondents: respondents from

secondary schools perceived this impact as more positive (short-term or long-term) in

comparison to other groups of respondents.

Variables of internationalization- activities in organization that contributes to the

internationalization of institutions

Respondents of different educational levels chose different activities that contribute to the

internationalization of their institutions – a dominant pattern was not found, except possibly

exposure to those activities that relate to international dimension (learning mobility), for schools

also eTwinning. Interesting, in kindergartens, the respondents often choose the activities that are

happening nationally – local as those that contribute to the internationalization of the institution.

At the level of secondary schools, the learning mobility of students abroad reaches a consensus

(all of the respondents think that cooperation in international learning mobility projects is an

activity that contributes to the internationalization of their institution).35

Respondents were asked

about their opinion if partnerships in Erasmus+ (LLP) impacts on the internationalization of their

institution. The results are as follows: the highest percentages of agreement with this statement

was in the higher and secondary education level (96% and 94%), agreement in elementary school

was 80%, in preschool education 73%, and 67% respondents from adult education thinks that

partnerships in Erasmus+ (LLP) has an impact on internationalization of their institution.

Variables and index of European added value

In the final beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries’ questionnaires, statements that are part of the

construct of European added value were included.36

We were interested in their opinion about the

impact of Erasmus+ (LLP) projects on following specific areas of educators: awareness of

educators of common European heritage, European cultural and moral values, respect for

different cultures and understanding (knowledge) on European institutions and their functioning.

34

Appendix: Comparisons of statistically significant differences between different educational levels – comparisons

of indices (institutional level). 35

Appendix: Organisational activities which contribute to the internationalisation. 36

Appendix: Percentages of responses on statements about impact of Erasmus+ (LLP) at the institutional level.

37

None of the respondents think that Erasmus+ (LLP) has a long-term negative impact on European

added value of their institution. On the contrary, the majority of respondents believe that this

impact is positive, largely that it is long-term and positive. Only in one statement was the

response about the impact short-term and positive (respondents from secondary education on the

statement about awareness of educators on common European heritage believe that Erasmus+

(LLP) has a short-term positive impact on that, although 39% of respondents from this group

believe that the impact is long-term and positive).

For comparison purposes of the entire construct of European added values, from different

statements, an index of European added value was designed. The results showed that opinions

between groups of respondents were similar, on average the opinion was that Erasmus+ (and/or

LLP) has a positive impact on European added value of their institution. However, results

showed that statistically significant differences between some groups of respondents exist:

- kindergarten and elementary school: elementary school respondents perceive this impact

as more positive (short-term or long-term) in comparison to respondents from kindergartens;

- secondary school level with all the rest groups of respondents: respondents from

secondary schools perceived this impact as a more positive (short-term or long-term) in

comparisons to other groups of respondents.37

4.2.1 Factors that positively effects on intensity and duration of impacts of Erasmus+ (LLP)

The evaluation study showed that Erasmus+ at the institutional level has an effect. This effect is

mainly recognized as long-term and positive, especially in the areas of professional development,

organizational climate, quality and internationalization of education institutions. Finally, we must

not forget also the impact on personal development, which was indeed pointed out.

The interviews helped us to understand differences of opinions and to identify those factors that

can have a positive impact on the effects of participation in Erasmus+. Interestingly, during the

interviews phase, we often found that the respondents mainly use the name Erasmus (forgetting

the plus), with no difference if the responses are relating to their institution or to a systemic level.

1) The European added value

Principal of secondary vocational school:

“The European added value is the openness of Europe for each and every one of us, this is very important to me.

We’re all citizens of Europe not just of Slovenia, this need to be gradually instilled in people’s minds.”

Education professional (professional institution):

37

Appendix: Comparisons of statistically significant differences between different educational levels – comparisons

of indices (institutional level).

38

“I think that the biggest added value … in language area … very big added value. The second added value is raising

awareness of intercultural differences, getting to know other cultures … European citizenship … also with

employability … because there are more options available … thinking is needed … it’s not about European space,

but it’s about world space. So that Europe can actually perform equally strong in the world with its knowledge,

potential, creativity and competitiveness. With this, I think Europe would get more strength and recognition in the

world, compared to what it has now.”

Vice-dean for research activity:

“… they go as Slovenians, they return Europeans.”

Principal of elementary school with kindergarten:

“… it’s important that other employees also cooperate … especially in small schools, we should work as a whole.

And the European added value is seen mainly in the pride of all the employees that we’re capable of working with

other countries too.”

Education professional (professional institution):

“Laboratory of new knowledge.”

2) Dissemination

Principal of secondary vocational school:

“We, as Slovenians, must lead our own positive stories, we could promote ourselves more in the form of Erasmus+

projects but we don’t know how or we aren’t capable of it. What I’m trying to say is that we should advertise

positive things as often and as much as it’s possible, so they stick, because otherwise a person hears it once, twice

and forgets it … It needs to be constantly.”

Education professional (professional institution):

With strategic partnerships I would like to highlight that many schools, public institutions or nursery schools which

enter strategic partnerships achieve exceptionally good effects or results, but later those effects or results remain only

on the level of that particular institution.”

Principal of secondary school centre:

“Absolutely there should be at least promotion of good practices, but what then when our view is “This one again?”

“What do I care!” … We should basically nullify participants and talk about content, but we don’t know how to do

that. Because even if the ministry or whichever other institution will want a good practice, it will call the carrier to

prepare, instead of extracting and explaining that this and this and this can be done and if you want something more,

there is an institution which takes care of that in this country. And maybe also that schools which get this money and

execute this … on some portal or anything for their good practice … not just for having a good time … experience

good effects…”

Principal of elementary school with kindergarten:

“Maybe the language is the main reason that we don’t also use other tools for dissemination and spreading of the

results.”

Head of service for international cooperation (faculty):

“… because this obsession with this dissemination, to me that’s something unbelievable.”

3) Improvement of recognition of the programme

Principal of secondary vocational school:

“… Maybe sometimes at some conference, give a chance to people who lead positive stories, to tell how these stories

are lead.”

39

4) Motivation of individuals

Principal of secondary vocational school:

“Maybe at school there needs to be an incentive for young people to start leading these things (Erasmus+ projects) …

At our school, teachers and students are very interested … they go gladly … go to our website … in blogs every

group is describing what is happening to them, and they’re phenomenal.”

Principal of secondary school centre:

“I would first reinforce awareness among headmasters. Then I would also give the chance to non-expert workers

because I think this is professional development for everyone and if we would start with that on the fourth or fifth

level, we would come together.”

5) Organisational climate

Principal of secondary school centre:

“Working successfulness is that I enable him to go abroad, to attend a fair, to further educate himself … I don’t see a

positive effect until everyone tries it. When everyone goes through it, then they see it’s hard and it’s not easy and that

it’s nice after all. Then the climate is different. That is why there is a big problem if only a handful of people are

doing it; it needs to be spread across the whole faculty. That one too … you see him … he would never go … give

him an offer and he will go if he feels safe and he will feel safe in the case we have an accompanying English scholar

with us if he doesn’t know English.

Principal of elementary school with kindergarten:

“Mainly I can mention that teachers and educators are much more connected, they listen to each other more, they

respect one another, and they strive for everyone to be great in a project. Mainly these positive effects are very

visible.

6) Language (for those learning)

Principal of secondary vocational school:

“… now they write blogs, this is an upgrade from last year’s project … One group writes in English as well and

when I saw that I said: “Wow! Not only in Slovenian. They are strengthening the usefulness of the English

language.”

7) Language (for teachers)

Principal of secondary vocational school:

“The essence is in that they realize they can talk in English and that they can later apply to some international

conference and here is the broadening of their path, especially their career path, evident.”

Principal of secondary school centre:

“… our generation which didn’t have a foreign language at the university is basically handicapped. On the other

hand then … one and the same teachers are always carriers of Erasmus+ projects and always the same people who

travel. And here we would have to make a cut with one smart decision, even if they don’t know we give them a

chance. Maybe we don’t rely upon our students enough because our students speak English very well. But mainly it

seems to me that my colleagues don’t see how important it is to strengthen a foreign language.”

8) Influence on professional and personal development

40

Vice-dean for research (faculty):

“… from the side of students … this experience means a lot to some of them … they grow personally.”

Principal of secondary school centre:

“I think it has no influence to the institution itself, the biggest influence is on the individual level … I think it’s very

valuable that students go abroad … first that they even prepare themselves for the trip, that they’re in a certain

culture. That is essential to me.

We have a lecturer on higher education school … I told her she will go now … the lady is 45 years old … she has

never been abroad.

We drove to the hotel in the middle of the night because we chose a family that had problems, they were arguing …

the student called at ten o’clock in the evening and said she won’t sleep there. We got to the door but not further. But

OK, maybe there was even an effect on that family and they received this message … something really isn’t ok if a

person doesn’t want to sleep in our house.”

Principal of elementary school with kindergartens:

“In essence it’s about the quality of the application of learned knowledge from the lessons and about the quality of

interpersonal and mutual relations.”

Principal of secondary school centre:

“That they see there is something more around them, to meet people, to have contacts. Student gains self-confidence,

I leave him there and tell him look for “underpants”, search for a number, these are life competences. This is why I

would send everyone out.”

Head of service for international and interuniversity cooperation:

“Just if we’re talking about mobility of students, we send them there to adopt a part of their study programme and at

the same time other benefits come … an awareness of Europe, bigger autonomy…”

Researcher:

“… for the increase of quality … mainly that we can learn from being abroad that sometimes some things can be

executed better and simpler. With all these exchanges and projects the quality of project partners is certainly

improving.”

9) Effects of particular actions

Principal of secondary school centre:

“The biggest influence on quality and effect is through mobility.”

Principal of elementary school with kindergarten:

“Projects of mobility had the biggest influence on quality.”

Principal of elementary school with kindergarten:

“Mobility is the biggest factor because we get to know about cultural differences, educational differences and also

similarities with real life experience. And when we attend classes in other countries we see ways and methods which

we later compare. We get the most out of these mutual discussions and visits.”

Principal of elementary school:

“If I can say honestly, for sure the biggest influence for students is on mobility … but KA2 are good because they

bring more finances. That is why … both have an effect.

Principal of elementary school with kindergarten:

“Even more encouragement for mobility would certainly be welcomed, because it seems to me that it’s implemented

to an extent that is too small.”

Policy officer:

41

“While these strategic partnerships and so many great practices later don’t experience an upgrade or some

recommendations, but that is why there are strategic partnerships … now we’re finishing KA3, but schools would

have to apply KA2 and KA1 out of this.”

Researcher, professor at faculty:

“Well I had another experience; we accredited a study programme which was based on Erasmus+ exchange.”

10) Barriers

Principal of elementary school with kindergarten

“One of the reasons is that we don’t have a suitable staff with knowledge of foreign languages and the teachers are

afraid to join just because of the language. Schools however … I understand that connecting is the reason but we

would probably need bigger help with that.”

Principal of elementary school with kindergarten “In the area of cooperation with multiple schools, because when

we search for them we ourselves have problems … that someone on a higher level would already acquire a certain

share of partnership schools and coordinated that later on … we would need regional coordinators … a content

coordinator and a coordinator who would connect partnership schools with his knowledge of foreign language.”

Head of international office and interuniversity cooperation:

“KA2 project has a fundamental problem with the financing scheme; this project is not worth it. As applicant, we

never applied because there is too much work for the financial stake you get in the end, compared to some research

projects.”

Several interviewees from level of higher education:

“The prescribed language for the educational process is the problem.”

11) Rule changes (KA2 school partnerships)

Principal of secondary vocational school:

“When there were school partnerships we could still get in, participated, applied projects, we were also the carriers of

these projects. Now, because this is not on a national level, it’s really harder to get in and apply for a project that we

want, because we see it as a super project which would contribute a lot of positive not only for school but maybe

even for Slovenia as such.”

4.3 Assessments of Erasmus+ impacts on the system level

Variables of impact assessment on the different areas of the education system

For the opinion of the final beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries (kindergartens, schools, higher

education and adult education institutions), we examined the various areas impacted by the

Erasmus+ (and/or LLP) on the different areas of the education system, namely: impact on quality,

innovations, internationalization, cooperation of various stakeholders (educators, management

staff, local communities...), awareness about and promoting the importance of the European

42

lifelong learning area, the impact on the support of national policies, the upgrading of national

policies (at different levels of education system), the dissemination of good practices in Slovenia

and in Europe, the impact on the general rise of quality of learning/teaching, professional

development of teachers/educators, the better use of EU transparency and recognition tools (the

latter we examined only from higher and adult education respondents, and experts). The results

showed that final beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries, on average, estimate the impact of the

Erasmus+ (and/or LLP) on the above listed areas as a long-term positive one, while the

professional development of individuals is one of those areas where most respondents agree that

Erasmus+ has a long-term positive impact on it (except in two cases - a higher proportion of

respondents of higher education agreed on a long-term positive impact in a bigger proportion

while assessed the impact of Erasmus+ on internationalization. Respondents from adult education

evaluated the impact on professional development and internalization the same).38

However there

are some differences – believes on impacts of Erasmus+ (LLP) on specific statements, which will

be explained more in detail below.

Variables of Erasmus+ compliance with national objectives, guidelines

The respondents from different levels of the education system most often agreed that Erasmus+

objectives are in compliance with national goals, that the programme’ objectives

complement/build upon national objectives (on average respondents from preschool, elementary

and secondary education, higher education higher proportion of respondents strongly agreed as

oppose to disagree or agree and disagree). With the statement that Erasmus+ (LLP) produces

effects that are an upgrade of those that would be incurred in the actions only at national level,

more respondents (on different education levels) agreed than being undecided or not agreed.

Respondents from kindergartens, elementary and secondary schools more frequently agreed that

the needs of institutions are compatible with national guidelines for the level of education that

they represented in the survey. At the level of adult education, most of the respondents were

undecided whether needs of the institutions are in compliance with national guidelines in the field

of adult education (49% respondents), however a proportion of those who agreed for this

compliance was also big (35%).39

Most of the respondents from kindergartens, elementary and secondary schools agreed that

eTwinning helps the realization of Erasmus+ (LLP) objectives; in adult education also most

respondents agreed that EPALE40

helps the realization of objectives.

38

Appendix: Impact of Erasmus+ on different areas in education system. 39

Appendix: Complience of Erasmus+ objectives with national objectives, guidelines. 40

EPALE has a big impact on system of adult education (monitoring current trends and guidelines in edult education

in Slovenia and Europe etc.). Appendix: Complience of Erasmus+ objectives with national objectives, guidelines

(Impact of EPALE on adult education – systemic level)

43

Evaluating the impact of Erasmus+ on the development of national policies and compliance of

national needs with the objectives of the Erasmus+ was included in a questionnaire for external

experts – evaluators of the Erasmus+ decentralized actions.41

External experts believe that Erasmus+ has a very little (41%) and to some extent (38%) impact

on development of national policies. 55% of respondents in this group fully agreed that Erasmus+

objectives continue to address the needs or problems they are meant to solve, 59% fully agreed

that these needs or problems are (still) relevant in Slovenia (28% somehow agreed with this

statement). The statement have the needs or problems evolved in such a way that the objectives

of Erasmus+ programme need to be adjusted gave the following responses; 31% of external

experts agreed to some extent, 47% agreed to a great extent that needs of different stakeholders

are addressed with Erasmus+ objectives. Experts agree to a great extent (41%) and agreed to

some extent (56%) that the programme produces effects that are an upgrade of those that would

be incurred in the actions only at national level.42

Statistically significance of the opinion of the experts according to the area for which they are

experts (general, vocational, higher and adult education) was tested. Results revealed that there

are no statistically significant differences between different groups of respondents in their

opinion about the impacts on national policies and the compliance between Erasmus+ and

national objectives.43

With regards to the compatibility of projects and project results (comparing LLP and Erasmus+)

with national and European priorities (compared to LLP), experts employed at NA believe that

the compliance has improved (this is an opinion of experts responsible for general education, the

opinion of those responsible for vocational education is divided, for the higher education level,

there is a belief that compliance with European priorities has improved.

Variables and index of internationalization – in relation with quality

The opinion of external experts is that Erasmus+ (LLP) contributes to a great extent to

internationalization in education (80%) and training institutions (60%). An analysis of

statistically significant differences between groups of respondents showed that there are no

statistically significant differences in their opinion (between general, vocational, higher and adult

education).44

41

Appendix: Analyses of statistically (non) significant differences in response of external experts (general,

vocational, higher, and adult education). 42

Appendix: External experts’ opinion on impact of Erasmus+ (LLP). 43

Analyses of statistically (non) significant differences in response of external experts (general, vocational, higher,

and adult education). 44

Appendix: Analyses of statistically (non) significant differences in response of external experts (general,

vocational, higher, and adult education).

44

Their opinion on the impact of Erasmus+ (LLP) on the internationalization of education system

(not the impact focused on the institutions) reveals their similar opinion – the most frequent

answer in all educational levels was that this impact is a long-term positive one.45

All groups of respondents (beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries) agreed that

internationalization has an impact on the quality (institutions, learning, teaching, system). The

prevailing opinion is that this impact is a long-term positive one.46

For comparison purposes of the entire construct of internationalization in relation to quality, from

different statements, an index of impact of internationalization on quality was computed. The

results showed that the opinions between the groups of respondents are similar. On average the

opinion was that internationalization has a positive impact on quality, however results showed,

that statistically significant differences between some groups of respondents did exist:47

- secondary schools and kindergartens: secondary school respondents perceive this impact as

more positive (short-term or long-term) in comparison to respondents from preschool education;

- secondary schools and adult education: secondary school respondents perceive this impact as

more positive (short-term or long-term) in comparison to respondents from adult education level.

Variables of innovations

Respondents from different levels of education prevalently believe that Erasmus+ (LLP) has an

impact on innovations of the education system and that this impact is a long-term positive one. At

all levels, the proportion of respondents who shared this opinion in this category was the biggest

(in preschool education this is opinion of 73% of respondents, in elementary school 61%,

secondary school 68%, higher education with 48%, and adult education with 56%.48

The second

most frequent response was that this impact is short-term positive (with the exception of

respondents in adult education, the proportion of respondents that believes that this impact is

short-term positive or that impact does not exist was the same). Only 2% of respondents from

secondary education believe that this impact is a short-term negative one.

The belief among the external experts is that Erasmus+ (LLP) in Slovenia contributes to

excellence of innovations (meaning quality) is prevalent – 37% think that it contributes to a great

extent and 46% of external expert think that it contributes to some extent. There are no

statistically significant differences between experts’ fields (general, vocational, higher, adult

education).49

45

Appendix: Impact of Erasmus+ on different areas in education system. 46

Appendix: Assessments of beneficiaries of the impact of internationalization on quality. 47

Apppendix: Comparisons of statistically significant differences between different educational levels – index of

quality (systemic level). 48

Appendix: Impact of Erasmus+ on different areas in education system. 49

Appendix: Analyses of statistically (non) significant differences in responses of external experts (general,

vocational, higher, and adult education).

45

Variables of quality

Respondents of different education levels believe that Erasmus+ (LLP) has impact on

strengthening the quality of an education system50

and fostering quality improvements on a level

of a system.51

None of the respondents believe that this impact would be negative. They think

that Erasmus+ (LLP) has an impact generally to increase the quality of a system, and the most

frequent answer is that it is a long-term positive impact. 52

Variable of professional development – systemic level

The respondents of different levels of the education system were asked about their opinion of the

Erasmus+ (LLP) impact on (teachers) professional development for professionals - for the level

of system. The prevailing opinion of the respondents of different levels is that Erasmus+ (and/or

LLP) has long-term positive impact on the professional development at all levels of educational

system (89% in kindergartens, 80% elementary schools, 74% secondary schools, 72% higher

education, and 64% adult education). The second most frequent response was that this is a short-

term positive impact. None of the respondents believe that the impact is negative.53

69% of external experts believe that Erasmus+ (LLP) in Slovenia contributes to a great extent to

improvements of teaching and learning foreign languages (69%), 20% believe that contributes it

to some extent, 6% that contributes very little, and 3% that does not contribute at all.54

There are

no statistically significant differences between different fields (general, vocational, higher, adult

education).55

As we noted in the introductory part of the Interim Report, for individual, institutional, systemic

level some spill-over effects could be expected. Therefore, the findings written under the impacts

of Erasmus + (and/or LLP) on professional development - at the institutional level could affect

the level of system too.

Variables of national policies in education

Respondents of different education levels believe that Erasmus+ (LLP) has an impact on support

to national policies (long-term positive for all levels) and for upgrading them (long term-positive

50

Respondents of preschool, elementary and secondary education. 51

Respondents of higher and adult education. 52

Appendix: Impact of Erasmus+ on different areas in education system. 53

Appendix: Impact of Erasmus+ on different areas in education system. 54

Appendix: External experts about Erasmus+ impacts. 55

Analyses of statistically (non) significant differences in responses of external experts (general, vocational, higher,

and adult education).

46

for all levels, with the exception of elementary school respondents – opinions are divided

between long-term and short-term). Very little respondents replied that there is negative impact.56

Variables of promotion the emergence of European lifelong learning area

External experts were also asked about the relation of Erasmus+ (and/or LLP) with national

policies. We were interested in how Erasmus + (and/or LLP) contributes to fostering the

emergence of a European lifelong learning area, in particular with: complementing policy reforms

at the national level, supporting the modernization of education and training system, enhancing

policy cooperation, bettering the use of EU transparency and recognition tools, disseminating

good practice and raising awareness about that in the European area. External experts believe that

with disseminating good practices and raising awareness about that in European area Erasmus+

(LLP) contribute to a great extent to emergence of European lifelong learning area (71%

responses). The prevailing opinion in the remaining statement is that it impacts to some extent.57

Statistically significant differences between groups of experts (general, vocational, higher, adult

education) were not found (the only related statement with the expert field was the statement on

EU recognition and transparency tool, although there are no differences that would be statistically

significant).58

Variables of good practices

Respondents of different education levels believe that Erasmus+ (LLP) has a long-term positive

impact on the dissemination of good practices within Slovenia and Europe. More than half of

respondents at different levels think so, no one believes that the impact is negative; the proportion

of those that thinks that there is no impact is also small.59

The external experts, evaluators of decentralized actions, believe that Erasmus+ (LLP)

contributes to a great extent to the emergence of the European lifelong learning area through the

dissemination of good practices in Europe - 70% of respondents believe that, 20% believe that

the programme contributes to this to some extent, 9% of respondents believe very little; nobody

responded that Erasmus+ (LLP) does not contribute to emergence of European lifelong learning

area at all.60

56

Appendix: Impact of Erasmus+ on different areas in education system. 57

Appendix: External experts opinion on impact of Erasmus+ (LLP). 58

Appendix: Analyses of statistically (non) significant differences in responses of external experts (general,

vocational, higher, and adult education). 59

Appendix: Impact of Erasmus+ on different areas in education system. 60

Appendix: External experts opinion on impact of Erasmus+ (LLP).

47

Variable of European added value

Some of the results connected with European added value were presented in other parts of the

report. Here we are focusing on promotion the EU’s broad linguistic diversity and intercultural

(multicultural) awareness. 77% of respondents believe that. None of the respondents consider that

this impact does not exist. 3% believe that the impact is very little and 20% believe that the

programme in Slovenia contributes to some extent.61

There are no statistically significant

differences between field in education (general, vocational, higher, and adult education).62

4.3.1 Factors that affect positively intensity and duration of Erasmus+ impacts (systemic

level)

The findings show that Erasmus+ is well known in Slovenia, successful in attracting and reaching

target audiences and groups in education and training. Among the groups there are some

statistically significant differences in familiarity with the programme. However, different groups

of stakeholders have highlighted that the challenge for the future is in the identification of good

practices and dissemination of high-quality results.

The evaluation study shows that Erasmus+ has a big impact on the education system. In addition,

compliance of European and national objectives, support to national policies, impact on

internationalization of the education system, impact on the emergence of European lifelong

learning area (in particular via the dissemination of good practices and awareness about that in

European area), impact on the quality of the system, promotion of the EU+s broad linguistic

diversity and intercultural awareness are all visible as well.

Integration into the single program of Erasmus+ is mostly seen as effective and coherent

(particularly at the level of beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries), but some proposals remains:

regarding school partnerships (KA2) – for the international level, at the national level there are

some proposals too, mainly connected with the identification and dissemination of high-quality

projects and their results, but also reflection on the closer cooperation of the ministry in KA3

action (leading of those projects).

61

Appendix: External experts opinion on impact of Erasmus+ (LLP). 62

Appendix: Analyses of statistically (non) significant differences in responses of external experts (general,

vocational, higher, and adult education).

48

1) Concrete effects of Erasmus+

Principal of elementary school with kindergarten:

“I think that by participating in these projects, we gain on the level of the whole educational system. Mostly in terms

of being more tolerant, accepting ‘otherness’... they started thinking about change, mostly by using ICT in class, we

made progress in that area exactly because of project participation.”

Principal of elementary school with kindergarten:

“… we improved social and citizenship competencies both on the institution level and on systemic level by educating

the participants about the European dimension, European citizenship and by that strengthen the homeland

education.”

Principal of elementary school with kindergarten:

“I think there will be long-term positive impact – the school system will, based on this, especially from the point of

view of languages, hopefully improve and they will finally realise that the introduction of two foreign languages is

essential.”

2) Erasmus+ objectives and needs of different stakeholders

Principal of vocational secondary school:

“... yes, everyone can find themselves in there.”

Head of school centre (secondary):

“Let’s disseminate, promote the objectives, get them into staffroom, to the heads of schools, and the association of

heads.”

Principal of elementary school with kindergarten:

“I think the objectives are more long-term when the level of the system is concerned. But in schools we know how to

be more concrete about these objectives and adapt them to our needs.”

Education professional (professional institution in education):

“The first priority, I reckon, is how to attract the members of the most vulnerable groups to join adult education.”

3) Needs, objectives, and their corrections

Education professional (professional institution in education):

“… adult education … we are no different – neither in terms of the target groups nor the objectives themselves – to

have to have some specifics.”

Vice-dean for research (faculty):

“I think that the /objectives/ still follow these needs, because we are still not that far, with such a level of

internationalisation to have to have it differently.”

Education professional (professional institution):

“I cannot find ... an area that would be exposed in Slovenia as a challenging one and not be addressed by Erasmus+

programmes in some way.”

Head of school centre (secondary):

“I miss a connecting body in this country that would encourage these objectives and strengthen them... the promotion

of these objectives.”

Head of school centre (secondary):

“… because we do not know the basic objectives (for national priorities) … it actually has to start with the EU

priority... but why don’t we say, do this, you’re weak in this. That does not exist here. Let’s write down the

49

objectives in short, send them around with a circular or suggestion, these are the objectives for this year, I suggest

you include them in writing. Very simple, not even half an hour’s work.”

4) National priorities

Head of vocational secondary school:

“… we do not get them anywhere.”

A number of heads of kindergarten and primary school level:

“Priorities? I don’t know them.”

“… maybe legislation, the White book, different documents??”

5) Impact on policy development

Researcher:

“On the development of national polices … this is maybe a bit difficult for me to assess. On the level of concrete

usage, I would perhaps say, that during a project or a programme of certain activities could be very intensive. But

then, if there is no follow-up, these things can be quickly forgotten and go back to where they had been before. So,

these things and activities are welcome, but I think that, yes, on the policy level, more attention would need to be

given to guarantee a transfer... to wider working teams, the whole system, in this context I can see that these

programmes could influence the development of policies.”

Researcher:

“We, in KA3, do not have the ministry as an official partner, the project we are in ... actually does not predict an

impact on policies. So our task is to somehow include different levels of decision makers in the activities we

implement on field. In our case these are municipalities ... of course we also try to include the ministry

representatives into these activities.”

Researcher:

“With KA1 and KA2 for example, I think that certain prior systemic conditions should exist so we could then get this

to the policy level.”

Education professional (professional institution):

“We should ... the state should stimulate this … take it into account when finances are concerned … those who are

hardworking, already cooperating with Europe, participating and sending students … are treated the same as a school

who just ‘sits’ there and does nothing. I think the state should be encouraging.”

Education professional:

“… I don’t know what happens to our good practice examples.”

Principal of elementary school:

“… we have different policies. For those who are intensively part of it, for sure it gives a certain general outlook on

different educational systems, policies. Actually, in the end everybody realises we are all here somewhere.”

6) Recognisability of the programme

50

Researcher:

“I think it’s known well. … it varies a lot from country to country. Yes, maybe here it is quite well known because

we depend on it so much financially …”

Education professional (professional institution):

“I think so. I do not know what contributed to it, everything probably, from greater promotion or active participation.

But I think that in recent years, the professional staff has shown more and more interest in it.”

International office manager, vice-dean for research (faculty):

“I have a feeling that the name is a bit more familiar, well, among students, already in kindergartens, primary schools

they do different activities and then it is more memorable … they may identify with it more easily in future, therefore

it stays with them.”

Head of the international and inter-university office:

“… there are no differences, except that there is a common name and maybe the programme is more easily presented

to the outside. Relatively similar things took place before as they do now.”

Policy officer:

“Yes, of course. Some didn’t even know about Grundtvig.”

Education professional (professional institution):

“Perhaps a bit unfortunate name Erasmus+ … my generation ... we know … previous LLP, good propaganda … it

was clearer ... I do not have any problem with the name Erasmus+. What I see here, for example with the calls, when

people are starting to decide to apply for a project, they encounter quite big hurdles, in the sense... which action to

apply under, will it be accepted there?”

7) Higher budget for Erasmus+

Education professional (professional institution):

“I think that if it comes to greater financing this should be counter-balanced appropriately either with checks or

quality evaluation or actual impact made. I wouldn’t want projects to be financed just because there is more money

but because they’re of good quality.”

4.4 Variables of other characteristics of the Erasmus+ programme in Slovenia

Respondents of different education levels agreed that Erasmus+ (and/or LLP) has an impact on

the cooperation of various stakeholders (educators, policy makers, local community…) and that

this impact is a long-term positive one, as well as a long-term impact on the awareness of the

European lifelong learning area.63

When asked both groups of respondents agreed that there is

long-term positive impact concerning the better use of EU’s recognition and transparency tools

higher education and adult education.

63

Appendix: Impact of Erasmus+ on different areas in education system.

51

The response of external experts (evaluators of decentralized actions)64

was that when looking at

the impact on improving the level of key competences and skills, the Erasmus+ (LLP)

programme contributes to a large extent especially with increased opportunities for learning

mobility (89% responses), with strengthened cooperation between the world of education and

training and the world of work (37% of respondents believe this to a great extent), to some extent

contributes on improvements of key competences and skills with regard to their contribution to a

cohesive society (57%) and with regard to their relevance for the labour market (46% believes

this to some extent).

External experts evaluated also other characteristics of the programme. Agreement with the

statement that approaches and tools that are used for the disseminating and exploiting of the

results of Erasmus+/LLP are effective was as follows; 72% agreed to some extent; 16% to a large

extent 16%, and 13% very little.

Most of the external experts agreed that Erasmus+ (LLP) contributes to the realization of the

specific objectives of Erasmus+ (56% agreed to a great extent, 41% to some extent), 50%

believes that the progress on the realization of the specific objectives contributes to the

realization of the Erasmus+ general objectives (and 41% agree to some extent with this

statement).

The same group of respondents was asked about their opinion regarding the integration of several

programmes into the single programme Erasmus+. The proportion of respondents that were

undecided was relative big. Agreement on the idea that the integration of several programmes

into Erasmus+ made the programme more effective was as follows; 32% respondents agreed to a

large extent, 35% respondents to some extent, 6% does not agree at all (26% is undecided).

Slightly more agreement was seen on the statement that the integration of several programmes

into Erasmus+ contributed to the efficiency of programme implementation at the level of

beneficiaries and participants (34% agreed with the statement to a great extent, 28% is undecided

and the same percentage agree to some extent, 9% of respondents agree a little or not at all). The

exact opposite statement to the previous one showed approximately the same opinions. 56% of

respondents agreed to a great extent that the various actions that have been brought together in

Erasmus+ are coherent, 31% agree to some extent. None of the respondents answered that they

do not agree at all or agree a little bit. The prevailing opinion is that the new programme at the

level of beneficiaries and participants is more effective and that it is coherent. External experts

also agree that Erasmus+ complement other national and international programmes (projects)

available in Slovenia. With complementarity to national programmes 34% agreed to a great

extent, and 44% to some extent. With complementarity to international programmes 31% agree to

a large extent and 50 % of respondents agree to some extent. With the statement that Erasmus+ is

attracting and reaching target audiences and groups successful, 61% of respondents agreed to a

great extent and 39% to some extent. None of the respondents think that Erasmus+ partially or

64

Appendix: External experts opinion on impact of Erasmus+ (LLP).

52

not at all successful in attracting and reaching target audiences and groups. There are no

statistically significant differences on statements described above between external experts in the

area of general, vocational, higher, and adult education.65

Additionally, in the evaluation study we were interested in the possible change in the quality of

applications and project results between two programmes - LLP and Erasmus+. Statistically

significant differences between the two groups of respondents, due to the low number of those

participating in the both programmes and specific distribution between the response categories,

was not possible to compute. Therefore we must present those results by the numbers. 9

respondents answered this question, most of them agreed that the share of quality projects

applications in LLP was mediocre (5 respondents), a similar response was for Erasmus+ - for

which 38 respondents answered, 17 respondents thought that the share of quality applications is

mediocre, which represents 45% of the respondents, 16% of respondents answered that the

proportion of quality applications is high, none of the respondents answered that is very high; on

the contrary 34% believe that is low, and 5% that the proportion of quality projects is very low).

The proportion of projects that focus on new questions, using new methods and projects that

focus on questions that are high on the political agenda in Slovenia and Europe were also

assessed as mediocre. The respondents agreed that the competition for grants in their respective

fields is either average or high (18% of respondents expressed that it is very high).

Amongst the experts, employees of NA (monitoring applications and projects in general,

vocational, higher and adult education) the opinion was similar. In the questionnaire they

answered only about approved projects/report (not all applications). They thought that the

proportion of quality projects was average (some small differences exist – from 2 higher

education experts one responded that proportion of quality projects was low, another that it was

very high). This group also believe that the proportion of projects that are using new methods is

around average (for general education between low and average, average for vocational, for

higher education between average and high and average for adult education). Also the proportion

of projects which focus on new questions was average meaning those focusing on questions

which are high on the political agenda in Slovenia, and between average and high for projects

that focus on questions which are high on the political agenda in Europe.

The experts, employees of NA assessed that achieving results and project impacts improved

(comparisons between LLP and Erasmus+). In this statement, respondent experts in different

fields were very unified in their opinions (for general, vocational and higher education, for adult

education no response was given). Similarly unified responses were given for the question of

what contractors thought was the easiest to explain and the most demanding to explain in the

reports. Responses showed that for contractors the most demanding to explain is impact and

dissemination.

65

Appendix: Analyses of statistically (non) significant differences in responses of external experts (general,

vocational, higher, and adult education).

53

5 CONCLUSIONS

The following provides answers to the questions recommended by the European Commission

whilst keeping in mind the results of quantitative and qualitative part of the research.

A. Effectiveness

1. To what extent have Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes contributed to the

realization of the Erasmus+ specific objectives? Are there differences across fields?

At the level of Slovenia, certain milestones resulting from the specific objectives of the Erasmus

+ in the field of education and training have been achieved (e.g. the share of early school leavers,

percentage of pupils / students with low achievements in science, the tertiary education

attainment (age 30-34)) or we are at least approaching to achieve them. The external experts view

(who are also the evaluators of LLP / Erasmus+ decentralized actions) is as follows, 56% believe

that the LLP and Erasmus + contributed to the realization of the specific objectives of the

Erasmus+ at large and 41% that had contributed somewhat. The view that LLP and Erasmus+ has

contributed very little to the realization of the specific objectives is presented as very low, only

3% of respondents expressed this view, none of the respondents believed that the LLP and

Erasmus+ did not contributed at all to the realization of these specific objectives.

2. To what extent has the progress of the realization of the specific objectives

contributed to the realization of the Erasmus+ general objectives?

The expert’s view is that progress in the realization of the specific objectives has contributed to

the realization of the general objectives, 50% of respondents believe that progress in the

realization of the specific objectives contributed at large to the realization of the general

objectives, and 41% of them that contributed somewhat.

LLP / Erasmus+ in Slovenia contribute to the (answers at large exposed only):

a) Improve the level of key competencies and skills: most respondents (89%) answered that

Erasmus+ contribute to improvement key competencies and skills with increased opportunities

for learning mobility, the second most common answer was that it contributed through

strengthened cooperation between the world of education and training and the world of work (but

at least by contribution to a cohesive society, only 23% of respondents answers).

b) Promotion - fostering: most of the respondents view is that Erasmus+ has contributed to a

large extent on internationalization of educational institutions, through enhanced transnational

cooperation between education and training providers and other stakeholders, followed by quality

improvements (80%, 74%, and 71% of respondents), and at least 37% of the respondents thought

that the programme is fostering excellence in innovation. In individual semi-structured

54

interviews, innovations were mentioned as an opportunity of Erasmus+, also in a much higher

agreement when investigating the programme’s impacts on innovations when they were exposed

via questionnaires for other stakeholders (educational institutions).

c) The creation of a European lifelong learning area: most respondents answered that the

Erasmus+ contributes to a large extent to the creation of a European lifelong learning area

through the dissemination of good practices (71%) and the better use of EU transparency and

recognition tools (37%), the respondents view is that the programme contributes to a large extent

to complement policy reforms at national levels (20%) and through enhanced policy cooperation

(11% of respondents).

d) Foreign languages: the respondents view on Erasmus+ contribution at large is as follows; the

promotion of EU’s broad linguistic diversity and intercultural awareness (77%), improve the

teaching and learning of foreign languages (69% respondents).

e) International dimension: a) Vocational education and training (VET): 38% of respondents

agreed that Erasmus+ is contributing at large extent to enhance the international dimension of

education and training, in particular through the cooperation between Programme and Partner-

country institutions in the field of VET; b) Higher education (HE): through the promotion of

learning mobility (100% respondents), cooperation between Programme and Partner-country

institutions in the field of HE (82%), and by increasing the attractiveness of European higher

education institutions (55%).

The assessments of external experts (programme project evaluators for decentralized actions)

regarding the general and specific objectives of the Erasmus+ are:

a) General objectives:

- the minimum impact of decentralized actions: dropouts;

- the maximum impact: respondents indicated different general objectives.

b) Specific objectives:

- minimum and maximum impact: respondents indicated different specific objectives.

From which it follows that it is impossible to identify the general objective to which the

LLP/Erasmus+ had maximum impact, the same applies to the identification of the specific

objective, on which, according to respondents, LLP / Erasmus+ had maximum or minimum

impact.

3. To what extent have Erasmus+ actions influenced policy developments in the

domain of education and training? Which actions were most effective in doing so?

Are there marked differences between different fields?

The link between the LLP / Erasmus+ and national policies (or policy development) can be

identified, for the latter we collected the data through questionnaires. Most of the beneficiaries

and potential beneficiaries of the Erasmus+ actions on a 5-point Likert scale of agreement (where

1 is strongly disagree, 6 strongly agree) in the majority responded that they agree that the

55

objectives of the LLP / Erasmus+ are consistent with national objectives in the field of education

(no differences between different fields of education were found). Also, the majority of

respondents agreed that the LLP / Erasmus+ is complementary to and an upgrade of the national

focuses and policies of education. In both questions, the dominant response by the respondents’

in preschool education, elementary (primary and lower secondary), and adult learning was that

they agree with those two statements (consistency of national and European objectives, and

complementarity and upgrading of national objectives by the European one). In all groups of

respondents and in both two statements, we found a relatively large group of undecided (category

neither agree nor disagree; from 4 to 30%). The link between the latter was also examined by

semi-structured interviews, which showed that respondents (different stakeholders in the field of

education) in most cases cannot decide what the national priorities are.

In addition, semi-structured interviews exposed that Erasmus+ actions are more effective at the

institutional and individual levels than in the field of educational policy development. Qualitative

document analysis showed that for some of the Erasmus+ actions impact on policy development

is unexpected (KA1) and, due to the specificity of the action the potential of this impact is

smaller – in KA2 the impact on the national level could be bigger by using more structured

dissemination. For the KA3 action policy impact is expected by design, but semi-structured

interviews showed that this impact on the national level is smaller than expected – the potential

of this action is not fully exploited. The identified challenge with this action is also the duration

of the projects (the proposal was to increase the duration to four years; this could strengthen the

impact on policy development). One of the important finding is that the Ministry of Education,

Science and Sport (MESS) does not strengthen the system and systematic level in the formulation

of educational priorities sufficiently (this view was prevalent between different groups of

stakeholders). However, the MESS participates in some KA3 projects, but does not monitor what

is going on in the KA2 projects (although to monitor all of those projects is impossible and not

realistic to expect). A possible proposal for resolving the current situation in KA3 is to identify

the person "pioneer" who would be in charge at the MESS to solve these challenges (better policy

implementation based on the projects findings etc.). For the VET level, the CMEPIUS opinion is

that through the project in KA2, it is possible to determine the trends of development (the finding

is based on their long-year monitoring on applications and project implementations). A

consensual group with various experts (representatives of professional support institutions in the

field of education) and policy officials raised a certain discrepancy between the expectations of

the MESS and the Ministry of Finance (MF) regarding regulations, for which the consensual

group found out that this discrepancy could hinder the effective integration and coordination of

the actions KA3 at the MESS. Similar barriers were highlighted by other direct budget users’

representatives. The solution would make sense to align before the new Public Finance Act.

Nevertheless, a structured transfer to the level of policy development is a challenge for the future,

it is possible to see the impact in two different ways: a direct and indirect effect. For the latter, it

is certainly possible to identify the potential impacts - already that different stakeholders in the

56

field of education cooperate with each other, share experiences, views, results, etc. it may have a

later impact on the design of some policies. However, the practical effect of this is impossible to

measure.

The argument of the weak impact of Erasmus+ on policy development in education is reinforced

by the results of a questionnaire for external experts – project application evaluators for

decentralized actions (54% of respondents think that there is no impact or very little impact of

Erasmus+ on national policy development in education).

On content areas (taking into consideration Erasmus+ objectives), the impact of the Erasmus+ on

internationalization (on all fields of education should be exposed, even despite the statutory

language of instruction, which to some extent constitutes an obstacle to greater

internationalization), as well as with the areas and focuses on quality, professional development

of teachers and other professionals in educational institutions, and civic and social skills. Those

three areas are well covered with specific actions from the Erasmus+ programme (centralized and

decentralized actions). Of those three areas, it is possible to find compliance with national

policies (in terms of content), which is (obeying the restrictions of double financing) largely

financed by the European Structural and Investment Funds (especially from the European Social

Funds).

4. What specific approaches (such as co-financing, promotion or others) have you

taken in order to try to enhance the effects of Erasmus+? To what extent have these

approaches been effective? Can any particular points for improvement be

identified?

The approach is as follows; focusing on the promotion of the Erasmus +: Apples of Quality

(NA),66

Programme for future headmasters, Thematic trainings for principals (National School

for Leadership in Education (NSLE) and NA), in-service training programs for professionals in

the field of education applied in national database Katis (project management, leadership,

internationalization, learning outcomes, intercultural competences) (NA), cooperation in the

cultural bazaar (NA), the presence of NA in the annual national professional conferences for

different areas of education (NSLE, MESS, annual professional national conferences), attendance

at national meetings for principals (organized by NSLE). At those meetings Erasmus+ with its

objectives and practical arrangements is directly promoted.

In addition to the above, the successful approach related to the objectives of the Erasmus+ (in

particular to the introduction of innovations in the educational work) can be considered for the

award of Blaž Kumerdej (National Education Institute).

66

Apples of Quality award are one of the criteria for measuring project quality of Erasmus+. In those project impact

on individuals and institutions is visible (individual experiences and knowledge, professional knowledge etc.), but is

not sufficient base for identification of national priorities.

57

The results from the questionnaires and semi-structured interviews show a good presence of

Erasmus+. The familiarity on the new programme is better than (it was) for its successor

programme (LLP) – which is evident from the Erasmus+ beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries

respondents who are familiar well or very-well with the the Erasmus+ (the same respondents

were simultaneously assessing their familiarity on the LLP).67

However there are differences

between different educational levels when testing statistical significance between those groups of

respondents. The LLP results showed that LLP are at least familiar within kindergartens and

elementary schools, but are significantly more familiar in upper secondary schools and at the

level of higher education. Whereas the comparison between familiarity on LLP and Erasmus+

showed that the Erasmus + (as LLP) are significantly more familiar within elementary and upper

secondary schools, at other levels statistically significant differences within the groups of

respondents were not found. The results from the external expert questionnaire showed a

statistical significant difference in their opinion on how well Erasmus+ is known in their

respective fields – experts in VET and the adult learning field believe more that Erasmus+ is well

known in those two fields than experts from general education and higher education. Comparing

all the fields of experts from the HE field, there is a belief that Erasmus+ is well known in this

field (however, 55% of them think that Erasmus+ is well known in HE field).

5. Do you consider that certain actions of the programme are more effective than

others? Are there differences across fields? What are the determining factors for

making these actions of the programme more effective?

The effectiveness of the actions needs to be examined only in conjunction with specific purposes

that specific actions have. Indeed, actions KA1 (and KA2) are intended more for individual

institutions, and KA3 is more encouraging the participation of ministries. For the individual and

institutional level, based on semi-structured interviews, respondents exposed that the more

effective action is KA1 (that its effect on learners is the greatest – especially in the case of their

learning mobility, as well as the effect on teachers in cases of their learning mobility). Experience

also shows that the results of KA2 remain more at the level of individual institutions participating

in the project. Due to gaps in the transfer of KA3 results in the national educational policies, it

could be highlighted that the results of these actions also remains more on the level of involved

institutions (this was also the exposed opinion of the consensual group, as can be seen from semi-

structured interviews with those participants that were or are involved in the KA3 projects). A

challenge for the future is how to identify and transfer quality results between the various

stakeholders in the field of education (together with their usage) as well as in the transfer to the

actual educational policy on the national level.

67

Although during the interviews, the majority of respondents named the program Erasmus – without the “plus”.

58

For KA3 interest for more intensive participation of the MESS in this action was indicated, as

well as a few challenges for direct budget user institutions: the allocation of financial resources

obtained via European funding into integrated budget, a reduction of national resources for direct

budget user institutions due to the successful performance in European calls, employment

restrictions for new staff (although Erasmus+ actions allow that) etc. The transfer of all activities

on public institutions is also not an optimal solution (especially for the action KA3). The

challenge for the future can only be solved by constructive cooperation between MESS and MF.

The impacts on participants and institutions directly involved in the actions are the determining

factors that make certain actions more effective. Considering promoting the learning mobility of

the so-called "silent partners" (those not receiving financial sources from the budget, but still play

an important role in the success of the project) in the centralized actions (KA3) – on the

international and national level, on international level - the enlargement of the eligible institutions

for KA1 (professional educational /supporting institutions staff, besides the educational staff and

learners - that they can independently apply for Erasmus+ mobility projects).On the national

level, the challenge is to eliminate the barriers to bring about a more intensive cooperation of

MESS in the KA3 actions.

6. To what extent has the integration of several programmes into Erasmus+ made the

programme more effective? Do you see scope for changes to the structure of

Erasmus+ or its successor programme that could increase effectiveness?

The opinions of the majority of respondents of semi-structured interviews are divided, but the

majority of those who have their own opinion on that responded that the integration of several

programmes into Erasmus+ made the latter more transparent, although the largest contribution is

in the promotion of the programme. The opinions of external experts – evaluators of proposal for

decentralized actions are similar, most of them have the opinion that the integration of several

programmes into a single programme made Erasmus+ more effective, most of them also agreed

that this made the programme more effective (somewhat or much more effective) on a level of

beneficiaries and participants, with the exception of VET experts where the most non-decided

respondents were (whereas there is no significant difference between experts of different fields in

education on that statements). The respondents of semi-structured interviews also pointed out that

the increased flexibility of the rules, which apply to decentralized actions - less administration

due to financial simplification (in terms of cost - at the application stage and later in proving the

cost), but that the application is more complex. However, decentralized action contractors warn

that a contribution to the cost per unit is often not sufficient to cover the real costs. Institutions

that have centralized and decentralized actions have pointed out that financial simplification in

KA3 has not yet been implemented. They are confronted with different rules in the financial

(administrative) management of projects - in centralized and decentralized actions (although

some of them cannot decide if this is good or not).

59

The success of the program would increase more transversal and overall operation of the

European Commission. It is obvious that cooperation is mostly still a sector one (e.g. meetings by

sector, not by key activities), which is exposed in the opinion of the NA.

The results of semi-structured interviews (mainly with representatives of the NA) also pointed

out that in the national context, it should be taken into account the power to participate in

working groups and committees at the EU level and the establishment of a systematic mutual

information sharing, at least between the NA and MESS (which was exposed and agreed upon

also at the consensual group). The additional possibility would be more a systematic transfer of

information between Sectorial Erasmus+ Commission and the representatives of the sectors that

could systematically transmit information within each sector of MESS.

7. Is the size of budget appropriate and proportionate to what Erasmus+ is set out to

achieve? Is the distribution of funds across the programme’s fields and actions

appropriate in relation to their level of effectiveness and utility?

So far, it seems that there is enough interest in Slovenia, therefore it is possible to count on the

full absorption of the budget (for education). This is implied also in the analysis of annual reports

and is supported with data from external experts’ questionnaire that evaluated the proportion of

grant applications in their expert fields. However, in certain fields most of the eligible institutions

are already included in the programme (e.g. VET - vocational secondary schools, in addition also

in HE the proportion of eligible institutions is height), which was raised by the interviewees at the

NA. Otherwise, as shown in the annual reports, there were little transfers between fields and

actions with regards to the approved budget of Erasmus+.

The system for school partnerships is assessed as inadequate (described below).

8. What challenges and difficulties do you encounter while implementing the various

actions of Erasmus+? What changes would need to be introduced in Erasmus+ or its

successor programme to remedy these?

According to NA they assess the system for school partnerships as inappropriate (school -

school), both from a financial and an organizational point of view: one application, approved by

the entire consortium; a coordinator does not have a real coordinating role - financially each runs

its part of the project, including reports, each national agency has its own rules. Problems have

arisen in completing these projects - the final reports (schools until final stage did not know to

who or what will be reported), during the implementation these problems could not be identified.

This part of the program is not as efficient as it was in the LLP. It would be better if coordination

would be placed in other projects. Some school principals have expressed this opinion also.

The Slovenian Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (NAKVIS) during the

consensual group meeting warned that they support the learning mobility of students and

60

professors, while also warning of the high level of administration in exchange for the quality of

projects (some HE exposed this on a semi-structured interviews too).

9. To what extent are the approaches and tools that are used for disseminating and

exploiting the results of Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes effective? Where

can you see possibilities for improvements?

The effective dissemination and use of results already in the application stage is for applicants the

most difficult to justify, in the opinion of external experts – evaluators of the LLP / Erasmus+

decentralized actions projects applications. This group of respondents also evaluated how

successful approaches and tools used for the dissemination and exploitation of results are. The

majority of them expressed that they are somewhat successful (72% of respondents). Also,

respondents from semi-structured interviews identified deficiencies in the system of

dissemination and exploitation of results. Especially after the completion of a particular project,

more institutions do not monitor the effects after the project ends (this relates to different

educational levels), as shown in the questionnaires. These groups of respondents are also not very

familiar with the approaches and tools used for the dissemination and exploitation of results (e.g.

Erasmus+ platform for project results – which is required, but is not a transparent enough

platform, would need a more detailed search options, as shown in some semi-structured

interviews); School Education Gateway). We asked about the familiarity with of other tools,

namely eTwinning (school education), which is known or well known in 68% of relevant

respondents (20% had heard about eTwinning, but they did not know what it is for) and EPALE

(adult education) which is known or well known in 41% of relevant respondents (18% had heard

about EPALE, but did not know what it is for).

10. To what extent is the system of cooperation and division of tasks between the

Commission, Executive Agency, National Agencies, European Investment Fund, National

Authorities, Independent Audit Bodies, and Erasmus+ Committee efficient and well-

functioning? What are the areas for possible improvement or simplification in the

implementation of Erasmus+ or a successor programme?

Cooperation with the European Investment Fund is irrelevant for Slovenia for Erasmus+.

Otherwise, the system of cooperation and the division of tasks is well structured (in the opinion

of all stakeholders involved), challenges sometimes arise during concrete cooperation (challenges

of feedback loop). In short, the improvements are possible mainly on the operational level.

The representative of Slovenia in the Committee of the Erasmus+ evaluated the system of

cooperation between different institutions as exemplary, however some improvement could be

done in its implementation. Considering that the Erasmus+ combines two programmes

(education, youth) and added also sport, the teething problems at programme introduction were

61

reasonable (e.g. poorly functioning information system), but unfortunately they were a little bit

too much prolonged. On European level the representative pointed to a certain degree of

inconsistency (e.g. short deadlines for the NAs, while the European Commission often takes a lot

of time to answer), refractory (in particular EACEA as NA is reporting a lot of times "falls

asleep"). It is also estimated that the cooperation between the various bodies (Erasmus+

Committee, European Commission, etc.) are often very weak, that certain actions and solutions

are vague even at the presentations stage. As a consequence, it transferred on a work of NA,

indeed their level of load is twofold: they are committed to good execution of the tasks,

informing the users even if themselves do not have enough information or often they kept

changing. Recommendations for increasing communication between the different institutions at

EU level and the possibility that in the situation of ambiguity NA in accordance with their

national situation make their own decisions were proposed. Believe that IT solutions are too

rigid, because it is impossible to cover all the life situations in a computer application were also

expressed. Additional believe was that the Erasmus+ is used for too many actions that are

gradually added, with this it will slowly reached the point where it can undermine the basic

purpose of Erasmus+. At the national level, the representative estimated cooperation with the NA

as very well, as the system of communication on an everyday base is established, enabling real-

time overview of the implementation of the Erasmus+. Areas of possible improvements could be

seen primarily in the greater use of representatives at the EU level (e.g. Erasmus+ Programme

Committee) in the implementation of possible solutions for a better implementation of the

Erasmus+.

The NA draws attention to the following:

- Committee of the Erasmus+: for smaller countries is more difficult to achieve an effect;

- European Commission, EACEA: the system level is not the most efficient, while two aspects

remain, namely: 1. From both institutions getting information, according to the national calendar

of activities, is very late; 2. The amount of information from the EACEA, on centralized actions,

is very meagre. The desire for greater cooperation was identified (e.g. the provision of summaries

of individual projects, evaluations, feedbacks). At the operational level, they exposed the

observation that the European Commission (mainly DG EAC) are susceptible to high staff

turnovers, therefore they employ newcomers, without the knowledge or experience from the

programme (only desk officers remains constant), also at the sectoral level leaders often change.

The feedback received is therefore often only information contained in the Guide for Applicants.

- MESS: at the system level more structured cooperation is missing, at the operational level this

means that cooperation often depends only on the individual, therefore feedback is at times weak.

The NA expects better cooperation in priority discussions and more widespread promotion of

Erasmus+ by the MESS, indeed with some sectors, they cooperate better (as an example of good

practices they listed HE) than with others. The same applies for the cooperation with different

public expert institutions (supportive institutions in different fields of education) – the system

62

level here has not been established, but at the operational level, there is well-established

cooperation with some of the institutions.

The independent audit body: underlines the good cooperation with various stakeholders at both

the systemic and operational level.

MESS: during the meeting of the consensual group, stakeholders identified key activities in

which they wish to continue to cooperate closely (especially MESS and NA), namely the

identification of national priorities for decentralized actions, which could be covered by calls of

Erasmus+ and the identification and dissemination of high-quality results from Erasmus+

projects.

11. To what extent has the integration of several programmes into Erasmus+ resulted in

efficiency gains and losses for the implementation of the programme, both at the

level of the National Agency/ies and on the beneficiaries’ and participants’ levels?

Do you see scope for changes to the structure of Erasmus+ or its successor

programme that could increase efficiency?

Erasmus+ is more efficient in the implementation for participating institutions in the program and

NA. The differences are perceived between those beneficiaries who have more experience with

the Erasmus+ (the implementation is as a rule more efficient), than to those beneficiaries that are

less familiar with the programme who do not have direct experience with it (or very little), being

unable to detect those changes (which was also evident from interviews conducted).

For the NA, the implementation of the Erasmus+ program is more efficient compared to previous

years and especially compared to its successor programme. For KA1 and KA2 the same logic

applies- this is also reflected in the support of NA employees’ feedbacks on specific issues those

beneficiaries have. This is especially true for countries (including Slovenia), where the NA

operates as an integrated agency (all fields in education are covered within one agency). The EU

could restrict dispersion and increased efficiency in the countries in a way that in all countries

either a single (integrated) agency or an agency organized around the field would exist –

currently the system in each country is running separately.

Increased efficiency could be envisaged, while ensuring greater programme stability and

reducing the constant changes within the programme.

12. Do you consider that the implementation of certain actions are of the programme is

more efficient than others? Are there differences across fields? What good practices

of these more efficient actions of the programme could be transferred to others?

The impact of Erasmus+ and its successor programme is visible, as it is seen via a very high

percentage of institutions in the field of education involved in the various activities of the

Erasmus + (and predecessor programs).

63

Implementations of the various actions are effective - depending on the purpose and the specifics

of each of the action. From educational institutions (schools) in principle, system thinking cannot

be expected, besides that it is expected from them that their applications in the KA1 actions is

conducted with the aim of improving practice (which is also defined by law). Therefore it makes

sense to increase activities in KA3 actions (when having in mind the national level), with this it

would be possible to achieve a pilot implementation of innovations, for those activities that are

on a level of innovation.

The same applies to the field. As noted (based on data from questionnaires and some semi-

structured interviews) actions are the most efficient for individuals directly involved in the action,

and later on at the institutional level. As the transfer of efficient practices would be worthwhile to

consider promoting learning mobility of the so-called "silent partners" in the action KA3 (which

are those partners who do not have their finances in the project budget, but are very important for

the successful implementation of the project), as determined by other participating organizations

in KA3 actions. Also it would be worthwhile to think about the greater involvement of the MESS

in KA3 and further strengthening and structuring the dissemination and use of results (valid for

all actions), establishing a clear national direction (bottom-up approach to the problems, which

would also require a change in culture/paradigms), which was found during consensual group and

in each semi-structured interview.

13. To what extent has the system of simplified grants resulted in a reduction of the

administrative burden for NAs and programme beneficiaries and participants? Are

there differences across actions and fields? What elements of the programme could

be changed to further reduce the administrative burden, without unduly comprising

its results and impacts?

For the NA, the system of simplified grants has not resulted in a reduction of administrative

burdens due to the fact that the administrative burdens have increased elsewhere. Because of IT

tools, even though these tools have been updating and improving, NA still incurs a greater

workload. The improvement of the barriers in this segment would help the stability of the IT tools

to support greater flexibility, which is typical for the Erasmus +.

The beneficiaries of the program and participants enjoy reduced administrative burden, but this is

only visible for decentralized actions, as reported in the semi-structured interviews.

14. To what extent are the IT tools provided by the Commission adequate for the

efficient management and implementation of the programme? Do they answer your

needs? Give specific examples where they can be improved. Is the set of IT tools

appropriate or should it cover more/less elements of the programme

implementation?

64

The NA assessed the following IT tools: EPL, Mobility Tool, EU Survey, OEET, BO Reports,

E+ DASHBOARD, Erasmus+ Project Results Platform.

After initial difficulties, when all the tools worked inadequate and unreliable, the situation in

2016 dramatically improved. Call Erasmus+ KA1 for 2017 took place entirely without problems;

we expect the same for KA2.68

Despite the improvement in usability and reliability of the tools, NA highlighted some areas

where further improvements would be possible:

- Stability: there are constant changes within the tools themselves. According to some, NA is not

even informed in advance respectively or given an explanation as to why something has changed

or is missing;

- Instructions for use: for certain steps/procedures user-friendly instructions do not exist (those

instructions are missing or they are very professional/technical; the best aids are webinars);

- tools do not allow all the flexibility that is allowed by the rules (certain things NA cannot

approve because they cannot be done by using the available tools);

- uniformity: too many different tools exists, NA must specialize to use at least 5 different tools

(which in the case of small NA where they do not have a single IT expert, this task is very

difficult, hired outside technicians cannot do this work either because the technical work is very

much associated with the content).

The IT tools for the effective implementation and monitoring of the program otherwise provide

many good and necessary aspects and are welcome, but currently they take a lot of effort and

work, sometimes for a minimal result.

15. To what extent is the level of human and financial resources that is available for the

implementation of the programme adequate? What steps did you take to optimize

the efficiency of the resources deployed for the Erasmus+ implementation?

The level of human resources in the financial resources available for implementation of the

programme in the future is less than appropriate. Due to the lack of financial resources, there is

consequently a lack of staff in order to carry out all tasks. The responsibilities for the NA from

the European Commission also arrive unexpectedly, even for activities where NA does not have

enough professional staff. An additional challenge is that for the new roles, it is not possible to

predict the shares or number of employees, due to the fact that it is not possible to predict the

responses of those actions within the state. There is concern for the next three consecutive years

mainly due to the following: before the predicted increase of tasks/shares on programme

management (for which an increase in the budget is already planned) would be necessary to

provide an appropriate level of human resources that can be timetabled to acquire the necessary

skills and later on could immediately after the start of a new action independently and efficiently

68

Interview was conducted before the call for KA2.

65

start to work. Only with this kind of planning would it be possible to assure the implementation

of increased workload. Therefore the proposal is to increase the budget for the management of

the programme one year before the increase of the budget for actions.

A. Relevance

16. To what extent do the Erasmus+ objectives continue to address the needs or

problems they are meant to solve? Are these needs or problems (still) relevant? Have

the needs or problems evolved in such a way that the objectives of Erasmus+ or its

successor programme needs to be adjusted?

According to the data from the respondents' questionnaires and semi-structured interviews the

objectives of the Erasmus+ address the needs and problems that should be solved to large extent.

Those needs and problems are for Slovenia still relevant. In general, the objectives cover all the

needs and problems that should be solved. This is so, also because the objectives are very

general. For an even better coverage of the problems and needs, some additional objectives are

needed or the existing ones need to be updated: e.g. transversal skills (several models in Europe

covering these skills exist), open and safe learning environment.

31% of external experts – evaluators of the proposal in decentralized actions somewhat agree

with the statement that the needs/problems have developed in such a way that objectives of the

Erasmus+ must be adapted and 16% of respondents strongly agree with this statement.

The data collected with the questionnaires showed that the needs of institutions are consistent

with national focuses (categories agree and strongly agree are presented, and proportion of

respondents who could not decide): preschool education (66%; 29% undecided), elementary and

secondary school level (59%; 33% undecided), higher education (50%; 38% undecided), and for

adult education (38%; 49% undecided). The data showed that assessing the objectives of

LLP/Erasmus+ and national objectives are even more consistent and also a lower proportion of

respondents who could not decide regarding this statement can be seen: preschool education

(75%; 24% undecided), elementary and secondary school (67%; 30% undecided), higher

education level (77%; 15% undecided), and adult education (71%; 22% undecided).

A similar opinion of external experts was indicated. Most of these respondents strongly agree

with the statement that the objectives of the Erasmus+ continue to address the needs or problems

that would have to be resolved (by strongly agree 55% of respondents), that in Slovenia these

needs and problems still existed (strongly agree 59 %).

It is also possible to identify the consistency in the analysed documents and from the broad

thematic areas covered by European and national calls (especially European Social Funds), with

which primarily, it is meant in terms of the following areas: quality, teachers’ professional

development, social and civic / intercultural (multicultural) competences.

66

17. To what extent are needs of different stakeholders and sectors addressed by the

Erasmus+ objectives? How successful is the programme in attracting and reaching

target audiences and groups within different fields of the programme scope? Is the

Erasmus+ well known to the education and training, and youth communities? In

case some target groups are not sufficiently reached, what factors are limiting their

access and what actions could be taken to remedy this?

The needs of different stakeholders and sectors addresses by the Erasmus+ objectives are well

covered. The programme is also successful in attracting and reaching target audiences and groups

within different fields of education. In the education Erasmus+ is well known. The familiarity

on the new programme is better than (it was) for its successor programme (LLP) – which is

evident from the Erasmus+ beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries respondents who are familiar

well or very-well, the Erasmus+ (the same respondents were simultaneously assessing their

familiarity on the LLP). However there are differences between different educational levels when

testing statistical significance between those groups of respondents. The LLP results showed that

LLP are at least familiar within kindergartens and elementary schools, but are significantly more

familiar in upper secondary schools and at the level of higher education. Whereas the comparison

between familiarity on LLP and Erasmus+ showed that the Erasmus + (as LLP) are significantly

more familiar within elementary and upper secondary schools, at other levels statistically

significant differences within the groups of respondents were not found. The results from the

external expert questionnaire showed a statistical significant difference in their opinion on how

well Erasmus+ is known in their respective fields – experts in VET and the adult learning field

believe more that Erasmus+ is well known in those two fields than experts from general

education and higher education. Comparing all the fields of experts from the HE field, there is a

belief that Erasmus+ is well known in this field (however, 55% of them think that Erasmus+ is

well known in HE field).

External experts – evaluators of the application for decentralized actions held the following

opinions: 47% strongly agree that the needs of various stakeholders are addressed by Erasmus+

objectives and that the Erasmus+ is very successful in attracting various target groups in

education (61% of respondents strongly agree with the statement, whereby the categories of

agreement are not statistically significant or different when comparing general, vocational, higher

education and adult education).

However in this area, an improvement could be made. The continuation of promotional activities

can be achieved, especially with adequate dissemination and exploitation of results. As for the

greater involvement of the MESS, a more systematic cooperation between MESS and NA and

also the elimination of barriers to ensure a greater involvement of MESS in the KA3 action, this

could help to achieve an even better implementation and impact of the Erasmus+.

67

D. Internal and external coherence and complementarity

18. To what extent are the various actions that have been brought together in Erasmus+

coherent? Can you identify any existing or potential synergies between actions

within Erasmus+? Can you identify any tensions, inconsistencies or overlaps

between actions within Erasmus+

Actions integrated in the Erasmus+ are coherent (this argument is also supported by the data –

external experts agree at large with this statement, namely 56% of them; in addition no

statistically significant differences between general, vocational, higher and adult education were

found); also no tensions or inconsistencies between actions were found. Potential synergies

between actions exist, but some are not sufficiently exploited, e.g. KA3 and incentives for

learning mobility of so-called "silent partners", in this particular action also a recommendation of

greater inclusion of the MESS at national level was indicated. The realization of the latter is

possible with the elimination of the obstacles described above, with the establishment of the

structural determination of priorities and the monitoring of results (for KA1 and KA2 as well).69

The consensual group meeting has developed a concrete proposal:

a) MESS top managers should decide about the leading of KA3 project at the ministry.

b) If the decision would be positive, it is necessary to prepare everything necessary for the

implementation of the project (the removal of barriers, setting of the possible project leaders,

implementation, priorities...).

c) In case of a negative decision, the activities could be transferred to public institutions with a

formal decision of MESS top managers.

Another proposal of this group was on the regular (weekly) presentation of Erasmus+ projects at

the MESS.

The large gap between national and European policies and knowledge on those was indicated too

(different stakeholders, but mainly schools, are often not even aware of this, or they have very

limited knowledge about it), semi-structured interviews showed that this particular knowledge

increases as you move up the educational levels.

19. To what extent does Erasmus+ complement other national and international

programmes available? Can you identify and tensions, inconsistencies or overlaps

with other programmes?

The data shows that the Erasmus+ complements/upgrades national objectives and policies. In all

levels of education when asking this statement, the category of agreement was selected in most of

the cases regarding different educational levels: preschool education (51% respondents agreed),

69

Possible needs for »peer counselling» were expressed by the consensual group.

68

elementary education (45%), secondary education (53%), higher education (73%) and adult

education (61%).

Tensions and inconsistency (also in the semi-structured interviews) were mainly not detected.

Due to national legislation restrictions, teaching in a foreign (English) language at higher

education (at least to a greater extent) showed perceived tensions.

Erasmus+ complements other national and international programs that were available in

Slovenia. Also external experts supported this statement (with no statistical differences between

fields in education). Above all, this applies to three areas mainly to which attention was

especially paid in the evaluation study, primarily quality, teachers’ (and other professionals in

education) professional development and social and civic/multicultural competences.

Complementarity is to be found primarily through projects financed from the European Structural

Fund.

In any case, it is necessary at the national level, especially at the level of the MESS to identify

priorities, monitor the results of centralized and decentralized actions (in this way the

complementarity between Erasmus+ and national projects can be even more strong), and

basically to decide whether the goal is or not about increasing MESS leadership participation in

the KA3 actions.

E. European added value and sustainability

20. To what extent Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes produce effects that are

additional to the effects that would have resulted from similar actions initiated only

at regional or national level? What possibilities do you see to adjust Erasmus+ or its

successor programme in order to increase its European added value?

Respondents (in semi-structural interviews, questionnaires) are convinced that the LLP /

Erasmus+ produce effects that serve to upgrade specific actions which would be limited to the

national level only. This is applicable for decentralized and centralized actions. With regards to

the statement - the effects of Erasmus+ are additional to the effects that would have resulted from

similar actions initiated at the national (or regional) level – respondents on different education

levels agreed as follows: kindergartens (49%), elementary schools (45%), secondary schools

(45%), higher education institutions (46%), and adult education institutions (49%). With this

statement, external experts somewhat agreed (56%) and strongly agreed (41%).

In order to further increase the efficiency and particularly the European added value, the

promotion of Erasmus+ project should be strengthen in schools (and other institutions connected

with education), at the MESS.

Additionally, it should be noted that the Erasmus+ does not just cover the European geographical

area (or even the EU); eligible applicants are outside this geographical area too. In this way the

enhanced European added value of Erasmus + is strengthening as well.

69

21. To what extent Erasmus+ will be able to absorb in an effective way the sharp

increase in the budget that is foreseen in the coming years up to 2020? Could the

programme use even higher budgets in an effective way? Do you see challenges to

effectively use more money for particular actions or fields of the programme?

In principle, Erasmus+ in Slovenia is able to absorb the expected increase in the budget. 2017 and

2018 are not problematic, because the energy of the work will focus on increasing the quality of

applications. Still there are a lot of projects that are on the reserve list or are unsuccessful.

Otherwise, the same recommendations apply as for question 15 (before the increase in the budget

for actions, an increase in the budget for the management of the program would be beneficial).

As far as allocation, challenges are not expected, but the actual consumption of funds is

somewhat questionable, e.g. in the field of higher education, the absorption percentage fell from

98 to 94% (which means that it is necessary to strengthen management at the level of institutions

and their reflection and planning at the existing financial provisions).

70

6 APPENDICES (QUESTIONNAIRES AND COMPUTATIONS)

A. QUESTIONNAIRES

6.1 APPENDIX 1: LLP/ERASMUS+ BENEFICIARIES QUESTIONNAIRES

ADDITIONAL EXPLANATION:

In the study we used 4 questionnaires for final or potential beneficiaries:

- Questionnaire for preschool level.

- Questionnaire for elementary and secondary school level (including items on general and

vocational education).

- Questionnaire for higher education level.

- Questionnaire for adult learning level.

Below we have presented only one example, a questionnaire for higher education institutions.

Most of the questionnaires included the same items, however some additions were made in the

questionnaires; e.g. for preschool and school education the inclusion of statements relating to the

eTwinning, for adult learning EPALE, for higher education more items on centralized actions in

the general part were added etc.

But in all questionnaires, specific naming was also implemented (e.g. for higher education items

on pedagogical staff and researchers, in preschool education the use of the word children instead

of pupils/students/learners, also some others adjustments of inclusion on specific items were

made. Those specifics could be retrieved from the Annex 4: ANALYSIS.

In general, we used conditional sentences – if respondents assessed that they are not familiar with

something we did not asked them further for statements – in this appendix indicated as IF).

Due to the web design of the questionnaire (including IF conditions etc.) items counting here

does not totally match the counting in the database.

________________________________________________________

Dear Sir / Madam

The intent of the questionnaire below is to gain data which would enable an insight and understanding of

the influence created by the Lifelong Learning (LLP 2007–2013) and/or Erasmus+ programme (2014–

2020) on your institution / faculty / HE teachers and HE system. For questions related to the educational

system, please choose the answer representative of the higher education areas. In the first part of the

questionnaire, we are interested in general information about your institution.

The questionnaire is part of research for the mid-term Erasmus+ report for Slovenia.

71

The analyses will be published as part of the mentioned report.

_______________________________________________________

A. GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Your position is

(Please, choose one answer only.)

⃝ Erasmus+ coordinator

⃝ international office coordinator

⃝ dean

⃝ vice-dean for research

⃝ vice-dean for quality

⃝ other (please, fill in):__________

2. Where are you employed?

(Please, choose one answer only.)

⃝ university member institution

⃝ independent HE institute

⃝ higher vocation college

3. Type of organisation

(Please, choose one answer only.)

⃝ private

⃝ public

4. Please mark the study area (according to ISCED) your HE provides. If it covers more areas, choose the

predominant one:

⃝ (14) teacher training and education science

⃝ (21) arts

⃝ (22) humanities

⃝ (31) social and behavioural science

⃝ (32) journalism and information

⃝ (34) business and administration

⃝ (38) law

⃝ (42) life sciences

⃝ (44) physical sciences

⃝ (46) mathematics and statistics

⃝ (48) computing

⃝ (52) engineering and engineering trades

⃝ (54) manufacturing and processing

⃝ (58) architecture and building

⃝ (62) agriculture, forestry and fishery

⃝ (64) veterinary

72

⃝ (72) health and welfare

⃝ (76) social services

⃝ (81) personal services

⃝ (84) transport services

⃝ (85) environmental protection

⃝ (86) security services

4a) Please, write the number of full-time students (excluding the final year students in the process of

writing their thesis) enrolled in 2016/2017:

⃝ first cycle – number:____

⃝ second cycle – number:____

⃝ third cycle– number:____

4b) Please, write the number of all students (excluding the final year students in the process of writing

their thesis) enrolled in 2016/2017:

⃝ first cycle – number:____

⃝ second cycle – number:____

⃝ third cycle– number:____

5. Statistical region

(Please, choose one answer only.)

⃝ Pomurska /Mura

⃝ Podravska / Drava

⃝ Koroška / Carinthia

⃝ Savinjska / Savinja

⃝ Zasavska / Central Sava

⃝ Posavska / Lower Sava

⃝ Jugovzhodna Slovenija / Southeast Slovenia

⃝ Osrednjeslovenska / Central Slovenia

⃝ Gorenjska / Upper Carniola

⃝ Notranjsko-kraška / Littoral-Inner Carniola

⃝ Goriška /Gorizia

⃝ Obalno-kraška / Coastal-Karst

6. Which sectoral programme of the Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP 2007–2013) did you participate

in?

(Please, choose all appropriate answers.)

⃝ Grundtvig (write n˚:_______)

⃝ Study visits (write n˚:_______)

⃝ Erasmus (write n˚:_______)

⃝ Leonardo (write n˚:_______)

⃝ Comenius (write n˚:_______)

73

⃝ Jean Monnet actions – modules, chair, centres of excellence, support to associations, networks,

projects (write n˚:_______)

⃝ other (write n˚:_______)

⃝ we did not participate in the LLP

7. Which sectoral programme of Erasmus+ (decentralised actions only) have you participated in so far?

(Please, choose all appropriate answers.)

⃝ Key Action 1 – Learning Mobility of Individuals (KA1)

⃝ Key Action 2 – Cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices (KA2)

⃝ none

7a. Within an Erasmus+ - decentralised action (KA1, KA2):

⃝ we applied with a project proposal but our bid was unsuccessful.

⃝ we have not applied for a project.

7a1. Our application(s) of decentralised Erasmus+ actions (KA1, KA2) were in our opinion unsuccessful

because …

(Please, choose all appropriate answers.)

⃝ we were not sufficiently acquainted with the objectives of Erasmus+ programme.

⃝ we were not sufficiently acquainted with Erasmus+ terminology.

⃝ Erasmus+ objectives are not compatible with the objectives of our institution.

⃝ we did not pick the right partners.

⃝ we are not skilled project application writers.

⃝ we did not dedicate enough time to prepare the project application.

⃝ other (please, fill in.):_____________

7a2. We did not apply for a (KA1, KA2) project because

(Please, choose all appropriate answers.)

⃝ we are not acquainted with Erasmus+ programme.

⃝ we were not very well acquainted with Erasmus+ terminology.

⃝ we know the programme but Erasmus+ objectives are not compatible with the objectives of our

institution.

⃝ within our institution we do not have the capabilities needed for such project work.

⃝ we do not have partners abroad and do not know how to find them.

⃝ we did not dedicate enough time to prepare project application.

⃝ foreign language is a problem.

⃝ international cooperation is not part of the strategic plans of our institution.

⃝ these kind of projects entail too much administrative work.

⃝ these kind of projects entail too much extra work.

⃝ we have negative experience with Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP).

⃝ other(Please, fill in.): _____________________

74

7a3. We would like to know in greater detail about your negative experience with LLP

(Please, choose all appropriate answers.)

Our experience was negative

⃝ because our project was not accepted

⃝ we were awarded the project but it meant a lot of administration.

⃝ we were awarded the project but it meant a lot of coordination with HE teachers and heads of the

institution.

⃝ we were awarded the project but we did not get sufficient support from the national agency –

CMEPIUS.

⃝ we were awarded the project but we chose inappropriate partners from abroad.

⃝ we were awarded the project but realised later that it had been badly planned.

⃝ other (Please, fill in.):__________________

8. Which sectoral programme of Erasmus+ (centralised actions) have you participated in so far?

(Please, choose all appropriate answers.)

⃝ Key action 3 – Support to policy reform(KA3)

⃝ Jean Monnet – modules, chair, centres of excellence, support to associations, networks, projects

⃝ none

8a. Within an Erasmus- decentralised action (KA3, Jean Monnet actions):

⃝ we applied with a project proposal but our bid was unsuccessful.

⃝ we have not applied for a project.

8a1. Our application(s) of decentralised Erasmus+ actions (KA1, KA2) were in our opinion unsuccessful

because …

(Please, choose all appropriate answers.)

⃝ we were not sufficiently acquainted with the objectives of Erasmus+ programme.

⃝ we were not sufficiently acquainted with Erasmus+ terminology.

⃝ Erasmus+ objectives are not compatible with the objectives of our institution.

⃝ we did not pick the right partners.

⃝ we are not skilled project application writers.

⃝ we did not dedicate enough time to prepare the project application.

⃝ other (please, Fill in.):_____________

8a2. We did not apply for a (KA3, Jean Monnet actions) project because

(Please, choose all appropriate answers.)

⃝ we are not acquainted with Erasmus+ programme.

⃝ we were not very well acquainted with Erasmus+ terminology.

⃝ we know the programme, but Erasmus+ objectives are not compatible with the objectives of our

institution.

⃝ within our institution we do not have the capabilities needed for such project work.

⃝ we do not have partners abroad and do not know how to find them.

75

⃝ we did not dedicate enough time to prepare project application.

⃝ foreign language is a problem.

⃝ international cooperation is not part of the strategic plans of our institution.

⃝ these kind of projects entail too much administrative work.

⃝ these kind of projects entail too much extra work.

⃝ we have negative experience with Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP).

⃝ other(Please, fill in.): _____________________

8a3. We would like to know to greater detail about your negative experience in the

(Please, choose all appropriate answers.)

Our experience is negative

⃝ because our project was not accepted

⃝ we were awarded the project but it meant a lot of administration.

⃝ we were awarded the project but it meant a lot of coordination with HE teachers and heads of the

institution.

⃝ we were awarded the project but we did not get sufficient support from EACEA

⃝ we were awarded the project but we chosen inappropriate partners from abroad.

⃝ we were awarded the project but realised later that it had been badly planned.

⃝ other (Please, fill in.):__________________

9. How many Erasmus+ projects has your institution so far participated in (or still participates in)? Please,

answer separately for centralised and decentralised actions.

(Please, choose one option only on each side of the table)

Decentralised actions (KA1, KA2) Centralised actions (KA3, Jean Monnet

(modules, chair, projects etc.) – Erasmus+,

not LLP

⃝ none

⃝ one

⃝ two

⃝ three

⃝ four

⃝ five

⃝ six

⃝ seven or more

⃝ none

⃝ one

⃝ two

⃝ three

⃝ four

⃝ five

⃝ six

⃝ seven or more

10. When did your institution finish its last centralised and decentralised action under Erasmus+?

(Please, choose one option only on each side of the table)

Decentralised actions (KA1, KA2) Centralised actions (KA3, Jean Monnet

(modules, chair, projects etc.) – Erasmus+,

not LLP

⃝ in 2015

⃝ in 2016

⃝ in 2015

⃝ in 2016

76

⃝ the project is on-going the project is on-going

11. We are interested in subject areas of centralised and decentralised actions.

Do the topics of your institution's applications for decentralised actions (KA3, Jean Monnet) overlap with

those for the centralised actions (KA1, KA2)?

⃝ yes, often

⃝ yes, sometimes

⃝ no

⃝ cannot decide

12. Do you think it would be helpful for you to apply or improve your application of a decentralised action

(KA1, KA2) in the future?

(Fill in):

____________________________________________________________________

13. Do you think it would be helpful for you to apply or improve your application of a decentralised action

(KA3, Jean Monnet actions) in the future

(Fill in):

________________________________________________________________________

B. ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT MADE BY THE ERASMUS+ (and/or LLP) PROJECTS

ON YOUR INSTITUTION

We would now like you to make the following assessments. Firstly, whether the LLP and/or Erasmus+

project (or projects) had any impact on your institution. Secondly, if the project had positive or negative

impact, if it was a long-term or short-term impact. And finally, in case the project is on-going, assess the

expected impact– whether it is (was) a short-term one (noticeable only during the project duration) or

long-term one (noticeable after project completion also).

14. How do you assess the LLP and Erasmus+ project impact on the following areas in your institution

(By teachers we mean HE teaching staff.)

(In each line, please choose the adequate answer.)

LLP and/or

Erasmus+ have

impact on

Long- term

negative

impact

Short-term

negative

impact

The project

had no

impact

Short-term

positive

impact

Long- term

positive

impact

Staff dedication to

common objectives

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Culture of

collegiality among

staff

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Exchange of students ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

77

with partner

institutions

Students’ excursions

abroad

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Contacts of students

with foreign students

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Contacts of

academics with

foreign academics

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Cooperation of

academics with

management staff

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Management staff

support to academics

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Management staff

awareness of

academic’s work

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Provision of the

compulsory

programme at the

institution

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Provision of

additional activities

for students

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Institution’s

reputation in the

environment

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Readiness of staff to

participates in new

projects

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Openness of the

institution towards

the local and broader

community

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Cooperation with

others institutions in

Slovenia

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Readiness of staff to

establish contacts

with institutions

abroad

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Dialogue among ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

78

staff

Use of ICT at the

institution

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Staff foreign

language

communication skills

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Cooperation among

teachers (project

work, international

cooperation)

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Facilitate the

identification of

themes for

cooperation in

national projects

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Functioning in

national projects

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Selection success in

national projects

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Other (Please, fill

in.):______________

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

15. Do you measure the project impact on the institution after the project completion also?

(Please, choose one answer only.)

⃝ no

⃝ yes

15a1. In what way? (Please, fill in.):_______________________________________________________

15a2. How often? (Please, fill in.):_________________________________________________________

16. How do you assess the LLP and Erasmus+ project impact on the work of your academics in your

institution in the following areas?

(In each line, please choose the adequate answer.)

LLP and/or

Erasmus+ have

impact on

Long- term

negative

impact

Short-term

negative

impact

The project

had no impact

Short-term

positive impact

Long- term

positive impact

Use of

cooperative

learning in class

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Promotion of

individual work

in class

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

79

Implementation

of inter-curricular

link

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Use of new

learning tools and

resources

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Cooperation and

coordination of

academics

(project work,

cooperation in

international

projects)

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Academics’

workload

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Awareness about

new forms and

methods of

teaching

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Use of diverse

teaching forms

and methods

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Inclusion of own

cultural heritage

in teaching

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Abilities of

academics to

teach special

needs students

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Development of

computer skills

(ICT skills)

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Academics’

social

competencies

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Academics’

organizational

and leadership

skills (ability and

readiness to

organize and

manage projects

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

80

and teams)

Training for the

use of ICT

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Foreign language

training of

teachers

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Training of

academics for the

use of new

methods and

forms of teaching

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Relationship

between

academics and

students

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Relationship

between

academics and

management staff

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Awareness of

academics of

common

European heritage

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Awareness of

academics of

European cultural

and moral values

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Academics’

respect for

different cultures

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Knowledge on

European

institutions and

their operation

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Knowledge and

understanding of

education systems

in partner

countries

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Knowledge of

foreign didactical

environments

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

81

Motivation of

academics for the

introduction of

changes and new

teaching methods

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Academics’

dedication for a

democratic dialog

with students

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Integration of

students in the

decision-making

process regarding

the course of

learning

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Students’

mobility abroad

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Cooperation with

researchers from

abroad

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Preparation of

common

publications with

co-authors from

abroad

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Publishing in

international

journals and

publishing houses

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Monitoring of

foreign literature

for understanding

current

developments

within the

profession

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Mobility of

students from

abroad to your

home institution

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Mobility of home

academics and

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

82

researchers

abroad

Mobility of

academics and

researchers from

abroad to your

home institution

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Invitation to

foreign academics

to conduct

lectures at your

home institution

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Lecturing in a

foreign language

at your home

institution

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Using

international

literature and

topics in teaching

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Developing

joint/double

degree

programmes

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Other (Please, fill

in.):______

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

C. ASSESMENT OF THE COMPATIBILITY OF ERASMUS+/LLP WITH THE NATIONAL

STRATEGIES, ASSESSMENTS OF THE IMPACT ON YOUR INSTITUTION AND ON

THE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM

Now we would like you to assess whether the LLP and/or Erasmus+ programme is compatible with the

national objectives / strategies. Please assess if the LLP/Erasmus+ project (projects) create any impact on

the HE system. Assess if the impact was positive or negative and if it was short-term or long-term. In case

the project is on-going, assess the expected impact– whether it is (was) a short-term one (noticeable only

during the project duration) or long-term one (noticeable after project completion also).

17. How well do you know Lifelong Learning and Erasmus+ programmes?

(In each line, please choose the adequate answer.)

83

I do not

know it.

I have heard

about it but do not

know what it is

about.

I know it. I know it

well.

LLP ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Erasmus+ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

18. To what extent do you agree with the statements below? (Your answers relate to the HE system)

Strongly

disagree

Disagree Neither disagree

neither agree

Agree Strongly

agree

The needs of HE institutions

are compatible with national

guidelines in HE field.

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Objectives of LLP/Erasmus+

are compatible with national

HE objectives.

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

LLP/Erasmus+ complement

/ build upon national

objectives/guidelines of HE.

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

LLP/Erasmus+ produce

effects that are an upgrade of

those that would be incurred

in the actions only at

national level.

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

19. Internationalisation is a process of integrating the international, intercultural and global dimension

with the goals and activities (teaching, learning) of your organisation / institution. Do the activities listed

below contribute to the internationalisation of your organisation?

(In each line, please choose the adequate answer.)

Organisational activities which contribute to the

internationalisation

Yes No I can not

decide

Curriculum implementation ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Methods of teaching and learning ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Enrichment activities ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Cooperation with the local environment ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Research/project activities ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Twinning with foreign institutions ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Implementation and participation in international camps and

competitions

⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Hosting foreign students ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Implementation of projects (e.g. voluntary work) ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

84

Integration of immigrants in HE in Slovenia ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Participation in international mobility projects ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Partnerships in LLP/Erasmus+

Mobility of management staff abroad (in the context of HE) ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Mobility of academics abroad ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Mobility of students abroad ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Mobility of foreign academics in your home institution ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Other (Please, fill in.):___________________________ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

20. Does internationalisation have any impact on the higher education system (and to what extent)?

Please, relate your answers to the system, not only your organisation. Assess if the impact was positive

or negative and for what duration. In case the project is on-going, assess the expected impact– whether it

is (was) a short-term one (noticeable only during the project duration) or long-term one (noticeable after

project completion also).

(In each line, please choose the adequate answer.)

Internationalization

have impact on

Long- term

negative

impact

Short-term

negative

impact

The project

had no

impact

Short-term

positive

impact

Long- term

positive

impact

Quality of HE

institutions

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Quality of teaching ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Quality of learning ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Quality of HE system ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Other (Please, fill in.):

___________________

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

21. How do you evaluate the impact of the LLP/Erasmus+ on the listed areas (within the system, not only

for your institution).

(In each line, please choose the adequate answer.)

Impact of

LLP/Erasmus+ on

Long- term

negative

impact

Short-term

negative

impact

The project

had no

impact

Short-term

positive

impact

Long- term

positive

impact

Fostering quality

improvements

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Innovations ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Internationalization of

HE system

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Cooperation of

different stakeholders

(academics, policy

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

85

makers, local

community, …)

Promote the

emergence and raise

awareness of a

European lifelong

learning area

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Support for national

HE policies

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Upgrading national

HE policies

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Dissemination of good

practices within

Slovenia

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Dissemination of good

practices in Europe

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

A general increase of

quality of

learning/teaching

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Professional

development of

academics

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Better use of EU

transparency and

recognition tools

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

Other (Please, fill

in.):_______________

⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝ ⃝

22. Do you have any message for us?

⃝ no

⃝ yes (Please, fill in.):______________

Thank you very much.

86

6.2 Appendix: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR EXTERNAL EXPERTS – EVALUATORS OF

DECENTRALIZED ACTIONS

I. General about you

1. In which year have you been an evaluator of the national agency CMEPIUS? (You can choose more

than one option.)

- 2007

- 2008

- 2009

- 2010

- 2011

- 2012

- 2013

- 2014

- 2015

- 2016

- 2017 (Please, choose this option if you evaluated KA1 and/or you are planning to evaluate KA2

for the year 2017.)

2. In which programmes/actions have you been CMEPIUS evaluator? (You can choose more than one

option.)

- Erasmus+ (2014–2020) - school education

- Erasmus+ (2014–2020) - vocational education

- Erasmus+ (2014–2020) - higher education

- Erasmus+ (2014–2020) - adult education

- LLP (2007–2013) - school education (Comenius)

- LLP (2007–2013) - vocational education (Leonardo da Vinci)

- LLP (2007–2013) - higher education (Erasmus)

- LLP (2007–2013) - adult education (Grundtvig)

3. Which actions have you evaluated in the Erasmus+? (You can choose more than one option.)

- KA1

- KA2

4. In which field are you an expert? (Please, choose the field that you are covering the most.)

- school education

- vocational education

- higher education

- adult education

87

5. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the quality of the project applications, in

comparison to the Erasmus+ and previous programme (LLP)?

In Erasmus+ …

Very

low

Low Average High Very

high

Don’t

know

The proportion of a quality application is

Competition for grants in my expert field

(general, vocational, higher, adult education)

is

The proportion of the project which focuses

on new questions is

The proportion of the project using new

methods is

The proportion of the project that focuses on

questions which are high on the political

agenda in Slovenia is

The proportion of the project that focuses on

questions which are high on the political

agenda in Europe is

In LLP …

Very

low

Low Average High Very

high

Don’t

know

The proportion of a quality application is

Competition for grants in my expert field

(general, vocational, higher, adult education)

is

The proportion of the project which focuses

on new questions is

The proportion of the project using new

methods is

The proportion of the project that focuses on

questions which are high on the political

agenda in Slovenia is

The proportion of the project that focuses on

questions which are high on the political

agenda in Europe is

88

6. Which of the award criteria below is the most demanding and which is the easier to achieve (in the

application)?

Award criteria In the

application,

the easiest

to prove

In the

application, the

most demanding

to prove

Relevance of the project

Quality of the project design and implementation

Quality of the project team and the cooperation

arrangements

Impact and dissemination

II. Assessment of the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, internal and external

complementarity, and European added value and sustainability

Erasmus+ has general and specific objectives.

If you know them well, it is not necessary to read them in the text below. You can start with the

question.

Note: General objectives were visible for the respondents (in an online version of the questionnaire) as

well as specific objectives for education and training.

7. You are answering for a field that you choose for your expert field.

How far do you agree with the following statements?

LLP and/or Erasmus+ in Slovenia contribute

to improving the level of key competences

and skills, with …

Not at

all

Very

little

Somewhat To a

great

extent

Can not

decide

regard to their relevance for the labour market

regard to their contribution to a cohesive

society

increased opportunities for learning mobility

strengthened cooperation between the world of

education and training and the world of work

In Slovenia VŽU and/or Erasmus+ contribute to

the fostering of…

Not at

all

Very

little

Somewhat To a

great

extent

Can not

decide

quality

innovations

internationalization at the level of education

89

institutions

internationalization at the level of training

institutions

enhanced transnational cooperation between

education and training providers and other

stakeholders

In Slovenia LLP and/or Erasmus+ contribute

to promote the emergence and raise

awareness of a European lifelong learning

area, by …

Not at

all

Very

little

Somewhat To a

great

extent

Can not

decide

complementing policy reforms at national level

supporting the modernization of education and

training system

enhancing policy cooperation

bettering the use of EU transparency and

recognition tools

disseminating good practices and raising

awareness about that in European area

In Slovenia LLP and/or Erasmus+ contribute

to …

Not at

all

Very

little

Somewhat To a

great

extent

Can not

decide

better teaching and learning of foreign

languages

promoting the EU’s broad linguistic diversity

and intercultural awareness

In Slovenia LLP and/or Erasmus+ VŽU

and/or Erasmus+ contribute to the

enhancement of the international dimension

of education and training, in particular

through …

Not at

all

Very

little

Somewhat To a

great

extent

Can not

decide

cooperation between Programme and Partner-

Country institutions in the field of vocational

education and training

In Slovenia LLP and/or Erasmus+ contribute

to the enhancement of the international

dimension of education and training, in

particular through …

Not at

all

Very

little

Somewhat To a

great

extent

Not at

all

cooperation between Programme and Partner-

90

Country institutions in the field of higher

education

increasing the attractiveness of European higher

education institutions

the promotion of mobility

8. Select 1 general objective of the LLP/Erasmus+ (e.g. school drop-outs, participation in preschool

programs, adult participation in lifelong learning graduates, youth employment, the proportion of 15-

year-olds with low knowledge of mathematics, science, literacy, etc.) and 1 specific objective in the

field of education (e.g. quality, innovation, learning/teaching languages, EU transparency and

recognition tools etc.), to which the LLP/Erasmus+ had/have the maximum and minimum impact or

effect in Slovenia (in the area in which you are expert – e. g. general, vocational, higher education,

adult education). (Please, fill in and comment.)

Note: List of all general and specific objectives is presented by the online system.

General programme objective to which

LLP/Erasmus+ projects (KA1 or KA2)

have the minimal effect

Please, fill in

(objective):

Comment on why you think

so. (What are the causes?)

General programme objective to which

LLP/Erasmus+ projects (KA1 or KA2)

have the maximum effect

Please, fill in

(objective):

Comment on why you think

so. (What are the causes?)

Specific programme objective (in

education and training field) to which

VŽU/Erasmus+ projects (KA1 or KA2)

have the minimal effect

Please, fill in

(objective):

Comment on why you think

so. (What are the causes?)

Specific programme objective (in

education and training field) to which

LLP/Erasmus+ projects (KA1 or KA2)

have the maximum effect

Please, fill in

(objective):

Comment on why you think

so. (What are the causes?)

9. How far do you agree with the statements below? Answer for the field that you choose as your expert

field (for Slovenia).

Not at

all

Very

little

Somewhat To a

great

extent

Can not

decide

LLP/Erasmus+ contribute to the realization of

the specific objectives of Erasmus+.

The progress on the realization of the specific

objectives contributed to the realization of the

Erasmus+ general objectives.

Erasmus+ actions influence national policy

developments.

91

Integration of several programmes into

Erasmus+ made the programme more effective.

Integration of several programmes into

Erasmus+ contributed to the efficiency of

programme implementation at the level of

beneficiaries and participants.

The integration of several programmes into

Erasmus+ reduced the efficiency of programme

implementation at the level of beneficiaries and

participants.

Approaches and tools that are used for the

disseminating and exploiting of the results of

Erasmus+/LLP are effective.

Erasmus+ objectives continue to address the

needs or problems they meant to solve.

In Slovenia, the identified needs/problems,

which Erasmus+ meant to solve, are still

relevant.

The needs or problems evolved in such a way

that the objectives of Erasmus+ need to be

adjusted.

The needs of different stakeholders are

addressed with Erasmus+ objectives.

Erasmus+ is, in attracting and reaching target

audiences and groups, successful.

Erasmus+ is in the field of education well

known.

The various actions that have been brought

together in Erasmus+ are coherent.

Erasmus+ complement other national

programmes (projects) available in Slovenia.

Erasmus+ complement other international

programmes (projects) available in Slovenia.

Erasmus+ (LLP) produce effects that are

additional to the effects that would have

resulted from similar actions initiated only at

the regional or national level.

10. What, in your opinion, can increase the efficiency of the Erasmus+ in Slovenia (in the field in which

expert you are)? (Please, fill in.)_______________________________________________________

92

11. What possibilities do you see to adjust Erasmus+ in order to increase European added value (in the

field in which expert you are)? (Please, fill in.)________________________________________

12. Do you have any messages for us? (Please, fill in.)_____________________________________

Thank you.

93

6.3 APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NATIONAL AGENCY EXPERTS

1. Which is your field for project monitoring (reports)?

Please choose only one option. If you were monitoring projects from more than one field, please

fill in the additional questionnaire (in which a different field from the one here should be chosen):

- general education

- vocational education

- higher education

- adult education

2. In which programmes/actions have you monitored interim and/or final reports? (You can

choose more than one option.)

- Erasmus+ - general education

- Erasmus+ - vocational education

- Erasmus+ - higher education

- Erasmus+ - adult education

- LLP - general education (Comenius)

- LLP - vocational education (Leonardo da Vinci)

- LLP - higher education (Erasmus)

- LLP - adult education (Grundtvig)

3. How far do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the quality of the project ,

in comparison to the Erasmus+ and previous programme (LLP)?

(Please consider only approved projects/report, not all project applications)

In Erasmus+ …

Very

low

Low Average High Very

high

Don’t

know

The proportion of a quality projects is

The proportion of the project which

focuses on new questions is

The proportion of the project using new

methods is

The proportion of the project that focuses

on questions which are high on the

political agenda in Slovenia is

The proportion of the project that focuses

on questions which are high on the

political agenda in Europe is

If you were not monitoring projects in the LLP programme, please skip the following question and

continue with the next question.

94

In LLP …

Very

low

Low Average High Very

high

Don’t

know

The proportion of a quality projects was

The proportion of the project which

focuses on new questions was

The proportion of the project using new

methods was

The proportion of the project that focuses

on questions which are high on the

political agenda in Slovenia was

The proportion of the project that focuses

on questions which are high on the

political agenda in Europe was

4. Which of the award criteria below is the most demanding for contractors to explain in Erasmus+

(LLP) and which is the easiest?

Award criteria In the

report, the

easiest to

explain

In the

report, the

most

demanding

to explain

I don’t

know

Relevance of the project

Quality of the project design and implementation

Quality of the project team and the cooperation arrangements

Impact and dissemination

5. Comparing Erasmus+ with previous programme (LLP), the quality of interim/final reports:

(Please choose only one option.)

- improved

- deteriorated

- remained the same

- I do not know because I did not work in one of the programmes.

6. Comparing Erasmus+ with previous programme (LLP), compliance of project and project results

with national priorities:

(Please choose only one option.)

- improved

- deteriorated

- remained the same

- I do not know because I did not work in one of the programmes.

95

7. Comparing Erasmus+ with previous programme (LLP), compliance of project and project

results with European priorities:

(Please choose only one option.)

- improved

- deteriorated

- remained the same

- I do not know because I did not work in one of the programmes.

8. Comparing Erasmus+ with previous programme (LLP), achieving results and project impacts:

(Please choose only one option.)

- improved

- deteriorated

- remained the same

- I do not know because I did not work in one of the programmes.

Thank you.

96

B. COMPUTATIONS FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRES

6.4 Appendix: Comparisons of indicators between different levels of education

The grey coloured fields indicate where, based on the Cronbach alpha coefficient value, analyses and

comparisons between different educational levels were possible. That is, where the Cronbach alpha

coefficient was strong high enough for all educational levels. These comparisons take only variables that

were included in all beneficiaries’ questionnaires.

Table 1: Indicators for preschool education

LEVEL INDICATOR VARIABLES No. of variables No. of

responses

Cronbach

alpha

INS

TIT

UT

ION

S

Teaching (professional

development)

q24aa, q24ab, q24ac,

q24ad, q24ag, q24ah,

q24ap, q24ax, q24aw,

q20g, q20h, q24ak,

q24an, q20p, q24ao,

q20q, q24aj, q24al,

q24am, q24ai

20 21 0.958

Organizational climate

q20a, q20b, q20d,

q20e, q20f, q20o,

q20r, q24ae, q24aq,

q24ay, q24az

11 21 0.884

International learning

mobility - - - -

Cooperation with others q20m q20l q20j q20n

q20c 5 22 0.779

National projects q20s q20t q20u 3 23 0.906

Internationalization

Q29a, Q29b, Q29c,

Q29d, Q29e, Q29f,

Q29g, Q29h, Q29i,

Q29j, Q29k, Q29l,

Q29m, Q29n

14 25 0.89

European added value q24ar, q24as, q24at,

q24au, q24av, q24af 6 21 0.84

SY

ST

EM

National priorities/

guidelines/objectives

q28a, q28b, q28c,

q28d, q28e 5 22 0.87

Internationalization q30a, q30b, q30c,

q30d, q31c 5 45 0.857

97

Other impacts - - - -

Table 2: Indicators for elementary education

LEVEL INDICATOR VARIABLES No. of variables No. of

responses

Cronbach

alpha

INS

TIT

UT

ION

S

Teaching (professional

development)

q24aa, q24ab, q24ac,

q24ad, q24ag, q24ah,

q24ap, q24aw, q24ax,

q20j, q20k, q24ak,

q24an, q20s, q24ao,

q20t, q24aj, q24al,

q24am, q24ai

20 72 0.925

Organizational climate q20a, q20b, q20g,

q20h, q20i, q20r,

q20u, q24ae, q24aq,

q24ay, q24az

11 74 0.874

International learning

mobility

- - - -

Cooperation with others q20p, q20o, q20m,

q20q, q20e, q20f

6 79 0.791

National projects q20v, q20w, q20x 3 84 0.898

Internationalization Q29a, Q29b, Q29c,

Q29d, Q29e, Q29f,

Q29g, Q29h, Q29i,

Q29j, Q29k, Q29l,

Q29m, Q29n, Q29o

15 80 0.854

European added value q24ar, q24as, q24at,

q24au, q24av

6 78 0.736

SY

ST

EM

National priorities/

guidelines/objectives

q28a, q28b, q28c,

q28d, q28e

5 169 0.979

Internationalization q30a, q30b, q30c,

q30d

5 118 0.918

Other impacts - - - -

Table 3: Indicators for secondary education

LEVEL INDICATOR VARIABLES No. of

variables

No. of

responses

Cronbach

alpha

INS

TIT

U

TIO

NS

Teaching (professional

development)

q24aa, q24ab, q24ac,

q24ad, q24ag, q24ah,

q24ap, q24aw, q24ax,

q20j, q20k, q24ak,

20 54 0.925

98

q24an, q20s, q24ao,

q20t, q24aj, q24al,

q24am, q24ai

Organizational climate q20a, q20b, q20g,

q20h, q20i, q20r,

q20u, q24ae, q24aq,

q24ay, q24az

11 51 0.88

International learning

mobility

- - - -

Cooperation with others q20p, q20o, q20m,

q20q, q20e, q20f

6 56 0.787

National projects q20v, q20w, q20x 3 56 0.824

Internationalization Q29a, Q29b, Q29c,

Q29d, Q29e, Q29f,

Q29g, Q29h, Q29i,

Q29j, Q29k, Q29l,

Q29m, Q29n, Q29o

15 35 0.579

European added value q24ar, q24as, q24at,

q24au, q24av, q24af

6 54 0.695

SIS

TE

M

National priorities/

guidelines/objectives

q28a, q28b, q28c,

q28d, q28e

5 36 0.586

Internationalization q30a, q30b, q30c,

q30d , q31c

5 52 0.841

Other impacts - - - -

Table 4: Indicators for higher education

LEVEL INDICATOR VARIABLES No. of

variables

No. of

responses

Cronbach

alpha

INS

TIT

UT

ION

S

Teaching (professional

development)

q30aa, q30ab, q30ac,

q30ad, q30ag, q30ah,

q30ap, q30ax, q30ay,

q26j, q26k, q30ak,

q30an, q26s, q30ao,

q26r, q30aj, q30al,

q30am, q30ai

20 20 0.886

Organizational climate q26a, q26b, q26g,

q26h, q26i, q26q,

q30ae, q30aq, q30az,

q30ba, q30ar

11 22 0.775

International learning q26c, q30bi, q30bg, 6 22 0.806

99

mobility q26d, q30bb, q30bh

Cooperation with others q26o, q26m, q26p,

q26e, q26f, q30bc,

q30bd, q30bm

8 22 0.446

National projects q26u, q26v, q26w 3 27 0.874

Internationalization Q35a, Q35b, Q35c,

Q35d, Q35e, Q35f,

Q35g, Q35h, Q35i,

Q35j, Q35k, Q35l,

Q35m, Q35n, Q35o,

Q35p

16 26 0.359

European added value q30as, q30at, q30au,

q30av, q30aw, q30af

6 22 0.802

SY

ST

EM

National priorities/

guidelines/objectives

q34a, q34b, q34c,

q34d

4 26 0.694

Internationalization q36a, q36b, q36c,

q36d, q37c

5 25 0.898

Other impacts q37d, q37e, q37l 3 25 0.618

Table 5: Indicators for adult education

LEVEL INDICATOR VARIABLES No. of

variables

No. of

responses

Cronbach

alpha

INS

TIT

UT

ION

S

Teaching (professional

development)

q22aa, q22ab, q22ac,

q22ad, q22ag, q22ah,

q22ap, q22ax, q22ay,

q18i, q18j, q22ak,

q22an, q18q, q22ao,

q18r, q22aj, q22al,

q22am, q22ai

20 31 0.907

Organizational climate q18a, q18b, q18f,

q18g, q18h, q18p,

q22ae, q22aq, q22az,

q22ba, q22ar

11 29 0.874

International learning

mobility

- - - -

Cooperation with others q18n, q18l, q18o,

q18d, q18e

5 34 0.496

National projects q18t, q18u, q18v 3 33 0.748

100

Internationalization Q26a, Q26b, Q26c,

Q26d, Q26e, Q27a,

Q27b, Q27c, Q27d,

Q27e, Q27f, Q27g,

Q27h, Q27i, Q27j,

Q27k, Q27l, Q27m,

Q27n, Q27o

20 27 0.387

European added value q22as, q22at, q22au,

q22av, q22aw, q22af

6 31 0.726

SY

ST

EM

National priorities/

guidelines/objectives

q26a, q26b, q26c,

q26d, q26e

5 28 0.869

Internationalization q28a, q28b, q28c,

q28d, q29c

5 43 0.914

Other impacts q29d, q29e, q29l 3 44 0.817

101

6.5 Appendix: Comparisons of differences between groups of respondents

based on Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis test

With Chi-square statistics we compared groups of respondents (educational levels).

Results:70

Differences between educational levels

Chi-square ꞊ 53.62, p < 0.000. There is statistical significance between the groups of respondents. LLP is

the less known in kindergartens and elementary schools, and the best known in secondary schools and

higher education.

Differences within educational levels:

- Preschool education:

Chi-square =2.24; p=.523, results are not statistically significant.

- Elementary school:

Chi-square =15.07; p=.002, results are statistically significant at p < .05.

They know Erasmus+ better.

- Secondary school: two categories were combined: don’t know”, “I have heard about it but do not

know what it is about”.

Chi-square =15.88; p=.000, results are statistically significant at p < .05.

They know Erasmus+ better.

- Higher education: differences were computed only between two categories “I know” and “I know

it well”.

Chi-square =1.13; p=.288, results are not statistically significant.

- Adult education:

Chi-square =1.93; p=.588, results are not statistically significant.

The analyses below use cross tabulations and the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test for significance of the

differences. From the school database (school questionnaire) we used the answers of those participating in

Comenius (assuming that they represent the general education) and Leonardo da Vinci (assumption that

they represent vocational education).

70

Some of the categories were combined.

102

Table 6: Q9a (Comenius) * Q26a (LLP)

Crosstabs

Q26a Total

I do not know

it

I have heard

about it but do

not know what it

is about

I know it I know it well

Q9a No 25 31.6% 23 29.1% 26 32.9% 5 6.3% 79 100.0%

Yes 7 6.5% 14 13.1% 53 49.5% 33 30.8% 107 100.0%

Total 32 17.2% 37 19.9% 79 42.5% 38 20.4% 186 100.0%

Q9a and Q26a are related (Pearson χ2(3)=38.839, p<.05 (two-tailed)), differences in percentages in Q26a

are significant on the categories of Q9a (K-W χ2(1)=38.170, p<.05 (two-tailed)).

Table 7: Q9a (Comenius) * Q26b (Erasmus+)

Crosstabs

Q26b Total

I do not know

it

I have heard

about it but do

not know what

it is about

I know it I know it well

Q9a No 10 12.7% 16 20.3% 34 43.0% 19 24.1% 79 100.0%

Yes 3 2.8% 4 3.7% 50 45.9% 52 47.7% 109 100.0%

Total 13 6.9% 20 10.6% 84 44.7% 71 37.8% 188 100.0%

Q9a and Q26b are related (Pearson χ2(3)=25.210, p<.05 (two-tailed)), differences in percentages in Q26b

are significant on the categories of Q9a (K-W χ2(1)=20.588, p<.05 (two-tailed)).

Table 8: Q9a (Comenius) * Q26c (eTwinning)

Crosstabs

Q26c Total

I do not

know it

I have heard

about it but do

not know what it

is about

I know it I know it

well

Q9a No 16 20.3% 22 27.8% 33 41.8% 8 10.1% 79 100.0%

Yes 7 6.5% 16 14.8% 60 55.6% 25 23.1% 108 100.0%

Total 23 12.3% 38 20.3% 93 49.7% 33 17.6% 187 100.0%

Q9a and Q26c are related (Pearson χ2(3)=16.976, p<.05 (two-tailed)), differences in percentages in Q26c

are significant on the categories of Q9a (K-W χ2(1)=16.232, p<.05 (two-tailed)).

103

Table 9: Q9a (Comenius) * Q26aRec (LLP)

Crosstabs

Q26aRec Total

I do not know it / I have heard about it

but do not know what it is about

I know it / I know

it well

Q9a No 48 60.8% 31 39.2% 79 100.0%

Yes 21 19.6% 86 80.4% 107 100.0%

Total 69 37.1% 117 62.9% 186 100.0%

Q9a and Q26a are related (Pearson χ2(1)=32.952, p<.05 (two-tailed)), differences in percentages in Q26a

are significant on the categories of Q9a (K-W χ2(1)=32.774, p<.05 (two-tailed)).

Table 10: Q9a (Comenius) * Q26bRec (Erasmus+)

Crosstabs

Q26bRec Total

I do not know it / I have heard about it

but do not know what it is about

I know it / I know it

well

Q9a No 26 32.9% 53 67.1% 79 100.0%

Yes 7 6.4% 102 93.6% 109 100.0%

Total 33 17.6% 155 82.4% 188 100.0%

Q9a and Q26b are related (Pearson χ2(3)=22.208, p<.05 (two-tailed)), differences in percentages in Q26b

are significant on the categories of Q9a (K-W χ2(1)=22.090, p<.05 (two-tailed)).

Table 11: Q9a (Comenius) * Q26cRec (eTwinning)

Crosstabs

Q26cRec Total

I do not know it / I have heard about it but

do not know what it is about

I know it / I know it

well

Q9a No 38 48.1% 41 51.9% 79 100.0%

Yes 23 21.3% 85 78.7% 108 100.0%

Total 61 32.6% 126 67.4% 187 100.0%

Q9a and Q26c are related (Pearson χ2(3)=14.915, p<.05 (two-tailed)), differences in percentages in Q26c

are significant on the categories of Q9a (K-W χ2(1)=18.435, p<.05 (two-tailed)).

Table 12: Q9b (Leonardo da Vinci) * Q26a (LLP)

Crosstabs

Q26a Total

I do not know

it

I have heard

about it but do

not know what it

is about

I know it I know it well

104

Q9b No 32 20.4% 36 22.9% 62 39.5% 27 17.2% 157 100.0%

Yes 0 0.0% 1 3.4% 17 58.6% 11 37.9% 29 100.0%

Total 32 17.2% 37 19.9% 79 42.5% 38 20.4% 186 100.0%

Q9b and Q26a are related (Pearson χ2(3)=17.841, p<.05 (two-tailed)), differences in percentages in Q26a

are significant on the categories of Q9b (K-W χ2(1)=16.740, p<.05 (two-tailed)).

Table 13: Q9b (Leonardo da Vinci) * Q26b (Erasmus+)

Crosstabs

Q26b Total

I do not know

it

I have heard

about it but do

not know what

it is about

I know it I know it well

Q9

b

No 13 8.2% 20 12.7% 76 48.1% 49 31.0% 158 100.0%

Yes 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 8 26.7% 22 73.3% 30 100.0%

Total 13 6.9% 20 10.6% 84 44.7% 71 37.8% 188 100.0%

Q9b and Q26b are related (Pearson χ2(3)=20.815, p<.05 (two-tailed)), differences in percentages in Q26b

are significant on the categories of Q9b (K-W χ2(1)=20.172, p<.05 (two-tailed)).

Table 14: Q9b (Leonardo da Vinci) * Q26c (eTwinning)

Crosstabs

Q26c Total

I do not know

it

I have heard

about it but do

not know what

it is about

I know it I know it well

Q9

b

No 22 14.0% 33 21.0% 76 48.4% 26 16.6% 157 100.0%

Yes 1 3.3% 5 16.7% 17 56.7% 7 23.3% 30 100.0%

Total 23 12.3% 38 20.3% 93 49.7% 33 17.6% 187 100.0%

Q9b and Q26c are NOT related (Pearson χ2(3)=3.571, p>.05 (two-tailed)), differences in percentages in

Q26c are NOT significant on the categories of Q9b (K-W χ2(1)=3.012, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

105

Table 15: Q9b (Leonardo da Vinci) * Q26aRec (LLP)

Crosstabs

Q26aRec Total

I do not know it / I have

heard about it but do not

know what it is about

I know it / I know it

well

Q9b No 68 43.3% 89 56.7% 157 100.0%

Yes 1 3.4% 28 96.6% 29 100.0%

Total 69 37.1% 117 62.9% 186 100.0%

Q9b and Q26a are related (Pearson χ2(1)=16.670, p<.05 (two-tailed)), differences in percentages in Q26a

are significant on the categories of Q9b (K-W χ2(1)=16.580, p<.05 (two-tailed)).

Table 16: Q9b (Leonardo da Vinci) * Q26bRec (Erasmus+)

Crosstabs

Q26bRec Total

I do not know it / I have

heard about it but do not

know what it is about

I know it / I know it

well

Q9b No 33 20.9% 125 79.1% 158 100.0%

Yes 0 0.0% 30 100.0% 30 100.0%

Total 33 17.6% 155 82.4% 188 100.0%

Q9b and Q26b are related (Pearson χ2(1)=7.600, p<.05 (two-tailed)), differences in percentages in Q26b

are significant on the categories of Q9b (K-W χ2(1)=7.759, p<.05 (two-tailed)).

Table 17: Q9b (Leonardo da Vinci) * Q26cRec (eTwinning)

Crosstabs

Q26cRec Total

I do not know it / I

have heard about it

but do not know

what it is about

I know it / I know it

well

Q9b No 55 35.0% 102 65.0% 157 100.0%

Yes 6 20.0% 24 80.0% 30 100.0%

Total 61 32.6% 126 67.4% 187 100.0%

Q9b and Q26c are NOT related (Pearson χ2(1)=2.589, p>.05 (two-tailed)), differences in percentages in

Q26c are NOT significant on the categories of Q9b (K-W χ2(1)=2.575, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

106

Table 18: Q4 (elementary/secondary school) * Q26a (LLP)

Crosstabs

Q26a

Total

I do not

know it

I have heard

about it but do

not know what

it is about

I know it I know it

well

Q4 Elementary

school

28 21.7% 33 25.6% 43 33.3% 25 19.4% 129 100.0%

Secondary

school

4 7.3% 4 7.3% 35 63.6% 12 21.8% 55 100.0%

Total 32 17.4% 37 20.1% 78 42.4% 37 20.1% 184 100.0%

Q4 and Q26a are related (Pearson χ2(3)=19.513, p<.05 (two-tailed)), differences in percentages in Q26a

are significant on the categories of Q4 (K-W χ2(1)=9.573, p<.05 (two-tailed)).

Table 19: Q4 (elementary/secondary school) * Q26b (Erasmus+)

Crosstabs

Q26b

Total

I do not

know it

I have heard

about it but do

not know what

it is about

I know it I know it

well

Q4 Elementary

school

12 9.2% 20 15.4% 60 46.2% 38 29.2% 130 100.0%

Secondary

school

1 1.8% 0 0.0% 24 42.9% 31 55.4% 56 100.0%

Total 13 7.0% 20 10.8% 84 45.2% 69 37.1% 186 100.0%

Q4 and Q26b are related (Pearson χ2(3)=19.015, p<.05 (two-tailed)), differences in percentages in Q26b

are significant on the categories of Q4 (K-W χ2(1)=17.284, p<.05 (two-tailed)).

107

Table 20: Q4 (elementary/secondary school) * Q26c (eTwinning)

Crosstabs

Q26c

Total

I do not

know it

I have heard

about it but

do not know

what it is

about

I know it I know it

well

Q4 Elementary

school

19 14.7% 23 17.8% 65 50.4% 22 17.1% 129 100.0%

Secondary

school

4 7.1% 14 25.0% 28 50.0% 10 17.9% 56 100.0%

Total 23 12.4% 37 20.0% 93 50.3% 32 17.3% 185 100.0%

Q4 and Q26c are NOT related (Pearson χ2(3)=2.827, p>.05 (two-tailed)), differences in percentages in

Q26c are NOT significant on the categories of Q4 (K-W χ2(1)=0.147, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

Table 21: Q4 (elementary/secondary school) * Q26aRec (LLP)

Crosstabs

Q26aRec

Total

I do not know it / I have

heard about it but do not

know what it is about

I know it / I

know it well

Q4 Elementary school 61 47.3% 68 52.7% 129 100.0%

Secondary school 8 14.5% 47 85.5% 55 100.0%

Total 69 37.5% 115 62.5% 184 100.0%

Q4 and Q26aRec are related (Pearson χ2(1)=17.637, p<.05 (two-tailed)), differences in percentages in

Q26c are significant on the categories of Q4 (K-W χ2(1)=17.541, p<.05 (two-tailed)).

Table 22: Q4 (elementary/secondary school) * Q26bRec (Erasmus+)

Crosstabs

Q26bRec Total

I do not know it / I have heard

about it but do not know what

it is about

I know it / I

know it well

Q4 Elementary school 32 24.6% 98 75.4% 130 100.0%

Secondary school 1 1.8% 55 98.2% 56 100.0%

Total 33 17.7% 153 82.3% 186 100.0%

Q4 and Q26bRec are related (Pearson χ2(1)=13.978, p<.05 (two-tailed)), differences in percentages in

Q26c are significant on the categories of Q4 (K-W χ2(1)=13.903, p<.05 (two-tailed)).

108

Table 23: Q4 (elementary/secondary school) * Q26cRec (eTwinning)

Crosstabs

Q26cRec

Total

I do not know it / I have heard

about it but do not know what

it is about

I know it / I

know it well

Q4 Elementary school 42 32.6% 87 67.4% 129 100.0%

Secondary school 18 32.1% 38 67.9% 56 100.0%

Total 60 32.4% 125 67.6% 185 100.0%

Q4 and Q26cRec are NOT related (Pearson χ2(1)=0.003, p>.05 (two-tailed)), differences in percentages in

Q26c are NOT significant on the categories of Q4 (K-W χ2(1)=0.003, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

Table 24: Instrument (education level) * Q26a (LLP)

Crosstab

Q26a

Total

I do not

know it

I have heard about it

but do not know

what it is about

I know it I know it

well

Level Preschool

education

33 31.7% 33 31.7% 32 30.8% 6 5.8% 104 100.0%

Elementary

education

28 21.7% 33 25.6% 43 33.3% 25 19.4% 129 100.0%

Secondary

education

4 7.3% 4 7.3% 35 63.6% 12 21.8% 55 100.0%

Higher

education

2 8.0% 2 8.0% 11 44.0% 10 40.0% 25 100.0%

Adult

education

16 23.5% 10 14.7% 28 41.2% 14 20.6% 68 100.0%

Total 83 21.8% 82 21.5% 149 39.1% 67 17.6% 381 100.0%

Instrument and Q26a are related (Pearson χ2(12)=55.303, p<.05 (two-tailed)), differences in percentages

in Q26a are significant on the categories of instrument (K-W χ2(4)=41.231, p<.05 (two-tailed)).

109

Table 25: Instrument (education level) * Q26b (Erasmus+)

Crosstab

Q26b

Total

I do not

know it

I have heard

about it but

do not know

what it is

about

I know it I know it well

Level Preschool

education

28 26.7% 28 26.7% 42 40.0% 7 6.7% 105 100.0%

Elementary

education

12 9.2% 20 15.4% 60 46.2% 38 29.2% 130 100.0%

Secondary

education

1 1.8% 0 0.0% 24 42.9% 31 55.4% 56 100.0%

Higher

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 37.0% 17 63.0% 27 100.0%

Adult

education

14 20.6% 8 11.8% 25 36.8% 21 30.9% 68 100.0%

Total 55 14.2% 56 14.5% 161 41.7% 114 29.5% 386 100.0%

Instrument and Q26b are related (Pearson χ2(12)=91.438, p<.05 (two-tailed)), differences in percentages

in Q26a are significant on the categories of instrument (K-W χ2(4)=83.857, p<.05 (two-tailed)).

Table 26: Instrument (education level) * Q26aRec (LLP)

Crosstab

Q26aRec

Total

I do not know it /

I have heard about it but do

not know what it is about I know it / I know it well

Level Preschool

education

66 63.5% 38 36.5% 104 100.0%

Elementary

education

61 47.3% 68 52.7% 129 100.0%

Secondary

education

8 14.5% 47 85.5% 55 100.0%

Higher

education

4 16.0% 21 84.0% 25 100.0%

Adult

education

26 38.2% 42 61.8% 68 100.0%

Total 165 43.3% 216 56.7% 381 100.0%

110

Instrument and Q26aRec are related (Pearson χ2(4)=44.875, p<.05 (two-tailed)), differences in

percentages in Q26a are significant on the categories of instrument (K-W χ2(4)=44.757, p<.05 (two-

tailed)).

Table 27: Instrument (education level) * Q26bRec (Erasmus+)

Crosstab

Q26bRec

Total

I do not know it /

I have heard about it

but do not know what

it is about

I know it / I know it

well

Level Preschool

education

56 53.3% 49 46.7% 105 100.0%

Elementary

education

32 24.6% 98 75.4% 130 100.0%

Secondary

education

1 1.8% 55 98.2% 56 100.0%

Higher

education

0 0.0% 27 100.0% 27 100.0%

Adult

education

22 32.4% 46 67.6% 68 100.0%

Total 111 28.8% 275 71.2% 386 100.0%

Instrument and Q26bRec are related (Pearson χ2(4)=63.256, p<.05 (two-tailed)), differences in

percentages in Q26a are significant on the categories of instrument (K-W χ2(4)=63.092, p<.05 (two-

tailed)).

111

6.6 Appendix: Percentages of responses on statements about impact of

Erasmus+ (LLP) at the institutional level

Table 28: Beneficiaries’ assessment of Erasmus+ (LLP) impact on the areas in their institutions (in

%)

LLP and/or Erasmus+ have

impact on

Long-term

negative

Short-term

negative

No

impact

Short-term

positive

Long-term

positive

Staff dedication to common

objectives

0 0 4 43 52

0 0 8 36 55

0 2 12 37 49

0 0 30 30 41

0 0 9 60 31

Culture of collegiality

among staff

0 4 4 43 48

0 0 9 36 54

0 0 9 29 62

0 4 22 33 41

0 0 26 34 40

Contacts of educators with

foreign educators

0 0 5 32 64

0 0 5 37 58

0 2 3 34 60

0 0 11 11 78

0 0 11 34 54

Exchange of pupils /

students / learners with

partner institutions

/ / / / /

0 0 23 30 47

0 0 4 32 65

0 4 7 22 67

0 0 32 29 38

Pupils’ / students’ /

excursions abroad

/ / / / /

0 0 27 28 46

2 0 12 26 60

0 0 26 48 26

/ / / / /

Contacts of pupils /

students / learners with

foreign pupils / students /

learners

/ / / / /

0 0 18 31 51

0 2 3 38 57

0 0 11 26 63

0 0 21 26 53

Cooperation of academics

with management staff

0 0 9 26 65

0 0 12 27 61

112

0 0 14 23 63

0 0 19 33 48

0 0 18 41 41

Management staff support

to educators

0 0 4 26 70

0 0 9 18 73

0 0 12 14 74

0 0 22 22 56

0 0 18 36 45

Management staff

awareness of educators’

work

0 0 13 26 61

1 0 14 21 64

0 0 16 32 53

0 0 33 33 33

0 0 26 35 38

Provision of the

compulsory programme at

the institution

0 9 13 22 57

0 4 19 26 51

0 4 30 23 43

0 0 26 30 44

3 0 44 29 24

Provision of additional

activities for students

0 4 4 30 61

0 1 12 42 45

0 2 9 43 46

0 0 0 59 41

3 0 15 50 32

Institution’s reputation in

the environment

0 0 9 22 70

0 0 8 24 68

0 0 7 21 71

0 0 19 15 65

0 0 6 53 41

Readiness of staff to

participates in new projects

0 0 13 22 65

0 0 8 38 54

0 4 7 36 54

0 4 15 37 44

0 0 9 51 40

Openness of the institution

towards the local and

broader community

0 0 9 17 74

0 0 12 24 56

0 0 15 13 73

0 4 26 19 52

0 0 14 34 51

Cooperation with parents 0 0 22 35 43

113

0 0 20 40 40

0 2 14 45 39

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

Cooperation with others

institutions in Slovenia

0 0 30 35 35

0 1 41 26 32

4 0 30 34 32

4 0 30 22 44

0 0 24 35 41

Readiness of staff to

establish contacts with

institutions abroad

0 0 9 30 61

0 0 12 35 54

0 2 9 27 63

0 0 4 26 70

0 0 3 38 59

Dialogue among staff

0 0 4 39 57

0 0 15 29 55

0 0 18 39 43

0 0 26 41 33

0 0 23 43 34

Use of ICT at the institution

0 0 4 35 61

0 0 20 18 62

0 4 31 29 36

0 0 48 30 22

0 0 29 26 44

Staff foreign language

communication skills

0 0 9 22 70

0 0 12 36 52

0 4 7 21 68

0 0 22 22 56

0 0 11 34 54

Cooperation among

teachers (project work,

international cooperation)

0 0 9 13 78

0 1 9 32 58

0 2 4 30 64

0 0 11 30 59

0 0 9 38 53

Facilitate the identification

of themes for cooperation in

national projects

0 0 22 35 43

0 0 27 36 36

2 2 29 27 41

0 4 44 30 22

0 0 29 26 44

114

Functioning in national

projects

0 0 26 22 52

0 0 31 28 41

2 2 32 27 38

4 0 52 22 22

0 0 38 35 26

Selection success in

national projects

0 0 26 35 39

0 1 35 26 38

2 2 39 20 38

0 0 56 22 22

0 0 53 26 31

Legend:

Preschool

education

Elementary

education

Second.

education

Higher

education

Adults

education

Table 29: Beneficiaries’ assessment of Erasmus+ (LLP) impact on the work of educators in their

institutions (in %)

LLP and/or Erasmus+ have

impact on:

Long-term

negative

Short-term

negative

No

impact

Short-term

positive

Long-term

positive

Use of cooperative learning

in class /group of children

0 0 14 29 57

0 0 15 38 47

0 0 15 36 49

0 0 36 18 45

0 0 31 28 41

Promotion of individual

work in class / study cycles

0 0 14 29 57

0 0 25 34 41

0 0 29 40 31

0 0 27 27 45

0 0 32 35 32

Implementation of inter-

curricular link

0 0 14 14 71

0 0 11 37 52

0 0 5 35 60

0 4 30 30 35

0 0 44 22 34

Use of new learning tools

and resources

0 0 10 38 52

0 0 18 34 48

0 0 18 40 42

0 0 25 15 60

0 0 9 38 53

115

Cooperation and

coordination of educators

(project work, cooperation

in international projects)

0 5 5 33 57

0 1 19 26 53

0 0 6 38 57

0 0 18 27 55

0 0 34 31 34

Educators’ workload

0 29 24 19 29

0 35 15 42 8

4 35 15 36 11

14 23 32 23 9

0 32 32 23 13

Awareness about new

forms and methods of

teaching

0 0 10 33 57

0 0 8 28 64

0 2 15 35 49

0 0 18 23 59

0 0 9 38 53

Use of diverse teaching

forms and methods

0 0 14 33 52

0 0 8 27 65

0 0 16 35 49

0 0 18 23 59

0 0 9 44 47

Inclusion of own cultural

heritage in teaching

0 0 5 33 62

0 0 13 31 56

0 2 24 35 40

0 5 45 18 32

0 0 34 34 31

Abilities of academics to

teach special needs pupils /

students / vulnerable groups

0 0 48 5 48

0 1 47 19 32

2 0 67 15 16

0 0 77 5 18

0 0 50 22 28

Development of computer

skills (ICT skills)

0 0 19 19 62

0 0 19 19 62

0 0 40 24 36

0 0 64 9 27

0 0 41 34 25

Educators’ social

competencies

0 0 10 19 71

0 0 17 22 62

0 0 15 24 62

0 0 27 14 59

116

0 0 16 28 56

Educators’ organizational

and leadership skills (ability

and readiness to organize

and manage projects and

teams)

0 0 14 19 67

0 0 8 22 71

0 0 7 33 60

0 0 23 18 59

0 0 13 25 63

Training of educators for

the use of ICT

0 0 24 19 57

0 0 24 24 51

0 0 40 20 40

0 0 68 5 27

0 0 44 28 28

Foreign language training

of educators

0 0 19 38 43

0 0 14 27 58

0 0 16 25 58

0 0 27 27 45

0 0 9 34 56

Training of educators for

the use of new methods and

forms of teaching

0 0 19 29 52

0 0 17 26 57

0 0 24 25 51

0 0 27 18 55

0 0 19 41 41

Relationship between

educators and children /

pupils / students / learners

0 0 29 5 67

0 0 18 29 53

0 0 11 25 64

0 0 27 23 50

0 0 23 35 42

Relationship between

educators and management

staff

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

0 0 32 9 59

0 0 28 38 34

Awareness of educators of

common European heritage

0 0 29 24 48

0 0 10 32 58

0 0 15 46 39

0 0 32 23 45

0 0 34 34 41

Awareness of educators of

European cultural and

moral values

0 0 19 29 52

0 1 12 29 58

0 0 11 38 51

117

0 0 27 18 55

0 0 16 38 47

Educators’ respect for

different cultures

0 0 5 24 71

0 0 9 12 79

0 0 5 24 71

0 0 9 36 55

0 0 16 22 63

Educators’ knowledge on

European institutions and

their operation

0 0 19 24 57

0 0 22 23 55

0 0 25 31 44

0 0 32 27 41

0 0 19 38 44

Educators’ knowledge and

understanding of education

systems in partner countries

0 0 14 29 57

0 1 4 31 64

0 4 7 40 49

0 0 5 14 82

0 0 9 38 53

Educators’ knowledge of

foreign didactical

environments

0 0 14 24 62

0 0 3 37 60

2 0 13 38 47

0 0 9 36 55

0 0 9 47 44

Motivation of educators for

the introduction of changes

and new teaching methods

0 0 14 38 48

0 0 6 36 58

2 0 11 38 49

0 0 14 36 50

0 0 9 50 41

Educators’ dedication for a

democratic dialog with

pupils / students / learners

0 0 19 24 57

0 0 24 27 49

0 2 15 29 55

0 0 41 23 36

0 0 34 31 34

Integration of pupils /

students / learners in the

decision-making process

regarding the course of

learning

0 0 38 29 33

0 0 36 27 36

0 0 33 29 38

0 0 55 27 18

0 0 25 50 25

Students’ mobility abroad / / / / /

/ / / / /

118

/ / / / /

0 0 9 9 82

/ / / / /

Cooperation with

researchers from abroad

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

0 0 9 18 73

/ / / / /

Preparation of common

publications with co-

authors from abroad

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

0 0 18 23 59

/ / / / /

Publishing in international

journals and publishing

houses

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

0 0 23 27 50

/ / / / /

Monitoring of foreign

literature for understanding

current developments

within the profession

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

0 0 27 23 50

/ / / / /

Mobility of students from

abroad to your home

institution

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

0 0 23 18 59

/ / / / /

Mobility of home

academics and researchers

abroad

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

0 0 18 14 68

/ / / / /

Mobility of academics and

researchers from abroad to

your home institution

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

0 0 18 18 64

/ / / / /

119

Invitation to foreign

academics to conduct

lectures at your home

institution

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

0 0 18 32 50

/ / / / /

Lecturing in a foreign

language at your home

institution

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

0 0 32 18 50

/ / / / /

Using international

literature and topics in

teaching

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

0 0 23 27 50

/ / / / /

Developing joint/double

degree programmes

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

0 0 50 18 32

/ / / / /

Legend:

Preschool

education

Elementary

education

Second.

education

Higher

education

Adults

education

120

6.7 Appendix: Measures of project impacts on institution after the project is

finished

Table 30: Measures of project impacts on institution after the project is finished (in %).

Level Yes No

Preschool education 42 58

Elementary education 47 53

Secondary education 45 55

Higher education 37 63

Adult education 44 56

From the open-ended question it was obvious that respondents understand the measured impacts after the

project is finished in a very diverse ways. The dominant answeres for preschool education were

evaluations. The dominant answers for elementary and secondary schools were questionnaires. Higher

education respondents were highlighting self-evaluation reports and the indirect measurement of impacts.

At the level of adult education, there was no prevailent answer, instead different methods, contents and

forms were discussed.

About the frequency of measuring, the dominant responses for elementary and secondary school and adult

education were once or twice per year and at the higher education level, once per year or several times per

year. At the level of preschool education, there was no prevailent answer.

121

6.8 Appendix: Comparisons of statistically significant differences between

different educational levels – comparisons of indices (institutional level)

The indices were constructed using Principal Component Analysis. The centre point of the scale was set to

10, and the standard deviation to 2. The centre point of the scale cannot be interpreted as an average effect

because most of the respondents did not or very hardly used the first two categories when evaluating

impact, so the scale is moved towards the positive impact. Still, our information on the indicators gives us

reliable information about the differences between the groups.

Table 31: Index of teaching and professional development (institutional level)

Groups N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Preschool education 129 9.05 1.52003

Elementary school 169 10.23 2.04232

Secondary school 68 11.51 1.67532

Higher education 47 10.09 2.10165

Adult education 89 9.74 1.92825

Total 502 10.00 2.00000

Differences in means of the index between different types of respondents are statistically significant (K-W

χ2(4)=45.704, p<.05 (two-tailed)).

Statistically significant differences (using Dunn post-hoc test (Bonferroni adjusted

significance p<0.05, two-tailed)) are found between:

- kindergartens and elementary schools

- secondary schools and kindergartens

- secondary schools and adult education institutions

- secondary schools and higher education institutions

- secondary schools and elementary schools.

Table 32: Organizational climate index (institutional level)

Groups N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Preschool education 129 9.0120 1.53305

Elementary school 169 10.2323 2.03022

Secondary school 68 11.5851 1.63098

Higher education 47 10.1559 2.08592

Adult education 89 9.6975 1.89840

Total 502 10.0000 2.00000

Differences in means of the index between different types of respondents are statistically significant (K-W

χ2(4)=56.096, p<.05 (two-tailed)).

122

Statistically significant differences (using Dunn post-hoc test (Bonferroni adjusted

significance p<0.05, two-tailed)) are found between:

- kindergartens and elementary schools

- secondary schools and kindergartens

- secondary schools and adult education institutions

- secondary schools and higher education institutions

- secondary schools and elementary schools.

Table 33: Index of national projects (institutional level)

Groups N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Preschool education 129 9.0309 1.56196

Elementary school 169 10.2363 2.03892

Secondary school 68 11.4306 1.66044

Higher education 47 10.2084 2.09544

Adult education 89 9.7528 1.93464

Total 502 10.0000 2.00000

Differences in means of the index between different types of respondents are statistically significant (K-W

χ2(4)=46.367, p<.05 (two-tailed)).

Statistically significant differences (using Dunn post-hoc test (Bonferroni adjusted

significance p<0.05, two-tailed)) are found between:

- kindergartens and elementary schools

- secondary schools and kindergartens

- secondary schools and adult education institutions

- secondary schools and higher education institutions

- secondary schools and elementary schools.

Table 34: Index of European added value (institutional level)

Groups N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Preschool education 129 9.0609 1.49496

Elementary school 169 10.2262 2.04984

Secondary school 68 11.5154 1.68105

Higher education 47 10.0580 2.14633

Adult education 89 9.7432 1.92524

Total 502 10.0000 2.00000

Differences in means of the index between different types of respondents are statistically significant (K-W

χ2(4)=44.360, p<.05 (two-tailed)).

123

Statistically significant differences (using Dunn post-hoc test (Bonferroni adjusted

significance p<0.05, two-tailed)) are found between:

- kindergartens and elementary schools

- secondary schools and kindergartens

- secondary schools and adult education institutions

- secondary schools and higher education institutions

- secondary schools and elementary schools.

124

6.9 Appendix: Organisational activities which contribute to the

internationalisation

Table 35: Organisational activities which contribute to the internationalisation (in %)

Organisational activities which contribute to the

internationalisation Yes No

I cannot

decide

Curriculum implementation

85 5 10

63 18 19

54 28 19

58 19 23

43 34 23

Methods of teaching and learning

82 4 13

77 12 11

69 19 13

77 12 12

66 20 15

Enrichment activities

88 1 11

78 12 10

85 11 4

81 8 12

59 23 18

Cooperation with the local environment

84 4 11

75 17 8

78 17 6

50 35 15

59 25 16

Research/project activities

81 4 14

87 7 7

91 6 4

96 4 0

62 23 15

Twinning with foreign institutions

80 5 14

85 8 7

89 9 2

77 15 8

58 25 17

Implementation and participation in international camps and

competitions

/ / /

71 18 11

78 19 4

125

88 12 0

40 35 25

Hosting foreign children / pupils / students / learners

80 3 16

76 13 10

93 7 0

88 8 4

58 27 15

Implementation of projects (e.g. voluntary work)

74 7 20

79 13 8

74 9 17

85 15 0

62 23 15

Integration of immigrants (immigrants’ children) in education

in Slovenia (based on level)

81 7 12

73 10 17

67 15 19

58 27 15

52 28 20

Participation in international mobility projects

79 4 17

82 10 8

100 0 0

96 0 4

75 13 12

Partnerships in LLP/Erasmus+

73 7 20

80 10 10

94 2 4

96 4 0

67 17 17

Mobility of management staff abroad

77 4 19

78 9 13

89 7 4

88 8 4

68 17 15

Mobility of academics abroad

81 4 14

83 9 8

98 0 0

96 4 0

78 13 8

Participation in eTwinning projects (for kindergartens,

schools) / EPALE (for adult education level)

92 0 8

90 5 5

80 0 20

126

/ / /

74 4 22

Legend: Preschool edu. Elementary edu.

Secondary

edu.

Higher

edu.

Adult

edu.

127

6.10 Appendix: Compliance of Erasmus+ objectives with national objectives,

guidelines

Table 36: Assessment of beneficiaries on compliance of Erasmus+ (LLP) and national objectives (in

%)

To what extent do you

agree with the

statements below?

Strongly

disagree

Disagree Neither

disagree

neither agree

Agree Strongly

agree

The needs of

institutions in

education and training

are compatible with

national guidelines in

the field.

1 3 29 57 9

0 8 37 43 11

0 7 25 56 11

0 12 38 35 15

4 9 49 32 6

Objectives of

LLP/Erasmus+ are

compatible with

national objectives

(based on education

levels).

0 0 24 59 16

0 2 30 54 14

0 2 30 53 15

0 8 15 65 12

4 2 22 59 12

LLP/Erasmus+

complement / build

upon national

objectives/guidelines

of education and

training.

0 0 23 51 26

0 0 25 45 30

0 2 15 53 30

0 4 4 73 19

4 2 16 61 16

LLP/Erasmus+

produce effects that are

an upgrade of those

that would be incurred

in the actions only at

national level.

0 0 29 49 22

1 3 29 45 22

2 2 19 45 32

4 4 12 46 35

2 8 18 49 22

Legend:

Preschool

education

Element.

education

Secondary

education

Higher

education

Adult

education

128

Table 37: eTwinning and realization of the Erasmus+ (LLP) objectives (in %)

To what extent do

you agree with the

statement below?

Strongly

disagree

Disagree Neither

disagree

neither agree

Agree Strongly

agree

eTwinning assists

in the realization of

the objectives of

the Erasmus+.

0 0 27 54 19

1 0 18 63 17

0 0 31 53 17

Legende:

Preschool

education

Elementary

education

Secondary

education

Table 38: EPALE and realization of the Erasmus+ (LLP) objectives (in %)

To what extent do

you agree with the

statement below?

Strongly

disagree

Disagree Neither

disagree

neither agree

Agree Strongly agree

EPALE assists in the

realization of the

objectives of the

Erasmus+.

0 7 11 71 11

Only for respondents in adult education.

Table 39: Impact of EPALE on adult education – systemic level (in %)

EPALE online tool

has an impact on

Long-term

negative

impact

Short-term

negative

impact

No impact Short-term

positive impact

Long-term

positive

impact

Q25a Search for foreign

partners 0 0 14 25 61

Q25b Use of ICT in

education 0 0 32 39 29

Q25c

First step towards

subsequent

complex

international

projects

0 0 14 43 43

Q25d

As examples of

projects to later

create their own

projects

0 0 18 54 29

129

Q25e Dissemination of

results 0

0

11 50 39

Q25f Sustainability of

results 0 0 30 22 48

Q25g

Monitoring current

trends and

guidelines in adult

education in

Slovenia

0 0 21 14 64

Q25h

Monitoring current

trends and

guidelines in adult

education in

Europe

0 0 4 37 59

Q25i

Monitoring current

events in the field

of adult education

(seminars,

conferences, etc.).

0 0 14 39 46

Q25j

Professional

development of

adult educators

0 0 25 50 25

Q25k Peer learning of

adult educators 0 0 18 64 18

Q25l

Sharing of best

practices in

learning and

teaching between

adult educators

0 0 4 50 46

Q25m Other (Please, fill

in.): 0 0 75 25 0

Note: 28 respondents answered.

130

6.11 Appendix: Analyses of statistically (non) significant differences in

response of external experts (general, vocational, higher, and adult education)

LLP and/or Erasmus+ in Slovenia contribute to improving the level of key competences and skills, with

…

Table 40: Q5 (field of education) * Q10a (regard to their relevance for the labour market)

Crosstab Q10a

Total

Not at all Very little Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

1 10.0% 2 20.0% 5 50.0% 2 20.0% 0 0.0% 10 100.0%

Vocational

education

0 0.0% 1 12.5% 3 37.5% 4 50.0% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

0 0.0% 1 9.1% 6 54.5% 4 36.4% 0 0.0% 11 100.0%

Adult

Education

1 16.7% 1 16.7% 2 33.3% 1 16.7% 1 16.7% 6 100.0%

Total 2 5.7% 5 14.3% 16 45.7% 11 31.4% 1 2.9% 35 100.0%

Q5 and Q10a are NOT related (χ2(12)=10.320, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q10a are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=2.277, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

Table 41: Q5 (field of education) * Q10b (regard to their contribution to a cohesive society)

Crosstab Q10b

Total

Not at all Very little Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

0 0.0% 2 20.0% 7 70.0% 1 10.0% 0 0.0% 10 100.0%

Vocational

education

0 0.0% 2 25.0% 6 75.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

0 0.0% 2 18.2% 5 45.5% 4 36.4% 0 0.0% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 33.3% 3 50.0% 1 16.7% 6 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% 6 17.1% 20 57.1% 8 22.9% 1 2.9% 35 100.0%

Q5 and Q10b are NOT related (χ2(9)=13.162, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q10b are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=8.508, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

131

Table 42: Q5 (field of education) * Q10c (increased opportunities for learning mobility)

Crosstab Q10c

Total

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 100.0% 0 0.0% 10 100.0%

Vocational

education

0 0.0% 1 12.5% 1 12.5% 6 75.0% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

0 0.0% 1 9.1% 0 0.0% 10 90.9% 0 0.0% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 16.7% 5 83.3% 0 0.0% 6 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% 2 5.7% 2 5.7% 31 88.6% 0 0.0% 35 100.0%

Q5 and Q10c are NOT related (χ2(6)=5.222, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q10b are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=2.798, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

Table 43: Q5 (field of education) * Q10d (strengthened cooperation between the world of education

and training and the world of work)

Crosstab Q10d

Total

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

0 0.0% 4 40.0% 3 30.0% 2 20.0% 1 10.0% 10 100.0%

Vocational

education

0 0.0% 1 12.5% 2 25.0% 5 62.5% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

0 0.0% 2 18.2% 3 27.3% 6 54.5% 0 0.0% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

1 16.7% 2 33.3% 3 50.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 100.0%

Total 1 2.9% 9 25.7% 11 31.4% 13 37.1% 1 2.9% 35 100.0%

Q5 and Q10d are NOT related (χ2(12)=15.181, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q10d are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=6.586, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

132

LLP and/or Erasmus+ in Slovenia contribute to …

Table 44: Q5 (field of education) * Q11a (quality)

Crosstab Q11a

Total

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 40.0% 6 60.0% 0 0.0% 10 100.0%

Vocational

education

1 12.5% 0 0.0% 2 25.0% 5 62.5% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 27.3% 8 72.7% 0 0.0% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 100.0% 0 0.0% 6 100.0%

Total 1 2.9% 0 0.0% 9 25.7% 25 71.4% 0 0.0% 35 100.0%

Q5 and Q11a are NOT related (χ2(6)=6.684, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q11a are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=3.321, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

Table 45: Q5 (field of education) * Q11b (innovations)

Crosstab Q11b

Total

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

0 0.0% 2 20.0% 3 30.0% 5 50.0% 0 0.0% 10 100.0%

Vocational

education

1 12.5% 0 0.0% 5 62.5% 1 12.5% 1 12.5% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

0 0.0% 2 18.2% 4 36.4% 5 45.5% 0 0.0% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 66.7% 2 33.3% 0 0.0% 6 100.0%

Total 1 2.9% 4 11.4% 16 45.7% 13 37.1% 1 2.9% 35 100.0%

Q5 and Q11b are NOT related (χ2(12)=13.233, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q11b are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=0.298, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

133

Table 46: Q5 (field of education) * Q11c (internationalization at the level of education institutions)

Crosstab Q11c

Total

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a

great

extent

Cannot decide

Q5 General

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 20.0% 8 80.0% 0 0.0% 10 100.0%

Vocational

education

0 0.0% 2 25.0% 0 0.0% 6 75.0% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 18.2% 9 81.8% 0 0.0% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

0 0.0% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 5 83.3% 0 0.0% 6 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% 3 8.6% 4 11.4% 28 80.0% 0 0.0% 35 100.0%

Q5 and Q11c are NOT related (χ2(6)=7.497, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q11c are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=0.396, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

Table 47: Q5 (field of education) * Q11d (internationalization at the level of training institutions)

Crosstab Q11d

Total

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 40.0% 2 20.0% 4 40.0% 10 100.0%

Vocational

education

0 0.0% 1 12.5% 2 25.0% 5 62.5% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 18.2% 9 81.8% 0 0.0% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

0 0.0% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 5 83.3% 0 0.0% 6 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% 2 5.7% 8 22.9% 21 60.0% 4 11.4% 35 100.0%

Q5 and Q11d are related (χ2(9)=19.975, p<.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q11d are NOT

significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=1.547, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

134

Table 48: Q5 (field of education) * Q11e (enhanced transnational cooperation between education

and training providers and other stakeholders)

Crosstab Q11e

Total

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

0 0.0% 1 10.0% 2 20.0% 7 70.0% 0 0.0% 10 100.0%

Vocational

education

0 0.0% 1 12.5% 3 37.5% 4 50.0% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 9.1% 10 90.9% 0 0.0% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 16.7% 5 83.3% 0 0.0% 6 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% 2 5.7% 7 20.0% 26 74.3% 0 0.0% 35 100.0%

Q5 and Q11e are NOT related (χ2(6)=4.986, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q11e are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=4.485, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

In Slovenia LLP and/or Erasmus+ contribute to promote the emergence and raise awareness of a European

lifelong learning area, by …

Table 49: Q5 (field of education) * Q12a (complementing policy reforms at national level)

Crosstab Q12a

Total

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

0 0.0% 5 50.0% 3 30.0% 2 20.0% 0 0.0% 10 100.0%

Vocational

education

2 25.0% 0 0.0% 6 75.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

0 0.0% 3 27.3% 4 36.4% 3 27.3% 1 9.1% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

1 16.7% 1 16.7% 2 33.3% 2 33.3% 0 0.0% 6 100.0%

Total 3 8.6% 9 25.7% 15 42.9% 7 20.0% 1 2.9% 35 100.0%

Q5 and Q12a are NOT related (χ2(12)=16.486, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q12a are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=2.020, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

135

Table 50: Q5 (field of education) * Q12b (supporting the modernization of education and training

system)

Crosstab Q12b

Total

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

0 0.0% 2 20.0% 6 60.0% 1 10.0% 1 10.0% 10 100.0%

Vocational

education

1 12.5% 0 0.0% 2 25.0% 5 62.5% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

0 0.0% 2 18.2% 8 72.7% 1 9.1% 0 0.0% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

1 16.7% 0 0.0% 2 33.3% 3 50.0% 0 0.0% 6 100.0%

Total 2 5.7% 4 11.4% 18 51.4% 10 28.6% 1 2.9% 35 100.0%

Q5 and Q12b are NOT related (χ2(12)=17.723, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q12b are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=3.663, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

Table 51: Q5 (field of education) * Q12c (enhancing policy cooperation)

Crosstab Q12c

Total

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

0 0.0% 2 20.0% 5 50.0% 2 20.0% 1 10.0% 10 100.0%

Vocational

education

0 0.0% 3 37.5% 4 50.0% 0 0.0% 1 12.5% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

1 9.1% 4 36.4% 4 36.4% 1 9.1% 1 9.1% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

0 0.0% 3 50.0% 2 33.3% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 6 100.0%

Total 1 2.9% 12 34.3% 15 42.9% 4 11.4% 3 8.6% 35 100.0%

Q5 and Q12c are NOT related (χ2(12)=6.136, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q12c are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=1.985, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

136

Table 52: Q5 (field of education) * Q12d (bettering the use of EU transparency and recognition

tools)

Crosstab Q12d

Total

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7 70.0% 3 30.0% 0 0.0% 10 100.0%

Vocational

education

0 0.0% 1 12.5% 4 50.0% 3 37.5% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

0 0.0% 2 18.2% 5 45.5% 4 36.4% 0 0.0% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 50.0% 3 50.0% 0 0.0% 6 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% 3 8.6% 19 54.3% 13 37.1% 0 0.0% 35 100.0%

Q5 and Q12d are NOT related (χ2(6)=3.768, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q12d are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=0.856, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

Table 53: Q5 (field of education) * Q12e (disseminating good practices and raising awareness about

that in European area)

Crosstab Q12e

Total

Not at all Very little Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 100.0% 0 0.0% 10 100.0%

Vocational

education

0 0.0% 1 12.5% 4 50.0% 3 37.5% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

0 0.0% 2 18.2% 3 27.3% 6 54.5% 0 0.0% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 100.0% 0 0.0% 6 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% 3 8.6% 7 20.0% 25 71.4% 0 0.0% 35 100.0%

Q5 and Q12e are related (χ2(6)=13.348, p<.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q11e are

significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=11.604, p<.05 (two-tailed)).

137

In Slovenia LLP and/or Erasmus+ contribute to …

Table 54: Q5 (field of education) * Q13a (better teaching and learning of foreign languages)

Crosstab Q13a

Total

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 10.0% 9 90.0% 0 0.0% 10 100.0%

Vocational

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 12.5% 6 75.0% 1 12.5% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

1 9.1% 1 9.1% 3 27.3% 6 54.5% 0 0.0% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

0 0.0% 1 16.7% 2 33.3% 3 50.0% 0 0.0% 6 100.0%

Total 1 2.9% 2 5.7% 7 20.0% 24 68.6% 1 2.9% 35 100.0%

Q5 and Q13a are NOT related (χ2(12)=10.949, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q13a are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=6.453, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

Table 55: Q5 (field of education) * Q13b (promoting the EU’s broad linguistic diversity and

intercultural education)

Crosstab Q13b

Total

Not at

all

Very

little

Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 100.0% 0 0.0% 10 100.0%

Vocational

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 37.5% 5 62.5% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

0 0.0% 1 9.1% 1 9.1% 9 81.8% 0 0.0% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 50.0% 3 50.0% 0 0.0% 6 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% 1 2.9% 7 20.0% 27 77.1% 0 0.0% 35 100.0%

Q5 and Q13b are NOT related (χ2(6)=10.265, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q13b are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=5.891, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

138

Agreement with the statements …

Table 56: Q5 (field of education) * Q17a (LLP/Erasmus+ contribute to the realization of the specific

objectives of Erasmus+)

Crosstab Q17a

Total

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 50.0% 4 50.0% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Vocational

education

0 0.0% 1 12.5% 3 37.5% 4 50.0% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 27.3% 8 72.7% 0 0.0% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 60.0% 2 40.0% 0 0.0% 5 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% 1 3.1% 13 40.6% 18 56.3% 0 0.0% 32 100.0%

Q5 and Q17a are NOT related (χ2(6)=5.014, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q17a are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=2.055, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

Table 57: Q5 (field of education) * Q17b (progress on the realization of the specific objectives

contributed to the realization of the Erasmus+ general objectives)

Crosstab Q17b

Total

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 75.0% 2 25.0% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Vocational

education

0 0.0% 2 25.0% 2 25.0% 3 37.5% 1 12.5% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 27.3% 8 72.7% 0 0.0% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 40.0% 3 60.0% 0 0.0% 5 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% 2 6.3% 13 40.6% 16 50.0% 1 3.1% 32 100.0%

Q5 and Q17b are NOT related (χ2(9)=14.777, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q17b are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=3.351, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

139

Table 58: Q5 (field of education) * Q17c (Erasmus+ actions influence national policy developments)

Crosstab Q17c

Total

Not at all Very little Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

1 12.5% 4 50.0% 3 37.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Vocational

education

2 25.0% 2 25.0% 4 50.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

1 9.1% 4 36.4% 4 36.4% 1 9.1% 1 9.1% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

0 0.0% 3 60.0% 1 20.0% 1 20.0% 0 0.0% 5 100.0%

Total 4 12.5% 13 40.6% 12 37.5% 2 6.3% 1 3.1% 32 100.0%

Q5 and Q17c are NOT related (χ2(12)=8.201, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q17c are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=1.155, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

Table 59: Q5 (field of education) * Q17d (integration of several programmes into Erasmus+ made

the programme more effective)

Crosstab Q17d

Total

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 25.0% 4 50.0% 2 25.0% 8 100.0%

Vocational

education

1 12.5% 0 0.0% 2 25.0% 1 12.5% 4 50.0% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

1 10.0% 0 0.0% 3 30.0% 5 50.0% 1 10.0% 10 100.0%

Adult

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 80.0% 0 0.0% 1 20.0% 5 100.0%

Total 2 6.5% 0 0.0% 11 35.5% 10 32.3% 8 25.8% 31 100.0%

Q5 and Q17d are NOT related (χ2(9)=12.048, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q17d are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=2.428, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

140

Table 60: Q5 (field of education) *Q17e (integration of several programmes into Erasmus+

contributed to the efficiency of programme implementation at the level of beneficiaries and

participant)

Crosstab Q17e

Total

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 37.5% 4 50.0% 1 12.5% 8 100.0%

Vocational

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 12.5% 2 25.0% 5 62.5% 8 100.0%

Higher education 1 9.1% 2 18.2% 2 18.2% 5 45.5% 1 9.1% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 60.0% 0 0.0% 2 40.0% 5 100.0%

Total 1 3.1% 2 6.3% 9 28.1% 11 34.4% 9 28.1% 32 100.0%

Q5 and Q17e are NOT related (χ2(12)=17.472, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q17e are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=6.254, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

Table 61: Q5 (field of education) * Q17f (integration of several programmes into Erasmus+ reduced

the efficiency of programme implementation at the level of beneficiaries and participants)

Crosstab Q17f

Total

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

4 50.0% 1 12.5% 2 25.0% 0 0.0% 1 12.5% 8 100.0%

Vocational

education

3 37.5% 1 12.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 50.0% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

5 45.5% 1 9.1% 3 27.3% 1 9.1% 1 9.1% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

0 0.0% 2 40.0% 1 20.0% 0 0.0% 2 40.0% 5 100.0%

Total 12 37.5% 5 15.6% 6 18.8% 1 3.1% 8 25.0% 32 100.0%

Q5 and Q17f are NOT related (χ2(12)=12.765, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q17f are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=3.120, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

141

Table 62: Q5 (field of education) * Q17g (approaches and tools that are used for the disseminating

and exploiting of the results of Erasmus+/LLP are effective)

Crosstab Q17g

Total

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a

great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 75.0% 2 25.0% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Vocational

education

0 0.0% 3 37.5% 5 62.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

0 0.0% 1 9.1% 8 72.7% 2 18.2% 0 0.0% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 80.0% 1 20.0% 0 0.0% 5 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% 4 12.5% 23 71.9% 5 15.6% 0 0.0% 32 100.0%

Q5 and Q17g are NOT related (χ2(6)=7.690, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q17g are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=6.440, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

Table 63: Q5 (field of education) * Q17h (Erasmus+ objectives continue to address the needs or

problems they meant to solve)

Crosstab Q17h

Total

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 37.5% 5 62.5% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Vocational

education

0 0.0% 1 12.5% 3 37.5% 4 50.0% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

0 0.0% 1 9.1% 5 45.5% 5 45.5% 0 0.0% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 25.0% 3 75.0% 0 0.0% 4 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% 2 6.5% 12 38.7% 17 54.8% 0 0.0% 31 100.0%

Q5 and Q17h are NOT related (χ2(6)=2.269, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q17h are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=1.579, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

142

Table 64: Q5 (field of education) * Q17i (the identified needs/problems, which Erasmus+ meant to

solve, are still relevant in Slovenia)

Crosstab Q17i

Total

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 25.0% 6 75.0% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Vocational

education

1 12.5% 0 0.0% 1 12.5% 6 75.0% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

1 9.1% 1 9.1% 5 45.5% 3 27.3% 1 9.1% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 20.0% 4 80.0% 0 0.0% 5 100.0%

Total 2 6.3% 1 3.1% 9 28.1% 19 59.4% 1 3.1% 32 100.0%

Q5 and Q17i are NOT related (χ2(12)=10.212, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q17i are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=3.222, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

Table 65: Q5 (field of education) * Q17j (needs or problems evolved in such a way that the

objectives of Erasmus+ need to be adjusted)

Crosstab Q17j

Total

Not at all Very little Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

2 25.0% 2 25.0% 2 25.0% 2 25.0% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Vocational

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 37.5% 0 0.0% 5 62.5% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

0 0.0% 3 27.3% 3 27.3% 3 27.3% 2 18.2% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

0 0.0% 1 20.0% 2 40.0% 0 0.0% 2 40.0% 5 100.0%

Total 2 6.3% 6 18.8% 10 31.3% 5 15.6% 9 28.1% 32 100.0%

Q5 and Q17j are NOT related (χ2(12)=18.160, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q17j are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=7.323, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

143

Table 66: Q5 (field of education) * Q17k (needs of different stakeholders are addressed with

Erasmus+ objectives)

Crosstab Q17k

Total

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 37.5% 5 62.5% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Vocational

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 50.0% 4 50.0% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

0 0.0% 3 27.3% 3 27.3% 5 45.5% 0 0.0% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

0 0.0% 1 20.0% 3 60.0% 1 20.0% 0 0.0% 5 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% 4 12.5% 13 40.6% 15 46.9% 0 0.0% 32 100.0%

Q5 and Q17k are NOT related (χ2(6)=6.491, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q17k are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=3.052, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

Table 67: Q5 (field of education) * Q17l (Erasmus+ is, in attracting and reaching target audiences

and groups, successful)

Crosstab Q17l

Total

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 12.5% 7 87.5% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Vocational

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 50.0% 4 50.0% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 54.5% 5 45.5% 0 0.0% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 25.0% 3 75.0% 0 0.0% 4 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 12 38.7% 19 61.3% 0 0.0% 31 100.0%

Q5 and Q17l are NOT related (χ2(3)=4.226, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q17l are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=4.089, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

144

Table 68: Q5 (field of education) * Q17m (Erasmus+ is in the field of education well known)

Crosstab Q17m

Total

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 12.5% 7 87.5% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Vocational

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7 100.0% 0 0.0% 7 100.0%

Higher

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5 45.5% 6 54.5% 0 0.0% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5 100.0% 0 0.0% 5 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 19.4% 25 80.6% 0 0.0% 31 100.0%

Q5 and Q17m are related (χ2(3)=7.921, p<.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q17m are

significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=7.666, p<.05 (two-tailed)).

Table 69: Q5 (field of education) * Q17n (various actions in Erasmus+ are coherent)

Crosstab Q17n

Total

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 12.5% 6 75.0% 1 12.5% 8 100.0%

Vocational

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 50.0% 1 12.5% 3 37.5% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 27.3% 8 72.7% 0 0.0% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 40.0% 3 60.0% 0 0.0% 5 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 31.3% 18 56.3% 4 12.5% 32 100.0%

Q5 and Q17n are NOT related (χ2(6)=11.744, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q17n are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=1.386, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

145

Table 70: Q5 (field of education) * Q17o (Erasmus+ complement other national programmes

(projects) available in Slovenia)

Crosstab Q17o

Total

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 50.0% 3 37.5% 1 12.5% 8 100.0%

Vocational

education

0 0.0% 1 12.5% 3 37.5% 1 12.5% 3 37.5% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

0 0.0% 1 9.1% 5 45.5% 5 45.5% 0 0.0% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

0 0.0% 1 20.0% 2 40.0% 2 40.0% 0 0.0% 5 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% 3 9.4% 14 43.8% 11 34.4% 4 12.5% 32 100.0%

Q5 and Q17o are NOT related (χ2(9)=9.178, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q17o are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=1.207, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

Table 71: Q5 (field of education) * Q17p (Erasmus+ complement other international programmes

(projects) available in Slovenia)

Crosstab Q17p

Total

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5 62.5% 3 37.5% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Vocational

education

0 0.0% 2 25.0% 4 50.0% 0 0.0% 2 25.0% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

0 0.0% 1 9.1% 6 54.5% 4 36.4% 0 0.0% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

0 0.0% 1 20.0% 1 20.0% 3 60.0% 0 0.0% 5 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% 4 12.5% 16 50.0% 10 31.3% 2 6.3% 32 100.0%

Q5 and Q17p are NOT related (χ2(9)=13.537, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q17p are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=.636, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

146

Table 72: Q5 (field of education) * Q17q (Erasmus+ (LLP) produce effects that are additional to the

effects that would have resulted from similar actions initiated only at the regional or national level)

Crosstab Q17q

Total

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a great

extent

Cannot

decide

Q5 General

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 50.0% 4 50.0% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%

Vocational

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5 62.5% 2 25.0% 1 12.5% 8 100.0%

Higher

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7 63.6% 4 36.4% 0 0.0% 11 100.0%

Adult

education

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 40.0% 3 60.0% 0 0.0% 5 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 18 56.3% 13 40.6% 1 3.1% 32 100.0%

Q5 and Q17q are NOT related (χ2(6)=4.618, p>.05 (two-tailed), differences in percentages in Q17q are

NOT significant on the categories of Q5 (K-W χ2(3)=.785, p>.05 (two-tailed)).

147

6.12 Appendix: Impact of Erasmus+ on different areas in education system

Table 73: Impact of Erasmus+ (LLP) on different areas in education system (in %)

Impact of LLP/Erasmus+

on

Long-term

negative

impact

Short-term

negative

impact

No impact

Short-term

positive

impact

Long-term

positive

impact

Fostering quality

improvements / enhancing

quality

0 0 2 24 73

0 0 20 18 61

0 0 8 25 68

0 0 12 40 48

0 0 9 36 56

Innovations

0 0 4 22 73

0 0 6 32 63

0 2 4 30 64

0 0 28 28 44

0 0 4 38 58

Internationalization of

education and training

system

0 0 4 20 76

0 0 6 30 64

0 0 6 23 72

0 0 0 20 80

0 2 9 24 64

Cooperation of different

stakeholders (educators,

policy makers, local

community, …)

0 0 2 31 67

0 1 6 32 61

0 0 6 28 66

0 0 20 24 56

0 0 14 36 50

Promote the emergence and

raise awareness of a

European lifelong learning

area

0 0 7 20 73

0 0 7 27 66

0 0 9 19 72

0 4 8 20 68

0 0 11 29 60

Support for national

policies (different levels in

education and training

system)

0 0 18 36 45

0 0 28 33 39

0 0 21 28 51

4 0 16 32 48

0 0 18 27 56

Upgrading national policies

in education (different

levels in education and

0 0 18 34 48

0 1 28 35 35

0 0 23 23 55

148

training system) 4 0 12 36 48

0 0 24 18 58

Dissemination of good

practices within Slovenia

0 0 4 38 58

0 0 7 33 60

0 0 4 40 57

0 0 20 16 64

0 0 4 40 56

Dissemination of good

practices in Europe

0 0 9 27 64

0 0 6 36 58

0 0 4 35 61

0 0 8 24 68

0 0 13 33 53

A general increase of

quality of learning/teaching

0 0 7 31 62

0 0 9 22 69

0 0 6 28 66

0 0 12 20 68

0 0 9 31 60

Professional development

of educators

0 0 2 9 89

0 0 6 15 80

0 0 0 26 74

0 0 8 20 72

0 0 7 29 64

Better use of EU

transparency and

recognition tools

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

0 0 24 24 52

0 0 20 20 59

Legend:

Preschool

education

Elementary

education

Secondary

education

Higher

education

Adult

education

149

6.13 Appendix: Beneficiaries’ assessments of the impact of

internationalization on quality

Table 74: Beneficiaries’ and potential beneficiaries’ assessments of the impact of

internationalization on quality (in %)

Internationalization

have impact on

Long-term

negative

impact

Short-term

negative

impact

No impact

Short-term

positive

impact

Long-term

positive

impact

Quality of institutions

(in education and

training – different

levels)

1 0 6 16 78

0 0 12 22 66

0 0 7 7 86

0 0 4 8 88

2 0 5 31 62

Quality of teaching

1 0 7 21 71

0 0 11 26 75

0 2 13 16 70

0 0 4 12 85

0 2 16 26 56

Quality of learning

1 0 7 19 73

0 0 11 15 74

0 2 9 13 77

0 0 8 12 81

0 2 11 26 61

Quality of education

and training system

(different levels)

1 0 6 15 78

0 0 22 17 61

0 0 18 18 64

0 0 8 12 81

0 2 10 18 71

Legend:

Preschool

education

Elementary

education

Secondary

education

Higher

education

Adult

education

150

6.14 Appendix: Comparisons of statistically significant differences between

different educational levels – index of quality (systemic level)

Table 75: Index of quality (systemic level)

Groups N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Preschool

education

129 9.8960 1.96917

Elementary

education

169 9.9933 1.99353

Secondary

education

68 10.6508 1.73447

Higher

education

47 9.5074 2.31798

Adult

education

89 9.9263 1.99200

Total 502 10.0000 2.00000

Differences in means of the index between different types of respondents are statistically significant (K-W

χ2(4)=12.449, p<.05 (two-tailed)).

Statistically significant differences (using Dunn post-hoc test (Bonferroni adjusted significance p<0.05,

two-tailed)) are found between:

- secondary schools and kindergartens,

- secondary schools and adult education institutions.

151

6.15 Appendix: External experts’ opinion on impact of Erasmus+ (LLP)

Table 76: External experts’ assessments on different statements on Erasmus+/LLP (in %)

How far do you agree with the

statements below?

Not at

all

Very

little

Somewhat To a

great

extent

Cannot

decide

N. of valid

responses

Q17a LLP/Erasmus+ contribute to the

realization of the specific

objectives of Erasmus+.

0 3 41 56 0

32

Q17b The progress on the realization of

the specific objectives contributed

to the realization of the Erasmus+

general objectives.

0 6 41 50 3

32

Q17c Erasmus+ actions influence

national policy developments. 13 41 38 6 3

32

Q17d Integration of several

programmes into Erasmus+ made

the programme more effective.

6 0 35 32 26

31

Q17e Integration of several

programmes into Erasmus+

contributed to the efficiency of

programme implementation at the

level of beneficiaries and

participants.

3 6 28 34 28

32

Q17f The integration of several

programmes into Erasmus+

reduced the efficiency of

programme implementation at the

level of beneficiaries and

participants.

38 16 19 3 25

32

Q17g Approaches and tools that are

used for the disseminating and

exploiting of the results of

Erasmus+/LLP are effective.

0 13 72 16 0

32

Q17h Erasmus+ objectives continue to

address the needs or problems

they meant to solve.

0 6 39 55 0

31

Q17i In Slovenia, the identified

needs/problems, which Erasmus+

meant to solve, are still relevant.

6 3 28 59 3

32

Q17j The needs or problems evolved in 6 19 31 16 28

152

Respondents were answering for their respective field.

Table 77: External experts’ assessments on Erasmus+ (LLP) contribution - key competences and

skills (in %)

LLP and/or Erasmus+ in Slovenia

contribute to improving the level

of key competences and skills,

with …

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a

great

extent

Cannot

decide

N. of valid

responses

Q10a regard to their relevance for the

labour market 6 14 46 31 3 35

Q10b regard to their contribution to a

cohesive society 0 17 57 23 3 35

Q10c increased opportunities for

learning mobility 0 6 6 89 0 35

Q10d

strengthened cooperation

between the world of education

and training and the world of

3 26 31 37 3 35

such a way that the objectives of

Erasmus+ need to be adjusted.

32

Q17k The needs of different

stakeholders are addressed with

Erasmus+ objectives.

0 13 41 47 0

32

Q17l Erasmus+ is, in attracting and

reaching target audiences and

groups, successful.

0 0 39 61 0

31

Q17m Erasmus+ is in the field of

education and training well

known.

0 0 19 81 0

31

Q17n The various actions that have

been brought together in

Erasmus+ are coherent.

0 0 31 56 13

32

Q17o Erasmus+ complements other

national programmes (projects)

available in Slovenia.

0 9 44 34 13

32

Q17p Erasmus+ complements other

international programmes

(projects) available in Slovenia.

0 13 50 31 6

32

Q17q LLP/Erasmus+ produce effects

that are an upgrade of those that

would be incurred in the actions

only at national level.

0 0 56 41 3

32

153

work

Respondents were answering for their respective field.

Table 78: External experts’ assessments on Erasmus+ (LLP) contribution … (in %)

In Slovenia VŽU and/or

Erasmus+ contribute to the

fostering of…

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a

great

extent

Cannot

decide N. of valid

responses

Q11a quality 3 0 9 26 71 35

Q11b innovations 3 11 47 37 3 35

Q11c internationalization at the level of

education institutions 0 9 11 80 0 35

Q11d internationalization at the level of

training institutions 0 6 23 60 11 35

Q11e

enhanced transnational

cooperation between education

and training providers and other

stakeholders

0 6 20 74 0 35

Respondents were answering for their respective field.

Table 79: External experts’ assessments on Erasmus+ (LLP) contribution - European lifelong

learning area (in %)

In Slovenia LLP and/or Erasmus+

contribute to promote the

emergence and raise awareness of

a European lifelong learning area,

by …

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a

great

extent

Cannot

decide

N. of valid

responses

Q12a complementing policy reforms at

national level 9 26 43 20 3 35

Q12b supporting the modernization of

education and training system 6 11 51 29 3 35

Q12c enhancing policy cooperation 3 34 43 11 9 35

Q12d bettering the use of EU

transparency and recognition tools 0 9 54 37 0 35

Q12e

disseminating good practices and

raising awareness about that in

European area

0 9 20 71 0 35

Respondents were answering for their respective field.

154

Table 80: External experts’ assessments on Erasmus+ (LLP) contribution – foreign languages,

intercultural awareness (in %)

In Slovenia LLP and/or Erasmus+

contribute to …

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a

great

extent

Cannot

decide

N. of valid

responses

Q13a better teaching and learning of

foreign languages 3 6 20 69 3 35

Q13b

promoting the EU’s broad

linguistic diversity and

intercultural awareness

0 3 20 77 0 35

Respondents were answering for their respective field.

Table 81: External experts’ assessments on Erasmus+ (LLP) contribution – international dimension

of education and training (in %)

In Slovenia LLP and/or Erasmus+

VŽU and/or Erasmus+ contribute

to the enhancement of the

international dimension of

education and training, in

particular through …

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a

great

extent

Cannot

decide

N. of valid

responses

Q14a

cooperation between Programme

and Partner-Country institutions

in the field of vocational

education and training

0 13 38 38 13 8

Only respondents from vocational education and training.

Table 82: External experts’ assessments on Erasmus+ (LLP) contribution – international dimension

of education and training (in %)

In Slovenia LLP and/or Erasmus+

contribute to the enhancement of

the international dimension of

education and training, in

particular through …

Not at all Very

little

Somewhat To a

great

extent

Cannot

decide

N. of valid

responses

Q15a

cooperation between Programme

and Partner-Country institutions

in the field of higher education

0 0 18 82 0 11

Q15b

increasing the attractiveness of

European higher education

institutions

0 9 36 55 0 11

Q15c the promotion of mobility 0 0 0 100 0 11

Only respondents from higher education.

155

7 BIBLIOGRAPHY71

Action programme in the field of lifelong learning. Official Gazette of the EU, No. 1720/2006.

Access: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/SL/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32006D1720&from=SL.

Basis of Curricular Reforms (1996). Nacionalni kurikularni svet, May, 1996.

Digital Slovenia – Development strategy for the information society by 2020 (2016). Access:

www.mju.gov.si/fileadmin/mju.gov.si/.../DID/.../DSI_2020.pdf.

Education and Training Monitor 2016: Slovenia (2015). Access:

https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/monitor2016-sl_en.pdf.

EUROPE 2020 A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (2010). Access:

ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/1_SL_ACT_part1_v1.pdf. Access: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52010DC2020&from=EN.

Erasmus+ Programme Guide (2017). Access: http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-

plus/sites/erasmusplus/files/files/resources/erasmus-plus-programme-guide_en.pdf.

Erasmus+: the Union programme for education, training, youth and sport). Official Gazette of the

EU, No. 1288/2013. Access: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/SL/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32013R1288&from=SL.

ET2020: National Report - Slovenia (2014). Dostopno na:

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/education/policy/strategic-

framework/doc/et2020-national-report-sl_en.pdf.

Evaluation roadmap (2015). Internal source.

Interim Evaluation of the Lifelong Learning Programme 2007–2013: Final Report (2011).

Access: https://ec.europa.eu/education/.../lifelong-learning-programme-evaluation-2011_en.pdf.

Jelenc, Z. (ed.) (2007). Strategija vseživljenjskosti učenja v Sloveniji (Strategy of lifelong

learning in Slovenia). Ljubljana: Ministrstvo za šolstvo in šport in Pedagoški inštitut.

71

Included literature cited in the Interim report.

156

Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the strategic

framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020): New priorities for

European cooperation in education and training (2015). Access: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52015XG1215(02)&from=EN

Klemenčič, M., Flander, A. (2013). Evaluation of the impact of the Erasmus Programme on

higher education in Slovenia. Ljubljana: Center RS za mobilnost in evropske programe

izobraževanja in usposabljanja.

Lenc, A., Žagar Pečjak, M., Šraj, U., Abramič, M. (2016). Študija učinkov programa eTwinning

na šolsko izobraževanje v Sloveniji (Study of the Impact of eTwinning Programme on School

Education in Slovenia). Ljubljana: Center RS za mobilnost in evropske programe izobraževanja

in usposabljanja.

National Programme of Higher Education in Slovenia. Official Gazette RS, No. 20/2002.

National Reform Programme 2013–2014 (2013). Access:

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/nd/nrp2013_slovenia_sl.pdf.

National Reform Programme 2014–2015 (2014). Access:

www.vlada.si/fileadmin/dokumenti/si/projekti/.../NRP_2014.pdf

National Reform Programme 2015–2016 (2015). Access:

ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/csr2015/nrp2015_slovenia_sl.pdf

National Reform Programme 2016–2017 (2016). Access:

ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/csr2016/nrp2016_slovenia_sl.pdf

National Reports on the Implementation and Impact of Erasmus+ Guidance Note (2016). Internal

source.

Operational programme for the implementation of European cohesion policy for the period

2014-2020 (2014). Access: http://www.eu-skladi.si/kohezija-do-2013/ostalo/operativni-

programi/op-2014-2020-december-konni.

Organization and Financing of Education Act. Official Gazette RS, No. 16/2007 (with

amendments).

157

Resolution on the Master Plan for Adult Education in the Republic of Slovenia for 2013-2020

(RENPIO13–20), Official Gazette RS, No. 90/2013.

Resolution on the National Programme of Higher Education 2011-2020 (ReNPVS11–20),

Official Gazette RS, No. 41/2011.

Resolution on the National Programme for Language Policy 2014-2018 (ReNPJP14–18). Official

Gazette RS, No. 62/2013.

Resolution on the National Research and Development Programme 2011-2020 (ReRIS11–20),

Official Gazette RS, No. 43/2011.

Sentočnik, S. (2013). Impact of the Lifelong Learning Programme on primary and secondary

education with respect to national priorities. Ljubljana: Center RS za mobilnost in evropske

programe izobraževanja in usposabljanja.

Strategy for the internationalisation of Slovenian higher education 2016-2020 (2016). Centre of

the Republic of Slovenia for Mobility and European Educational and Training Programmes and

The Ministry of the Republic of Slovenia for Education, Science and Sport.

Strategic Framework – Education & Training 2020). Access:

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/strategic-framework_sl.

Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Official

journal of the EU, C 326, 26/10/2012. Acess:

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb/legal/1341/1342/html/index.en.html.

White paper on education in the Republic of Slovenia (1995). J. Krek (ed.). Ljubljana:

Ministrstvo za šolstvo in šport RS.

White paper on education in the Republic of Slovenia, second edition (2011). J. Krek, M. Metljak

(eds.). Ljubljana: Zavod RS za šolstvo. Access: http://pefprints.pef.uni

lj.si/1195/1/bela_knjiga_2011.pdf.

Zygierewicz, A. (2016). The Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU, 1288/2013): European

Implementation Assessments. Brussels: European Union.

M ID -TERMEVALUAT IONOF THE ERASMUS+ PROGRAMME:

You t h i n A c t i o n r e po r t f o r S l o v en i a

EVALUATIONEXPERT:

TOMAŽDEŽELAN,UniversityofLjubljana(YOUTH)

Ljubljana,Maj2017

Ref. Ares(2017)3148244 - 23/06/2017

2

TableofcontentsMETHODOLOGICALNOTE 4

(A)EFFECTIVENESS 5

1.TOWHATEXTENTHAVEERASMUS+ANDITSPREDECESSORPROGRAMMESCONTRIBUTEDTOTHEREALIZATIONOFTHE

ERASMUS+SPECIFICOBJECTIVES?ARETHEREDIFFERENCESACROSSFIELDS? 52.TOWHATEXTENTHASTHEPROGRESSOFTHEREALIZATIONOFTHESPECIFICOBJECTIVESCONTRIBUTEDTOTHEREALIZATIONOF

THEERASMUS+GENERALOBJECTIVES? 53.TOWHATEXTENTHAVEERASMUS+ACTIONSINFLUENCEDPOLICYDEVELOPMENTSINTHEDOMAINOFEDUCATIONAND

TRAINING?WHICHACTIONSWEREMOSTEFFECTIVEINDOINGSO?ARETHEREMARKEDDIFFERENCESBETWEENDIFFERENT

FIELDS? 64.WHATSPECIFICAPPROACHES(SUCHASCO-FINANCING,PROMOTIONOROTHERS)HAVEYOUTAKENINORDERTOTRYTOENHANCETHEEFFECTSOFERASMUS+?TOWHATEXTENTHAVETHESEAPPROACHESBEENEFFECTIVE?CANANYPARTICULARPOINTSFORIMPROVEMENTBEIDENTIFIED? 75.DOYOUCONSIDERTHATCERTAINACTIONSOFTHEPROGRAMMEAREMOREEFFECTIVETHANOTHERS?ARETHEREDIFFERENCESACROSSFIELDS?WHATARETHEDETERMININGFACTORSFORMAKINGTHESEACTIONSOFTHEPROGRAMMEMORE

EFFECTIVE? 86.TOWHATEXTENTHASTHEINTEGRATIONOFSEVERALPROGRAMMESINTOERASMUS+MADETHEPROGRAMMEMORE

EFFECTIVE?DOYOUSEESCOPEFORCHANGESTOTHESTRUCTUREOFERASMUS+ORITSSUCCESSORPROGRAMMETHATCOULD

INCREASEEFFECTIVENESS? 87.ISTHESIZEOFBUDGETAPPROPRIATEANDPROPORTIONATETOWHATERASMUS+ISSETOUTTOACHIEVE?ISTHEDISTRIBUTIONOFFUNDSACROSSTHEPROGRAMME’SFIELDSANDACTIONSAPPROPRIATEINRELATIONTOTHEIRLEVELOFEFFECTIVENESSANDUTILITY? 108.WHATCHALLENGESANDDIFFICULTIESDOYOUENCOUNTERWHILEIMPLEMENTINGTHEVARIOUSACTIONSOFERASMUS+?WHATCHANGESWOULDNEEDTOBEINTRODUCEDINERASMUS+ORITSSUCCESSORPROGRAMMETOREMEDYTHESE? 109.TOWHATEXTENTARETHEAPPROACHESANDTOOLSTHATAREUSEDFORDISSEMINATINGANDEXPLOITINGTHERESULTSOF

ERASMUS+ANDITSPREDECESSORPROGRAMMESEFFECTIVE?WHERECANYOUSEEPOSSIBILITIESFORIMPROVEMENTS? 11

(B)EFFICIENCY 11

10.TOWHATEXTENTISTHESYSTEMOFCOOPERATIONANDDIVISIONOFTASKSBETWEENTHECOMMISSION,EXECUTIVEAGENCY,NATIONALAGENCIES,EUROPEANINVESTMENTFUND,NATIONALAUTHORITIES,INDEPENDENTAUDITBODIES,ANDERASMUS+COMMITTEEEFFICIENTANDWELL-FUNCTIONING?WHATARETHEAREASFORPOSSIBLEIMPROVEMENTOR

SIMPLIFICATIONINTHEIMPLEMENTATIONOFERASMUS+ORASUCCESSORPROGRAMME? 1111.TOWHATEXTENTHASTHEINTEGRATIONOFSEVERALPROGRAMMESINTOERASMUS+RESULTEDINEFFICIENCYGAINSANDLOSSESFORTHEIMPLEMENTATIONOFTHEPROGRAMME,BOTHATTHELEVELOFTHENATIONALAGENCY/IESANDONTHEBENEFICIARIES’ANDPARTICIPANTS’LEVELS?DOYOUSEESCOPEFORCHANGESTOTHESTRUCTUREOFERASMUS+ORITSSUCCESSORPROGRAMMETHATCOULDINCREASEEFFICIENCY? 1212.DOYOUCONSIDERTHATTHEIMPLEMENTATIONOFCERTAINACTIONSOFTHEPROGRAMMEISMOREEFFICIENTTHAN

OTHERS?ARETHEREDIFFERENCESACROSSFIELDS?WHATGOODPRACTICESOFTHESEMOREEFFICIENTACTIONSOFTHE

PROGRAMMECOULDBETRANSFERREDTOOTHERS? 1313.TOWHATEXTENTHASTHESYSTEMOFSIMPLIFIEDGRANTSRESULTEDINAREDUCTIONOFTHEADMINISTRATIVEBURDENFOR

NASANDPROGRAMMEBENEFICIARIESANDPARTICIPANTS?ARETHEREDIFFERENCESACROSSACTIONSANDFIELDS?WHAT

ELEMENTSOFTHEPROGRAMMECOULDBECHANGEDTOFURTHERREDUCETHEADMINISTRATIVEBURDEN,WITHOUTUNDULY

COMPRISINGITSRESULTSANDIMPACTS? 1414.TOWHATEXTENTARETHEITTOOLSPROVIDEDBYTHECOMMISSIONADEQUATEFORTHEEFFICIENTMANAGEMENTAND

IMPLEMENTATIONOFTHEPROGRAMME?DOTHEYANSWERYOURNEEDS?GIVESPECIFICEXAMPLESWHERETHEYCANBE

IMPROVED.ISTHESETOFITTOOLSAPPROPRIATEORSHOULDITCOVERMORE/LESSELEMENTSOFTHEPROGRAMME

IMPLEMENTATION? 14

3

15.TOWHATEXTENTISTHELEVELOFHUMANANDFINANCIALRESOURCESTHATISAVAILABLEFORTHEIMPLEMENTATIONOF

THEPROGRAMMEADEQUATE?WHATSTEPSDIDYOUTAKETOOPTIMIZETHEEFFICIENCYOFTHERESOURCESDEPLOYEDFORTHE

ERASMUS+IMPLEMENTATION? 15

(C)RELEVANCE 15

16.TOWHATEXTENTDOTHEERASMUS+OBJECTIVESCONTINUETOADDRESSTHENEEDSORPROBLEMSTHEYAREMEANTTO

SOLVE?ARETHESENEEDSORPROBLEMS(STILL)RELEVANT?HAVETHENEEDSORPROBLEMSEVOLVEDINSUCHAWAYTHATTHE

OBJECTIVESOFERASMUS+ORITSSUCCESSORPROGRAMMENEEDSTOBEADJUSTED? 1517.TOWHATEXTENTARENEEDSOFDIFFERENTSTAKEHOLDERSANDSECTORSADDRESSEDBYTHEERASMUS+OBJECTIVES?HOW

SUCCESSFULISTHEPROGRAMMEINATTRACTINGANDREACHINGTARGETAUDIENCESANDGROUPSWITHINDIFFERENTFIELDSOF

THEPROGRAMMESCOPE?ISTHEERASMUS+WELLKNOWNTOTHEEDUCATIONANDTRAINING,ANDYOUTHCOMMUNITIES?INCASESOMETARGETGROUPSARENOTSUFFICIENTLYREACHED,WHATFACTORSARELIMITINGTHEIRACCESSANDWHATACTIONS

COULDBETAKENTOREMEDYTHIS? 16

(D)INTERNALANDEXTERNALCOHERENCEANDCOMPLEMENTARITY 17

18.TOWHATEXTENTARETHEVARIOUSACTIONSTHATHAVEBEENBROUGHTTOGETHERINERASMUS+COHERENT?CANYOUIDENTIFYANYEXISTINGORPOTENTIALSYNERGIESBETWEENACTIONSWITHINERASMUS+?CANYOUIDENTIFYANYTENSIONS,INCONSISTENCIESOROVERLAPSBETWEENACTIONSWITHINERASMUS+ 1719.TOWHATEXTENTDOESERASMUS+COMPLEMENTOTHERNATIONALANDINTERNATIONALPROGRAMMESAVAILABLE?CANYOUIDENTIFYANDTENSIONS,INCONSISTENCIESOROVERLAPSWITHOTHERPROGRAMMES? 18

(E)EUROPEANADDEDVALUEANDSUSTAINABILITY 18

20.TOWHATEXTENTERASMUS+ANDITSPREDECESSORPROGRAMMESPRODUCEEFFECTSTHATAREADDITIONALTOTHEEFFECTSTHATWOULDHAVERESULTEDFROMSIMILARACTIONSINITIATEDONLYATREGIONALORNATIONALLEVEL?WHAT

POSSIBILITIESDOYOUSEETOADJUSTERASMUS+ORITSSUCCESSORPROGRAMMEINORDERTOINCREASEITSEUROPEANADDEDVALUE? 1821.TOWHATEXTENTERASMUS+WILLBEABLETOABSORBINANEFFECTIVEWAYTHESHARPINCREASEINTHEBUDGETTHATIS

FORSEENINTHECOMINGYEARSUPTO2020?COULDTHEPROGRAMMEUSEEVENHIGHERBUDGETSINANEFFECTIVEWAY?DOYOUSEECHALLANGESTOEFFECTIVELYUSEMOREMONEYFORPARTICULARACTIONSORFIELDSOFTHEPROGRAMME? 19

4

METHODOLOGICALNOTE

The‘youth’segmentofthisreportaimedatidentifyingthenationalidiosyncrasies,withacloserlookatthe beneficiaries of the program and program participants as well as assess the process ofimplementation as the bulk of program activities are implemented in a decentralisedmanner.WeconductedaholisticYouthinaction/E+YouthinActionnationalreportthatisstructuredaccordingtotheECguidelines(coverpage,tableofcontents,executivesummary,methodology,answerstostandardquestions,conclusionsandsuggestionsforimprovements,annexes)andwillserveasthebestpossibleinputtocompileasingleintegratedErasmus+nationalreport.Asaresult,theE+YouthinActionwasdevelopedasastandalonenationalreport,whichwaseasilytransformedintoanE+integratedreport.

As the EC (E+/0402015) does not foresee a predetermined methodological research design, weimplementedamixed-methodsmethodologicalresearchdesignthatrestsontriangulationofqualitativeand quantitative methods in order to capture the implementation of E+ program as accurately aspossible.Tobeprecise,weutilisedadiachronousmethodtriangulation,which initiallyallowedustodetectthemainpatternsinevaluationoftheE+/YiAprogramandconsequentlyenabledustoconductanin-depthanalysisoftheseinitiallyidentifiedpatterns.Asaresult,thefollowingresearchdesignwasapplied:

1. In-depthliteraturereviewontheimplementationandimpactoftheE+inSlovenia(inventoryofexistingknowledge)

2. ExploratoryinterviewswiththemainstakeholdersontheimplementationandimpactoftheE+inSlovenia

3. SurveyquestionnairewithE+YouthinActionprojectparticipants4. SurveyquestionnairewithE+YouthinActionprojectleaders5. SurveyquestionnaireontheontheimplementationandimpactoftheE+inSloveniaconducted

onbeneficiariesoftheprogramme6. SurveyquestionnaireontheontheimplementationandimpactoftheE+inSloveniaconducted

onnon-beneficiariesoftheprogramme(controlgroupcompiledofyouthsectororganizationsnotbenefitingfromtheE+program)

7. Aseriesofin-depthinterviewswithkeybeneficiariesandkeystakeholdersinthefieldofyouth8. Twovalidationworkshops (withkeybeneficiariesandkeystakeholders)with thepurposeof

validationofacquiredresultsanddeliberationontherecommendationsforfuturedesignoftheprogram

5

(A)EFFECTIVENESS

1.TOWHATEXTENTHAVEERASMUS+ANDITSPREDECESSORPROGRAMMESCONTRIBUTEDTOTHEREALIZATIONOFTHEERASMUS+SPECIFICOBJECTIVES?ARETHEREDIFFERENCESACROSSFIELDS?

Erasmus+anditspredecessorprogrammecontributedsignificantlytotherealizationoftheE+specificobjectives inthefieldofyouth.However, the impactof theprogrammesvariesacrossobjectives. Intermsofrealizationofspecificobjectivesinthefieldofyouth,theobjectivethatisperceivedtobethemost effectively met is the enhancement of the international dimension of youth activities andenhancementofthecapacityofyouthworkersandorganisationsintheirsupportforyoungpeople.Theobjectives of (1) fostering quality improvements in youth work, in particular through enhancedcooperationbetweenorganisationsintheyouthfieldand/orotherstakeholdersand(2)theabilitytocomplementpolicy reformsat local, regional andnational level and to support thedevelopmentofknowledge and evidence-based youth policy as well as the recognition of non-formal and informallearning, in particular through enhanced policy cooperation, better use of EU transparency andrecognitiontoolsandthedisseminationofgoodpracticesareaccordingtothemainstakeholdersaswellassurveyrespondentsstillvisiblypursued,butfacedsomeobstaclesduetonationalidiosyncrasiesorinternationalagendaswearegoingtoexplaininthebelow.Ontheotherhand,thespecificobjectiveof improving the level of key competences and skills of young people, including those with feweropportunities,aswellastopromoteparticipationindemocraticlifeinEuropeandthelabourmarket,activecitizenship,interculturaldialogue,socialinclusionandsolidarity,inparticularthroughincreasedlearningmobilityopportunitiesforyoungpeople,thoseactiveinyouthworkoryouthorganisationsandyouthleaders,andthroughstrengthenedlinksbetweentheyouthfieldandthelabourmarketappearedtobelessvisiblymetbysurveyparticipantsandkeystakeholdersastheyperceivedittobetooover-encompassing as well as excessively focused on the labourmarket performance. The difference inperceptionofthe impacttheprogrammehad intheyouthfieldoriginatesfromtheactualoriginsofindividual objectives and coherence with the epistemology of youth work. To be precise, certainobjectivesdidnotoriginateintheyouthfieldandaresometimesconsideredtobeaninvasionofeitherformal education or the labour market/employability mentality into the underprivileged field thatnurturesnon-formaleducation,volunteering,lessonsforlifeandnottransitiontothelabourmarket.Thereisaprevailingbeliefamongthestakeholdersintheyouthfieldthatyouthisforcedtocopewithformaleducationalgoalsandemployabilityagendaeventhoughthesearenot inherenttotheyouthfield. Practitioners in the field hence perceive that their modality of work, pedagogical paradigms,terminology,prevailingconcepts,methodologiesofyouthworkandprimarilycoremissionissimplynotappropriately appreciated. Rather than focusing on the labour market they feel they shouldprogressivelyfocusonsocialresponsibilityandsocialcohesion.Asaresultofthistrend,theimpactofthosespecificobjectiveswithatendencytoaddressabovementionedagendastendstobeweaker.

2.TOWHATEXTENTHASTHEPROGRESSOFTHEREALIZATIONOFTHESPECIFICOBJECTIVESCONTRIBUTEDTOTHEREALIZATIONOFTHEERASMUS+GENERALOBJECTIVES?

In the youth field the surveys conducted on project participants, project leaders as well as youthorganizationspointouttothefactthatErasmus+generalobjectivesaredifferentlymet.Whenyouthisconcerned,themostvisibleprogressisconsideredtobeintermsofachievingoneofthegoalsofthe

6

overallobjectivesoftherenewedframeworkforEuropeancooperationintheyouthfield(2010-2018).This goal is to encourage young people to actively participate in society. On the other hand, thestrategy’sgoaltoprovidemoreandequalopportunitiesforyoungpeopleineducationandinthelabourmarketisperceivedtobemostlypursuedintermsofcreatingmoreopportunitiestoyoungpeoplewithlessopportunitiesandless intermsofmakingyoungpeoplemorecompetitiveinthelabourmarket.Thatbeingsaid,thesurveyedindividualsaswellasstakeholdersholdastrongbeliefthattheefficiencyofthecooperationandactionsalreadyputinplaceisimprovedandthattheprogrammedoesprovideincreased benefits to young people in the EU. As far as the general objective of the promotion ofEuropeanvaluesinaccordancewithArticle2oftheTreatyonEuropeanUnion(i.e.valuesofrespectforhumandignity,freedom,democracy,equality,theruleoflawandrespectforhumanrights,includingtherightsofpersonsbelongingtominorities)isconcerned,thereisageneralunderstandingthatE+anditspredecessorssupport(ed)thesevaluesthatareincreasinglyunderstressincontemporaryEurope.Theyactuallybelievethattheprogrammeisoneoftherareopportunitiestodefendandpromotethesevalues as well as presents one of the main sources where young people could actually learn andexperiencethesevaluesfromfirsthand.Theonlyreservationaboutachievingthisgoalstakeholdersputforward is the fact that the value dimension tends to be instrumentalised in valious projects andactivities.Asaresult,themechanismsofassessment,reviewandcontrolhavetobeinplacetoseparatebetweenwindow-dressingandtruecommitmenttothesevalues.ThisconsequentlydemandsadditionaleffortfromthesideoftheNationalAgency.OtherE+generalobjectivestendtobelessvisiblymetandaremostlyperceivedtobeimplicitlyaddressedandachievedasthenatureofyouthworkisabouttheprocessandnottheexplicitgoalsaswellasaboutthelessonsforlifeandnotforimmediatetransitiontothelabourmarket.ThereisalsoageneralbeliefthatE+generalobjectivesaresimplytoobroadandthat unrealistic expectations have been set for this programme due to underperformance of otherprogrammesthatwere/aremoreappropriatetoaddresscontagiousissuesofcontemporaryEurope.

3.TOWHATEXTENTHAVEERASMUS+ACTIONSINFLUENCEDPOLICYDEVELOPMENTSINTHEDOMAINOFEDUCATIONANDTRAINING?WHICHACTIONSWEREMOSTEFFECTIVEINDOINGSO?ARETHEREMARKEDDIFFERENCESBETWEENDIFFERENTFIELDS?

Intheyouthfield,therearevisibletracesE+leftintermsofpolicydevelopmentsatthenationalorlocallevel.Theprogrammeimportantlyinfluenceddevelopmentsinthewayyouthpolicyisunderstood,bysolidifying the horizontal youth policy approach, as well as triggered initiatives pursuingprofessionalization of youth work, recognition of youth worker as an occupational qualification,promotionandcomprehensionoflearningmobilityetc.Inmanywaystheprogrammehasbecomethetoolfordevelopmentofnewpolicymechanismsapproaches,fortestingnewideasinthispolicyfieldaswellasafountainofnewandinnovativeapproachesthatarediscussedaboutandfrequentlyalsoplacedon thepolicy agendadue to theprogramme. Theprogramme, according to themain stakeholders,hencehasasignificantsystemicimpactandactsasanimportantdriverofthepolicymakingprocess,although,tomany,provestobelesspivotalandinfluentialthanthepreviousone,alsoduetointegrationofyouthunderthecommonE+hat.Nevertheless,theprogrammeachievesclearsynergeticeffectswiththenationalcallforactivitiesinthefieldofyouthwork.Theprogrammeisalsoperceivedtohavemajorinfluenceintermsofimprovingthecapacityofthesectoraswellasorganizationsactinginit.ThisisprimarilytruefortheNationalAgencyMOVIT,whichbecameaninfluentialpolicyagendasetterduetoitselevatedinfluence(itisperceivedthatMOVITveryefficientlyutilizesitsTCAresourcestoinfluence(trans)national policy developments that contribute to the realization of E+ objectives as well assupports youth sector by addressing itsmost problematic issues), but also other organizations that

7

managedtoprofessionalizetoahigherdegreeeventhoughtheyreportchronicallackofresourcesfortheirbasicoperations.As theE+programme is frequentlyperceived tobe thepivotaland themainprogramme in the fieldof youth, andnot supplemental to thenationalone, thisputsorganizationsunderseverestresswhentheyimplementE+projectsastheysimplylackresourcesfortheireverydayoperations.Stakeholdersalsobelievethattheprogrammecontributedtothe‘literacy’oforganizationsactiveintheyouthsectoraswellassetacleararrayofoperatingprinciplesthatimprovedtheefficiencyoforganizationsaswellasimprovedcapacityoftheentiresector.Itiswidelybelievedthat,whenthekeyactionsareconcerned,thattheKA2(strategicpartnerships)andtheKA3(structureddialogue)havethemostpotential.KA2isespeciallyfavouredbyorganizationsthemselvesasitallowsthemtotestthelimitsoftheirorganizationsintermsofinnovation,developmentandtheimpactontheentiresector.However,theimpactofKA2isstilltobeseenasthemainresultsofthisactionarestilltocome.KA3,ontheotherhand,provedveryimportantintermsofputtingsomekeyissuesonthepolicyagendathatactually resulted inpolicyshifts.ThedrawbackofKA3 is the fact that iteventually restsalsoon thecommitmentofpoliticianseventhoughthisisonlyoneofanticipatedimpactsoftheaction.Participants,projectsleadersandyouthorganizationsseeitasoneofthemostimportantones,though.Thatbeingsaid,KA1,primarilymobilityofyouthworkers,contributedalottotheprocessofprofessionalizationofyouthworkasitallowsyouthworkerstoimproveintermsofcapacityandagency.

4.WHATSPECIFICAPPROACHES(SUCHASCO-FINANCING,PROMOTIONOROTHERS)HAVEYOUTAKENINORDERTOTRYTOENHANCETHEEFFECTSOFERASMUS+?TOWHATEXTENTHAVETHESEAPPROACHESBEENEFFECTIVE?CANANYPARTICULARPOINTSFORIMPROVEMENTBEIDENTIFIED?

The‘youth’partoftheprogrammeintroducesseveralpracticesinordertoenhancetheeffectsoftheprogramme.Itisdifficulttoassessthemintermsoftheirimpactontheeventualattainmentofthesetobjectives,however,theseactivitiesrecordedpositivefeedbackandwereperceivedtobeastepintothedirectionintheeyesofstakeholders,organizationsandprojectleaders.Onesuchmeasureisaclosemonitoringoftheimplementationofconfirmedprojectsinordertoassesstheactualconsumptionoftheallocatedbudget.ThisallowstheNationalAgencytohavemorereliablepredictionof theactualbudgetconsumedaswellasimprovedcapacitytoabsorbthebudgetallocatedtoit.Thismeasureofincreasedmonitoring/forecasting incombinationwith ‘overcommitment’–measurealsoassistedbythe contractual relationof theNationalAgencywith theNationalAuthority – improved the levelofabsorptionbyseveralpercentsandprovidedadditionalresourcestoalreadyunderfinancedsectorthatwouldotherwisebe lost.Other importantactivitiesalsoaimedatenhancementoftheeffectsoftheprogrammewereseriesofworkshopsforvariousactorswithinthesectortolearnabouttheprogrammeanditsopportunitiesaswellasworkshops,mandatoryfornewapplicantsandvoluntaryforexperiencedorganizations,to improvetheircapacity intermsofpreparing,managing, implementingprojectsandreportingaboutthem.Inthissense, increasedattentionisalsoputontheVALORDisseminationandExploitation platform that offers a comprehensive overview of all projects funded under the newErasmus+.TheNationalAgencyhasinfacttakenastepfurtherandstartedwithaseriesofactivities,including specially designed workshops, to promote the ‘DEOR’ (dissemination and exploitation ofresults)dimensionofprojects. In thissense,also international trainingswithin themobilityofyouthworkershavebeenorganizedandpromoted.WhentalkingaboutmeasureswithwhichtheNationalAgencysupportedapplicants,weneedtostress:providingadviceoverphone,viae-mail(from500to800forbothmodesperyear)andin-person(around30peryear),generalYouthinActioninformationworkshops(from10to20peryear),financialworkshopsforbeneficiaries(about5peryear),workshopsforapplicants(from8to12peryear).Additionalactionstoimprovetheeffectsoftheprogrammewere

8

also production of various brochures, journals, newsletters, improved assessments/monitoring ofprojectsintermsofqualitychecksandincreasedpresenceoftheNationalAgency’sstaff‘ontheground’.Astherecognitionoftheprogrammeishighintheyouthsector,theNationalAgencyalsomovedfromuniversal promotion activities to targeting activities that includemore effort put into DEOR by theagency itself, checks in terms of appropriateness of individuals attending trainings, productions ofinformationwiththeintentionofinfluencingpoliciesandpolicy-makingprocessesaswellasimprovingthe capacity of youth work, the essence of youth sector. The National Agency also put significantattentiontopromotingtheevidence-basedyouthpolicymakingbyutilizingresearchresultsderivingfromtheE+YouthinActionmonitoringactivitiesconductedbytheRAYresearchnetwork.

5.DOYOUCONSIDERTHATCERTAINACTIONSOFTHEPROGRAMMEAREMOREEFFECTIVETHANOTHERS?ARETHEREDIFFERENCESACROSSFIELDS?WHATARETHEDETERMININGFACTORSFORMAKINGTHESEACTIONSOFTHEPROGRAMMEMOREEFFECTIVE?

Asexpressedinthe‘education’part,differentactionsoftheprogrammehavedifferentpurposes. Intermsof KA1, it is clear that the focus is on individual.Hence, thepotential effect of the action itsmodalitiesdoesnotreachthesystemicofhybrideffectstheothertwoactionshave.However,todate,theprojectleadersaswellasmostofthemainstakeholdersexpressedthebeliefthatthisactionisstillproducingthemosttangibleresults.Tobeprecise,itoffersfirst-handmobilityexperiencetoa‘regular’youngperson,tomanyyoungpersonswithfeweropportunitiesaswellasenablesyouthworkerstoimprove theiragency. Inaddition, themonitoring surveyalso indicates thatwith long-termmobilityexperience italso improvescapacityoforganizations,significantly impacts individuals inthemobilityprogrammeaswellascansignificantlyimpacthostingcommunities,particularlyinsmallercommunitiesofferinglessinterculturalcontactsandexperience.Atthesametime,wehavetopointoutthatmajorityofstakeholdersexpressedaconcernthatthenewprogrammeofferslessopportunitiestoindividuals,primarilymorevulnerableones,assomeactionsceasedtoexist.Thisisprimarilythecasewithformerlocal youth initiatives that allowed many young individuals with less opportunities to enter theprogrammeandarenownotinapositiontodosoduetovariousobstacles(e.g.youngRomapeoplethatexperiencelanguagebarriersduetotheirlowereducationalattainmentandknowledgeofforeignlanguages). In addition, thenewprogrammeproves tobe less friendly to informal groupsof youngpeoplethattendedtoapplyheavilyunderthepreviousprogramme.This isparticularly important inlocalitieswherethereissimplyalackofyouthorganizationsororganizationsactinginthefieldofyouthorwhere existing organizations lack capacity. In terms of the systemic effectsmajority of surveyedrespondents,organizationsaswellasstakeholdersbelieveKA2tobetheactionofferinginnovationtothesectoraswellasimpactonthesectorandpolicy-makingingeneral.Thelatterisalsoanaspecthighlycherished intermsofKA3as it ‘spilled-over’ instructureddialoguesbeyondwhat is foreseenbytheprogrammeandimportantlyinfluencedthewaypolicy-makingisseenandperformedintheyouthfield.It also contributed to some tangible policy outputs that improved the position of youth as well asincreasedtheagencyofyoungpeopleandtheirrepresentatives.

6.TOWHATEXTENTHASTHEINTEGRATIONOFSEVERALPROGRAMMESINTOERASMUS+MADETHEPROGRAMMEMOREEFFECTIVE?DOYOUSEESCOPEFOR

9

CHANGESTOTHESTRUCTUREOFERASMUS+ORITSSUCCESSORPROGRAMMETHATCOULDINCREASEEFFECTIVENESS?

TheintegrationofseveralprogrammesintoErasmus+hadseveraleffects.Intheyouthfield,therearepositive and negative effects that marked the inclusion of Youth in Action programme under theErasmus+umbrella.Tostartwiththepositiveones,theintegrationofdifferentprogrammespresentedalsoanopportunitytopromotecooperationandtransferofgoodpracticesacrosssectors.Thereweresomebright examples of cross-sectoral cooperation, primarily the initiative called ‘Key to inclusion’promotedbybothE+Nationalagencies,butingeneralthisaspectoftheprogrammesstillneedstobeheavily improved as it failed to reach its potential. One of the proposed practices to increase suchintegrationandtransferofpracticesistoorganizenationalaswellasEUleveleventtopromotesharingofbestpracticesaswellasnetworkingwiththesuccessstoriesinthefield.Trainingsandworkshopstotransfer knowledgeacross sectorsarealso somethingmajorityof stakeholdersargue for. Theotherpositivesideof the integrationof theprogramme isalsoperceived tobe the increasedattentionofpoliticiansandotherstatebodiestoyouth.Itseemsthattheelevatedimportanceoftheprogramme,alsoduetoitssize,alsocreatedconditionsinwhichthevoiceofyouthisheardmoreeasily.Thethirdmainimpactofprogrammeintegrationisperceivedtobethesymbolicrecognitionofyouthworkanditspositionbeingside-by-sidewithformaleducation;astwoequalpartnersaddressingthemainissuesconcerned.

Atthesametime,keystakeholdersbelievetheyouthsectorsufferedseveralnegativeconsequencesduetoprogrammeintegration.Firstly,theyexpressedconcernthatyouthsectorlostitsidentityunderthebigErasmus+framework.ManybelievethatErasmus+failedasamethodofpromotionofyouth,youthissuesandthepositionofyouthasitjuggleswithtoomanyprioritiesandgoalsthataresimplytoo broad. They believe the objectives should be more precise, more focused on youth, and alsoreflectingaclearmovefromthecurrentprioritiesthatpromotedtheissuesrelatedtothepositionofyouth at the labour market too aggressively. Stakeholders believe that as such, the Erasmus +programmeoffers too little room to address national idiosyncrasies and simply uses approaches toaddressandreachyouththataretoolined-upwiththementalityofformaleducation.Thistranslatedinto introduction of concepts, terminologies, working methodologies and standards that are notimplicitlypresent intheyouthsectorandwereperceivedtobean invasion intothecore identityofyouthsector,youthworkandnon-formaleducation.Thiscreatedaclearandomnipresentperceptionthat the youth sector is being secondary, an ‘addition’ to the formal education. Primarily youthorganizationsbelievethattheseattributesoftheErasmus+createdasituationwherethesectorisnolongerabout‘theyouthforyouth’approach,butratherreturnedtothetraditional‘patronizing’modelofworkbeingdoneforyouth,primarilybyhighlyprofessionalisedorganizationsthatsometimeshavenogenuinelinktotheyouthsector/youthfield.Asaresult,thetoolsusedwithintheprogrammeprovedto be very challenging for newcomers to the programme who do not have appropriate projectmanagementcapacitytoapply,manageandreportabouttheactivitiestheyimplement.Asteptowardsde-bureaucratizationandde-professionalizationofprogramwhenprojectmanagement(andnotyouthworkassuch!)isconcernedisthereforeseenasimperativesinceastepforwardforbigorganizationsintermsofapplying,reportingandmanagingprojects,byprovidingthemwithnewITtoolsetc.,canaseasily – and so it is – be seen as a step backwards for organizations and groups youth sector istraditionallytryingtoincludeandactivate.Thisresultedinageneralcriticismofprogrammeintegration,i.e.thattheintegrationitself ledtotheintroductionoforganizationsintotheyouthfieldthatreflectclear comparativeadvantages compared to the traditionalorganizations in the youth sector.As thestakeholdersperceivetheseorganizationshavenodemonstratedtrackrecordofbeingcommittedtoyouthwork,theyuniformlybelievethiscreatesasituationofhaving‘apackofwolvesinthesheep’sterritory’whowillleaveimmediatelywhenthefood(resources)willbegone.Ontheotherhand,theonesneedinganextrahand (i.e. informalgroupsofyoungpeople)appear tobe leftaside.Awidely

10

expressedviewisthereforethatthenewprogrammeshouldhave(1)astandalonebudgetlinedevotedspecificallyforyouth,(2)shouldhavespecificobjectivesforyouththatarecoherentwiththenewyouthstrategy that is currently being drafted, (3) that the programme and its infrastructure (tools,methodologies) isadaptedtotheneedsandidiosyncrasiesoftheyouthsector,and(4)thatthenewprogrammerecognizesdifferentnationalrealitiesandallowsthemtobeappropriatelyaddressed.

7.ISTHESIZEOFBUDGETAPPROPRIATEANDPROPORTIONATETOWHATERASMUS+ISSETOUTTOACHIEVE?ISTHEDISTRIBUTIONOFFUNDSACROSSTHEPROGRAMME’SFIELDSANDACTIONSAPPROPRIATEINRELATIONTOTHEIRLEVELOFEFFECTIVENESSANDUTILITY?

Whenitcomestothebeneficiariesoftheprogramme,abignumberofthem(42percent)believethatthebudget isnotof theappropriate sizecompared to thegoals thathave tobemet.The rationalebehind theircontinuedactivityunder theprogramme is the fact, that thebudgetavailable toyouthunder the Erasmus+ programme is oneof the rare sources of funding for youthorganizations andorganizationsactiveintheyouthsector.Asthegovernmentfundingofyouthsectorfailstoaddresstheneedsoftheorganizationsactiveinthesector,thisprogrammeactsasalifelinetotheseorganizationstosurviveandevolve.ThisisveryevidentalreadyfromprojectacceptanceratestheNationalAgencysinceonaveragetherateisaround25percentandgetsevendownto16percentwhenprojectsunderthe KA2 are concerned.At the same time, a clear assuranceof thequality are also very highpointthresholdsforsuccessfulprojectsasitisclearthatthegenerallevelofqualityofsubmissionsishigh.However,theserecordsarealsoaconsequenceofintensiveandtargetedeffortsoftheNationalAgencynotonlytoimprovevisibilityoftheprogramme,butmainlyimprovingthequalityofprojectsbyrunningaseriesofpreparatory,reporting,finalizing,DEORetc.workshopsforbeneficiariesandapplicants.TheAgencyalsoinvestsalotofeffortbybeingpresentatthegroundandalsobyperformingground-checksinordertoensureappropriatelevelofqualityassurance.However,suchqualityassurancealsocomesatapriceastheAgency’shumanresourcesarelimitedandunderstaffingcouldbecomeanissueaswellasthereisnotenoughresourcesforthestafftobeproperlytrainedandeducatedtorunthesesupportactivities thatcontribute to thehigh levelofquality.Asa result, there isaclearneed foradditionalmanagementfeethatwouldallowtheNationalAgencytobeproperlystaffedtomaintainthelevelofqualityitiscurrentlyholdingaswellastoallowthestafftobeproperlytrained.Thisisgoingtobecomeevenmorerelevantwiththeanticipatedincreaseofthebudget.Inaddition,anotherimportantchangewouldbeagreaterlevelofflexibilityindecidingthedistributionofresourcesacrosskeyactionsasthestructureofthesectorvariesfromcountrytocountry,whichineffectalsomeansthattheneedsofthesectorsaredifferent.Inthissense,maintainahighlevelofqualityisdisproportionallyharderundertheKA1thaninKA2asitisclearthattheresourcesareveryscarceundertheKA2andthatonlyproposalswithextremelyhighlevelofqualityfallthrough.

8.WHATCHALLENGESANDDIFFICULTIESDOYOUENCOUNTERWHILEIMPLEMENTINGTHEVARIOUSACTIONSOFERASMUS+?WHATCHANGESWOULDNEEDTOBEINTRODUCEDINERASMUS+ORITSSUCCESSORPROGRAMMETOREMEDYTHESE?

Asmentionedinthepreviouspoint,whenitcomestoyouth,thegreatestchallengeappearstobethelackofflexibilityindecidingthedistributionofresourcesacrosskeyactions.Asthesectorhasitsspecific

11

structuralidiosyncrasies,theNationalAgencyhastoinvestunanticipatedamountofefforttoaddressandfulfilthequotassetforindividualkeyactionsandmaintainthequalityofprojects.Atthesametime,otherkeyactionshavemorethanacriticalmassofhigh-qualitysubmissions,buttheresimply isnotenoughresourcestoaddresstheseneeds.Atthesametime,themanagementfeehastoreflecttheextrainputinvestedintheprojectquality,particularlywhenhavinginmindtheanticipatedincreaseofthebudgetforyouthandasetofintensiveandtargetedsupportactivitiesfocusedonDEORandsimilaragendasthatneedtobecomerootedinthesector.Whenitcomestoorganizations,ontheotherhand,45 per cent of them express a concern because they face difficulties while implementing projectactivities.Thesedifficultiesmainlyrelatetovisaissuingproblems,unreliablepartners,lackofmotivatedproject participants and the burden of excessive bureaucracy. Among the most frequentrecommendationstheorganizationsexpressedwerearevisionofasystemoftravelexpensesastheyfeelthatthecostoftravellingarenotalwaysentirelycoveredaswellasmoreopportunitiestosharegoodpracticesamongprojects,nationallyandinternationally,asthiswouldcreateanopportunityforthemtogetthestate-of-the-artdevelopmentsinthefieldaswellasgivethemtheabilitytonetworkandaccessindividualsandorganizationswherethesepracticesoriginatefrom.

9.TOWHATEXTENTARETHEAPPROACHESANDTOOLSTHATAREUSEDFORDISSEMINATINGANDEXPLOITINGTHERESULTSOFERASMUS+ANDITSPREDECESSORPROGRAMMESEFFECTIVE?WHERECANYOUSEEPOSSIBILITIESFORIMPROVEMENTS?

TheorganizationsimplementingprojectsinthefieldofyouthbelievethatapproachesandtoolsthatareusedfordisseminatingandexploitingtheresultsofErasmus+anditspredecessorprogrammesarefairlyeffective.Tobeprecise,39percentoforganizationsperceive themaseffectiveand41percentasneithereffectivenorineffective.Ontheotherhand,theNationalAgencycontinuouslyperceivedthisaspectoffinancedandproposedprojectstobetheirAchillesheel.Asaresult,theNationalAgencyhasinfacttakenaproactivepositionaboutthisdimensionofprojectsandstartedwithaseriesofactivities,including specially designed workshops, to promote the ‘DEOR’ (dissemination and exploitation ofresults).ApartfrominvestingintotheDEORcomponentofapplicantsandbeneficiaries,theAgencyalsoinvestedintoitsowncomprehensionandskillsrelatedtoDEORasitbecameoneofthemainissuesontheiragenda.AstheAgencyrecognisesitspotentialfororganizations–providingitbecomesusefulforapplicantsandotherusers– itput increasedattentiontotheVALORDisseminationandExploitationplatformthatoffersacomprehensiveoverviewofallprojectsfundedunderthenewErasmus+.Asaresult, various support activities continuing along these lines could prove importantwhen decidingwhether or not such an agenda should bemaintained and at what input. On the other hand, theorganizations believe the tool has to become recognised by the broader public aswell as perceiveworkshopsandtrainingsonDEORaimedatimprovingtheircapacityasaveryimportantandnecessarymeasure.

(B)EFFICIENCY

10.TOWHATEXTENTISTHESYSTEMOFCOOPERATIONANDDIVISIONOFTASKSBETWEENTHECOMMISSION,EXECUTIVEAGENCY,NATIONALAGENCIES,

12

EUROPEANINVESTMENTFUND,NATIONALAUTHORITIES,INDEPENDENTAUDITBODIES,ANDERASMUS+COMMITTEEEFFICIENTANDWELL-FUNCTIONING?WHATARETHEAREASFORPOSSIBLEIMPROVEMENTORSIMPLIFICATIONINTHEIMPLEMENTATIONOFERASMUS+ORASUCCESSORPROGRAMME?

Ontheyouthsideoftheprogrammeseveralpositiveaswellasnegativeaspectsofcooperationwithintheyouth fieldhave tobepointedout. Firstly, theNationalAgency feels theEuropeanCommissionconceives the roleofnational agencies asmere fundoperatorswhen in fact theyarean importantstakeholder in the youth policy field inmany countries. As a result, there is a perception that theEuropean Commission only informs the National Agencies, without prior consultations and/ordiscussionsontheissue.ThisisalsothereasonwhysomestakeholdersbelievetheCommissionlacksdirect contact with issues/actors on the ground. There is a widespread belief that the inclusion ofnational agencies in the process of drafting of measures would improve their effectiveness andefficiencyas thesemeasureswould then fitbetter todifferentnational environments. TheNationalAgencyperceivesthatthelackofinformationthenalsocontinuestootherareas,forexample,theylackinformationaboutcentralisedcallseventhoughtheypromote them.Hence,as in thecasewith theCommission itself, theNationalAgencybelievescommunicationwith theexecutiveagencyneeds toimprove.One step into the right directionwould be to include back the national agencies into theprogrammecommitteeoftheErasmus+,asithasbeeninthepart,sincethereisastrongconvictionthatthisfacilitatestheflowofvitalinformation.

Whenitcomestotherelationshipwiththenationalauthority,thesameissueofinformationdeprivationisexposed.Tobeprecise,theNationalAuthorityisconvincedthattheprocessofinformingthenationalauthorities needs to be improved, primarily by allowing them to havemore on-site informing andcontacts,moreintensivebriefingaboutwhatishappeninginthefield.Inthesamevein,theNationalAuthorityaswellastheNationalAgencybelievethattheEuropeanCommissionshouldtrustthemmoreanddefine clear andnon-overlapping roles for themas this provides fertile grounds for addressingvariousyouthissuesacrosssectorsandcountries(e.g.whenitcomestomonitoring,ithastobeclearwhatistheroleoftheNationalAuthorityandwhatoftheCommissionsincethereisotherwiseabigoverlap,whichcreatesthefeelingofdistrust).Ontheotherhand,whenitcomestothenationallevel,thereisageneralbeliefthattheestablishedmonitoringgroupfortheimplementationoftheErasmus+programmeworkswell,althoughitcouldbemore(pro)active.InadditiontherelationshipbetweentheNationalAuthorityandtheNationalAgencyforyouthprovestobeexemplaryintermsofinformationsharingaswellasimplementationofcertainactivities.

11.TOWHATEXTENTHASTHEINTEGRATIONOFSEVERALPROGRAMMESINTOERASMUS+RESULTEDINEFFICIENCYGAINSANDLOSSESFORTHEIMPLEMENTATIONOFTHEPROGRAMME,BOTHATTHELEVELOFTHENATIONALAGENCY/IESANDONTHEBENEFICIARIES’ANDPARTICIPANTS’LEVELS?DOYOUSEESCOPEFORCHANGESTOTHESTRUCTUREOFERASMUS+ORITSSUCCESSORPROGRAMMETHATCOULDINCREASEEFFICIENCY?

TheintegrationofvariousprogrammesintoErasmus+didunifythe‘language’withintheyouthsectorappearstobemoresuccessfulatincludingyouthwithlessopportunities,however,theprogrammealsoallowedcountriestohaveseparateNationalAgenciesforyouth.Asthiswasoneofthemaindemandsofyouthsectoratthetime,weshallputforwardareflectionontheimpactofsucharrangement.Thereisawidespreadbeliefacrosstheyouthsectorthatthedecisiontokeepaseparatenationalagencyalso

13

heavilysafeguardedtheyouthfieldingeneral.Tobeprecise,stakeholdersbelievethattheseparationretainedtherelevanceofthetargetgroupandenabledtheactorsintheyouthsectortopursuesectoralgoalsmoreeasily,to–atleasttoadegree–retainspecificfeaturesofthesectoraswellasretainedaveryfragileandalreadydiminishing(alsoduetothefeaturesoftheErasmus+)identityoftheyouthfield.Besidessafeguardingtheidentityandcertainspecificitiesoftheyouthfield,theseparationalsoallowedtheNationalAgencytosolidifyitsstatusasoneofthekeystructuresintheyouthfield,oneofthemost influentialactorsshapingthepolicyandthedevelopmentofyouthwork.AseparationalsomeantthattheNationalAgencybettercorrespondstothelogicofthenationalprogrammesinthefieldofyouthandsafeguardsitsautonomyalsofromthispointofview.

Whenwediscussspecificmeasuresthatallowedmoreefficientuseofresources,onesuchmeasureisa close monitoring of the implementation of confirmed projects in order to assess the actualconsumptionoftheallocatedbudget.ThisallowstheNationalAgencytohavemorereliablepredictionoftheactualbudgetconsumedaswellasimprovedcapacitytoabsorbthebudgetallocatedtoit.Thismeasureof increasedmonitoring/forecasting incombinationwith ‘overcommitment’–measurealsoassistedbythecontractualrelationoftheNationalAgencywiththeNationalAuthority–improvedthelevelofabsorptionbyseveralpercentsandprovidedadditional resources toalreadyunderfinancedsectorthatwouldotherwisebelost.However,therecommendationsthatweremostfrequentlyvoicedintermsofachievingthegreatestefficiencyintheimplementationoftheprogrammeisthefactthattheprogrammeneedsstabilityandconstantchanges,revisionsandmodificationshaveaverynegativeimpact.Providingstabilityoftheprogramme,withmeasuresbeingdraftedonthebasisofevaluationsand evidence, and in close cooperation with the relevant actors involved – including the entireimplementationchain–,whileatthesametimetakingintoaccountthegoalsandambitionsofthenewyouthstrategy,couldprovepivotal.

12.DOYOUCONSIDERTHATTHEIMPLEMENTATIONOFCERTAINACTIONSOFTHEPROGRAMMEISMOREEFFICIENTTHANOTHERS?ARETHEREDIFFERENCESACROSSFIELDS?WHATGOODPRACTICESOFTHESEMOREEFFICIENTACTIONSOFTHEPROGRAMMECOULDBETRANSFERREDTOOTHERS?

As far the youth part of the programme is concerned,we have to note that different actions havedifferentpurposesaswellasdifferenttraditionswithintheEuropeanprogrammes.IntermsofKA1,itisclearthatthefocusisonindividualanditalsohasthegreatestimpactonayoungindividual.Todate,theprojectleadersaswellasmostofthemainstakeholdersexpressedthebeliefthatthisactionisstillproducingthemosttangibleresults.Tobeprecise,itoffersfirst-handmobilityexperiencetoa‘regular’youngperson,tomanyyoungpersonswithfeweropportunitiesaswellasenablesyouthworkerstoimprove theiragency. Inaddition, themonitoring surveyalso indicates thatwith long-termmobilityexperience italso improvescapacityoforganizations,significantly impacts individuals inthemobilityprogrammeaswellascansignificantlyimpacthostingcommunities,particularlyinsmallercommunitiesofferinglessinterculturalcontactsandexperience.Intermsofthesystemiceffectsmajorityofsurveyedrespondents,organizationsaswellasstakeholdersbelieveKA2tobetheactionofferinginnovationtothesectoraswellasimpactonthesectorandpolicy-makingingeneral.Thelatterisalsoanaspecthighlycherished intermsofKA3as it ‘spilled-over’ instructureddialoguesbeyondwhat is foreseenbytheprogrammeandimportantlyinfluencedthewaypolicy-makingisseenandperformedintheyouthfield.It also contributed to some tangible policy outputs that improved the position of youth as well asincreasedtheagencyofyoungpeopleandtheirrepresentatives.Thatbeingsaid,thegeneralperceptioninthesectoristhatitisnecessarytomaintainthefocusontheindividual,however,thesystemiceffects

14

providedbyKA2andKA3alsoneedtobereinforced,particularlybypromotionofinclusionofgroupsthatgotleftoutoftheprogrammeduetoitsinnovations(nonformalgroupsofyoungpeople,locallevelinitiatives).

13.TOWHATEXTENTHASTHESYSTEMOFSIMPLIFIEDGRANTSRESULTEDINAREDUCTIONOFTHEADMINISTRATIVEBURDENFORNASANDPROGRAMMEBENEFICIARIESANDPARTICIPANTS?ARETHEREDIFFERENCESACROSSACTIONSANDFIELDS?WHATELEMENTSOFTHEPROGRAMMECOULDBECHANGEDTOFURTHERREDUCETHEADMINISTRATIVEBURDEN,WITHOUTUNDULYCOMPRISINGITSRESULTSANDIMPACTS?

Inthefieldofyouth,whenaskedwhetherthesystemofsimplifiedgrantsresultedinareductionoftheadministrativeburdenforNAandprogrammebeneficiariesandparticipants,beneficiaryorganizationsrecognizethechangeofsimplifiedgrantsasapositivechange.Morethan37percentoforganizationsreportedthattheyperceivethisstepasastepthatreducedtheiradministrativeburdens,while30percentsperceivetheburdenstobethesame.Only4percentsoforganizationseethisstepasastepofcreationofadditionalburdens. Ingeneral, theperception is that thesystemof simplifiedgrantsdidreduceadministrativeburdensimmensely,however,thenationallegislationstillpreventsittohavethefulleffect(strongelementsofdoingbusinessonpaper).Ontheotherhand,thecalculationoftravelcostsdoesraisesomeconcernsasthere isageneralperceptionthattheseapproximationscouldbeimproved as well as some organizations complain about the apparent lack of understanding thedifferencebetweeneligibleandineligiblecosts.IntermsoftheNationalAgency,theworkloadshrunkseverelywith transition to electronic operations. This significantly reduced the burdens also on thebeneficiaries’side,althoughsmallerorganizationswithlessskilful individualsalsotendtoexperiencethenegativesidesofthisstep.Organizationsalsopointouttheneedtolinkdatabasesinthemobilitytools and youthpass aswell as the need to reduce applications and reports in terms of apparentlyunnecessarydetails.Manyorganizationsalsopointouttheneedofthemobilitytooltobemoreuserfriendlyaswellastheneedtolinkittoquality(impact)asitlacksthisdimensioninthecurrentcondition.

14.TOWHATEXTENTARETHEITTOOLSPROVIDEDBYTHECOMMISSIONADEQUATEFORTHEEFFICIENTMANAGEMENTANDIMPLEMENTATIONOFTHEPROGRAMME?DOTHEYANSWERYOURNEEDS?GIVESPECIFICEXAMPLESWHERETHEYCANBEIMPROVED.ISTHESETOFITTOOLSAPPROPRIATEORSHOULDITCOVERMORE/LESSELEMENTSOFTHEPROGRAMMEIMPLEMENTATION?

When asking youth organizations about the appropriateness of the IT tools, 57 per cent of themexpressedthebelievethattheyareappropriateand7percentthattheyareveryappropriate.Ontheother hand, less that 4 per cent of them perceive the IT tools as inappropriate or completelyinappropriate. TheNational Agency equally appreciates improvements in this field. Initially, in 2014therewere somehiccupswith the transition to the electronic system (mobility tool), however, thisimprovedimmenselyin2016andallowedthebeneficiariesmuchcherishedone-entrypointaswellasprovidedthestaffattheNationalAgencyimportantsupportwithNAconnect.VALORtoolstillneedstobe improved in terms of getting recognition by potential users and beneficiaries, however, theinfrastructureisthere.WhentalkingaboutthepotentialimprovementsofITtools,organizationsbelieve

15

IT tools could be adapted to be compatible with the open code software and to be able to writeapplicationsonlinewithoutthePDFinterface.

15.TOWHATEXTENTISTHELEVELOFHUMANANDFINANCIALRESOURCESTHATISAVAILABLEFORTHEIMPLEMENTATIONOFTHEPROGRAMMEADEQUATE?WHATSTEPSDIDYOUTAKETOOPTIMIZETHEEFFICIENCYOFTHERESOURCESDEPLOYEDFORTHEERASMUS+IMPLEMENTATION?

Asinthecaseof‘education’partoftheprogramme,theNationalAgencyforErasmus+YouthinActionprogrammeisconstantlyadaptingitsorganizationallogictobetterimplementtheprogrammewiththehumanandfinancialresourcesthattheyhave.Asitwasalreadymentionedbefore,sincethestaffputsinsignificantworkloadintermsofimprovingthequalityoftheapplications–alsoduetothecurrentrigiddistributionofthebudgetacrosskeyactions–thestaffisalreadyunderalotofstressandalreadyatthismomentneedtheirsupportunitstocopewiththeimmensebureaucraticworkloadaswellastomaintainthelevelofengagementattheground,atthelocal level,alsobypromotingthetransferofpositivepracticesandcreatingthematicgroupsthatserveasnetworksfacilitatingpeerlearningamongorganizations.Evenatthecurrentworkload,itisclearthatadditionalmanagementfeeisimperativefortheNationalAgencytoproperlyinvestintothestaffbyprovidingthemtrainingandEU-levelnetworkingwiththeirpeersworkingonthesameissues,butprimarilytomaintainthelevelofqualityapplicationsreflectatthemoment.Theanticipatedincreaseofthebudget,withouttheincreaseofthemanagementfee,willputtheNationalAgencyunderseverestressmakingthestaffmereadministrativeandfinancialofficersofferinglittlesupporttotheapplicantsandbeneficiariesaswellashavinglittleornocontactwiththeorganizationsontheground.

(C)RELEVANCE

16.TOWHATEXTENTDOTHEERASMUS+OBJECTIVESCONTINUETOADDRESSTHENEEDSORPROBLEMSTHEYAREMEANTTOSOLVE?ARETHESENEEDSORPROBLEMS(STILL)RELEVANT?HAVETHENEEDSORPROBLEMSEVOLVEDINSUCHAWAYTHATTHEOBJECTIVESOFERASMUS+ORITSSUCCESSORPROGRAMMENEEDSTOBEADJUSTED?

Whenlookingattheyouthfieldmorethan64percentofsurveyedorganizationsactiveintheyouthfieldbelieve theErasmus+objectivescontinuetoaddress theneedsorproblemstheyaremeant tosolve.Atthesametime,only9percentoforganizationsbelievetheobjectivesaddresstheneedstoalittleorverylittleextent.However,thereisacaveatinthisinformationasitwastheobjectivesoftheErasmus+--aswaspreviouslyexplained–tendtobetoobroadandall-inclusive.Henceorganizationalsoproposecertainnewpotentialobjectivesthatareeithermorerefinedordoaddanaddedvaluetothecurrentselection.Amongthoseare:moreactiveinclusionofyouthwithfeweropportunities,moreintensiveparticipationofjuvenileoffenders,increasedcompetenceofcriticalandcompetentuseoftheinternet, inter-localyouthcooperationaswellas focusonglobal justiceandsolidarity.Ontheotherhand,keystakeholders intheyouthfieldpressedforstableobjectivesthataremoredefined, in linewiththecharacteroftheyouthsectorandyouthworkandcoherentwiththenewyouthstrategy.When

16

talkingmorespecifically,theyexpressedtheneedtoconnectmorewiththelocallevelandbeactiveonthelocallevel,toincludemorenon-formalgroupsofyoungpeople,tohavetheflexibilitytoadapttothenationalcontextaswellas tosystematicallyand increasinglyactively includeyoungpeoplewithfeweropportunitiesanddisabilities.Anomnipresentrecommendationisalsotoincludenationalyouthinitiativesandprimarilytofocusmoreonsocialinclusion,participationofyouthaswellascitizenshipeducationofyoungpeoplethatshouldbeachievedthroughtheintegrationofformalandnon-formalpedagogies.

17.TOWHATEXTENTARENEEDSOFDIFFERENTSTAKEHOLDERSANDSECTORSADDRESSEDBYTHEERASMUS+OBJECTIVES?HOWSUCCESSFULISTHEPROGRAMMEINATTRACTINGANDREACHINGTARGETAUDIENCESANDGROUPSWITHINDIFFERENTFIELDSOFTHEPROGRAMMESCOPE?ISTHEERASMUS+WELLKNOWNTOTHEEDUCATIONANDTRAINING,ANDYOUTHCOMMUNITIES?INCASESOMETARGETGROUPSARENOTSUFFICIENTLYREACHED,WHATFACTORSARELIMITINGTHEIRACCESSANDWHATACTIONSCOULDBETAKENTOREMEDYTHIS?

WhenwearetalkingabouttheneedsofdifferentstakeholdersintheyouthsectorandthewaytheycontinuetobeaddressedbytheErasmus+objectives,wemayidentifytheneedfortheobjectivestoconnectmorewith the local level, to includemorenon-formalgroupsofyoungpeople, tohave theflexibilitytoadapttothenationalcontextaswellastosystematicallyandincreasinglyactivelyincludeyoung peoplewith fewer opportunities and disabilities. An omnipresent recommendation is also toincludenationalyouthinitiativesandprimarilytofocusmoreonsocialinclusion,participationofyouthaswellascitizenshipeducationofyoungpeople thatshouldbeachievedthroughthe integrationofformalandnon-formalpedagogies. Intermsofsuccessoftheprogrammeinattractingandreachingtargetaudiencesandgroupswithintheyouthfield,primarilyyouthwithfeweropportunities,44percentofthesurveyedorganizationsbelievethattheprogrammeiseithersuccessfulorverysuccessful.Ontheotherhand,only12percentoforganizationsbelievetheprogrammeisunsuccessfulorveryunsuccessful. Even though organizations active in the sector positively evaluate the ability of theprogrammetoreachthesegroups–accordingtothekeystakeholdersthecurrentprogrammeisalsomuchmoresuccessfulinreachingthesegroupsthanthepreviousYouthinactionprogram–thereisisstillsomeroomforimprovement.Thekeystakeholdersbelievethatinorderfortheprogrammetoreachdifferentgroupsofyouthwithfeweropportunitiestoagreaterdegree,theprogrammewouldactuallyneed to make a systematic effort to invite/attract organizations working with these groups to theprogramme.Thiscouldhappenbyofferingtheseorganizationsmoreorganizationalsupportthatcouldcome from the increase of the management fee due to increased support provided to theseorganizations,theabilitytoutilizeTCAfinancialresourcesalsoforactivitiesatthenationallevel(asthiswouldbeaconcentratedefforttotargetcertaintypesoforganizationswithinthecountry),butalsomore effort invested into outreach and monitoring of these organizations in the youth field. Theprogramme would also be more attractive to the organizations working with youth with feweropportunitieshad the financial compensationwithin theprogramme recognise theextra input theyhavetoinvestbyworkingwiththesegroupofyoungpeople.Thisisalsoinlinewithwhatorganizationsexpressedsincetheyfirmlybelievethatreachingtoandworkingwithyouthwithfeweropportunitiesdemandsmoreresources,butatthesametimetheyalsoexpresstheneedtocuttheadministrativeburdenandtoredefine/refinethecategoryofyoungpeoplewithfeweropportunitiesthatwouldalsocorrespondwiththeextraeffortorganizationsareputtingintowhenworkingwithsomegroupswithinthiscategory.

17

Whenlookingatthedegreetheyouthfieldisfamiliarizedwiththeprogramme,thesurveyconductedonorganizations in the sector reveals thatmore than70per centof organizationsbelieve that theprogrammeiswellknownorverywellknownwithinthesector.Ontheotherhand,lessthan10percentofthembelievethesectorisnotwellfamiliarizedwiththeprogramme.Whenbeingmorespecificandtalkingaboutthefamiliarityofyoungpeoplewiththeprogramme,organizationsbelievethattheprogrammeislesswellrecognised.Only21percentofthembelieveyoungpeopleknowtheprogrammewellorverywell.Atthesametime,morethan45percentofthembelieveyoungpeopleareunfamiliarorveryunfamiliarwith theprogramme. In this sense, it is clear that theprogrammewouldneed toinvestmoreintoitsgeneralfamiliarityandrecognitionwithintheyoungpeople.

(D) INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL COHERENCE ANDCOMPLEMENTARITY

18.TOWHATEXTENTARETHEVARIOUSACTIONSTHATHAVEBEENBROUGHTTOGETHERINERASMUS+COHERENT?CANYOUIDENTIFYANYEXISTINGORPOTENTIALSYNERGIESBETWEENACTIONSWITHINERASMUS+?CANYOUIDENTIFYANYTENSIONS,INCONSISTENCIESOROVERLAPSBETWEENACTIONSWITHINERASMUS+

Intermsofinternalcoherenceoftheprogramme,thestakeholdersintheyouthfieldbelievethatthereisnotenoughsupportgiven to thecross-sectoral cooperation thatwouldactually connectdifferentsectorsandallowevenmoreuniversalwaytheobjectivesoftheprogrammeareaddressed.Thislackofsystematicsupportisalsocombinedwiththegeneralperceptionthattheyouthfieldisgoingtoentersuchcooperationasa‘juniorpartner’andwillgetasecondaryroleinpartnership.Thisisbackedupwiththeperceptionthattheothersectorsbelieveyouthfieldshoulddothefirstmoveinbridgingthatgapaswellasthatthereisnotangiblecommitmenttocooperateonthe‘education’and‘sport’sideoftheprogramme.Organizationsalsofrequentlyexpressthegeneralattitudeofschoolsandtheeducationalsectorsasverypaternalistic,asifyouthorganizationsarea‘bunchofkids’thatshouldservethe‘proper’educationsystemwheneverthereisaneedforthat.Theyalsoexpressconcernthatschoolteachersand the persons they usually work with fail to recognise the value of youth work and non-formaleducationalpedagogies.Thispresentsaseriousobstacletomeaningfulcooperationwithsectorsandavoidanceofduplicationsofparalleluncollaboratedefforttoaddressthesameproblems.Thatbeingsaid, there is evidence of fruitful cooperation betweenorganizations aswell as sectors themselves.WhentalkingaboutKA2, formaleducational institutions,particularlyHE,doprovideadditional inputandanaddedvalue to thestrategiccooperation in the fieldofyouth. Inaddition, the twoagenciessupported cross-sectoral cooperation that also included the state and university to promote socialinclusionthroughacoherentcross-sectoralcooperationmodel.Thisinitiativecalled‘Keytoinclusion’broughttogetherrepresentativesofvarioussectorstojointlydiscusstheissueofsocialinclusionaswellasdeviseacommonapproachofhowtojointlyaddressitwithacoherentsetofmeasures.

18

19.TOWHATEXTENTDOESERASMUS+COMPLEMENTOTHERNATIONALANDINTERNATIONALPROGRAMMESAVAILABLE?CANYOUIDENTIFYANDTENSIONS,INCONSISTENCIESOROVERLAPSWITHOTHERPROGRAMMES?

In the youth field, when it comes to the coherence of the programme with other national andinternationalprogrammesavailable,thegeneralperceptionoforganizationsactiveinthefieldisthattheprogrammedoes connect to theothernationalprogrammes relevant to the field, primarily thenationalprogrammeonyouth,but this connectioncouldbe improved.40percentoforganizationsbelievethattheprogrammeconnectstoagreatdegreewiththenationalprogrammeonyouth,buttheymostlyexpressthebeliefthatthetwoprogrammesonlypartiallyoverlap.ThisalsocorrespondswiththeperceptionofkeystakeholdersinthefieldwhobelievethattherearemanysynergiesbetweentheErasmus+andthenationalprogrammeonyouthandthepubliccallforco-financingofprogrammesin the fieldof youthwork.However, there is alsoageneralbelief that these synergies couldbe fargreaterhadcertainconditionbeenmet.Firstly,majorityofstakeholdersandmostorganizationsareconvincedthatthegovernmentdoesnotsupporttheyouthsectortoadegreethatwouldallowtheErasmus+programmetobeasupplementaddressingadditionalandprogrammaticratherthanbasicexistentialneedsoftheorganizationsactiveinthesector.Hence,supportforbasicoperationshastocomefromthenationaland localbudgets inorderforthesynergiestobeatamoredesirable level.Secondly,thereisaperceptionthattheEuropeanCommissionshouldallowtheprogrammetobemoreflexibleinaddressingthelocal/nationalneedsandadapttonationalidiosyncrasies.Ontheotherhand,thirdly, an important part of stakeholders believe that the national government should adapt thenational programmeon youth to bemore compatiblewith the Erasmus + programme and actuallyaddressitsownobjectivesbetterandwithagreatersupportprovidedbytheresourcesavailableundertheErasmus+programme.

(E)EUROPEANADDEDVALUEANDSUSTAINABILITY

20.TOWHATEXTENTERASMUS+ANDITSPREDECESSORPROGRAMMESPRODUCEEFFECTSTHATAREADDITIONALTOTHEEFFECTSTHATWOULDHAVERESULTEDFROMSIMILARACTIONSINITIATEDONLYATREGIONALORNATIONALLEVEL?WHATPOSSIBILITIESDOYOUSEETOADJUSTERASMUS+ORITSSUCCESSORPROGRAMMEINORDERTOINCREASEITSEUROPEANADDEDVALUE?

Intheyouthfield,theEuropeandimensionandEuropeanaddedvalueisoneofthemostrecognisedpositiveimpactsoftheprogramme.Thestakeholdersareunanimousthatthisdimensionisundoubtedlyoneof thestrongestandthattheprojectachieves impactthatwouldbeotherwiseabsent fromthefield.Thisisalsoheavilysupportedbyorganizationsactinginthefieldsincemorethan70percentoforganizationsbelievethattheprogrammecreatesverystrongorextremelystrongimpactthatwouldotherwisenothavebeenachievedwithnationalandlocalprogrammes.Ontheotherhand,only6percent of organizations believe that the programme has small or negligent impact in terms of theEuropeanaddedvalue.Whenlookingattheresultsofthesurveyconductedonprojectparticipantsandprojectleaders,ontheindividuallevelthistranslatestotheabilitytocommunicateinanotherlanguage,positiverelationswithindividualsfromotherculturalbackgrounds(interculturaldimension)andrespectofculturaldiversity.Ontheorganizationallevelthisisreflectedinintensifiedpartnershipwithpartnersfromothercountriesandotherculturalenvironments,withthesenseofappreciationtowardsculturaldiversity, to improvedcapacityoforganizations intermsofprojectmanagementandaddressingthe

19

interculturaltopicsaswellasinintensifiedparticipationinEuropeanmatters,eitherintermsofyouthpolicy or policies in general. On the community level the projects particularly introduced theintercultural dimension that resulted in a higher level of openness of local communities to futureprojectswiththeEuropean/interculturaldimensionaswellasingreaterconcernfortheissuesyouthisconcernedabout.

21.TOWHATEXTENTERASMUS+WILLBEABLETOABSORBINANEFFECTIVEWAYTHESHARPINCREASEINTHEBUDGETTHATISFORSEENINTHECOMINGYEARSUPTO2020?COULDTHEPROGRAMMEUSEEVENHIGHERBUDGETSINANEFFECTIVEWAY?DOYOUSEECHALLANGESTOEFFECTIVELYUSEMOREMONEYFORPARTICULARACTIONSORFIELDSOFTHEPROGRAMME?

Ingeneral,youthfielddesperatelyneedsadditionalresourcesasthenationalandlocalbudgetsfailtoprovide enough resources for the organizations in the youth field to function without financialdeprivation.Atthesametimethequalityoftheprojectsproposedandthecurrentacceptanceratesclearly indicate that additional resources provided to the programme would be absorbed withoutdifficultiesandthatthequalityoftheacceptedprojectswouldnotdecrease.However,thereweresomeconcernsexpressedbythekeystakeholdersregardingthisbudgetelevation,sincehigherbudgetforprojectswould have to imply also certain other changes. Firstly, the budget risewould have to beaccompaniedbytheelevationofthemanagementfeefortheNationalAgenciessincelargernumberofadministered projects would inherently reduce the support activities to financial controlling andadministrationifadditionalresourcesforstaffingarenotprovided.Inaddition,secondly,maintainingthecurrentqualityoftheprojectswiththeriseinbudgetalsodemandsadditionaleffortforthetransferofgoodpracticeswithinandacrossthesectoraswellasputtingmoreattentiontodisseminationandexploitationof results,whichwouldalsohavetobeadditionallysupportedbythemanagement fee.Thirdly,inorderforthistransitiontobesmoothandcreatedesiredimpact,greaterflexibilityintermsof distribution of resources across different key actionwould have to be reached as it is clear thatprimarilytheKA2isheavilyundernourished.Tomany,thiswouldassurethatthischangewouldnotonlyresultinquantitybutalsoinquality.

NacionalnoporočilooimplementacijiinučinkihprogramaErasmus+MladivakcijivSloveniji

Nosilec:Izr.prof.dr.TomažDeželan

Ljubljana,maj2017

Ref. Ares(2017)3148244 - 23/06/2017

Kazalo

1. STATISTIKEPROGRAMAZINTERPRETACIJAMI..................................................................................9

STATISTIKE..................................................................................................................................................12EVALVACIJAIZVAJANJAPROGRAMAE+MVAINDELAE+MVAVLETIH2015IN2016................................26

2. PREGLEDOBJAVNATEMOERASMUS+(LITERATUREREVIEW).......................................................28

SPLOŠNASLIKA...........................................................................................................................................28TEMATIKEPUBLICIRANJAOPROGRAMU....................................................................................................32REPOZITORIJOBJAVLJENIHČLANKOVNATEMOPROGRAMA......................................................................................38

3. ANKETAMEDUDELEŽENCIINVODITELJIPROJEKTOV......................................................................41

METODOLOGIJA.........................................................................................................................................41USPEŠNOST.................................................................................................................................................42UČINKOVITOST...........................................................................................................................................65USTREZNOST...............................................................................................................................................66NOTRANJAINZUNANJAKIHERENTNOSTINKOMPLEMENTARNOST..........................................................74

4. ANKETEZORGANIZACIJAM............................................................................................................79

METODOLOGIJA.........................................................................................................................................79ANALIZAODGOVOROVANKETEZORGANIZACIJAMI..................................................................................79OORGANIZACIJAH....................................................................................................................................111

PRILOGE................................................................................................................................................116

Kazalotabel TABELA1:SEZNAMPRIJAVINUSPEŠNIHPRIJAVPOAKCIJAHINLETIH(OBDOBJE2010-2013)...............................................9TABELA2:ODSTOTEKUSPEŠNIHPRIJAVPOAKCIJAHINLETIH(OBDOBJE2010-2013)........................................................10TABELA3:SEZNAMPRIJAVINUSPEŠNIHPRIJAVPOAKCIJAHINLETIH(OBDOBJE2014-2016).............................................11TABELA4:ODSTOTEKUSPEŠNIHPRIJAVPOAKCIJAHINLETIH(OBDOBJE2014-2016)........................................................11TABELA5:PRIJAVLJENIPROJEKTIINAKTIVNOSTIVOKVIRUKLJUČNEGAUKREPA1VLETIH2015IN2016..............................12TABELA6:ŠTEVILOUDELEŽENCEVPOAKCIJAHINLETIH(2010-2013)............................................................................12TABELA7:ŠTEVILOUDELEŽENCEVPOAKCIJAHINLETIH(2014-2016)............................................................................13TABELA8:PRVEPRIJAVEPROJEKTOVVLETIH2015IN2016........................................................................................13TABELA9:VIŠINADODELJENIHSREDSTEVZAOBDOBJE2010-2013(PRVIDEL)................................................................14TABELA10:VIŠINADODELJENIHSREDSTEVZAOBDOBJE2010-2013(DRUGIDEL)............................................................14TABELA11:VIŠINADODELJENIHSREDSTEVZAOBDOBJE2014-2016.............................................................................14TABELA12:ŠTEVILOPROJEKTOV,KIVKLJUČUJEJOMLADEZMANJPRILOŽNOSTMI(OBDOBJE2010-2013).............................15TABELA13:ŠTEVILOPROJEKTOV,KIVKLJUČUJEJOMLADEZMANJPRILOŽNOSTMI(OBDOBJE2014-2016).............................15TABELA14:ŠTEVILOUDELEŽENCEVVKLJUČNEMUKREPU1VLETU2016.......................................................................16TABELA15:ŠTEVILOUDELEŽENCEVZMANJPRILOŽNOSTMIVPROJEKTIHVOBDOBJU2010-2013........................................16TABELA16:STAROSTNASTRUKTURAUDELEŽENCEVVPROJEKTIHVLETIH2010-2013.......................................................17TABELA17:ŠTEVILOINODSTOTEKREVIZIJSKIHOBISKOVVOBDOBJU2010-2015.............................................................17TABELA18:ŠTEVILOINODSTOTEKOBISKOVNAKRAJUSAMEMZASPREJETEPROJEKTE........................................................18TABELA19:SVETOVANJEVOBDOBJU2010-2013.....................................................................................................18TABELA20:SVETOVANJEPREKOTELEFONA,E-POŠTEINOSEBNOSVETOVANJEVOBDOBJU2014-2016................................18TABELA21:ŠTEVILOYOUTHINACTIONDELAVNICVOBDOBJU2010-2013....................................................................19TABELA22:ŠTEVILOYOUTHINACTIONDELAVNIC(OBDOBJE2014-2016).....................................................................19TABELA23:DELAVNICEZAUPRAVIČENCE(FINANČNEDELAVNICE)VOBDOBJU2010-2013................................................20TABELA24:DELAVNICEZAUPRAVIČENCE(FINANČNEDELAVNICE)VOBDOBJU2014-2016................................................20TABELA25:DELAVNICEZAPRIJAVITELJEVOBDOBJU2010-2013..................................................................................21TABELA26:DELAVNICEZAPRIJAVITELJEVOBDOBJU2014-2016..................................................................................21TABELA27:OBISKISPLETNIHSTRANIVOBDOBJU2010-2013......................................................................................22TABELA28:ŠTEVILOZADETKOVINPROMET(VGB)VOBDOBJU2010-2013...................................................................22TABELA29:OBISKISPLETNIHSTRANIVOBDOBJU2014-2016......................................................................................23TABELA30:ŠTEVILOPUBLIKACIJINE-NOVICVOBDOBJU2010-2013............................................................................23TABELA31:ŠTEVILOPUBLIKACIJINE-NOVICVOBDOBJU2014-2016............................................................................24TABELA32:SPLOŠNICILJIPROJEKTOVVOBDOBJU2010-2013.....................................................................................24TABELA33:PRIORITETEPROJEKTOVVOBDOBJU2010-2013.......................................................................................25TABELA34:PODPORAEVSVOBDOBJU2010-2013..................................................................................................26TABELA36:ŠTEVILOPRIJAVLJENIHPROJEKTOVVLETIH2015IN2016...........................................................................26

TABELA37:USPEŠNEPRIJAVE(SPREJETEVPROGRAM)VLETIH2015IN2016.................................................................27TABELA38:PRIJAVLJENEAKTIVNOSTIVOKVIRUPROJEKTOVVLETIH2015IN2016..........................................................27TABELA39:ŠTEVILOPRISPEVKOVOPROGRAMUERASMUS+.......................................................................................28TABELA40:PODROČJA,KISOJIHOBJAVEPOKRIVALE.................................................................................................30TABELA41:SPOLANKETIRANIHINKLJUČNIUKREP,PRIKATEREMSOSODELOVALI..............................................................41TABELA42:TEME,KISOBILEOBRAVNAVANEVPROJEKTU(VODJEPROJEKTOV)INNOVESTVARI,KISOSEJIHUDELEŽENCINAUČILI

PRIPROJEKTU.............................................................................................................................................43TABELA43:IZBOLJŠANJESPOSOBNOSTIUDELEŽENCEVINVODIJPROJEKTOVSSODELOVANJEMVPROJEKTU............................44TABELA44:VPLIVSODELOVANJAPRIPROJEKTUNAUDELEŽENCAINVODJOPROJEKTA........................................................46TABELA45:VPLIVISODELOVANJAPRIPROJEKTUNAUDELEŽENCEINVODJEPROJEKTOV......................................................48TABELA46:DRUGIVPLIVISODELOVANJAPRIPROJEKTUNAUDELEŽENCE.........................................................................50TABELA47:VPLIVSODELOVANJAVPROJEKTUNADELOOZ.DEJAVNOSTUDELEŽENCAINVODIJPROJEKTOVNAPODROČJUMLADINE

...............................................................................................................................................................51TABELA48:PROJEKTJEPRISPEVALKCILJEMPROGRAMAERASMUS+:MLADIVAKCIJI.........................................................53TABELA49:VPLIVPROJEKTANAORGANIZACIJO/SKUPINO/TELO(UDELEŽENCIINVODJEPROJEKTOV).....................................55TABELA50:MNENJEVODIJPROJEKTOVGLEDEVPLIVAPROJEKTANAUDELEŽENCE.............................................................56TABELA51:VPLIVPROJEKTANALOKALNOSKUPNOST(MNENJEVODIJPROJEKTOV)............................................................57TABELA52:RAZVIJANJEVEŠČINUDELEŽENCEVZUDELEŽBOVPROJEKTU(POMNENJUVODIJPROJEKTOV)...............................58TABELA53:NAČINGLEDANJANAEUUDELEŽENCEV....................................................................................................59TABELA54:POMEMBNOSTTEMZAUDELEŽENCEPOSODELOVANJUVPROJEKTU...............................................................60TABELA55:POSLEDICESODELOVANJAVPROJEKTUNAUDELEŽENCE...............................................................................60TABELA56:POTRDILOYOUTHPASSINUDELEŽENCI.....................................................................................................61TABELA57:UPORABAPOTRDILAYOUTHPASSPRIPROJEKTU(VODJEPROJEKTOV)..............................................................62TABELA58:STRINJANJESTRDITVAMIGLEDEYOUTHPASSA(VODJEPROJEKTOV)................................................................62TABELA59:DELOZMLADIMIZMANJPRILOŽNOSTMIALISPOSEBNIMIPOTREBAMI(UDELEŽENCIINVODJEPROJEKTOV)............63TABELA60:SREČEVANJEZOVIRAMIPRIDOSTOPUDOIZOBRAŽEVANJA,MOBILNOSTI,DELAALIPARTICIPACIJEVDRUŽBIINPOLITIKI

...............................................................................................................................................................64TABELA61:SODELOVANJEMLADINSKIHDELAVCEV,MLADINSKIHVODITELJEVALIDRUGIH,KIDELAJOZMLADIMIZMANJ

PRILOŽNOSTMIALIPOSEBNIMIPOTREBAMIVPROJEKTU......................................................................................64TABELA62:JEBILAORGANIZACIJAPRIJAVITELJ,KIJEDOBILFINANČNOPODPORO?(VODJEPROJEKTOV).................................65TABELA63:PRIJAVNIPOSTOPEKINADMINISTRATIVNOVODENJEPROJEKTA(VODJEPROJEKTOV)..........................................66TABELA64:OBČUTKIUDELEŽENCEVPOKONČANJUPROJEKTA.......................................................................................67TABELA65:KJEUDELEŽENCIPROJEKTOVŽIVIJO..........................................................................................................67TABELA66:NAJVIŠJADOSEŽENASTOPNJAIZOBRAZBEUDELEŽENCEV..............................................................................68TABELA67:ZAPOSLITVENISTATUSUDELEŽENCEVV12MESECIHPREDPROJEKTOM...........................................................69TABELA68:NAJVIŠJADOSEŽENASTOPNJAIZOBRAZBEOČETAOZ.MOŠKEGASKRBNIKA/MATEREOZ.SKRBNICEUDELEŽENCEV....69TABELA69:MNENJEUDELEŽENCEVGLEDEPRILOŽNOSTIVPRIMERJAVIZVRSTNIKIVDRŽAVI................................................70TABELA70:SREČEVANJEZOVIRAMI(UDELEŽENCI).....................................................................................................70

TABELA71:SREČEVANJEZOVIRAMIPRIDOSTOPUDOIZOBRAŽEVANJA,MOBILNOSTI,DELAALIPARTICIPACIJEVDRUŽBIINPOLITIKI

(UDELEŽENCI).............................................................................................................................................71TABELA72:PRIPADNOSTUDELEŽENCEVKULTURNI,ETNIČNI,VERSKIALIJEZIKOVNIMANJŠINIVDRŽAVI..................................71TABELA73:PODROBNEJŠAOPREDELITEVUDELEŽENCEVGLEDEPRIPADNOSTIMANJŠINI......................................................72TABELA74:PRIDOBITEVINFORMACIJEOPROJEKTU(UDELEŽENCIINVODJEPROJEKTOV).....................................................72TABELA75:KAKOSOBILEVODJEPROJEKTOVOBVEŠČENEOPROGRAMUERASMUS+:MLADIVAKCIJI...................................74TABELA76:PREJŠNJESODELOVANJEUDELEŽENCEVVPODOBNIHPROJEKTIH....................................................................74TABELA77:SODELOVANJEUDELEŽENCEVVPREJŠNJIHPROJEKTIH..................................................................................75TABELA78:SODELOVANJEVODIJPROJEKTOVVPREJŠNJIHPROJEKTIH.............................................................................75TABELA79:ŽIVLJENJE/BIVANJEUDELEŽENCEVVDRUGIDRŽAVIPREDPROJEKTOM.............................................................76TABELA80:KRITJESTROŠKOVINOBČUTEKDELEŽAPRILOŽNOSTI(UDELEŽENCI).................................................................77TABELA81:NAJVIŠJADOSEŽENASTOPNJAIZOBRAZBEINPRIPADNOSTMANJŠINI(VODJEPROJEKTOV)....................................78TABELA82:USPEŠNOSTNARAZPISIHPROGRAMAERASMUS+MLADIVAKCIJI..................................................................79TABELA83:PREJŠNJEFINANCIRANJEIZPROGRAMAMLADIVAKCIJIALIKAKŠNEGADRUGEGAEVROPSKEGAPROGRAMA............80TABELA84:VIRIFINANCIRANJAPROJEKTOVVPRETEKLOSTI..........................................................................................80TABELA85:PRISPEVEKERASMUS+MLADIVAKCIJIINNJEGOVIHPREDHODNIHPROGRAMOVKURESNIČEVANJUCILJEV.............81TABELA86:PRISPEVEKKSPODBUJANJUVEČJEKAKOVOSTIMLADINSKEGADELA................................................................82TABELA87:PRISPEVEKKDOPOLNJEVANJUREFORMPOLITIKTERPODPIRANJURAZVOJAZNANJAINMLADINSKEPOLITIKE...........83TABELA88:PRISPEVEKKOKREPITVIMEDNARODNERAZSEŽNOSTIMLADINSKIHDEJAVNOSTITERVLOGEMLADINSKIHDELAVCEV..84TABELA89:PRISPEVEKKZAGOTOVITIVEČPRILOŽNOSTIINENAKEMOŽNOSTIZAMLADEPRIIZOBRAŽEVANJUINNATRGUDELA...85TABELA90:PRISPEVEKKSPODBUJANJUMLADIHKAKTIVNIPARTICIPACIJIVDRUŽBI...........................................................86TABELA91:PRISPEVEKKSPODBUJANJUVREDNOTSPOŠTOVANJAČLOVEKOVEGADOSTOJANSTVA,SVOBODE,DEMOKRACIJE,

ENAKOSTI,PRAVNEDRŽAVEINSPOŠTOVANJAČLOVEKOVIHPRAVIC,VKLJUČNOSPRAVICAMIPRIPADNIKOVMANJŠIN........87TABELA92:PRIMERIPROJEKTOVZAIZBOLJŠANJERAVNIKLJUČNIHKOMPETENCINSPRETNOSTIMLADIH.................................88TABELA93:PRIMERIPROJEKTOVZASPODBUJANJEVEČJEKAKOVOSTIMLADINSKEGADELA..................................................89TABELA94:PRIMERIPROJEKTOVZADOPOLNJEVANJEREFORMPOLITIKTERPODPIRANJERAZVOJAZNANJAINMLADINSKEPOLITIKE

...............................................................................................................................................................90TABELA95:PRIMERIPROJEKTOVZAOKREPITEVMEDNARODNERAZSEŽNOSTIMLADINSKIHDEJAVNOSTITERVLOGEMLADINSKIH

DELAVCEV.................................................................................................................................................90TABELA96:PRIMERIPROJEKTOVZAZAGOTOVITEVVEČPRILOŽNOSTIINENAKIHMOŽNOSTIZAMLADEPRIIZOBRAŽEVANJUINNA

TRGUDELA................................................................................................................................................91TABELA97:PRIMERIPROJEKTOVZASPODBUJANJEMLADIHKAKTIVNIPARTICIPACIJIVDRUŽBI.............................................92TABELA98:PRIMERIPROJEKTOVZASPODBUJANJEVREDNOTSPOŠTOVANJAČLOVEKOVEGADOSTOJANSTVA…........................93TABELA99:VPLIVUKREPOVERASMUS+NARAZVOJPOLITIKNAPODROČJUMLADINEVSLOVENIJINANACIONALNIINLOKALNI

RAVNI.......................................................................................................................................................94TABELA100:NAJUČINKOVITEJŠIUKREPI...................................................................................................................95TABELA101:OCENAPODPORENAMOVITPRIPRIPRAVI,IZVAJANJUINPOROČANJUPROJEKTOV........................................96TABELA102:PREDLOGIZAIZBOLJŠANJEPODPORENAMOVIT....................................................................................97

TABELA103:ZAZNAVANJEPOSLEDICZDRUŽITVEPROGRAMA........................................................................................98TABELA104:PRIMERNOSTVIŠINESREDSTEVGLEDENACILJE........................................................................................99TABELA105:SOOČANJEZIZZIVIINTEŽAVAMIPRIIZVAJANJUPROJEKTOVZNOTRAJERASMUS+..........................................100TABELA106:SKAKŠNIMIIZZIVIINTEŽAVAMISEPRIJAVITELJISOOČAJO.........................................................................100TABELA107:SPREMEMBEZAODPRAVOIZZIVOVINTEŽAV.........................................................................................100TABELA108:UČINKOVITOSTPRISTOPOVINORODIJZADISEMINACIJO...........................................................................101TABELA109:MOŽNOSTIZAIZBOLJŠAVEPRISTOPOVINORODIJ....................................................................................101TABELA110:SPREMEMBAADMINISTRATIVNIHOVIRZARADIPAVŠALOV........................................................................102TABELA111:PRIMERNOSTITORODIJ....................................................................................................................103TABELA112:CILJIERASMUS+ŠENASLAVLJAJOPOTREBEALITEŽAVEMLADINEVSLOVENIJI?.............................................104TABELA113:PRIVABLJANJEINDOSEGANJESKUPINMLADIHZMANJPRILOŽNOSTMI.........................................................105TABELA114:POZNAVANJEPROGRAMAERASMUS+ORGANIZACIJZNOTRAJMLADINSKEGASEKTORJA..................................106TABELA115:POZNAVANJEPROGRAMAERASMUS+SSTRANIMLADIH..........................................................................106TABELA116:POZNAVANJEPROGRAMAERASMUS+SSTRANIANKETIRANCEV(PRIJAVITELJEV)...........................................107TABELA117:DOPOLNJEVANJEPROGRAMAERASMUS+SSREDSTVIURADARSZAMLADINO.............................................108TABELA118:USTVARJANJEUČINKOV,KIBREZERASMUS+NEBINASTALI......................................................................109TABELA119:MOŽNOSTIZAPOVEČANJEEVROPSKEDODANEVREDNOSTIPROGRAMAERASMUS+.......................................110TABELA120:KAKOJEREGISTRIRANAORGANIZACIJA?...............................................................................................111TABELA121:ORGANIZACIJASTATUSVJAVNEMINTERESU..........................................................................................111TABELA122:SEDEŽORGANIZACIJE........................................................................................................................112TABELA123:OPREDELITEVORGANIZACIJE..............................................................................................................113TABELA124:POSLANSTVOORGANIZACIJE..............................................................................................................114TABELA125:OBLIKAORGANIZIRANOSTIORGANIZACIJE.............................................................................................115TABELA131:ŠTEVILOPROJEKTOV,KIVKLJUČUJEJOMLADEZMANJPRILOŽNOSTMI(2010)...............................................116TABELA132:ŠTEVILOPROJEKTOV,KIVKLJUČUJEJOMLADEZMANJPRILOŽNOSTMI(2011)...............................................116TABELA133:ŠTEVILOPROJEKTOV,KIVKLJUČUJEJOMLADEZMANJPRILOŽNOSTMI(2012)...............................................117TABELA134:ŠTEVILOPROJEKTOV,KIVKLJUČUJEJOMLADEZMANJPRILOŽNOSTMI(2013)...............................................117

Kazaloslik SLIKA1:USPEŠNOSTNARAZPISIHPROGRAMAERASMUS+MLADIVAKCIJI.......................................................................79

SLIKA2:PREJŠNJEFINANCIRANJEIZPROGRAMAMLADIVAKCIJIALIKAKŠNEGADRUGEGAEVROPSKEGAPROGRAMA.................80

SLIKA3:VIRIFINANCIRANJAPROJEKTOVVPRETEKLOSTI...............................................................................................81

SLIKA4:PRISPEVEKERASMUS+MLADIVAKCIJIINNJEGOVIHPREDHODNIHPROGRAMOVKURESNIČEVANJUCILJEV..................82

SLIKA5:PRISPEVEKKSPODBUJANJUVEČJEKAKOVOSTIMLADINSKEGADELA.....................................................................83

SLIKA6:PRISPEVEKKDOPOLNJEVANJUREFORMPOLITIKTERPODPIRANJURAZVOJAZNANJAINMLADINSKEPOLITIKE................84

SLIKA7:PRISPEVEKKOKREPITVIMEDNARODNERAZSEŽNOSTMLADINSKIHDEJAVNOSTITERVLOGEMLADINSKIHDELAVCEV........85

SLIKA8:PRISPEVEKKZAGOTOVITIVEČPRILOŽNOSTIINENAKEMOŽNOSTIZAMLADEPRIIZOBRAŽEVANJUINNATRGUDELA.......86

SLIKA9:PRISPEVEKKSPODBUJANJUMLADIHKAKTIVNIPARTICIPACIJIVDRUŽBI................................................................86

SLIKA10:PRISPEVEKKSPODBUJANJUVREDNOTSPOŠTOVANJAČLOVEKOVEGADOSTOJANSTVA,SVOBODE,DEMOKRACIJE,

ENAKOSTI,PRAVNEDRŽAVEINSPOŠTOVANJAČLOVEKOVIHPRAVIC,VKLJUČNOSPRAVICAMIPRIPADNIKOVMANJŠIN........87

SLIKA11:PRIMERIPROJEKTOVZAIZBOLJŠANJERAVNIKLJUČNIHKOMPETENCINSPRETNOSTIMLADIH....................................88

SLIKA12:PRIMERIPROJEKTOVZASPODBUJANJEVEČJEKAKOVOSTIMLADINSKEGADELA.....................................................89

SLIKA13:PRIMERIPROJEKTOVZADOPOLNJEVANJEREFORMPOLITIKTERPODPIRANJERAZVOJAZNANJAINMLADINSKEPOLITIKE 90

SLIKA14:PRIMERIPROJEKTOVZAOKREPITEVMEDNARODNERAZSEŽNOSTIMLADINSKIHDEJAVNOSTITERVLOGEMLADINSKIH

DELAVCEV.................................................................................................................................................91

SLIKA15:PRIMERIPROJEKTOVZAZAGOTOVITEVVEČPRILOŽNOSTIINENAKIHMOŽNOSTIZAMLADEPRIIZOBRAŽEVANJUINNA

TRGUDELA................................................................................................................................................92

SLIKA16:PRIMERIPROJEKTOVZASPODBUJANJEMLADIHKAKTIVNIPARTICIPACIJIVDRUŽBI................................................93

SLIKA17:PRIMERIPROJEKTOVZASPODBUJANJEVREDNOTSPOŠTOVANJAČLOVEKOVEGADOSTOJANSTVA…..........................94

SLIKA18:VPLIVUKREPOVERASMUS+NARAZVOJPOLITIKNAPODROČJUMLADINEVSLOVENIJINANACIONALNIINLOKALNIRAVNI

...............................................................................................................................................................95

SLIKA19:NAJUČINKOVITEJŠIUKREPI........................................................................................................................96

SLIKA20:OCENAPODPORENAMOVITPRIPRIPRAVI,IZVAJANJUINPOROČANJUPROJEKTOV.............................................97

SLIKA21:PREDLOGIZAIZBOLJŠANJEPODPORENAMOVIT.........................................................................................98

SLIKA22:ZAZNAVANJEPOSLEDICZDRUŽITVEPROGRAMA.............................................................................................99

SLIKA23:PRIMERNOSTVIŠINESREDSTEVGLEDENACILJE.............................................................................................99

SLIKA24:SOOČANJEZIZZIVIINTEŽAVAMIPRIIZVAJANJUPROJEKTOVZNOTRAJERASMUS+...............................................100

SLIKA25:UČINKOVITOSTPRISTOPOVINORODIJZADISEMINACIJO................................................................................101

SLIKA26:SPREMEMBAADMINISTRATIVNIHOVIRZARADIPAVŠALOV.............................................................................102

SLIKA27:PRIMERNOSTITORODIJ.........................................................................................................................103

SLIKA28:CILJIERASMUS+ŠENASLAVLJAJOPOTREBEALITEŽAVEMLADINEVSLOVENIJI?..................................................104

SLIKA29:PRIVABLJANJEINDOSEGANJESKUPINMLADIHZMANJPRILOŽNOSTMI.............................................................105

SLIKA30:POZNAVANJEPROGRAMAERASMUS+ORGANIZACIJZNOTRAJMLADINSKEGASEKTORJA.......................................106

SLIKA31:POZNAVANJEPROGRAMAERASMUS+SSTRANIMLADIH...............................................................................107

SLIKA32:POZNAVANJEPROGRAMAERASMUS+SSTRANIANKETIRANCEV(PRIJAVITELJEV)................................................108

SLIKA33:DOPOLNJEVANJEPROGRAMAERASMUS+SSREDSTVIURADARSZAMLADINO.................................................109

SLIKA34:USTVARJANJEUČINKOV,KIBREZERASMUS+NEBINASTALI...........................................................................109

SLIKA35:MOŽNOSTIZAPOVEČANJEEVROPSKEDODANEVREDNOSTIPROGRAMAERASMUS+............................................110

SLIKA36:KAKOJEREGISTRIRANAORGANIZACIJA?....................................................................................................111

SLIKA37:ORGANIZACIJASTATUSVJAVNEMINTERESU...............................................................................................112

SLIKA38:SEDEŽORGANIZACIJE.............................................................................................................................112

SLIKA39:OPREDELITEVORGANIZACIJE...................................................................................................................114

SLIKA40:POSLANSTVOORGANIZACIJE...................................................................................................................115

SLIKA41:OBLIKAORGANIZIRANOSTIORGANIZACIJE..................................................................................................115

9

1. STATISTIKE PROGRAMA Z INTERPRETACIJAMI

Na podlagi kazalnikov v prilogah 2 (Annexes 2) o smernicah evalvacije, podatki kažejo, da

so bili v obdobju od 1. januarja 2010 do 31. decembra 2013 izvajani naslednji ukrepi iz

programa Mladi v akciji izvaja v Sloveniji:

- 1.1 Mladinske izmenjave (Youth Exchange)

- 1.2 Mladinske pobude (Youth in Action)

- 1.3 Projekti mladih za demokracijo (Youth Democracy Projects)

- 2 Evropska prostovoljna služba (European Voluntary Service)

- 3.1 Sodelovanje s sosednjimi državami Evropske unije (Co-operation with EU

neighbours)

- 4.3 Usposabljanje in mreženje akterjev na področju mladinskega dela in organizacij

(Training and networking)

- 5.1 Srečanja mladih in odgovornih za mladinsko politiko (National and transnational

youth seminars)

Tabela 1 prikazuje, da je bilo največ interesa v evalviranem obdobju 2010–2013 v Akciji

1.2, kjer je bilo poslanih 474 prijav, od katerih je bilo sprejetih 145 (30,6 %). Največ prijav

je bilo sprejetih v Akciji 2, EVS – 209 od skupno 285 prijav (73,3 %). Najmanj prijav je

bilo v Akciji 1.3 (33) in Akciji 5.1 (30), pri čemer je bilo v Akciji 1.3 odobrenih 18 prijav,

pri Akciji 5.1 pa 14 prijav. V Akciji 1.1. je bilo v obdobju 2010-2013 292 prijav, od katerih

jih je bilo sprejetih 135. Največ prijav je bilo leta 2013 v Akciji 1.2 – 137, od katerih jih je

bilo odobrenih 42 (30,6 %).

Tabela 1: Seznam prijav in uspešnih prijav po akcijah in letih (obdobje 2010-2013)

2010 2011 2012 2013 Skupaj P1 UP P UP P UP P UP P UP Akcija 1.1 62 28 76 29 53 36 101 42 292 135

Akcija 1.2 111 34 126 31 100 38 137 42 474 145

Akcija 1.3 4 3 7 4 12 5 10 6 33 18

Akcija 2 64 42 71 46 79 65 71 56 285 209

Akcija 3.1 37 9 47 8 42 17 65 19 191 53

1 P = število prijav; UP = število uspešnih prijav.

10

Akcija 4.3 18 9 35 6 29 9 35 12 117 36

Akcija 5.1 4 2 8 4 7 3 11 5 30 14

Skupaj 300 127 369 128 322 173 430 182 1421 610

Skupno je bilo v evalviranem obdobju 2010–2013 odobrenih 42,9 % projektov (610 od

1421). Odstotek uspešnih prijav je bil v letih 2010 in 2013 enak (42,3 %), v letu 2011

nekoliko nižji (34,7 %), v letu 2012 pa nekoliko višji (53,7 %). Največ prijav je bilo

odobrenih v Akciji 2 (73,3 %) in v Akciji 1.3 (54,5 %), najmanj pa v Akciji 3.1. (27,7 %) in

Akciji 1.2 (30,6 %). Največ uspešnih prijav je bilo leta 2012 v Akciji 2, ko je bilo sprejetih

65 od 79 prijav (82,3 %). Najmanj uspešnih prijav je bilo leta 2011 v Akciji 3.1, ko je bilo

od 35 sprejetih 6 prijav (17,0 %). Nasploh je bila v obdobju 2010-2013 v Akciji 3.1 uspešna

le dobra četrtina prijav.

Tabela 2: Odstotek uspešnih prijav po akcijah in letih (obdobje 2010-2013)

2010 2011 2012 2013 Skupaj % UP % UP % UP % UP % UP Akcija 1.1 45,2% 38,1% 67,9% 41,6% 46,2% Akcija 1.2 30,6% 24,6% 38,0% 30,6% 30,6% Akcija 1.3 75,0% 57,1% 41,7% 60,0% 54,5% Akcija 2 65,6% 64,8% 82,3% 78,9% 73,3% Akcija 3.1 24,3% 17,0% 40,5% 29,2% 27,7% Akcija 4.3 50,0% 17,1% 31,0% 34,3% 30,8% Akcija 5.1 50,0% 50,0% 42,8% 45,5% 46,7%

Skupaj 42,3% 34,7% 53,7% 42,3% 42,9%

Prav tako smo evalvirali program Erasmus+: Mladi v akciji (del 2014-2016), kjer so bili v

Sloveniji izvedeni naslednji ključni ukrepi:

- Ključni ukrep 1 – Učna mobilnost posameznikov (Key action 1)

- Ključni ukrep 2 – Sodelovanje za inovacije in izmenjavo dobrih praks (Key action

2)

- Ključni ukrep 3 – Podpora za reformo politik (Key action 3)

Tabela 3 prikazuje, da je bilo največ interesa v evalviranem obdobju 2014–2016 za Ključni

ukrep 1, kamor je bilo poslanih 908 prijav. Za ključni ukrep 2 je bilo poslanih 100 prijav, za

11

ključni ukrep 3 pa 36 prijav. Skupno je bilo v letih 2014-2016 prijavljenih 1044 projektov,

od katerih jih je bilo odobrenih 407 (39,0 %).

Največ prijav je bilo leta 2015 v akciji Ključni ukrep 1 – 371, a je bila uspešna le slaba

tretjina prijav (119 oziroma 32,1 %). Leta 2015 je bilo največ prijav tudi v ostalih akcijah

(skupaj 429). Najmanj prijav je bilo leta 2013 v akciji Ključni ukrep 3 – devet.

Tabela 3: Seznam prijav in uspešnih prijav po akcijah in letih (obdobje 2014-2016)

2014 2015 2016 Skupaj P2 UP P UP P UP P UP KU1 214 134 371 119 323 118 908 371 KU2 25 5 43 7 32 6 100 18 KU3 9 5 15 7 12 6 36 18

Skupaj 248 144 429 133 367 130 1044 407

Največ odobrenih prijav je bilo za ključni ukrep 3 (18 od 36, torej 50 %), čemur sledita

ključni ukrep 1 (40,8 %) in ključni ukrep 2 (18 %). Leta 2014 odstotek uspešnih prijav 58,1

%, nato pa padel na dobrih 30 % – leta 2015 je tako znašal 31,0 %, leta 2016 pa 35,4 %. V

okviru KU2 se je uspešnost prijav dvignila za 3 % (leta 2016 je bila približno 19 %, leta

2015 pa približno 16 %). Tudi za KU3 se je uspešnost prijav v letu 2016 dvignila za 3 %

napram letu 2015. Vseeno pa je na nižji ravni kot leta 2014.

Tabela 4: Odstotek uspešnih prijav po akcijah in letih (obdobje 2014-2016)

2014 2015 2016 Skupaj % UP % UP % UP % UP KU1 62,6% 32,1% 36,5% 40,8% KU2 20,0% 16,3% 18,7% 18,0% KU3 55,5% 46,7% 50,0% 50,0%

Skupaj 58,1% 31,0% 35,4% 39,0%

V okviru Ključnega ukrepa 1 je bilo leta 2015 na področju mladinskih izmenjav 180 prijav,

od katerih jih je bilo sprejeto 47. V letu 2016 je bilo prijav manj, 141, sprejeta pa je bila ena

več, torej 48. Leta 2016 je bilo sicer v okviru mladinskih izmenjav prijavljenih 211

aktivnosti, od katerih jih je bilo sprejetih 75. V okviru Evropske prostovoljne službe je bilo

2 P = število prijav; UP = število uspešnih prijav.

12

leta 2015 82 prijav (sprejetih 56), leta 2016 pa 96 prijav (61 odobrenih). V okviru mobilnosti

mladinskih delavcev je bilo leta 2016 prijavljenih 100 aktivnosti, odobrenih pa jih je bilo 18.

Tabela 5: Prijavljeni projekti in aktivnosti v okviru Ključnega ukrepa 1 v letih 2015 in

2016

2015 2016

Prijave Prijavljene aktivnosti

Odobrene prijave

Odobrene aktivnosti Prijave Prijavljene

aktivnosti Odobrene

prijave Odobrene aktivnosti

Mladinske izmenjave 180 ni podatka 47 ni

podatka 141 211 48 75

Evropska prostovoljska služba

82 ni podatka 56 ni podatka 96 125 61 73

Mobilnost mladinskih delavcev

ni podatka ni podatka 19 ni

podatka 100 122 18 ni podatka

STATISTIKE

V letih 2010-2013 je skupaj sodelovalo 12.525 udeležencev, od katerih je bilo 6.542 oseb

ženskega spola. Skupno je sodelovalo torej 52,2 % oseb ženskega spola in 47,8 % oseb

moškega spola. Največ udeležencev je sodelovalo v akcijah 1.1, 1.2 in 5.1, najmanj pa v

akcijah 2 in 1.3. V Akciji 1.1 je skupaj v obdobju 2010-2013 sodelovalo 4.245 oseb, v Akciji

1.2 1.368 oseb, v Akciji 5.1 pa 2.391 oseb. V Akciji 2 je skupaj sodelovalo 476 oseb, v

Akciji 1.3 pa 536 oseb.

Največ udeležencev je sodelovalo leta 2013 v Akciji 5.1 (1.646), od katerih je bilo 51,1 %

oseb ženskega spola (842). Najmanj udeležencev je bilo leta 2010 v Akciji 2, in sicer 68, od

katerih je bilo 43 oseb ženskega spola (63,2 %).

Tabela 6: Število udeležencev po akcijah in letih (2010-2013)

Udeleženci 2010 2011 2012 2013 Vsi Ženske Vsi Ženske Vsi Ženske Vsi Ženske Akcija 1.1 883 458 861 443 1184 619 1317 667 Akcija 1.2 306 174 285 137 412 217 365 191

Akcija 1.3 91 50 88 44 161 83 196 106

Akcija 2 68 43 100 61 157 106 151 109 Akcija 3.1 257 139 238 114 450 222 543 262

13

V letih 2014-2016 je največ udeležencev sodelovalo na projektih KU1 – skupaj 7.728,

najmanj pa na projektih KU2 – 1.419. Število udeležencev se je še naprej vsako leto

naraščalo, skupaj pa jih je bilo v obdobju 2014-2016 12.900. Najmanj jih je bilo v akciji

KU2 leta 2014 (362 udeležencev), največ pa v akciji KU2 leta 2014 (2.915 udeležencev).

Tabela 7: Število udeležencev po akcijah in letih (2014-2016)

Leto KU1 - št. udeležencev KU2 - št. udeležencev KU3 - št. udeležencev Skupaj

2014 2915 362 870 4147 2015 2368 380 1522 4270 2016 2445 677 1361 4483

Skupaj 7728 1419 3753 12900

Med organizacijami, ki so odgovorile vprašalnik, jih je v letu 2015 26 organizacij prvič

prijavljalo projekt v programu Erasmus+: Mladi v akciji, v letu 2016 pa 39. Leta 2015 je 55

(67,9 %) organizacij odgovorilo, da projekta ne prijavljajo prvič, leta 2016 pa je bilo takšnih

58 (približno 60 %).

Tabela 8: Prve prijave projektov v letih 2015 in 2016

Ali ste v letu 2015/2016 prvič prijavljali projekt v program? Da Ne Skupaj

2015 26 55 81 2016 39 58 97 Skupaj 65 113 178

V obdobju 2010-2013 je bilo skupno sprejetih 610 projektov, za katere je bilo skupno

dodeljenih 7.527.419,70 €. Za Akcije 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 4.3 in 5.1 je bilo največ sredstev

dodeljenih leta 2013. Za Akciji 1.3 in 3.1 pa je bilo največ sredstev dodeljenih leta 2012.

Višina dodeljenih sredstev je od leta 2010 do leta 2013 vseskozi naraščala. Največje število

Akcija 4.3 178 72 132 55 217 91 237 107 Akcija TCP 208 117 245 155 257 150 547 333 Akcija 5.1 131 73 159 75 455 227 1646 842

Skupaj 2122 1126 2108 1084 3293 1715 5002 2617

14

sprejetih projektov je bilo leta 2013 v Akciji 2.1 (56), zanjo pa je bilo dodeljenih tudi največ

sredstev (768.328,00 €). Najmanj sredstev je bilo namenjenih leta 2010 za Akcijo 5.1

(31.289,00 €), ko sta bila sprejeta 2 projekta.

Tabela 9: Višina dodeljenih sredstev za obdobje 2010-2013 (prvi del)

Leto A.1.1 A.1.2 A.1.3 A.2.1

št.

sprejetih projektov

višina dodeljenih sredstev

št. sprejetih projektov

višina dodeljenih sredstev

št. sprejetih projektov

višina dodeljenih sredstev

št. sprejetih projektov

višina dodeljenih sredstev

2010 28 471.824,00 € 34 183.301,00 € 3 92.677,00 € 42 442.621,00 € 2011 29 486.379,70 € 31 164.436,00 € 4 95.300,00 € 46 527.995,00 € 2012 36 553.831,00 € 38 210.788,00 € 5 132.901,00 € 65 706.494,00 € 2013 42 726.090,00 € 42 220.515,00 € 6 129.195,00 € 56 768.328,00 €

Tabela 10: Višina dodeljenih sredstev za obdobje 2010-2013 (drugi del)

Leto A.3.1 A.4.3 A.5.1 Skupaj

št.

sprejetih projektov

višina dodeljenih sredstev

št. sprejetih projektov

višina dodeljenih sredstev

št. sprejetih projektov

višina dodeljenih sredstev

št. sprejetih projektov

višina dodeljenih sredstev

2010 9 113.572,00 € 9 121.837,00 € 2 31.289,00 € 127 1.457.121,00 € 2011 8 104.778,00 € 6 89.381,00 € 4 79.697,00 € 128 1.547.966,70 € 2012 17 281.029,00 € 9 140.210,00 € 3 86.698,00 € 173 2.111.951,00 € 2013 19 271.098,00 € 12 144.725,00 € 5 150.430,00 € 182 2.410.381,00 €

V letih med 2014 in 2016 je bilo največ sredstev dodeljenih za projekte Ključnega ukrepa 1.

Višina dodeljenih sredstev je od leta 2014 do leta 2016 vseskozi naraščala, čeprav se je

zmanjševalo število sprejetih projektov. So se pa zmanjšala sredstva, namenjena Ključnemu

ukrepu 1, ki so bila najvišja leta 2014. Prav tako so se zmanjšala sredstva za Ključni ukrep

2, ki so bila najvišja leta 2015. Skupno je bilo sprejetih 407 projektov, za katere je bilo

skupno dodeljenih 7.063.681,52 €.

Tabela 11: Višina dodeljenih sredstev za obdobje 2014-2016 Leto KU1 KU2 KU3 Skupaj

št.

sprejetih projektov

višina dodeljenih sredstev

št. sprejetih projektov

višina dodeljenih sredstev

št. sprejetih projektov

višina dodeljenih sredstev

št. sprejetih projektov

višina dodeljenih sredstev

2014 134 1.919.574,00 € 5 294.005,00 € 5 88.380,00 € 144 2.301.959,00 € 2015 119 1.885.058,51 € 7 385.792,00 € 7 108.376,00 € 133 2.379.226,51 € 2016 118 1.897.046,01 € 6 371.620,00 € 6 113.830,00 € 130 2.382.496,01 €

Največ dodeljenih sredstev je bilo torej v letu 2013 (2.410.381,00 € za 182 sprejetih

projektov), najmanj pa leta 2010 (1.457.121,00 € za 127 sprejetih projektov).

15

Največ projektov je vključevalo mlade, ki se soočajo z ekonomskimi ovirami (293) in

družbenimi/socialnimi ovirami (246). Na drugi strani je najmanj projektov vključevalo

mlade, ki se soočajo z zdravstvenimi težavami in invalidnostjo (po 64). Število projektov, ki

so vključevali mlade z manj priložnostmi je iz leta v leto naraščalo. Največje število

projektov, ki so vključevali mlade z manj priložnostmi, je bilo na polju gospodarskih ovir

leta 2013 (91). Najmanj pa na področju invalidnosti leta 2010 (11).

Tabela 12: Število projektov, ki vključujejo mlade z manj priložnostmi (obdobje 2010-

2013)3

Socialne ovire

Gospodarske ovire Invalidnost Učne težave Kulturne

razlike Zdravstvene

težave Geografske

ovire 2010 48 54 11 26 29 12 26 2011 54 70 17 25 26 18 34 2012 65 78 17 31 46 17 36 2013 79 91 19 37 42 17 45

Skupaj 246 293 64 119 143 64 141

V projektih v letih od 2014 do 2016 je skupaj sodelovalo 3.967 mladih z manj priložnostmi

(sprejetih je bilo 266 projektov). Največ jih je sodelovalo v letu 2016 (1.859 oseb), leta 2015

jih se sodelovalo 1.241, leta 2014 pa 867. Največ mladih z manj priložnostmi je bilo

vključenih v okviru Ključnega ukrepa 1 – skupaj 2.505 v 238 sprejetih projektih. Najmanj

mladih je bilo vključenih v okviru Ključnega ukrepa 3 – skupaj 542 v 13 sprejetih projektih.

V okviru Ključnega ukrepa 1 je bilo sprejetih največ projektov, leta 2016, ko je na 86

projektih sodelovalo 945 mladih z manj priložnostmi. V okviru Ključnega ukrepa 3 ni bil v

letu 2014 sprejet noben projekt, zato mladi z manj priložnosti takrat niso bili vključeni.

Tabela 13: Število projektov, ki vključujejo mlade z manj priložnostmi (obdobje 2014-

2016)

Leto KU1 KU2 KU3 Skupaj

št. sprejetih projektov

št. mladih

št. sprejetih projektov

št. mladih

št. sprejetih projektov

št. mladih

št. sprejetih projektov

št. mladih

2014 79 826 3 41 0 0 82 867

2015 73 734 6 239 7 268 86 1241

2016 86 945 6 640 6 274 98 1859

Skupaj 238 2505 15 920 13 542 266 3967

3 Za število po akcijah v posameznem letu glej tabele v prilogah.

16

Tabela 14 prikazuje število udeležencev v Ključnem ukrepu 1 v letu 2016. Največ

udeležencev je sodelovalo v sklopu mladinskih izmenjav (1.807), čemur sledi mobilnost

mladinskih delavcev (417) in evropska prostovoljska služba (212). Največ mladih z manj

priložnostmi je sodelovalo v okviru mladinskih izmenjav (714), najmanj pa v okviru

mobilnosti mladinskih delavcev (115). V okviru mladinskih izmenjav je bilo udeleženih tudi

20 mladih s posebnimi potrebami, 80 pa jih je bilo udeleženih v okviru mobilnosti

mladinskih delavcev.

Tabela 14: Število udeležencev v Ključnem ukrepu 1 v letu 2016 2016

Udeleženci Mladi z manj priložnostmi Mladi s posebnimi potrebami

Mladinske izmenjave 1.807 714 80 Evropska prostovoljska služba 212 122 ?

Mobilnost mladinskih delavcev 417 115 20

V letih 2010-2013 je skupaj sodelovalo 3.410 oseb z manj priložnostmi. Največ jih je

sodelovalo leta 2013 – 1.485, najmanj pa leta 2011 – 571. Največ oseb z manj priložnostmi

je sodelovalo v Akciji 1.1 (1.448 oseb), najmanj pa v Akciji 1.3 (136 oseb). V Akciji 1.3 je

v letu 2011 sodelovalo 12 udeležencev z manj priložnostmi, kar je najmanj, medtem ko jih

je največ sodelovalo leta 2013 v Akciji 1.1 – 539.

Tabela 15: Število udeležencev z manj priložnostmi v projektih v obdobju 2010-2013

2010 2011 2012 2013 Akcija 1.1 276 295 338 539 Akcija 1.2 137 119 143 146 Akcija 1.3 44 12 38 42 Akcija 2 21 47 63 69 Akcija 3.1 75 55 78 89 Akcija 4.3 / / / / Akcija TCP / / / / Akcija 5.1 101 43 40 600

Skupaj 654 571 700 1485 Tabela prikazuje starostno strukturo udeležencev v projektih v letih 2010-2013. Največ

udeležencev je bilo starih 18-25 let, katerim sledi skupina 15-17 let. Najmanj udeležencev

je starih 13-14 let, kateri sledi skupina 26-30.

17

Tabela 16: Starostna struktura udeležencev v projektih v letih 2010-2013

2010 2011 2012 2013

13-1

4

15-1

7

18-2

5

26-3

0

18-3

0

13-1

4

15-1

7

18-2

5

26-3

0

18-3

0

13-1

4

15-1

7

18-2

5

26-3

0

18-3

0

13-1

4

15-1

7

18-2

5

26-3

0

18-3

0

Akcija 1.1 16 181 474 26 / 20 183 442 42 / 79 187 665 47 / 32 188 794 66 /

Akcija 1.2 0 55 / / 251 0 47 / / 238 0 134 / / 278 0 63 / / 302

Akcija 1.3 0 16 48 27 / 0 44 30 14 / 0 17 73 71 / 5 13 100 47 /

Akcija 2 0 9 40 19 / 0 2 66 31 / 0 10 101 41 / 1 11 92 40 /

Akcija 3.1 2 60 90 8 0 0 20 112 13 / 29 82 31 0 / 6 59 100 10 0

Akcija 4.3 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

Akcija TCP / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

Akcija 5.1 0 13 66 52 / 0 29 82 48 / 0 148 180 127 / 0 315 788 543 /

Skupaj 18 334 718 132 251 20 325 732 148 238 108 578 1050 286 278 44 649 1874 706 302

V obdobju med 2010 in 2015 je bilo skupno opravljenih 23 revizijskih obiskov. To je leta

2014 pomenilo 40 %, leta 2015 29 %, leta 2013 7 %, leta 2012 9 %, leta 2011 11 % in leta

2010 10 %.

Tabela 17: Število in odstotek revizijskih obiskov v obdobju 2010-2015

Število / leto 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Število 4 5 6 4 2 2

Odstotek 10 % 11 % 9 % 7 % 40 % 29 %

Tabela prikazuje število nadzornih obiskov strani projektov, ki so bili sprejeti. Skupno je

bilo opravljenih 116 obiskov (11,4 %). Največ obiskov je bilo opravljenih leta 2012. Bilo jih

je 26 oziroma približno 15 % od vseh sprejetih projektov. Najmanj obiskov je bilo leta 2014:

5 od 144 sprejetih projektov (3,5 %). Leta 2010 je bilo opravljenih 19 obiskov (14,9 %), leta

2011 15 obiskov (11,7 %), leta 2013 21 obiskov (11,5 %), leta 2015 9 obiskov (6,7 %) in

leta 2016 21 obiskov (16,1 %).

18

Tabela 18: Število in odstotek obiskov na kraju samem za sprejete projekte

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Skupaj

Število 19 15 26 21 5 9 21 116

Vsi sprejeti 127 128 173 182 144 133 130 1.017

Procent 14,9 % 11,7 % 15,0 % 11,5 % 3,5 % 6,7 % 16,1 % 11,4 %

V obdobju 2010-2013 je skupaj 2.084 ljudi preko telefona ali elektronske pošte zaprosilo za

svetovanja, 96 pa jih je iskalo svetovanje osebno na nacionalni agenciji. Z leti se je

svetovanje preko telefona oziroma elektronske pošte skoraj podvojilo, medtem ko je želja

po osebnem svetovanju vseskozi na isti ravni. Največ svetovanja po elektronski pošti in

telefonu je bilo leta 2013 (678), najmanj pa leta 2010 (362). V letu 2013 v obdobju od

oktobra do decembra ni bilo opravljenega osebnega svetovanja.

Tabela 19: Svetovanje v obdobju 2010-2013

2010 2011 2012 2013 Tel., e-pošta Osebno Tel., e-pošta Osebno Tel., e-pošta Osebno Tel., e-pošta Osebno Jan– Mar 160 12 241 11 240 10 231 3 Apr– Sep 143 7 181 6 250 12 385 21 Okt–Dec 59 4 85 8 47 2 62 0 Skupaj 362 23 507 25 537 24 678 24

V obdobju 2014-2016 je skupno 2.057 ljudi preko telefona ali elektronske pošte zaprosilo

za svetovanje, 82 pa jih je iskalo svetovanje osebno na nacionalni agenciji. Še naprej je želja

po osebnem svetovanju na isti ravni kot je bila v obdobju 2010-2013, medtem ko je število

svetovanj preko telefona in elektronske pošte začelo upadati v primerjavi z letom 2014, ko

je doseglo najvišjo številko – 822. Tabeli 17 in 18 kažeta, da je najmanj svetovanja

opravljenega v obdobju od oktobra do decembra.

Tabela 20: Svetovanje preko telefona, e-pošte in osebno svetovanje v obdobju 2014-

2016

2014 2015 2016

Mesec Tel., e-pošta Osebno Mesec Tel., e-pošta Osebno Mesec Tel., e-

pošta Osebno

Jan-Apr 287 / Jan-Mar 282 8 Jan-Mar 230 13 Maj-Jul 112 9 Apr-Jun 171 11 Apr-Jun 157 4 Avg-Okt 356 8 Jul-Sep 190 6 Jul-Sep 119 12

19

Nov-Dec 67 6 Okt-Dec 64 2 Okt-Nov 19 1 Nov-Dec 3 2

Skupaj 822 23 707 27 528 32

V obdobju 2010-2013 je bilo skupaj opravljenih 37 predstavitev, ki se jih je udeležilo 13.225

oseb. Največ predstavitev je bilo leta 2011 (18), največ oseb pa se je udeležilo predstavitev

leta 2012 (9.078). Leta 2010 se je predstavitev udeležilo 76 oseb, leta 2011 3.423 oseb, leta

2013 pa 648 oseb.

Tabela 21: Število Youth in Action delavnic v obdobju 2010-2013

2010 2011 2012 2013

Št. predstavitev

Št. oseb

Št. predstavitev

Št. oseb

Št. predstavitev

Št. oseb

Št. predstavitev

Št. oseb

Jan-Mar 2 22 2 27 2 3024 2 48

Apr-Sep 2 24 12 371 3 3054 4 600

Okt-Dec 3 30 4 3025 1 3000 0 0

Skupaj 7 76 18 3423 6 9078 6 648

V obdobju 2013-2016 je bilo 45 predstavitev, največ v letu 2015 (20). V letu 2014 je bilo 15

predstavitev, v letu 2016 pa 10 predstavitev. Če primerjamo Tabelo 19 in Tabelo 20

ugotovimo, da se je število predstavitev iz leta v leto spreminjalo. Za obdobje 2014-2016 ni

podatka o številu oseb, ki so se udeležile predstavitev.

Tabela 22: Število Youth in Action delavnic (obdobje 2014-2016)

4 N.p. = ni podatka.

2014 2015 2016

Mesec Št. predstavitev Št. oseb Mesec Št.

predstavitev Št. oseb Mesec Št. predstavitev Št. oseb

Jan-Apr N.p.4 N.p. Jan-Mar 2 N.p. Jan-Mar 4 N.p.

Maj-Jul 7 N.p. Apr-Jun 5 N.p. Apr-Jun 4 N.p.

Avg-Okt 3 N.p. Jul-Sep 4 N.p. Jul-Sep 0 N.p.

Nov-Dec 5 N.p. Okt-Dec 9 N.p. Okt-Nov 1 N.p.

Nov-Dec 1 N.p.

Skupaj 15 / 20 / 10 /

20

V obdobju 2010-2013 je bilo organiziranih 21 delavnic za upravičence, ki se jih je udeležilo

264 udeležencev. Največ udeležencev se je udeležilo delavnic leta 2012 (101), leta 2013 se

jih je udeležilo 84, leta 2011 pa 79. Za leto 2010 ni podatka o številu oseb, ki so se udeležile

delavnic. Število delavnic se je v obdobju od 2010-2013 vsako leto zmanjševalo. Leta 2010

je tako bilo 9 delavnic, leta 2011 6, leta 2012 4, leta 2013 pa 2.

Tabela 23: Delavnice za upravičence (finančne delavnice) v obdobju 2010-2013

2010 2011 2012 2013 Št. delavnic Št. oseb Št. delavnic Št. oseb Št. delavnic Št. oseb Št. delavnic Št. oseb

Jan-Mar 0 0 2 9 1 N.p. 0 0 Apr-Sep 6 N.p. 3 58 2 57 2 84 Okt-Dec 3 N.p. 1 12 1 44 0 0

Skupaj 9 0 6 79 4 101 2 84

V letih 2014 in 2015 je bilo skupno izvedenih 9 delavnic, ki se jih je udeležilo 157 oseb. Za

leto ni podatka o številu delavnic in številu oseb, ki so se udeležile delavnic.

Tabela 24: Delavnice za upravičence (finančne delavnice) v obdobju 2014-2016

2014 2015 2016 Mesec Št. delavnic Št. oseb Mesec Št. delavnic Št. oseb Mesec Št. delavnic Št. oseb Jan-Apr N.p. N.p. Jan-Mar 1 N.p. Jan-Mar N.p. N.p.

Maj-Jul 1 39 Apr-Jun 2 43 Apr-Jun N.p. N.p.

Avg-Okt 2 56 Jul-Sep 1 19 Jul-Sep N.p. N.p.

Nov-Dec 2 N.p. Okt-Dec 0 0 Okt-Nov N.p. N.p.

Nov-Dec N.p. N.p.

Skupaj 5 95 4 62 0 0

V obdobju med 2010 in 2013 je bilo vsako leto organiziranih 20 delavnic, ki se jih je

udeležilo 138 oseb. Vsako leto je bilo po obdobjih organizirano identično število delavnic:

januar-marec 7 delavnic; april-september 10 delavnic in oktober-december 3 delavnice.

Skupno je bilo izvedenih 80 delavnic za prijavitelje, ki se jih je udeležilo 552 oseb.

21

Tabela 25: Delavnice za prijavitelje v obdobju 2010-2013

2010 2011 2012 2013

Št. delavnic Št. oseb Št. delavnic Št.

oseb Št. delavnic Št. oseb Št. delavnic Št.

oseb Jan-Mar 7 62 7 62 7 62 7 62 Apr-Sep 10 50 10 50 10 50 10 50 Okt-Dec 3 26 3 26 3 26 3 26

Skupaj 20 138 20 138 20 138 20 138

V letih 2014-2016 je bilo organiziranih 30 delavnic za prijavitelje, ki se jih je skupaj

udeležilo 167 oseb. Leta 2014 je bilo organiziranih 8 delavnic, leta 2015 12 delavnic, leta

2016 pa 10 delavnic. Za leti 2014 in 2015 ni podatka o številu oseb, ki so se udeležile

delavnic.

Tabela 26: Delavnice za prijavitelje v obdobju 2014-2016

2014 2015 2016

Mesec Št. delavnic Št. oseb Mesec Št.

delavnic Št. oseb Mesec Št. delavnic Št. oseb

Jan-Apr 5 N.p. Jan-Mar 3 N.p. Jan-Mar 4 97 Maj-Jul 1 N.p. Apr-Jun 4 N.p. Apr-Jun 3 32 Avg-Okt 2 N.p. Jul-Sep 4 N.p. Jul-Sep 3 38 Nov-Dec 0 0 Okt-Dec 1 N.p. Okt-Nov 0 0 Nov-Dec 0 0

Skupaj 8 0 12 / 10 167

Tabela prikazuje, da se je število različnih obiskovalcev, število obiskov in pa strani vseskozi

povečevalo od leta 2010 do leta 2013. Število obiskovalcev se je tako od 53.650 leta 2010

dvignilo na 59.389 leta 2013. Največ različnih obiskovalcev je bilo aprila 2013 (3.594),

najmanj pa julija 2010 (1.580). Največje število obiskovalcev je bilo aprila 2013 (86.815),

najmanjše pa junija 2012 (3.122). Največje število strani je bilo aprila 2012 (35677),

najmanjše pa novembra 2012 (16.119).

22

Tabela 27: Obiski spletnih strani v obdobju 2010-2013

Tabela 28 prikazuje število zadetkov in promet (v GB) v obdobju 2010-2013. Število

zadetkov je vsako leto naraščalo: leta 2010 je bilo 2.166.850, leta 2011 2.216.895, leta 2012

2.442.903 in leta 2013 2.574.263. Prav tako je vsako leto naraščal promet: leta 2010 ga je

bilo 22.67 GB, leta 2011 za 31.83 GB, leta 2012 38.51 GB in leta 2013 47.07 GB.

Tabela 28: Število zadetkov in promet (v GB) v obdobju 2010-2013

2010 2011 2012 2013

Zadetkov

Promet (GB) Zadetkov Promet

(GB) Zadetkov Promet (GB) Zadetkov Promet

(GB) Jan. 253281 2.32 250402 3.16 290649 5.17 265514 5.22

Feb. 151286 1.39 189229 2.31 201154 2.87 164041 2.76

Mar. 252285 1.99 250596 3.28 226468 2.85 194177 2.9

Apr. 220903 1.79 143555 1.75 285985 4.47 287531 5.53

Maj 182745 1.98 203940 3.3 186140 2.51 230767 3.02

Jun. 151567 1.79 185209 2.61 159292 2.19 165057 3.13

Jul. 138344 1.76 136518 2.09 189345 3.06 213710 4.52

Avg. 147359 1.70 171916 2.32 174508 2.47 243426 4.21

Sep. 159515 1.56 173148 1.94 212726 4.16 201015 3.69

Okt. 200538 2.42 199275 3.47 191518 3.12 210557 3.31

5 RO=Različnih obiskovalcev; ŠO=Število obiskov; S=Strani.

2010 2011 2012 2013

RO5 ŠO S RO ŠO S RO ŠO S RO ŠO S

Jan. 3142 6227 27355 3234 6051 30572 3186 5938 34020 3255 5924 26450

Feb. 2257 3950 17285 2618 4683 21568 2317 4155 23418 2365 3967 16930

Mar. 2845 5653 27157 2776 5539 27106 3724 5931 26986 2748 4785 19294

Apr. 2901 5532 23256 1752 3363 16781 3059 5974 35677 3594 6815 28207

Maj 2156 4446 20188 2474 5023 24748 2357 4011 20966 3060 5345 22829

Jun. 1851 3657 17506 3160 5329 22496 1730 3122 17258 2372 4187 18274

Jul. 1580 3304 16091 1889 3799 17140 1852 3659 18171 2470 4555 25722

Avg. 1773 3192 18638 2111 4111 20495 1783 3419 17258 2292 4405 33569

Sep. 1949 3694 17947 2262 4123 17468 2329 4503 23519 2402 4664 24160

Okt. 2705 4993 22922 2678 5008 24893 2206 3848 19386 2465 4715 29946

Nov. 2258 4353 18112 2224 3791 21128 2173 3919 16119 2453 4738 27266

Dec. 2498 4649 20589 1921 3327 18532 2101 3749 17992 2388 5289 29167

Skupaj 27915 53650 247046 29099 54147 262927 28817 52228 270770 31864 59389 301814

23

Nov. 157886 1.98 182739 3.24 182153 2.52 203709 3.43

Dec. 151141 1.99 130368 2.36 142965 3.12 194759 5.35

Skupaj 2.166.850 22.67 2.216.895 31.83 2.442.903 38.51 2.574.263 47.07

Tudi v obdobju 2014-2016 je prišlo do povečanja števila sej in uporabnikov (glej Tabelo

29). Leta 2015 je bilo 16.435 uporabnikov, leta 2016 pa že 38.440. Prav tako se je povečalo

število sej: leta 2015 jih je bilo 32.584, leta 2016 pa že 82.417. Za leto 2014 nimamo

podatkov glede števila sej in uporabnikov.

Tabela 29: Obiski spletnih strani v obdobju 2014-2016 Seje Uporabniki

2014 ni podatka ni podatka 2015 32.584 16.435 2016 82.417 38.440

Skupaj 11.5001 54.875

V obdobju 2010-2013 je izšlo 20 publikacij in 179 e-novic. Največ publikacij je izšlo leta

2010, in sicer 8. Takrat je bilo tudi najvišje število e-novic: 47. V letih 2011, 2012 in 2013

so bile letno izdane 4 publikacije, letno pa je bilo 44 e-novic. Največ e-novic je bilo v vseh

letih objavljeno v obdobju april-september, medtem ko je največ publikacij izšlo v obdobju

oktober-december.

Tabela 30: Število publikacij in e-novic v obdobju 2010-2013

2010 2011 2012 2013

Št. publikacij Št. e-novic Št. publikacij Št. e-

novic Št. publikacij Št. e-novic Št. publikacij Št. e-

novic Jan-Mar 0 14 0 10 0 10 0 10 Apr-Sep 2 25 0 23 0 23 0 23 Okt-Dec 6 8 4 11 4 11 4 11

Skupaj 8 47 4 44 4 44 4 44

V obdobju 2014-2016 je izšlo 11 publikacij in 65 e-novic. V letih 2014 in 2015 so bile izdane

4 publikacije, leta 2016 pa 3. Najvišje število e-novic je bilo leta 2015, in sicer 26. Leta 2014

je bilo 16 e-novic, leta 2016 pa 23.

24

Tabela 31: Število publikacij in e-novic v obdobju 2014-2016 2014 2015 2016

Mesec Št. publikacij Št. e-novic Mesec Št.

publikacij Št. e-novic Mesec Št. publikacij Št. e-novic

Jan-Apr 1 ni podatka Jan-Mar 0 9 Jan-Mar 1 5 Maj-Jul 0 6 Apr-Jun 3 8 Apr-Jun 1 8 Avg-Okt 0 6 Jul-Sep 0 5 Jul-Sep 1 5 Nov-Dec 3 4 Okt-Dec 1 4 Okt-Nov 0 2 Nov-Dec 0 3 Skupaj 4 16 4 26 3 23

V obdobju 2010-2013 je največ projektov zasledovalo splošni cilj spodbujanja aktivnega

državljanstva mladih (skupno 533). Sledili so: razvijanje solidarnosti in spodbujanje

strpnosti med mladimi (489), krepitev medsebojnega razumevanja med ljudmi iz različnih

držav (466), spodbujanje evropskega sodelovanja na področju mladine (415) in prispevanje

k razvoju kakovosti podpornih sistemov (364). Skupaj so projekti v obdobju 2010-2013

zasledovali splošne cilje v 2.267 primerih. Največ jih je leta 2013 zasledovalo spodbujanje

aktivnega državljanstva mladih (156), najmanj pa leta 2010 prispevanje k razvoju kakovosti

podpornih sistemov (75).

Tabela 32: Splošni cilji projektov v obdobju 2010-20136

Spodbujanje aktivnega

državljanstva mladih

Razvijanje solidarnosti

in spodbujanje

strpnosti med mladimi

Krepitev medsebojnega

razumevanja med ljudmi iz različnih

držav

Prispevanje k razvoju

kakovosti podpornih sistemov

Spodbujanje evropskega

sodelovanja na področju mladine

Skupaj

2010 114 104 97 75 86 476 2011 116 98 98 79 76 467 2012 147 143 137 104 121 652 2013 156 144 134 106 132 672

Skupaj 533 489 466 364 415 2267

Med letoma 2010 in 2013 je največ projektov kot prioriteto postavilo participacijo mladih

(564). Sledila je kulturna raznolikost (467), Evropsko državljanstvo (420) in vključevanje

mladih z manj priložnostmi (416). Število prioritet v projektih je vsako leto naraščalo, skupaj

pa jih je bilo 1.867.

6 Za število po akcijah v posameznem letu glej tabele v prilogah.

25

Tabela 33: Prioritete projektov v obdobju 2010-20137

Evropsko državljanstvo

Participacija mladih

Kulturna raznolikost

Vključevanje mladih z manj priložnostmi Skupaj

2010 95 121 100 86 402 2011 92 121 98 91 402 2012 109 159 131 119 518 2013 124 163 138 120 545

Skupaj 420 564 467 416 1867

Med prioritetami v obdobju 2010-2013 najdemo še: brezposelnost mladih (346x),

ustvarjalnost in podjetništvo (317x). Po podatki pa v letu 2012 ni bilo projekta, ki bi

zasledoval prioriteto Ozaveščanja o naravi mladinskega dela ali Spodbujal izmenjavo

najboljših praks na področju mladinskega dela (glej Tabela 136 v prilogah).

Najpogostejša tema v okviru Mladinskih izmenjav (Ključni ukrep 1) v letu 2016 je bila

ustvarjalnost in kultura (68), kateri so sledile participacija mladih, mladinsko delo (49)

vključenost in pravičnost (45) in državljanstvo EU (39). Tudi pri EVS (Ključni ukrep 1) so

bile v letu 2016 najpogostejše teme participacija, mladinsko delo in ustvarjalnost in kultura.

V okviru Mobilnosti mladinskih delavcev (Ključni ukrep 1) se je največ projektov ukvarjalo

s participacijo mladih, mladinskim delom (16), mednarodnim sodelovanjem, mednarodnimi

odnosi in razvojnim sodelovanjem (8).

V letih 2010-2013 je bilo skupaj organiziranih 72 srečanj, ki se jih je udeležilo skupaj 706

udeležencev. Največ udeležencev je bilo leta 2013 (256), največ srečanj pa organiziranih

leta 2012 (21). Največ je bilo organiziranih usposabljanj ob prihodu (40), ki se ga je udeležilo

tudi največ udeležencev – 402. Najmanj je bilo vrednotenja aktivnosti (5), ki se ga je

udeležilo 49 udeležencev. V letih 2012 in 2013 usposabljanja pred odhodom niso bila

organizirana. Leta 2016 je bilo prav tako organiziranih 19 treningov: 6 usposabljanj ob

prihodu s 106 prostovoljci, 5 vmesnih evalvacij s 90 prostovoljci, organizirani sta bili 2

zaključni evalvaciji s 24 prostovoljci in 6 srečanj pred odhodom, ki se jih je udeležilo 43

prostovoljcev.

7 Za število po akcijah v posameznem letu glej tabele v prilogah.

26

Tabela 34: Podpora EVS v obdobju 2010-2013

2010 2011 2012 2013 2016 ŠOS8 SŠU ŠOS SŠU ŠOS SŠU ŠOS SŠU ŠOS SŠU Usposabljanje pred odhodom 5 23 2 14 0 0 0 0 6 43

Usposabljanje ob prihodu 5 43 7 70 13 170 15 119 6 106

Vmesno vrednotenje 5 40 5 53 5 78 5 47 5 90

Vrednotenje aktivnosti 2 19 1 10 1 8 1 12 2 24

Skupaj 17 125 15 147 19 256 21 178 19 256

EVALVACIJA IZVAJANJA PROGRAMA E+ MVA IN DELA E+ MVA

V LETIH 2015 IN 2016

V letu 2015 je na vprašanja odgovorilo 81 organizacij, v letu 2016 pa 97.

Večina organizacij je v letih 2015 in 2016 prijavila 1 projekt. Takšnih je bilo 35 v letu 2015

in 48 v letu 2016. V letu 2015 je 5 organizacij prijavilo več kot pet projektov, v letu 2016 pa

so bile takšne 3 organizacije. V letu 2015 je 21 organizacij prijavilo 2 projekta, 12 pa 3

projekte. V letu 2016 je 25 organizacij prijavilo 2 projekta, 10 pa 3 projekte.

Tabela 35: Število prijavljenih projektov v letih 2015 in 2016

Koliko projektov ste prijavili v letu 2015/2016? 1 2 3 4 5 Več kot 5 Skupaj

2015 35 21 12 4 4 5 81 2016 48 25 10 7 4 3 97 Skupaj 83 46 22 11 8 8 178

Največkrat je bil od prijavljenih programov eden uspešen oziroma sprejet v program. V letu

2015 je bilo takšnih 46, v letu 2016 pa 38. V letih 2015 ni bilo sprejetih 19, v letu 2016 pa

43 projektov organizacij, ki so odgovorile na vprašalnik. Nobena organizacija ni imela

sprejetih 5 ali več kot 5 projektov, so pa nekatere, ki so bile uspešne s 3 in 4 prijavami.

8 ŠOS = Število organiziranih srečanj; SŠU: Skupno število udeležencev

27

Tabela 36: Uspešne prijave (sprejete v program) v letih 2015 in 2016

Koliko izmed njih je bilo uspešnih, torej sprejetih v program?

Nobeden 1 2 3 4 5 Več kot 5 Skupaj

2015 19 46 12 1 3 0 0 81 2016 43 38 9 5 2 0 0 97 Skupaj 62 84 21 6 5 0 0 178

Organizacije, ki so odgovorile vprašalnik so največkrat prijavljale mladinske izmenjave: v

letu 2015 je bilo takšnih 39, v letu 2016 pa 60. Najmanjkrat so prijavljale transnacionalne

mladinske pobude (leta 2015 tri, leta 2016 ena) in dialog mladih s političnimi odločevalci

(leta 2015 sedem, leta 2016 pet). Leta 2015 je 20 organizacij prijavilo aktivnost mobilnost

mladinskih delavcev, leta 2016 pa je bilo takšnih 23 organizacij. Leta 2015 je 29 organizacij

prijavilo aktivnost Evropska prostovoljna služba, leta 2016 pa je bilo takšnih 45 organizacij.

Tabela 37: Prijavljene aktivnosti v okviru projektov v letih 2015 in 2016

Katere aktivnosti ste prijavili v okviru svojega projekta oz. svojih projektov? M

ladi

nska

iz

men

java

Evr

opsk

a pr

osto

voljn

a sl

užba

Mob

ilnos

t m

ladi

nski

h de

lavc

ev

Tra

nsna

cion

alna

m

ladi

nska

po

buda

Stra

tešk

o pa

rtne

rstv

o na

po

droč

ju m

ladi

ne

Dia

log

mla

dih

s po

litič

nim

i od

loče

valc

i

Skup

aj

2015 39 29 20 3 10 7 108 2016 60 45 23 1 9 5 143 Skupaj 99 74 43 4 19 12 251

28

2. PREGLED OBJAV NA TEMO ERASMUS +

(LITERATURE REVIEW)

SPLOŠNA SLIKA V letih od 2012 do leta 2017 je bilo na glavnih spletnih straneh in v revijah, ki redno poročajo

o stanju na področju mladine, skupaj objavljenih 75 prispevkov, ki so omenjali program

Erasmus+: Mladi v akciji. 40 prispevkov je bilo objavljeno v reviji Mladje, 8 na portalu

Mlad.si, po 6 na spletni strani MOVIT in MSS, 4 na spletnih straneh Mladinske mreže

MaMa, Urada RS za mladino in ostalih spletnih straneh (rtvslo.si, siol.net, delo.si), 2 na

kooperativnem online bibliografskem sistemu in servisu (COBISS) in 1 v reviji Replika.

Največ prispevkov o programu Erasmus+ je bilo v devetih izdajah revije Mladje. Pri tem sta

bili dve številki revije tematsko namenjeni izključno programu Erasmus+/Mladi v akciji:

- Mladje št. 29 o iztekanju programa Mladi v akciji (2012)

- Mladje št. 31 o novem programu Erasmus+ (2013)

Tabela 38: Število prispevkov o programu Erasmus+ Objave Mlad.

si

Mladj

e

MOVIT MSS MaM

a

URS

M

Revija

Replika

Cobis

s

Ostale

(RTV,

Siol,

Delo)

SKUPAJ

Število

prispevkov/o

bjav o E+

8 40 6 6 4 4 1 2 4 75

Revija 9 9

Intervjuji 2 3 5

Poročilo s

konference

2 2

Znanstvena

monografija

1 1

Med 75 objavami je bilo 5 intervjujev – dva na Mlad.si in trije v reviji Mladje. Od 75

prispevkov je bilo torej 6,67 % intervjujev. Trije intervjuji so bili opravljeni pred sprejetjem

programa Erasmus+: intervju z direktorjem Mreže MaMa, intervju z direktorjem Urada RS

za mladino in intervju s predstavniki Mladinskega sveta Slovenije. Dva intervjuja sta bila na

29

osrednji spletni strani za mladinski sektor Slovenije (Mlad.si) opravljena z izvršnim

direktorjem Nacionalne agencije evropskega programa Erasmus+, Urošem Skrinarjem. Ta

je med drugim povedal, da so bili pretekli evropski programi na področju mladine v Sloveniji

zelo dobro prepoznani in da je »program Erasmus+: Mladi v akciji zgodba o uspehu«.

Program Erasmus+ po njegovem mnenju »omogoča številne lepe priložnosti«. Tudi dr. Peter

Debeljak (direktor Urada RS za mladino) je v intervjuju v reviji Mladje poudaril izjemen

vpliv programa Mladi v akciji na mladinski sektor v Sloveniji. Objavljen je bil tudi intervju

s predstavniki Mladinskega sveta Slovenije, ki so izrazili pomen in učinek programa Mladi

v akciji na razvoj sektorja in poudarili, da »mladi potrebujejo samostojen in neodvisen

program Skupnosti«.

Na portalu Mlad.si sta bili objavljeni tudi dve poročili s konference. Na prvi konferenci

februarja 2016 so nekateri vidni predstavniki (ministrica za izobraževanje, znanost in šport;

vodja predstavništva Evropske komisije v Sloveniji; direktorica nacionalne agencije

CMEPIUS in direktor nacionalne agencije MOVIT) predstavili izvajanje programa

Erasmus+ v Sloveniji. Prav tako so povedali, da so se z novim programom Erasmus+

razpoložljiva sredstva bistveno povečala. Septembra 2016 se je odvila druga konferenca

– »Erasmus+: uspehi in izzivi«, ki je bila namenjena predstavitvi vizije in namenom

programa ter smernic za njegov razvoj v naprej. Poseben poudarek je bil namenjen izmenjavi

izkušenj in predstavitvi predlogov izboljšav tistih, ki skrbijo za implementacijo projektov na

terenu.

Tabela 40 prikazuje popis tematik, ki so se pojavljale v objavljenih 75 prispevkih. V objavah

so se izpostavljale različne stvari, med katerimi so prevladovale objave pred sprejetjem

trenutnega programa Erasmus+: Mladi v akciji (2014-2020) – takšnih je bilo 15. V reviji

Mladje je bil predstavljen program na področju mladine v obdobju 2014–2020. Organizacije

in posamezniki so se različno odzivali na predlog programa Erasmus for all, ki je nadomestil

takratni program Mladi v akciji. Mreža MaMa in MSS sta se zavzela, da program ostane

»neodvisen, osredotočen na neformalno izobraževanje, mobilnost in sodelovanje mladih«.

Bali so se predvsem, da bi program z združitvijo izgubil identiteto. Nekateri so kljub

predlogu združenega programa verjeli, v »ohranitev struktur, ki so pomembno prispevale k

razvoju evropskega sodelovanja na področju mladine.« Poudarili so, da mora biti »mladinska

dimenzija v prenovljenem programu prepoznana in okrepljena«.

13 objav se je nanašalo na finančno perspektivo programa Erasmus+: Mladi v akciji in

razdelitev sredstev po ključnih ukrepih. Direktor nacionalne agencije MOVIT je povedal, da

30

so se z novim programom Erasmus+ »razpoložljiva sredstva bistveno povečala, in sicer iz

1,5 mio € v letu 2007 na 2,51 mio € v letu 2014, in 2,6 mio € v letu 2016. Znesek je razdeljen

po ključnih ukrepih in aktivnost, kar je Zavod Movit predstavil v svojem »Mladinfogramu«.

Zavod Movit je v reviji Mladje podobno predstavljal razpoložljiva sredstva v posameznih

Akcijah tudi v prejšnjem programu (obdobje 2010-2013).

Tabela 39: Področja, ki so jih objave pokrivale Mlad.si Mladje MOVIT MSS MaMa URSM Revija

Replika

Cobiss Ostale

(RTV, Siol,

Delo)

SKUPAJ

Predstavitev

Erasmus+:

Mladi v akcij

(ključni

ukrepi)

2 2 2 1 1 1 1 10

O E+ (pred

sprejetjem)

1 11 1 1 1 15

Dodana

vrednost

programa

Erasmus+

1 1

Uspeh E+ v

prvih dveh

letih/enem

letu

1 1 2

Finančna

perspektiva

2 5 1 1 1 3 13

Izvajanje

E+/MvA

2 4 6

Težave pri

izvajanju E+

1 1

Dobre prakse

E+

1 1 1 3

Združenost

programa E+

(ostale org.)

1 1 2

Vpliv E+ na

raven

organizacije

1 7 8

Vpliv E+ na

mlade

2 2 1 5

31

(kompetence,

mobilnost)

Učinki

E+/MvA

1 2 2 5

Vključenost

mladih z

manj

priložnostmi

4 1 1 6

Število

projektov

(E+ in MvA)

1 3 4

Število

udeležencev v

tujino/SLO

preko (E+ in

MvA)

2 3 2 7

Youthpass 2 2

Prispevek

programa

E+/MvA

4 4

Evropsko

državljanstvo

2 2

Socialno

vključevanje

2 1 3

Študentske

izmenjave

Erasmus

1 1

Strukturiran

dialog

2 1 3

EVS 1 1 2

V 10 primerih so objave pokrivale predstavitev programa Erasmus+ z vsemi njegovimi

ključnimi ukrepi. Glavni akterji na področju mladine (Movit, URSM, MSS) imajo na svojih

spletnih straneh predstavljene informacije o Programu Erasmus + in strukturnih

spremembah, ki naj bi v primerjavi s predhodnimi programi prinesle poenostavitev in boljšo

medsebojno povezanost podprogramov. Zavod Movit je prijaviteljem pomagal tudi s

predstavitvami prečnih prednostnih vsebinskih usmeritev za posamezno programsko leto.

Pogosto je bil obravnavan tudi vpliv E+ na raven organizacije (8), ko so posamezne

organizacije v reviji Mladje predstavile izvajanje programa in pomembnost vlaganja v razvoj

32

mladinskega sektorja. Razvoj sektorja se po mnenju organizacij zagotavlja prav preko

programov kot je Mladi v Akciji. Program igra pomembno vlogo tudi pri razvoju

organizacij.

7 prispevkov se je osredotočalo na število udeležencev v projektih programa Erasmus+.

Spletne strani Mlad.si, URSM in revija Mladje so navajale število udeležencev posameznih

aktivnosti v tujini (od leta 1999 do leta 2017 je bilo v mednarodne učne aktivnosti vključenih

že več kot 40.000 mladih), osredotočili pa so se tudi na vključenost mladih z manj

priložnostmi (6). Predstavljena je bila prenovljena strategija vključevanja in raznolikosti

ERASMUS+.

Ostale obravnavane tematike so bile: vpliv E+ na mlade (kompetence, mobilnost), učinki

E+/MvA (5), dobre prakse E+, socialno vključevanje, strukturiran dialog (3), uspeh E+ v

prvih dveh letih/enem letu, Youthpass, Evropsko državljanstvo, EVS (2), dodana vrednost

programa Erasmus+, težave pri izvajanju E+ in študentske izmenjave Erasmus (1).

TEMATIKE PUBLICIRANJA O PROGRAMU

Intervjuji

Na spletni strani Mlad.si sta bila opravljena dva intervjuja z Urošem Skrinarjem, direktorjem

MOVIT, Nacionalne agencije programa Erasmus+; področje Mladina. Intervjuvanec je na

kratko predstavil program Erasmus+: Mladi v akciji in dejal, da program »razpolaga z

bistveno več sredstvi, kar omogoča podporo večjemu številu projektov, s čimer pa pridobijo

tako mladi, organizacije, kot tudi občine in država.« Dodal je, da je premalo drugih razpisov

na področju mladinskega sektorja, zato akterjem mladinskega sektorja priporoča, da se

poglobijo v Vodnik po programu E+, ga dobro preučijo in izkoristijo možnosti, ki jih E+

omogoča. Tudi dr. Peter Debeljak (direktor Urada RS za mladino) je v intervjuju v reviji

Mladje poudaril izjemen vpliv programa Mladi v akciji na mladinski sektor v Sloveniji.

Vpliv se je kazal predvsem v obsegu sredstev in odličnem delu nacionalne agencije.

Objavljen je bil intervju s predstavniki Mladinskega sveta Slovenije, ki so se zavzemali za

ohranitev samostojnega programa za mlade. Prav tako so poudarjali pomen programa Mladi

v Akciji na razvoj mladinskega dela.

33

PredstavitevErasmus+:Mladivakcij(ključniukrepi)

Št. 31 revije Mladje je bila posvečena novemu programu Erasmus+ (2013) in predstavitvi

vseh ključnih ukrepov (trajanje projekta, trajanje aktivnosti, število udeležencev …).

Nacionalna agencija je letno na svoji spletni strani in preko elektronskih novic obveščala

prijavitelje o glavnih vsebinskih področjih, ki jih bodo v prihodnje podpirali. Tako so

sporočili, kakšni so dolgoročni cilji in smernice, ki jih velja pri prijavi projektov upoštevati.

Informacijo o programu Erasmus+ in njegovih ciljih je objavil tudi Urad RS za mladino. V

letu 2016 je bila organizirana konferenca, namenjena predstavitvi vizije in namenom

programa Erasmus+ ter smernic za njegov razvoj v naprej.

OE+(predsprejetjem)

Revija Mladje je št. 26 namenila prihodnosti programov EU na področju mladine. Mreža

MaMa in Mladinski svet Slovenije sta vseskozi zagovarjala samostojen program za mlade,

ki bi ohranil samostojnost in da bi program z združitvijo program izgubil identiteto. Bali so

se tudi, da bo v združenem programu premalo pozornosti posvečeno mladim in mladinskemu

delu. Tudi na Zavodu Movit so menili, da bi sprejet predlog programa »Erasmus for All«

povzročil tekmovalnost ob razdeljevanju sredstev med različnimi politikami, zmanjšal ali

celo onemogočil razvojno funkcijo za razvoj mladinskega dela in mladinskega sektorja in

ukinil kadrovsko in proračunsko najmočnejše nacionalne institucije mladinskega sektorja v

Sloveniji (MOVIT). So pa bili tudi takšni, ki so verjeli, da je v okviru enotnega programa

mogoče zagotoviti jasen steber, ki bo podpiral razvoj evropskega sodelovanja na področju

mladine.

DodanavrednostprogramaE+

Direktor nacionalne agencije v intervju za spletno stran Mlad.si pove, da so dodana vrednost

in dosežek programa po njegovem mnenju »konkretni učinkih programa na mladega

človeka, ki je bil vključen v projekte, kot tudi učinki na organizacije, mladinski sektor in

družbo kot celoto.« Pri mladem človeku gre za »izboljšanje njegovih kompetenc, večje

participacije v družbi ter zavedanja »evropskih« vrednot, boljše zaposljivosti« …

UspehE+vprvihdvehletih/enemuletu

Po mnenju direktorja Nacionalne agencije je uspeh programa E+ njegova dobra

prepoznavnost, kjer gre za zgodbo o uspehu. V letu 2014 in 2015 so razdelili vsa

34

razpoložljiva sredstva, poleg številk pa je potrebno pogledati tudi vse dobre zgodbe, vse

primere dobrih praks, ki jih za slovensko okolje ni malo (glej intervju z direktorjem

Nacionalne agencije programa Erasmus+). Uspeh in razvoj programa E+ leto po projektu so

predstavili tudi v reviji Mladje.

Finančnaperspektiva

Veliko objav je omenjalo povečanje sredstev z novim programom Erasmus+, nekaj pa je

analiziralo porabljena sredstva v prejšnjem programu. Z novim programom Erasmus+

(2014-2020) so se razpoložljiva sredstva bistveno povečala, in sicer iz 1,5 milijona evrov

v letu 2007 na 2,51 milijona evrov v letu 2014, in 2,6 milijona evrov za leto 2016. V letu

2017 se je ta znesek povečal še za 17,7 %, in sicer je na voljo 3.087.885 €.

TežavepriizvajanjuE+

Uvajanje skupnega programa E+ po besedah direktorja nacionalne agencije ni bilo lahko, saj

ga je »spremljalo veliko težav in nejasnosti.« Pojavile so se predvsem zamude s sporazumi

za prijavitelje.

DobreprakseE+

Dr. Debeljak je v intervjuju poudaril, da so bili »nekateri projekti na evropski ravni

prepoznani kot primeri dobrih praks«. Tako je bil npr. mednarodni projekt Mladinskega

združenja Brez izgovora na temo zlorabe alkohola med mladimi, uvrščen med tri najboljše

evropske projekte dobrih praks.

ZdruženostprogramaE+(ostaleorg.)

Ob najavi novega programa E+ so se nekatere mladinske organizacije »bale« »vdora« drugih

organizacij, ki niso del mladinskega sektorja. Vendar je direktor Nacionalne agencije je v

intervjuju leta 2016 povedal, da »analize kažejo, da so prijavitelji, ki imajo sprejete

projekte, še vedno večinsko akterji mladinskega sektorja.«

VplivE+naravenorganizacije

Erasmus+ po mnenju direktorja Nacionalne agencije organizacijam »omogoča, da njihove

aktivnosti dobijo mednarodno dimenzijo, si tako izmenjujejo dobre prakse s svojimi kolegi,

mladinski delavci pridobivajo izkušnje delovanja v mednarodnem okolju …«. Organizacije

35

tako pridobijo možnost razvoja. S sredstvi programa lahko organizacije vlagajo v mladinsko

delo s številnimi izobraževanji za mlade, mladinskimi delavnicami, razvijajo metodologijo

s področja neformalnega izobraževanja, sodelujejo pri oblikovanju mladinske politike …

Program E+ pomaga zlasti zaostalim regijam v Sloveniji, ki brez pomoči programa ne bi

mogli delovati in izvesti projektov (glej revija Mladje).

VplivE+namlade(kompetence,mobilnost)

Erasmus+ vpliva na kompetence mladega človeka, krepi evropske vrednote in omogoča

nove izkušnje, razvoj ter izgradnjo osebnosti. Prednost programa je, da se »mladi s

problemom nezaposlenosti pri projektih Mladi v akciji najpogosteje spoprimejo z

ustvarjalnostjo, svežimi idejami, inovativnimi predlogi in družbenim udejstvovanjem« (glej

revijo Mladje št. 28 in št. 29).

UčinkiE+/MvA

Direktor Nacionalne agencije meni, da potrebujemo čas, da rezultat pripelje do nekega

učinka. Projekti v okviru E+ pa imajo učinke na vključene organizacije in na mladega

človeka, še posebej na mlade z manj priložnostmi. Zavod Movit je učinke programa

Erasmus+ predstavil v Mladinfogramu: 93,4 % udeležencev meni, da je sodelovanje

prispevalo k njihovemu osebnemu razvoju, 91,6 % jih namerava izboljšati znanje tujih

jezikov, 94,9 jih bolj spoštuje kulturno raznolikost, 88,9 % jih je zaradi projekta bolj

samozavestnih, 88,4 % jih bolje deluje v mednarodni ekipi, 89,9 % jih bo izkoristilo še

druge neformalne učne priložnosti …

Vključenostmladihzmanjpriložnostmi

V prvih dveh letih izvajanja programa E+ so na Nacionalni agenciji dali veliko pozornost

socialnemu vključevanju mladih z manj priložnostmi (glej intervju z direktorjem Nacionalne

agencije). V projektih leta 2014 in 2015 je bilo vključenih 7694 mladih, od tega 23 %

mladih z manj priložnostmi. Znane so tudi aktivnosti »Ključ do vključenosti« – serija

dogodkov, katerih namen je povečati vključevanje mladih z manj priložnosti v program.

36

Številoprojektov(E+inMvA)inšteviloudeležencevvtujini/SLOpreko(E+inMvA)

Prispevki se nanašajo na poročanje o številu udeležencev v posameznih projektih in ključnih

ukrepih. V reviji Mladje so bile tako predstavljene številke sprejetih projektov pri programu

EU za mlade.

Youthpass

V reviji Mladje je bilo predstavljeno orodje Youthpass. Orodje Youthpass udeležencem

projektov v programu Erasmus+: Mladi v akciji omogoča celostno refleksijo projekta in

pridobljenih kompetenc v procesu neformalnega učenja, ter s tem prispeva h krepitvi

zaposljivosti mladih.

Evropskodržavljanstvo

Revija Mladje se je v številki 30 in 33 posvetila evropskem državljanstvu. Program mlade

ozavešča, da so evropski državljani, torej »zavezani tudi sodelovanju v korist obstoja in

razvoja evropske skupnosti.« »Obravnavanje aktivnega evropskega državljanstva v

projektih programa Mladi v akciji vodi do številnih pozitivnih učinkov za udeležence

projektov. V raziskavi Evropske komisije iz leta 2011 je namreč več kot 80 odstotkov

udeležencev preteklih projektov izjavilo, da so bolje pripravljeni na aktivno udeležbo

glede družbenih in političnih vprašanj. Mladi, ki so sodelovali v projektih Mladi v

akciji, pa so se v dvakrat večji meri udeležili volitev v Evropski parlament leta 2009.«

Socialnovključevanje

Enakost in vključevanje sta eni od pomembnih značilnosti programa Erasmus+. Revija

Mladje se je v številki 34 posvetila socialnemu vključevanju, predstavljena pa je bila tudi

Strategija na področju socialnega vključevanja in raznolikosti v okviru programa Erasmus+:

Mladi v akciji.

Strukturirandialog

Mladinski svet Sloveniji je v sodelovanju z Mladinsko mrežo MaMa pripravil konferenco in

srečanje na temo strukturiranega dialoga. Cilj je bilo vse akterje ozavestiti o pomenu

vključevanja mladih in njihovega (so)delovanja v družbi, oblikovana pa je bila tudi

monitoring skupina, ki bo spremljala izvajanje ukrepov in pobud, ki so jih mladi oblikovali

na 16 lokalnih posvetih in na dialogu s predsednikom Vlade RS.

37

EVS

Revija Mladje je prvo številko leta 2016 namenila evropski prostovoljni službi (obeleženje

20. letnice EVS-a), v kateri so se ozrli na pretekla leta in pretresali ideje o nadaljnjem razvoju

evropske prostovoljne službe. Izdan je bil tudi »Mladinfogram«, ki predstavlja učinke

prostovoljne službe: 97 % prostovoljcev EVS je izboljšalo svoje spretnosti

sporazumevanja v tujem jeziku, več kot 80 % udeležencev EVS ocenjuje, da so

pridobili spretnosti, ki jim pomagajo pri identificiranju priložnosti za osebno in

profesionalno rast, 93 % prostovoljcev EVS je postalo bolj pripravljenih za samostojno

mobilnost v drugih državah …

38

Repozitorij objavljenih člankov na temo programa 1) Ali Erasmus izkušnja vpliva na mehke veščine študentov? : študija primera študentov

z Univerze na Primorskem : diplomsko delo

2) Čas za čas brez rokavic

3) ENAKOST IN VKLJUČEVANJE V PROGRAMU ERASMUS+: MLADI V

AKCIJI

4) ERASMUS + LETO DNI KASNEJE

5) Erasmus+ : izobraževanje in usposabljanje

6) Erasmus+ uspešna zgodba tako v EU kot v Sloveniji

7) Erasmus+: Mladi v akciji: V Sloveniji na področju mladine od leta 1999 do danes v

mednarodne učne aktivnosti vključenih več kot 40.000 mladih

8) ERASMUS+: NOVI PROGRAM EU NA PODROČJIH IZOBRAŽEVANJA,

USPOSABLJANJA, MLADINE IN ŠPORTA

9) Erasmus+: uspehi in izzivi

10) Erasmus+; “Gre za zgodbo o uspehu!”

11) EVROPSKI PARLAMENT ZA VEČ SREDSTEV ZA PROGRAM ERASMUS+

12) Evropsko državljanstvo V PROGRAMU ERASMUS+: MLADI V AKCIJI

13) Evropsko državljanstvo v projektih programa Mladi v akciji

14) EVS V LETOŠNJEM LETU, ČE SLUČAJNO KDO ŠE NE VE, PRAZNUJE 20

LET

15) Geostrateška slika partnerstev v projektih programa Mladi v akciji

16) Informacija o Programu Erasmus +

17) Intervju o pomenu mladinskega dela z Urošem Skrinarjem, direktorjem Mreže

MaMa

18) Iz programa Erasmus že milijon otrok

19) KAJ IMAMO MLADI V AKCIJI V LETU 2015?

20) Kakšne spremembe organizacijam prinaša novi program Erasmus+?

21) Katere barve so mladi v akciji?

22) Konferenca o prihodnosti sodelovanja na področju mladine v kontekstu novega

programa Erasmus +

23) Mladi potrebujemo samostojen in neodvisen program Skupnosti."

24) Mladi se v dialogu z odločevalci počutijo bolj samozavestne in vključene…

25) Mladi SMO v »akciji« in zahtevamo, da tako tudi ostane!

39

26) Mladi želimo Evropo živeti, ne o njej poslušati!

27) MLADINFOGRAM PROGRAM ERASMUS+: MLADI V AKCIJI V LETU 2017

28) Mladinfogram: Učinki programa Erasmus+: Mladi v akciji v Sloveniji

29) Mladinfogram: Učinki programa Mladi v akciji/Erasmus + Mladi v akciji

30) MNENJE MSS IN MREŽE MAMA NA PREDLOG PROGRAMA ERASMUS ZA

VSE

31) MNENJE O PREDLOGU PROGRAMA »ERASMUS ZA VSE« 2014 – 2020

32) Mnenje Zavoda Movit o programu Erasmus for All

33) Na čigavi mizi danes leži fascikel z usodo programa Mladi v akciji?

34) NACIONALNA KONFERENCA: STRUKTURIRANI DIALOG – DIALOG ZA

DRUŽBENE SPREMEMBE

35) Nevladne organizacije potrebujemo program Mladi v akciji

36) NLP imenovan TCP

37) Nov program. Nadaljevanje in še več.

38) Novi program Erasmus+ s 14,7 milijarde evrov proračuna

39) Novosti in spremembe v izvajanju programa MVA v letu 2012

40) Od spleta naključij v rani mladosti do profesionalnega dela v mladinskem sektorju

41) Poglavje mladine v programu E+ ali Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji

42) Poglobljen intervju z direktorjem Nacionalne agencije programa Erasmus+

(MOVIT)

43) Ponosni smo lahko, da so bili nekateri projekti na evropski ravni prepoznani kot

primeri dobrih praks.”

44) Posebej boleč bi bil udarec na področju razvoja mladinskega dela v Sloveniji

45) Povečajte svojo zaposljivost z akcijo v Mladi v akciji!

46) Prednostne usmeritve programa Mladi v akciji v letu 2013

47) Prenovljena strategija vključevanja in raznolikosti ERASMUS+

48) Prenovljena strategija vključevanja in raznolikosti ERASMUS+

49) Program Erasmus+: Dobre novice iz Strasbourga za mlade

50) Program EU na področju mladine po letu 2013

51) Program EU za mlade včeraj in danes

52) Program Mladi v akciji je edini program, ki neorganizirani mladini omogoča nove

izkušnje, razvoj ter izgradnjo osebnosti

53) Program Mladi v akciji nam je omogočil razširitev obzorij

54) Program Mladi v akciji v letih 2007-2013

40

55) Program Mladina oz. Mladi v akciji kot steber podpore populaciji z manj

priložnostmi

56) Program motivira in spodbuja inovativnost

57) Program MVA je močna opora za razvoj tudi taborniškega dela

58) Razprava o prihodnosti je neizogibno tudi razprava o preteklosti

59) Razvoj področja mladih v Krškem preko podpore programa Mladi v akciji

60) S projekti programa Mladi v akciji do lokalnih sprememb

61) Samostojnost sektorja mladine v novem programu

62) Slovenski mladinski projekt v Bruslju nagrajen kot eden izmed treh najboljših

primerov dobrih praks

63) Slovo od 2013

64) SOCIALNO VKLJUČEVANJE JE BILO POMEMBEN STEBER ŽE V

PREDHODNIKIH PROGRAMA ERASMUS+: MLADI V AKCIJI

65) SZJ: MLADI PROSTOVOLJCI ŽE 20 LET PRISPEVAJO K BOLJ SOLIDARNI

EVROPI

66) TRETJI PRIJAVNI ROK PROGRAMA ERASMUS+: MLADI V AKCIJI

67) VABILO NA NACIONALNO SREČANJE MLADIH IN ODLOČEVALCEV

68) Vodnik po programu 2017

69) Vpliv programa MVA na razvoj mladinskih aktivnosti v Pomurju

70) YOUTHPASS – ali ga res poznam in znam uporabljati?

71) YOUTHPASS. VEČ KOT POTRDILO O UDELEŽBI

72) Z združitvijo bi program izgubil identiteto

73) Za Erasmus+ do 2020 15 milijard evrov

74) Za Erasmus+ na voljo 14,7 mio evrov

75) Želimo, potrebujemo in si zaslužimo!

41

3. ANKETA MED UDELEŽENCI IN VODITELJI

PROJEKTOV

METODOLOGIJA Predstavljamo rezultate ankete, ki je del vmesne evalvacije programa Erasmus+ Mladi v

akciji. Rezultati te ankete bodo prispevali k nadaljnjemu razvoju programov Evropske unije

za mladino. V anketi je sodelovalo 984 oseb – udeležencev v projektih (»project

participants«). Med udeleženci je bilo 628 žensk (63,8 %) in 351 moških (35,7 %).

Najstarejši udeleženec je bil rojen leta 1900, najmlajši pa leta 2002. Največ udeležencev je

bilo rojenih leta 1992 (75), 74 jih je bilo rojenih leta 1989, 71 pa leta 1990 in 1997. Število

udeležencev, ki so rojeni med 1980 in 2000, je vselej dvomestno (glej Tabelo 126 v

prilogah).

V anketi je sodelovalo tudi 180 vodij projektov (»project leaders«). Od tega so bile 104 osebe

ženskega spola (57,7 %) in 72 moškega spola (40,0 %). Najstarejši vodja projekta je bil rojen

leta 1944, najmlajši pa leta 1997. Največ vodij je bilo rojenih leta 1988 (16), 11 jih je bilo

rojenih leta 1982 in 1989, 10 pa leta 1985 in 1986 (glej Tabelo 127 v prilogah).

Od 984 udeležencev jih je 52,8 % sodelovalo na aktivnosti KA1 (mladinske

izmenjave), 30,8 % na KA1 (mobilnost mladinskih delavcev) 7,8 % na aktivnosti KA1 (EVS

– Evropska prostovoljna služba), 3,7 % pa na aktivnosti KA3 (strukturiran dialog). 4,9 % jih

ne ve oziroma se ne spomni, na kateri aktivnosti so sodelovali.

Tabela 40: Spol anketiranih in ključni ukrep, pri katerem so sodelovali Spol Ključni ukrep

Žens

ki

Moš

ki

Dru

go /

Man

jkaj

oč

poda

tek

Skup

aj

KA

1 –

mla

dins

ke

izm

enja

ve

KA

1 –

EV

S

KA

1 –

mob

ilnos

t m

ladi

nski

h de

lavc

ev

KA

3 –

st

rukt

urira

n di

alog

Ne

vem

ali

ne sp

omni

m

se

Udeleženci 628 (63,8%)

351 (35,7 %)

5 (0,5 %) 984 520

(52,8 %) 77

(7,8 %) 303

(30,8 %) 36

(3,7 %) 48

(4,9 %)

Vodje projektov 104 (57.8 %)

72 (40,0 %)

4 (2,2 %) 180 149

(82,8 %) 4

(2,2 %) 26

(14,4 %) 1

(0,6 %) /

Vodje so se v 82,8 % odstotkih udeležili projekta z mladimi (mladinskih izmenjav). Druga

najpogostejša oblika je bila mobilnost mladinskih delavcev oziroma aktivnost mladinskega

sodelovanja, katere se je udeležilo 14,4 odstotkov vodij. 2,2 % vodij sta se udeležila projekta

42

Evropske prostovoljne službe, 0,6 odstotka pa srečanja mladih z odgovornimi za mladinsko

politiko.

V času trajanja projekta so udeleženci največkrat bivali v naslednjih državah: Slovenija

(404), Hrvaška (60), Italija (48), Romunija (46), Španija (35), po 29 jih je bilo v Nemčiji in

na Portugalskem, 26 v Makedoniji, 24 v Turčiji, po 23 v Avstriji in na Poljskem, in po 21 v

Estoniji in na Slovaškem. V času trajanja projekta so vodje projektov največkrat bivali v

naslednjih državah: Slovenija (74), Hrvaška (23), Romunija (9), Španija (8), šest jih je bilo

v Italiji in v Avstriji, po pet na Poljskem in Portugalskem, ter po štirje v Makedoniji, Nemčiji,

Latviji in Združenem kraljestvu.

V skoraj polovici primerov je v projektu, ki so se ga udeležile vodje projektov, sodelovalo

štiri ali pet držav. Štiri države so sodelovale v 35 primerih (dobrih 19 odstotkov), medtem

ko je pet držav sodelovalo v 36 primerih (20 odstotkov). Šest držav je sodelovalo v 26

primerih, dve državi pa v 24 primerih. Devetnajst vodij je sodelovalo v projektu, kjer so

sodelovale tri države. Eden izmed vodij je sodeloval v projektu, kjer je sodelovalo 56 držav,

kar je bilo sodeč po odgovorih največ. Po en vodja je sodeloval tudi v projektu, kjer je

sodelovalo 32, 20, 19, 15 in 13 držav.

USPEŠNOST

V kolikšni meri so Erasmus+ in njegovi predhodni programi prispevali k uresničevanju

specifičnihciljevErasmus+

Glavne teme, ki so bile obravnavane v projektu

Vodje projektov so lahko izbirale med 23 temami, ki so lahko bile obravnavane v projektih.

Najpogosteje je bila na projektih obravnavana tema neformalnega izobraževanja/učenja,

priložnostnega učenja, kar je odgovorilo dobrih 66,1 %. Druga najbolj obravnavana tema je

bila kulturna raznolikost (56,7 %). Ostale najpogosteje obravnavane teme so še: mladina,

mladinsko delo (53,3 %), osebni razvoj (izbrano 50,6 %) in izobraževanje, usposabljanje,

učenje (izbrano 42,2 %). Najmanj obravnavane teme v projektih so bile: razvoj mladinske

politike (6,7 odstotkov), politike ali strukture Evropske unije (11,1 %) in mladinske politike

(11,7 %).

43

Tabela 41: Teme, ki so bile obravnavane v projektu (vodje projektov) in nove stvari, ki

so se jih udeleženci naučili pri projektu

Glavne teme, ki so bile dejansko obravnavane v projektu (vodje projektov ) / Pri projektu sem se naučil/-a nekaj novega o (udeleženci)

Vodje projektov Udeleženci

Pogostost Odstotek Pogostost Odstotek

Evropskih zadevah 50 27.8% 287 29.2%

Politikah ali strukturah Evropske unije 20 11.1% 164 16.7%

Človekovih pravicah, temeljnih pravicah 43 23.9% 233 23.7%

Vključevanju ljudi z manj priložnostmi ali marginaliziranih ljudi v družbo 66 36.7% 336 34.1%

Kulturni raznolikosti 102 56.7% 669 68.0%

Diskriminaciji in nediskriminaciji (na podlagi spola, spolne usmerjenosti, etnične pripadnosti, kulturnega ozadja, vere, invalidnosti, nacionalnosti itd.)

52 28.9% 320 32.5%

Solidarnosti z ljudmi, ki se srečujejo s težavami 46 25.6% 279 28.4%

Nenasilju 31 17.2% 159 16.2%

Demokraciji 36 20.0% 182 18.5%

Medijih in informacijski in komunikacijski tehnologiji, vključno z družbenimi mediji (omrežji) in internetom

51 28.3% 218 22.2%

Aktivnem državljanstvu in participaciji v civilni družbi in demokratičnem življenju 67 37.2% 276 28.0%

Mladini, mladinskem delu 96 53.3% 624 63.4%

Mladinskih politikah 21 11.7% 186 18.9%

Razvoju mladinske politike 12 6.7% 152 15.4%

Okoljskih vprašanjih 53 29.4% 241 24.5%

Trajnostnem razvoju 42 23.3% 223 22.7%

Zdravju, dobrem počutju 52 28.9% 219 22.3%

Izobraževanju, usposabljanju, učenju 76 42.2% 425 43.2%

Neformalnem izobraževanju/učenju, priložnostnem učenju 119 66.1% 560 56.9%

Delu, profesionalnem razvoju 35 19.4% 239 24.3%

Podjetništvo, prevzemanje pobude 39 21.7% 221 22.5%

Razvoju in upravljanju projektov 42 23.3% 343 34.9%

Osebnem razvoju 91 50.6% 512 52.0%

Pri projektu se nisem naučil/-a nič novega. / / 15 1.5%

Tabela 42 prikazuje, da je bilo le 1,5 % takšnih udeležencev, ki se pri projektu niso naučili

nič novega. Poleg tega najmanj udeležencev meni, da so se naučili nekaj novega o: razvoju

mladinske politike (15,4 %), nenasilju (16,2 %) in politikah ali strukturah EU (16,7 %). To

kaže, da so odgovori udeležencev podobni odgovorom vodij projektov: udeleženci so se

lahko (razumljivo) najmanj novega naučili pri temah, ki so bile najmanj obravnavane v

projektu.

44

Največ udeležencev je prepričanih, da so se največ naučili o kulturni raznolikosti (68,0 %),

glede mladine in mladinskega dela (63,4 %), o neformalnem izobraževanju/učenju,

priložnostnem učenju (56,9 %) in glede osebnega razvoja (52 %). Znova lahko opazimo, da

se odgovori udeležencev o naučenih stvareh prekrivajo z najpogosteje obravnavanimi

temami, ki so jih navedle vodje projektov.

Izboljšanje sposobnosti s sodelovanjem v projektu (udeleženci in vodje projektov)

S sodelovanjem v projektu so udeleženci največkrat izboljšali svojo sposobnost imeti dobre

odnose z ljudmi z drugačnim kulturnim ozadjem, izboljšali sporazumevanje z ljudmi, ki

govorijo drug jezik in izboljšali sposobnost imeti dobre odnose z ljudmi z drugačnim

kulturnim ozadjem. Tako se 93,5 % udeležencev (zelo) strinja, da so s sodelovanjem v

projektu izboljšali sporazumevanje z ljudmi, ki govorijo drug jezik. 92,3 % udeležencev se

(zelo) strinja, da so s sodelovanjem v projektu izboljšali sposobnost sodelovanja v skupini,

93,5 % pa, da so s projektom pridobili sposobnost imeti dobre odnose z ljudmi z drugačnim

kulturnim ozadjem. Pri tem odgovoru je najvišji procent tistih, ki se zelo strinjajo s to

trditvijo (54,4 %).

Na drugi strani se skoraj polovica udeležencev (49 %) (zelo) ne strinja, da so pridobili

sposobnost resnega razpravljanja o političnih temah. Tu je tudi delež največjega nestrinjanja

med udeleženci (11,8 %). 41,9 % se jih (zelo) ne strinja, da so pridobili sposobnost

samostojnega ustvarjanja medijskih vsebin (tiskane, avdiovizualne, elektronske), 29,5 % pa,

da so pridobili sposobnost samostojnega načrtovanja in izvajanja lastnega učenja.

Na podlagi tabele 43 lahko ugotovimo, da se pri vseh trditvah več kot polovica udeležencev

strinja, da so izboljšali svoje sposobnosti.

Tabela 42: Izboljšanje sposobnosti udeležencev in vodij projektov s sodelovanjem v

projektu

S sodelovanjem v projektu sem izboljšal/-a svojo sposobnost …

Vodje projektov / udeleženci ze

lo se

ne

stri

njam

(š

tevi

lo)

Ods

tote

k

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

zelo

se

stri

njam

(š

tevi

lo)

Ods

tote

k

… v razpravah prepričano povedati, kar mislim.

Vodje projektov 6 3.6% 13 7.7% 102 60.4% 48 28.4%

Udeleženci 17 1.7% 143 14.6% 559 56.9% 263 26.8% … sporazumevanja z ljudmi, ki govorijo drug jezik.

Vodje projektov 3 1.8% 0 0.0% 87 51.5% 79 46.7%

Udeleženci 18 1.8% 45 4.6% 461 47.0% 456 46.5%

45

S sodelovanjem v projektu sem izboljšal/-a svojo sposobnost …

Vodje projektov / udeleženci ze

lo se

ne

stri

njam

(š

tevi

lo)

Ods

tote

k

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

zelo

se

stri

njam

(š

tevi

lo)

Ods

tote

k

… samostojnega ustvarjanja medijskih vsebin (tiskane, avdiovizualne, elektronske).

Vodje projektov 9 5.3% 30 17.8% 84 49.7% 46 27.2%

Udeleženci 85 8.7% 324 33.2% 387 39.7% 180 18.4%

… razvijanja in uresničevanja idej.

Vodje projektov 3 1.8% 11 6.6% 83 50.0% 69 41.6%

Udeleženci 26 2.7% 131 13.4% 525 53.6% 298 30.4%

... pogajati se o skupnih rešitvah, kadar so različni pogledi.

Vodje projektov 5 3.0% 8 4.8% 76 45.5% 78 46.7%

Udeleženci 21 2.1% 118 12.1% 540 55.2% 299 30.6%

… doseganja nečesa, kar je v interesu skupnosti ali družbe.

Vodje projektov 4 2.4% 7 4.2% 88 52.4% 69 41.1%

Udeleženci 22 2.2% 104 10.6% 518 52.7% 339 34.5%

… logičnega razmišljanja in sklepanja zaključkov.

Vodje projektov 4 2.4% 16 9.4% 106 62.4% 44 25.9%

Udeleženci 25 2.6% 217 22.5% 533 55.3% 189 19.6% ... prepoznavanja priložnosti za osebni ali profesionalni razvoj.

Vodje projektov 4 2.4% 13 7.6% 88 51.8% 65 38.2%

Udeleženci 23 2.4% 109 11.4% 520 54.3% 306 31.9%

… samostojnega načrtovanja in izvajanja lastnega učenja.

Vodje projektov 4 2.4% 21 15.4% 87 51.2% 58 34.1%

Udeleženci 45 4.7% 238 24.8% 486 50.6% 192 20.0%

… ustvarjalnega ali umetniškega izražanja.

Vodje projektov 6 3.5% 18 10.6% 89 52.4% 57 33.5%

Udeleženci 44 4.6% 205 21.3% 420 43.7% 292 30.4% … imeti dobre odnose z ljudmi z drugačnim kulturnim ozadjem.

Vodje projektov 4 2.4% 4 2.4% 66 38.8% 96 56.5%

Udeleženci 17 1.8% 46 4.8% 376 39.1% 523 54.4%

… sodelovanja v skupini. Udeleženci 17 1.7% 58 5.9% 463 47.3% 441 45.0%

… učenja ali več zabave pri učenju. Udeleženci 24 2.5% 131 13.6% 481 50.1% 325 33.8%

… resnega razpravljanja o političnih temah.

Udeleženci 113 11.8% 356 37.2% 341 35.7% 146 15.3%

Kar 98,2 % vodij se (zelo) strinja, da so s sodelovanjem v projektu izboljšali sporazumevanje

z ljudmi, ki govorijo drug jezik. 95,3 % vodij se (zelo) strinja, da so s sodelovanjem v

projektu izboljšali sposobnost imeti dobre odnose z ljudmi z drugačnim kulturnim ozadjem.

Trditev, s katero se največkrat strinjajo vodje je tudi ta, da so s projektom pridobili

sposobnost doseganja nečesa, kar je v interesu skupnosti ali družbe. S to trditvijo se strinja

46

93,5 % vodij. Znova lahko opazimo, da se ujemajo odgovori udeležencev in vodij projektov

glede izboljšanja sposobnosti na določenih področjih.

Vodje projektov se najmanj strinjajo s trditvijo, da so se s projektom naučili samostojnega

ustvarjanja medijskih vsebin. S tem se ne strinja 23,1 odstotkov vodij. Tudi udeleženci so to

trditev izbrali kot eno izmed tistih, kjer so najmanj izboljšali svojo sposobnost. Vodje

projektov poleg tega največ dvomov glede izboljšanja sposobnosti pokažejo še pri trditvi o

samostojnem načrtovanju in izvajanju lastnega učenja (17,8 %).

Tabela 43 torej prikazuje, da vodje projektov in udeleženci verjamejo, da so izboljšali enake

sposobnosti in se strinjajo, da sodelovanje v projektu izboljša sposobnosti posameznika.

Vpliv sodelovanja pri projektu na udeleženca in vodje projektov

Udeleženci projektov v veliki večini odgovarjajo, da je udeležba pri projektu pozitivno

vplivala na njihovo informiranost, angažiranje, participiranje … Tako bodo udeleženci

enako verjetno kot pred projektom participirali v demokratičnem/političnem življenju (78,2

%), aktivno prispevali k varovanju okolja (68,5 %) in se angažirali v civilni družbi (64,2 %).

Udeležba pri projektu pa bo predvidoma vplivala na večje spoštovanje kulturne raznolikosti

(57,2 %), na večjo željo po prispevku k razvoju mladinske politike (42,7 %) in na to, da se

bodo udeleženci počutili kot Evropejci (41,3 %). Najmanj pozitivno je sodelovanje na

projektu vplivalo na participacijo v demokratičnem in političnem življenju udeležencev

(17,1 % udeležencev bi bolj participiralo), kar je skladno z odgovorom na vprašanje o

izboljšanju sposobnosti v projektu (udeleženci ne verjamejo, da so pridobili sposobnost

resnega razpravljanja o političnih temah – glej Tabela 43).

Tabela 43: Vpliv sodelovanja pri projektu na udeleženca in vodjo projekta

Kako je projekt na koncu vplival na vas?

Vodje projektov / udeleženci m

anj k

ot

pred

pr

ojek

tom

Ods

tote

k

enak

o ko

t pr

ed

proj

ekto

m

Ods

tote

k

bolj

kot

pred

pr

ojek

tom

Ods

tote

k

Informiran sem o evropskih zadevah.

Vodje projektov 2 1.2% 79 47.0% 87 51.8%

Udeleženci 15 1.6% 583 61.4% 351 37.0%

Angažiram se v civilni družbi. Vodje projektov 0 0.0% 107 63.3% 62 36.7%

Udeleženci 25 2.6% 609 64.2% 314 33.1%

Aktivno podpiram vključevanje ljudi z manj priložnostmi.

Vodje projektov 2 1.2% 88 52.1% 79 46.7%

Udeleženci 12 1.3% 553 58.9% 374 39.8%

47

Kako je projekt na koncu vplival na vas?

Vodje projektov / udeleženci m

anj k

ot

pred

pr

ojek

tom

Ods

tote

k

enak

o ko

t pr

ed

proj

ekto

m

Ods

tote

k

bolj

kot

pred

pr

ojek

tom

Ods

tote

k

Aktivno prispevam k varovanju okolja (npr. z recikliranjem, uporabo obnovljivih virov energije, uporabo javnega prevoza za zmanjšanje onesnaževanja)

Vodje projektov / / / / / /

Udeleženci 17 1.8% 651 68.5% 282 29.7%

Participiram v demokratičnem/političnem življenju.

Vodje projektov 3 1.8% 131 78.0% 34 20.2%

Udeleženci 44 4.7% 740 78.2% 162 17.1%

Ukvarjam se s prostovoljnimi dejavnostmi …

Vodje projektov / / / / / /

Udeleženci 15 1.6% 566 59.8% 366 38.6%

Spoštujem kulturno raznolikost.

Vodje projektov 4 2.4% 70 41.7% 94 56.0%

Udeleženci 10 1.1% 394 41.7% 540 57.2%

Želim prispevati k razvoju mladinske politike.

Vodje projektov 2 1.2% 83 49.4% 83 49.4%

Udeleženci 26 2.8% 514 54.6% 402 42.7%

Čutim se kot Evropejec/-ka. Vodje projektov 3 1.8% 109 64.5% 57 33.7%

Udeleženci 29 3.1% 526 55.7% 390 41.3%

Predan/a sem delu, ki je usmerjeno proti diskriminaciji, nestrpnosti, ksenofobiji ali rasizmu.

Vodje projektov 1 0.6% 81 48.5% 85 50.9%

Udeleženci 20 2.1% 555 58.6% 372 39.3%

Vodje projektov bodo enako verjetno kot pred projektom participirale v

demokratičnem/političnem življenju (78,0 %), se počutili Evropejce/ke (64,5 %) in se

angažirali v civilni družbi (63,3 %). Udeležba pri projektu pa bo predvidoma vplivala na

večje spoštovanje kulturne raznolikosti (56,0 %), boljšo informiranost o evropskih zadevah

(51,8 %), večjo predanost delu, ki je usmerjeno proti diskriminaciji, nestrpnosti, ksenofobiji

ali rasizmu (50,9 %), in na večjo željo po prispevku k razvoju mladinske politike (49,4 %).

Tudi pri vodjah projektov je sodelovanje pri projektu najmanj pozitivno vplivalo na

participacijo v demokratičnem in političnem življenju (20,2 % vodij projektov bi bolj

participiralo).

Opazimo lahko, da se odgovori udeležencev in vodij projektov v veliki meri ujemajo in da

je imelo sodelovanje pri projektu na njih podobne vplive.

48

Vplivi sodelovanja pri projektu na udeležence in vodje projektov

Udeleženci projektov se najmanj strinjajo s trditvijo, da se zaradi sodelovanja pri projektu

nameravajo včlaniti v politično in/ali družbeno gibanje, združenje ali organizacijo. S tem se

ne strinja več kot polovica udeležencev (50,7 %). Poleg tega se v manjši meri strinjajo tudi

s trditvijo, da nameravajo z ljudmi, ki so jih spoznali preko projekta, razviti skupne aktivnosti

ali projekte (ne strinja se 28,9 % udeležencev) in trditvijo, da nameravajo v tujini študirati,

delati, opravljati prakso ali tam živeti (ne strinja se 26,5 % udeležencev). Opazimo lahko, da

se udeleženci večinoma (zelo) strinjajo z izjavami. Največkrat se strinjajo s trditvijo, da

nameravajo z mrežami, ki so jih vzpostavili preko projekta, ohraniti stike (strinja se 91,1 %

udeležencev). Poleg tega potrdijo, da so spoznali veliko ljudi iz drugih držav, s katerimi so

še vedno v stiku (89,9 % udeležencev) in da se zdaj lažje sami gibljejo v drugih državah

(npr. potovanje, študij, delo oz. praksa, služba), kar potrdi dobre !" oz. 80,5 % udeležencev.

Tabela 44: Vplivi sodelovanja pri projektu na udeležence in vodje projektov

V kolikšni meri se zaradi projekta strinjate oz. ne strinjate z naslednjimi izjavami?

Vodje projektov

/ udeleženci ze

lo se

ne

stri

njam

(š

tevi

lo)

Ods

tote

k

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

zelo

se

stri

njam

(š

tevi

lo)

Ods

tote

k

Zdaj se lažje sam/a gibljem v drugih državah (npr. potovanje, študij, delo oz. praksa, služba).

Vodje projektov 3 1,8% 29 17,4% 88 52,7% 47 28,1%

Udeleženci 23 2,4% 161 17,1% 414 43,9% 345 36,6%

V tujini nameravam študirati, delati, opravljati prakso ali tam živeti.

Vodje projektov 6 3,6% 52 31,3% 68 41,0% 40 24,1%

Udeleženci 37 3,9% 213 22,6% 348 36,9% 345 36,6% Bolj jasno si predstavljam svojo nadaljnjo izobraževalno pot.

Vodje projektov 5 3,0% 37 22,3% 84 50,6% 40 24,1%

Imam bolj jasno predstavo svojih želja in ciljev glede poklicne kariere.

Vodje projektov 3 1,8% 39 23,5% 76 45,8% 48 28,9%

Bolje razumem svoje karierne možnosti.

Vodje projektov 3 1,8% 37 22,3% 76 45,8% 50 30,1%

Spoznal/a sem, katere od svojih kompetenc želim še bolj razviti.

Vodje projektov 2 1,2% 19 11,5% 77 46,7% 67 40,6%

Bolje poznam svoje močne in šibke točke.

Vodje projektov 3 1,8% 16 9,6% 78 47,0% 69 41,6%

Nameravam izboljšati svoje znanje tujih jezikov.

Vodje projektov 2 1,2% 12 7,2% 72 43,4% 80 48,2%

Verjamem, da so se moje zaposlitvene možnosti povečale.

Vodje projektov 5 3,0% 42 25,5% 71 43,0% 47 28,5%

49

V kolikšni meri se zaradi projekta strinjate oz. ne strinjate z naslednjimi izjavami?

Vodje projektov

/ udeleženci ze

lo se

ne

stri

njam

(š

tevi

lo)

Ods

tote

k

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

zelo

se

stri

njam

(š

tevi

lo)

Ods

tote

k

Spoznal/-a sem ljudi iz drugih držav, s katerimi sem še vedno v stiku.

Udeleženci 10 1,1% 85 9,0% 379 40,2% 469 49,7%

Vzpostavil/-a sem stike z ljudmi iz tujine, ki so koristni za mojo dejavnost v družbenem ali političnem življenju.

Udeleženci 21 2,2% 192 20,4% 431 45,7% 299 31,7%

Z mrežami, ki sem jih vzpostavil/-a preko projekta, nameravam ohraniti stike.

Udeleženci 13 1,4% 71 7,5% 460 48,9% 397 42,2%

Z ljudmi, ki sem jih spoznal/-a preko projekta, nameravam razviti skupne aktivnosti ali projekte.

Udeleženci 37 3,9% 235 25,0% 396 42,1% 272 28,9%

Nameravam se včlaniti v politično in/ali družbeno gibanje, združenje ali organizacijo.

Udeleženci 102 10,9% 374 39,8% 290 30,9% 173 18,4%

Opazimo, da se vodje projektov pri vseh odgovorih v vsaj 65 % strinjajo z izjavami. Največ

se jih strinja s trditvijo, da nameravajo zaradi projekta izboljšati znanje tujih jezikov (91,6

%). Poleg tega se strinjajo še s trditvama, da zaradi projekta bolje poznajo svoje močne in

šibke točke (88,6 % vodij) in trditvijo, da so zaradi projekta spoznali, katere od svojih

kompetenc želijo še bolj razviti (87,3 % vodij). Vodje projektov se največkrat ne strinjajo s

trditvijo, da nameravajo zaradi projekta v tujini študirati, delati, opravljati prakso ali tam

živeti. Takšnih je 34.9 %. Poleg tega se vodje ne strinjajo še s trditvijo, da so se jim zaradi

projekta povečale zaposlitvene možnosti (28,5 %).

Drugi vplivi sodelovanja pri projektu na udeležence

Udeleženci se tako najbolj strinjajo s trditvijo, da nameravajo zaradi projekta izboljšati svoje

znanje tujih jezikov. To namerava storiti 91,5 % deležencev. Prav tako nameravajo

udeleženci v veliki meri (89,9 %) izkoristiti neformalno izobraževanje in učne priložnosti;

imajo v načrtu nadaljnje izobraževanje in usposabljanje (86,8 %); in vedo, katere

kompetence želijo bolj razviti (85,1 %). Udeleženci se najmanj strinjajo s trditvijo, da si

zaradi projekta bolj jasno predstavljajo svojo nadaljnjo izobraževalno pot. S tem se ne strinja

36,0 % udeležencev. Prav tako udeleženci manj verjamejo, da so se povečale njihove

50

zaposlitvene možnosti (32,1 % udeležencev se s tem ne strinja). Kljub temu je pri vsaki

trditvi delež tistih, ki se s trditvijo strinjajo, višji, kot delež tistih, ki se s trditvijo ne strinjajo.

Tabela 45: Drugi vplivi sodelovanja pri projektu na udeležence

Ali je sodelovanje pri projektu še kako drugače vplivalo na vas?

zelo

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

zelo

se

stri

njam

(š

tevi

lo)

Ods

tote

k

Bolj jasno si predstavljam svojo nadaljnjo izobraževalno pot. 27 2,9% 307 33,1% 430 46,4% 163 17,6%

Imam bolj jasno predstavo svojih želja in ciljev glede poklicne karierne.

23 2,5% 256 27,6% 456 49,2% 191 20,6%

Bolje razumem svoje karierne možnosti. 21 2,3% 256 27,6% 444 47,9% 205 22,1%

V načrtu imam nadaljnje izobraževanje in usposabljanje. 16 1,7% 106 11,4% 493 53,1% 313 33,7%

Izkoristiti nameravam neformalno izobraževanje in učne priložnosti.

14 1,5% 79 8,5% 430 46,4% 403 43,5%

Spoznal/-a sem, katere od svojih kompetenc želim še bolj razviti. 13 1,4% 125 13,5% 485 52,4% 303 32,7%

Nameravam izboljšati svoje znanje tujih jezikov. 15 1,6% 63 6,8% 387 41,8% 460 49,7%

Vzpostavil/-a sem stike z ljudmi iz tujine, ki so koristni za mojo profesionalno rast.

21 2,3% 195 21,1% 411 44,4% 298 32,2%

Verjamem, da so se moje zaposlitvene možnosti povečale. 45 4,9% 252 27,2% 399 43,1% 230 24,8%

Vpliv sodelovanja v projektu na delo oz. dejavnost udeleženca na področju mladine

Udeleženci so se najbolj strinjali, da je sodelovanje v projektu vplivalo predvsem na to, da

so se naučili nečesa, kar nameravajo uporabiti pri svojem delu oz. dejavnosti z mladimi. S

to trditvijo se je strinjalo 91,4 % udeležencev. Udeleženci so se (zelo) strinjali tudi s tem, da

so se bolje naučili delati v mednarodni ekipi (88,5 % udeležencev) in da so se naučili več o

tem, kako podpirati neformalno učenje v kontekstu mladinskega dela (86,1 %).

Sodelovanje pri projektu naj bi najmanj vplivalo na sposobnost pridobivanja finančne

podpore za dejavnosti, ki vključujejo mlade. S pridobitvijo te sposobnosti se ni strinjalo 41

% udeležencev. Prav tako udeleženci ne verjamejo, da zdaj vedo več o vsebini mladinskih

politik na evropski ravni (37,8 %). Tudi vodje projektov se najmanj strinjajo s trditvijo, da

je sodelovanje v projektu vplivalo na sposobnost pridobivanja finančne podpore za

dejavnosti, ki vključujejo mlade. S to izjavo se ne strinja 32,9 % vodij. Poleg tega se najmanj

strinjajo s trditvama, da zdaj vedo več o vsebini mladinskih politik na evropski ravni (24,8

51

%). Opazimo lahko, da so udeleženci in vodje projektov podobno odgovarjali glede

(ne)strinjanja s trditvami.

Tabela 46: Vpliv sodelovanja v projektu na delo oz. dejavnost udeleženca in vodij

projektov na področju mladine

V kolikšni meri se zaradi projekta

strinjate oz. ne strinjate z naslednjimi izjavami?

Vodje projektov / udeleženci ze

lo se

ne

stri

njam

(š

tevi

lo)

Ods

tote

k

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

zelo

se

stri

njam

(š

tevi

lo)

Ods

tote

k

Zdaj bolje razumem koncept neformalnega izobraževanja in učenja.

Vodje projektov 3 1,8% 19 11,5% 86 52,1% 57 34,5%

Udeleženci 3 1,0% 46 16,0% 149 51,7% 90 31,3%

Zdaj bolje razumem povezave med formalnim, neformalnim izobraževanjem in priložnostnim učenjem.

Vodje projektov 2 1,2% 20 12,1% 76 46,1% 67 40,6%

Udeleženci 3 1,0% 57 19,8% 143 49,7% 85 29,5% Naučil/-a sem se več o tem, kako podpirati neformalno učenje v kontekstu mladinskega dela.

Vodje projektov 1 0,6% 15 9,1% 82 49,7% 67 40,6%

Udeleženci 0 0,0% 40 13,8% 153 52,9% 96 33,2%

Naučil/-a sem se, kako bolje razvijati in izvajati mednarodne mladinske projekte.

Vodje projektov 2 1,2% 15 9,1% 71 43,3% 76 46,3%

Udeleženci 4 1,4% 47 16,3% 141 49,0% 96 33,3% Vzpostavil/-a sem stik z mladinskimi delavci/voditelji v drugih državah, s katerimi nameravam razviti skupen projekt.

Vodje projektov 5 3,0% 11 6,7% 75 45,5% 74 44,8%

Udeleženci 4 1,4% 66 22,8% 119 41,2% 100 34,6%

Naučil/-a sem se nečesa, kar nameravam uporabiti pri svojem delu oz. dejavnosti z mladimi.

Vodje projektov 1 0,6% 14 8,5% 67 40,9% 82 50,0%

Udeleženci 1 0,3% 24 8,3% 143 49,3% 122 42,1% Naučil/-a sem se več o tem, kako aktivno vključiti mlade v pripravo in izvedbo projektov.

Vodje projektov 2 1,2% 17 10,4% 65 39,6% 80 48,8%

Udeleženci 0 0,0% 56 19,4% 137 47,4% 96 33,2%

Zdaj sem vključen/-a v partnerstva ali mreže, ki nudijo priložnosti za bodoče sodelovanje na področju mladine.

Vodje projektov 3 1,8% 28 17,1% 78 47,6% 55 33,5%

Udeleženci 5 1,8% 80 28,4% 123 43,6% 74 26,2%

Kadar je to primerno, zdaj razmišljam tudi o tem, kako v svoje delo z mladimi vključiti mednarodno dimenzijo.

Vodje projektov 2 1,2% 24 14,6% 80 48,8% 58 35,4%

Udeleženci 4 1,4% 48 17,0% 146 51,8% 84 29,8%

Zdaj sem bolj sposoben/-na pridobivati finančno podporo za dejavnosti, ki vključujejo mlade.

Vodje projektov 3 1,8% 51 31,1% 73 44,5% 37 22,6%

Udeleženci 11 3,9% 105 37,1% 116 41,0% 51 18,0%

Zdaj sem bolje opremljen/-a za

Vodje projektov 3 1,8% 20 12,1% 76 46,1% 66 40,0%

52

V kolikšni meri se zaradi projekta

strinjate oz. ne strinjate z naslednjimi izjavami?

Vodje projektov / udeleženci ze

lo se

ne

stri

njam

(š

tevi

lo)

Ods

tote

k

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

zelo

se

stri

njam

(š

tevi

lo)

Ods

tote

k

zagotavljanje kakovosti mladinskih projektov, ki jih organiziram.

Udeleženci 6 2,1% 58 20,4% 151 53,2% 69 24,3%

Zdaj vem več o vsebini mladinskih politik na evropski ravni.

Vodje projektov 1 0,6% 39 24,2% 81 50,3% 40 24,8%

Udeleženci 13 4,6% 94 33,2% 123 43,5% 53 18,7% Zdaj bolje razumem, kako lahko prispevam k razvoju mladinske politike.

Vodje projektov 2 1,2% 37 22,6% 89 54,3% 36 22,0%

Udeleženci 12 4,2% 94 33,2% 125 44,2% 52 18,4% Znanje, ki sem ga pridobil/a na projektu, lahko uporabljam pri svojem delu.

Vodje projektov 2 1,2% 16 9,7% 70 42,4% 77 46,7%

Udeleženci 19 7,5% 56 22,1% 111 43,9% 67 26,5% Izboljšala se je moja sposobnost ocenjevanja učnih rezultatov in razvoja kompetenc pri (mednarodnem) mladinskem delu.

Vodje projektov 2 1,2% 24 14,6% 82 50,0% 56 34,1%

Udeleženci 5 1,8% 55 19,9% 154 55,6% 63 22,7%

Izboljšala se je moja sposobnost oblikovanja aktivnosti/projektov za mlade glede na njihovo zanimanje in učne potrebe.

Vodje projektov 2 1,2% 11 6,7% 85 52,1% 65 39,9%

Udeleženci 5 1,8% 50 18,1% 151 54,5% 71 25,6%

Zdaj nameravam razvijati svoje kompetence za mladinsko delo preko primernih aktivnosti za izobraževanje in usposabljanje.

Vodje projektov 3 1,8% 18 11,0% 91 55,5% 52 31,7%

Udeleženci 3 1,1% 48 17,3% 143 51,6% 83 30,0%

Bolje sem se naučil/-a delati v mednarodni ekipi.

Vodje projektov 4 2,5% 11 6,8% 67 41,4% 80 49,4%

Udeleženci 6 2,2% 26 9,4% 131 47,3% 114 41,2% Zdaj se znam bolje soočati z nejasnostmi in napetostmi pri svojem delu na področju mladine.

Vodje projektov 3 1,9% 22 13,7% 73 45,3% 63 39,1%

Udeleženci 11 4,0% 60 21,6% 138 49,6% 69 24,8%

Naučil/-a sem se bolje izbirati, prilagajati ali razvijati primerne metode za delo z mladimi.

Vodje projektov 2 1,2% 10 6,1% 87 53,4% 64 39,3%

Udeleženci 4 1,4% 42 15,2% 155 56,0% 76 27,4%

Naučil/-a sem se bolje soočati z nepričakovanimi situacijami pri učnih aktivnostih z mladimi.

Vodje projektov 2 1,2% 15 9,1% 78 47,6% 69 42,1%

Vodje projektov se najbolj strinjajo z izjavo, da je sodelovanje v projektu vplivalo na

sposobnost bolje izbirati, prilagajati ali razvijati primerne metode za delo z mladimi. S tem

se strinja 92,7 % vodij. Poleg tega se strinjajo (92,0 %) tudi, da se je izboljšala njihova

53

sposobnost oblikovanja aktivnosti/projektov za mlade glede na njihovo zanimanje in učne

potrebe; da so se naučili nečesa, kar nameravajo uporabiti pri svojem delu oz. dejavnosti z

mladimi (90,9 %); in da so se naučili več o tem, kako podpirati neformalno učenje v

kontekstu mladinskega dela (90,3 % vodij).

Tako pri udeležencih kot pri vodjah projektov je moč ugotoviti, da strinjanje z izjavami

(krepko) prevladuje nad nestrinjanjem. Tudi kjer so se na splošno najmanj strinjali z izjavo,

je bilo še vedno več tistih, ki so se z izjavo strinjali (59 % udeležencev).

Prispevek projekta k ciljem programa Erasmus+: Mladi v akciji

Vodje projektov se najbolj strinjajo s trditvijo, da projekt krepi medkulturni dialog. S to

trditvijo se strinja 95,5 odstotka. Poleg tega se vodje projektov najbolj strinjajo še s trditvijo,

da je projekt prispeval k spoštovanju kulturne raznolikosti med mladimi (95,0 %) in trditvijo,

da je projekt prispeval k razvijanju solidarnosti med mladimi (94,4 %). Vodje projektov se

najmanj strinjajo z izjavo, da je projekt prispeval k spodbujanju zanimanja za razvoj

mladinskih politik. S to izjavo se ne strinja 29,1 odstotka vodij. Prav tako se vodje projektov

ne strinjajo z izjavo, da je projekt prispeval k podpiranju razvoja kariernih perspektiv (27,4

% vodij).

V vseh primerih izjav se torej vodje bolj strinjajo kot ne strinjajo, da je projekt prispeval k

ciljem programa Erasmus+: Mladi v akciji.

Tabela 47: Projekt je prispeval k ciljem programa Erasmus+:Mladi v akciji

Projekt je prispeval k naslednjim ciljem programa Erasmus+: Mladi v akciji:

zelo

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

zelo

se

stri

njam

(š

tevi

lo)

Ods

tote

k

Spodbujati aktivno državljanstvo med mladimi, predvsem njihovo participacijo v civilni družbi in demokratičnem oz. političnem življenju.

3 1,7% 15 8,3% 90 50,0% 72 40,0%

Spodbujati evropsko državljanstvo, predvsem preko ozaveščanja mladih o evropskih zadevah in o tem, da so evropski državljani.

3 1,7% 30 16,7% 88 48,9% 59 32,8%

Razvijanje solidarnosti med mladimi. 2 1,1% 8 4,4% 71 39,4% 99 55,0%

Spodbujanje spoštovanja kulturne raznolikosti med mladimi. 4 2,2% 5 2,8% 54 30,0% 117 65,0%

Delo proti diskriminaciji, nestrpnosti, rasizmu in ksenofobiji. 6 3,4% 19 10,6% 73 40,8% 81 45,3%

Krepitev medkulturnega dialoga. 3 1,7% 5 2,8% 67 37,4% 104 58,1% Spodbujanje zanimanja za razvoj mladinskih politik. 10 5,6% 42 23,5% 88 49,2% 39 21,8%

54

Projekt je prispeval k naslednjim ciljem programa Erasmus+: Mladi v akciji:

zelo

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

zelo

se

stri

njam

(š

tevi

lo)

Ods

tote

k

Razvijanje ključnih kompetenc mladih. 3 1,7% 13 7,2% 66 36,7% 98 54,4%

Spodbujanje razvoja perspektive mladih za izobraževanje. 3 1,7% 23 12,8% 88 48,9% 66 36,7%

Podpiranje razvoja kariernih perspektiv. 4 2,3% 43 25,1% 76 44,4% 48 28,1%

Podpora vključevanju mladih z manj priložnostmi ali posebnimi potrebami v program Erasmus+: Mladi v akciji.

6 3,4% 26 14,9% 76 43,7% 66 37,9%

Prispevati k razvoju kakovosti mladinskega dela. 2 1,1% 18 10,3% 89 51,1% 65 37,4%

Prispevati h krepitvi zmožnosti organizacij civilne družbe na področju mladine. 5 2,9% 26 14,9% 91 52,3% 52 29,9%

Izboljšanje kakovosti mednarodnih mladinskih projektov. 3 1,7% 14 8,1% 80 46,2% 76 43,9%

Spodbujanje evropskega sodelovanja na področju mladine. 2 1,2% 12 6,9% 83 48,0% 76 43,9%

Krepitev mednarodne dimenzije mladinskega dela. 3 1,7% 11 6,4% 77 44,5% 82 47,4%

Spodbujanje boljšega razumevanja medsebojne povezanosti formalnega, neformalnega in priložnostnega učenja oz. izobraževanja.

2 1,2% 10 5,8% 73 42,2% 88 50,9%

Podpora priznavanju neformalnega in priložnostnega učenja. 2 1,2% 20 11,6% 84 48,8% 66 38,4%

Vpliv projekta na organizacijo/skupino/telo

Udeleženci projektov se najbolj strinjajo s trditvijo, da je projekt na njihovo organizacijo

vplival z več stiki/partnerstvi z drugimi državami. S to trditvijo se strinja 77,2 %

udeležencev. Poleg tega naj bi projekt vplival na večji prenos znanja in uporabe dobrih praks

znotraj organizacije (75 % udeležencev) in na izboljšane kompetence za izvajanje

neformalnega izobraževanja (75,3 %). Udeleženci se v največji meri ne strinjajo, da bo

udeležba pri projektu za njihovo organizacijo prinesla bolj intenzivno vključevanje v

evropske zadeve – s tem se ne strinja 25,6 % udeležencev. Poleg tega jih najmanj verjame,

da je projekt vplival na izboljšani procesi prepoznavanja in potrjevanja kompetenc mladih

poleg Youthpassa (19,7 %). Tako lahko vidimo, da se udeleženci pri vseh trditvah v veliki

večini strinjajo s trditvijo, največ ¼ pa se z njo ne strinja.

Pri vsaki trditvi je tudi nekaj udeležencev, ki nimajo mnenja oziroma ne morejo presoditi:

največ pri izjavi, da projekta vpliva na organizacijo/skupino/telo glede več mednarodnih

projektov (24,5 % jih ne more presoditi).

55

Tabela 48: Vpliv projekta na organizacijo/skupino/telo (udeleženci in vodje projektov) V kolikšni meri se zaradi projekta strinjate oz. ne strinjate z naslednjimi izjavami?

Vodje projektov

/ udeleženci ze

lo se

ne

stri

njam

(š

tevi

lo)

Ods

tote

k

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

zelo

se

stri

njam

(š

tevi

lo)

Ods

tote

k

Nim

am

mne

nja

/ Ne

mor

em

pres

oditi

Ods

tote

k

Več stikov/partnerstev z drugimi državami

Vodje projektov 4 2,5% 5 3,1% 48 29,4% 95 58,3% 11 6,7%

Udeleženci 6 2,3% 17 6,4% 93 35,2% 111 42,0% 37 14,0%

Več mednarodnih projektov

Vodje projektov 4 2,5% 17 10,5% 54 33,3% 71 43,8% 16 9,9%

Udeleženci 5 1,9% 38 14,6% 81 31,0% 73 28,0% 64 24,5%

Večja participacija mladih v organizaciji/skupini

Vodje projektov 3 1,8% 11 6,7% 72 44,2% 63 38,7% 14 8,6%

Udeleženci 3 1,1% 46 17,4% 98 37,1% 69 26,1% 48 18,2%

Kulturna raznolikost je bolj cenjena

Vodje projektov 3 1,9% 8 4,9% 57 35,2% 78 48,1% 16 9,9%

Udeleženci 6 2,3% 37 14,2% 94 36,0% 78 29,9% 46 17,6%

Večja zavzetost za vključevanje mladih z manj priložnostmi

Vodje projektov 3 1,9% 14 8,6% 63 38,9% 65 40,1% 17 10,5%

Udeleženci 3 1,1% 46 17,5% 91 34,6% 71 27,0% 52 19,8%

Bolj intenzivno vključevanje v evropske zadeve

Vodje projektov 3 1,9% 26 16,0% 62 38,3% 47 29,0% 24 14,8%

Udeleženci 8 3,0% 60 22,6% 88 33,2% 56 21,1% 53 20,0%

Izboljšane kompetence za izvajanje neformalnega izobraževanja

Vodje projektov 2 1,2% 9 5,5% 66 40,5% 74 45,4% 12 7,4%

Udeleženci 3 1,1% 21 8,0% 105 39,9% 93 35,4% 41 15,6%

Izboljšani procesi prepoznavanja in potrjevanja kompetenc mladih poleg Youthpassa

Vodje projektov 2 1,2% 17 10,6% 69 42,9% 54 33,5% 19 11,8%

Udeleženci 7 2,7% 45 17,0% 92 34,8% 60 22,7% 60 22,7%

Izboljšane kompetence projektnega vodenja

Vodje projektov 3 1,9% 10 6,2% 58 35,8% 78 48,1% 13 8,0%

Udeleženci 6 2,3% 27 10,2% 103 39,0% 77 29,2% 51 19,3%

Večji prenos znanja in uporaba dobrih praks znotraj organizacije

Vodje projektov 3 1,8% 8 4,9% 63 38,7% 77 47,2% 12 7,4%

Udeleženci 5 1,9% 18 6,8% 114 43,2% 84 31,8% 43 16,3%

Več mreženja na evropskem nivoju

Vodje projektov 2 1,2% 14 8,6% 58 35,8% 73 45,1% 15 9,3%

Povečanje uporabe javnih virov za izobraževanje

Vodje projektov 3 1,8% 24 14,6% 61 37,2% 54 32,9% 22 13,4%

Okrepljena mreža/stiki z lokalnimi strukturami

Vodje projektov 3 1,8% 12 7,4% 65 39,9% 66 40,5% 17 10,4%

56

Vodje se najbolj strinjajo s trditvijo, da je projekt na njihovo organizacijo vplival z več

stiki/partnerstvi z drugimi državami. S to trditvijo se strinja 87,7 % vodij. Poleg tega se

strinjajo tudi s trditvijo, da so se izboljšale kompetence za izvajanje neformalnega

izobraževanja in trditvijo, da gre za večji prenos znanja in uporabe dobrih praks znotraj

organizacije (z obema se strinja 85,9 % vodij). Vodje projektov se v največji meri ne

strinjajo, da bo udeležba pri projektu za njihovo organizacijo prinesla bolj intenzivno

vključevanje v evropske zadeve – s tem se ne strinja 17,9 % vodij. Pri tej trditvi je imelo

največ vodij (14,8 %) tudi težave pri presoji tega vpliva na organizacijo.

Učinki projekta na udeležence (mnenje vodij projektov)

Vodje projektov se najbolj strinjajo, da so udeleženci zaradi projekta bolj samozavestni. S

to trditvijo se zelo strinja 60,5 % vodij in strinja 28,5 % vodij, skupaj torej 89 % vodij. Vodje

projektov se (zelo) strinjajo tudi, da zaradi projekta udeleženci bolj spoštujejo kulturno

raznolikost (88,2 % vodij), ter da bolj poznajo svoje močne in šibke točke (83,7 % vodij).

Vodje projektov se najmanj strinjajo s trditvijo, da si udeleženci zaradi projekta bolj jasno

predstavljajo svoje želje in cilje glede poklicne kariere – s to izjavo se (zelo) ne strinja

skupno 18,7 %. Prav tako se najmanj strinjajo s trditvama, da se zaradi projekta bolj zanimajo

za prispevanje k razvoju mladinskih politik (17,8 %). Tudi pri teh trditvah pa vidimo, da

vodje projektov menijo, da imajo projekti pozitiven vpliv na pridobivanje znanj udeležencev.

Predstavljeni rezultati so skladni z nekaterimi prejšnjimi ugotovitvami.

Tabela 49: Mnenje vodij projektov glede vpliva projekta na udeležence

Zaradi projekta udeleženci …

zelo

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

zelo

se

stri

njam

(š

tevi

lo)

Ods

tote

k

Nim

am

mne

nja

/ N

e m

orem

pr

esod

iti

Ods

tote

k

… bolj spoštujejo kulturno raznolikost. 3 1,8% 5 3,0% 49 29,0% 100 59,2% 12 7,1%

… se bolj zanimajo za prispevanje k razvoju mladinskih politik. 4 2,4% 26 15,4% 69 40,8% 42 24,9% 28 16,6%

… se bolj čutijo kot Evropejci. 7 4,1% 23 13,5% 67 39,2% 47 27,5% 27 15,8%

… nameravajo študirati, delati, opravljati prakso ali živeti v tujini. 2 1,2% 18 10,5% 61 35,5% 61 35,5% 30 17,4%

… nameravajo razvijati skupne aktivnosti ali projekte z ljudmi, ki so jih spoznali preko projekta.

4 2,3% 10 5,8% 59 34,5% 83 48,5% 15 8,8%

… si bolj jasno predstavljajo svoje želje in cilje glede poklicne kariere.

4 2,3% 28 16,4% 69 40,4% 46 26,9% 24 14,0%

… nameravajo nadaljevati izobraževanje in usposabljanje. 4 2,3% 11 6,4% 58 33,9% 78 45,6% 20 11,7%

57

Zaradi projekta udeleženci …

zelo

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

zelo

se

stri

njam

(š

tevi

lo)

Ods

tote

k

Nim

am

mne

nja

/ N

e m

orem

pr

esod

iti

Ods

tote

k

… verjamejo, da so se njihove zaposlitvene možnosti povečale. 5 2,9% 24 14,0% 64 37,4% 48 28,1% 30 17,5%

… so bolj samozavestni. 4 2,3% 5 2,9% 49 28,5% 104 60,5% 10 5,8% … bolje poznajo svoje močne in šibke točke. 5 2,9% 7 4,1% 52 30,2% 92 53,5% 16 9,3%

Največ vodij projektov (17,5 %) ne more presoditi oziroma nima mnenja pri trditvi ali

verjamejo, da so se zaposlitvene možnosti udeležencev povečale.

Učinek projekta na lokalno skupnost, v kateri je bil izveden

Pri vprašanju učinka projekta na lokalno skupnost so vodje projektov v večji meri kot pri

ostalih vprašanjih izbirali možnost nimam mnenja/ne morem presoditi. Tako je skoraj

tretjina (29,4 %) vodij odgovorilo, da ne morejo presoditi, ali je lokalna skupnost postala

bolj predana vključevanju mladih z manj priložnostmi. 23,3 % pa jih ni moglo presoditi, ali

je projekt ustvaril sinergije med različnimi deležniki v lokalni skupnosti. Vodje projektov se

sicer najbolj strinjajo (88,3 %) s trditvijo, daje lokalna skupnost projekt dobro sprejela. Poleg

tega se strinjajo tudi s trditvijo, da je lokalna skupnost dobro sprejela medkulturno dimenzijo

(86,5 %) in da je bila lokalna skupnost aktivno vključena v projekt (82,1 %). Na drugi strani

pa se vodje projektov najmanj strinjajo s trditvijo, da je lokalna skupnost postala bolj predana

vključevanju mladih z manj priložnostmi. S to trditvijo se ne strinja 15,4 % vodij. Znova

opazimo, da se pri vseh trditvah vodje projektov (krepko) bolj strinjajo, kot ne strinjajo s

trditvami.

Tabela 50: Vpliv projekta na lokalno skupnost (mnenje vodij projektov)

Trditev

zelo

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

zelo

se

stri

njam

(š

tevi

lo)

Ods

tote

k

Nim

am

mne

nja

/ N

e m

orem

pr

esod

iti

Ods

tote

k

Lokalna skupnost je bila aktivno vključena v projekt. 5 3,1% 11 6,8% 76 46,9% 57 35,2% 13 8,0%

Lokalna skupnost je projekt dobro sprejela. 2 1,2% 3 1,8% 69 42,3% 75 46,0% 14 8,6%

Lokalna skupnost se je začela bolje zavedati skrbi in interesov mladih.

3 1,8% 21 12,9% 68 41,7% 36 22,1% 35 21,5%

Lokalna skupnost je dobro sprejela medkulturno dimenzijo.

2 1,2% 4 2,5% 73 44,8% 68 41,7% 16 9,8%

58

Trditev

zelo

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

zelo

se

stri

njam

(š

tevi

lo)

Ods

tote

k

Nim

am

mne

nja

/ N

e m

orem

pr

esod

iti

Ods

tote

k

Lokalna skupnost je postala bolj predana vključevanju mladih z manj priložnostmi.

4 2,5% 21 12,9% 61 37,4% 29 17,8% 48 29,4%

Lokalna skupnost je dobro in z zanimanjem sprejela evropsko dimenzijo.

2 1,2% 14 8,7% 72 44,7% 47 29,2% 26 16,1%

Lokalna skupnost je pokazala zanimanje za podobne projekte v bodoče.

2 1,2% 10 6,1% 55 33,7% 64 39,3% 32 19,6%

Lokalna skupnost je izrazila pripravljenost za podporo podobnim dejavnostim v bodoče.

2 1,2% 12 7,4% 61 37,7% 57 35,2% 30 18,5%

Projekt je ustvaril sinergije med različnimi deležniki v lokalni skupnosti.

2 1,2% 13 8,0% 59 36,2% 51 31,3% 38 23,3%

Razvijanje veščin z udeležbo v projektu (vodje projektov)

Vodje projektov menijo, da so se udeleženci z udeležbo v projektu najbolj naučili sodelovati

v ekipi. S tem se strinja 95,3 % vodij. Na drugo mesto vodje postavijo sporazumevanje z

ljudmi, ki govorijo drug jezik. Da so udeleženci razvili to veščino se (zelo) strinja 95,9 %

vodij. Vodje projektov še menijo, da so se udeleženci naučili bolje spoznavati, kako se učiti

na bolj zabaven način (91,8 %).

Vodje projektov se najmanj strinjajo s tem, da so se udeleženci naučili resno razpravljati o

političnih temah. S tem se ne strinja 34,1 % vodij. Pri tej trditvi je tudi največ vodij (13,5 %)

odgovorilo, da tega ne more presoditi oziroma nimajo mnenja. Vodje se nadalje najmanj

strinjajo s tem, da so se udeleženci naučili samostojno pripravljati medijske vsebine (tiskane,

avdiovizualne, elektronske). S tem se ne strinja 17,7 % vodij. Ti rezultati so skladni z

nekaterimi ugotovitvami pri prejšnjih vprašanjih (glej Tabela 43).

Tabela 51: Razvijanje veščin udeležencev z udeležbo v projektu (po mnenju vodij

projektov)

Udeleženci so se naučili bolje …

zelo

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

zelo

se

stri

njam

(š

tevi

lo)

Ods

tote

k

Nim

am

mne

nja

/ N

e m

orem

pr

esod

iti

Ods

tote

k

… sporazumevati z ljudmi, ki govorijo drug jezik. 3 1,8% 0 0,0% 42 24,7% 121 71,2% 4 2,4%

… sodelovati v ekipi 3 1,8% 0 0,0% 37 21,8% 125 73,5% 5 2,9%

59

Udeleženci so se naučili bolje …

zelo

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

zelo

se

stri

njam

(š

tevi

lo)

Ods

tote

k

Nim

am

mne

nja

/ N

e m

orem

pr

esod

iti

Ods

tote

k

… samostojno pripravljati medijske vsebine (tiskane, avdiovizualne, elektronske).

7 4,1% 23 13,6% 68 40,2% 61 36,1% 10 5,9%

… prepoznavati priložnosti za lastno osebno ali poklicno prihodnost. 4 2,4% 9 5,3% 78 45,9% 66 38,8% 13 7,6%

… spoznavati, kako se učiti na bolj zabaven način. 3 1,8% 4 2,3% 55 32,2% 102 59,6% 7 4,1%

… resno razpravljati o političnih temah. 9 5,3% 49 28,8% 50 29,4% 39 22,9% 23 13,5%

… razumeti se z ljudmi v svoji državi, ki so drugačnega kulturnega porekla od njih samih.

4 2,4% 10 5,9% 58 34,1% 91 53,5% 7 4,1%

Način gledanja na EU udeležencev

Način gledanja na Evropsko unijo se je pri 39,5 % udeležencih izboljšal, pri dobri polovici

(56,2 %) udeležencev se ni spremenil, pri 4,2 % udeležencev pa se je poslabšal.

Tabela 52: Način gledanja na EU udeležencev

Način, kako gledam na Evropsko unijo, se … Pogostost Odstotek

… je poslabšal. 37 4,2%

… ni spremenil. 495 56,3%

… je izboljšal. 348 39,5%

Pomembnost tem za udeležence po sodelovanju v projektu

Večinoma so udeleženci odgovorili, da so teme ostale nespremenjene oziroma enako

pomembne, kot pred projektom. Najmanj sprememb pričakujemo pri temi pravica (justice),

kjer je 68 % udeležencev odgovorilo, da je tema ostala nespremenjena. Za bolj pomembne

teme pa so udeleženci izbrali: strpnost (56,7 %), samoizpolnitev (56,1 %), solidarnost z

ljudmi, ki se srečujejo s težavami (53,7 %) in enakost (52 %). Pri udeležencih projekta teme

niso postale manj pomembne.

60

Tabela 53: Pomembnost tem za udeležence po sodelovanju v projektu

Zaradi sodelovanja v projektu so naslednje teme zame …

postale manj pomembne Odstotek ostale

nespremenjene Odstotek postale bolj pomembne Odstotek

Pravica 10 1,1% 617 68,0% 280 30,9%

Človekove pravice 11 1,2% 493 54,4% 402 44,4%

Nenasilje 4 0,4% 543 60,0% 358 39,6%

Osebna svoboda 3 0,3% 434 48,0% 468 51,7%

Demokracija 15 1,7% 563 62,3% 326 36,1%

Mir 4 0,4% 493 54,5% 407 45,0%

Samoizpolnitev 9 1,0% 388 42,9% 508 56,1%

Enakost 8 0,9% 428 47,1% 472 52,0%

Solidarnost z ljudmi, ki se srečujejo s težavami 5 0,6% 414 45,7% 486 53,7%

Zdravje in dobro počutje 7 0,8% 506 55,9% 392 43,3%

Strpnost 7 0,8% 387 42,6% 515 56,7%

Posledice sodelovanja v projektu na udeležence

69,8 % udeležencev je prepričanih, da je sodelovanje v projektu nanje imelo vpliv.

Udeleženci se zaradi sodelovanja v projektu bolje soočajo z novimi situacijami (83,8 %), se

znajo bolje povezati z ljudmi, ki so drugačni od njih (83,1 %), so bolj samozavestni (83,0

%) in so se naučili več o sebi (81 %).

Tabela 54: Posledice sodelovanja v projektu na udeležence

Zaradi sodelovanja v projektu čutim, da … Da Odstotek Ne Odstotek

… sem bolj samozavesten/-na. 750 83,0% 154 17,0%

… lahko bolje izražam svoje misli in občutja. 697 77,2% 206 22,8%

… bolje skrbim za svoje zdravje. 404 44,9% 495 55,1%

… se bolj zanesem nase. 674 75,1% 224 24,9%

… se bolje soočam z novimi situacijami. 753 83,8% 146 16,2%

… se znam bolje vživeti v občutja drugih. 662 73,6% 237 26,4%

… znam bolje reševati konflikte. 582 65,0% 314 35,0%

… sem se naučil/-a več o sebi. 728 81,0% 171 19,0%

… bolje poznam svoje močne in šibke točke. 691 77,1% 205 22,9%

… se znam bolje povezati z ljudmi, ki so drugačni od mene. 747 83,1% 152 16,9%

… sodelovanje v projektu ni imelo posebnega vpliva name. 269 30,2% 622 69,8%

61

Udeleženci ne čutijo, da bi zaradi udeležbe na projektu bolj skrbeli za svoje zdravje (55,1 %

udeležencev). To je edina trditev, kjer odgovor ne prevladuje nad odgovorom da.

Potrdilo Youthpass – imetje, prejetje, refleksija, uporaba

Večina udeležencev (63, %) je imela Youthpass, 18,7 % udeležencev pa ga ni imelo. 93,1 %

udeležencev je potrdilo Youthpass prejelo v okviru projekta, o katerem smo jih spraševali.

6,9 % jih tega potrdila ni prejelo.

40,3 % udeležencev je v povezavi z izdajo potrdila Youthpass izvajalo refleksijo ali

samoocenjevanje, 12,3 % udeležencev pa tega ni počelo. 6,2 % jih ne ve, ali so izvajali

refleksijo.

Tabela 55: Potrdilo Youthpass in udeleženci

Vprašanje Da Odstotek Ne Odstotek Ne vem Odstotek

Ali imate potrdilo Youthpass? 628 63,8% 184 18,7% 93 9,5% Ali ste v povezavi z izdajo potrdila Youthpass za ta projekt izvajali kakšno refleksijo ali samoocenjevanje?

397 40,3% 121 12,3% 61 6,2%

Ali je refleksija oz. samoocenjevanje v povezavi z Youthpassom povečala vaše zavedanje o lastnem razvoju in učenju preko projekta?

325 33,0% 24 2,4% 47 4,8%

Ali mislite, da so potrdilo Youthpass upoštevali v kontekstu, kjer ste ga predstavili? 112 11,4% 12 1,2% 65 6,6%

Ali mislite, da vam je potrdilo Youthpass pomagalo? Npr. pri zaposlitvi ali sprejetju na prakso, tečaj ali študij, na katerega ste se prijavili.

128 13,0% 14 1,4% 53 5,4%

Ali ste prejeli potrdilo Youthpass v okviru projekta, o katerem vas sprašujemo? 581 93,1% 43 6,9% / /

Ali ste svoje potrdilo Youthpass kje uporabili? Npr. pri prijavi za službo, prakso, tečaj, študij itd. 195 31,2% 430 68,8% / /

33 % udeležencem je refleksija oz. samoocenjevanje v povezavi z Youthpassom povečala

njihovo zavedanje o lastnem razvoju in učenju preko projekta, le 2,4 % pa je bilo takih, ki

menijo, da jim refleksija zavedanja ni povečala.

Dobri dve tretjini udeležencev (68,8 %) svojega potrdila Youthpass ni uporabilo (npr. pri

prijavi za službo, prakso, tečaj, študij). Uporabilo ga je zgolj 31,2 % udeležencev.

11,4 % udeležencev meni, da so potrdilo Youthpass upoštevali v kontekstu, kjer so ga

predstavili. 1,2 % jih meni, da potrdila niso upoštevali, 6,6 % pa jih ne more podati odgovora.

13 % udeležencev meni, da jim je potrdilo Youthpass pomagalo (npr. pri zaposlitvi ali

sprejetju na prakso, tečaj ali študij, na katerega so se prijavili). 1,4 % jih meni, da potrdilo

ni pomagalo, 5,4 % pa jih ne more podati odgovora.

62

Uporaba potrdila Youthpass pri projektu (vodje projektov)

72,8 % vodij je pritrdilo, da je bilo pri projektu uporabljeno potrdilo Youthpass. 14,4 % vodij

se tega, ali je bilo pri projektu uporabljeno potrdilo Youthpass, ne spomni. 3,9 % vodij pravi,

da Youthpass potrdilo pri projektu ni bilo uporabljeno.

Tabela 56: Uporaba potrdila Youthpass pri projektu (vodje projektov)

Vprašanje Da Odstotek Ne Odstotek Ne vem Odstotek

Ali je bilo pri tem projektu uporabljeno potrdilo Youthpass? 131 72,8% 7 3,9% 26 14,4%

Strinjanje s trditvami glede Youthpassa (vodje projektov)

Vodje so najbolj prepričani v trditev, da so udeleženci prejeli Youthpass. S to trditvijo se

strinja 94,6 % vodij. Poleg tega se najbolj strinjajo še z izjavami, da so dobili vse potrebne

informacije o Youthpassu (90 %) in da so bile informacije o Youthpassu jasne in razumljive

(89,9 %). Najmanj so se vodje strinjale z izjavama, da so bili udeleženci projekta podrobno

seznanjeni z Youthpassom (8,5 %), a je bilo kljub temu strinjanje tudi pri teh trditvah visoko

(87,7 %). 15,4 % vodij ni moglo presoditi, ali so udeleženci želeli prejeti Youthpass.

Tabela 57: Strinjanje s trditvami glede Youthpassa (vodje projektov)

Trditev

zelo

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

zelo

se

stri

njam

(š

tevi

lo)

Ods

tote

k

Nim

am

mne

nja

/ N

e m

orem

pr

esod

iti

Ods

tote

k

Dobil/-a sem vse potrebne informacije o Youthpassu. 1 0,8% 7 5,4% 49 37,7% 68 52,3% 5 3,8%

Informacije o Youthpassu so bile jasne in razumljive. 1 0,8% 7 5,4% 52 40,3% 64 49,6% 5 3,9%

Udeleženci projekta so bili podrobno seznanjeni z Youthpassom. 1 0,8% 10 7,7% 46 35,4% 68 52,3% 5 3,8%

Youthpass je bil integriran skozi celoten projekt in njegove metode (npr. refleksije, osebna srečanja, spremljanje učnih procesov itd.)

2 1,5% 9 6,9% 49 37,7% 63 48,5% 7 5,4%

Udeleženci so želeli prejeti Youthpass. 1 0,8% 4 3,1% 44 33,8% 61 46,9% 20 15,4%

Udeleženci so prejeli Youthpass. 1 0,8% 0 0,0% 46 35,4% 77 59,2% 6 4,6%

63

Delo z mladimi z manj priložnostmi ali s posebnimi potrebami

16,8 % udeležencev pri svojem delu/angažiranosti na področju mladine dela z mladimi z

manj priložnostmi ali s posebnimi potrebami, medtem ko jih 8 % z njimi ne dela. 1,1 % jih

odgovora na to vprašanje ne ve/se ne spomni.

46,1 % vodij projektov pri delu pri svojem delu/angažiranosti na področju mladine dela z

mladimi z manj priložnostmi ali s posebnimi potrebami, medtem ko jih 22,8 % s takimi ne

dela. 10 % jih odgovora na to vprašanje ne ve/se ne spomni.

Tabela 58: Delo z mladimi z manj priložnostmi ali s posebnimi potrebami (udeleženci

in vodje projektov)

Vprašanje

Vodje projektov

/ udeleženci

Da

Ods

tote

k

Ne

Ods

tote

k

Se n

e sp

omni

m /

ne v

em

Ods

tote

k

Ali pri svojem delu/angažiranosti na področju mladine delate z mladimi z manj priložnostmi ali s posebnimi potrebami?*

Vodje projektov 83 46,1% 41 22,8% 18 10,0%

Udeleženci 165 16,8% 79 8,0% 11 1,1%

Srečevanje z ovirami pri dostopu do izobraževanja, mobilnosti, dela ali participacije v

družbi in politiki

Največ vodij projektov se je srečalo z ovirami pri dostopu do izobraževanja, mobilnosti,

dela ali participacije v družbi in politiki zaradi pomanjkanja denarja (31,7 %). Ostale

najbolj pogoste ovire so: nizka stopnja izobrazbe oziroma izobrazbeni uspeh (21,1 %),

življenje v odročnem območju in pripadnost skupini z manj priložnostmi (ob 20 %),

zdravstvene težave (19,4 %), življenje v deprivilegiranem (pri)mestnem območju (16,7

%) in dolgotrajna brezposelnost v družini (16,1 %).

Najmanjšo oviro pri dostopu do zgoraj omenjenih aktivnosti predstavljata spol (1,7 %) in

pretekla obsodba za kaznivo dejanje ali pripor (2,2 %).

64

Tabela 59: Srečevanje z ovirami pri dostopu do izobraževanja, mobilnosti, dela ali

participacije v družbi in politiki

Ovire pri

dostopu do

izobraževanja,

mobilnosti, dela

ali participacije

v družbi in

politiki nasploh

Zdra

vstv

ene

teža

ve

Niz

ka

stop

nja

izob

razb

e oz

irom

a iz

obra

zben

i

uspe

h

Živl

jenj

e v

odročn

em o

bmoč

ju

Živl

jenj

e v

depr

ivile

gira

nem

(p

ri)m

estn

em

obm

očju

Po

man

jkan

je d

enar

ja

Prip

adno

st sk

upin

i z m

anj p

rilož

nost

mi

Teža

ve z

ura

dnim

jezi

kom

oz.

jezi

ki v

svoj

i drž

avi

Dol

gotra

jna

brez

pose

lnos

t v d

ruži

ni

Inva

lidno

st

Prip

adno

st d

iskr

imin

irani

skup

ini

Njih

ovo

druž

beno

oza

dje

Njih

ov sp

ol

Njih

ova

spol

na u

smer

jeno

st

Druži

nske

obv

ezno

sti i

n/al

i vez

i

Živl

jenj

e na

obm

očju

kon

flikt

ov

Prip

adno

st k

ultu

rni/e

tnič

ni/v

ersk

i man

jšin

i

Pret

ekla

obs

odba

za

kazn

ivo

deja

nje

ali p

ripor

Dru

ge o

vire

Pogostost 35 38 36 30 57 36 16 29 18 22 29 3 9 12 15 17 4 6

Odstotek

19,4

%

21,1

%

20,0

%

16,7

%

31,7

%

20,0

%

8,9

%

16,1

%

10,0

%

12,2

%

16,1

%

1,7

%

5,0

%

6,7

%

8,3

%

9,4

%

2,2

%

3,3

%

Sodelovanje mladinskih delavcev, mladinskih voditeljev ali drugih, ki delajo z mladimi z

manj priložnostmi ali posebnimi potrebami v projektu

9,4 % vodij odgovori, da so v projektu sodelovali mladinski delavci, mladinski voditelji ali

drugi, ki delajo z mladimi z manj priložnostmi ali posebnimi potrebami.9 2,8 % jih odgovori,

da takšne osebe niso sodelovale, 0,6 % pa jih odgovora ne pozna.

Tabela 60: Sodelovanje mladinskih delavcev, mladinskih voditeljev ali drugih, ki delajo

z mladimi z manj priložnostmi ali posebnimi potrebami v projektu

Trditev Da Odstotek Ne Odstotek Ne vem Odstotek

Ali so v projektu sodelovali mladinski delavci, mladinski voditelji ali drugi, ki delajo z mladimi z manj priložnostmi ali posebnimi potrebami?

17 9,4% 5 2,8% 1 0,6%

9 *Izraz mladi z manj priložnostmi v programu Erasmus+: Mladi v akciji označuje mlade, ki so v primerjavi s svojimi vrstniki deprivilegirani iz družbenih, ekonomskih, izobraževalnih, kulturnih, zdravstvenih ali geografskih razlogov ali zaradi invalidnosti (za slednje se uporablja izraz mladi s posebnimi potrebami).

65

UČINKOVITOST

V kolikšni meri je integracija različnih programov v Erasmus+ privedla do povečanja ali

zmanjšanjaučinkovitostiizvajanjaprogramavvašidržavi,takonaravninacionalneagencije

kotnaravniupravičencevinudeležencev?

Je bila organizacija prijavitelj, ki je dobil finančno podporo?

42,2 % vodij pravi, da njihova organizacija ni bila prijavitelj, 26,1 % jih pravi, da je bila

prijavitelj, medtem ko jih 19,4 % odgovora na to vprašanje ni vedelo.

Tabela 61: Je bila organizacija prijavitelj, ki je dobil finančno podporo? (vodje

projektov)

Vprašanje Da Odstotek Ne Odstotek Ne vem Odstotek

Je bila organizacija prijavitelj, ki je dobil finančno podporo? 47 26,1% 76 42,2% 35 19,4%

VkolikšnimerisoITorodja,kijihzagotavljaKomisija,primernazaučinkovitoupravljanjein

izvajanjeprogramavvašidržavi?

Prijavni postopek in administrativno vodenje projekta

Vodje projektov so se najbolj strinjale s trditvami, da so bile informacije, potrebne za prijavo

tega projekta, lahko razumljive (82,9 % vodij), da je bilo enostavno dobiti informacije,

potrebne za prijavo tega projekta (80,8 % vodij), da je bilo spletno orodje za Youthpass

enostavno za uporabo (78,8 % vodij) in da je bil celotni sistem financiranja za ta projekt

primeren in zadovoljiv (78,7 vodij). Vodje projektov so se najmanj strinjale z izjavami, da

je bil prijavni postopek za projekt enostaven (21,3 %) in da je bilo poročanje enostavno (21,3

%). Kljub temu je tudi pri teh izjavah odgovor »se strinjam« (krepko) prevladoval nad

odgovorom »se ne strinjam«.

66

Tabela 62: Prijavni postopek in administrativno vodenje projekta (vodje projektov)

Trditev

zelo

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

zelo

se

stri

njam

(š

tevi

lo)

Ods

tote

k

Nim

am

mne

nja

/ N

e m

orem

pr

esod

iti

Ods

tote

k

Enostavno je bilo dobiti informacije, potrebne za prijavo tega projekta.

0 0,0% 2 4,3% 23 48,9% 15 31,9% 7 14,9%

Informacije, potrebne za prijavo tega projekta, so bile lahko razumljive.

0 0,0% 4 8,5% 23 48,9% 16 34,0% 4 8,5%

V primeru tega projekta je bilo enostavno izpolniti pogoje za financiranje.

1 2,1% 8 17,0% 19 40,4% 10 21,3% 9 19,1%

Prijavni postopek za ta projekt je bil enostaven. 0 0,0% 10 21,3% 19 40,4% 10 21,3% 8 17,0%

Administrativno vodenje te prošnje za dotacijo je bilo enostavno.

1 2,1% 7 14,9% 17 36,2% 12 25,5% 10 21,3%

Pravila financiranja in metode za izračunavanje so bile primerne. 0 0,0% 7 14,9% 19 40,4% 11 23,4% 10 21,3%

Poročanje je bilo enostavno. 2 4,3% 8 17,0% 17 36,2% 12 25,5% 8 17,0% Spletna orodja za prijavo in poročanje so enostavna za uporabo.

1 2,1% 9 19,1% 16 34,0% 12 25,5% 9 19,1%

Spletno orodje za Youthpass je bilo enostavno za uporabo. 0 0,0% 3 6,4% 25 53,2% 12 25,5% 7 14,9%

Celotni sistem financiranja je bil za ta projekt primeren in zadovoljiv.

0 0,0% 3 6,4% 26 55,3% 11 23,4% 7 14,9%

V primerjavi z drugimi programi financiranja je bilo upravljanje te prošnje za financiranje enostavno.

1 2,1% 5 10,6% 17 36,2% 10 21,3% 14 29,8%

Skoraj tretjina (29,8 %) vodij ni mogla presoditi, ali je bilo upravljanje njihove prošnje za

financiranje v primerjavi z drugimi programi financiranja enostavno.

USTREZNOST

VkolikšnimerisopotreberazličnihdeležnikovinsektorjevnaslovljenevciljihErasmus+?

Strinjanje s trditvami po končanem projektu

Udeleženci se najbolj strinjajo s trditvijo, da bi tudi drugim priporočili, da se udeležijo ali

začnejo podoben projekt. S to trditvijo se skupaj strinja 95,9 % udeležencev. Udeleženci se

(zelo) strinjajo tudi s trditvijo, da je sodelovanje v projektu celostno gledano prispevalo k

njihovemu osebnemu razvoju (93,4 %), da so se počutili dobro vključene v projekt (90,6 %)

in da nameravajo v naslednjih nekaj letih sodelovati v podobnem projektu (87,2 %).

67

Najmanj nameravajo udeleženci v prihodnjih letih sami organizirati podoben projekt. Takih

je skoraj polovica (42,1 %). Poleg tega se nekoliko manj strinjajo še pri trditvi, da so imeli

možnost prispevati svoje poglede in ideje pri razvoju tega projekta, a tudi tukaj število tistih,

ki se s trditvijo strinjajo (80,5 %), krepko presega število tistih, ki se ne strinjajo (19,4 %).

Tabela 63: Občutki udeležencev po končanju projekta

Zdaj ko je projekt končan: ze

lo se

ne

stri

njam

(š

tevi

lo)

Ods

tote

k

se n

e st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

se st

rinj

am

(šte

vilo

)

Ods

tote

k

zelo

se

stri

njam

(š

tevi

lo)

Ods

tote

k

Tudi drugim bi priporočil, da se udeležijo ali začnejo podoben projekt. 30 3,1% 11 1,1% 214 21,8% 728 74,1%

Imel/-a sem možnost prispevati svoje poglede in ideje pri razvoju tega projekta. 55 5,6% 136 13,8% 447 45,5% 344 35,0%

Imel/-a sem možnost prispevati svoje poglede in ideje pri izvajanju tega projekta.

42 4,3% 104 10,6% 508 51,8% 326 33,3%

Čutil/-a sem se dobro vključenega/-o v projekt. 30 3,0% 63 6,4% 347 35,3% 544 55,3%

V naslednjih nekaj letih nameravam sodelovati v podobnem projektu. 41 4,2% 84 8,6% 347 35,5% 506 51,7%

V naslednjih nekaj letih nameravam organizirati podoben projekt. 100 10,2% 313 31,9% 340 34,6% 229 23,3%

Celostno gledano je sodelovanje v projektu prispevalo k mojemu osebnemu razvoju.

31 3,2% 34 3,5% 354 36,0% 565 57,4%

Kakouspešenjeprogrampriprivabljanjuindoseganjuciljnihskupinnarazličnihpodročjih

obsegaprograma?

Kje udeleženci živijo

Največ udeležencev živi v urbanem območju (100.000 do 500.000 prebivalcev). Takšnih je

četrtina udeležencev (25 %). Sledijo: majhno mesto (5.000 do 25.000 prebivalcev) – 19,5 %

udeležencev in metropolitansko območje (več kot 500.000 prebivalcev) – 18,8 %. Najmanj

udeležencev živi v predmestju urbanega/metropolitanskega območja (3,8 %) in na podeželju

(6,5 %).

Tabela 64: Kje udeleženci projektov živijo

Pretežno živim … Pogostost Odstotek … v metropolitanskem območju (več kot 500.000 prebivalcev). 168 18,8%

68

… v urbanem območju (100.000 do 500.000 prebivalcev). 223 25,0% … v predmestju urbanega/metropolitanskega območja. 34 3,8% … v srednje velikem mestu (več kot 25.000 in manj kot 100.000 prebivalcev). 117 13,1%

… v majhnem mestu (5.000 do 25.000 prebivalcev). 174 19,5% … na podeželju blizu urbanega/metropolitanskega območja (manj kot 5.000 prebivalcev, a manj kot 45 minut oddaljeno od mesta z več kot 100.000 prebivalci).

119 13,3%

… na podeželju (manj kot 5.000 prebivalcev in več kot 45 minut oddaljeno od mesta z več kot 100.000 prebivalci). 58 6,5%

Najvišja dosežena stopnja izobrazbe udeležencev

Največ udeležencev je zaključilo visokošolsko univerzitetno izobraževanje ali visokošolsko

strokovno izobraževanje (56,2 %). Sledijo udeleženci, ki so zaključili srednjo tehniško in

strokovno srednjo šolo ali gimnazijo (22,5 %). Najmanj udeležencev (1 %) ima zaključeno

prvo obdobje osnovne šole, po 8,1 % udeležencev ima zaključeno drugo obdobje osnovne

šole in poklicni tečaj oz. poklicno maturo ali maturitetni tečaj oz. splošno maturo.

Tabela 65: Najvišja dosežena stopnja izobrazbe udeležencev

Najvišja dosežena stopnja izobrazbe: Pogostost Odstotek

Prvo obdobje osnovne šole 9 1,0%

Drugo obdobje osnovne šole 72 8,1%

Poklicna srednja šola 36 4,0%

Srednja tehniška in strokovna srednja šola ali gimnazija 200 22,5%

Poklicni tečaj oz. poklicna matura ali maturitetni tečaj oz. splošna matura 72 8,1%

Visokošolsko univerzitetno izobraževanje ali visokošolsko strokovno izobraževanje 500 56,2%

Skupno zaključena leta formalnega izobraževanja udeležencev

Največ udeležencev (15,8 %) je skupno zaključilo 16 let formalnega izobraževanja. Sledijo

17 let formalnega izobraževanja (13,3 %) in 15 let skupno zaključenega formalnega

izobraževanja (11,2 %) (glej Tabelo 128 v prilogah).

Zaposlitveni status v 12 mesecih pred projektom udeležencev

Največ udeležencev je bila v 12 mesecih pred projektom na šolanju ali usposabljanju (38,0

%). Sledijo osebe, ki so bili v tem obdobju prostovoljci (23,0 %) in zaposleni za polni delovni

69

čas (20,0 %). Najmanj jih je bilo samozaposlenih (4,7 %), izven plačane zaposlitve (5,3 %)

in na praksi (5,4 %).

Tabela 66: Zaposlitveni status udeležencev v 12 mesecih pred projektom

V 12 mesecih PRED projektom sem bil/-a vsaj 3 mesece … Pogostost Odstotek

… na šolanju ali usposabljanju 374 38,0%

… zaposlen/-a za polni delovni čas. 197 20,0%

… zaposlen/-a za skrajšani delovni čas. 113 11,5%

… samozaposlen/-a. 46 4,7%

… nezaposlen/-a. 122 12,4%

… prostovoljec/-ka. 226 23,0%

… na praksi. 53 5,4%

… izven plačane zaposlitve (npr. skrb za otroke, svojce, gospodinjstvo). 52 5,3%

Drugo 120 12,2%

Najvišja dosežena stopnja izobrazbe očeta oz. skrbnika/matere oz. skrbnice

udeležencev

Skoraj 40 % skrbnikov/skrbnic udeležencev ima doseženo visokošolsko univerzitetno

izobraževanje ali visokošolsko strokovno izobraževanje. Pri očetih/skrbnikih je takšnih 39,4

%, pri materah/skrbnicah pa 40 %. Najmanj skrbnikov in skrbnic ima doseženo prvo obdobje

osnovne šole – pri očetih/skrbnikih je takšnih 2,2 %, pri materah/skrbnicah pa 2,5 %. Nekaj

udeležencev ne pozna najvišje dosežene stopnje očeta/moškega skrbnika (takšnih je 4,8 %)

in matere/skrbnice (takšnih je 2,8 %).

Tabela 67: Najvišja dosežena stopnja izobrazbe očeta oz. moškega skrbnika/ matere

oz. skrbnice udeležencev

Najvišja dosežena stopnja izobrazbe: Oče / skrbnik Odstotek Mati /

skrbnica Odstotek

Prvo obdobje osnovne šole 19 2,2% 22 2,5%

Drugo obdobje osnovne šole 65 7,4% 65 7,5%

Poklicna srednja šola 155 17,8% 128 14,7% Srednja tehniška in strokovna srednja šola ali gimnazija 155 17,8% 197 22,6%

Poklicni tečaj oz. poklicna matura ali maturitetni tečaj oz. splošna matura 93 10,7% 87 10,0%

Visokošolsko univerzitetno izobraževanje ali visokošolsko strokovno izobraževanje 344 39,4% 348 40,0%

70

Najvišja dosežena stopnja izobrazbe: Oče / skrbnik Odstotek Mati /

skrbnica Odstotek

Ne vem 42 4,8% 24 2,8%

Priložnosti v primerjavi z vrstniki v državi (udeleženci)

43,5 % udeležencev čuti, da so v primerjavi z vrstniki v svoji državi deležni primernega

deleža priložnosti. Približno enako jih meni, da so deležni bodisi več kot primernega (16,8

% udeležencev) bodisi manj kot primernega (16,4 % udeležencev) deleža priložnosti. 7,1 %

udeležencev vprašanja ni razumelo.

Tabela 68: Mnenje udeležencev glede priložnosti v primerjavi z vrstniki v državi

Ali bi rekli, da ste v primerjavi z vrstniki v vaši državi deležni … Pogostost Odstotek

… primernega delež priložnosti? 385 43,5%

… več kot primernega deleža priložnosti? 149 16,8%

… malo manj kot primernega deleža priložnosti? 145 16,4%

… veliko manj kot primernega deleža priložnosti? 69 7,8%

Ne vem 75 8,5%

Ne razumem vprašanja 63 7,1%

Srečevanje z ovirami in tip ovir (udeleženci)

Udeležencem se zdi, da se z najmanj ovirami srečujejo pri dostopu do izobraževanja (68,8

%) in pri dostopu do mobilnost (65,0 %). Več udeležencev meni, da se sooča z ovirami pri

dostopu do dela in zaposlitve (41,9 %) in pri aktivni udeležbi v družbi in politiki (24,5 %).

10,5 % jih ne ve, ali se srečujejo z ovirami pri aktivni udeležbi v družbi in politiki.

Tabela 69: Srečevanje z ovirami (udeleženci)

Se vam zdi, da se srečujete z ovirami pri … Da Odstotek Ne Odstotek Ne vem Odstotek

… dostopu do izobraževanja? 176 17,9% 677 68,8% 31 3,2%

… dostopu do dela in zaposlitve? 412 41,9% 399 40,5% 72 7,3%

… aktivni udeležbi v družbi in politiki? 241 24,5% 533 54,2% 103 10,5%

… mobilnosti? 183 18,6% 640 65,0% 50 5,1%

Največ udeležencev se je srečalo z ovirami zaradi pomanjkanja denarja (26,9 %

udeležencev). Sledijo druge ovire (17,3 % udeležencev), življenje v odročnem območju (8,0

71

%) in družinske obveznosti in/ali vezi (5,7 %). Najmanjšo oviro pri dostopu do zgoraj

omenjenih aktivnosti predstavljajo pretekla obsodba za kaznivo dejanje ali pripor (0,2 %),

življenje na območju konfliktov in pripadnost kulturni/etnični/verski manjšini (po 1,3 %

udeležencev).

Tabela 70: Srečevanje z ovirami pri dostopu do izobraževanja, mobilnosti, dela ali

participacije v družbi in politiki (udeleženci)

S kakšnimi

ovirami se

srečujete?

Zdra

vstv

ene

teža

ve

Niz

ka

stop

nja

izob

razb

e oz

irom

a iz

obra

zben

i

uspe

h Ži

vlje

nje

v od

ročn

em o

bmoč

ju

Živl

jenj

e v

depr

ivile

gira

nem

(p

ri)m

estn

em

obm

očju

Po

man

jkan

je d

enar

ja

Prip

adno

st sk

upin

i z m

anj p

rilož

nost

mi

Teža

ve z

ura

dnim

jezi

kom

oz.

jezi

ki v

svoj

i drž

avi

Dol

gotra

jna

brez

pose

lnos

t v d

ruži

ni

Inva

lidno

st

Prip

adno

st d

iskr

imin

irani

skup

ini

Moj

e dr

užbe

no o

zadj

e

Spol

Spol

na u

smer

jeno

st

Druži

nske

obv

ezno

sti i

n/al

i vez

i

Živl

jenj

e na

obm

očju

kon

flikt

ov

Prip

adno

st k

ultu

rni/e

tnič

ni/v

ersk

i man

jšin

i

Pret

ekla

obs

odba

za

kazn

ivo

deja

nje

ali p

ripor

Dru

ge o

vire

Pogostost 45 50 79 48 265 48 18 45 17 25 48 53 18 56 13 13 2 170

Odstotek

4,6

%

5,1

%

8,0

%

4,9

%

26,9

%

4,9

%

1,8

%

4,6

%

1,7

%

2,5

%

4,9

%

5,4

%

1,8

%

5,7

%

1,3

%

1,3

%

0,2

%

17,3

%

Pripadnost kulturni, etnični, verski ali jezikovni manjšini v državi (udeleženci)

10 % udeležencev je odgovorilo, da pripada manjšini v državi, 90 % pa, da jih ne pripada

nobeni kulturni, etnični, verski ali jezikovni manjšini v državi.

Tabela 71: Pripadnost udeležencev kulturni, etnični, verski ali jezikovni manjšini v

državi

Ali pripadate kulturni, etnični, verski ali jezikovni manjšini v državi, kjer živite? Da Odstotek Ne Odstotek

88 10,0% 791 90,0%

Udeleženci v največji meri pripadajo verski manjšini (2,9 %) in etnični ali kulturni manjšini

(2,8 %), v najmanjši meri pa imajo priseljensko ozadje (druga ali tretja generacija

72

priseljencev) – 1,1 % udeležencev. 1,9 % jih pripada jezikovni manjšini in so priseljenci

(prva generacija – rojeni so v drugi državi).

Tabela 72: Podrobnejša opredelitev udeležencev glede pripadnosti manjšini

Podrobnejša opredelitev glede pripadnosti manjšini Pogostost Odstotek

Pripadam manjšini, ki je vedno živela v tej državi (avtohtona manjšina). 20 2,0%

Pripadam etnični ali kulturni manjšini. 28 2,8%

Pripadam verski manjšini. 29 2,9%

Pripadam jezikovni manjšini. 19 1,9%

Sem priseljenec/-ka (prva generacija – rojen/a sem v drugi državi). 19 1,9%

Imam priseljensko ozadje (druga ali tretja generacija priseljencev – moji starši ali stari starši so bili rojeni v drugi državi).

11 1,1%

Druga manjšina. 14 1,4%

Je programErasmus+ dobro znan skupnostim izobraževanja in usposabljanja,mladine in

športa?

Pridobitev informacije o programu Erasmus+: Mladi v akciji

Največ udeležencev je za projekt izvedelo preko mladinske organizacije (39,8 %). Temu

sledijo prijatelji/znanci (29,9 %), mladinski centri (11,5 %), neformalna skupina mladih

(10,8 %) in organizacije/združenja druge vrste (10,7 %). Najmanj udeležencev je za program

izvedelo preko informacij s spletne strani Evropske komisije (0,8 %), preko mreže Eurodesk

(1,1 %) in preko informacij s strani regionalne agencije/pisarne nacionalne agencije (2,2 %).

Udeleženci sicer ponudijo še nekatere druge odgovore: v dijaškem domu, preko Facebooka,

Zavoda za zaposlovanje, na festivalu, preko portala SALTO-YOUTH, od staršev …

Tabela 73: Pridobitev informacije o projektu (udeleženci in vodje projektov)

Za projekt sem zvedel/-a: (udeleženci) / Za program Erasmus+: Mladi v akciji (ali predhodni program EU za

mlade) sem izvedel/-a na naslednji način: (vodje projektov)

Vodje projektov / udeleženci Število Odstotek

Preko neformalne skupine mladih Vodje projektov 23 12,8% Udeleženci 106 10,8%

Preko mladinske organizacije Vodje projektov 84 46,7% Udeleženci 392 39,8%

Preko mladinskega centra Vodje projektov 23 12,8% Udeleženci 113 11,5%

Preko organizacije/združenja druge vrste Vodje projektov 38 21,1% Udeleženci 105 10,7%

Od prijateljev/znancev Vodje projektov 59 32,8% Udeleženci 294 29,9%

73

Za projekt sem zvedel/-a: (udeleženci) / Za program Erasmus+: Mladi v akciji (ali predhodni program EU za

mlade) sem izvedel/-a na naslednji način: (vodje projektov)

Vodje projektov / udeleženci Število Odstotek

Preko šole, visokošolskega zavoda ali univerze Vodje projektov 19 10,6% Udeleženci 91 9,2%

Na delu (npr. od sodelavcev, preko informacij na delovnem mestu) Vodje projektov 32 17,8% Udeleženci 47 4,8%

Preko informacij v časopisu/reviji, na radiu, televiziji, internetu Vodje projektov 20 11,1% Udeleženci 78 7,9%

Preko informacij s strani nacionalne agencije za Erasmus+ (Mladi v akciji) (npr. preko neposrednega obveščanja, informacijskega gradiva, plakata, spletne strani, informativnega dogodka, posvetovanja)

Vodje projektov 25 13,9%

Udeleženci 78 7,9%

Preko informacij s strani regionalne agencije/pisarne nacionalne agencije (npr. preko neposrednega obveščanja, informacijskega gradiva, plakata, spletne strani, informativnega dogodka, posvetovanja)

Vodje projektov 11 6,1%

Udeleženci 22 2,2%

Preko informacij s spletne strani Evropske komisije Vodje projektov 13 7,2% Udeleženci 8 0,8%

Preko mreže Eurodesk Vodje projektov 3 1,7% Udeleženci 11 1,1%

Tudi vodje projektov so največkrat je za program Erasmus+: Mladi v akciji izvedele preko

mladinske organizacije (46,7 %). Temu sledijo prijatelji/znanci (32,8 %),

organizacije/druženja druge vrste (21,1 %) in informacije s strani nacionalne agencije za

Erasmus+ (13,9 %). Najmanj vodij je za program izvedelo preko mreže Eurodesk (1,7 %),

preko informacij s strani regionalne agencije/pisarne nacionalne agencije za Erasmus+

(Mladi v akciji) (6,1 %) in preko informacij s spletne strani Evropske komisije (7,2 %). En

vodja projekta je za program izvedel preko Facebooka, en pa preko Društva Terra Vera.

Obveščenost o programu Erasmus+: Mladi v akciji

O programu Erasmus+: Mladi v akciji so bili vodje največkrat obveščeni preko

interneta/spletne strani (8,3 %), čemur sledi neposredno poštno obveščanje (pošta, e-pošta)

– 5,0 %. Vodje projektov niso bili v nobenem primeru o programu Erasmus+: Mladi v akciji

obveščeni preko tiskanega informativnega gradiva.

74

Tabela 74: Kako so bile vodje projektov obveščene o programu Erasmus+: Mladi v

akciji

O programu Erasmus+: Mladi v akciji sem bil/-a obveščen/-a s strani nacionalne agencije ali regionalne

agencije/pisarne/strukture nacionalne agencije preko … Število Odstotek

… neposrednega poštnega obveščanja (pošta, e-pošta). 9 5,0%

… tiskanega informativnega gradiva. 0 0,0%

… družbenih omrežij/medijev (npr. Facebook, Twitter). 2 1,1%

… interneta/spletne strani. 15 8,3%

… informativnega dogodka. 1 0,6%

… osebnega stika z osebjem nacionalne agencije ali regionalne agencije/pisarne/strukture nacionalne agencije. 2 1,1%

NOTRANJA IN ZUNANJA KIHERENTNOST IN

KOMPLEMENTARNOST

Vkolikšnimerisokoherentnirazličniukrepi,kisobilizbranivErasmus+?

Prejšnje sodelovanje v projektih s podporo programa Erasmus+ (udeleženci in

vodje projektov)

Medtem ko 43,4 % udeležencev pred tem še ni sodelovalo v podobnih projektih, jih je 56,6

% v preteklosti že sodelovalo.

Tabela 75: Prejšnje sodelovanje udeležencev v podobnih projektih

Vprašanje Da Odstotek Ne Odstotek

Ali ste že pred projektom, o katerem vas sprašujemo, sodelovali v kakšnem podobnem projektu? 509 56,6% 390 43,4%

Udeleženci so se v največji meri dvakrat udeležili podobnih projektov. Takšnih je 106

udeležencev. Sledi enkratna (96 udeležencev) in trikratna udeležba v projektih (84

udeležencev). Eden izmed udeležencev se je že 70× udeležil podobnih projektov (glej Tabelo

129 v prilogah).

75

Tabela 76: Sodelovanje udeležencev v prejšnjih projektih

Sodeloval/-a sem že … Pogostost Odstotek

… v projektu s podporo programa Erasmus+: Mladi v akciji ali predhodnega programa EU za mlade (npr. Mladi v akciji 2007–2013).

393 39,9%

… v podobnem projektu, ki je bil podprt iz drugega programa Evropske unije. 181 18,4%

… v drugem podobnem projektu. 152 15,4%

39,9 % udeležencev je pred tem sodelovalo v projektu s podporo programa Erasmus+: Mladi

v akciji ali predhodnega programa EU za mlade (npr. Mladi v akciji 2007–2013), 18,4 %

udeležencev v podobnem projektu, ki je bil podprt iz drugega programa Evropske unije, 15,4

% udeležencev pa v drugem podobnem projektu.

Medtem ko 23,3 % vodij pred tem še ni sodelovalo v projektih s podporo programa

Erasmus+, jih je 42,8 % v preteklosti že sodelovalo kot vodje projekta v projektni skupini,

43,3 % pa kot udeleženci (vključno z usposabljanji za mladinske delavce/voditelje).

Tabela 77: Sodelovanje vodij projektov v prejšnjih projektih

Ali ste prej že kdaj sodelovali v projektih s podporo programa Erasmus+: Mladi v akciji ali predhodnega programa EU za mladino (npr. Mladi v akciji 2007–2013)? Število Odstotek

Da, kot vodja projekta v projektni skupini. 77 42,8%

Da, kot udeleženec (vključno z usposabljanji za mladinske delavce/voditelje). 78 43,3%

Ne 42 23,3%

Vodje projektov so se v največji meri dvakrat udeležili projektov s podporo programa

Erasmus+: Mladi v akciji. Takšnih je 14 vodij. Sledi trikratna in štirikratna udeležba v

projektih (po 9 vodij) in enkratna predhodna udeležba (8 vodij). Dve vodji sta se že 50×

udeležila projektov s podporo programa Erasmus+: Mladi v akciji (glej Tabelo 130 v

prilogah).

VkolikšnimeriErasmus+dopolnjujedrugenacionalneinmednarodneprograme,kisona

voljovvašidržavi?

Življenje/bivanje v drugi državi pred projektom

3,7 % udeležencev je zaradi projekta prvič odšlo v tujino. Največ (74,4 %) udeležencev je

že bila v tujini, ko so tja odšli na počitnice/dopust. Dobra polovica jih je tujino obiskala z

76

razredom v šoli (51,6 %), 45,1 % jih je pred tem že sodelovalo v mladinski izmenjavi in tako

bilo v tujini. 16,3 % udeležencev živi blizu mednarodne meje in jo lahko enostavno prečka,

13,8 % pa je v tujini opravljalo jezikovni tečaj. Med najmanj pogostimi odgovori za

obisk/življenje v tujini, pa so: odhod v tujino kot varuška (2,3 % udeležencev), življenje v

tujini s starši (4,2 % udeležencev), iti v tujino živet s partnerjem/-ko (4,2 % udeležencev) in

rojstvo v drugi državi (4,3 % udeležencev).

Tabela 78: Življenje/bivanje udeležencev v drugi državi pred projektom

Pred projektom sem že obiskal ali živel v drugi državi, ker … Pogostost Odstotek

… sem šel/šla v tujino na počitnice/dopust. 732 74,4%

… smo tujino obiskali z razredom v šoli. 508 51,6%

… sem sodeloval/-a v mladinski izmenjavi. 444 45,1%

… sem se za en semester ali več šolal/-a v tujini v okviru organiziranega programa. 100 10,2%

… sem v tujini živel/-a s starši. 41 4,2%

… sem študiral/-a na univerzi v drugi državi. 113 11,5%

… sem v tujini opravljal/-a jezikovni tečaj. 136 13,8%

… sem v tujini opravljal/-a prakso. 104 10,6%

… sem v tujini opravljal/-a poklicni tečaj oz. usposabljanje. 53 5,4%

… sem šel/šla v tujino kot varuška. 23 2,3%

… sem bil/-a zaposlena v tujini. 83 8,4%

… sem šel/šla v tujino živet s partnerjem/-ko. 41 4,2%

… živim blizu mednarodne meje in jo lahko enostavno prečkam. 160 16,3%

… sem se rodil/-a v drugi državi. 42 4,3%

… sem v drugi državi živel/-a iz drugega razloga. 93 9,5%

… pred tem projektom še nikoli nisem bil/-a v tujini. 36 3,7%

Udeleženci

Tabela 80 prikazuje možnost kritja stroškov in občutek imetja primernega deleža priložnosti

v primerjavi z vrstniki. Največ udeležencem, ki menijo, da so deležni primernega deleža

priložnosti v primerjavi z vrstniki, ni bilo potrebno kriti stroškov (46,5 %). Sledijo tisti, ki

so stroške sicer krili, a je bilo to zanje enostavno (42,0 %). Skoraj polovica tistih, ki so težko

pokrili stroške sodelovanja v projektu (39,0 %) meni, da imajo manj priložnosti kot

sovrstniki.

77

Tabela 79: Kritje stroškov in občutek deleža priložnosti (udeleženci) Kriti stroške sodelovanja v

projektu (npr. potni stroški, nastanitev, hrana, kotizacija,

drugi stroški) mi je bilo …

/ Ali bi rekli, da ste v

primerjavi z vrstniki v vaši

državi deležni …

… primernega

delež priložnosti?

… več kot primernega

deleža priložnosti?

… malo manj kot

primernega deleža

priložnosti?

… veliko manj kot

primernega deleža

priložnosti?

Ne vem Ne razumem vprašanja.

Skupaj

… enostavno.

Število 137 65 50 22 23 29 326

% 42,0% 19,9% 15,3% 6,7% 7,1% 8,9% 100,0%

… težko. Število 26 8 17 15 11 5 82

% 31,7% 9,8% 20,7% 18,3% 13,4% 6,1% 100,0%

… ni bilo potrebno – vsi stroški so bili kriti iz projekta.

Število 222 76 78 31 41 29 477

% 46,5% 15,9% 16,4% 6,5% 8,6% 6,1% 100,0%

Skupaj Število 385 149 145 68 75 63 885

% 43,5% 16,8% 16,4% 7,7% 8,5% 7,1% 100,0%

78

Vodje projektov

V bazah smo identificirali nekatere pomembne spremenljivke, za katere smo naredili

frekvenčne porazdelitve.

Tabela 80: Najvišja dosežena stopnja izobrazbe in pripadnost manjšini (vodje

projektov)

Najvišja dosežena stopnja

Pripadam manjšini, ki je vedno živela v tej državi (avtohtona manjšina).

Pripadam etnični ali kulturni manjšini.

Pripadam verski manjšini.

Pripadam jezikovni manjšini.

Sem priseljenec/-ka (prva generacija – rojen/a sem v drugi državi).

Imam priseljensko ozadje (druga ali tretja generacija priseljencev – moji starši ali stari starši so bili rojeni v drugi državi).

Lower secondary school

Število 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Technical school Število 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Upper secondary school

Število 1 1 0 0 0 0

% 4.2% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Upper vocational school

Število 0 0 0 0 1 0

% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0%

University, Polytechnic, post-secondary/tertiary level College

Število 6 5 2 6 4 4

% 4.9% 4.1% 1.6% 4.9% 3.3% 3.3%

Skupaj Število 7 6 2 6 5 4

% 4.3% 3.7% 1.2% 3.7% 3.1% 2.5%

Tabela 81 prikazuje najvišjo doseženo stopnjo izobrazbe oseb, ki so se opredelile kot osebe,

ki pripadajo kulturni, etnični, verski ali jezikovni manjšini v državi. Največ izmed oseb, ki

pripadajo manjšini, ima zaključeno univerzitetno visokošolsko izobraževanje ali

visokošolsko strokovno izobraževanje. Izmed teh se jih je največ izbralo, da pripadajo

manjšini, ki je vedno živela v tej državi (avtohtona manjšina) in jezikovni manjšini (4,9 %).

Sledijo tisti, ki pripadajo etnični ali kulturni manjšini (4,1 %).

79

4. ANKETE Z ORGANIZACIJAM

METODOLOGIJA Vseh odgovorov organizacij je bilo 315. V celoti je bil vprašalnik odgovorjen 135-krat,

deloma pa 180-krat.

ANALIZA ODGOVOROV ANKETE Z ORGANIZACIJAMI Skoraj polovica organizacij je bila v preteklosti uspešna in pridobila financiranje pri

Ključnem ukrepu 1: Mladinske izmenjave. Takšnih je bilo 49,19 % (122). Sledijo Ključni

ukrep 1: Evropska prostovoljna služba (33,87 % organizacij), Ključni ukrep 1: Mobilnost

mladinskih delavcev (četrtina organizacij oziroma 25 %) in Ključni ukrep 2: Strateška

partnerstva na področju mladine (16,53 %). Najmanj organizacij je bilo uspešnih pri

Ključnem ukrepu 3: Srečanja mladih in oblikovalcev politik na področju mladine – 7,66 %.

Tabela 81: Uspešnost na razpisih programa Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji Ali ste bili na katerem od razpisov programa Erasmus + Mladi v akciji že uspešni in pridobili financiranje? Število Odstotek

Ključni ukrep 1: Mladinske izmenjave (1) 122 49,19% Ključni ukrep 1: Evropska prostovoljna služba (2) 84 33,87% Ključni ukrep 1: Mobilnost mladinskih delavcev (3) 62 25,00% Ključni ukrep 2: Strateška partnerstva na področju mladine (4) 41 16,53% Ključni ukrep 3: Srečanja mladih in oblikovalcev politik na področju mladine (5) 19 7,66%

Slika 1: Uspešnost na razpisih programa Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji

Skoraj 60 % organizacij je v preteklosti (pred prijavo projekta v okviru programa Erasmus

+) že uspelo pridobiti financiranje iz poprejšnjega programa Mladi v akciji ali kakšnega

80

drugega evropskega programa – natančneje 59,68 %. Dobri tretjini (33,47 %) organizacij

tovrstnega financiranja ni uspelo pridobiti.

Tabela 82: Prejšnje financiranje iz programa Mladi v akciji ali kakšnega drugega

evropskega programa Ali ste v preteklosti (pred prijavo projekta v okviru programa Erasmus +) uspeli pridobiti financiranje iz poprejšnjega programa Mladi v akciji ali kakšnega drugega evropskega programa (npr. Evropa za državljane)?

Število Odstotek

Da (A1) 148 59,68% Ne (A2) 83 33,47% Brez odgovora 17 6,85%

Slika 2: Prejšnje financiranje iz programa Mladi v akciji ali kakšnega drugega

evropskega programa

Največ organizacij je v preteklosti pridobilo vire za financiranje svojih projektov in

aktivnosti iz sredstev lokalnih oblasti. Takšnih je bilo 55,65 %. 40,73 % jih je pridobilo

sredstva s strani ministrstev in organov na nacionalni ravni, 39,52 % pa od Urada RS za

mladino. 22,58 % je bilo takšnih, ki so sredstva za financiranje projektov in aktivnosti dobili

drugje.

Tabela 83: Viri financiranja projektov v preteklosti Ali ste v preteklosti (pred prijavo projekta v okviru programa Erasmus +) uspeli pridobiti druge vire za financiranje vaših projektov in aktivnosti?

Število Odstotek

Sredstva Urada RS za mladino (1) 98 39,52% Sredstva drugih ministrstev in organov na nacionalni ravni (2) 101 40,73% Sredstva lokalnih oblasti (3) 138 55,65% Nič od naštetega (0) 56 22,58%

81

Slika 3: Viri financiranja projektov v preteklosti

Organizacije so odgovarjale na vprašanje, v kolikšni meri so Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji in

njegovi predhodnih programi s svojimi ukrepi prispevali k uresničevanju ciljev v Sloveniji.

Ti cilji so bili: izboljšati raven ključnih kompetenc in spretnosti mladih, vključno z mladimi

z manj priložnosti ter spodbujati njihovo udeležbo v demokratičnem življenju v Evropi in na

trgu dela, aktivno državljanstvo, medkulturni dialog, socialna vključenost in solidarnost.

Več kot dve tretjini (71,6 %) organizacij meni, da so Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji in njegovi

predhodni programi (zelo) veliko prispevali k uresničevanju ciljev. Skoraj 13 % je takšnih,

ki menijo, da niso prispevali niti veliko niti malo. 6,79 % je takšnih, ki menijo, da so

prispevalo malo, le dober procent pa je takšnih, ki menijo, da so Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji in

njegovi predhodni programi zelo malo prispevali k uresničevanju ciljev. Dobre 3 % je

takšnih, ki prispevka programov ne morejo oceniti.

Tabela 84: Prispevek Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji in njegovih predhodnih programov k

uresničevanju ciljev V kolikšni meri so po vašem mnenju Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji in njegovi predhodni programi s svojimi ukrepi prispevali k uresničevanju naslednjih ciljev v Sloveniji?

Število Odstotek

Zelo veliko (1) 50 30,86% Veliko (2) 66 40,74% Niti veliko niti malo (3) 21 12,96% Malo (4) 11 6,79% Zelo malo (5) 2 1,23% Ne vem, ne morem oceniti (6) 5 3,09% Brez odgovora 7 4,32%

82

Slika 4: Prispevek Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji in njegovih predhodnih programov k

uresničevanju ciljev

Skoraj ¾ (74,69 %) organizacij meni, da so Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji in njegovi predhodni

programi (zelo) veliko prispevali k spodbujanju večje kakovosti mladinskega dela. 31,48 %

jih meni, da so prispevali zelo veliko, 43,21 % pa, da so prispevali veliko. 12,35 % jih meni,

da niso programi prispevali niti veliko niti malo. Le dobrega pol procenta je takšnih, ki

menijo, da so Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji in njegovi predhodni programi zelo malo prispevali

k spodbujanju večje kakovosti mladinskega dela. Nekaj je takšnih, ki prispevka programov

ne morejo oceniti (5,56 %).

Tabela 85: Prispevek k spodbujanju večje kakovosti mladinskega dela V kolikšni meri so po vašem mnenju Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji in njegovi predhodni programi s svojimi ukrepi prispevali k uresničevanju naslednjih ciljev v Sloveniji? [Spodbujati večjo kakovost mladinskega dela.]

Število Odstotek

Zelo veliko (1) 51 31,48% Veliko (2) 70 43,21% Niti veliko niti malo (3) 20 12,35% Malo (4) 3 1,85% Zelo malo (5) 1 0,62% Ne vem, ne morem oceniti (6) 9 5,56% Brez odgovora 8 4,94%

83

Slika 5: Prispevek k spodbujanju večje kakovosti mladinskega dela

Nekoliko slabše odstotke beleži prispevek k uresničevanju cilja dopolnjevanja reform politik

na lokalni, regionalni in nacionalni ravni ter podpiranja razvoja znanja in mladinske politike,

ki temelji na dejstvih, ter priznavanjem neformalnega in priložnostnega učenja. Vseeno pa

je tisti, ki menijo, da so programi veliko prispevali k uresničevanju ciljev več (dobrih 41 %),

kot tistih, ki menijo, da so programi prispevali malo (dobrih 20,37 %). 26,54 % organizacij

pa meni, da niso programi prispevali niti veliko niti malo. 7,41 % organizacij ne ve oziroma

ne more oceniti prispevka programa k dopolnjevanju reform politik ter podpiranju razvoja

znanja in mladinske politike.

Tabela 86: Prispevek k dopolnjevanju reform politik ter podpiranju razvoja znanja in

mladinske politike V kolikšni meri so po vašem mnenju Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji in njegovi predhodni programi s svojimi ukrepi prispevali k uresničevanju naslednjih ciljev v Sloveniji? [Dopolnjevati reforme politik na lokalni, regionalni in nacionalni ravni ter podpirati razvoj znanja in mladinske politike, ki temelji na dejstvih, ter priznavanjem neformalnega in priložnostnega učenja.]

Število Odstotek

Zelo veliko (1) 18 11,11% Veliko (2) 49 30,25% Niti veliko niti malo (3) 43 26,54% Malo (4) 21 12,96% Zelo malo (5) 12 7,41% Ne vem, ne morem oceniti (6) 12 7,41% Brez odgovora 7 4,32%

84

Slika 6: Prispevek k dopolnjevanju reform politik ter podpiranju razvoja znanja in

mladinske politike

Dobre ¾ (75, 31 %) je prepričanih, da so Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji in njegovi predhodni

programi (zelo) veliko prispevali k okrepitvi mednarodne razsežnosti mladinskih dejavnosti

ter vloge mladinskih delavcev in organizacij kot podpornih struktur za mlade, ki

dopolnjujejo zunanje delovanje Unije. 43,83 % jih meni, da so prispevali zelo veliko, 31,48

%, da so prispevali veliko, 9,88 %, da niso prispevali niti veliko niti malo, 4,32 %, da so

prispevali malo, 2,47 % organizacij pa, da so prispevali zelo malo. 3,70 % organizacij

prispevka programov ne more oceniti.

Tabela 87: Prispevek k okrepitvi mednarodne razsežnosti mladinskih dejavnosti ter

vloge mladinskih delavcev V kolikšni meri so po vašem mnenju Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji in njegovi predhodni programi s svojimi ukrepi prispevali k uresničevanju naslednjih ciljev v Sloveniji? [Okrepiti mednarodno razsežnost mladinskih dejavnosti ter vlogo mladinskih delavcev in organizacij kot podpornih struktur za mlade, ki dopolnjujejo zunanje delovanje Unije.]

Število Odstotek

Zelo veliko (1) 71 43,83% Veliko (2) 51 31,48% Niti veliko niti malo (3) 16 9,88% Malo (4) 7 4,32% Zelo malo (5) 4 2,47% Ne vem, ne morem oceniti (6) 6 3,70% Brez odgovora 7 4,32%

85

Slika 7: Prispevek k okrepitvi mednarodne razsežnost mladinskih dejavnosti ter vloge

mladinskih delavcev

Približno 37 % organizacij meni, da so Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji in njegovi predhodni

programi veliko prispevali k zagotoviti več priložnosti in enake možnosti za mlade pri

izobraževanju in na trgu dela. 17,90 % jih meni, da so prispevali zelo veliko, 9,26 %, da so

prispevali malo, skoraj 5 % (4,94 %) pa, da so prispevali zelo malo. 22,84 % jih meni, da

niso prispevali niti veliko niti malo. 3,70 % pa prispevka programov ne more oceniti.

Tabela 88: Prispevek k zagotoviti več priložnosti in enake možnosti za mlade pri

izobraževanju in na trgu dela V kolikšni meri so po vašem mnenju Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji in njegovi predhodni programi s svojimi ukrepi prispevali k uresničevanju naslednjih ciljev v Sloveniji? [Zagotoviti več priložnosti in enake možnosti za mlade pri izobraževanju in na trgu dela.]

Število Odstotek

Zelo veliko (1) 29 17,90% Veliko (2) 60 37,04% Niti veliko niti malo (3) 37 22,84% Malo (4) 15 9,26% Zelo malo (5) 8 4,94% Ne vem, ne morem oceniti (6) 6 3,70% Brez odgovora 7 4,32%

86

Slika 8: Prispevek k zagotoviti več priložnosti in enake možnosti za mlade pri

izobraževanju in na trgu dela

Le slaba 2 % organizacij meni, da so Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji in njegovi predhodni programi

prispevali zelo malo k spodbujanju mladih k aktivni participaciji v družbi. Na drugih strani

jih 25,93 % meni, da so programi spodbujali zelo veliko, 44,44 %, da so spodbujali veliko,

16,67 % pa da niso spodbujali niti veliko niti malo. 2,47 % jih odgovora na vprašanje glede

spodbujanja mladih k aktivni participaciji v družbi ne pozna oziroma ga ne more oceniti.

Tabela 89: Prispevek k spodbujanju mladih k aktivni participaciji v družbi V kolikšni meri so po vašem mnenju Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji in njegovi predhodni programi s svojimi ukrepi prispevali k uresničevanju naslednjih ciljev v Sloveniji? [Spodbujati mlade k aktivni participaciji v družbi.]

Število Odstotek

Zelo veliko (1) 42 25,93% Veliko (2) 72 44,44% Niti veliko niti malo (3) 27 16,67% Malo (4) 7 4,32% Zelo malo (5) 3 1,85% Ne vem, ne morem oceniti (6) 4 2,47% Brez odgovora 7 4,32%

Slika 9: Prispevek k spodbujanju mladih k aktivni participaciji v družbi

87

Tabela 91 prikazuje oceno prispevka Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji in njegovih predhodnih

programov na spodbujanje vrednot spoštovanja človekovega dostojanstva, svobode,

demokracije, enakosti, pravne države in spoštovanja človekovih pravic, vključno s pravicami

pripadnikov manjšin. Približno 35 % jih meni je ta prispevek (zelo) velik, 16,67 % jih meni,

da ni prispevek niti velik niti mali, 4,94 % pa, da je prispevek mali. Prav nihče ne meni, da

je prispevek zelo malo, je pa nekaj takšnih (2,47 %), ki prispevka ne morejo oceniti.

Tabela 90: Prispevek k spodbujanju vrednot spoštovanja človekovega dostojanstva,

svobode, demokracije, enakosti, pravne države in spoštovanja človekovih pravic,

vključno s pravicami pripadnikov manjšin V kolikšni meri so po vašem mnenju Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji in njegovi predhodni programi s svojimi ukrepi prispevali k uresničevanju naslednjih ciljev v Sloveniji? [Spodbujati vrednote spoštovanja človekovega dostojanstva, svobode, demokracije, enakosti, pravne države in spoštovanja človekovih pravic, vključno s pravicami pripadnikov manjšin.]

Število Odstotek

Zelo veliko (1) 58 35,80% Veliko (2) 57 35,19% Niti veliko niti malo (3) 27 16,67% Malo (4) 8 4,94% Zelo malo (5) 0 0,00% Ne vem, ne morem oceniti (6) 4 2,47% Brez odgovora 8 4,94%

Slika 10: Prispevek k spodbujanju vrednot spoštovanja človekovega dostojanstva,

svobode, demokracije, enakosti, pravne države in spoštovanja človekovih pravic,

vključno s pravicami pripadnikov manjšin

27,78 % organizacij je izpostavilo primer projekta, ki je bil del programa Erasmus+ Mladi v

akciji ali njegovih predhodnih programov, in je s svojimi ukrepi prispeval k za izboljšanju

ravni ključnih kompetenc in spretnosti mladih, vključno z mladimi z manj priložnosti ter

88

spodbujati njihovo udeležbo v demokratičnem življenju v Evropi in na trgu dela, aktivno

državljanstvo, medkulturni dialog, socialno vključenost in solidarnost. 72,22 % takega

primera ni navedlo.

Tabela 91: Primeri projektov za izboljšanje ravni ključnih kompetenc in spretnosti

mladih Odgovor 45 27,78% Brez odgovora 117 72,22%

Navedli so naslednje projekte: »Active for future«, »Mladinske brigade«, »Find your way to

local government«, »Youth work: Enchancing Youth employability?«, »Ključ do

vključenosti«, »Hours of intercultural dialogue«, »BITI državljan«, »Here I am!«, »Spice up

your life«, »Find a job get a job«, »Projekt Društva Ekvator: Lesena predstava«,

»Spodbujanje kompetenc za samostojnost pri mladih z manj priložnostmi«, »Success at

School (SAS)«, »No will no skill - mladinska izmenjava«, »TC Start up your future«, »Take

a chance , Facing europe: Understanding and Comprehending the EU institutions«, »NVO

Inkubator«, »Kinetic creativity«, »Dialog mladih 2.0: Vključujemo!«, »Unique year of

learning«, »European Creative Camp 016«, »Facing Europe«, »EkoKulturna mladina« in

»31. grafični bienale Ljubljana«.

Slika 11: Primeri projektov za izboljšanje ravni ključnih kompetenc in spretnosti

mladih

22,22 % organizacij je izpostavilo primer projekta, ki je bil del programa Erasmus+ Mladi v

akciji ali njegovih predhodnih programov, in je s svojimi ukrepi prispeval k spodbujanju

večje kakovosti mladinskega dela. 77,78 % takega primera ni navedlo.

89

Tabela 92: Primeri projektov za spodbujanje večje kakovosti mladinskega dela Odgovor 36 22,22% Brez odgovora 126 77,78%

Anketirani so navedli naslednje projekte: »ABC of youth work, Make it visual«, »Rubikon«,

»international youth sport«, »Champions of Growing up«, »Cherry on the cake

usposabljanja«, »World of games«, »BITI mednarodna izmenjava mladih«, »Boost your

possibilities«, »Connecting and improving peer intervention in nightlife settings on EU level

(večanje kakovosti mladinskega dela v nočnem življenju)«, »Valuing Activities beyond

University (VAB)«, »TC start up your future«, »Youth work reality in Georgia«, »Nature

skils for urban kids«, »Intercultural rainbow«, »let's talk«, »International Street Art Styria

2014 – 2016«, »Take a chance«, »Media Sapiens, serija 11-ih projektov 2006 – 2014«,

»Project LAB«, »Standard Protocol Procedur«, »EkoKulturna mladina« in »Zini! Sodobna

zinovska produkcija«.

Slika 12: Primeri projektov za spodbujanje večje kakovosti mladinskega dela

16,67 % organizacij je izpostavilo primer projekta, ki je bil del programa Erasmus+ Mladi v

akciji ali njegovih predhodnih programov, in je s svojimi ukrepi prispeval k dopolnjevanju

reforme politik na lokalni, regionalni in nacionalni ravni ter podpiral razvoj znanja in

mladinske politike, ki temelji na dejstvih, ter priznavanjem neformalnega in priložnostnega

učenja. 83,33 % takega primera ni navedlo.

90

Tabela 93: Primeri projektov za dopolnjevanje reform politik ter podpiranje razvoja

znanja in mladinske politike Odgovor 27 16,67% Brez odgovora 135 83,33%

Navedli so primere projektov: »Glas mladih Maribora«, »Rastimo skupaj«, »Pobuda.si«,

»Strukturirani dialogi MSS in Mreže MaMa«, »See-Act-Judge«, »Mladinski inkubator,

MSS«, »BITI Mlad«, »Za družbene spremembe« in »Facing europe: Understanding and

Comprehending the EU institutions«.

Slika 13: Primeri projektov za dopolnjevanje reform politik ter podpiranje razvoja

znanja in mladinske politike

15,43 % organizacij je izpostavilo primer projekta, ki je bil del programa Erasmus+ Mladi v

akciji ali njegovih predhodnih programov, in je s svojimi ukrepi prispeval k okrepiti

mednarodne razsežnosti mladinskih dejavnosti ter vloge mladinskih delavcev in organizacij

kot podpornih struktur za mlade, ki dopolnjujejo zunanje delovanje Unije. 84,57 % takega

primera ni navedlo.

Tabela 94: Primeri projektov za okrepitev mednarodne razsežnosti mladinskih

dejavnosti ter vloge mladinskih delavcev Odgovor 25 15,43% Brez odgovora 137 84,57%

Kot primere navedejo: strateška partnerstva, »E-nclusion,Make it visual,Training of

Facilitators«, »Razdeljeni Bog / Divided God«, »May the heart ne with you«, »Together is

better. // Explorers of a 100-year old story.«, »Encountering, Experiencing and Exploring

91

Nature in Education Nature as a bridge between nonformal and formal education«, »Work

in Progress«, »Become a multitasker, be part of NGO«, »Study visit in Georgia«, »Media

Sapiens, European Youth Work Academy, December 2015 - April 2016,« »Coaching Lab,

Maj 2015« in »Going international«.

Slika 14: Primeri projektov za okrepitev mednarodne razsežnosti mladinskih

dejavnosti ter vloge mladinskih delavcev

15,43 % organizacij je izpostavilo primer projekta, ki je bil del programa Erasmus+ Mladi v

akciji ali njegovih predhodnih programov, in je s svojimi ukrepi prispeval k zagotovitvi več

priložnosti in enakih možnosti za mlade pri izobraževanju in na trgu dela. 84,57 % takega

primera ni navedlo.

Tabela 95: Primeri projektov za zagotovitev več priložnosti in enakih možnosti za

mlade pri izobraževanju in na trgu dela Odgovor 25 15,43% Brez odgovora 137 84,57%

Kot primere projektov anketiranci navedejo: »European wide web of youth work«, »A je

to«, »Celebrating our diferences«, »BITI mlad«, »Spice up your life!«, »PYTBUL – Post-

YU Trilateral Bottom Up Learning«, »Take a chance«, »UpgradU!«, »Schools for all«,

»Manic mechanics«, »SGP«, »Kinetic Creativity«, »Include me«, »Social Entrepreneurship

for Social Change, April 2016 - Maj 2017« in »Projekt Forma«.

92

Slika 15: Primeri projektov za zagotovitev več priložnosti in enakih možnosti za mlade

pri izobraževanju in na trgu dela

Dobra četrtina (25,31 %) organizacij je izpostavilo primer projekta, ki je bil del programa

Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji ali njegovih predhodnih programov, in je s svojimi ukrepi prispeval

k spodbujanju mladih k aktivni participaciji v družbi. 74,69 % takega primera ni navedlo.

Tabela 96: Primeri projektov za spodbujanje mladih k aktivni participaciji v družbi Odgovor 41 25,31% Brez odgovora 121 74,69%

Kot primer so navedli naslednje projekte: »Potuj. Misli. Deli. skozi EVS.«, Mednarodna

mladinska izmenjava: »Young People, Raise Your Voice! Europe Can Hear You!«, »Youth

wonderland«, »Praznujmo raznolikost«, »See-Act-Judge«, »Strukturiran dialog mladih z

odločevalci«, »Find your way«, »BITI državljan«, »Active Thinking is Active Being!

(ATAB)«, »Make art, no hate«, »Pride and prejudice«, »VAB«, »SAS«, »No will no skill -

mladinska izmanjava«, »Active creative theatre«, »NVO Inkubator«, »Sustainable

generation project«, »Doživljajsko igrišče (CPM)«, »European Creative Camp 016«, »Youth

vote«, »Media Sapiens, European Youth Work Academy, Social Entrepreneurship for Social

Change«, »EkoKulturna mladina« in »31. grafični bienale Ljubljana«.

93

Slika 16: Primeri projektov za spodbujanje mladih k aktivni participaciji v družbi

22,84 % organizacij je izpostavilo primer projekta, ki je bil del programa Erasmus+ Mladi v

akciji ali njegovih predhodnih programov, in je s svojimi ukrepi prispeval k spodbujanju

vrednot spoštovanja človekovega dostojanstva, svobode, demokracije, enakosti, pravne

države in spoštovanja človekovih pravic, vključno s pravicami pripadnikov manjšin. 77,16

% takega primera ni navedlo.

Tabela 97: Primeri projektov za spodbujanje vrednot spoštovanja človekovega

dostojanstva … Odgovor 37 22,84% Brez odgovora 125 77,16%

Kot primer so anketiranci navedli: »Joining forces«, »No labels, just people«, »Praznujmo

raznolikost«, »Hours of intercultural dialogue«, »BITI mladinska izmenjava mladih«,

»Make art, no hate«, »projekti Comenius«, »Društvo Legebitra: Words shape identity«,

»Out-side in, predis«, »VAB«, »SAS«, »No will no skill - mladinska izmanjava«, »Citizens

of my country, citizens of my Europe«, »Voices 2015, 2016«, »European Creative Camp

016«, »Peace is our right«, »European Youth Work Academy, European Values and Youth,

Oktober 2016 - Marec 2017«, »Facing the Street / Obrazi ulice«, »EkoKulturna mladina«,

»Does intercultural dialogue freeze in the winter?«, »Mladinski ambasadorji informiranja in

svetovanja« in »Peace is my Right!«.

94

Slika 17: Primeri projektov za spodbujanje vrednot spoštovanja človekovega

dostojanstva …

Dobrih 30 % anketirancev je prepričanih, da so imeli ukrepi programa Erasmus+ velik vpliv

na razvoj politik na področju mladine v Sloveniji na nacionalni in lokalni ravni. Približno 8

% jih meni, da so imeli zelo velik vpliv, dobrih 27 % da niso imeli niti velik niti mali vpliv,

13,58 % da so imeli malo vpliva, dobrih 4 % pa menijo, da so imeli ukrepi zelo mali vpliv.

Vsak deseti (10,49 %) vpliva ukrepov ne more oceniti.

Tabela 98: Vpliv ukrepov Erasmus+ na razvoj politik na področju mladine v Sloveniji

na nacionalni in lokalni ravni V kolikšni meri so ukrepi programa Erasmus+ po vašem mnenju vplivali na razvoj politik na področju mladine v Sloveniji na nacionalni in lokalni ravni?

Število Odstotek

Zelo veliko (1) 13 8,02% Veliko (2) 49 30,25% Niti veliko niti malo (3) 44 27,16% Malo (4) 22 13,58% Zelo malo (5) 7 4,32% Ne vem, ne morem oceniti (6) 17 10,49% Brez odgovora 10 6,17%

95

Slika 18: Vpliv ukrepov Erasmus+ na razvoj politik na področju mladine v Sloveniji

na nacionalni in lokalni ravni

Anketiranci so prav tako izbirali med najbolj učinkovitimi ukrepi. Tretjina (33,33 %) jih

meni, da je najučinkovitejši Ključni ukrep 1: Mladinske izmenjave in Ključni ukrep 3:

Srečanja mladih in oblikovalcev politik na področju mladine (strukturiran dialog). 29,01 %

meni, da je najučinkovitejši Ključni ukrep 2: Strateška partnerstva na področju mladine, za

28,40 % je to Ključni ukrep 1: Mobilnost mladinskih delavcev, za 25,31 % pa Ključni ukrep

1: Evropska prostovoljna služba. 27,16 % ne ve oziroma ne more oceniti, kateri ukrep

Erasmus+ je najučinkovitejši.

Tabela 99: Najučinkovitejši ukrepi Kateri ukrepi so bili pri tem najbolj učinkoviti? Število Odstotek Ključni ukrep 1: Mladinske izmenjave (1) 54 33,33% Ključni ukrep 1: Evropska prostovoljna služba (2) 41 25,31% Ključni ukrep 1: Mobilnost mladinskih delavcev (3) 46 28,40% Ključni ukrep 2: Strateška partnerstva na področju mladine (5) 47 29,01% Ključni ukrep 3: Srečanja mladih in oblikovalcev politik na področju mladine (strukturiran dialog) (6)

54 33,33%

Ne vem, ne morem oceniti (0) 44 27,16%

96

Slika 19: Najučinkovitejši ukrepi

Skoraj ¾ (74,69 %) anketirancev ocenjuje podporo nacionalne agencije Erasmus + MOVIT

pri pripravi, izvajanju in poročanju projektov kot (zelo) kakovostno. Samo 3 % jo ocenjujejo

kot nekakovostno, manj kot 1 % pa kot zelo nekakovostno. 15,43 % meni, da ni podpora

nacionalne agencije niti kakovostna niti nekakovostna.

Tabela 100: Ocena podpore NA MOVIT pri pripravi, izvajanju in poročanju projektov Kako bi ocenili podporo nacionalne agencije Erasmus + MOVIT pri pripravi, izvajanju in poročanju projektov? Število Odstotek

Zelo kakovostna (1) 52 32,10% Kakovostna (2) 69 42,59% Niti kakovostna niti nekakovostna (3) 25 15,43% Nekakovostna (4) 5 3,09% Zelo nekakovostna (5) 1 0,62% Komentarji 46 28,40% Brez odgovora 10 6,17%

Pri tem 46 anketirancev dopiše tudi odgovor. Tako pohvalijo »ažurnost, iskrenost«, »hiter in

korekten odziv na sprotne probleme pri prijavnicah, izvedbi projektov«, da MOVIT »ponuja

veliko možnosti za podporo (delavnice, izobraževanja, informacije po telefonu, e-pošti ...),

da so »zmeraj zelo dostopni«, in da je MOVIT »odprta in transparentna organizacija in dobro

skrbi za promocijo programa« ter da je »nivo dela eden izmed boljših v Evropi«. Pohvalijo

tudi »korektno držanje dogovorov« in »nadzorni obisk, ki je tekom projekta namenjen

pogovoru o vsebini projekta in težavah, ki so vsebinske narave«.

97

Nekateri pa najdejo tudi predloge za izboljšavo: »obseg potrebne dokumentacije

preobsežen«.

Slika 20: Ocena podpore NA MOVIT pri pripravi, izvajanju in poročanju projektov

Dobrih 45 % anketirancev meni, da ima nacionalna agencija Erasmus+ MOVIT pri pripravi,

izvajanju in poročanju projektov še prostor za izboljšave. 32,10 % jih na vprašanje ne pozna

odgovora, 16,05 % anketirancev pa meni, da se delovanje MOVIT-a ne more izboljšati.

Tabela 101: Predlogi za izboljšanje podpore NA MOVIT Bi se lahko podpora nacionalne agencije Erasmus + MOVIT pri pripravi, izvajanju in poročanju projektov kako izboljšala?

Število Odstotek

Da (1) 74 45,68% Ne (2) 26 16,05% Ne vem, ne morem oceniti (0) 52 32,10% Komentarji 62 38,27% Brez odgovora 10 6,17%

38.27 % anketirancev je podalo tudi komentarje s predlogi. Tako večinoma svetujejo (še)

»več usposabljanj, izobraževanj za mladinske delavce oz. koordinatorje projektov«, želijo si

»večjo prisotnost na terenu ob izvajanju projektov«, »organizacijo srečanja tistih, ki so v

preteklem letu izvedli projekt Erasmus+ in kjer bi lahko spregovorili o svojih izkušnjah«, ter

da se »dovoli uporaba angleščine pri pripravi in poročanju projektov«. So pa tudi komentarji

pohval, da »MOVIT opravlja odlično vlogo podporne institucije in da si česa več prijavitelji

skorajda ne bi mogli želeti«.

98

Slika 21: Predlogi za izboljšanje podpore NA MOVIT

Skoraj polovica anketirancev ne zaznava posledic združitve programa Mladi v akciji pod

enotno okrilje programa Erasmus +. Nekoliko več (11,73 % anketirancev) zaznava negativne

posledice kot pozitivne (9,88 %). Dobrih 27 % anketirancev pa ne more oceniti, kakšne po

posledice.

Med komentarji zasledimo tiste, ki menijo, da je sedaj »lažja organizacija, poenostavljena

birokracija«, pa tudi tiste, ki menijo, da je »nekoliko večja zmedenost, kam umestiti kakšen

projekt«. Anketiranci ocenjujejo tudi, da je sedaj »težje pridobit sredstva za projekte, ki

predvidevajo šolske (srednješolske) aktivnosti (izmenjave)« in da se »denar, ki bi bil

namenjen posameznemu projektu preveč deli na manjše dele, kar otežuje kvalitetno izvedbo

projekta«.

Tabela 102: Zaznavanje posledic združitve programa Ali zaznavate kakšne posledice združitve programa Mladi v akciji pod enotno okrilje programa Erasmus +, kamor so umeščeni tudi ukrepi s področja šolstva, visokega šolstva in športa?

Število Odstotek

Zaznavam pozitivne posledice (1) 16 9,88% Ne zaznavam posledic (2) 73 45,06% Zaznavam negativne posledice (3) 19 11,73% Ne vem, ne morem oceniti (4) 44 27,16% Komentarji 31 19,14% Brez odgovora 10 6,17%

99

Slika 22: Zaznavanje posledic združitve programa

Delež anketirancev, ki se jim zdi višina sredstev, ki so na voljo za projekte, primerna je enak

deležu tistih, ki se jim zdi višina sredstev prenizka (42,58 %). Pričakovano se le dobremu

procentu (1,23 %) zdijo sredstva previsoka. Na drugi strani 7,41 % anketirancev ne more

oceniti primernosti višine sredstev.

Tabela 103: Primernost višine sredstev glede na cilje Se vam zdi, da je višina sredstev, ki so na voljo za projekte primerna glede na cilje, ki jih morajo projekti zasledovati?

Število Odstotek

Višina sredstev je previsoka (1) 2 1,23% Višina sredstev je primerna (2) 69 42,59% Višina sredstev je prenizka (3) 69 42,59% Ne vem, ne morem oceniti (4) 12 7,41% Brez odgovora 10 6,17%

Slika 23: Primernost višine sredstev glede na cilje

100

Število anketirancev, ki se soočajo z izzivi in težavami pri izvajanju različnih projektov

znotraj programa Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji je približno enako (45,06 %) številu tistih, ki se

s težavami ne soočajo (48,77 %).

Tabela 104: Soočanje z izzivi in težavami pri izvajanju projektov znotraj Erasmus+ Ali se soočate s kakšnimi izzivi in težavami pri izvajanju različnih projektov znotraj programa Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji?

Število Odstotek

Da (1) 73 45,06% Ne (2) 79 48,77% Brez odgovora 10 6,17%

Slika 24: Soočanje z izzivi in težavami pri izvajanju projektov znotraj Erasmus+

Tabela 105: S kakšnimi izzivi in težavami se prijavitelji soočajo S kakšnimi? Odgovor 69 94,52% Brez odgovora 4 5,48%

69 anketirancev tudi odgovori, s kakšnimi težavami se soočajo. Predvsem gre za »izzive,

povezane s pridobivanjem viz za udeleženke/ce, ki potrebujejo vizo za vstop v Slovenijo oz.

EU«, »(ne)zanesljivost partnerskih organizacij (iz tujine)«, »(ne)motiviranost udeležencev

aktivnosti v sklopu mednarodnih mobilnosti« in »dolgotrajno izpolnjevanje časovnic«.

Tabela 106: Spremembe za odpravo izzivov in težav Kakšne spremembe bi bilo za odpravo teh izzivov in težav uvesti v Erasmus+ ali naslednjem programu?

Odgovor 62 84,93% Brez odgovora 11 15,07%

62 anketirancev poda predloge za spremembe v Erasmus+ ali naslednjem programu za

odpravo teh izzivov in težav. Predlagajo predvsem: »drugačna določitev višine potnih

101

stroškov«, »poenostavljanje ali popolna ukinitev vizumskih zahtev za udeležence« in »več

priložnosti za izmenjavo dobrih/slabih praks in izkušenj«.

Največ anketirancev (41,36 %) meni, da niso pristopi in orodja, ki se v Sloveniji uporabljajo

za diseminacijo in izkoriščanje rezultatov Erasmus+, niti učinkoviti niti neučinkoviti. Sledijo

tisti, ki menijo, da so pristopi in orodja učinkoviti (38,89 %), neučinkoviti (8,64 %) in zelo

učinkoviti (3,09 %). Nihče izmed anketirancev ne meni, da so pristopi in orodja zelo

neučinkoviti.

Tabela 107: Učinkovitost pristopov in orodij za diseminacijo V kolikšni meri so pristopi in orodja, ki se v Sloveniji uporabljajo za diseminacijo in izkoriščanje rezultatov Erasmus+, učinkoviti?

Število Odstotek

Zelo učinkoviti (1) 5 3,09% Učinkoviti (2) 63 38,89% Niti učinkoviti niti neučinkoviti (3) 67 41,36% Neučinkoviti (4) 14 8,64% Zelo neučinkoviti (5) 0 0,00% Brez odgovora 13 8,02%

Slika 25: Učinkovitost pristopov in orodij za diseminacijo

Tabela 108: Možnosti za izboljšave pristopov in orodij Odgovor 63 38,89% Brez odgovora 99 61,11%

63 anketirancev poda predloge za izboljšanje pristop in orodij za diseminacijo in izkoriščanje

rezultatov Erasmus+. Gre predvsem za predloge o »promociji orodij v širši javnosti na

nacionalnem nivoju«, »namenitvi določenega % odobrene dotacije v namene diseminacije«

in »usposabljanjih, treningih, kjer bi praktično iskali načine uspešne deseminacije«.

102

Največ anketirancev (37,32 %) meni, da je nov sistem poenostavljenega izračunavanja

sredstev (pavšali) zmanjšal administrativne ovire za njihovo organizacijo. Nekoliko manj

(30,28 %) jih meni, da so ovire ostale enake oziroma jih ne morejo oceniti (28,17 %).

Tabela 109: Sprememba administrativnih ovir zaradi pavšalov Ali je nov sistem poenostavljenega izračunavanja sredstev (pavšali) pomenil spremembo administrativnih ovir za vašo organizacijo? Število Odstotek

Bremena so se povečala (1) 6 4,23% Bremena so ostala enaka (2) 43 30,28% Bremena so se zmanjšala (3) 53 37,32% Ne vem, ne morem oceniti (4) 40 28,17% Brez odgovora 0 0,00%

Najmanj anketirancev (4,23 %) meni, da so se administrativne ovire za njihovo organizacijo

povečale. Ti odgovorijo, da so se povečale zaradi »opredelitve upravičenih stroškov, ki so

preohlapne«. Poleg tega omenjajo še težave s pavšali, ki »pogosto ne zadostujejo dejanskim

stroškom«.

Slika 26: Sprememba administrativnih ovir zaradi pavšalov

74 anketirancev odgovori na vprašanje, kateri elementi poročanja, prijavljanja, vodenja itd.

projektov bi se lahko spremenili, da bi se administrativne ovire za vašo organizacijo

zmanjšale, ne da bi ogrozili rezultate in učinke projektov. Anketiranci odgovorijo, da bi se

»lahko spremenile prijavnice in poročila, da bi bila manj podrobna.« Znova se omenja

103

»možnost prijave v angleškem jeziku« in »poenotenje baz mobility tool in youthpass«. Ob

tem so navedene tudi nekatere pohvale, da je nacionalna agencija MOVIT »administrativne

ovire že dobro zmanjšala«.

Tabela 110: Primernost IT orodij V kolikšni meri so IT orodja, ki jih zagotavlja program, primerna za učinkovito prijavljanje, vodenje in poročanje projektov?

Število Odstotek

Zelo primerna (1) 11 7,75% Primerna (2) 82 57,75% Niti primerni niti neprimerna (3) 21 14,79% Neprimerna (4) 4 2,82% Zelo neprimerna (5) 3 2,11% Ne vem, ne morem oceniti (6) 21 14,79% Brez odgovora 0 0,00%

Več kot polovica anketiranih (57,75 %) meni, da so IT orodja, ki jih zagotavlja program,

primerna za učinkovito prijavljanje, vodenje in poročanje projektov. 14,79 % anketiranih jih

meni, da niso niti primerna niti neprimerna, enak delež pa o primernosti ne more oceniti.

7,75 % anketiranih je takšnih, ki menijo, da so IT orodja zelo primerna. Samo dobra 2 %

menita, da so IT orodja zelo neprimerna.

Slika 27: Primernost IT orodij

53 anketiranih odgovori, na kakšen način bi se lahko IT orodja, ki jih zagotavlja program,

izboljšala, da bi v večji meri naslavljala vaše potrebe? Predlagajo »prilagoditev IT orodij za

uporabo v odprtokodnih programih« in da naj se »prijavnice pišejo online, brez PDF

vmesnika«.

104

Več kot polovica anketirancev (51,06 %) meni, da cilji Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji v veliki

meri še naprej naslavljajo potrebe ali težave mladine v Sloveniji. Da jih naslavljajo v zelo

veliki meri meni 13,48 % anketirancev, niti v veliki niti v majhni meri 20,57 % anketirancev,

v majhni meri pa 8,51 % anketirancev. Manj kot procent je takšnih, ki mislijo, da cilji

naslavljajo potrebe ali težave mladine v zelo majhni meri. 5,67 % na vprašanje ne ve

odgovora oziroma ne more oceniti.

Tabela 111: Cilji Erasmus+ še naslavljajo potrebe ali težave mladine v Sloveniji? V kolikšni meri cilji Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji (našteti so bili na začetku) še naprej naslavljajo potrebe ali težave mladine v Sloveniji?

Število Odstotek

V zelo veliki meri (1) 19 13,48% V veliki meri (2) 72 51,06% Niti v veliki niti v majhni meri (3) 29 20,57% V majhni meri (4) 12 8,51% V zelo majhni meri (5) 1 0,71% Ne vem, ne morem oceniti (6) 8 5,67% Brez odgovora 0 0,00%

Slika 28: Cilji Erasmus+ še naslavljajo potrebe ali težave mladine v Sloveniji?

Na vprašanje, »Ali bi bilo potrebno dodati kakšen nov cilj?«, odgovori 50 anketirancev.

Predlagajo naslednje cilje: »še bolj aktivno vključevanje mladih z manj priložnostmi«,

»sodelovanje mladoletnih prestopnikov«, »krepitev evropskega državljanstva«, »krepitev

medkulturnega dialoga«, »opolnomočenje mladih«, »zasledovanje kompetence kritične in

odgovorne uporabe IT«, »med-lokalno povezovanje mladih«, »poudarek na osebnostni rasti,

integriteti posameznika, celostnem in polnem življenju, učenju sodelovanja in

konstruktivnega dialoga«, »migranti/begunci« im »globalna pravičnost in solidarnost«.

105

Največ anketirancev meni, da je program Erasmus + Mladi v akciji pri privabljanju in

doseganju skupin mladih z manj priložnostmi uspešen (36,17 %). Nekoliko manj (29,08 %)

jih meni, da ni program niti uspešen niti neuspešen, 14,18 % pa jih odgovora na vprašanje

ne ve oziroma ne more oceniti. 7,80 % meni, da je program zelo uspešen, 1,42 % pa, da je

program zelo neuspešen.

Tabela 112: Privabljanje in doseganje skupin mladih z manj priložnostmi Kako uspešen je po vašem mnenju program Erasmus + Mladi v akciji pri privabljanju in doseganju skupin mladih z manj priložnostmi? Število Odstotek

Zelo uspešen (1) 11 7,80% Uspešen (2) 51 36,17% Niti uspešen niti neuspešen (3) 41 29,08% Neuspešen (4) 16 11,35% Zelo neuspešen (5) 2 1,42% Ne vem, ne morem oceniti (6) 20 14,18% Brez odgovora 0 0,00%

Slika 29: Privabljanje in doseganje skupin mladih z manj priložnostmi

Na vprašanje, »Kaj bi bilo potrebno storiti, da bi se mlade z manj priložnostmi v večji meri

doseglo z aktivnostmi programa?«, odgovori 72 anketirancev.

Ti predlagajo: »več sredstev«, »manj birokratskih ovir«, »večjo podporo nevladnim

organizacijam, ki delujejo na področju socialnega varstva in mladine«, »opolnomočiti

organizacije, da v svoje projekte vključujejo več mladih s posebnimi potrebami«,

»redefinicija mladih z manj priložnostmi«.

Dobra polovica anketiranih meni, da organizacije znotraj mladinskega sektorja dobro

poznajo program Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji. Da ga poznajo zelo dobro meni 19,86 %, da ga

106

poznajo slabo 9,22 %, da ga poznajo zelo slabo 0.71 %, da ga ne poznajo niti dobro niti slabo

pa 11,35 %. 8,51 je takšnih, ki odgovora na vprašanje ne poznajo oziroma ne morejo oceniti.

Tabela 113: Poznavanje programa Erasmus+ organizacij znotraj mladinskega

sektorja Kako dobro po vašem mnenju program Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji poznajo organizacije znotraj mladinskega sektorja?

Število Odstotek

Zelo dobro (1) 28 19,86% Dobro (2) 71 50,35% Niti dobro niti slabo (3) 16 11,35% Slabo (4) 13 9,22% Zelo slabo (5) 1 0,71% Ne vem, ne morem oceniti (6) 12 8,51% Brez odgovora 0 0,00%

Slika 30: Poznavanje programa Erasmus+ organizacij znotraj mladinskega sektorja

Največ (36,17 %) anketirancev je prepričanih, da mladi slabo poznajo program Erasmus+

Mladi v akciji. Dobrih 9 % meni, da ga mladi poznajo zelo slabo, skoraj 30 % pa nadalje

meni, da ga mladi ne poznajo niti dobro niti slabo. Le dobrih 21 % anketirancev verjame, da

mladi poznajo program Erasmis+ dobro oziroma zelo dobro.

Tabela 114: Poznavanje programa Erasmus+ s strani mladih Kako dobro po vašem mnenju program Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji poznajo mladi nasploh?

Število Odstotek

107

Zelo dobro (1) 2 1,42% Dobro (2) 28 19,86% Niti dobro niti slabo (3) 42 29,79% Slabo (4) 51 36,17% Zelo slabo (5) 13 9,22% Ne vem, ne morem oceniti (6) 5 3,55% Brez odgovora 0 0,00%

Slika 31: Poznavanje programa Erasmus+ s strani mladih

Skoraj 83 % prijaviteljev je prepričanih, da program Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji pozna dobro

ali zelo dobro. Samo nekaj več kot 2 % pa na drugi strani meni, da program poznajo slabo

ali zelo slabo. 14,18 % anketiranih meni, da programa ne poznajo niti dobro niti slabo.

Tabela 115: Poznavanje programa Erasmus+ s strani anketirancev (prijaviteljev) Kako dobro program Erasmus + Mladi v akciji poznate vi? Število Odstotek Zelo dobro (1) 47 33,33% Dobro (2) 70 49,65% Niti dobro niti slabo (3) 20 14,18% Slabo (4) 2 1,42% Zelo slabo (5) 1 0,71% Ne vem, ne morem oceniti (6) 1 0,71% Brez odgovora 0 0,00%

108

Slika 32: Poznavanje programa Erasmus+ s strani anketirancev (prijaviteljev)

Pri odgovoru na vprašanje, v kolikšni meri se program Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji s svojimi

ukrepi dopolnjuje s financiranjem, ki je na voljo s strani Urada RS za mladino, so odgovori

precej porazdeljeni. Skoraj polovica ne ve oziroma na vprašanje ne more odgovoriti (48,23

%). 16,31 % jih meni, da dopolnjuje v veliki meri, 15,60 % pa, da se program ne dopolnjuje

niti v veliki niti v majhni meri. Več je tistih, ki menijo, da se program dopolnjuje s

financiranje v zelo majhni meri (6,38 %), napram tistim, ki menijo, da se program dopolnjuje

s financiranje v zelo veliki meri (4,26 %).

Tabela 116: Dopolnjevanje programa Erasmus + s sredstvi Urada RS za mladino V kolikšni meri se program Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji s svojimi ukrepi dopolnjuje s financiranjem, ki je na voljo s strani Urada RS za mladino (javni poziv)? Število Odstotek

V zelo veliki meri (1) 6 4,26% V veliki meri (2) 23 16,31% Niti v veliki niti v majhni meri (3) 22 15,60% V majhni meri (4) 13 9,22% V zelo majhni meri (5) 9 6,38% Ne vem, ne morem odgovoriti (6) 68 48,23% Komentarji 43 30,50% Brez odgovora 0 0,00%

43 anketirancev napiše komentar, kjer med drugim omenijo, da »ne poznajo dovolj

aktivnosti Urada RS za mladino« in da se »programi in vsebine le delno prekrivajo«.

109

Slika 33: Dopolnjevanje programa Erasmus + s sredstvi Urada RS za mladino

Skoraj polovica anketiranih (45,39 %) meni, da program Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji v veliki

ustvarja učinke, ki ne bi nastali iz podobnih ukrepov, začetih samo na lokalni ali nacionalni

ravni. 26,24 % jih celo meni, da ustvarja učinke v zelo veliki meri, 12,06 % pa da ne ustvarja

niti v veliki niti v majni meri. 4,96 % jih meni, da program Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji ustvarja

učinke v manjši meri. Skoraj vsak deseti (9,93 %) anketirani na to vprašanje ne pozna

odgovora oziroma ne more odgovoriti.

Tabela 117: Ustvarjanje učinkov, ki brez Erasmus+ ne bi nastali V kolikšni meri po vašem mnenju ustvarja program Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji učinke, ki ne bi nastali iz podobnih ukrepov, začetih samo na lokalni ali nacionalni ravni (Evropska dodana vrednost)?

Število Odstotek

V zelo veliki meri (1) 37 26,24% V veliki meri (2) 64 45,39% Niti v veliki niti v majhni meri (3) 17 12,06% V majhni meri (4) 7 4,96% V zelo majhni meri (5) 2 1,42% Ne vem, ne morem odgovoriti (6) 14 9,93% Brez odgovora 0 0,00%

Slika 34: Ustvarjanje učinkov, ki brez Erasmus+ ne bi nastali

110

Več kot polovica (56,03 %) anketiranih na vprašanje o možnostih za povečanje evropske

dodane vrednosti programa Erasmus+ ne more odgovoriti. 28,37 % jih je prepričanih, da so

možnosti za povečanje evropske dodane vrednosti, 15,60 % pa, da teh možnosti ni.

Tabela 118: Možnosti za povečanje evropske dodane vrednosti programa Erasmus+ Ali vidite možnosti za prilagoditev programa Erasmus+ Mladi v akciji, da bi se povečala njegova evropska dodana vrednost? Število Odstotek

Da (1) 40 28,37% Ne (2) 22 15,60% Ne vem, ne morem odgovoriti (3) 79 56,03% Brez odgovora 0 0,00%

31 anketirancev je odgovorilo v čem so možnosti za povečanje evropske dodane vrednosti

programa Erasmus+. Ponudijo nekaj predlogov: »razširitev programa tudi na druga

področja«, »vrnitev lokalnih pobud«, »večja podpora na področju medijev« in »financiranje

za mednarodne mladinske pobude«.

Slika 35: Možnosti za povečanje evropske dodane vrednosti programa Erasmus+

111

O ORGANIZACIJAH

41,30 % organizacij prijaviteljev je bilo registriranih kot društvo, 31,16 % kot javni zavod,

21,74 % kot zasebni zavod, po 2,90 % kot zasebna ustanova (fundacija) ali kot drugo.

Tabela 119: Kako je registrirana organizacija? Kako je registrirana organizacija? Število Odstotek

Društvo (1) 57 41,30% Zasebna ustanova (fundacija) (2) 4 2,90% Zasebni zavod (3) 30 21,74% Javni zavod (4) 43 31,16% Drugo 4 2,90% Brez odgovora 0 0,00%

Slika 36: Kako je registrirana organizacija?

Od teh organizacij jih ima 65,22 % status v javnem interesu, 34,78 % pa tega statusa nima.

Tabela 120: Organizacija status v javnem interesu Ali ima vaša organizacija status v javnem interesu? Število Odstotek Da (A1) 90 65,22% Ne (A2) 48 34,78% Brez odgovora 0 0,00%

112

Slika 37: Organizacija status v javnem interesu

Največ organizacij, skoraj polovica, ima sedež v Osrednjeslovenski regiji (46,38 %). Sledijo

Podravska (17,39 %), Pomurska in Savinjska (obe 6,52 %), Zasavska (4,35 %), Gorenjska,

Obalnokraška in Jugovzhodna Slovenija (3,62 %). Najmanj organizacij ima sedež v

Notranjskokraški in Goriški regiji.

Tabela 121: Sedež organizacije V kateri regiji ima vaša organizacija sedež: Število Odstotek Gorenjska (1) 5 3,62% Goriška (2) 3 2,17% Jugovzhodna Slovenija (3) 5 3,62% Koroška (4) 3 2,17% Notranjskokraška (5) 1 0,72% Obalnokraška (6) 5 3,62% Osrednjeslovenska (7) 64 46,38% Podravska (8) 24 17,39% Pomurska (9) 9 6,52% Savinjska (10) 9 6,52% Spodnjeposavska (11) 4 2,90% Zasavska (12) 6 4,35% Brez odgovora 0 0,00%

Slika 38: Sedež organizacije

113

Glede poglavitnih vsebinskih področij delovanja, prijavitelji naštevajo:

- kultura

- izobraževanje odraslih

- socialno varstvo otrok in mladih

- aktivno državljanstvo

- mladinsko delo

- izobraževanje

- šolstvo

- neformalno izobraževanje

- manjšine, begunci

- zaposlovanje

- šport

- strukturiran dialog

- taborništvo

- vzpodbujanje podjetništva

- medkulturni dialog

- trajnostni razvoj

- mednarodna mobilnost

- zdravo življenje

- ekologija in varovanje okolja

- vključevanje mladih s posebnimi potrebami v družbo

- kmetijstvo

- računalništvo

- razvoj podeželja

Tabela 122: Opredelitev organizacije Kako bi opredelili vašo organizacijo? Število Odstotek Organizacija mladih (1) 36 26,09% Organizacija za mlade (2) 66 47,83% Drugo 36 26,09% Brez odgovora 0 0,00%

114

Skoraj polovica prijaviteljev (47,83 %) je organizacijo opredelila kot organizacija za mlade.

26,09 % jo je opredelilo kot organizacija mladih. 36 jih je navedlo drug odgovor, npr. zavod

za izobraževanje odraslih; organizacija za trajnostno prihodnost; humanitarna organizacija;

organizacija mladih za mlade; organizacija, ki raziskuje delo mladih; študentski klub;

kulturna organizacija, ki veliko pozornost posveča tudi mladim; športno društvo;

izobraževalno društvo; in neprofitna organizacija.

Slika 39: Opredelitev organizacije

Več kot polovica (58,70 %) prijaviteljev opredeli organizacijo kot tista, ki ponuja storitve.

18,84 % jo opredeli kot zagovorniško.

Tabela 123: Poslanstvo organizacije Če bi se morali opredeliti za vrsto dela vaše organizacije, katero od opisanih poslanstev ji je bližje?

Število Odstotek

Zagovorniška (1) 26 18,84% Tista, ki ponuja storitve (2) 81 58,70% Drugo 31 22,46% Brez odgovora 0 0,00%

22,46 % prijaviteljev izbere odgovor drugo, pri čemer navajajo: »oboje«; za izboljševanje

položaja mladih; izobraževanje; vzgoja mladih v odgovorne in aktivne državljane;

mladinsko delo; raziskovalno-kreativna; in varovanje in promoviranje kulturne dediščine.

115

Slika 40: Poslanstvo organizacije

Velika večina (79,71 %) je organiziranih kot samostojna organizacija. Nekaj je zvez

organizacij (7,25 %), sestavnih delov zveze (5,07 %) in sestavnih delov mednarodne

organizacije (3,62 %).

Tabela 124: Oblika organiziranosti organizacije Kakšna je oblika organiziranosti organizacije? Število Odstotek Je samostojna organizacija (1) 110 79,71% Je zveza organizacij (2) 10 7,25% Je sestavni del zveze (3) 7 5,07% Je sestavni del mednarodne organizacije (4) 5 3,62% Drugo 6 4,35% Brez odgovora 0 0,00%

4,35 % prijaviteljev izbere drugo in navede: javni zavod.

Slika 41: Oblika organiziranosti organizacije

116

PRILOGE

Tabela 125: Število projektov, ki vključujejo mlade z manj priložnostmi (2010)

2010 Soc. Ekon. Inva. Izob. Kult. Zdrav. Geo. Akcija 1.1 17 17 2 11 10 4 7 Akcija 1.2 18 21 4 11 9 7 11 Akcija 1.3 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 Akcija 2 3 6 1 1 2 0 0 Akcija 3.1 6 6 2 0 4 0 4 Akcija 4.3 / / / / / / / Akcija TCP / / / / / / /

Akcija 5.1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2

Skupaj 48 54 11 26 29 12 26

Tabela 126: Število projektov, ki vključujejo mlade z manj priložnostmi (2011)

2011 Soc. Ekon. Inva. Izob. Kult. Zdrav. Geo. Akcija 1.1 18 22 5 12 13 9 10 Akcija 1.2 20 23 6 7 7 6 9 Akcija 1.3 2 3 1 0 0 1 1 Akcija 2 9 14 1 3 4 0 8 Akcija 3.1 2 5 2 2 0 0 4 Akcija 4.3 / / / / / / / Akcija TCP / / / / / / /

Akcija 5.1 3 3 2 1 2 2 2

Skupaj 54 70 17 25 26 18 34

117

Tabela 127: Število projektov, ki vključujejo mlade z manj priložnostmi (2012)

2012 Soc. Ekon. Inva. Izob. Kult. Zdrav. Geo. Akcija 1.1 18 21 6 7 11 3 15 Akcija 1.2 20 25 4 13 16 9 10 Akcija 1.3 4 4 0 2 4 1 3 Akcija 2 17 22 5 6 11 2 5 Akcija 3.1 4 4 2 2 3 1 2 Akcija 4.3 / / / / / / / Akcija TCP / / / / / / /

Akcija 5.1 2 2 0 1 1 1 1

Skupaj 65 78 17 31 46 17 36

Tabela 128: Število projektov, ki vključujejo mlade z manj priložnostmi (2013)

2013 Soc. Ekon. Inva. Izob. Kult. Zdrav. Geo. Akcija 1.1 26 31 12 10 9 7 16 Akcija 1.2 23 25 4 12 12 8 9 Akcija 1.3 4 5 1 2 4 1 3 Akcija 2 17 20 1 9 8 1 10 Akcija 3.1 5 6 1 2 5 0 4 Akcija 4.3 / / / / / / / Akcija TCP / / / / / / /

Akcija 5.1 4 4 0 2 4 0 3

Skupaj 79 91 19 37 42 17 45