European year for combating poverty and social exclusion

REACHING OUT CROSS-PROGRAMME VALORISATION EVENT

9-10 December 2010

Manchester, UK

CONFERENCE REPORT

2

CONTENTS

Page

1. Introduction 3

Basis of this report 3

Reaching Out overview 3

Outcomes & outputs 4

Event programme, organisation and approach 4

Participants and programme representation 5

Online survey 5

2. Inclusion 6

Definitions: what does inclusion mean? 6

Issues and challenges: society 8

Issues and challenges: organisations and projects 8

Issues and challenges: individuals 11

3. Valorisation 12

Effectiveness of the EU programmes in promoting inclusion 12

The value of sharing experience 14

Examples of inclusive practice 15

Meeting the needs of target groups 16

Transferability of methods and outcomes to other contexts 16

Importance of the European dimension 17

4. Messages to the National Agencies and European Commission 18

Promotion of the programmes 18

Administration and finance 18

Inclusive practice 18

Valorisation 20

Future programmes 20

5. Conference evaluation 22

Overall satisfaction 22

Inclusion at the conference 24

Conference sessions and activities 25

Impact 26

Organisation and administrative aspects 29

Suggested changes and improvements 29

6. Recommendations 32

List of annexes 33

3

1. INTRODUCTION

Basis of this report

1.1 This is a report on Reaching Out, a national cross-programme valorisation conference for the EU

Lifelong Learning Programmes (Leonardo, Grundtvig, Transversal, Comenius and Erasmus) and the Youth

in Action Programme.

1.2 The report does not necessarily represent or reflect the views of the UK National Agencies for the

above Programmes, or of the EC. The report has been written by the conference organisers, Momentum

Youth Development CIC, based on comments from conference discussions, interviews with individual

participants, and views expressed through the subsequent online survey. Momentum‟s own observations

and comments are confined to Section 6 (Recommendations) below.

1.3 The report focuses on the main conference as a cross-programme valorisation event. It includes

information and comments from the first day of the conference and from the online survey. Where

comments refer to one programme specifically, this is indicated.

1.4 Information and comment from day 2 (Youth in Action only) are recorded separately in Annex C.

1.5 The report is accompanied by a short DVD based on the conference, which is meant simply as an

illustration of some of the information, discussions and ideas covered at the event. It is not intended to be a

full record of the conference. The film consists of interviews and other footage taken by two young people

with learning difficulties (from Kelford Special School, Rotherham and Stepping Stone, Sheffield), working

under the supervision of specialist support staff.

Reaching Out overview

1.6 The context for the conference was the EU year of combating poverty and social exclusion 2010. For

this reason the chosen theme was “inclusion”. The aim was to share experience and best practice relating

to this theme between programmes and projects, so as to capture illustrative case studies which could

serve both as evidence of the effectiveness of each programme in meeting European level objectives, and

as an inspiring learning, development and networking resource for practitioners across the UK; and to make

recommendations to the relevant National Agencies, based on examples of current practice.

1.7 The conference took place in Manchester on 9 and 10 December 2010. The first day brought together

representatives of beneficiary organisations from all six programmes. The second day focused on Youth in

Action only, with the aim of building on previous work (“NOW” seminar, Liverpool, April 2010) and

contributing to the National Agency‟s formulation of an inclusion policy for Youth in Action in the UK.

1.8 The conference was organised by Momentum on behalf of Ecorys (National Agency for Leonardo,

Grundtvig and Transversal) and the British Council (National Agency for Comenius, Erasmus and Youth in

Action). The official host of the conference was Eurodesk.

“The conference helped me to realise we

need to think about inclusion from the day

the project idea is sown and keep

challenging yourself and asking the

question “is this an inclusive project”

throughout: if it isn't, then do something

about it, rather than waiting to be told”.

4

Outcomes & outputs

1.9 The intended outcomes of the event were:

1. Groups and individuals operating within each Programme should have an increased and shared

understanding of inclusion issues and different practical approaches to these.

2. Groups and individuals should have a better understanding of the opportunities and funding

available within each of the programmes.

3. The UK National Authority (Joint International Unit) should be satisfied that Programmes are

making an effective impact in terms of social inclusion, and are sharing knowledge and experience

between them.

4. The British Council should possess sufficient data and opinion “from the field” to inform the creation

of a national inclusion strategy for Youth in Action.

5. Eurodesk should be better known.

6. National Agencies‟ work plan objectives for valorisation should be achieved.

1.10 The planned outputs of the event were:

1. A written report to the National Agencies.

2. A promotional / documentary DVD.

3. A resource pack of materials on inclusion practice, representing all programmes.

4. An online survey report.

5. A stronger network of organisations within and between programmes.

6. A core specialist consultation / advisory group of Youth in Action practitioners.

1.11 Both Ecorys and the British Council have a commitment to improving the inclusiveness of all the

programmes which they manage. Kursat Levent Egriboz, Ecorys‟ Strategic Director, saw the conference as

an opportunity “to come up with a set of recommendations for the European Commission, to tell them how

we could make our programmes more inclusive, how we can make sure that everyone in society would

have equal access, and [also]… practical solutions and recommendations for the new generation of

programmes”. Simon Williams, Director of EU Programmes at the British Council, said: “I hope that people

will have the opportunity to come together… to share their experience on how they've addressed issues of

inclusion - we can all learn from each other… I'm looking for lots of ideas for how we can make the

management of the programmes in the UK more effective, more inclusive, more joined up”.

Event programme, organisation and approach

1.12 The conference was designed to be interactive and participatory, in order to allow each programme

and project to be represented fully and equally, and to maximise the opportunity for shared ideas and

learning.

1.13 The event itself was intended to set an example of good

inclusion practice..Two parallel activity strands ran throughout

the conference, allowing participants to choose to explore

inclusion issues either through workshop discussions or

through creative drama and filming activities. Young people

were given a prominent role throughout the event, both as

volunteers on the organising team and as participants. These

included young people with physical and learning disabilities.

1.14 The event programme is attached at Annex A.

5

Participants and programme representation

1.15 Participants were invited by the National Agencies of each programme separately, with the aim of

ensuring a roughly equal representation across all programmes. A total of 123 people attended the main

conference, with 83 staying on or joining for day 2.

1.16 Final representation was not nearly as even as had been hoped. The largest number of participants

were from Youth in Action, followed by Leonardo, Grundtvig and Transversal. Only three came from

Erasmus and none from Comenius,

1.17 The National Agencies invited one participant from each EU programme to act as a “programme

representative”, with the role of giving an overview of the scope and benefits of each programme to other

participants. In the case of Erasmus and Comenius, this role was taken by staff of the National Agencies. In

addition there was an information desk for each programme, where participants could obtain more detailed

advice about funding opportunities and application procedures.

Online survey

1.18 An online survey was run for 3 weeks following the conference to serve both as a means of evaluating

the event and to collect supplementary information about inclusion and the EU programmes. Data from this

survey is included throughout this report and a further summary is attached at Annex B. It should be noted

that the sample (65 respondents – around half of conference participants) is very small. Any conclusions

beyond the evaluation of the conference itself would need to be tested through further research.

Nevertheless the survey produced useful comments and indications of opinion.

6

2. INCLUSION

Definitions: what does inclusion mean?

2.1 The conference elicited many different responses about the meaning of inclusion. To begin with, there

were predictable statements about equal opportunity, involvement, access, participation and avoiding

discrimination. In one discussion it was described as “trying to reach as many people as much of the time

as possible”; in another, as “ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to participate or be involved at their

chosen level and pace”.

2.2 Equally, there was a focus on awareness, anticipation and removal of barriers and obstacles. In terms

of projects, this means “being low threshold, adaptable and accessible to those who are often excluded due

to a range of factors that put them at a disadvantage such as disability, age, gender, geographic issues,

ethnic background etc.”

2.3 Inclusion is linked to diversity: moving beyond “tolerance” to appreciation and celebration of the fact

that everyone is different, has different needs and abilities, “It‟s OK to say people are different… no one

size fits all. Offer the same opportunity in different ways. We‟re all different but all equal”. What is important

is “accepting difference in all of us, providing for it where necessary but seeing the person not the

difference”. It is also important to focus on what we have in common.

“We do not work with groups of young people who are similar as we feel this minimises the

opportunities to learn, you will learn the most from the people who are most different from you”.

“Differences are what make us great”. 2.4 This leads on to the notion of inclusion as something more active: “everyone working together to create

a better society” and “bringing those on the margins of society into the centre, in a way that is natural and

part of the way we behave”. Inclusion is a process, requiring positive thinking, commitment and practical

work. “If you really want to include people, you must be proactive and get out there”.

2.5 The conference recognised that there probably can be no single or simple definition. Inclusion is not an

absolute: it is impossible for everyone to be included at all times. What matters is to create the conditions

under which every individual is able to express their needs, find out about opportunities and choose for

themselves where and how they wish to be included. This requires good information provision and often

special encouragement: many people, even if they know about an opportunity, will find it difficult to respond,

for a variety of reasons both internal (such as low self esteem) or external (such as lack of financial or

social support). The factors that lead to exclusion are wide and difficult to predict.

2.6 A strong sense developed that there is often too much reliance on box-ticking, both in general and in

the design of projects, and that this can be almost a substitute for real action. There should be more

emphasis on achieving, evaluating and reporting on outcomes. At the same time, even talking about

inclusion often leads to categorisation of people into this or that group, usually in terms of what they cannot

do – something which is often wrong or which individuals themselves may reject. We should stop making

assumptions about norms: in truly inclusive thinking, there can be no such thing. The use of some

“It's been very challenging and it's made us think what

we mean by inclusion, and how inclusion is a dynamic

thing - it's not just a set of principles, it's much more to

do with thinking more widely than I have done before”.

“People are telling me that I can't do these things, and

I'm going to show them, well I can, and I can do it better

than anyone else, and I'm going to prove you wrong”.

7

terminology – including the labels of the EU Programmes themselves, such as “young people with fewer

opportunities” – may actually act as limits to inclusion.

“I think the term is not very helpful because it is too vague and broad, means different things to

different people and in different contexts, and suggests that there is a norm into which people

should be integrated”.

“[Stop] assuming that there is a „norm‟, we are all on a continuum of „normal‟ and my perspective of

„normal‟ is different to yours”.

2.7 The conference keynote speaker, Ronald Ligtenberg (CEO of Skyway Foundation, Netherlands) took

these ideas further, defining inclusion as “making the impossible possible”. This is above all a challenge to

ourselves, requiring greater honesty, adaptability and self-awareness.

“What I stand for in life is that everybody has a life in which everything is possible – in the Skyway

Foundation we make the impossible possible, such as music events for deaf people or photography

projects for blind people, or any sorts of „impossibilities‟.

“We need to transform mercy into curiosity. So, we have the tendency to feel sorry for so-called

disabled people, as they are in a minority, and the majority is used to think that the way we are is

normal and the minority is disabled or weird or has less opportunities. So if we then stop feeling

sorry for them, we transform that into "let's look at what those people CAN do" then you stop using

the word disability and you start looking for opportunities – and those might even be business

opportunities. That's where it starts.

“When you start helping people, you put yourself in the position as the helper and the somebody as

being helped. So you have to be careful with that because you might almost turn somebody into a

victim, while they're not waiting to be victimised. If somebody is able to do something, and you keep

on „helping‟ them and therefore they're not doing that specific thing, that's pretty unhelpful I would

say. If we keep on helping disabled people, they will stay disabled, and we want to get rid of the

disabled thing, we want to look at talents. So we have to encourage people to take on their own

leadership”.

2.8 Beyond the definitions lies the question of what the point of these discussions is. Many participants

(42% of survey responses) found that the conference changed their perception of what inclusion means.

Others said that while their views had not necessarily changed, the event had helped to open up new

thinking by learning from others‟ experiences and views.

“It is much more complex; our awareness needs to be much broader. Inclusion should not mean

boxing people into categories, but liberating them from these”.

“We can also exclude people by focusing so hard on including people”.

“Making things accessible to others requires thinking beyond the normal realms of the 'abled

world'”.

“[My view] shifted from the tacit assumption of a norm to which one belongs and into which others

should be included. A more universal concept disposes of the more customary hierarchy of

inclusion: we are all different in different in different ways and all these ways should all be

included”.

“Just because you can‟t see a group it doesn‟t mean it‟s not there”.

2.9 Further details of how the conference has influenced views on inclusion are included in the evaluation

sections of this report below.

2.10 The key question is how to move from discussion to action. As one participant summed it up:

8

“The problem is not "what is the problem of inclusion" it's how do you deal with the problem of

inclusion, and I think we are no further forward on that road. We are very used to having the

conversation about what is the problem, and we're very used to the conversation around what

should we do… We need to have more of a conversation around why should we do this and how

should we do this. Those are questions that have been really badly ignored and as a result that has

contributed to the lack of progress that we've made in this area. It's not a new problem, it's quite a

historical problem, and we still talk about it as if it happened last week”.

Issues and challenges: society

2.11 Both the conference and the subsequent survey looked at

the inclusion challenges facing communities, organisations,

projects and individuals.

2.12 Unsurprisingly, there was broad agreement about the

issues for society as a whole, and what ought to be done; but it

was beyond the scope of the conference to consider how

change could be effected or to look at policy in any detail,

without which the points made are left looking somewhat bland.

The main concerns were:

The need for change in society, away from prejudice and towards more acceptance and avoiding

pigeonholing people; coupled with the importance of ensuring greater visibility and political voice for

those deemed to be excluded, such as disabled people.

A general need to ask ourselves as a society, how honest we are around issues of segregation. At

the same time, we must consider our motives for inclusion. What legacy are we leaving?

That poverty massively disadvantages young people in our education system and that the system,

itself, is biased in favour of those who have the benefits of wealth.

The need to improve communication channels with international and minority communities and the

question of how and how far to encourage integration.

The lack of clear routes into work for people with learning difficulties.

The difficulties faced by disadvantaged young people in finding their place in society (or even in

school).

The need to increase awareness around gangs and gender.

The well known special issues around Traveller communities.

Government not being willing to listen to what affects impoverished young people.

The stigma attached to certain labels, e.g „mental health‟.

2.13 It was pointed out that the challenges for society are common across Europe. A process model was

offered for working through five stages of development, namely segregation, assimilation, integration,

inclusion, and cohesion. Further details are given in Annex D.

Issues and challenges: organisations and projects

2.14 Organisations face a variety of practical and social problems in relation to developing inclusive

practice. Among those mentioned were:

Making opportunities available and getting information distributed to all areas; encouraging staff to

support inclusion of those not fitting the “norm”.

Providing practical and physical support. Staff and volunteers often do not have the right skill sets;

accommodation is not appropriate for physically disabled individuals.

Organisations are seen, or imagined, to be working with middle class young people only: there is a

constant fight against this stereotype.

Finance and staff awareness at a time of great turmoil in youth work nationally.

9

The active recognition and involvement of children and young people.

Others' perceptions of people with mental disabilities.

Replacing medical and social models of disability that that of the citizen model.

“We work with people who have overcome problems such as addiction, homelessness or mental

health problems, and who are keen to support others. Though they want to work in this area, they

still are developing their confidence and contacts… Because they have the particular talents of

peer mentoring to share, they want jobs in that area, not in just anything low-paid. So the benefits

trap is a factor. We need to source funding to pay them properly so they can come off benefits

comfortably”.

2.15 Most projects represented at the conference directly focused on disadvantaged groups. Many also

reached such groups through intermediaries (e.g. by providing training).

2.16 The inclusion challenges for projects (across all the Programmes) were noted as follows:

The need to ensure that inclusion is promoted for the right reasons.

The need to find common ground for an inclusive project so that it genuinely enables all to be

involved. This implies much more time and effort on the preparation phase.

Funding issues – some projects require matched funding. Local funding not always available.

10

Contradictions in the application process: this is not felt to be inclusive to all projects. Some would

benefit from support by outreach workers.

Finding the right project beneficiaries, and then ensuing that they are actually able to take part. It

has been pointed out that some of those who would most benefit from European projects are also

the least able to get involved (single parents being one example).

Limited or no funding for management and co-ordination of projects; at the same time, staff are not

given extra hours to work on a project.

Relatively low take-up of the programme by certain ethnic and socio-economic groups.

Cultural and geographical barriers to movement outside people‟s home region. Inn the case of

young people, parents can be over-protective or disinterested, which affects recruitment and

participation.

Ensuring all educational facilities are informed and aware of a project.

Language barriers.

Additional difficulty of working in disadvantaged areas.

Lack of effective means of distributing information about project opportunities.

“The biggest inclusion challenge is maintaining sufficient capacity of volunteers to keep our

organisation running at a time when everybody is feeling really quite stressed and anxious”.

2.17 The steps taken by organisations to overcome these issues include:

Applying for increased mentoring resources or seeking help from other specialists.

Building close working relationships with sending organisations.

Identifying new groupings of young people from a broader range of educational institutions

Supplementing grants for certain activities.

Encouraging universities to offer bursaries to students from poorer backgrounds.

Targeting promotional activities towards specific groups; working in “marginalised” areas.

Tutorials and engagement with parents.

Giving staff explicit responsibility for projects.

Providing opportunities for staff not involved in projects to learn from those who are.

Expanding the range of partnerships.

Staff training on inclusion and disability issues.

2.18 One organisation with physical access problems

reported that they had had their building surveyed, but that

the costs of alterations would be prohibitive, given the short

term nature of most of their funding. They had only been able

to build in a stair lift as a minimum provision.

2.19 Some organisations are proud of their ability and

success in dealing with these issues, but this may be easier

for larger and more established institutions than for small new

ones.

2.20 There are resources available for organisations to access. For example, the NCB have a dedicated

department (publications and training) focussing on the involvement of children and young people, with

resources accessible online at http://www.participationworks.org.uk

11

Issues and challenges: individuals

2.21 Through the online survey, participants were also asked to identify inclusion issues which affect them

personally. The majority did not mention any personal issues. Those who did, mentioned the following:

Gender equality in employment.

Youth in business – being taken seriously.

Not listening to others' perceptions of difference.

Looking at yourself and how you include or exclude other people.

Financial issues.

Attitudes of people to those who face social exclusion.

Young people with mental health issues.

Lack of information.

“I have faced exclusion in the past due to my disability and the fact that I am a wheelchair user. I

am not one to let it get me down and I take it as a self-tasked duty to make myself a role model for

disabled young people… wherever I go, as I feel there is a need to say 'I have a disability, so what,

I am proud of it and I can do everything you can do apart from walk‟”

“I would like to take part in more things and make more happen in the world, but I'm lacking seed

capital”.

12

3. VALORISATION

Effectiveness of the EU programmes in promoting inclusion

3.1 All the EU programmes are making efforts to look at marginalised and disadvantaged communities and

individuals, to help bring them into the mainstream and give them access to the opportunities that others

are already aware of. Reaching Out was also part of the process of making the programmes and their

achievements better known.

3.2 It is clear from the conference discussions as well as from previous events and reports that the value of

the EU programmes lies in their uniqueness: there simply are no other programmes of these kinds. Even if

more can be done to make them more inclusive, nevertheless what is already done is hugely appreciated.

3.3 It is widely felt that general awareness of all the programmes is still very low, and that more

promotional work needs doing, particularly to encourage involvement of more marginalised groups.

3.4 A common complaint is that processes are confusing and need simplifying, and that application forms

in particular should be redesigned to make them more accessible. Different languages also need to be

taken into consideration. It was suggested that there could be other ways for people to apply (e.g. video-

based applications) in order to prevent exclusion

3.5 However, those who do get involved are passionate about the experience and the benefits: “it is

amazing once you get on with it as it gives everyone opportunities and the opportunity to make a real

change”.

“[Leonardo has] made an enormous contribution by enabling us to bring in young people who

would otherwise not have the opportunity because they are not in a position to undertake this kind

of work on their own. It's brought in people with a whole range of disabilities, special needs; young

people who are deprived and come from very limited backgrounds and given them the chance to

actually see beyond the boundaries of their own towns. Through our Leonardo Partnerships

project, they have taken part in study tours of holistic employability services in Scotland, Sweden

and Ireland, alongside staff of support organisations. This has put them on equal footing, given

them more contacts… and shown them how other services work. Through our Leonardo Mobilities

project, some have gone to work with... user-led organisations in Sweden and have come back

wanting to run their own services. Confidence, respect and seeing them as experts to empower are

all part of this. They will need to start as volunteers on the social enterprise we are setting up with

them, using what they learned abroad, but with the aim of becoming staff as funding becomes

available”.

3.6 Disparities of access in different parts of Europe were mentioned, and particularly that it is “still hard to

hear the voices and opinions of migrants in Europe”. On the other hand, some feel that other EU countries

are better engaged in the programmes and that the UK‟s “island mentality” is an inhibiting factor.

3.7 Resources are of course an issue, particularly for small or community based organisations, which find it

hard to meet their needs and can rarely obtain matching funds. There are additional difficulties when

“[The EU Programmes] are terrific value for money,

because an enormous amount gets done on a

relatively small budget, and it reflects the enthusiasm

people have for the idea and the activities involved”.

“Not everyone is aware of the opportunities that

these programmes offer; so perhaps wider release of

information is needed”.

13

projects are run on a voluntary basis, because there is not enough capacity for monitoring and evaluation or

follow-up, so it is harder to report on their impact.

3.8 Other comments included:

“We have transformed some of our work in the college through the opportunities we've had

through the Leonardo programme; we've developed really strong links with other organisations in

Europe, and they have benefited enormously in teaching us new ways of doing things, and new

ideas that we've been able to take back into our own organisation”.

“EU projects give the opportunity to develop social

skills, make contacts, and confidence, so important for

further studies/training, employment – leading to social

inclusion. This in turn combats poverty and the so often

vicious circle of exclusion”.

“It no doubt depends on who is involved and what they

focus on, and the scale of impact will also vary, but if

inclusion is written into the priorities for the funding,

applicants will respond creatively to deliver something

that will win funding”.

“The Transversal programme indirectly addresses poverty by allowing practitioners and policy

makers to see and evaluate along with others approaches adopted in other countries. However,

my impression is that the programme does not give enough attention to the impact of poverty,

which is a major issue across Europe, and, where visits do specifically address socio-economic

disadvantage, they tend to focus on the experience of non-indigenous groups rather than poverty

within the indigenous host communities”.

“It's given our young people all sorts of experiences they would never otherwise have, particularly

those that come from poorer areas and would never otherwise have the opportunity to travel and

learn about other cultures”.

3.9 The majority of survey respondents regard the EU programmes as an effective means of combating

exclusion. Individual programmes are generally thought to be inclusive, although some people consider that

Erasmus is not: this was also said at the conference, the reason being the programme‟s focus on

universities which almost by definition makes it partially exclusive.

14

The value of sharing experience

3.10 The greatest value of the Reaching Out conference for most participants was the opportunity to tell

their stories, share experience and hear different ideas in a context away from the pressures of everyday

work. (This was equally true for the staff of the National Agencies who attended). They also appreciated the

fact that other people share the same issues and problems, and also the same passion for international

work, as themselves. The conference was an example of networking of a very practical kind. As one

participant put it, “energy has an amazing chain reaction and impact. It is empowering”.

3.11 Many participants had little previous knowledge of other programmes apart from those they were

involved in, and they learned about the additional opportunities which are open to them. New ideas were

sparked by seeing that there are “so many things going on, and so much talent here”, and realising that

there are potential synergies between the programmes that need to be better exploited.

3.12 Another important aspect was to promote the range of work being done for different generations.

Many of those working on Youth in Action, for example, were unaware of the opportunities which other

programmes provide for older people; and the reverse was also true. Ideas and opportunities for inter-

generational work also emerged from the conference.

“Realising how many other people are working [on inclusion issues]… rather than just feeling that

you're a single unit just working by yourself. So hopefully from this we can bring on some support

and some networking”.

“I was impressed with what I saw at the conference of

the work of Youth in Action, with which I'm not at all

familiar”.

“[People] are doing this because they are actively

interested in linking up with other people and finding

out how they work, what they do and what their

approaches are”.

“There's a lot of work to be done. All of us are working away on our own projects and tackling

inclusion in small ways, but we've got something to offer and show other people and encourage

other people to be more inclusive in some of the activities that they're doing. I've seen a lot of

projects that are very much targeted work and I think we need to go back and in our own area and

start to offer opportunities to [those who lack them]”.

3.13 The keynote speech by Ronald Ligtenberg provided widespread inspiration and served as a focal

point to bring people together for the discussions that followed.

15

Examples of inclusive practice

3.14 There were many common strands of good practice

among projects, such as the active involvement and

empowerment of diverse groups of young people on project

teams or in delivering activity. However it was clear that

almost all projects represented at the event had their own

innovative and creative approaches which generated much

interest and deserve to be disseminated more widely. Some

case studies are included in the recent case study booklet

Kaleidoscope, published by Ecorys.

3.15 It was originally intended to produce a resource pack of materials from different projects, for

distribution after the conference. However, the bulk of available material was far greater than anticipated

and this was therefore impracticable. Some kind of online mechanism is the only realistic way to share

these case studies (see recommendations below): this would be well received by organisations.

3.16 The online survey gave some indication of the range of inclusive practice and activities within

organisations across the EU programmes.

Multi-agency cross-professional training day enabling local authorities to jointly plan services to

improve children‟s lives and their opportunities to play. The training day brings together planners,

housing, transport, health, children‟s services, and the voluntary sector.

Pocket sized language tool kits, for hospitality and carpentry, in all network languages.

Study Visits for EU visitors to see how people with severe learning difficulties are provided with

opportunities to work and gain independence.

Using music to engage young people regardless of background, language, ability etc.

Sending out past participants to talk to young people about their participation on the programme…

a success especially with young people who lack the support to apply on their own accord.

Combining 3 different youth organisations has given us a rounded group many of whom were

excluded previously.

Glasgow Caledonian University‟s approach to recruitment of students from poorer backgrounds

(case study available on the Erasmus website).

Playshaper (www.playshaper.org.uk) – a government funded programme based on Play England‟s

„Engaging Communities for Play‟ contract with the Department of Education.

An e-guidance tool with cartoons of scenarios for people to work through instead of tick boxes;

more creative, user-led activities and complementary therapies, as well as joined up statutory

services and user-led social enterprises.

“The social enterprise we're looking to develop in Scotland draws together many facets of the good

practice that we've gained through our visits and work placements”.

“The Transversal visit provided a rich insight into a parallel and very similar poverty intervention in

another country that challenged many aspects of the work of my programme and suggested useful

alternatives”.

“It is already clear from one visit, which included some 15 mobilities with mental disabilities, four of

whom were wheelchair users, that our partnership has much to share in terms of good practices in

this field”.

3.17 The conference also included a presentation by Catherine Brentnall of Rotherham Ready, about their

recent award-winning work in enterprise education. Discussion focused on the social aspects of enterprise,

and the ways in which it can increase motivation and promote inclusion. This is a potential area for the

programmes to focus on in future.

16

Meeting the needs of target groups

3.18 Most projects are confident that they are both meeting their target groups‟ needs and providing

sustainable outcomes. Some say there is more to be done. However, these are unscientific self-

assessments which really need to be validated by an external and possibly longitudinal evaluation study.

3.19 The following are examples of responses received to this part of the survey.

“The group have learnt how people from other cultures have the same issues as we do and how to

mix with others instead of staying by people they know. They learnt how to eat healthy by tasting

healthy foods from other countries and now have the recipes to recreate those dishes at home”.

“The Swedish partners are perhaps best positioned to fund new developments and have acted on

some of the things they learned on the study tours. They also started off with the least

inclusive/holistic services. (Stockholm City Council ones) In Scotland, as we're much smaller

organisations, the work placements had the greatest impacts on the target group directly because

they gained a lot more confidence and evidence of how to set up user-led support services and get

funding. They've become very dynamic and motivated about taking these new services forward”.

“We targeted 2 rural and 2 urban groups to work together on issues. They have become the

'experts' in European issues in their own localities and are undertaking dissemination to their

peers”.

“The main success of the programme has been in building young people's self efficacy and

resilience. There has been less clear success in achieving significantly improved longer term

educational outcomes”.

“Out of 1 study visit we have set up work experience opportunities in the EU for students and

service users”.

“We now have groups who are made up from two very different community backgrounds”.

“They might be undertaking a course at university, where there is a required element which is

carried out in another country, either study or sometimes work; but many people have a personal

interest in the opportunities that student mobility offers. They talk to their friends - returning

students from Erasmus are great ambassadors for the programme. And they talk to their university

teachers and colleagues who are also sometimes very enthusiastic about it themselves”.

“It is important both for students academic development but also for their personal development, to

have a context that's as wide as possible within which you think about decisions and develop your

own personal interests gives a greater sounding board for people to determine their future

possibilities… Student mobility is a great developer of an individual's character; it certainly

enhances their academic and professional development, and it strengthens the individual's capacity

for independence and for independent decision making”.

3.20 Many speak of the impact of projects on the beneficiaries, particularly young people, and the snowball

effect this can generate; some have gone on to design their own programmes.

Transferability of methods and outcomes to other contexts

3.21 Responses indicate that many projects see their approaches as transferable to other contexts

(different countries, other sectors or institutions) or able to be combined with other activities, and some

have already made this happen.

“Our experiences are transferred to new colleagues, networks & partnerships”.

17

“Media (posters, leaflets, booklets) are available for others to see. The local youth clubs and

schools have copies of events that took place and have material to show them how other countries

work”.

“The e-guidance tool we found in Ireland looks like it would be transferable to loads of contexts

because it draws out people's interests and strengths in a way that interviews and discussion alone

can't - and especially for people who didn't realise they had many strengths, this is really powerful.

The tool was developed in another Leonardo project so is already available in Spanish and one

other language, so re-recording the narration would be needed and maybe some contextual

changes, but probably not so much”.

“Complementary therapies and having users lead groups about their own creative talents or

passions would also be easily transferable. Social enterprises for service users are really good, but

take more planning and market research”.

“We have shared practice with Oldham, Gothenburg, Nicosia, and hope to continue working in

divided societies bringing young people together to lead change”.

3.22 Knowledge sharing among projects and organisations working under different EU programmes but in

the same local area would increase impact and add value. It would improve access to opportunity by

opening up new channels of information and involvement. It would create locally based and ongoing forms

of valorisation. Currently this tends only to happen by chance.

Importance of the European dimension

3.23 The European and intercultural aspects are always mentioned among the most important features of

every project.

“We are working in a European climate and opportunities have got to be available for our young

people to be able to travel and benefit from the advantages of being part of Europe”.

“People are often quite reluctant to get involved to

begin with, and it takes quite a lot of work to encourage

people at the beginning; but once you actually get

them involved and they start meeting with other people

in Europe they get taken over by the enthusiasm of the

other partners, and before the end of the project you

find you've got people queuing up who want to get

involved because they realise how beneficial it is to

learn about other cultures and other areas of Europe”.

“[The programmes] have huge value because they allow students and adults and school pupils to

broaden their horizons, see different cultures, to hear about different histories, to see other people

working in different circumstances and to learn about the variety and differences that exist in

Europe as a continent”.

3.24 This is a view shared and promoted by the National Agencies. As Simon Williams says: “Europe is not

another place, we are part of it… There are lots of familiar issues in Europe but also… very different issues,

that can be challenging; so for all levels of the programme from schools right up to adult education, there

are lots of opportunities… Also Europe can learn a lot from us – we are possibly one of the most diverse

countries in Europe, and we know from when we work with other countries that that aspect of our own

culture is often of most interest and fascination for people from other countries, so it works both ways”.

18

4. MESSAGES TO THE NATIONAL AGENCIES AND EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Promotion of the programmes

4.1 There is a widely shared feeling that the EU programmes could develop a more proactive promotional

approach to reach and engage disadvantaged or marginalised groups.

“There are lots of community groups and organisations out there that still don't know about the

projects and the funding opportunities and I would want a more proactive approach to actually

meeting with and disseminating the information to organisations and encouraging applications from

those that wouldn't normally apply”.

4.2 This goes beyond simply providing information about the different programmes. Organisations and

groups also need practical help and advice about how to participate, and how to access networking and

partnership opportunities. It was also suggested that there should be a “bilateral programme coordinator”

who could advise organisations about all the EU programmes.

4.3 Another suggestion was to create opportunities for networking / and sharing experience, specifically

with regard to the process of application writing: more mentoring support is wanted, especially by small

organisations and groups or those new to the Programmes.

Administration and finance

4.4 Many people complain that application and reporting forms are unnecessarily complicated, and thus

also non-inclusive. There is a strong demand for plain English and greater clarity.

4.5 It was suggested that the European Commission should also create different methods of application, to

make processes more accessible – for example, applications by video.

4.6 Revised financial procedures and funding deadlines could help projects: some people say that the

procedures are too labour intensive and that funding decisions come too late in the project development

process.

4.7 Many groups, in particular small organisations, find it difficult to obtain matching funding for projects.

They need enabling support and advice. Some said they would like the EU programmes to invest more in

capacity building.

Inclusive practice

4.8 “Everyone‟s capable of doing something”, said one participant, and the challenge for society, and for

the EU programmes also, is to enable this to happen.

4.9 General messages from the conference included:

“Inclusion works. Keep this going. Keep

your money coming in because it's doing

great work. Youth workers are coming to

these seminars without being paid, because

they want to help underprivileged kids,

ethnic minorities, disabled people, they're

doing it for free, they're doing great work.

Let it continue”.

19

“We need to change society‟s perception and acceptance”.

“There needs to be a flexible response to the diverse needs of everyone”.

“Visibility (of the marginalised) is an issue”.

“Shift disadvantage to an advantage”.

“Young people have a voice, listen to it”.

4.10 With regard to higher education and the Erasmus programme, the Erasmus representative

commented:

I'd like to see more widespread discussion of inclusiveness and inclusion in Higher Education both

in terms of recruitment of students to universities in the UK and also recruitment of students to the

programme, to make opportunities available to a much wider sector of students.

4.11 Given the widely shared interest in inclusion, and the fact that this issue cuts across all parts of the

EU programmes, it was suggested that the programmes could jointly research and promote available

national or regional inclusion resources, membership bodies and potential sources of advice (and matching

funds) which organisations and projects would be able to access (on / off line). This would be of value to all

projects.

4.12 The Internet can be both positive and negative in terms of inclusion. On the one hand, it is completely

neutral in terms of people‟s identity and a potentially powerful vehicle for equal opportunity. On the other

hand, it is also exclusive to those who are comfortable with it. Many people would like the EU Programmes

to encourage greater use of social media, and to work with local authorities and safeguarding agencies to

enable social networks (note: some projects have been actively prevented from using Facebook by their

local authorities). But there always need to be off-line alternatives.

4.13 There is a general need for more training around rights, responsibilities and empowerment. Training

of this kind would be likely to attract interest from across all programmes.

4.14 One participant has recommended that the EU Programmes should take the following specific

measures in relation to inclusion:

1. Adopt the NYA/ LGA Hear By Right framework (http://www.nya.org.uk/quality/hear-by-right/about-

hear-by-right).

2. Use Roger Hart's “Ladder of Participation” as a basis for assessment

(http://www.freechild.org/ladder.htm).

3. Actively promote Article12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

(http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Rights_overview.pdf).

4.15 Other suggestions in relation to projects were:

Keep it simple.

Encourage projects by and not merely for marginalised groups.

Encourage partnership approaches for greater impact.

Empower groups to lobby for themselves.

Involve local communities.

Focus on transferable skills.

20

Valorisation

4.16 Organisations tend to have positive relationships with their respective National Agencies, but these

are often at arm‟s length. Closer contacts would be appreciated, and more visits by National Agency staff to

projects (staff also want this as it is motivating to see the impact funds are having).

“Please advertise more about you, we need to know where you are, and what we can do for you”.

“I would encourage them to get out there and see the work that's being done with the money, and

how good it is”.

4.17 Valorisation events such as Reaching Out are good but

relatively rare opportunities for contact with projects. They

also enable valuable exchange of knowledge and

development of new ideas for projects. Some participants

asked for more frequent, and longer, events. There was also

a suggestion to have occasional events that bring together

different target groups (beneficiaries) from across the different

programmes, rather than simply the practitioners involved.

4.18 Some at the conference were surprised to find out what a range of activities are possible within all the

programmes. As already mentioned, there could be much greater synergy and knowledge sharing among

projects and organisations working under different EU programmes but in the same local area, leading to

increased impact. The National Agencies should facilitate these contacts.

4.19 There is also a demand for more on / offline resources for sharing experience, case studies, quality

indicators and best practice, and saving people from reinventing the wheel. “How-to” guides are wanted.

Programme-specific websites such as Youthspace could be further developed or promoted for this purpose.

An online “users‟ forum” would allow organisations to ask each other questions about different

programmes.

4.20 Good news stories are notoriously hard to sell, but the conference showed how many of them there

are. The National Agencies could play a more instrumental role in promoting the value and successes of

the Programmes, for example by:

Developing relations with journalists.

Commissioning / disseminating films of projects.

Holding a festival for everyone involved (programme-specific or cross-programme).

Inviting / involving political decision-makers and others who have power.

Lobbying local councillors and involving those who are often the strongest opposition or sceptics.

Future programmes

4.21 There is naturally a good deal of nervousness about the possible shape of future programmes, and a

feeling that the changes in 2013 may be more radical than those in 2007. But there is also a wealth of ideas

about how the programmes could change for the better (including points about administration already

referred to above). Above all, there is a universal demand that they should continue.

4.22 This conviction is shared by the National Agencies. As Kursat Levent Egriboz put it: “through our

programmes we provide opportunity and funding to innovative and creative ideas, in order to make society

more inclusive, and we test new ideas. Without this funding we won't have any opportunity to test these

innovative and creative ideas”.

Put more money into this, because these kind of projects can really change people – they can

really change people's minds and the way they think: it really changed my mind and the way I think

as well.

21

Please lobby extremely hard for the particular qualities of Grundtvig partnerships (informal learning,

personal interaction, focus on individuals, combination of culture and self-development, social

location of learning – all the features which in fact distinguish the conduct of adult learning from that

of children and young people, and the structures of adult learning from those of educational

institutions and economic pressures – to be retained… The whole ethos… of adult learning

demands its own structures and methods, and Grundtvig partnerships encourage and facilitate

these in really positive and effective ways. It's not broken so do not mend it!

Because of its informality [Grundtvig] gets right down to people meeting people, not institutions

talking to institutions or authorities to authorities, but individual people who would never otherwise

have the opportunity – Grundtvig partnerships must continue!

More money! More opportunities! Particularly in the relatively new areas of the partnership

programmes – the Leonardo partnerships. We would really like to see larger numbers of mobilities

being available within those projects, so that we can take more young people to benefit from the

opportunities they offer.

4.23 Other comments and suggestions about the future programmes included:

Allow projects which enable people to take first steps: some need to experience mobility on a

smaller scale. This could include mobility within the UK.

Possibilities for more intergenerational activities and funding – or more ways of linking programmes

together.

Need for a cultural and financial rethinking. For example, some ethnic communities would not

participate in a youth exchange.

Only organizations can apply, what about individuals?

EU funding programmes should consider project management funding for the next period.

Funding streams should be less complicated.

The current programmes are amazingly diverse: can they better complement each other?

22

5. CONFERENCE EVALUATION

Overall satisfaction 5.1 Participants were very satisfied with the event. For the majority, their expectations were fully met or

exceeded, and they felt the conference was relevant to their needs.

“[Events like these] give the opportunity for people

who are very busily involved in their own project…

to be able to share their ideas with each other,

ask each other questions; and particularly for

programmes that work in different sectors to get

together, so people working with schools, with

adult education, with informal education, it's the

one chance in the year when we all get together.”

23

5.2 The following comments are representative of the feedback received on the conference as a whole.

The opportunity to learn about other interesting things that are going on with other organisations in

the UK, using all the wonderful variety of programmes in the Lifelong Learning Programme and

telling people what we have been doing… in the hope that that will encourage them to get involved

in projects as well.

[This] allows those of us working with the programmes to see more widely across the benefits that

European programmes offer. Working with Erasmus I work with students and universities a great

deal but I don't hear much about the youth element of the programmes or the school element.

These events allow us to learn much more about the breadth of opportunity that's available to

people in all sorts of sectors from the European initiatives.

I think it's the best event I've ever come across, wonderful, it's been very very good, it's been very

inclusive and the people have been wonderful, the people that promote this event, congratulations.

I really had a wonderful time.

I've really enjoyed it. I think some of the organisations and individuals are extraordinary and an

inspiration to us all. Equally I think there is a gap between the inspirers and the ones who tick the

boxes. It's up to the [European Commission]… to adapt their rules to make us work harder.

24

I thought it created a very solid platform for discussion around inclusion, in a safe welcoming

environment. It was well planned and high impact.

The best I attended these past few years.

Inclusion at the conference

5.3 A conference on inclusion should itself set an example of good practice. Feedback suggests that this

was achieved although a small number of people indicated that they did not feel very included:

unfortunately we have not been able to identify any comments which give reasons for these scores. There

was praise for the “inclusivity and friendliness of the whole event”. The active involvement of young people

with disabilities was widely appreciated; one respondent suggested there could have been more of them.

The interaction of people of widely differing ages (including a 10 day old baby) was also mentioned as a

positive aspect.

25

I think the event went really well. It really let me express what I felt about inclusion and exclusion - I

could speak. I did the creative side, so I could act a role which I definitely wouldn't do in normal life.

So it showed me that it's a really big thing in this world.

The involvement of young people, and people with disabilities at all levels of the conference was

inspirational.

The group's been really mixed, young people and older people, older learners, all different cultures

here as well, it's been fantastic.

Very cool having a 10 day old baby there, but the role of young volunteers was very important and

inspiring.

Conference sessions and activities

5.4 There was positive feedback about all parts of the conference, with the greatest level of appreciation

being for the keynote speaker, who many people found inspirational.

Note: participants each attended two out of the available four workshops (lobbying, networking, enterprise

and mobility) which accounts for the higher level of non-attendance indicated. Those who did not attend the

other sessions either arrived late or had to leave early.

5.5 Many people enjoyed the informal icebreaker activity on Wednesday evening; however, a few thought

it was not necessary or perhaps too long for people who were tired after their journey.

26

5.6 Programme presentations were thought to be variable, and there was some disappointment that the

“projects café” (round table discussions) had to be cut short.

5.7 The networking workshop drew the most mixed reactions. Some found it interesting and inspiring (one

such comment is quoted below); others felt it was too “promotional” and not sufficiently interactive. In

retrospect this workshop may have been misplaced.

5.8 The enterprise workshop was eye-opening for some people, who had not considered that enterprise

education could have strong inclusion benefits.

5.9 Participants also liked the “inclusion wall” of photographs which were taken as people arrived.

Impact

5.10 Participants were asked whether the conference had contributed to their personal and professional

development. Many, including the volunteers on the event team, found that it had. For some who were new

to the EU programmes, learning was mainly connected with the opportunity to network and share

experience.

27

For me it's been an eye opener, to see how many other people have been involved. I've been quite

new coming into it, so just being able to listen to other people's stories and their experience and

actually seeing what they've done to combat some of the issues that I've had with applications and

stuff like that, so it's been quite useful for me.

I've got a new job and it's going to have a responsibility for international work and exchange work,

for adult learners as well as young people and communities, so finding out about all the funding

streams has been really fantastic. There are some exciting opportunities that we haven't maximised

up in Scotland where we are.

Ronald's speech was very inspiring. Although I also found my own public speaking the most

challenging, it is one of the bits of the conference I gained the greatest sense of achievement from.

I have confirmed that this type of work is where my passion lies and I will continue to work to

become increasingly involved with youth work.

I have learned that I am capable of standing up to many challenges; that I should always push

myself to new heights.

[I have learned] not to be afraid of suggesting what may seem outlandish ideas to other people:

achieving "the impossible" is possible.

5.11 Over half of participants who responded to the survey indicated that they would make changes to their

organisations or projects as a result of the conference. In some cases this was simply about developing

ideas, partnerships and networks for future projects; some said that they would make changes to current

project applications; a smaller number are thinking about deeper changes in relation to inclusive practice

and involvement of volunteers and peer mentoring in their organisations. Several people mentioned that

they will use their increased knowledge of different EU programmes to promote these within their

organisations and use them more extensively.

I was particularly impressed with some ideas expressed during the networking workshop and have

already initiated ideas drawn from that which are being embraced in the work of our organisation.

I will introduce more socially inclusive policies.

Through networking and discussing other projects I have gained ideas on how to be more inclusive

in practice and have also made links with other organisations that we could work with in the future.

28

We will… include other partners working in the field –

have plans to run a European Awareness week in

Sheffield next year.

I am more aware of the opportunities out there and will

seek more support from the National Agency and the

colleagues I have met to maximise the opportunities I

do have.

I will improve some aspects like dissemination and feedback. I am going to be more confident on

inclusion issues and on the way to fill in applications, as a consequence of talking with people from

National Agency.

It has made me consider looking at how to include a more diverse group of people on future

projects.

5.12 As mentioned above, there was an equal balance between participants who had and had not changed

their thinking on inclusion. Many found that their perceptions had not so much changed as broadened or

developed.

5.13 Comments in answer to this question included:

Although my understanding of what it means has not exactly changed, I am now a lot more aware

of inclusion issues and how it can effect all of us. We must both include others and ourselves in

everything we do to the best of our ability.

I think it will take a time to settle but the conference led to further discussions with friends about the

terminology of inclusion, how far that is helpful and how far it can provide a diversion from issues.

The meaning of that word has changed completely. I just got the chance to see what inclusion in

British society really means.

It changed in a radical way. One should try to include people actively rather than passively.

Having a disability myself, inclusion for me focused on disability. I now have realized that inclusion

is about so much more than the inclusion of disabled people.

This event made me think about this whole theme of inclusion. I've heard it before, I've said it

before, I've had discussions about it before, but not to the level that we've reached here at this

event… It's very useful because if we take a wrong step, then the rest of the world takes it as well,

29

because here are the key changemakers. These people who are here are throwing the stones into

the lake, that has to create the ripples.

Organisation and administrative aspects

5.14 Overall satisfaction with the organisation of the conference was high. The chosen venue came in for

the most praise, although two people commented on the accessibility issue of having the venue separate

from the accommodation. One person was very dissatisfied with the online application process, due to

computer accessibility issues. A small number were dissatisfied with food at the hotel, as a result of dietary

requirements initially not being met. Once again there were positive comments in this section about the role

of volunteers and disabled young people at the event.

It was one of the better conferences I've been to. The accommodation and venue were amazing

and led to me learning a great deal – thank you.

The event overall has been really very good… The way it's been structured, the engagement of the

young people has really been well judged.

The conference was well organised, well structured, the team running it set high standards and

demonstrated inclusive practice… in a very meaningful way.

I only hope that I did enough to convey the value with which I hold all of the volunteers and

members of the team.

Suggested changes and improvements

5.15 Participants were asked to give constructive criticism on the conference in order to improve the quality

of future events.

5.16 The most common issue raised was lack of time. The tight timetable meant that there was not enough

flexibility to cope with speakers or workshops running over time. Many people thought the conference

should have been longer; some who attended the second day would have liked this to be more integrated

with the first, with all participants attending for the whole time. Some also found the day too long. An extra

day would have allowed more time for general networking, which was seen as one of the most valuable

aspects of the conference. Most people wanted more time for showcasing their work and sharing

information between projects.

Time keeping was an issue although I have to say that it was managed very effectively and was

very flexible in accommodating all.

30

We were always working on tight deadlines. More time for preparation and more free time to get the

know the people would have been great.

There were fewer networking opportunities than expected and the project cafe was cut short… that

was one of the best bits.

During the projects café… I thought that you did not need so many organisation to talk about their

projects. Possibly just one in each section. This would have allowed for us to have more time in our

table discussions and networking.

5.17 The combination of different programmes in a single

event was intrinsic to its objectives, but caused a degree of

confusion in some discussions. One person found that “it led

to time wasting and misunderstanding. For example, in a

debate about the complexity and jargon of LLP application

forms, it took some time for us to realise that Youth in Action

and Grundtvig forms are very different, by which time there

had been a lengthy argument about their acceptability”. This

could probably have been overcome in a longer event.

5.18 The workshops and interactive discussions were generally appreciated but some people suggest they

should have been longer (or more time allowed) and that more work in smaller groups would have

encouraged more people to talk.

5.19 In terms of the content of the conference, people felt that more showcasing of successful projects and

a focus on inter-generational issues would have added value. One suggested more practical work rather

than simply talking, but did not give any concrete example of what was meant.

The inclusion of young people during the conference was superb, however, perhaps

intergenerational interaction could have been more actively encouraged.

I felt that the workshops could have had much more of a specific focus on inclusion.

It was good to hear the enthusiasms of participants and rewarding to share information about their

projects. As a novice in this environment I would have found it helpful to have more time to learn

more without someone assuming that, because I expressed interest (and difficulties) in organising

at an international level with young people from an area with high indices of deprivation, that I

needed strategies for engaging with young people per se. There are cultural barriers to inclusion

that relate to socio-economic factors that perhaps need a greater emphasis.

5.20 Despite the efforts of the National Agencies, the final balance of participants was weighted quite

strongly towards Youth in Action projects, which led to one observation that this programme was dominant

in the event. Other respondents said that “it was a great pity that there were no project representatives for

Comenius / Erasmus" (in fact there were, but only from the National Agencies) and relatively little

representation of higher education.

31

5.21 Other suggestions were:

Pre-conference online forums.

More stands / clearly demarcated area with information about projects, funding opportunities and the hosting organisations.

Participants could submit a pen picture of their organisation‟s work in advance, so that networking

could be more focused.

More support for people coming alone, particularly during informal times such as the evening

sessions and breakfast and dinner. Some people felt awkward on arrival in contrast to those who

had travelled together in a group.

5.22 Further evaluation data from the online survey are contained in Annex E.

32

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 The following recommendations are made by Momentum based on our observations of working on this

valorisation event and the comments from participants contained in this report.

6.2 With regard to Erasmus in particular, it was mentioned at the conference that some former

beneficiaries have been designated as “ambassadors” for the programme. These people would have added

considerable value to the event yet none attended. It would be reasonable for the National Agency to

ensure that some of them attend events of this kind as part of their role, however unofficial that may be. If

there are similar “ambassadors” for other programmes, the same would apply.

6.3 The National Agencies should also use their accumulated knowledge of projects under each

programme to take a more targeted approach to invitations, in order to showcase the most relevant and

interesting projects. This was only partially successful for Reaching Out.

6.4 The role of “programme representatives” at the conference was slightly hit and miss because not all the

programmes were represented in the same way or by the same kind of people. We suggest that in future a

more uniform approach may be possible by having the overview of the programme given by the relevant

staff member of the National Agency, with a story of personal experience then told by someone involved in

a particular project. Some of the representatives at Reaching Out were able to fulfil both roles but some

could not. Alternatively, the programme representative role could be more formalised or perhaps combined

with “programme ambassadors”.

6.5 We were glad to be able to put together a relatively large staff team, including volunteers, to run the

event. Cooperation with National Agency staff was excellent. We would adopt a similar approach in future.

One weakness was that we anticipated more technical support from the venue than was actually available,

so that we had to disappoint people who we had invited to show their own films. In future we would appoint

a team member for this, and also collect and prepare the audiovisual materials much further in advance.

6.6 The lead time for the conference was relatively short. A longer time would make for a better event and

would allow participants to be better managed and better prepared. Three months should be the minimum

for an event of this size.

6.7 One day is too short for an event of this kind. In future we would suggest either limiting the objectives

(either valorisation / sharing experience, or exploration of an issue such as inclusion); or preferably running

the event over two days with the same people attending throughout – in which case the first day would be

for valorisation and the second for discussion of the chosen issue.

6.8 Overall the fact that the conference was well-attended, and the amount of interest and positive

feedback it has generated, shows that there is a demand for more events like this. Apart from large national

valorisation events, it would be worth considering setting up more regional and local events, to encourage

sharing and collaboration between organisations and possibly proposals for more integrated and inclusive

projects.

33

6.9 As mentioned above, the amount of case study material available from projects is too great to compile

into a pack for circulation to participants. A website is needed where people can not only upload and

download materials, but also join a forum for continued networking and knowledge sharing. As far as we

know, none of the current programme websites offers the facilities for this. Such a forum would be a focus

for community of people involved in the EU programmes, a community which Reaching Out showed to be

real, worth sustaining, and potentially a useful resource for all the National Agencies. The passion and

commitment to inclusion of the Reaching Out participants is too good to let go.

6.10 It was notable at the conference that participants particularly appreciated the presence of senior

managers and other staff of the National Agencies. There need to be regular opportunities for this contact

to happen.

6.11 Some participants were unclear on the mechanisms for giving feedback to the National Agencies and

for organisations' views to be represented to the higher authorities. A culture of openness should be

encouraged; the best sign of this will be if some of the widely shared suggestions from the field are visibly

adopted in the design of the new programmes. In the same spirit, we recommend that this report should be

circulated to all conference participants (or even more widely), together with National Agency comments.

ANNEXES

A – Event programme.

B – Survey summary.

C – Additional comments on Youth in Action.

D – Cohesion framework.

E – Additional conference evaluation data.

34

www.youthmomentum.org