Erasmus+: Youth NA Business Meeting

“Youth work makes room for all”

8-11 October 2019 - Helsinki, Finland

DOCUMENTATION RECORDS

Collection of presentations and discussions

Picture by Emmi Kähkönen

2

3

Index Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 6

DAY 1 – 8 October 2019 ........................................................................................................................... 7

Official opening: Welcome to Helsinki ..................................................................................................... 7

Update about the Presidency activities .................................................................................................... 7

From Bucharest to Helsinki ....................................................................................................................... 7

Erasmus+ Education and Training directors’ informal meeting – feedback ............................................ 8

Network News .......................................................................................................................................... 9

Network News – part 1 ............................................................................................................................. 9

DAY 2 – 9 October 2019 ......................................................................................................................... 10

Network News – part 2 ........................................................................................................................... 10

Future Erasmus+ COM input: Where are we now? ................................................................................ 10

Comments and further questions: ..................................................................................................... 11

Reactions to the COM input AND open questions ............................................................................. 11

Accreditation charter model ................................................................................................................... 12

Comments and questions to Mika: ..................................................................................................... 12

Further Reactions to the Accreditation Charter Model ..................................................................... 13

The outcomes of the consultative meeting about cooperation with Partner countries 2021-2027. Invitation to agree on the conclusions. .................................................................................................. 15

Comments and questions: .................................................................................................................. 16

FNAPS: Future National Activities Planners - Synthesis of Member States contributions -Extract for Youth BM Oct 2019 ................................................................................................................................. 17

Strategic partnerships ............................................................................................................................. 17

NA strategic cooperation: lessons learnt ............................................................................................... 18

Comments and questions: .................................................................................................................. 18

Reactions to the NA Strategic Partnerships ....................................................................................... 18

DAY 3 – 10 October 2019 ....................................................................................................................... 21

Network news – part 3 ........................................................................................................................... 21

European Solidarity Corps – updates from the Resource Centre .......................................................... 21

Comments and questions: .................................................................................................................. 21

Solidarity Research outcomes ................................................................................................................ 22

Comments and questions: .................................................................................................................. 22

Open space on European Solidarity Corps – implementation ............................................................... 22

Accreditation of parents/children organisations... ............................................................................ 22

SoliDARE (Solidarity Bootcamp) - name under discussion ................................................................. 22

In-country volunteering ...................................................................................................................... 23

Jobs and Traineeships ......................................................................................................................... 24

4

Countries not in ESC ........................................................................................................................... 24

ESC and inclusion ................................................................................................................................ 24

Strategic partnership on mentoring and coaching ............................................................................. 25

Reaching new volunteering fields ....................................................................................................... 25

TCA/NET WG proposal: Development of TCA/NET Cooperation Platform ............................................ 25

Comments and questions: .................................................................................................................. 25

The present and the future of KMST: proposal by the KMST working group .................................. 26

Questions and comments: .................................................................................................................. 26

Planning of forthcoming KMST activities for 2020 ................................................................................. 26

Input: Competence-based KMST – Why investing in a competence framework? ................................. 27

Questions and comments: .................................................................................................................. 27

Next steps after BM in Helsinki .............................................................................................................. 28

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................... 28

ANNEXES and PHOTOS ........................................................................................................................... 28

5

Helsinki Business Meeting Programme 8-11.10.2019

8 October 9 October 10 October 11 October

Arrival to Helsinki

Registration starts at 15:00 at the Lobby

Future Erasmus+ - inputs and discussion:

EC: Future Erasmus+ where are we?

NA perspective: What are the open questions

Accreditation charter models: how to reduce the administrative burden!

European Solidarity Corps:

Updates from the Resource Centre

Presentation of the Solidarity research

Discussion: lessons learnt and how to respond to identified challenges in implementation

Optional programme on:

Youth work and Youth policy in Finland

Venue: restaurant Sunn Aleksanterinkatu 26, 2nd floor

Coffee break Coffee break

Future Erasmus+ - discussions on the open questions, including the accreditation charter

models: Erasmus+ Programme Guide

Open Space: European Solidarity Corps implementation

Lunch Lunch

Co-operation with Partner Countries

Input from the Consultative meeting and reflection

of the position paper

Future National Activity Planners - FNAPs

TCA/NET WG proposal for “Development of

Cooperation Platform”

KMST:

Do we need a competence model for NA staff

development?

Identified development needs

Departures

Start at 17:00 – Opening Coffee break Coffee break

Welcome to Helsinki!

Finnish Presidency – Youth

Programme of the meeting

From Bucharest to Helsinki

Feedback from E&T informal meeting

News from the Network

NA Strategic co-operation projects:

Experiences and impact

How to proceed?

KMST planning for 2020

Competence-based KMST -Why investing in a

competence framework

Evaluation and closing

Dinner at the hotel 19:30 Dinner at 19:30 (Restaurant Holiday,

address Kanavaranta 7)

Dinner at 19:30 (Restaurant Nude, address:

Kasarmikatu 44)

6

Introduction The Business Meeting “Youth Work makes room for all” of the Youth National Agencies of Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps, an official side event of Finland´s Presidency of the Council of the European Union, was held in Helsinki on 8-11.10.2019.

The objectives of the meeting were:

• To complete the discussion about the future Erasmus+ programme on the level of the programme guide

• To share current European Solidarity Corps implementation challenges, needs and good practices

• To take position on the cooperation with Partner Countries within the two programmes

• To take stock form the six NA co-operation projects (SPIs and KA3s) and reflect on the possible continuation

• To plan and organise forthcoming KMST activities in 2020

• To support networking, peer learning and sharing of good practices

Inputs on Future National Activity Planners – FNAPs and on Competence Model for KMST were introduced in addition, as well as the proposal by TCA/NET working group on development of Cooperation Platform. Venue of the meeting was Hotel Katajanokka, originally a county prison and pre-trial detention centre. The prison was closed in 2002. An optional, half-day programme on Youth Work and Youth Policy in Finland was offered on 11.10.2019. The meeting supported the Finnish Presidency objectives on sustainability. The Finnish NA informed that instead offering traditional presidency gifts, the NA will compensate the carbon emissions of the travel of all Business meeting participants. The compensation will go to two projects: to support reforestation in a local community in Ethiopia; to support reducing deforestation with improved cooking stoves in Uganda. The Finnish NA by this concrete action wanted to underline the urge in finding of solutions that cater for sustainability in the EU programmes.

7

DAY 1 – 8 October 2019

Official opening: Welcome to Helsinki Irmeli Karhio, Finnish NA, welcomed the participants with few memories from the previous BM hosted in Finland in Oulu, in 2006. The NAs were also then preparing for next Programme period, although now in 2019 the preparation is for two programmes and in a different world than 13 years ago. To succeed, the Youth NAs would need to continue staying united in all their diversity and to support dialogue amongst them. The Finnish NA decided that no Presidency gifts will be distributed, but instead the FI NA will compensate the carbon emissions of the travels, and support two projects in Africa: reforestation in a local community in Ethiopia and reduction of deforestation in Uganda with improved cooking-stoves.

Update about the Presidency activities Heidi Sulander, Counsellor of Youth, Culture and Sport, from the Ministry of Education and Culture / Permanent Representation of Finland to the EU presented the Finnish Presidency agenda – the new strategic priorities and inherited agenda. Sustainability was underlined. Concerning youth field, the following was to note: - no informal council meeting on youth - EU Youth Conference 1 – 3 July 2019 -> Council conclusions on education of youth workers - Council conclusions on Digital Youth Work prepared, too - Trilogue negotiations E+ 2021 - 2027 -dates: 7.10., 19.11., 9.12.

o aim to reach content conclusions by end 2019 without budget o DiscoverEU in discussion box, i.e. not in negotiations o Erasmus+ -> the „plus“ will be kept

- Trilogue negotiations ESC 2021 - 2027 -dates: 12.10., 12.11., 11.12. o EUAidVolunteers requires more negotiations, e.g. age o more parties involved (DEVE) in negotiations

See Annex_01_FI Presidency presentation_Business meeting 081019.pptx

Menti: „Prison“ – What are your thoughts and feelings about this place? Talk about freedom.

From Bucharest to Helsinki Simona Musteata, Romanian NA presented the follow up the Bucharest Business Meeting and the main activities of the National Agencies network. The following was high-lighted:

- Biggest task within the network: consultation of the new programme - Report and executive summary of the Bucharest BM sent to the network - Meeting of Co-group with COM (19.6.) to present results of the BM highlighting:

o IT issues o Challenges in the NAs in managing 2 programmes o EU Youth Dialogue o DiscoverEU o Strengthening youth work quality o Transversal aspects: inclusion, environmental responsibility and safeguarding o Accreditation/Charter o Building – one network

- Follow-up: proposal sent to COM in August on Community building – one network – Europeers and European Solidarity Corps (no feedback received by BM date).

- Expert meeting on preparing the inclusion and diversity strategy, Brussels, 9.7. - Youth Consultative Group, Brussels, 11-12.9. – focus on DiscoverEU, Charter, implementation of ESC - SALTO network meeting, Tallinn, 9-11.9. (Heads of NAs hosting SALTOs- mandates & roles in supporting

the implementation of the programme)

8

- Consultative Meeting on Cooperation with Neighbouring Partner Countries, Ljubljana, 19-20.9. - Joint Eurodesk and NA’s communication officer’s seminar in Bergen, Norway, 18-19.9. to connect

Eurodesk and NAs´ communication officers and to prepare for the communication on the new generation of the European Youth Programmes.

- Expert group on volunteering, Brussels, 26-27.9. - Steering Group of the Third European Youth Work Convention (Austria, Flanders, Germany), 1-2.10.

See Annex_02_From Bucharest to Helsinki.pptx

Erasmus+ Education and Training directors’ informal meeting – feedback Antonija Gladovic, Croatian NA presented the topics discussed at the Informal Meeting of the Education and Training NA Directors meeting in Helsinki on 1-3 October. The goals of the meeting were: - to get updated on the future Erasmus+ - to get updated on the work done by the NA Directors in WGs and meetings to shape the future Erasmus+ - to provide further input to how the new programme period will be managed: funding, indicators, role and

professionalisation of NAs, visibility and common identity, green Erasmus+ - to find solutions to current challenges within the programme (e.g. TCAs, research, alumni) Towards a new Erasmus+ -topics - Potential new elements

(a) membership approach (Mika will refer to this later) (b) short mobilities – mostly referring to HE (c) sport mobilities – key issues addressed: o Opening up the action for the mobility of young sportsmen -> not necessary due to the limited funds

and as there exists the possibility to use youth exchange funds or small scale partnerships in sport o Where to place the action, E&T or Youth?? Conclusion was to leave this for the NAU to decide, i.e. not

to give any NA recommendations - Role/position/funding NAs (in particular when NA part of a larger organisation) - key elements:

o some clarifications needed in NA Guide without putting already existing solutions into question o need to “legalize” already existing solutions o need to solve the problem of the single/unique legal entity o need to watch the consistency with the already existing regulations Conclusion: to work on the wording in key documents.

- Professionalisation of NAs (a) Erasmus + Academy/ Staff Training

o Erasmus Academy should expand from beneficiaries to NA staff and experts o Part of TCA funding also for training of staff as an inclusive measure without affecting management

fee as separate budget line (b) Selection & training of external experts

o Good pool of experts (qualitative and strong profiles) is essential to execute the programme in a performant way

o Common basic model of training (online course) to be developed by NAs and COM - Green Erasmus – Input by Nordic Offset Additional topics: 1. Budget profile – document for COM in preparation 2. Indicators of the programme – revision, common framework and scientific approach needed 3. Alumni Network – survey needed to identify what already exists, resources and common strategy needed 4. Visibility – actions very effective on local/national level, but still lacking common visual identity at European

level to be used at least for similar common events -> to explore together with COM. See Annex_03_20191001_EDU_feedback.pptx

9

Network News The NAs were asked prior to the meeting, if they had any news to share with the colleagues during the Business Meeting in Helsinki. For 2-3 minutes presentation of the news the NAs were asked to provide the title of the news and a brief description. The facilitator prepared the slides and announced the news to be presented, one slot per day.

Network News – part 1 ✓ YOUTH2020 in Tre, FI

„The national Finnish Youth Work Days YOUTH2020 will take place in Tampere, Finland on January 14-16, 2020. The Finnish NA will open a TCA activity through which we bring 25-30 European youth workers to visit the conference. Part of the programme is either organised in English or the Finnish session is simultaneously translated. The programme includes visits to Finnish youth work organisations and presentations of good practices.“

✓ Inclusion Hackathon -videos early April 2020, FI "The aim to attract new organisations into volunteering and convince them to have inclusion inbaked in their projects with the help of videos and other lures. Inclusive voluntary service projects invited as experts in video production process in cooperation with media workshop. Plan to disseminate the videos to the NA network early April 2020."

✓ Youth for Human Rights conference 29.-30.10.2019, EE "With this conference we want to share and valorize the outcomes of the Erasmus+ programme Key Action 3 ‘Youth for Human Rights’ project regarding the state of play and practices of human rights education (HRE) in youth work in Europe and to acknowledge and strengthen the role and commitment of youth work at local, national and European level to HRE. This also calls for self-evaluation and looking into our own practice and potential as NAs for Erasmus+: Youth In Action and European Solidarity Corps programmes now and in the future."

✓ 3rd European YW Convention / European YW Agenda, DE „The 3rd European Youth Work Convention is planned to be the Kick Off of further processes for the implementation of the European Youth Work Agenda. Crucial element is the National Delegations of EU and CoE member countries. In order to prepare National Delegations for the Convention and its follow Up we will need the support of National Agencies in 2020.“

10

DAY 2 – 9 October 2019

Network News – part 2 ✓ Youth Participation Strategy in making, SALTO PI

"SALTO Participation & Information has gathered an Expert Group which is developing a strategy for enhancing Youth Participation through Erasmus and European Solidarity Corps programmes."

✓ A new Strategy Partnership about Sport for 2021-2024, FR "French National Agency wants to create a Strategic Partnership on Sport, during the period 2021-2024. Why Sport? - NA will handle a new action: the mobility of coaches; A new group to include in our actions. Why French NA? NA already hosting a National contact point Erasmus+ Sport. France will host major upcoming sport events (2023 Rugby World Cup, Paris 2024 Olympic Games), and national political will is to make the 2024 Olympic Games the European ones“

✓ Coordinating the development of YE trainings, FI Coordination of the future development project on youth exchange training activities including a seminar with trainers from the existing YE trainings. Work started based on the feedback from colleagues at TCA/NET meeting, survey coming to NAs on experiences and needs on trainings. In this coordination group FI, NO, NL, BEfr, PT, IE, SALTO T&C, SALTO Incl. Aim to renew the existing modules so that they better serve the needs of the youth field and the NAs – and that as a result these quality and easy to host trainings would be in the work plans of each NA= shared responsibility.“

✓ Development of critical youth citizenship – next steps, DE „JUGEND für Europa has engaged since 2017 on the issue of the political dimension in youth work, particularly in the framework of European youth programs. We invite you to take now with us the next steps to support the development of critical youth citizenship : A Stakeholders Meeting in January 2020 and a Conference in June 2020, to which both we would like to invite you.“

Future Erasmus+ COM input: Where are we now? Marta Gutierrez Benet, European Commission - Cocreation is advancing

o Programme Guide 2021 started: accessibility and structure thought about, „fiches“ already in 06/2019

o Working parallel on funding rules - Stakeholders event Jan 2020

o PAX: NAs, org from the field, umbrella organisations, researchers o NAs will select the pax o Programme: 1,5 day for activities about novelties of the programme o Not a brainstorm meeting

- Transversal topics of the programme (sustainability, digitality, inclusion etc) o Experts of fields will be / are met o Travelling: exceptional costs for travel are tested already next year

- Community building and participation o Not so structured yet

- Accreditations o HE, VET and ESC: some experiences already, and SE, VET, AE worked on modular, advanced in

the criteria o Two main principles

▪ budget increase ▪ simplify access

11

Comments and further questions:

- DiscoverEU o Jan 2020 stakehoder meeting and consultative meeting will address o The struggle how to transform from pilot action to E+ programme to a real feature.

- Three aspects: o Actions, money and administration of growing programme, let’s not forget the administration! o Applications form need to be simplified and developed control functions are needed. o IT-tools!

- Need to inform the experts and evaluators. Commission working on it at the moment.

Reactions to the COM input AND open questions

- Process and timing o To clarify what is happening and when: an updated roadmap for the transition into the

programme : expected timing of the whole process including budget and indicating times for delivering information etc.

o There is a need to start promoting SOON, i.e. need to know before summer, what the new programme will look like

o Management of the Transition period: How to deal with "Mandates" in K1. We would Need to start to work on Mandates already in fall 2020 to have a smooth start.

o Place to talk about this: working groups working on models to propose o Training staff and development -> coming cross sectoral staff training provided by COM

- IT-tools o IT-tools are the elefant in the room, the NAs expressed their real worry; o No more 18 passwords to access the Programme/s but development of one joint tool o URF: Concerns - recent changes in the platform

- ESC and ERASMUS+ o ESC and Erasmus+ synergies. When discussing the topics in E+ do it in parallel in ESC so that

terminology, contracts, funding rules and other details are aligned and not confusing the beneficiaries (accreditation vs QL) – to find commonalities and common guidelines including in the area of Alumi and Community Building

o Synergies between our programmes and the Social Funds - what is expected from NAs? o Participatory activities/solidarity projects. What is the difference between these two activites -

what is the package of participatory projects o Transition of accreditations to QL, renewing of QL o Place to talk about this: Head of NAs meeting

- DiscoverEU o The role of NAs and the linkage with the other parts of the programme o Discover EU - still many question marks... o What will be the role of NA's? esp. when it comes to inclusion o Place to talk about this: Stakeholder event Jan 2020

- Budget o NAs need Info on the management fee. Is is it going down in the beginning (from 3,4% to 3,2)?

Getting new actions which will include small projects, from small organisations/groups, necessitating much more efforts from NAs

o Budget distribution over the 7 year period, throughout the programmes needed o Project rates per country within Key Actions: Definitely some country rates need revision and

are too low for project beneficiaries at the moment. Depending on how the new budget would look like, this should also be taken into consideration.

Place to discuss about these questions:

- Stakeholder event, YouthLab, Consultative working groups - NA meeting for Heads of NAs in November 2019: one day about youth related questions.

12

Accreditation charter model Mika Saarinen from Finnish NA briefed the youth sector NAs about the experiences on the accreditation / charter model from the education and training sectors of the programme. There are many names for the same idea: charter, accreditations, certification, etc., therefore one should look at the concept not the names used. - Higher education: basic data of the institutions and them signing for certain quality criteria, which is the

ticket for funding, light monitoring that the charter is followed; funding based on the performance, on numbers of mobilities

- VET sector: in the Lifelong Learning Programme VET looked at HE model, when developing the certification, i.e. to ensure certain level of funding, but it then was project-based, whereas nowadays institution-based accreditation on charter with annual grant requests (budget part only on number of mobilities)

- VET-sector: variations in Europe, in some countries around 70% of KA1 are funded via charter model o predictability for the organisations o enables long-term planning o gives time for development o more time to focus on quality of implementation, not on applying, e.g. HE and VET in FI NA

increase accreditations and help in capacity-building of organisations. - Requires new skills from NA staff, more consultant type work as time spent on monitoring and follow-up

helping in quality development. - VET accreditation now taking into account previous experience, i.e. at least 3 good quality past projects, i.e.

consumption rate 80% with good quality. In assessment relevance weighs 30%, internationalisation strategy and future outlooks 40%, how organised (resources, quality management) weighs 30%.

- VET sector would like to continue like it is at the moment, but it will not be like this in the next programme. Future may be like HE charter, i.e. signing on quality criteria (focus) and lighter approach than VET now. The aim is to make it more accessible for new-comers and smaller organisations. Easier access and inclusiveness in particular with regard to adult education and school education. Finnish youth sector could easily apply this.

- To note that the system requires changes on the way the NA is working, but also closer to the field, dialogue with organisations and beneficiaries. Dialogue with non-performants: to develop; to withdraw accreditation; to reduce annual funding.

- VET moving to more accreditations in all countries. SE – small organisations, but accreditation system still very relevant.

Comments and questions to Mika:

- Simplification vs quality. How to you monitor the need of for example training for the staff if the accreditation is for 7 years. -> Answer: Need of midterm evaluation. Developmental plans and strategies from the organisations. Life spans of strategies are only 2-3 year so the relationship between NA and organisations must be vivid.

- Internationalisation strategies. What is the NA approach and role in getting the internationalisation strategies done? -> Answer: capacity building and training events for organisations to enhance capacity building. Progress has been like: first teachers, then teams and departments working for the internationality in the organisation. Some members of NA staff are competent in developing internationalisation strategies.

- Dialogue with the organisations. How does it happen? -> Answer: each accredited organisation will be contacted yearly: 1) The ones performing not so well: NA will visit and do system checks; 2) Middle performers (doing ok but need for ideas): Support for developing; 3) High performers: „master classes“ – sharing ideas when bringing all accredited organisations together, produce materials to create internal pressure to develop, annual “internationalisation days”. Telephone monitoring used also.

Advice by Mika: Forecast the demand for the charter model, to start low 20-30% in the beginning, and always budget for new-comers. Manage expectations, i.e. not to increase budgets hugely but rather message that „if you cope ok, you can keep the level of funding, not receiving automatically more“ - and if

13

more funds, distribute equally. Risk management is important, in principle not to say „no“, but give little funds to start, to try out then increase. Other comments: - What is the Youth specific approach in the model? Now it is just the same for all sectors. - Have to be discussed is it compulsory to have this label / charter ? - Would like to have to model ready on the beginning of the new programme, but this would require

sufficient budgets from the start, not only an increase after few years.

Further Reactions to the Accreditation Charter Model

Below are listed all reactions in order to valorise the sometimes-opposing opinions and to highlight concerns.

What is your feedback? Immediate reaction? o Good idea but needs a lot of investment, a lot of "convincing work" to be done with organisations. o Great! Wow! Sounds good! o Boost of energy :) What Mika mentioned, moving from administrative staff of NA to advisers in

development. Love this :) o We understand the need, though we are not crazy about it. It is one possibility to handle the increased

budget. o For stable organisations good opportunities. Youth is not such a stable sector when it comes to staff. o Pressure to have the charter will be big o For Youth Exchanges yes. For YWM: more difficult; needs differ over years; working together with

different partners; how are they internalising the knowledge into their organisation. How can sector benefit. needs and realities are changing. maybe for smaller part with good strategic plan. For Youth Participation: more difficult: not based on mobilities. strategies change over time. Might be possible for recurrent activities e.g. a well working strategy to motivate young people to become active.

o Positive overall. Practical in the context of increased funds etc. Realities are different in each country so its good but needs to be flexible for NA's. There are some Youth Orgs already in the programme who are already very active in this way, and this is a good opportunity for them to be more strategic

o Even for a limited number of organisations, it's worth trying it o Most NAs will have to work with two types of beneficiaries. Those who have the charter and those you

haven´t. Two different approaches. Is this really simplification? o Evaluation of the framework partnerships in ESC. This would give us some idea o Concerns about professionalisation of the YE organisations o Organisational Impact. We remember Helmut in Vienna speaking about the impact of the programme

on individuals and not orgs - this is a way to address this o Newcomers. Where is the space for them in this model? o Needs analysis. Are youngsters still in the centre focus?

What are the reasons for it? Advantages? Opportunities? Challenges? o Possibility to eliminate fake application factories o Possibility to develop a long term strategy for bigger and reoccuring beneficiaries o Simplifcation of application process o Focus in following and the support of the organisation o Youth organisations are often not as stable/permanent as educational ones. o Do all the Partners involved in a Youth Exchange need to have the charter? o Develop organisations capacity. Supports organisations to integrate E+ onto their own organisational

Strategies increasing their capacity to establish a youth work agenda. This is a place to see impact of the EU Youth Strategy.

o Supporting quality in KA1 projects: Quality standards in preparation, mobility and evaluation through QL are more efficiently communicated to the higher/VET/youth sector, then in project based approach

o Period of accreditation. For some national realities, the period would be shorter than up to 7 years, probably 3-4 years is more inline with capacity of the youth sector

14

o Challenges: Lack of capacity - projects management of opportunities like this - needs sufficient financial resources for the project - staffing etc (also needs resources for the NA to develop the capacity)

o Challenge in ensuring project-based/ participatory approach. there is a risk to turn the focus from youth led projects (e.g. youth exchanges) involving all stages of planning, monitoring, evaluating etc. to just mobilities

o You can better follow, support and monitor the development of organisations. o Automatic calculation vs qualitative assessment of annual grant distribution. Budget handling. o High turnover of staff o What role is required for NAs, what skills are needed? Shall we outsource the work to experts? o Competence and professional development of youth workers o Concrete measures for following up the quality of work and development of accredited orgs o Opportunities for orgs to be strategic

How the model should be in order to be implemented? o Budget in KA1: there should be a flexible division

ie. in the WP and in the implementation, so not strictly set in stone once published o Split budget 1. accredited organisation 2. newcomers, smaller organisations, informal groups, grassroot

organisations o Good monitoring tools are needed. to supervise budget consumption and to compare application vs

implementation o Possibilities to redistribute budget if not used to other organisations o We need models of limitations for organisations o Charter holders should not be able to apply to non-charter projects o Length of project period. should be flexible and easily prolonged o Strategy should describe their strategy for all sub-actions of KA1 (youth exchanges, ywm, discover EU) in

order for the NA to be able to plan ahead o There must be clear rules who gets accredited and who does not get the accreditation o Possibilies for organisations to readjust their plan and the possibility for NAs to reassess o One deadline a year to apply for the accreditation o NAs need to have clear protocols to be able to manage

▪ who can enter ▪ to measure performance ▪ and to have 'teeth' to be able to manage organisations out of the charter and guide them

to the right access point in the programme o Risk Mitigation to maintain the space and flexibility that reflects the dynamic nature of youth work - fast

change o Budget: NAs need to be equipped for managing the budgets over a series of years. o Clear level of reporting before they sign in / The whole cycle has to be clear before launching the call for

charter o Possibility to interview the applicant o Good IT management system. In order to support beneficiaries not to make mistakes, e.g include a

partner that is invalid o Flexibility of transfer of unused funds for the NAs from one year to another o Double funding system should work! o Long term Impact: Assessment should be based more on values and capacity building for the young

people. Why is it good to young people? o Automatic distibution mechanism, when there is more request than budget available, is dangerous

What should be the criteria for an organisation to be qualified to get the charter? o Organisations should act as multiplier: able to support organisations that are not experienced (and

inlude them in their partnership). o Quality of internationalisation strategy o Past performance checked by internal expert from the NA. Track record of past projects, budget

consumption, project management capacity (were past reports handed in on time,...)

15

o Depending on the budget limitations organisations should indicate if they cooperate with programme or partner countries

o Experience; track record: Some objective criteria; number of projects or number of years. o Quality. Strategies (including relevance to e.g. youth work; person->organisation->sector); plans;

organisational set-up; comprehension of youth participation; experience of non-formal learning. Concept (different important dimensions of a project).

o Access to accreditations should be open in all deadline rounds - but with NA flexibility to open call or not as needed

o Knowledge transfer within the organisation o no need to indicate partners at this stage / important to mention partners at accreditation level o Need to give qualtiative indications, where an organisation wants to go with its projects in the long-run.

We should not give up expecting from beneficiaries qualitative perspectives and description at accreditation level in order to be able to be with them in dialogue during the contractual period

o Rooted in youth work

The outcomes of the consultative meeting about cooperation with Partner countries 2021-2027. Invitation to agree on the conclusions. Janez Skulj, Slovenian NA presented the results of the work of the consultative meeting. See Annex_04_“NPC co-operation presentation for BM.pptx ROAD TO THE DISCUSSION AT BM HELSINKI

- October 2018; BM Vienna; decision to organise a Consultative meeting on cooperation with partner countries and expression of interests for members of preparatory group

- June 2019: Preparatory meeting Paris by regional SALTOs, COM and NAs of DE, FI, MK, FR - September 2019; Consultative meeting, Ljubljana (AT, CZ, DE, EE, FR, LT, MK, NO, PL, SI, FI, SK, and 3

regional SALTOs) Identified challenges: 1. Programmes

- Stagnation of cooperation with Partner countries throughout Erasmus+ [in terms of quantity (KA1): decrease in mobility of youth workers; YE stable; volunteering/ESC difficult, diverse picture]

- Limited participation of partners from NPC in projects with NPC (most participants come from and most projects are implemented in Programme countries)

- Difficult to involve new organisations from PC into the programmes, due to: o fragmented opportunities offered by Erasmus+: YiA and ESC (different possibilities for

participation according to KA or Windows, lack of coherent aims or objectives) o perceived lack of interest in cooperation by NAs/organisations in Programme countries o limited possibilities to apply for and coordinate projects o lack of ownership o Consequence: decreasing motivation to use E+/ESC in NPC

Identified challenges: 2. support AND Communication - Need to revive communication between regional SALTOs, National Agencies and COM about the

cooperation with NPC (what works well, what are the challenges, how to move forward) - Address programme-related challenges - Support partner-finding and other activities involving NPC (TCA) - Discuss needs of NAs and SALTOs in this field and how they can be addressed jointly and strategically

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

- Need to establish a clear framework for cooperation with NPC, defined by specific aims and objectives and – if possible – also priorities;

- Need for a specific budgetary envelope within future Erasmus programme, but with enough flexibility to respond to National Agencies’ specific situations and concerns. As far as the European Solidarity

16

Corps is concerned, the present general openness to all participating and partner countries should be kept;

- Need for projects with neighbouring partner countries to have a specific identity and clear relevance (also) for the partner regions. (Question of specific partnerships and/or topics)

- Need to establish a limited number, but specific success indicators, both quantitative (i.e. based on data from E+ Link) as well as qualitative (i.e. based on final reports and/or RAY research).

- Cooperation and Small Scale Partnerships should be unconditionally open for neighbouring partner countries.

- TCA/NET activities focusing on cooperation with neighbouring partner countries should be encouraged and follow a longer-term, strategic perspective allowing to reach in-depth results and to sustain outcomes.

- The regional Youth Windows should be kept to offer regular Erasmus: Youth Actions at the centralised level, in order to enable beneficiaries from neighbouring partner countries to take ownership by applying directly for and coordinating projects.

- Decentralisation of funds made available under the Windows and project management should be considered.

- Develop strategic communication and support mechanisms: o Establish regular consultative meetings focusing on cooperation with NPC involving the European

Commission, National Agencies and SALTOs. These meetings should have the purpose to review and monitor and develop a strategic approach for this part of the programmes.

o Periodically, involve a wider circle of stakeholders into the consultation process. o Implement guidelines from this process at different levels (SALTO workplans, TCA, KMST etc.) o Need for a clear mandate of the regional SALTOs to ensure efficient implementation.

- Request to the European Commission to provide opportunities for communication in the broader institutional framework (of co-operation and relations with NPC) in order to share information, build connections and create synergies, best in regional settings (as they are specific to each neighbouring partner region).

Comments and questions:

In the discussion that followed was noted that - the nature of the document was of more policitcal than operational nature, but that preferably each

NA should have one or more staff members responsible contact persons for Partner country coop; - the Partner country cooperation should be important for the entire NA network, not only for few NAs; - indicators ought to be further developed / revised in the future (document concentrates on more

quantitative indicators, and highlights the recommendation for balanced participation) - Budget: The budget limitations are experienced artificial, as there might be 2/40 pax from partner

countries, and it is nevertheless partner country project. The 25 % limit is self-given and wrong and makes the funding of the KA1 complicated. -> There is a need to have common objectives for partner country co-operations, and to get rid of the limitations of this nature. Preferably specific objectives by region, and if the project is not related with these objectives of the region, it would not be a “partner country project” and wouldn’t eat the partner country budget.

- Whether to have limitations or not was discussed with a recommendation for no budget limits. - Programme Management working group should take a stand about the partner country co-operation. - COM commented that all instruments in one basket together (MFF), still under negotiations and

current regulations allow receipt of additional funds. Need the reflect what is the need and role of partner country co-operation. This horizontal theme will be more discussed on the stakeholder event in January 2020. To note that the area is „bracketed“ in MFF negotiations.

Conclusions: The NPC recommendations will be finalised by SI NA. The final document will include as annex the analysis done by the three regional SALTOs.

17

FNAPS: Future National Activities Planners - Synthesis of Member States contributions -Extract for Youth BM Oct 2019 Jadranka Vukovic Johnsson, European Commission See Annex_05_FNAPS results for Youth BM meeting Oct 2019.pptx Jadranka presented the synthesis of the first FNAPs round in which 21 Member States participated – this was voluntary exercise. The same slides were presented at the director generals meeting a day before. From the Youth Goals, participation was on top followed by inclusive societies. COM has (on 9.10.) invited the M.S. to indicate the research and peer-learning activities they should prioritise. As one of the combined instruments to be used is TCA, the main TCAs proposed for 2020-2021 are related as follows: *In general: Exchange of views on youth strategies on different levels. *Engage - EU youth dialogue and national working groups *Connect - Validation and recognition of skills and competences gained through non-formal and informal learning *Empower - Outreach and supporting youth work in rural and socially excluded areas, Youth work development, youth worker training & professionalization standards The topic on will be more thoroughly addressed in the next Business Meeting(s) to come.

Strategic partnerships Koen Lambert, Belgium Flanders “What makes a Strategic Partnership a Strategic Partnership?” by the Co-Group of the network of NAs Koen recalled shortly the principles that the NA network had agreed on for the NA Strategic Partnerships when the three start-ups: Europe Goes Local, Inclusion and Employability were agreed at the Riga Business Meeting in 2015. Later, the three projects from the KA3 Call were added to these NA SPIs. The text on the principles is copied here: ‘Strategic Partnerships’ between NAs for 2016 and beyond concern a certain scale of cooperation that distinguishes the project or the initiative from any other [TCA or other type of] activity. This means that a Strategic Partnership between NAs includes the following criteria:

- Be strategic for the network of NAs, for the programme and beyond; - Be a long-term project / initiative (at least 2-3 years); - Something that has a clear goal but cannot be achieved alone; - Be relevant for both national and European levels; - Contribute to realising the three 3 roles of NAs (contribute to youth policy developments, support youth

work, implement the E+:YiA programme); - Have a clear identified or expected impact (beyond stating only the expected outcomes); - Be a set of different activities, and/or; - Involve different actors / sectors and go beyond the NAs, and/or; - Be innovative in a given context, and/or; - Something that can be shared (at least) and transferable.

Please note that the above might very possibly fit in the TCA planning process, but does not have to; it can go beyond / concern projects that do not match the TCA requirements, formats, etc.

18

NA strategic cooperation: lessons learnt Miguel Ángel García López See Overall monitoring report_final.pdf, 56 pages (available in Voog) See Annex_06_Monitoring Presentation.pptx Miguel presented the findings of the monitoring of the NA Strategic Cooperation projects, which included all except the one on Employability. He underlined that this exercise was not evaluation of the projects, but having a look on the NAs´ cooperation, and what could be learnt for the continuation of the projects or for possible new projects.

Comments and questions:

- Some NAs have not been part in any of them - Did you notice any differences between KA3 Strategic partnership and SPIs?

• Ownership in SPIs were stronger, KA3 were more predetermined. • Main difference between KA3 and SPIs: KA3 was less administrative • KA3 is more structured and additional TCA funding could be used parallel for the same goal

- Did you see differences in the dynamics considering how many active partners were in the projects? - Could the network do more together? Yes, the added value is obvious - Those years were learning process for all of us. Added values also: European charter of local youth work,

common understanding about human rights and increased competences of our staff

Reactions to the NA Strategic Partnerships

Round 1: What was the added value of these partnerships? What did they bring to our role as NAs? How can the whole Network profit from their outcomes?

o Closer cooperation of some NAs on some important issues. Sharing experience, exchanging good practice, raising awarness (eg. inclusion).

o EGL: Long-term involvement of municipalities; lead to partnerships and internationalisation. They have embedded in their work. Without strategic partnership we would not have linked the local level to the European level so quick.

o Good tool to support policy making/development at national level o More flexibility, capacity to share responsibilies and adapt the project to different realities o Sharing the experience with other NAs o Difficult for small NAs to contribute, but they / we could gain a lot out of the partnership framework o probably to consider to develop different levels of involvement for smaller / bigger NAs or with more

or less resources o Good experience due to involvement of municipalities and other factors from Europe and we saw the

differences between the countries o How much you make out of it as a partner also depends on how much you invest into it o New partnerships inside the national realities were developed that wouldn't have been possible

without the project o The size of the partnership and the number of actively involved NAs allow for more flexibility o Tools have been developed that can be made available more easily in the longer run o Opportunity to work with new target groups o Also KA 3 funds (and not only TCA) have been very helpful for implementing those projects as NAs.

This should be kept in mind for the future Programmes o Political/institutional recognition o For the NAs willing to join a future project, a list of do and don't would be useful o Don't diminish the added value at national level. EGL gave us access to a youth work management

level that has significant impact on our delivery of the programme to a diverse youth sector o Added value/ to share a common frame and have the possibility to adapt it at national level

19

Round 2: How do we see the concept of ‘NA strategic partnership’ now? What were the main challenges? What should we do differently next time?

o Not just learning on the job but better project management from the start o NAs: identify the needs of the NA; what do we need to get out. Needs to be based on the strategic

objectives. In addition, allocate resources. o More follow up meetings o Knowledge transfer for staff not involved o Find a new name for the concept. It creates confusion for the beneficiaries mixing it with the KA2 SPs o Challenges concerning the use of project results (they should be more tangible and allow for

multiplying effect ). Also challenges in communication on operational and management issues (budget lines, budget distribution, Cooperation Agreements between NAs). There should a strong mandate of the coordinating NA and clear tasks' division.

o We need to focus more on the sharing and transfer of results so that those NAs, which aren't involved in the SPIs, are able to make use of the results and those things, which are developed

o Human and expert capacity. Challenge to have availability and expertise of staff o Increase the budget o Important and challenging to start with concrete objectives o Good approach - to be continued o Models & Tools. SPI Labs and Project management - develop / extract a project management model

fo these projects

o A project is a project. A project is also a process. so let's look for the mixed approach between having a fixed project and an ongoing flexible process.

o Is there a difference between an SPI project and a network and a series of events? Definition / discription of SPIs needs to be looked at again before starting new SPIs

o Human resources: Bringing someone as part time in order to release the pressure on the NA HR o Special agreements within TCA to run on these bigger projects with flexibility and running over

different years

o Less overlapping of themes/topics between SPIs - more coordinated activities in NAs planning. o Reasonable number of projects. 6 simultaneously were too many! <- Comment: n.b. not necessary

to be involved in all!. o Long-term perspective is good, but it also makes it difficult to keep the things together during the

process

o To allocate staff ressources / hiring extra people is very often needed o Geographical balance of big and small NAs to have a wider perspective and more realistic results. o Minimum level of engagement of NAs in the SPIs is crucial

Round 3: How should we initiate the process in the future, within the new programme? How to identify emerging topics?

o We should inform all NAs but also outside the network about the outcomes of the existing and talk about how to make use of the results as early as possible

o NA should have a strategy-> strategic topics. Collected somehow and group them. o Start as soon as possible; link SPI projects with a long-term TCA strategy of NA and in line with the

programme priorities + consult topics within the network to avoid overlap; make sure all interested NAs are involved in the SPI from the beginning (regardless of the structural changes/higher management changes within NAs)

o A possible topic could be exchange of practices on fighting fraud and setting rules for that within management, role of the NAs in the process

o Start in 2020, asap - during the BM in Germany, if possible start discussions in Zagreb BM o Build a new process for setting priority at BM but this time Take into account Bottom Up Approach

- gather the needs of staff and stakeholder / process linking BM - maybe Youth Lab and Action officer events / stakeholder activities at national level etc. to establish the next set of priorities for *Partnerships *Co-operation Activities *Network actions etc

20

o Look into the FNAPs and other (political / societal) developments is necessary to identify future SPIs and pick up already existing ideas

o Take into account opinions outside of the network about the existing SPIs o We need to identify the priority themes of the network for the next years as we did in RIga o Results should go back to thematic SALTO and made into a package that can be useful for all NAs o There are a lot of things happening, also longterm, in close cooperation with NAs, in a common

process. what is a SPI? Again, we should define it before starting new ones o Should be done in Croatia

o BM in Croatia is the moment to start thinking about existing and new SPIs for the future programmes o Looking into the roles of NAs (three roles as mentioned right now): are they still the same? should we

change them? link this to the strategic plans of the NAs and develop cooperation clusters based on set priorities.

o Ensure we take into account ESC dimension and practice in any future actions

21

DAY 3 – 10 October 2019

Network news – part 3 ✓ Communication+, FI

„Communication development is on-going with the help of an external expert. The aim is to clarify and unify as well as to ensure better planning and more targeted approach so that various activities and actions get what they need.„

✓ SALTOs´ network meeting in Tallinn 9.-11.9.2019, SALTO PI Developing a shared understanding about the role of the Resource Centers by analyzing the mandates and current developments. / Exploring connections and synergies between the Resource Centers when it comes to the EU Youth Strategy Implementation. / Developing common cooperation activities between the Resource Centers in their work plans 2020.“

✓ NA staff meeting KA1 YWM 9.-12.12.2019 Bonn, DE „Please register or ask colleagues to register. Main objectives/elements: Explore and work on a common understanding of quality in MYW projects; How to motivate and support new applicants; Offering ‘space’ for exchanging relevant topics and share good practises; Sharing and exchange of good practice and challenges; Building a stronger network; Develop common understanding of Mobility of Youth Workers; Reflection and input for the current and the post 2020 programme”

✓ EU YOUTH Dialogue National Working Group Meeting April 2020, RO “The transfer of the Structured Dialogue to the EU Youth Dialogue came with more than a change of name. In the Bucharest Business Meeting, it was clearly stated the NAs should play an important role in supporting this process, although more clarity is often needed. Also, each TRIO cycle of the EU Youth Dialogue comes with its own challenges that need to be discussed and approached by all its stakeholders: National Working Groups, National Youth Ministries and Authorities, European Commission, European Youth Forum, National Agencies etc. This meeting aims to focus on developing the right skills and understanding for the NWG in their work with the EU Youth Dialogue, but also a good chance to put all these actors together. The meeting is foreseen in April with a prep meeting that we would propose to have it in January (beginning or mid of the month). Around 120 members of the NWG, EYF, EC, NAUs, NAs”

European Solidarity Corps – updates from the Resource Centre Gerhard Mosshammer, Austrian NA presented the state of play of the resource centre, and Melanie Jacobs, Resource Centre answered online questions that followed. See Annex_07_PPP_RC_update_oct2019_activities of RC.pptx

Comments and questions:

- T-Kit and the definition of solidarity. Answer: Concept from the study. Approach will be more like what are the elements of Solidarity on the youth field. These elements you can work on the projects. Solidarity is like glasses you can put on and look the world through the glasses.

- Do you have plans for Job and Traineeships? Answer: We have strong focus on J&Ts. Several on-going NET-activities and co-work with municipalities. Advice groups and organisations beyond the volunteering field. Quaility booster hosted in Finland and colleague support group. The goal is to reach out to more organisations.

22

Solidarity Research outcomes Snežana Bačlija Knoch via Skype See Annex_08_Solidarity Research outcomes.pdf Snezana presented online the pre-final version of the study “4Thought on Solidarity” referring to a non-research, based on interviews from four angles: young people, youth workers, researchers and policy-makers. The aim was not to have one definition but may be common ground for solidarity to support what is needed in the future to boast the programme and the idea beyond it.

Comments and questions:

- What is distinction between ESC and EVS in E+ -> what is the coherence when you say that there has to be a shift from individual learning to community aspects? They should be together and add AND in between. Answer: In EVS the communal aspect slowly disappeared. The learning is there, as it should be and there should be AND in between community aspect and individual learning.

- Issue of youth work. Does solidarity tackle also other fields: Is the solidarity in the right place when it is on the field of youth work? The young people is a natural context but how about the youth work? Answer: Youth Workers are very much more excited about solidarity than the other emphasis of the programmes before. People understand the need of it and the resistance is mostly gone. How to implement it on the daily youth work, I don’t’ know.

Open space on European Solidarity Corps – implementation

Accreditation of parents/children organisations... - MT: It hasn't happened yet, but we are working on it. one difficulty is to find/show the necessary

link. For example Maltese council for voluntary service is coordinating many small organisations who do not have the capacity to work alone with the programme - but there is no formal link.

- SE: Very few parent/children accreditations. Would like to promote it especially to municipalities, but need to work on promotion and channels.

- BEFL: We have some. Somtimes a confusion with location (is it really a separate legal entity?) Often the "image" in the PG is helping, but not always. Sometimes we have to make decisions without being sure. We are "selling" the idea as being easier with one application and the increased flexibility within that contract. Mainly organisations, not municipalities

- PL: We have no parent/children accreditations. One challenge is that sometimes the parental organisation is willing to do the administrative tasks, but not the qualitative responsibilities.

- NL: We are not working with umbrella organisations and don't know if we want to. It might be interesting for youth work in general - we will look in to it.

- SK: 8 regions and each has a regional voluntary center (NGOs). They then have voluntary centers. We have accredited several of the regional centers with "children". But a challenge is that the "parent" organisation is not always qualitatively ready. ➢ Advantages: One contract at application stage. More flexibility during projects. Easier to arrange

housing etc if there are several volunteers ➢ What is needed: A clear and convincing narrative. Training modules and material in order for the

parents to provide trainings for the children. ➢ Clarify qualitative and administrative responsibilities.

SoliDARE (Solidarity Bootcamp) - name under discussion

- Context o Participants: AT (Gerhard), HU (Xenia), LU (Nadine), IT (Serena), RO (Andrei) and SI (Janez), and

Romina from the ESC RC via the phone which offered the context.

23

o The idea is to build up a community dedicated to the ESC stakeholders focusing on the organizations involved in projects. The community will have to main activities (at least at the beginning): - a online platform (build inside OTLAS) - regular meetings (such as this event - the name is still under discussion)

- The event o First edition is foreseen in Oct 2020 and will be hosted by the Romanian NA. The prep team will be

led by the ESC RC and interested NAs are invited to join (IT and HU expressed their interest to be part). On the planning board interest to participate was already showed by CY, LT, PL, SI and SK.

o Main directions: - to offer space for networking and future partnerships - to build a sense of belonging among the organisations, NAs and stakeholders

o Administrative issues: - 3 full working days, appr. 120 participants - budget estimate 50 000€+ (mainly suppored by RO NA- contributions more than welcome) + COM offered support

o Activities: - main focus on networking, sharing good practices and perspectives on solidarity concept - open space on needs, challenges and solutions - partnership building aspect will be developed on a later stage in a future edition so we can focus on networking - an added value to create synergies among the national annual meetings and this event as well as the process of building up community at European level.

In-country volunteering

- Open issues o how to make sure that jobs & T is not seen as national activity by organisations o how to identify inclusion in solidarity in-country projects o unclear framework (discrepancy between regulation and NA Guide) on full-time jobs o organisations do not see jobs like volunteering projects and do not provide support to

beneficiaries o insurance for in-country projects is not covered by the programme and it should be at least for

those participants who do not have any other form of insurance o there is no European status for volunteers - there is a strong need for this, it should be tackled in

the expert group and by the resource centre and signaled to decision-makers - Identified needs

o there in a need for contact making seminar through NET for organisations who can have international jobs

o there is a need for greater flexibility in transferring unspent funds o there is a need to explore synergies with other programmes - ESF, EURES esp. for financing cost of

salaries o COM should organise thematic meeting for the youth sector on synergies with ESF, EURES and DG

EAC should communicate more with DG EMPL on this - Expectations from the Resource Centre

o to do mapping and exchange of practices and then produce some guidelines o to do mapping on which countries cannot have traineeships due to national legislation o to organise NA staff training or develop guidelines on how to explore and explain the concept of

European values in in-country projects and activities to beneficiaries - Current situation

o not all countries have or promote in-country activities o number of projects is going up o there is still small number of projects for jobs o some countries have national volunteering schemes.

24

Jobs and Traineeships

o Different options in one organisation. Difference between volunteering and traineeships: recognition & certificate in a certain topic. Some organisations have volunteering and jobs.

o Contact with job providers? Some NAs consider this? Poland is considering. Slovenia is interested to learn experiences.

o Contact with municipalities? If municipality has quality label all organisations linked to them do not need quality label. Idea: town twinning? SK: train social labour officers to be kind of multipliers

o Guidelines on Traineeships. Should we have something as a network on traineeships? Something for the RC? IE: used European Quality Framework for Traineeship (minimum).

o Asked volunteers about future plans o Quality Labels. Should we ask all volunteering organisations to ask for QL? Or do you want small number

of organisations that receive funds every year? SLO: informed all Volunteering organsations if that is future opportunity for them.

o Timing. If you want to offer a job, you want to offer it now and not wait for quality label and application to be approved

o My first EURES JOB has better conditions; o How to guide organisations on traineeships: no legislations; e.g. salaries. o Synergies. SE: National social security agency & national coordinating body for municipalities: Social

Fund application for number of mobilities (NEETS); traineeships in other countries. Structures that will send in applications for young people that cannot participate through social fund.

o Projects from: public employment service (LU); EVS organisations; new NGO (PO); EVS Organisation (NL); In-country in E+ organisations and targeting environmental organisations; free legal advice organisations (IE); School and targeting organisations working with young people with special needs; one submitted (LI); NGOs with experience in E+ (BG); NGO E+ and 4 applications dont know yet (RO); NGO E+ (HU); in-country & cross-border NGOs E+ (SI); social entrepreneurs & use co-funding e.g. Social Fund for NEET Young People for in-country (LV); NGO E+ societal issues and inclusion in country and cross border & looking for connections with Social Funds (CZ); NGO E+ ; difficult to promote; Public Employement service did not want to support; My first EURES Job has better conditions (SE); Government office of Roma communities (in-country and cross-border) and NGO E+ (SK); NGO E+ focussed after on bigger organisations; 2 applications of 60.000 euro. in-country could be interested for inclusion target group EVS organisations that worked with this target group on in-country jobs placement support and second one is NGO Jobs; you can look for NGO jobs. this organisation checks the vacancies on the website whether it could be a ESC job/traineeships (AT)

Countries not in ESC

- Participants: Silja (CH), Virginie (LI), Milena (Serbia), Mathieu (Euromed) - Context CH: Swiss Programm for Erasmus+ -> Continuation of EVS, receiving and sending volunteers

through Swiss funds - Context partner countries: Quality Label for local organisations through respective regional SALTO,

application through program country, training through hosting program country. Predeparture training through respective SALTO?

- Challenge LI, Serbia: Gap after EVS. Challenge CH: Sending - CH sending to FR, Euromed; LI appreciates CH pax and sends description of hosting orgs (training in AT)

ESC and inclusion

- Mental health: Mental health is becoming a more explicit topic for young people - NEET strand in the SPI: to further explore this funding through exceptional costs - young people with disabilities:

o labeled org working with these youngsters o exploring the idea: pay salaries from ESF and complement with ESC J&T

- EE J&T VET school piloting: o school drop-outs highest in vocational school, school to stretch their tole o Obstacle: traineeship cannot be part of formal curricula, if they do explore it they get credits

25

Strategic partnership on mentoring and coaching

Due to limited no of participants (HU (Xenia), RO (Andrei) + Darko) we mainly shared practices from our NAs and experience rather than discusséd on an SPI.

- Idea came from the ESC Vienna meeting in June when there were identified three different Strategic Partnerships approved in 3 different NAs (RO, SK and BEFL or NL not remember exactly)

- HU Organize trainers for mentors in parallel with MidTerm Evaluation to match. Some Skype events are done after the training by the trainers offering individual support for the participants.

- RO Developed a MC2B - a TC for Mentors and Coaches in approved project. Similar TCs were organized in Youth In Action. The lack of these type of support event led that in E+ the role and the activities were received in a very different manner.

- Next year there is foreseen in March a networking event aiming to put together beneficiaries with project approved around mentorship but also organizations and NAs that developed tools to share them and build a base for further development.

- The role of the mentorship and coaching may change now (focus on the community as well). In business sector the roles are reversed.

Conclusions: While there were present only two NA the focus on sharing experiences, but a SPI should be father investigated in the future if it may be needed in order to have more impact and a better use o resources in order not to engage in similar processes in parallel.

Reaching new volunteering fields

- The group explored some fields that can be involved in ESC and found some pros and cons - there is a potential in schools and kindergartens (but focus should be on free time/extra activities development and not anything connected with formal curriculum, schools having volunteer clubs are good potential), enviroment protection institutions - like national parks (international volunteers would fit very well in promotion of this institutions and in creative part of their work), social care institutions (dimension is their but sometimes those institutions are mostly focused on getting help and not to invest a lot of time in supporting volunteers). RC on SC will organise a training on this topic and the group would like to have a mapping of potential fields with good practice examples in order to organise good study visits.

TCA/NET WG proposal: Development of TCA/NET Cooperation Platform Paavo Pyykkönen, Finnish NA See Annex_09_Cooperation Platform BM Helsinki 10.10.2019.pptx Paavo presented on behalf of the TCA/NET working group the proposal for development of TCA/NET Cooperation Platform to the new programme period to replace the outdated Planning Board etc. and include new functionalities to support the management of the TCA/NET work flow both at project and global level.

Comments and questions:

- We need something else than the current system, so thank you for doing this. Co-operation working group for this platform will be established? -> Yes, not too big though, open call for working group launched.

- Do you have in mind the experts. -> Someone might have someone, but nothing decided yet. - Do you have some platform in your mind. -> Idea is to map how the existing platforms work and see if we

can use those. - People are widely proud of the TCA/NETs. This really sounds like a tool TCA/NET-officers and the NAs need

for doing their job. The platform would be useful also for Commission. - *applause* and unanimous support for the proposal.

Conclusions: We go for it and give a mandate to the TCA/NET working group to go further. - Financing to address later:

• TCA money cannot be used to develop or set up IT-tools but we can find some other money for that. • Ought to be financed by the Commission because it is crucial part of implementing the programme. • To discuss with the Programme Ccommittee: money needs to be allocated for this.

26

The present and the future of KMST: proposal by the KMST working group Erik Langbraten Norwegian NA and Anna Pavlovych Polish NA presented the outcomes of the survey and the work done by the KMST WG. See Proposal of the KMST WG for a KMST Competence Framework (Draft_approach_KMST_competence_framework_13092019.pdf) See Notes from the KMST WG to the Business Meeting of October 2019 (Notes KMST to BM Oct 2019.pdf)

- KM Knowledge management is the difficult part of KMST - ST Staff Training /meetings are established, there is no difference between meetings and trainings. - There should be trainings not only for the newcomers but also to the experienced officers

Questions and comments:

- Meeting vs training: urgent, shorter meetings are useful and could be used more than now - This was very much based on the existing structures of the programmes. We have started to blend the

programmes, for example Solidarity Projects and KA3 projects for one person because they have same/similar target groups

- A recommendations to use the results of RAY research in the preparation of trainings - We also organise staff trainings on the national level. It would be interesting to know what kind of

trainings you have planned for the future. Those could be also be done on international level for the sake of synergies. KM part is forgotten and not getting full attention. Any proposals for that? Answer: Will be tackled later when dealing with the competence model. There will be a section for KM later on.

- There’s the network to do exactly these things. The needs have to be reanalysed for the new programme period.

- Other training activities might be taken over by Commission. - The reports from staff trainings are mostly not so useful for the people not attending. The aims of

reporting should be revised. Answer: There is a recommendation for staff training reports - How to make its more accessible? The potential resources we are not using too much is the video

lectures and video meetings. The interactive webinars could be used. Let’s try video record these because these meetings and moments are meaningful so many others than only the ones attending. This was supported.

- Buddy system happens already naturally, but it could be structured also. We are having directors / heads meeting, but there is no dedicated meeting for other groups of staff members.

- Buddy system we have had. Would be useful to know the colleagues from other NAs who are dealing with the same tasks. Response: You can have the task info in NA connect and find the colleagues, but it ought to be used and up-dated by all.

- Commission has a lot of appreciation for these meetings and trainings. Commission will come in with the complement already next year. If Commission is needed also during the preparatory meeting, please ask. Commision can also host the prep meetings.

- SALTO resource centres take care of these needs on their part. - There is a Who’s who and doing what in the Programme team of COM on NAConnect, which will soon

be updated. - RAY research outcomes should be used for all meetings and trainings.

Planning of forthcoming KMST activities for 2020 Erik Langbraten Norwegian NA and Anna Pavlovych Polish NA

KMST 2019-2020

- In Ljubljana 7.-11.9.2020, Heads of NA training, the needs will be asked later on (preparation team will be planning the topics according to the needs)

- Youth participation activities, SALTO PI, EE is planning, for 2020 - K2 officers training is missing a host NA (the ones who are interested to host can inform Anna)

27

- YouthLab: April 2020 in Turkey, Turkish NA calls for support from other NAs - The plan is not yet carved in stone, so all the ideas are still considered - DL is end of October for informing the interest for hosting a training and for joining the KMST WG.

n.b. Gisele (SALTO T&C) acts as secretariat for the KMST Group. Summary notes from the white board:

- Staff trainings and Meetings / peer learning to further develop [noting a role change (?) of NA Staff] - Mentoring + Coaching (“buddy system”) - Use RAY research outcomes - What we do together / back home – mapping excercsie on national TCs - Reports in format that they are helpful for all - Video lectures, webinars to develop

Input: Competence-based KMST – Why investing in a competence framework? Darko Markovic See Annex_10_Why investing in KMST competence framework.pptx Darko left his facilitator hat for awhile and gave an input on competence framework inside the NA network. The presentation and also the Eurodesk Mobility Advisor Competence Framework are annexed https://eurodesk.eu/projects/competence-framework/ (10a) The core issues for “Why competency framework for KMST?”:

o It is a statement of the Network about what matters; making the implicit - explicit o To provide a common language about ways of doing things in the network. o To offer a basis to assess learning and training needs within the network and planning of related KMST

activities o To address whole spectrum of competences in KMST activities (not just Action-related competencies) o To rethink the KMST offer: what else can we do apart from training? o To reflect on the boundaries, between whole Network development measures and individual NAs’

measures o For internal recognition and reflection on learning (Youthpass) o To provide framework for self-assessment and feedback

Questions and comments:

- Dialogue between us and our clients; what are their needs and wishes in order to provide the best outcome

- How to build up competences of staff (new and old), activities for competence building, a lot of reasons to think about the competence framework (based on the presentation) in own NA, how we want to do things

- Ownership is really important - Existing ownership frameworks are used, a lot of work to do a competence framework for everyone in

NA, would not link to any certain actions - Very important for all NA staff (not only programme officers) in all levels and in all roles - Hard to be against it! Everybody is an expert, helping to discover the expertises within own NAs - It is agreed that the plans for KMST can be continued - Clear decision making is difficult, how to implement is not clear, talking about individual vs. NA

competence framework, clear timetable and costs need to be clarified before going on with the plan - A permission to do a proposal by Erik/Anna – KMST WG?!

28

Next steps after BM in Helsinki Follow-up:

- Finnish NA will collect the notes and a draft will be made to prepare the executive summary by the Co-Group, to be ready by the NA meeting;

- NPC recommendations will be finalised by SI NA, and sent out by FI NA as presidency country separately and advance of the rest of the reporting.

NEXT BUSINESS MEETING IN ZAGREB 30.3.-1.4.2020 [Dates for the BM in Germany: 29.9.-1.10.2020]

Evaluation This BM in three words [in Menti]:

- pleasant, informative, evaluating, useful, pacific, networking, prison, friendly, smooth, garlic, busy, intense, inspiring, cold, relevant, productive, efficient, dedication, excellent, slow, well balanced…

The highlights of the meeting: - Competence framework, the ESC open space, Prison, news from NAs, Accreditations, Human Rights

Break, Ideas out of the prison, Opportunity to learn and reflect on new things, Partner countries, Partner country cooperation, being kindly welcomed by all NA youth heads, new partnerships, discussion on strategic partnerships

For the evaluation summary, see: http://youthbm.voog.com/bmdocuments.

ANNEXES and PHOTOS The presentations and support documents that are indicated in this document as annexes and numbered accordingly. They can be found on the Business Meeting web-page http://youthbm.voog.com/bmdocuments Photos from the Business Meeting can be found: http://youthbm.voog.com/bmdocuments Please, include copyrights if you use them, photographer: Emmi Kähkönen. Antonija Gladovic (Croatian NA) sent after the meeting the paper: Synergies between the ESF and Erasmus programmes: making it happen ESF Transnational Platform networks on Youth Employment and Learning and Skills Final Paper, June 2019 which also is up-loaded on the web page.