Ref. Ares(2017)3739922 - 25/07/2017

National Report of TURKEY

on

the implementation and the impact of

Erasmus+ and Predecessor Programmes:

Lifelong Learning, Youth in Action

June 2017

National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation

Table of Content

Table of Content ...... i List of Acronyms ...... ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 Section I: INTRODUCTION ...... 2 1.1. Background: Erasmus+ in Turkey ...... 2 1.2. Midterm Evaluation Objectives ...... 3 1.3. Methodology ...... 3 Section II: EVALUATION FINDINGS ...... 4 2.1. Effectiveness ...... 4 2.2. Efficiency ...... 15 2.3. Relevance ...... 21 2.4. Internal and External Coherence and Complementarity ...... 24 2.5. European Added Value and Sustainability ...... 25 Section III: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 27 ANNEXES ...... 33

i | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation

List of Acronyms

ATO Ankara Chamber of Commerce AWP Annual Work Plan BO Business Objects CoHE Council of Higher Education DG EAC European Commission, Directorate General Education and Culture DSRIP Directorate of Social, Regional and Innovative Policies of MEU EC European Commission EACEA Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency ECAS European Commission Authentication Service ECHE Erasmus Charter for Higher Education ECTS European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System ECV Europass CV ECVET European Credit Transfer System for Vocational Education and Training EDS Education Diploma Supplement EHEA European Higher Education Area ELP Europass Language Passport ENIC European Network of Information Centres in the European Region EPALE Electronic Platform for Adult Education ET 2020 EU cooperation in Education and Training EU European Union EURYDICE Education Information Network in Europe EQAVET European Quality Assurance in Vocational Education and Training EQF European Qualifications Framework EUD EU Delegation to Turkey EVS European Voluntary Service E&T Education and Training HEI Higher Education Institution HR Human Resources HRD OP Human Resources Development Operational Programme ICM International Credit Mobility ICT Information and Communication Technology IPA Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance IT Information Technologies KA1 Key Action 1 KA2 Key Action 2 KA3 Key Action 3 LLL Lifelong Learning LLP Lifelong Learning Programme (2007-2013) MEU Ministry for European Union Affairs MoD Ministry of Development MoLSS Ministry of Labour and Social Security MoNE Ministry of National Education MoYS Ministry of Youth and Sports

ii | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation

NA National Agency NARIC National Academic Recognition Information Centre NAU National Authority NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NEET Not in Education, Employment, or Training NQF National Qualifications Framework NRCVG National Resource Centre for Vocational Guidance OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OEET On-line Expert Evaluation Tool OLS On-line Linguistic Support OMC Open Method of Cooperation PIC Participant Identification Code PISA Program for International Student Assessment SMC Sectoral Monitoring Committee SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Software) TCA Transnational Cooperation Activities ToR Terms of Reference TQF Turkish Qualifications Framework TURKSTAT Turkish Statistical Institute URF Unique Registration Facility VET Vocational Education and Training VQA Vocational Qualifications Agency YiA Youth in Action (2007-2013)

iii | P a g e Draft National Report – Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Erasmus+ Programme with its integrated design was launched in 2014 building on its predecessor programmes of Lifelong Learning (LLP) and Youth in Action (YiA). The Erasmus+ Programme decentrally managed includes three key actions: KA1 for mobilities and KA2 for strategic partnerships under the Education and Training (E&T) and Youth fields, and KA3 for supporting dialogue with policy makers in the Youth field. The Programme covers the E&T and Youth fields within the fields of Higher Education (HE), Vocational Education and Training (VET), School Education (SE), Adult Education (AE) and Youth. Erasmus+ in Turkey is co-managed by the Centre for European Education and Youth Programmes (NA) who acts as the National Agency responsible for implementation, and the Ministry for EU Affairs (MEU) who acts as the Turkish National Authority (NAU) on behalf of the Minister, being in charge of monitoring and supervision. The main conclusions of this mid-term evaluation as per criterion are as follows: Effectiveness: Effectiveness of Erasmus+ implementation is very high in Turkey, contributing substantially to the achievement of its specific objectives as stated in the Erasmus+ Programme Guide, namely, (i) improvement of the skills and competences of the target groups, knowledge on the EU cultures, values, E&T and Youth organisations and systems, (ii) quality improvements, innovation of excellence and internationalisation in E&T and Youth fields, (iii) emergence and raised awareness of European Lifelong Learning (LLL) area to complement policy reforms, in addition to recognition of non-formal and informal learning, increasing the international dimension of E&T and youth activities, (iv) teaching and learning of languages, and (v) addressing disadvantaged groups with special needs and fewer opportunities. Furthermore, the contribution to the achievement of the general objectives of Erasmus+ through its implementation in Turkey is assessed to be significant, which particularly benefits from the coherent objectives of the strategy and policy documents of the EC and Turkey with reference to ET 2020 and Europe 2020. As an accession country, Turkey is not included in the ET 2020 monitoring process. Still, the influence of Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes has been highly visible in all fields of E&T and Youth. Positive aspects of the integration of programmes with Erasmus+ include continuity of the high prestige and ownership, a more structured feature with the institutional approach and wider target groups as well as the focus on innovation and creativity for high competitiveness. On the other hand, as the Programme does not allow for national priorities specific to the country needs only, a few negative aspects mainly include limited differentiated approach to access different disadvantaged groups, to implement small-scale Youth actions at local level and limited language support specific to different beneficiaries of different actions. The activities implemented under the three KAs demonstrate positive complementarity throughout a spectrum of effects at individual, institutional and system levels, while dissemination and exploitation of results could be further facilitated to improve effectiveness. Efficiency: Erasmus+ is managed efficiently in Turkey, yet there is still need for improvement at Programme level to reduce the administrative burden on the applicants and the beneficiaries, most of whom find the application forms, implementation procedures and reporting rather complicated and lengthy. Even though the IT tools have enhanced efficiency, its design needs to be further improved to become more user-friendly, avoid inconsistencies, to allow for data sharing and to reduce difficulties of PIC usage and its security. The increased budget of Erasmus+ has been successfully managed having a special emphasis on cost- effectiveness in Turkey. Distribution of funds among KA1, KA2 and KA3 to date is considered as balanced, proportionate and appropriate, in general. However, the distribution of KA1 funds among its projects is not well balanced due to the lack of upper limits for individual projects. High ownership and capacity of the beneficiaries play important roles in the successful management of the projects, while various difficulties related to visa procedures continue to hinder efficiency. Several striking good project practices exist delivering high quality outputs under all KAs. However, the level of utilisation of the Turkish beneficiaries from the centrally managed programmes, particularly for Sport, remains to be low. Access to grassroots level target groups could be efficiently and effectively managed should the Sport field be decentrally managed. The system of cooperation and division of tasks among the main stakeholders in Turkey as well as in the EC has been well functioning to ensure the Programme to be implemented smoothly. Yet, additional networking, structured transnational meetings and working group meetings for all NAs would further facilitate efficiency of implementation in Turkey. For successor programmes, participation of all Programme Countries in decision- making would contribute to efficiency. Adequate human and financial resources are available at the NA and NAU to ensure efficient utilisation, while that of the applicants and beneficiaries vary according to their institutional capacities. On the other hand, some issues need further attention, such as the need for enhanced capacity building for NA staff through sharing of experiences, difficulties and good practices among the NAs of Programme Countries, renewal of the external evaluators pool when a major change 1 | P a g e

National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation introduced to the Programme and increase of measures to enable further access of the disadvantaged groups. Strengthenning Programme’s monitoring system towards a results-based approach in order to ensure achievement of specific objectives of the Programme. Relevance: Relevance of Erasmus+ in Turkey is very high. Objectives of the national policy documents on E&T and Youth fields as well as those of the EU accession negotiations under Chapter 26 on Education and Culture are highly consistent with the general and specific objectives of Erasmus+. Thus, Erasmus+ objectives continue to address the existing needs and challenges of the country with regard to Europe 2020 and ET 2020 targets. However, setting national priorities in the Programme implementation would enable further emphasis on addressing the national needs such as disadvantaged groups particularly in the Youth field could not be widely addressed with a differentiated approach. Visibility for all fields of Erasmus+ to attract and reach target audiences and groups within different fields is very high, while HE and SE fields are assessed to have the highest within the E&T field. As employment is one of the main concerns of the adult and young people, there is a strong need for VET actions. Internal and external coherence and complementarity: Being a unique programme with its objectives, duration, budget and coverage of high numbers of mobilities, strategic partnerships and support to policy reforms, Erasmus+ complements other national and international programmes in similar fields in Turkey. Its implementation demonstrates that the three decentrally managed KAs are fully coherent while complementing each other. Yet, a significant difficulty has been experienced with the AE and VET actions exhibiting conflicts in terms of scope and content. Coverage and scope of these fields mostly overlap and cannot easily be differentiated by the beneficiaries. No other significant tension, major inconsistency or overlap are evidenced, other than the few minor inconsistencies regarding budget allocations highlighted by the beneficiaries, particularly with reference to travel costs and staff costs. European added value and sustainability: Robust evidence exists on the substantial changes brought by Erasmus+ and the predecessor programmes in Turkey, which would have been realised only to a very limited extent without them. Erasmus+ is a comprehensive programme having considerable effect on developing cross-cultural understanding and internationalisation for the Turkish beneficiaries. In addition to enabling communication in EU languages, Erasmus+ has also contributed to individuals and institutions to gain prestige through increased cooperation with the EU countries. The newly requested “EU Development Plan” under the KA1 has significantly stimulated an institutional approach at schools to create EU added value through specific activities and outputs. EU tools and platforms such as Eurodesk, EPALE, e-Twinning, Euroguidance, Ploteus, Youthpass, Europass, Eurydice, Europedia, etc., facilitate a wide cooperation of the EU for similar targets of education and training, as well as for youth policies. Turkey has a high absorption capacity available for a successive programme with a possible sharp budget increase. This is demonstrated by (i) the high institutional capacity of the NA; (ii) the smooth communication and coordination with the EC and with other national stakeholders; (iii) the adequate financial resources of Turkey in co-funding, and most importantly; (iv) the high level of satisfaction of the beneficiaries and the high demand of the target groups, both of which make the selection of the projects highly competitive with increased quality whereas the success rate is as low as 15.3% due to budget limitations. Meanwhile, the evidence reveals that Turkey cannot adequately benefit from the centrally managed Erasmus+ actions, which needs special attention to develop solutions in the forthcoming programming period, such as increasing the allocation of funds for decentrally managed actions. Strong cooperation between the EC and NAU/NA is likely to contribute to ensure the scope of the forthcoming programmes to address the needs of the Programme Countries and their absorption capacities. Furthermore, for successor programmes, participation of all Programme Countries in decision-making would contribute to efficient and effective implementation of future programmes to ensure realisation of the specific and general objectives. Section I: INTRODUCTION Erasmus+ is an EU Programme providing support in the fields of Education and Training (E&T), Youth and Sport for the period 2014-2020, following its predecessor programmes LLP&YiA (2007-2013), and aims to contribute to the implementation of the European policy agenda for growth, jobs, equity and social inclusion. The Programme can be regarded as a key to promote common European values, foster social integration, enhance intercultural understanding and a sense of belonging to a community, and prevent violent radicalisation. Erasmus+ is also an effective instrument to promote the social inclusion of people with disadvantaged backgrounds through E&T, Youth and Sport fields (see Annex 1 for details). I.1 Background: Erasmus+ in Turkey Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes are being implemented in Turkey since 2004 in accordance with the Framework Agreement signed in 2002 between Turkey and the EC. The Ministry for EU Affairs (MEU)

2 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation who acts as the Turkish National Authority (NAU)1, while Directorate of Social, Regional and Innovative Policies (DSRIP) acting as the secretariat of the NAU, is responsible for monitoring and supervising the management of the Programme. The NAU has assigned the Centre for European Education, Training and Youth Programmes as the National Agency (NA), which is responsible for the implementation of Erasmus+ decentrally in Turkey. I.2. Midterm Evaluation Objectives The results of this national report will contribute to the overall evaluation to be submitted by the EC before 31/12/20172. This national evaluation report is prepared in line with the Guidance Note of the Commission Services and is expected to serve for this purpose (see Annexes 1 and 3 for details). Accordingly, the national report will assess Erasmus+ under the identified five criteria:  Effectiveness: to what extent the implementation of Erasmus+ in Turkey contributes to the intended outcomes in Turkey?  Efficiency: are the intended outcomes achieved against reasonable costs in Turkey?  Relevance: does Erasmus+ adequately address the needs of the country?  Internal and external coherence and complementarity: are activities within Erasmus+ coherent? Is there any overlap or inconsistencies with other programmes in Turkey?  European added value and sustainability: to what extent has Erasmus+ been contributing to the effects at the European level in Turkey and to what extent are the effects sustainable? I.3. Methodology The evaluation covers the implementation and impact of Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes: LLP&YiA for the period of 2007-2016.  The report includes assessments covering (1) national perspective, (2) perspective of beneficiaries, and (3) implementation perspective. The report focuses on both quantitative and qualitative outputs and results while comparing them with objectives of the Erasmus+ Programme. Evidence based findings and judgments are derived through triangulation of different beneficiaries and stakeholders’ experiences and opinions to ensure a balanced and robust evaluation, which is supported, as much as possible, by evidence and practical examples. Additionally, counterfactual analysis is used for deriving evidence based conclusions for potential beneficiaries of the Erasmus+ actions implemented in Turkey.  The report draws conclusions for each of the five evaluation criteria and assesses to what degree these conclusions are different across the fields of E&T and Youth (including HE, SE, AE, VET and Youth), across the different target levels (individuals, institutions, systems) and across the different KAs. Methodology adopted for the preparation of this report includes: a) Review and Analysis of Programme Documents: Relevant Programme documents, as well as policy documents of Turkey and those of EC have been collected and reviewed. Data collection continued throughout the field phase to collect examples and good practices to derive evidence based findings. The list of documents reviewed is given in Annex 1. b) In-depth Interviews and Focus Group Meetings with the Beneficiaries and Stakeholders: The List of Interviews (Annex 2) and the Indicative Guiding Questions (in Turkish) have been prepared and finalised upon sharing with the MEU. The number of interviewees has much exceeded the foreseen number (35) in the ToR, in order to interview an adequate number of different stakeholders to represent the overall population by covering samples from different types of fields. The need for counterfactual analysis, which is not covered by the questionnaires targeting only beneficiaries, was another reason for wider interviews. Furthermore, as the number of KA3 beneficiaries is low (46), it was decided to hold a focus group meeting with some (3) of them complementing the in-depth questionnaire for KA3 as explained below. A few interviews (3) were also held with the centrally managed projects to enable a comparative analysis. As a result, the total number of interviewees including the participants in the focus group meetings has reached to 144. In-depth Focus Group meetings (9) and interviews were held with the NA Coordinators/units and relevant experts (29). The number of in-depth interviewees at the public institutions was 51, universities 9, project beneficiaries 32, MEU 5, EU Delegation to Turkey (EUD) 1, also with external evaluators 11, Youth trainers 7 and despite not being included in the list more than 10 students, learners, young people and adults during the events attended and visits paid to the beneficiary institutions. c) Questionnaires i) On-line Questionnaires for each of the fields of E&T and Youth were designed and conducted for decentrally managed components of KA1 and KA2 beneficiaries in each of the five fields. 10 different questionnaires were prepared, yet designed to allow for a consolidated analysis across the actions,

1 Article 27 of the “Regulation 1288/2013/EU establishing Erasmus+” 2 Article 21.2 and 21.3 of the Erasmus+ 3 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation

across the sectors and overall Programme. The on-line questionnaires were sent to the beneficiaries of Erasmus+ of 2014, 2015 and the first half of 2016. The response rate (average of 47.93%, with a total of 1,539 responses) was found sufficient to ensure a required confidence level (Annex 4a). ii) On-line Questionnaires for LLP&YiA (2007-2013) for each of the Programmes- Comenius, Erasmus, Leonardo da Vinci, Grundtvig and Youth in Action (YiA). The same methodology has been adopted for these questionnaires as explained above. The questionnaires specific to each programme were sent to the beneficiaries of only the last two years of LLP&YiA (2012 and 2013) to ensure access to the targeted people. Yet, the response rate has remained at a very low level (6.8% with 212 responses) due to the significant structural and organisational changes in the beneficiary institutions within the lengthy time elapsed from the project implementation year to date (more than 4 years) (Annexes 4b, 4c, 4d, 4e and 4f). iii) In-depth Questionnaire for KA3 beneficiaries was conducted to all (46) decentrally managed project beneficiaries to collect detailed data for evidenced based findings. Three detailed responses were received to enable an in-depth analysis (Annex 5). d) Erasmus+ Events and Meetings attended / observed: During the evaluation, four Erasmus+ events/meetings were attended to collect further evidence (Annex 2). e) Quality Assurance (QA): Quality assurance has been implemented by a QA expert at each stage of the study to ensure the activities and outputs to be in line with the EC Guidelines. QA is conducted to ensure the above-mentioned methodologies are implemented and the report is delivered at a required quality. f) Limitations: 15 different types of on-line questionnaires for KA1 and KA2, and LLP&YiA programmes, in addition to the in-depth questionnaire for KA3 were conducted. The questionnaires were prepared in Turkish to avoid risks of misunderstanding, which, in turn, required the responses to be translated into English. To save time, only the consolidated analysis was translated. Risks of bias and functionality of the questions were mostly mitigated through review of piloting. The high numbers of data collected were first analysed through SPSS. Then, specific tables for analysis were prepared.

Section II: EVALUATION FINDINGS

As detailed in the methodology section above, the evidence based findings responding the 21 questions are as follows: II.1.Effectiveness

1. To what extent have Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes contributed to ….the realisation of the Erasmus+ specific objectives (as listed in point B.2 in annex 3) in your country? Are there differences across fields? Please provide, where relevant, your assessment for each of the specific objectives and provide evidence and examples where possible. Key findings:  Overall effectiveness of the Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes implemented in Turkey has been very high, achieving the targeted specific objectives through concrete and tangible benefits at individual, institutional and system levels.  The Programme has substantially contributed at most to the development of skills and competences as well as enhancement of internationalisation and EU dimension in the E&T and Youth fields, in addition to quality improvement and innovative approaches in the fields of HE, SE; VET, AE and Youth, and increased quality of EVS in the field of Youth. The most common gain in all fields is related to better understanding of the EU societies and cultures.  The Programme is successful in encouraging high numbers of mobilities (mainly under KA1 but also some under KA2) to achieve the specific objectives, but particularly developing cross-cultural understanding and promoting European values, on which all the beneficiaries strongly agree. The Programme is also very successful in encouraging innovative and creative approaches, particularly in KA2 through intellectual outputs delivered by strategic partnerships, which in turn, contributes to the competitiveness and quality improvements EU wide.  The Programme has also a positive effect in stimulating LLL through developing awareness of the individuals on active citizenship and active labour market as well as contributing to the E&T institutions to offer higher quality non-formal and informal training. However, the share of the budget for AE is the smallest within all actions, and the eligibility criterion for VET Charter hinders effectiveness.  Multilingualism is highly emphasised by Erasmus+, which is also assessed to be well incorporated in the projects implemented in Turkey, the highest field being HE and the second being SE. Language learning /teaching has been well developed through the project activities implemented, in addition to the direct language support of the Programme mainly through OLS. However, compared to LLP&YiA, the language support offered by Erasmus+ is narrower to respond the diverse needs of the project participants in Turkey.  On the other hand, as the Programme does not allow for national priorities only specific to the country

4 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation

needs, a few negative aspects mainly include limited differentiated approach to access different disadvantaged groups, to implement small-scale Youth actions at local level and limited language support specific to different beneficiaries of different actions in Turkey.  Challenges have been evidenced related to ICT based learning in the AE field, the limited means to improve employability of the youth, the complex scope of intellectual outputs, and limited budget for LLL actions, limited quality and duration of some internships, and limited address to the country needs due to unavailability of national priorities for the selection process. Recommendations: Listed in Section III: Conclusions and Recommendations The overall effectiveness of Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes implemented in Turkey has been very high; contributing to the achievement of the Programme’s targeted specific objectives through concrete benefits at individual, institutional and system levels. Turkey has been one of the most active participants of the Programme since 2004. Overall, the decentralised Erasmus+ projects managed by the NA are considered to bring about high benefits to the target groups through the three KAs. In addition to the interviewees, an average of 90% of the questionnaire respondents strongly agree on the overall success of the Programme in the achievement of the specific objectives. The NA’s data on the numbers of project proposals (25,911) and projects contracted (above 3,944) since 2014 show that along with the high visibility of Erasmus+ the demand continues to be very high, while only 15.3% of the project proposals could be awarded due to the budget limitations (Annex 12). Erasmus+ in Turkey demonstrates to have a transformative effect over the participants, institutions and the system, while also playing an important role in Turkey’s EU accession process, delivering high EU added value. The most common gain is related to better understanding of the EU societies and cultures through this Programme, on which an average of 95% of the respondents strongly agree, the highest being in the SE field with 99% and AE with 97%. The KA1 mobility projects have particularly enabled the participants to develop awareness on the EU cultures and cross cultural differences and/or similarities with a positive perception of the EU, which contributes to the EU dimension of the Programme. In this framework, realisation of the specific objectives in Turkey is summarised as follows: a) Competences and skills The beneficiaries have substantially benefitted from their projects in terms of developing competences and skills through the project activities realised and outputs delivered, thus highly supporting improvements in the E&T and Youth fields. Almost all questionnaire respondents of KA1 and KA2 (average 96%) agree on the benefit gained in terms of competences and skills through implementation of their projects. The highest percentage (100%) of respondents who agree on this benefit belongs to VET and Youth project beneficiaries under KA2, while 93% of KA2 HE, 94% of KA2 AE, 97% KA1 VET and 98% KA1 SE beneficiaries agree on this. Similarly, all in-depth questionnaire respondents of the KA3 beneficiaries fully agree on enhanced dialogue skills to facilitate the reform progress in the Youth field. It is reported that the high confidence of EVS volunteers gained through new skills and competences has also become visible with several youth projects. The project beneficiaries have gained sufficient knowledge and experience on the EU policies, systems and practices as agreed by 94% of the respondents. Furthermore, participants have developed adequate capacity for utilising the ICT based technologies in E&T. The highest contribution has been with the SE field under KA2 with 87%, whereas contribution in the same field is much less (75%) under KA1, mostly due to the shorter period of mobilities. The contribution in the VET field is average 73%, and in AE 68%. These figures indicate the continuing need in ICT based learning particularly in the AE field. However, in the HE field contribution with 63% is much less than all other fields, as most of the HE students and academic staff have already been equipped with ICT skills. Developing language skills is of high importance for the target groups in Turkey as indicated in the NA’s Annual Work Plans3 (AWP). Lack of adequate language skills poses a barrier to participation in the E&T and Youth fields. While Online Linguistic Support (OLS) offers advantages for language learning in terms of access and flexibility, it could not fully address the needs of the target groups in Turkey, except for the HEIs (see item-e below). In the SE field, teachers, school administrators and MoNE staff interviewed agree that the Programme has brought significant changes in the approaches of the teachers and schools through the mobilities under KA1. Similarly, KA2 has had a positive effect on developing new teaching competences for pre-primary, primary and secondary schools. 96% of KA1 and 98% of KA2 respondents indicate that they had the chances to work together and benefit from learning together with similar schools in the EU. 100% of those under KA1 SE projects and 96% of those under KA2 SE projects also agree that they have developed special skills, which they needed for improvement of E&T at their schools. In the HE field, responses of the HE beneficiaries (93% of KA2 HE and 84% of KA1 HE) indicate the high benefit gained in developing competences and skills of the academic and HE staff and their performances at HEIs through knowledge on academic studies and systems in the European HEIs. However, they indicate

3 The NA AWPs, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 5 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation the limited contribution to linkage with the labour market. From the perspective of HE students, contributions of KA1 and KA2 projects have been very high (average 91%) including providing chances to understand the learning methodologies, practices, case studies and academic culture in the EU. Furthermore, additional benefit has been created through the strategic partnership projects with Partner Countries in addition to Programme Countries, which enhance the spectrum of the competences and skills developed at international level. In the VET field, 88% of the beneficiaries agree that they gained vocational competences and skills through courses, apprenticeships, co-work in the EU training institutions, all of which contribute significantly to the employability. However, as opposed to ECHE, the very limited VET Charter implementation in Turkey (only 2 Charters) does not allow for extended effectiveness. In the AE field, beneficiaries strongly agree on the positive effects on developing key competences and skills as confirmed by 93% of the questionnaire respondents under KA1 and 98% under KA2. The most significant benefit of AE projects has been adopting the non-formal and/or informal learning methodologies in developing key competences and skills of the adults, which is a priority of the LLL Strategy of the country. Evidence collected provides good examples, such as the “I can teach” project on ICT training implemented by a Public Training Centre, having proved to be very effective in teaching e-public services. Similarly, for the Youth field, high satisfaction (96% for KA1 and 90% for KA2) of the youth volunteers and youth participants indicate that the beneficiaries have enhanced their competences and skills for social needs, particularly for social works addressing disadvantaged groups such as the disabled people and the refugees. KA3 projects, on the other hand, are assessed to be effective in developing dialogue skills of the youth to support policy reforms for EU integration. Successful examples include developing skills on dialogue for representation of the youth in the Parliaments of the countries partner to the project, and involvement in the local strategy planning for youth employment. b) Quality improvements, innovation of excellence and internationalisation The projects are reported to be quality oriented benefiting from and encouraged by the institutional structure and innovative approach of particularly KA1 and KA2. This finding is supported by the questionnaire results: 93% of the respondents agree that the institutional approach has been useful in achieving quality improvements, and 89% agree that the European Development Plan has been very useful for the quality of the outputs in SE, while 100% of the interviewees agree that intellectual outputs have contributed in terms of innovative quality. Projects implemented have had a positive effect on the internationalisation and modernisation of E&T institutions while enhancing their dynamic and transparent functioning in all fields. The highest positive effect has been at HEIs with an average rate of 87%, second is on SE institutions with 83.5%, third on the VET institutions with 76%, and the least on AE institutions with 72%. 92% of the beneficiaries agree on the benefits gained in terms of quality increase through transnational cooperation for innovation of excellence, while the benefit is highest in VET KA2 with 100%. Furthermore, 96% of the respondents believe that sharing of good practices has also contributed to quality enhancement in the E&T field. This outcome has been strongly supported through the delivery of appropriate intellectual outputs via specific research and studies implemented by the partners from Programme Countries and even Partner Countries with an EU added value. An example (KA1 HE) is related to developing “International Geographical Indicators” through providing internships to about 200 HE students. Yet, a few cases of less effective KA2 projects have also been reported due to the limited understanding of the scope for intellectual outputs. In the fields of SE, VET and AE, 95% of the questionnaire respondents under KA1 and 85% under KA2 agree that the projects have enabled a better assessment of the needs of the students/learners, teachers/trainers, and beneficiary institutions, while 76% agree on developing learning/teaching strategies addressing different needs of the target groups. Most significantly, SE projects have contributed to decreasing early school leaves and increasing attendance to school, while also bringing innovative methods to improve education of the disadvantaged target groups. Some projects were mentioned as good practices such as; i) the project implemented by a school to improve institutional policies on SE, specifically for the socio-economically disadvantaged children and youth in highly disadvantaged locations; ii) the “Railvet Project” to develop innovative curriculum for specialised railway schools, and iii) two other projects on building capacity of the teachers for providing education to the Syrian children. An average 89% of the VET beneficiaries (KA1 and KA2) are considered that the vocational teachers/trainers have had professional development through the projects. This, in turn, has increased their motivation for active involvement in VET, job satisfaction and career development (90%). Despite the positive correlation identified between student mobility and employability of students with mobility experience4, which is an important factor in combating the high level of youth unemployment, only 69% of the respondents in the VET field agree that their projects have facilitated the capacity for entrepreneurship

4 European Parliament, The Erasmus+ Programme: European Implementation Assessment, page 33. 6 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation and business development. In some cases, the mobilities for apprenticeship and job shadowing are reported to be too short or the internships with low quality in the VET field, which have hindered contributing to employability and competitiveness of the labour market. For the HE field, structured quality improvement is one of the top priorities of CoHE together with the HEIs under the Bologna process. Accordingly, 86% of the respondents agree that quality of education, academic studies and management has improved in the HE field through the HE projects implemented. Similarly, 78% of the respondents agree that capacity for higher quality academic research, studies and publications has increased. On the other hand, the centrally managed KA3 project of CoHE, “Turquas”, establishing a HE quality assurance system in Turkey, is likely to create synergies with the decentrally managed HE projects in Turkey at system level. 91% of the respondents are in the mind that the HE projects have had an added value on the implementation of ECTS of the HEIs in Europe and Turkey. Additionally, the ENIC and NARIC functions5 of CoHE supported by Erasmus+, ensure the international recognition of diplomas and the diploma supplements of HEIs, being also used in HE mobilities. Interviews with beneficiaries of the Youth projects indicate that quality is supported by the specific focus of Erasmus+ on the EU Youth Strategy and EU Work Plan of Youth. Even the small-scale youth NGOs are observed to be developing their institutional capacities through the Programme projects, to this end. For example, the guideline developed for youth volunteers in a project ensures the quality of volunteer work for the disabled people in the partner countries. c) Emergence and raised awareness of a European Area of Lifelong Learning (LLL) to complement policy reforms; and recognition of non-formal and informal learning The contribution of Erasmus+ has been mainly on strengthening the LLL approach in Turkey with an emphasis on raising the awareness on the European Area of Lifelong Learning particularly through the VET, AE and Youth projects having more than 60,000 participants to be involved in LLL, in addition to creating awareness through dissemination of the outcomes to a wider target group. For example, as a result of the KA2 AE project implemented by Sincan Public Training Centre, adult training is delivered at Sincan Prison benefiting from the intellectual output for a training methodology and curriculum developed specific to the prisoners upon a successful cooperation with the EU partners. KA3 Youth projects have also demonstrated to be effective in raising awareness on European LLL by stimulating dialogue with different stakeholders. A good example is the KA3 project of Yildirim Beyazit University targeting policy development in the area of LLL career development. Additional contribution has been reported through the cooperation of the projects with the EC platforms and networks implemented in Turkey such as Euroguidance, Eurodesk, EPALE, which facilitate the dissemination of outputs and awareness raising of LLL in Turkey. However, the need still continues in Turkey as indicated in the national LLL Strategy On the other hand, recognition of non-formal training for the purpose of LLL still poses a challenge for several training centres, except for those authorised by legislation and enforced mainly by MoNE, HEIs and the Vocational Training Centres. Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes have enabled Europass to be used widely for recognition of non-formal education and training. The National Europass Centre, managed by Vocational Qualifications Agency (VQA), has enabled 86% of the questionnaire respondents of KA1 and 57% of the KA2 to obtain Europass for recognition of their mobility for future E&T and/or Youth Pass for the mobilities in the Youth field. The total numbers of Europass CV (ECV) and/or Europass Language Passports (ELP) have reached 542 thousand as of end 20166, most of which are produced by the Erasmus+ projects implemented in Turkey. 92% of the questionnaire respondents express that beneficiaries had no difficulty in issuing Europass. Meanwhile, 60% of the questionnaire respondents have indicated that they benefited from ECVET for recognition and validation of the learning outcomes in the VET field within formal, non-formal and informal learning context. d) International dimension of education and training and youth activities Contribution of the projects to the international dimension of the E&T through transnational cooperation has been strongly confirmed by the questionnaires’ results, as 91% of the respondents agree that internationalisation has been achieved as a result of their projects. Most of the HEI projects target internationalisation as it is one of the priorities of the HE policies and main targets of the HEIs in Turkey being part of the Bologna process. Erasmus+ International Credit Mobility (ICM) has allowed Turkey for further cooperation with the Partner Countries. On average, more than 90% of the respondents confirm that their projects have provided benefits in terms of enhanced intercultural awareness, more active participation in society, better awareness of the European cultures and values, prevention of prejudices and increased motivation for taking part in future activities under E&T and/or Youth. The internationalisation of the NGOs having implemented particularly KA1 and KA2 projects in the fields of AE, VET and Youth, are assessed to have valuable achievements through mobilities and strategic partnerships, yet with difficulties in continuity after the projects end, as most of them lack strong institutional structures to ensure sustainability. Meanwhile, “Erasmus Alumni Associations” at the HEIs are reported to be

5 www.yok.gov.tr 6 www.myk.gov.tr 7 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation quite active in organising international events, while creating indirect benefits contributing to the effectiveness of Erasmus+. A good example is the Phone Application named “Wherasmus” created by Ankara University Erasmus+ alumni to provide information on the curriculum, other activities, etc., for the in- coming Erasmus students. Furthermore, the EC platforms and networks implemented in Turkey such as Eurodesk, E-Twinning and EPALE facilitate dissemination of outputs and even creating multipliers effect in an international environment. For example, Eurodesk Turkey contributes to enhancing the international dimension of youth services through its 81 Multipliers in 44 provinces widespread in the country, especially for free European youth opportunities. 70% of the questionnaire respondents confirm the benefits of the Eurodesk Turkey for implementation of the projects particularly in the Youth field. Several good examples for improving internationalisation through the support of Eurodesk have been reported such as the “Time to Move” activity realised by a local administration in Istanbul7, and “Imagine: Migrant journeys from Syria to Europe”8 realised by a Youth NGO to address the Syrian children through a board game. e) Teaching and learning of languages Multilingualism is highly emphasised by Erasmus+, which is also assessed to be well incorporated in the projects implemented in Turkey, the highest field being HE and the second being SE. Language learning /teaching has been well developed through the project activities implemented, in addition to the on-line language support of the Programme (OLS). However, compared to that of LLP&YiA, the language support offered by Erasmus+ is narrower to respond the diverse needs of the project participants in Turkey. Thus, contribution of Erasmus+, compared to LLP&YiA, exhibits less effectiveness regarding teaching and learning of languages due to the limited scope, whereas the need continues in Turkey and poses difficulties hindering the achievement of the project outcomes. Still, questionnaire respondents express significant benefits gained by their projects in terms of developing their language skills. The highest benefit is recorded by the HE students (95%), who participated in mobilities under KA1, while it is 84% under the HE KA2. Feedback provided by the university coordinators interviewed9 indicate that OLS demonstrates to be quite effective in the participants’ language skills development as measured by specific questionnaires before and after each course. The second highest is in the SE field where most of the participants (90%), mainly being the teachers, strongly agree that they have developed language skills. In the Youth field, 94% of the respondents of KA1 projects and 60% of the KA2 projects are in the mind that they developed their language competencies during project implementation. Furthermore, mobilities play a remarkable role to this end. Specific to EVS projects, it is also reported that acquaintance with languages other than English of the hosting countries or other volunteers have been developed10. Yet, interviewees report a few cases where partnerships had difficulties to produce the targeted results due to the limited language proficiency of the Turkish participants, thus hindering the benefits targeted. The conditionality for language proficiency required in LLP but suspended for the KA1 short-term mobilities under Erasmus+ has resulted in a positive change in the profiles of the participants with increased diversity of branches other than the English language. Yet, those E&T staff now lack adequate language competence to fully benefit from the mobilities independently. Therefore, to ensure positive effects for teaching and learning of languages, Erasmus+ design needs to allow language support covering all mobilities while providing adequate support to ensure effectiveness of the actions, which could be well managed by the NA should country specific measures be implemented. f) Addressing disadvantaged groups with special needs and fewer opportunities According to the NA’s data covering a total of 256.7 thousand participants, the projects addressed 1.368 people (0.5%) with special needs and 17.122 people (6.7%) with fewer opportunities (Annex 12). Nevertheless, the questionnaire results indicate somewhat higher inclusion of the disadvantaged people, who are assessed in seven groups and ranked in accordance with the questionnaire results as follows: (i) economically disadvantaged people (30%), (ii) people with learning difficulties (16%), (iii) socially disadvantaged people (15%), (iv) disabled people with special needs (12%), (v) people with cultural diversity (refugees, migrants, etc.) (12%), (vi) geographically disadvantaged (9%), and (vii) people with serious health problems (7%). Yet, as also referred to under Question 17, the project proposal selection process does not allow for additional national priorities, thus limiting different types of disadvantaged people to be addressed. For example, additional score cannot be given for the geographically disadvantaged people, which was the case under LLP&YiA. Thus, a disaggregated approach and/or differentiated analysis could not be considered. Even though there exists a specific support of the EC for education, health and accommodation needs of the Syrians under temporary protection status in Turkey, still, several EU–wide good practices of Erasmus+ addressing the needs of these people have also been evidenced in Turkey. A good example is the project of a country wide labour union aiming to enhance the social integration of these people in the field of VET (KA2)11. Another example is related to producing an intellectual output in the form of an electronic

7 Eurodesk Turkey, Time to Move Activity (#TimeToMove2016); the target groups is approximately 12 million people. 8 The 2017 Eurodesk Network Prize Winner http://www.systemandgeneration.com/tr 9 Ankara University, Koç University, Anadolu University 10 As also referred to in RAY Network National Research, National Report, Turkey, page 77. 11 www.hakis.org.tr 8 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation

board game mentioned earlier. 2. To what extent has the progress on the realisation of the specific objectives contributed to the realisation of the Erasmus+ general objectives (as listed in point B.2 in annex 3) in your country? Key findings:  Overall, realisation of Erasmus+ specific objectives through the implementation of the Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes in Turkey is assessed to be contributing significantly to the realisation of the general objectives. The specific objectives achieved in Turkey confirm the contribution to the achievement of the general objectives. The assessment based on the evidence reveals the significant progress of Turkey towards the achievement of relevant targets of Europe 2020 and benchmarks of ET 2020, despite still being lower than the EU averages.  Considering the fact that almost half of the labour force (aged 25-64) has an education below the high school level, the need for more focused interventions to promote LLL becomes more evident. The contribution of Erasmus+ to this end is assessed to be significant. Recommendations: Listed in Section III: Conclusions and Recommendations The contribution of Erasmus+ implementation in Turkey to the realisation of the general objectives: Specific objectives of the Programme are assessed to be highly contributing to the realisation of its general objectives, through the implementation of Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes in Turkey. The specific objectives achieved in Turkey as discussed under Question 1 above, confirm this assessment. Given that, national policies are consistent with the Europe 2020 priorities and goals and the ET 2020 work programme, contribution of the Erasmus+ specific objectives are highly supported by these policies as further explained under Question 16. The main contribution of Erasmus+ implementation in Turkey, has been assessed as the development of internationalisation and cross-cultural understanding highly promoting European values, while also developing competences and skills through the adoption of new and innovative education and training methodologies and practices of the EU countries. Integration with the EU systems including European values has been one of the main outcomes in all fields, as strongly confirmed by the KA1 and KA2 questionnaire results, with 98.5% of the respondents agreeing on the enhanced understanding of the EU cultures and with 97.7% agreeing that cooperation with the stakeholders in the EU has increased. Similarly, KA3 questionnaire responses confirm contribution to European values through enhanced dialogue in the Youth field. Assessment of the contribution to the general objectives with respect to the Europe 2020 and ET 2020 relevant targets and benchmarks is given in Annex 6. 3. To what extent have Erasmus+ actions influenced policy developments in the domains of education and training, youth and sport in your country? Which actions were most effective in doing so? Are there marked differences between different fields? Key findings:  Although some national priorities do not fully match with the Erasmus+ priorities in the domains of E&T and Youth, Erasmus+ has realised significant contribution to policy developments while also supporting Turkey’s EU accession priorities.  Influence of Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes have been highly visible in all fields of VET, SE, AE, HE and Youth strategy plans and their implementations by the main policy making bodies in these fields. Several remarkable achievements have been apparent confirming the contribution to the E&T and Youth fields. Along with the EU accession process of Turkey, national policies have become in line with the EU, while Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes have been stimulating an upward movement and steps of reform in the E&T system. Interviews with NAU and MoNE reveal that although some national priorities do not fully match with the Erasmus+ priorities, Erasmus+ has made significant contribution to policy developments while also supporting Turkey’s EU accession priorities. NAU specifically mentions additional macro level influences enabling: i) each sector to have a role in globalisation through participants from a variety of sectors to cooperate with Partner Countries, ii) positive changes of conceptions, for both sides Turkey and Europe, particularly for the youth, and, iii) internationalisation and competitiveness for HE through the achievement of strategic targets of universities. The lessons learnt gained from the high numbers of projects are reported to have contributed to the policy development of MoNE for improving the quality of education and training at institutional level. In the SE field, the teachers interviewed provided several examples of policy improvements benefiting from the projects implemented, such as innovative curriculum development, extra-curriculum activities for quality and proficiency improvement, internationalisation of schools, and working with the disadvantaged students. MoNE experts mention that the internationalisation policies of schools have been supported by SE mobilities. Erasmus+ and other IPA projects have paved the way for setting MoNE’s LLL Strategy. Another contribution has been reported to be in the field of “Special Education” of the specially talented or disadvantaged students. The SE project outcomes are widely included in the annual plans, which feed into the overall action plan of MoNE.

9 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation

In the VET field, the stakeholders report that the internationalisation aspect of Erasmus+ have been significantly contributing to EU integration policies through transformation from local to policy level. A positive effect has been on the policies for strengthening European transparency and recognition instruments mainly for: (i) adopting ECVET to support LLL, the mobility of learners and the flexibility of learning pathways to achieve qualifications12, (ii) the European quality assurance reference framework in VET (EQAVET)13 and (iii) Turkish Qualifications Framework (TQF)14. It is reported that most of the 15.5 thousand Europasses issued within the last six years have been realised as a result of the mobilities of Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes15. Furthermore, MoNE has started in 2016 issuing the Certificate Supplement under the VET and AE projects. In the AE field, the main contribution at policy level has been the awareness raised on the LLL. The outcomes of Erasmus+, following the Grundtvig Programme of LLP have been assessed by the LLL Department of MoNE for identification of the priorities of the LLL Strategy concerning the adult learning services through 970 Public Education Centres across the country. Also, EPALE has provided input to the LLL Strategy in 2016. In the HE field, interviews reveal that Erasmus+ has been an integral part of almost all HEIs as prioritised in their institutional strategies supporting the Bologna process and integration to EHEA. HEIs have internalised the Programme objectives, which are embedded particularly in their internationalisation and academic quality enhancement policies supported by transnational cooperation (KA103, KA107 and KA203). Furthermore, the centrally managed Jean Monnet projects are reported to have a strong influence on the EU integration policies in Turkey, particularly to conduct “EU-Turkey Scientific Diplomacy”. Similarly, the KA3 project of CoHE (centrally managed “Turquas project”16) is a good example for direct contribution of Erasmus+ to the HE policy in Turkey. In the Youth field, contribution is in the process to become visible in a few KA3 projects to local policies like those of municipalities and development agencies. For example, the “Youth in Parliament” project has initiated a policy level dialogue to raise the youth representation at the Parliament. Likewise, the Erasmus+ actions have also facilitated policy making in the field of Sport as demonstrated by the Basketball Federation of Turkey both by a KA2 project to improve the judge system in the EU and a centrally managed Sport Project to promote the basketball policies in the EU, while some initiations are on the way to build on the 2017 European Youth Olympic Winter Festival held in Turkey to support the Sport field policies in Turkey17. 4. What specific approaches (such as co-financing, promotion or others) have you taken in order to try to enhance the effects of Erasmus+ in your country? To what extent have these approaches been effective? Can any particular points for improvement be identified? Key findings:  Both the beneficiaries and the NA, in cooperation with NAU, have taken a number of measures to enhance the overall effectiveness of Erasmus+ implementation in Turkey. The NA has taken measures to enhance visibility of the Programme and dissemination of results, while benefiting from a participative approach for management of the Programme. Similarly, beneficiaries have adopted various approaches to enhance effectiveness of their projects, including in-house training programmes, inter-institutional agreements, monitoring and evaluation of the outputs and outcomes, all benefiting from cooperation with other institutions, mobilising funds and disseminating their project results country-wide through other means.  Recommendations: Listed in Section III: Conclusions and Recommendations The specific approaches of the NA in cooperation with NAU and the beneficiaries to enhance the overall effectiveness of Erasmus+ implementation in Turkey are briefly described below: a) Approaches of the NA in cooperation with NAU to improve effectiveness have been well identified in the AWPs18, mainly including: Enhanced visibility of the Programme, which has been well maintained in line with the NA’s Communication Strategy19, to which NAU also provides support through its own means and facilities. High level visibility is evidenced by the high number of applications and the number of the project proposals above the threshold (Annex 12). Extensive promotion through various means such as media, web-site, conferences, meetings and info days has been successfully implemented20. The Good Practices Fair for Strategic Partnerships organised in December 2016 with more than 200 participants is assessed as a good example for dissemination. It is reported that over 10,000 people have been reached through 140-

12 http://www.ecvet-secretariat.eu/en/organization/ministry-national-education-turkey 13 http://www.eqavet.eu/gns/about-eqavet/network-members/national-reference-points/turkey.aspx 14 https://www.europass.gov.tr/ 15 www.myk.gov.tr 16 http://www.yok.gov.tr 17 Interviews with the Basketball and Volleyball Federations and the International Skating Union (ISU) representative of Turkey. 18 The NA AWP 2017, page 24-26 19 The NA’s Communication Strategy (http://www.ua.gov.tr/docs/default-source/okul- ortakl%C4%B1klar%C4%B1/yayg%C4%B1nla%C5%9Ft%C4%B1rma-ve-g%C3%B6r%C3%BCn%C3%BCrl%C3%BCk-nbsp- .pdf?sfvrsn=0 ) in Turkish. 20 The NA web-site for Publications (http://www.ua.gov.tr/en/press-room/publications/reports) 10 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation

160 meetings, trainings and events every year. 25,000 brochures and 15,000 handouts/leaflets have been distributed country wide. More than 130 good practice projects are available on the NA website. The promotion of the centrally managed programmes is included in the AWP of 201721, while a Strategy Report of the NA22 is in progress. Furthermore, the participative approach for management of Erasmus+ contributes to ensuring effectiveness. This is mainly achieved through the Advisory Board, the Erasmus+ Programme National Coordination Committee and the Steering and Monitoring Committee (SMC). Supporting the dissemination of the project results is also included in the NA’s AWP 2017 (detailed in Question 9 below). Effectiveness has been increased by an additional total funding of €41.9 million allocated from IPA I Component IV HRD OP23 in 2014 and 2015 under two Direct Grants in VET, AE and SE fields as also referred to in Questions 7 and 15 below. b) Some specific approaches of the beneficiaries are as follows: MoNE supports Erasmus+ through its in-house training programme for project proposal writing and management. Monitoring of the projects is conducted at the relevant departments, while planning for a consolidated analysis. Contribution of Development Agencies (DA) to the visibility of the Programme and dissemination at local level is reported, as included in some DA Strategy Plans. Furthermore, HEIs have reported to take several measures including inter-institutional agreements with EU HEIs, cooperation with public institutions and NGOs, orientations for mobilities, monitoring and evaluation of the achievements through structured guidelines. This is confirmed by 89% of the questionnaire respondents for KA1 and KA2. Several Erasmus Alumni Associations such as Erasmus Student Network24 have been very active in facilitating the benefits to be gained by the new students through visibility activities in Turkey and Europe. NGOs use their former experiences, networks and contacts for co-funding and to improve cost-effectiveness of their projects. Some allocate Erasmus+ alumni as project staff. Likewise, Chambers mobilise their own resources to enhance the outcomes achieved country-wide. Almost all beneficiaries have benefited from the EC networks, platforms, and national support services such as Eurodesk, Europass, E-Twinning, Eurydice, EPALE, Euroguidance, Ploteus, ECVET, etc., contributing to achievement of the Programme objectives. Some beneficiaries, despite not high in number, have received external consultancy (28% of the questionnaire respondents). 5. Do you consider that certain actions of the programme are more effective than others? Are there differences across fields? What are the determining factors for making these actions of the programme more effective? Key findings: There exist no major differences in effectiveness that can be measured across the KAs within E&T and Youth fields. On the other hand, being intrinsic in their definitions and objectives of the fields, there exist some differences of effectiveness addressing the identified target groups. They demonstrate to have also some complementarity throughout a spectrum of effects starting with individual learner, teaching staff with KA1 and organisations at institutional level with KA2, both in E&T and youth fields, and the young people influencing policy developments through dialogue at system level with KA3. Evidences exhibit that there exist no major differences in effectiveness that can be measured across the KAs within the E&T and Youth fields. Nonetheless, some differences of effectiveness can be assessed across the fields being intrinsic in their definitions, yet with much complementarity and overlapping aspects evidenced between KAs. While being difficult to make a comparative assessment for the levels of effectiveness created by KA1 and KA2, effectiveness of KA3 is lower as the number of projects and scope is very limited. The beneficiary organisations of the E&T fields are much more structured and institutionalised than in the Youth field, which identifies the effectiveness type, while both are assessed to have high level effectiveness. The following assessment can be made with respect to individual, institutional and system levels: From the individual learner and teaching staff perspective, KA1 appears to be of highest effectiveness: Benefiting from its wide scope of eligible institutions and wider coverage of high numbers of participants with short durations of mobilities, as well as its easier application procedures, KA1 is assessed to be creating direct effects mainly at individual level. KA1 projects are reported to be producing more of immediate impact. Interviewees report the first changes in their perception of cultures, EU values and languages, developed skills and competences, all of which could even be observable right after the mobilities. According to the questionnaire responses under KA1 in E&T field having more than 118,300 participants, the highest effectiveness has been achieved with improved competences and skills of the participants, second in fostering internationalisation and the third in capacity development through sharing of good practices. For KA1 Youth projects having more than 29,800 participants to date, the highest contribution is with improved international dimension of voluntary service and capacity development, while the second is with quality improvements in the Youth field and third with improved key competences and skills of young people. From the education and training organisations and institutions perspective, KA2 appears to provide

21 The NA AWP, 2017, page 25-26. 22 Strategy Report for increasing the utilisation of Turkey from the centrally managed calls, 2016, pages 26-29 and 43. 23 http://www2.ikg.gov.tr/en-us/ipa/ipa20072013(ipai)/ipaivhrd.aspx 24 International Exchange Erasmus Student Network (http://esnturkey.org/ ) 11 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation

the highest effectiveness benefiting from its wide scope of eligible institutions sharing experiences and good practices in addition to the creative and innovative outputs delivered through transnational partnerships. Currently, more than 11,000 organisations from Turkey are involved in KA2 projects. KA2 is reported to produce a rather medium term benefit following immediate outputs delivered through specific research and studies implemented by partners from Programme Countries and even Partner Countries. They serve as good practices to be disseminated to other institutions/schools in Turkey and EU-wide. Thus, EU added value of KA2 is also very high. Some effectiveness is being achieved by the KA3 projects from the system perspective in the Youth field, through a limited in number of projects (46). Interviews reveal that reforms have been facilitated and initiated through dialogue and open methods of cooperation. Projects are reported to be contributing to the needs of the youth which need further attention and efforts of relevant authorities for decision-making. The project targeting participation of the university youth in policy making through their involvement in the preparation of the Regional Strategy Plan is a good example for this. 6. To what extent has the integration of several programmes into Erasmus+ made the programme more effective in your country? Do you see scope for changes to the structure of Erasmus+ or its successor programme that could increase effectiveness? Key findings:  Interviews with the beneficiaries and other stakeholders reveal both positive and negative feedback on the extent of effectiveness increased through integration of several programmes into Erasmus+. High prestige and ownership of the Programme in Turkey, its more structured feature, institutional approach with wider target groups, as well as the focus on innovation and creativity are among the positive aspects of Erasmus+ in comparison to LLP&YiA. On the other hand, the negative aspects include lack of adequate emphasis on small scale Youth actions, insufficient language support, need for setting national priorities particularly for improving language training and reaching to the disadvantaged people and limited support for dissemination, exploitation and contact finding activities. Recommendations: Listed in Section III: Conclusions and Recommendations Interviews with the beneficiaries and other stakeholders reveal both positive and negative feedback, while some of them being controversial, as detailed below: Positive:  The most common opinion is that integration has not changed the overall scope and objectives of the Programme, but only its way of implementation, while high ownership continues to achieve the Programme objectives.  Visibility continues to be high. The demand has increased within the past three years despite the low rate of the proposals being funded due to budget limitations. High competition among the project proposals encourages the applicants to improve the quality of their proposals to ensure achieving the objectives.  Erasmus+ is found to be more structured and categorised, which allows the target groups to have a better understanding of the overall Programme as well as the individual actions to achieve their specific objectives.  The institutional approach of Erasmus+ supports effectiveness not only at individual but also at institutional and even system levels, which contributes to the sustainability of the results.  Wider applicant type eligibility allows for cooperation and flexibility in addressing different needs. Inclusion of Partner Countries enhances internationalisation and the variety of new skills and innovative methodologies in a wider international environment.  Erasmus+ continues to emphasise equal opportunities for different target groups including the disadvantaged people. However, as Erasmus+ does not allow for national priorities, the projects having access to disadvantaged people could not have additional chances for selection.  Erasmus+ enables a structured approach towards creative and innovative ideas to be developed and transferred into intellectual outputs under KA2, whereas LLP provided only transfer of the already developed innovation.  Support to policy reforms is a new specific target to contribute to the specific objectives of the Youth field in Turkey, strengthening dialogue for policy making in areas like employment rights of the artist, employability of youth and their participation in decision-making.  Effectiveness of Erasmus+ continues to be facilitated by the EU tools such as Eurodesk, Europass, EQAVET, ECVET, Youthpass, Euroguidance, Eurydice, and E-Twinning. Negative:  Despite the positive aspect of institutional approach, wider effectiveness is diminished by not allowing for individual access to training. Some teachers are still in favour of the In-house Training and Assistantship of the Comenius Programme.  YiA had provided grants for small but valuable local activities for the youth, which is not included in Erasmus+.

12 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation

 As opposed to LLP, Erasmus+ provides limited budget share for dissemination and exploitation, which does not allow wider benefits. 7. Is the size of budget appropriate and proportionate to what Erasmus+ is set out to achieve? Is the distribution of funds across the programme’s fields and actions appropriate in relation to their level of effectiveness and utility? Key findings:  Increase of funding to €14.7 billion has been welcomed by all the stakeholders in Turkey. However, the demand to the Programme is much higher in Turkey as demonstrated by the high numbers of project proposals yet with only 15.3% success rate due to the budget limitation.  Distribution of funds among KA1, KA2 and KA3 to date is considered mostly balanced, proportionate and appropriate. However, as no upper limit exists for KA1 projects, it does not allow for a balanced utilisation of funds by wider target groups. The increasing number of ECHE holders raises the need for additional funds for KA1. The field of AE has very low budget share under KA1 despite the high demand, whereas LLL including AE and VET are priorities of Turkey. KA2 contributing significantly to effectiveness (developing skills, improving the quality of E&T and Youth fields) particularly through the intellectual outputs also requires additional funds to satisfy the high demands. While only KA347 is implemented in Turkey, the decentrally managed KA3 projects contributing to policy reforms are of high importance for Turkey in achieving the system level objectives, which in fact are reported to stimulate new KA1 and KA2 projects creating synergies. Thus, Turkey needs to be granted further opportunities of the EC through restricted calls under KA3. Also, Turkey needs to have some flexibility to transfer certain funds among the KAs to address the needs in a balanced way. Recommendations: Listed in Section III: Conclusions and Recommendations Increase of funding to €14.7 billion has been welcomed by all the stakeholders in Turkey. Within the past three years between 2014 and 2016, the contracted amount has reached to €288.8 million25. However, even this high amount has been much below the level of the demand available for this Programme. The number of applications has increased significantly within the past three years reaching to 25,911, while only 3,944 could be contracted with a success rate of 15.3% (Annex 13). There is a consensus among the NA, NAU, policy makers together with the beneficiaries that the budget needs to be increased to meet this demand. Meanwhile, Turkey has demonstrated its additional absorption capacity through the additional EU funding of €41.9 Million under IPA I Component IV HRD OP in 2014 and 2015. The distribution of the total budget with respect to the KAs is assessed to be mostly balanced, proportionate and appropriate given the budget allocations of the EC. KA1 has the highest share (currently with about 75% share) while contributing substantially to the internationalisation and development of competences and skills of the beneficiaries. However, the distribution of KA1 funds among its projects is not well balanced due to the lack of upper limits for individual projects. This does not allow more target groups to be included in KA1, while a number of projects are being rejected. As the number of ECHEs has increased to 168 and 7 having started their application recently, the share of the budgets for the accredited universities has decreased with cuts, despite the higher budgets requested and the high capacity existing to utilise higher budgets reducing the effectiveness at project level while increasing the overall effectiveness. This also justifies the need for additional funds for ECHE under KA103. Furthermore, KA1 AE has very low budget shares (each below 1% of KA1 budget as given in Annex 13 despite the high demand. As, LLL is among the main priorities of Turkey, the budget shares of AE need to be increased to improve effectiveness. The projects under KA2 have a 24.37% share of the total budget currently, while they substantially contribute to the specific objective of enhancing quality, innovation in E&T and Youth fields through the long-term transnational strategic partnerships, particularly by delivering intellectual outputs. Interviews confirm the need for additional funding to address the demand as only 24% of the proposals could be funded. Both the NA and NAU assess KA3 to be of high importance in achieving the country objectives at system level. Currently, only KA347 in Youth field is implemented. On the other hand, Turkey needs to benefit from further opportunities of EC through restricted calls under KA3. This is confirmed by the very successful project of CoHE having high effectiveness in Turkey and EHEA. As the involvement of the Turkish beneficiaries in the centrally managed programmes is assessed to be limited, the NA has included some measures in its 2017 AWP26 to improve the effectiveness through increased budget utilisation. The NA and NAU also comment that although Erasmus+ actions particularly under KA1 and KA2 contribute to one another and those mobilities and strategic partnerships indirectly influence policy developments, Turkey needs to have the opportunity to enable some flexibility to transfer some budget amounts among the three KAs to accelerate reaching the targets set for education and youth. Meanwhile, the questionnaire responses indicate the level of cost-effectiveness achieved during the project implementations as highly sufficient, facilitated through a number of measures taken by the beneficiaries to balance the benefits with the costs. 95% of the respondents agree that the benefits received from the projects are balanced with the expenditures.

25 The Mid-term Report of the NA, March 2017. 26 The NA AWP, 2017 13 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation

8. What challenges and difficulties do you encounter while implementing the various actions of Erasmus+? What changes would need to be introduced in Erasmus+ or its successor programme to remedy these? Key findings:  Most of the challenges and difficulties encountered during the implementation of the projects have been well managed and incorporated by the NA, NAU and the beneficiaries. Yet, the below difficulties are reported to be encountered:  Difficulties in clearly formulating the targeted outputs, outcomes and benefits at student/learner, teacher/trainer and institution levels in the project proposals and also in the project reports. Uncertainties in the sectors bring challenges in formulation of the specific outcomes and impact for KA2 projects, particularly for intellectual outputs. The Erasmus+ Programme Guide does not provide detailed explanations to support the beneficiaries. The questions of reporting are not very clear for the beneficiaries to formulate their outcomes as a result of the outputs delivered.  Continuity of partnerships and transnational mobilities are negatively affected due to unexpected security concerns, which poses a challenge for the mobilities, thus the targeted results to be achieved in such cases.  Limited language support through OLS poses a challenge to ensure achieving the outcomes, due to the continued language learning/teaching needs of the beneficiaries. Also, as mentioned earlier, there is no Turkish language support for the incoming students.  Uncertainties in planning of courses in AE and ensuring quality of internships in VET are reported to pose difficulties in achieving the objectives fully for some beneficiaries.  Some other implementation problems are reported to reduce the effectiveness as explained under the “efficiency Section”, such as low project staff costs. Recommendations: Listed in Section III: Conclusions and Recommendations Most of the challenges and difficulties encountered during the implementation of the actions have been well managed and incorporated by the NA, NAU and the beneficiaries. Yet, the below difficulties are reported to be encountered (as also explained in Questions 4, 11, 14 and 17):  Application forms and reporting are assessed to be complicated for many beneficiaries to define their targeted outputs, outcomes and benefits at student/learner, teacher/trainer and institution levels. The guidelines translated into Turkish and NA’s extensive guidance are highly appreciated by them, particularly with reference to intellectual outputs. Uncertainties in the E&T and Youth sectors bring challenges in formulation of the specific outcomes and impact for KA2 projects, particularly related to the intellectual outputs.  Continuity of partnerships and failure or reluctance of partners in joining the transnational activities and mobilities are mentioned as challenges, particularly due to the recent security concerns across Europe.  Some AE beneficiaries face challenges in benefiting fully from the courses under KA1 mobilities, due to uncertainties in finding the most beneficial courses in the absence of a pool of course offering partners provided by the EC.  In some cases, the internship quality and duration of VET projects are found to be limited to ensure achievement of the targeted objectives under VET actions.  OLS is not provided under all actions, while the language barrier continues for most beneficiaries irrespective of the KAs. For example, school teachers of technical branches cannot benefit from OLS related to their mobilities under SE KA1, while their performance decreases due to limited language proficiency. Meanwhile, there is no Turkish language support for the incoming students.  Lack of adequate emphasis of some projects on dissemination and exploitation of the results (KA2) particularly related to innovative results, limits benefit and impact to be widely realised as explained in Question 9.  Some implementation difficulties such as delays in selection and contracting of projects in the first implementation year of the Programme, high costs of health insurance required for EVS Volunteers, visa problems for mobilities, short mobility duration in HE field, higher travel costs than allocated and low staff costs under KA2. 9. To what extent are the approaches and tools that are used for disseminating and exploiting the results of Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes in your country effective? Where can you see the possibilities for improvements? Key findings:  Erasmus+ has limited budget allocation for dissemination and exploitation activities in the projects (KA2) mostly implemented within the management costs. At project level, evidences for effectiveness of dissemination and exploitation of results vary. Several good practices are reported for KA2 projects particularly related to the intellectual outputs, all contributing to the effectiveness significantly. Good Practice Fairs are effective means for dissemination of results. It is evidenced that specific means for dissemination are needed to reach the disadvantaged groups to ensure effectiveness.

14 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation

 The NA takes several measures to ensure that the project results are disseminated and exploited widely in achieving the Erasmus+ objectives, while there is further need for allocation of specific funds in the project budgets. Recommendations: Listed in Section III: Conclusions and Recommendations Erasmus+ has limited budget allocation for dissemination and exploitation activities in the projects (KA2) mostly implemented within the management costs. Even within this budget limitation, the feedback indicates that all of the beneficiaries perform some dissemination activities. At project level, evidences for effectiveness of dissemination and exploitation of results vary. Almost all of the questionnaire respondents have used at least five different means to disseminate their results including seminars, meetings, events, social media, press, TV, networks, etc. They think that these tools have been mostly functional and beneficial for their effectiveness (on average 60%), while 48% have used Project Results Platform. Strikingly, 100% of the respondents agree that the dissemination tools specifically designed for the disadvantaged groups (disabled, migrants, refugees, etc.) have been very effective. While the dissemination of KA1 projects is very limited, it has been widely used for KA2 projects, particularly for the intellectual outputs. However, feedback reveals that the chances of continuity after the project end are limited due to lack resources and discontinuity of the project staff. Difficulties in exploitation have been reported. This is more evident in the fields of SE, VET and AE, whereas, the projects under the HE and Youth fields are performing much better benefitting from the institutional structure of the HEIs and dedicated commitment of the NGOs together with the volunteers. Good practices have also been evidenced at various events, all contributing to the effectiveness. Effective cooperation among universities, establishment of contact points and data basis specific for dissemination and exploitation have been reported, while country-wide dissemination has been achieved by ATO through its members. With a concern to increase effectiveness of Erasmus+ as explicitly described in the AWPs particularly since 2016, the NA has been taking several measures in line with its integrated Communication Strategy. The NA conducts a close follow-up of the dissemination activities to ensure their completion. Erasmus+ National Coordination Committee has recently decided to develop further cooperation, exchange information and take measures for better implementation and dissemination of the Erasmus+ outcomes. Several supporting events have been organised by the NA in cooperation with the NAU to increase the visibility, and even with EUD when needed, which includes the celebration events for the 30th Anniversary of the Erasmus Programme27 in 2017. It is reported by the NA that innovative means of communication have been initiated to attract the young generation through benefiting from the ICT facilities, such as you-tube videos, viral videos and phone applications. An effective event held in December 2016 was the “KA2 Strategic Partnership Projects - Good Practices Fair” organised by the NA. On-line platforms like Project Results Platform, Eurodesk, Euroguidance and EPALE offer facilities for dissemination of the outcomes through virtual collaboration spaces, databases of opportunities, good practices etc. (See Annex 4a for details). The budget does not have a specific item for dissemination under KA1 and includes only in management costs under KA2. Thus, the support of the NA for dissemination of the project outputs plays an important role in contributing to the overall effectiveness of the Programme results. On the other hand, dissemination of intellectual outputs needs special attention of the beneficiaries having limited budgets. This issue is also highlighted by the external evaluators. II.2. Efficiency

10. To what extent is the system of cooperation and division of tasks between the Commission, Executive Agency, National Agencies, European Investment Fund, National Authorities, Independent Audit Bodies, and Erasmus+ Committee efficient and well-functioning from the point of view of your country? What are the areas for possible improvement or simplification in the implementation of Erasmus+ or a successor programme? Key findings:  Overall, the system of cooperation and division of tasks among the main stakeholders has been well functioning to ensure the Erasmus+ Programme to be implemented smoothly and efficiently in Turkey.  Within the framework of the Turkey-EU Accession negotiations, implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme is on the agenda of meetings with the EC under Chapter 26 on Education and Culture. The Turkish Delegation representing NAU regularly participates in the Erasmus+ Committee meetings. Yet, Turkey benefits from this structure of coordination to some extent, having only the “observer status” without a voting right, despite Turkey’s high contribution to the Erasmus+ budget. The NA also regularly participates in the annual coordination meetings held by the EC. Although there are thematic working groups, the NA could not be able to be part of them all.  Communication Strategy of the NA is fully functional and the beneficiaries appreciate the NA’s efforts and activities for fluent communication and strong coordination.  Most of the beneficiaries report the lack of adequate information on the centrally managed actions of the EC, which does not allow Turkey for wider benefit from the overall Programme.

27 The NA’s plan for the 30th Anniversary of the Programme (http://erasmusplus30.ua.gov.tr/) 15 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation

 Issuance of visa for Erasmus+ mobilities poses a significant problem for the Turkish participants, which reduces efficiency and discourages participation in mobilities. This raises the need for some means of facilitation for recognition of Erasmus+ programme by the Visa Offices of Erasmus+ Programme Countries and Partner Countries. Recommendations: Listed in Section III: Conclusions and Recommendations Overall, the system of cooperation and division of tasks among the main stakeholders has been well functioning to ensure Erasmus+ to be implemented smoothly in Turkey. The main stakeholders include the European Commission (EC), the Centre for European Education and Youth Programmes acting, as the National Agency (NA), the Ministry for EU Affairs (MEU), acting as the National Authority (NAU) Office, policy making bodies and the main beneficiaries being the public and private institutions for E&T, and organisations for the Youth field in Turkey. The NA, being the single agency, undertakes its core missions, under all three KAs and fulfils its obligations against the EC in line with its AWPs28 while regularly cooperating with the EC. The participative and transparent approaches of the EC in contacting the NA, when taking decisions, are highly appreciated by the higher management of the NA and NAU. Efficiency of the system is reported to be well supported by peer learning among NAs in Europe facilitated by the informal meetings held. However, most of the beneficiaries mention the lack of adequate information on the centrally managed actions of the EC, which does not allow Turkey for wider benefit from the overall Programme. Within the framework of the Turkey-EU Accession negotiations, implementation of Erasmus+ is on the agenda of the meetings with the EC relevant to Chapter 26 on Education and Culture. The Turkish Delegation representing NAU regularly participates in the Erasmus+ Committee meetings, where the coordination among NAUs is ensured. However, despite Turkey’s high contribution to the Erasmus+ budget Turkey benefits from this structure of coordination to some extent, having the “observer status” without a voting right. The NA also participates regularly in the annual coordination meetings held by the EC, which facilitates practical issues to be discussed between the EC and NAs. Although there are thematic working groups, the NA could not be able to be part of them all. These meetings are considered to be more effective should they be organised more frequently, in a more inclusive and more structured way with specific themes or common concerns within each sector of the Programme Countries. Furthermore, the NA and NAU ensure effective and efficient communication and coordination with line Ministries, the other policy-making authorities as well as with regional and local bodies through regular annual meetings of the Advisory Board. The Erasmus+ National Coordination Committee meets regularly and takes decisions for enhancement of implementation and dissemination of results. Furthermore, NAU has been realising on-the-spot check visits to the on-going projects. The SMC serves also for monitoring and evaluation including audit recommendations. As for functioning of the auditing bodies, the NA reports that no problem has been experienced in meeting the considerable requirements of the Court of Auditors, Treasury Controllers acting as the Independent Audit Body (IAB) of the Programme, and Internal Auditing with respect to Turkish legislation, in addition to the Auditing practice of the EC for Erasmus+. The NA has been conducting its communication and coordination activities in line with its Integrated Communication Strategy. The questionnaire responses indicate a high satisfaction level (92%) of the beneficiaries with the NA’s activities of communication in providing information. The difficulties encountered in obtaining visa for Erasmus+ mobilities raises the need for coordination between the EC and NAU to develop some means of facilitation for recognition of Erasmus+ programme by the Visa Offices of Erasmus+ Programme Countries. 11. To what extent has the integration of several programmes into Erasmus+ resulted in efficiency gains or losses for the implementation of the programme in your country, both at the level of the National Agency/ies and on the beneficiaries' and participants' level? Do you see scope for changes to the structure of Erasmus+ or its successor programme that could increase efficiency? Do you consider that the implementation of certain actions of the programme is more efficient than others? Are there differences across fields? What good practices of these more efficient actions of the programme could be transferred to others? Key findings:  Overall, the integration of several programmes of the LLP&YiA into Erasmus+ has resulted in an improvement in the efficient implementation of the Programme in Turkey, yet still having efficiency losses.  Efficiency gains are reported mainly through the simplification and standardisation of project proposals in different fields; the institutional approach; increased cooperation between different types of institutions eligible; allowing the beneficiaries having different projects under different sectors.  Efficiency losses are reported mainly through the not much simplified application process with a complicated Erasmus+ Programme Guide for the beneficiaries bringing additional work on the NA staff, in providing the Turkish translations of the documents and information and guidance; unclear questions in reporting causing additional questions raised by the beneficiaries to the NA; the adoption of the new IT system bringing several difficulties both for the beneficiaries and the NA during application,

28 The NA AWPs for 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 16 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation

implementation, reporting, etc., while PIC usage poses several difficulties and misusage and security risks particularly in VET field; lack of a pool of course offering partners causing difficulties for partner finding in the AE KA1; duration of HE mobilities not synchronised with the semester start and end dates, budgeting posing difficulties due to differences in the definitions of the guidelines and in realisation of the expenditures, as is the case for the travel expense calculated by the distance calculator; and VET Charter eligibility requirement hindering efficiency.  Efficiency losses are also reported through limited language support of the EC, and OLS does not fully satisfy the significant needs of the target groups in Turkey. No Turkish on-line or other language support is offered for the in-coming students, who would need to use at least the basics of Turkish.  The duration of HE mobilities needs to be synchronised with the semester start and end dates. Recommendations: Listed in Section III: Conclusions and Recommendations Overall, both the NA and the beneficiaries assess that integration of several programmes of the LLP&YiA into Erasmus+ has resulted in an improvement in efficient implementation of the Programme in Turkey, yet still having efficiency losses. The governing gain of the integration of several programmes is related to the simplification and standardisation of project proposals. The similarity among KAs motivates the applicants to realise new projects in different fields. The integration has allowed the same beneficiaries to be applicants under different sectors, which contribute to efficient utilisation of HR and financial resources. Another gain reported is related to the increased variety of the eligible applicants, which allows for increased cooperation between different types of institutions. Interviews reveal that institutional approach has contributed to the efficient management of the KA2 projects. 88% of the questionnaire respondents “agree” on this gain but most of them not “strongly”. On the other hand, integration under Erasmus+ has not much simplified the application process, which is still rather complicated for the beneficiaries, and for the NA in providing frequent and extensive information and guidance to the beneficiaries. Erasmus+ Programme Guide is reported to be well guiding in general for the experienced beneficiaries; yet most of the new applicants are reported to require additional explanations for details. For example, the “intellectual outputs” referred to under KA2 Strategic Partnerships have not been well understood by some beneficiaries, so several questions are raised to the NA for clarifications. Similarly, some questions in reporting are found to be not very clear for the beneficiaries, and they raise several questions to the NA. Most of the NGOs and Youth organisations find the new design as complicated and confusing particularly for volunteer services. 40% of the questionnaire respondents are in the mind that the application procedures and the documents requested have posed a challenge for them. Similarly, despite the significant improvements in the new IT system, its adoption has brought several difficulties both for the beneficiaries and the NA hindering efficiency. PIC usage poses several difficulties, misusage, and security risks. (see Question 14 for details) IT guidelines are found to be quite complicated. Remedies have been brought by the NA through Turkish translation of the Erasmus+ Programme Guide and other guiding documents, in addition to several information meetings, webinars and consultancies held and videos developed to clarify the details. This, however, brought substantial additional work for the NA. Likewise, budgeting continues to pose difficulties due to differences in the standard definitions in the guidelines and in the realisation of the expenditures, as is the case for the travel expense calculated by the distance calculator not corresponding to the real transportation costs. Together with integration, partner institution finding has become difficult in the AE field, as no list for a pool of partners offering courses is provided by the EC any longer. No change in efficiency is reported for the Youth field, as they continue to have different characteristics inherent in their scope. While the HE projects under KA1 are assessed to be managed country wide with high efficiency, particularly when implemented through KA103 wheres a similar level of efficiency gain is not demonstrated by the VET Charter under KA1 due to increased experience requirement for eligibility. There are only two VET Charters continuing. The “EU Development Plan” requirement of SE KA1 is reported to contribute to efficiency gains in project management preventing possible overlaps of individual applications, while having brought additional burden on the project coordinators at the schools. Efficiency losses are reported stemming from lack of adequate language proficiency of the participants; and OLS not fully satisfying the different specific needs of the target groups in Turkey. Most of the beneficiaries prefer to submit project proposals for KA1 as they are in Turkish, while OLS is not provided to the short-term mobilities under KA1. The questionnaire responses confirm this finding, since 38% of the respondents of KA1 state that they have not used the OLS efficiently, and even 28% used it insufficiently. On the other hand, no Turkish on-line or other language support is offered for the in-coming students, who would need to use at least the basics of Turkish. 12. Do you consider that the implementation of certain actions of the programme is more efficient than others? Are there differences across fields? What good practices of these more efficient actions of the programme could be transferred to others? Key findings:  Efficient implementation of the overall Programme, irrespective of the fields and key actions, has been

17 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation

successfully ensured by the NA in achieving the targets and the indicators set in its AWPs. Ownership of the beneficiaries plays an important role in the successful management of the projects.  Almost all of the actions have been implemented efficiently, except for the VET Charter due to the additional experience requirements for eligibility. Recommendations: Listed in Section III: Conclusions and Recommendations Efficient implementation of the overall Programme in Turkey, irrespective of the fields or key actions, has been successfully ensured by the NA. The NA exhibits a comprehensive approach to achieve the targets and the indicators set in the AWPs29 for each of the KA. The efficient implementation together with high ownership of the beneficiaries is demonstrated by the high number of project proposals. HEIs exhibit good practices for implementation of projects under KA1 and KA2. KA1 projects are well managed under the ECHE, the number of which has been increasing exponentially with a selection rate of 94.47%. Universities are implementing KA1 mobilities through the ECHEs. The selection rate of 100% for VET Charter does not actually reflect the success rate due to additional requirement for accumulated experience of Erasmus+ differing from the Leonardo da Vinci of LLP. However, VET learner and staff mobility under KA1 has been exhibiting high efficiency. As indicated by the interviewees, KA1 allows for easier implementation of short- term mobilities with more flexibility compared to KA2 projects which need longer term responsibility and commitment with a challenge to deliver the targeted outputs timely and with adequate quality. KA2 projects are particularly successful in delivering the intellectual outputs through the transnational partnerships. A number of good practices were presented at the Erasmus+ Project Results Fair in 2016. Overall, both KA1 and KA2 projects are reported to implement mobilities smoothly; yet, visa problems pose a risk hindering efficiency of particularly the frequent and high number of mobilities under KA1. Despite the complexity of the KA3 project themes, the 46 projects, selected among 381 competitive proposals, have been successfully managed. The in-depth questionnaire responses, in addition to the interviews, reflect the well performance and delivery of the outputs through several sector specific measures to ensure smooth participation of the stakeholders to the dialogue events. On the other hand, a qualitative counterfactual analysis reveals that the sports organisations would also have high ownership of the projects in Sport field, should they have the chances to implement projects through a decentralised action. Furthermore, an interview with a (centrally managed) Jean Monnet Chair provides evidence for the efficient management the Programme through the high ownership of the academicians working on EU Integration Policies. 13. To what extent has the system of simplified grants resulted in a reduction of the administrative burden for National Agencies and programme beneficiaries and participants? Are there differences across actions or fields? What elements of the programme could be changed to further reduce the administrative burden, without unduly compromising its results and impact? Key findings:  Overall, the system of simplified grants has resulted in a reduction of the administrative burden for the NA and beneficiaries to some extent. However, most of the beneficiaries report that the administrative burden is still rather high, despite the reduction. The beneficiaries find the application forms, implementation procedures and reporting to be rather complicated and lengthy. This has also discouraged NGOs, particularly working as volunteers in the Youth field.  Reporting has become easier as it is standardised for the beneficiaries and the partners across countries, which has reduced the work. Yet, the beneficiaries are in the mind that the questions in reporting are not always explicitly described, which raises a need for requesting explanation from the NA. This increases the work of both the beneficiary and the NA in responding to ensure that reporting is of adequate quality. On the other hand, the NA reports the need for adding an interim report to the requirements, particularly for projects with long periods of implementation (24-36 months), which would facilitate and strengthen the quality of monitoring in terms of risk mitigation. In addition, as the interim reports of the KA107 could not be retrieved from the Mobility Tool, the beneficiary requests are uploaded by the NA to the EPlusLink manually. Other problems reported by the NA are: (i) some discrepancies between the BO reporting and the NA statistical reporting; (ii) lack of a section for demographic information of the applicants, and for monitoring of the applications for the TCA in the EPlusLink; (iii) lack of parallel functioning of the Mobility Tool and the EPlusLink specific to ICM; (iv) lack of categorisation of the budget items with respect to the countries; and (v) lack of a confirmation system for PIC.  Budgeting has been significantly simplified. However, difficulties are mentioned in managing the overall costs, due to the lack of flexibility in the budget.  Training of the beneficiaries by the NA including peer learning among them has been reported to be reducing the administrative burden on the applicants and beneficiaries. Recommendations: Listed in Section III: Conclusions and Recommendations Overall, the system of simplified grants has resulted in a visible reduction of the administrative burden for the NA and the beneficiaries in Turkey. However, this reduction has not been at high levels; and the administrative burden is reported to be still highly challenging particularly for the beneficiaries. Most of them

29 The NA AWPs for 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 18 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation find the application forms and the implementation procedures to be rather complicated, repetitive and lengthy. In fact, it is reported that this has discouraged Youth NGOs particularly working as volunteers. The NA agrees that not much has changed in terms of administrative burden with the start of Erasmus+ after the completion of the LLP&YiA. The administrative responsibility and work of the NA continue to be rather high. The IT tools have reduced the administrative burden to some extent. Yet, the system and management of information harmonised with that of EC require high responsibility and create a burden on the NA. Additionally, the NA conducts intensive activities under the Communication Strategy to provide adequate information on IT tools as well as delivering training. While most of the interviewees report that the administrative burden remains almost the same, others highlight the requirement to complete too many, too detailed and repetitive documents during the application and implementation phases. 40% of the questionnaire respondents find the application procedures too difficult. Peer learning among schools and universities has been reported to reduce the administrative burden. The administrative burden is found to be high particularly by the NGOs for VET, AE and Youth volunteers and informal groups, which is reported to discourage some NGOs. Thus, public institutions and HEIs are in a better position implementing youth projects, where the institutional structures of the NGOs are discouraged by the high administrative burden of the Programme (Annex 8). Even some university EU Offices mention the high administrative burden and responsibility, whereas, out of 29 KA2 Youth projects, 14 are implemented by HEIs, 2 by local administrations and 3 by public institutions, whereas only 10 are implemented by NGOs. The IT tools of EC have generally been assessed to be reducing the administrative burden of the beneficiaries. The assignment of PIC to the applicants still poses difficulties, which increases the burden on the NA to bring solutions. The Mobility Tool+ is assessed to be functioning well. Yet, the beneficiaries still request guidance and explanations on the vague questions for applications (see also Question 14 for details). Reporting has become much more standardised for the beneficiaries and the partners across the countries, which has reduced the work. Yet, the beneficiaries are in the mind that the questions in reporting are not always explicitly described, which raises a need for requesting explanation from the NA. This increases the work of both the beneficiary in searching possible answers to the questions and the NA, where the latter, responding to the questions of the individual beneficiaries need to ensure that reporting is of adequate quality. On the other hand, the NA reports the need for adding an interim report for KA2 projects to the requirements of the Mobility Tool+, particularly for projects with long periods of implementation (24-36 months), which would facilitate and strengthen the quality of monitoring in terms of risk mitigation. Comments on the administrative burden of the required budgetary procedures vary. For most of the beneficiaries, independent of the sector, calculation of the expenditure items has been quite simplified through the structured framework and calculation by unit costs. However, for some of the beneficiaries, difficulties are mentioned in managing the overall costs, due to the lack of flexibility in the budget. In addition to the budgetary procedural requirements of Erasmus+, the legislative requirements of the country bring additional obligations to the beneficiaries in Turkey. This is particularly evident with regard to the financial regulations of the country, imposing wider responsibilities to the Erasmus+ beneficiaries. 14. To what extent are the IT tools provided by the Commission adequate for the efficient management and implementation of the programme in your country? Do they answer your needs? Give specific examples where they can be improved. Is the set of IT tools appropriate or should it cover more/less elements of the programme implementation? Key findings:  Management of the overall system through the IT tools has been designed comprehensively, which, however, needs to be further improved to become more efficient and user-friendly both for the applicants/beneficiaries and the NA.  The following difficulties in the information system preventing the effective management of Erasmus+ have been identified as specific areas for improvement: (i) Inconsistencies in numerical values between the BO reporting and the NA Statistical reporting; (ii) EPlusLink not including a section for the demographic data of the participants to ensure the follow-up / monitoring of all of the applications in TCA; (iii) Lack of parallel functioning of the Mobility Tool+ and EPlusLink programmes resulting in lack of synchronised reporting; (iv) Lack of details of the grant data with respect to budget categories/items and the countries; (v) Under the KA107 projects, transfer of the beneficiary requests to the EPlusLink is being done manually, since the interim reports cannot be produced by the Mobility Tool+; (vi) The system managed by the EC not allowing access to data for different assessment purposes of the NA; and (vii) Difficulties in usage of PIC and the security concerns about PIC usage. Recommendations: Listed in Section III: Conclusions and Recommendations Management of the overall system through the IT tools has been designed comprehensively, which, however, needs to be further improved to become more efficient and user-friendly both for the applicants/beneficiaries and the NA. The initial difficulties at the start of Erasmus+ have been mostly overcome. The EC User Guide for the IT tools has been elaborated and the ECAS Guiding Video has been developed by the NA for a better understanding of the beneficiaries in Turkey, both of which are well-guiding.

19 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation

According to the questionnaire responses, the IT tools are considered to be useful by 76% of the respondents, while others indicate the difficulties to use them. The Mobility Tool+ is assessed to be effective and efficient by 82% of the respondents. Still, some difficulties preventing efficiency are identified as follows: (i) Inconsistencies in numerical values between the BO reporting and the NA Statistical reporting; (ii) EPlusLink not including a section for the demographic data of the participants to ensure the follow-up / monitoring of all applications in TCA; (iii) Lack of parallel functioning of Mobility Tool+ and EPlusLink specific to ICT system resulting in lack of synchronised reporting; (iv) Lack of details of the grant data with respect to budget categories/items and the countries; (v) Under the KA107 projects, transfer of the beneficiary requests to the EPlusLink is being done manually, since the interim reports cannot be produced by the Mobility Tool+; and (vi) The system managed by the EC not allowing access to data for different assessment purposes of the NA, for whom a simplification for access would support providing feedback to improve the performance in Turkey. The external evaluators are reported to use the system (OEET) fully independently. Important issues related to PIC are: (a) Usage: The beneficiaries have faced difficulties in obtaining the PIC. The repetitive and overlapping PIC numbers taken within the same beneficiary institution have created confusion in identification of the main beneficiary institution and resulted in complications and inconsistencies in preparation of the indicators in the AWP of the NA. These difficulties have been mitigated mostly through continuous warnings and support of the NA. (b) Security of the PIC numbers: a few incidents of false or misuse have been reported to the NA, which is due to the fact that PIC numbers are accessible openly through the internet. There is lack of a confirmation system for PIC. This issue continues to pose a risk. These findings are confirmed by the following satisfaction rates of the questionnaire: 67% with ECAS; 59% with Participants Portal; 80% with PIC registration system; 82% with Mobility Tool+; 80% with TURNA; 67% with the content of the IT system; 83% with the proposal application process; 81% with the management and follow-up; 86% with the reporting (Annex 4a). For the NA, the new IT system has not required any substantial change with its IT infrastructure, except for some adaptations, demonstrating adequate capacity and flexibility to adopt. The NA’s IT system (TURNA) has been mostly ceased out, yet kept for complementing Erasmus+ IT system with data to meet national auditing requirements. The NA has established a disaster rescue centre for data with backups for potential risks of data losses. 15. To what extent is the level of human and financial resources that is available for the implementation of the country adequate? What steps did you take to optimise the efficiency of the resources deployed for the Erasmus+ implementation in your country? Key findings:  Adequate human and financial resources are available at the NA and NAU to ensure efficient implementation of Erasmus+ in Turkey. On the other hand, some issues need further attention, such as the need for enhanced capacity building for NA staff including the external evaluators and for strengthenning Programme’s monitoring system towards a results-based approach in order to ensure achievement of specific objectives of the Programme.  Human and financial resources of the applicants and beneficiaries vary according to their institutional capacities, which are also affected when located at disadvantaged rural areas. As a measure, the NA has been promoting of and increasing awareness on the opportunities of the Programme as well as the capacity building of the target groups.  Organisations like NGOs, youth groups, voluntary service organisations, particularly targeting disadvantaged groups, are reported to experience difficulties in allocating the co-funding. Building partnerships with other institutions is one of the solutions. Turkey still needs to benefit more from Erasmus Mundus projects, despite the efficient implementation of the HE field under KA1 and KA2. Countries still have differences on legal terms, which need to be considered by the EC for the successor programmes to ensure efficiency in the HE fields overall. Recommendations: Listed in Section III: Conclusions and Recommendations - Human and Financial Resources of the NA and NAU: The Erasmus+ Budget is managed as given in the Erasmus+ AWPs.30 The overall coordination of Turkey’s participation in EU Programmes is carried out by MEU (NAU) via its DSRIP with a dedicated expert team. Likewise, the well-established institutional structure of the NA including its experienced human resources (HR) at all levels, ensures Erasmus+ to be implemented efficiently in Turkey. While the NA’s HR performance benefits from its public institution structure, its capacity has developed over the past 13 years also benefiting from its low staff turnover and continued capacity building. The NA staff interviewed expresses their satisfaction with the in-house training, which needs to be continued in line with the changing needs of the Programme. Additionally, a pool of external experts has been performing with principles of transparency and accountability for the independent evaluation of the high number of project proposals exceeding 25,000 to date (Annex 12). The pool was renewed in 2015 and supported by trainings delivered, the importance of which is confirmed by the focus

30 The 2017 Erasmus+ AWP of the EC, page 118 20 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation group meeting with them. Furthermore, the beneficiaries report that feedback of the external evaluators is of high importance for them to improve the quality of their future proposals. On the other hand, some issues need further attention, such as the need for enhanced capacity building for NA staff through sharing of experiences, difficulties and good practices among the NAs of Programme Countries, renewal of the external evaluators pool when a major change introduced to the Programme. HR is available for monitoring of the on- going projects to be conducted by the NA and the NAU experts. However, due to the limited number of experts and particularly with a monitoring capacity made limited by the high number of projects proposed, and implemented (3,944 to date); monitoring has been conducted on a limited number of samples (randomly selected projects and on-the-spot-checks of risky projects, etc.). Therefore, it is assessed that the results- based approach for monitoring could be adopted. As for financial resources, NA spends efforts for efficient use of the administration budget, such as drafting the annual budget with a needs analysis, while adequate budget is allocated for promotional activities and materials beside staff expenditures. Utilisation of the sources is reported to be with a strict cost effective approach as per the Erasmus+ guidelines and the national governing legislation. - Measures taken by the NA and NAU to enhance the capacity of the applicants and beneficiaries: As a measure, the NA has been promoting of and increasing awareness on the opportunities of the Programme as well as the capacity building of the target groups. The NA’s Communication Strategy is being used as a structured framework for this purpose. The following means are mostly used to direct the target groups into Erasmus+: (i) The NA web site providing information (English and Turkish) with a link to EACEA; (ii) Meetings, seminars, training activities widespread in Turkey, Fairs for “Good Practices” of the Erasmus+ Dissemination Platform; (iii) Local media facilities; and (iv) Consultancies. The NA and NAU are planning to develop further activities to ensure wider dissemination of the project outputs. In addition, the NA and NAU organise events for the celebration of 30th Anniversary of Erasmus in 2017 in Turkey, in cooperation with the EUD. - Human and Financial Resources of the Applicants / Beneficiaries and measures taken: Overall, the budget and HR allocations of the beneficiaries have been adequate and no project contract cancellation due to lack of co-funding or HR has been reported by the NA, despite some difficulties in raising funds have been reported by the beneficiaries. Evidence indicates that the degree of HR and financial resources availability varies with the characteristics of the institutions (see also Question 17). The co-funding and HR allocation are reported to create no difficulty for the organisations with strong institutional structures like schools and HEIs. Organisations like NGOs, youth groups, voluntary service organisations, particularly targeting disadvantaged groups, are reported to experience difficulties in allocating the co-funding, as confirmed by the focus group meeting with the Youth Trainers. Building partnerships with other institutions is one of the solutions. These findings raise the need for a special approach to include such organisations experiencing difficulties, yet delivering high benefit, even addressing untouched areas. Recently, the Erasmus+ Master Degree Loan Scheme has been launched in Turkey through a commercial bank with the aim of increasing transnational student mobility. On the other hand, Turkey still needs to benefit more from Erasmus Mundus projects. Countries still have differences on legal terms, which need to be considered by the EC for the successor programmes to ensure efficiency in the HE fields overall. II.3. Relevance

16. To what extent do the Erasmus+ objectives continue to address the needs or problems they are meant to solve? Are these needs or problems (still) relevant in the context of your country? Have the needs or problems evolved in such a way that the objectives of Erasmus+ or its successor programme need to be adjusted? Key findings:  Erasmus+ objectives are highly relevant with and continue addressing the existing needs and problems indicated in the relevant policy documents of Turkey and the EC, as also confirmed by the beneficiaries. The need for supporting language learning/teaching continues in Turkey. Accessing to different disadvantaged target groups needs a specific approach. Sport could also be a field to be further supported to address such needs.  The interviews conducted and the needs assessments of the AWPs31 of the NA confirm that the needs of different stakeholders under the E&T and Youth fields are well addressed by the Erasmus+ objectives particularly with reference to internationalisation, skills and competence development and quality improvements, while LLL and language needs are to be further addressed and the needs in the Sport field are to be addressed to contribute to achievement of the Programme objectives widely.  Country specific conditions require projects to address and integrate specifically the national needs while also serving the Europe 2020 and ET 2020 targets. Recommendations: Listed in Section III: Conclusions and Recommendations

31 The NA AWPs for 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 21 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation a) Erasmus+ objectives are highly consistent with the objectives of policy documents of Turkey, in addressing the needs or problems they are meant to solve in each sector as also indicated in the relevant policy documents of Turkey and the EC: Improving access to primary and secondary education and decreasing the number of drop-outs in addition to improving the quality of education to reach the OECD and EU levels are indicated as priority areas of the 10th National Development Plan (2014-2018) as well as the Institutional Strategic Plan (2015-2019)32 of MoNE. Assessment of Turkey with respect to Europe 2020 and ET 2020 indicators exhibits the need for improvements to reach EU averages (see Question 2 and Annex 7). Meanwhile, Turkey has been actively participating in the Bologna Process and EHEA33 in fulfilling the requirements for internationalisation as stated in the Institutional Strategic Plan of CoHE (2015-2019)34. Erasmus+ projects are reported to be facilitating the quality assurance and internationalisation of HEIs with increased recognition of credits, enhanced quality of academic performances, and increased awareness on HE policy improvement. IPA II Multi-annual Action Programme for Turkey on Employment, Education and Social Policies35 identifies challenges related to the quality of education, educational attainment and participation in the LLL, which basically refer to the specific objectives of Erasmus+. Similarly, development of key competences and strengthening the linkage between non-formal training and labour market are emphasised in the National LLL Strategy Paper for 2014-201836. As also targeted by Erasmus+, enhancing employability through VET in addition to SE and HE is one of the objectives of the Strategic Plan for Vocational and Technical Education (2013-2017) of MoNE. Many Erasmus+ projects implemented in Turkey demonstrate contribution to increased employability of the participants, internationalisation and quality enhancement of the schools, HEIs and other training providers of VET, AE and Youth fields. The objectives stated in The National Youth and Sports Policy Document37 are consistent with the objectives of the Erasmus+ for Youth and Sports, particularly in combating gender discrimination, addictions, hatred, while encouraging social inclusion of disadvantaged people, increased voluntarism, enhanced employability and competitiveness by changing social perceptions and values. b) Evidence supporting the Erasmus+ objectives addressing the needs of the project beneficiaries / partners: From the perspective of the beneficiaries, the Erasmus+ objectives strongly match the needs of the beneficiaries. On the other hand, the needs addressed by the projects support approximation rather than harmonisation of the education and training systems, which have some differences in Turkey and the EU with specific needs and different dynamics of each sector as also confirmed by the questionnaires. Yet, some disadvantaged groups still need special emphasis as also explained under Questions 2 and 17. The interviews conducted and the needs assessments of the AWPs38 of the NA confirm that the needs of different stakeholders under the E&T and Youth fields are well addressed by the Erasmus+ objectives particularly with reference to developing cross-cultural and EU values and understanding, enhancing internationalisation, developing skills and competences and quality improvement, while LLL and language needs are to be further addressed. Furthermore, KA2 stimulates adoption of creative and innovative approaches to deliver intellectual outputs. c) Proposal for Adjustments to the Programme to better address the specific needs of the target groups: (i) Specific well justified national priorities to be identified by the NAs, (ii) Language support to be diversified and extended by the EC, (iii) the Sport field to be decentrally managed to respond to the needs of the targets groups which would contribute to achieving the specific and general objectives of the Programme: Country specific conditions require projects to address and integrate specific national needs to be more relevant for progress against the ET 2020 indicators. Accessing to different disadvantaged target groups needs a specific approach. Sports could also be a field to be further supported to address such needs. Moreover, most of the beneficiaries interviewed agree that the language barrier continues to exist in Turkey at different levels. Differences in the language proficiency of the participants require specific measures to be taken. Country specific administrative measures would serve to bring remedies. The need for improved language proficiency of particularly the VET, AE, Youth and SE beneficiaries are not fully met by the Erasmus+ Programme having less emphasis compared to LLP&YiA. A decentrally managed Sport field could also contribute to addressing the Youth Policies particularly in combating gender discrimination, addictions, hatred, while encouraging social inclusion of disadvantaged people, increased voluntarism, enhanced employability and competitiveness by changing social perceptions and values. 17. To what extent are needs of different stakeholders and sectors addressed by the Erasmus+ objectives? How successful is the programme in attracting and reaching target audiences and groups within different fields of the programme's scope? Is the Erasmus+

32 https://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Ministry/Publications/MOE-Four-Year-Plan-2015-2019.pdf 33 Higher Education System in Turkey (http://www.yok.gov.tr/documents/10348274/10733291/TR%27de+Y%C3%BCksek %C3%B6%C4%9Fretim+Sistemi2.pdf/9027552a-962f-4b03-8450-3d1ff8d56ccc ) 34 http://www.sp.gov.tr/upload/xSPStratejikPlan/files/UWw52+yuksekogretim_kurulu_2015_2019_stratejik_plani.pdf 35 https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/pdf/turkey/ipa_2014_31882_turkey_multi- annual_action_programme_on_employment%2C_education_social_policies.pdf 36 National Lifelong Strategy Paper for 2014-2018, MoNE. 37 The National Youth and Sports Policy Document, Ankara, 2015, pages 1 and 51 38 The NA AWPs for 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 22 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation programme well known to the education and training, youth and sport communities? In case some target groups are not sufficiently reached, what factors are limiting their access and what actions could be taken to remedy this? Key findings:  Interviews and the AWPs of the NA confirm that the needs of different stakeholders under the E&T and Youth fields are overall well addressed by the Erasmus+ objectives. However, the disadvantaged groups could not be fully addressed with a differentiated approach, as it could be implemented and benefited from within the LLP&YiA.  Visibility for all fields of Erasmus+ to attract and reach target audiences and groups within different sectors is very high, while HE and SE actions are assessed to have the highest within the E&T field. On the other hand, while being well-known to the education and youth communities, VET Mobility Charter and the field of Sport require further attention to reach other relevant stakeholders and sectors. Recommendations: Listed in Section III: Conclusions and Recommendations The AWPs, since 2014 to date, clearly describe the target groups and their needs with respect to the relevant sectors (Annex 10). The variety of target areas and eligible beneficiaries under the Erasmus+ actions are believed to be successful in reaching different stakeholders with different needs, which is more diversified in comparison to the LLP&YiA. In this respect, Erasmus+ is successful in responding to the HE, SE and LLL priorities of Turkey. Overall, Erasmus+ targets wide coverage of different types of target groups to be eligible for the actions and for each of the fields being more diversified in comparison to the LLP&YiA, which is found to be beneficial by 90% of the questionnaire respondents. However, the public institutions account for 53% of the total beneficiaries since most of the schools including vocational education are public institutions, while the share of the HEIs is 19%, NGOs is 13% and the informal groups is 13% overall (Annex 8). Within the E&T fields the shares of public institutions are very high with 65% under KA1 and 87% under KA2; and the shares of HEIs are the second highest with 32% under KA1 and 8% under KA2. Within the E&T fields the shares of NGOs under KA1 and KA2 are rather low with 2% and 3%, respectively. On the other hand, in the Youth field under KA1, the shares of informal groups and NGOs are rather high with 46% and 35%, respectively. Yet, in the Youth field under KA2, some NGOs could not be effectively involved in the projects for reaching target groups that are difficult to access due to lack of adequate institutional capacity. Thus, 48% of the KA2 Youth project beneficiaries are HEIs and 10% are public institutions. On the other hand, even though the number of private sector involvement is low, they achieve successful access to the target groups as demonstrated by the Ankara Chamber of Commerce accessing the youth country-wide. Similarly, the local administrations address the needs of target groups through a few projects as beneficiaries, but they are reported to support the projects of other beneficiaries in their regions. A common opinion of the beneficiaries is that Erasmus+ responds to the needs of the disadvantaged groups to some extent. Although Erasmus+ encourages addressing the disadvantaged people’s needs, the socio- economically disadvantaged target groups in less developed locations due to the geographical disparities could not be addressed with a differentiated approach through a national priority, whereas it could be implemented and benefited from within the LLP&YiA. This is confirmed by the provincial distribution of the beneficiaries given in Annex 8, which shows that the number of projects is much lower in the less developed locations of the country. According to the NA data given in Annex 12, the number of participants with fewer opportunities and special needs is rather low (about 18.49 thousand) with a share of 7.2%, in comparison to the total number of participants (256.7 thousand) which indicates the difficulties for inclusion of such participants into the Erasmus+ projects. On the other hand, it is reported that Erasmus+ has well reached the Syrians under temporary protection status in Turkey as a prioritised disadvantaged group. MoNE mentions specific examples of projects under SE KA2. The project of a Labour Union (HAKIS) under VET KA2 targeting to increase their social inclusion through vocational training39, and the project of Beypazari Vocational Health HE School targeting to provide special health service to the Syrian children with limp loss are all assessed as good practices. Still, they are not a direct focus of Erasmus+ in Turkey, due to the on- going specific IPA support40. Visibility of all fields of Erasmus+ implemented in Turkey highly supports the programme to be well known by E&T and Youth communities, while HE and SE actions are assessed to be the highest within the E&T field (see Annex 10 for details). Still, the visibility of each of the field is assessed to be very high, considering the high number of project proposals with high scores as detailed in Annexes-12 and 1341. On the other hand, while being well-known to the education and youth communities, VET Mobility Charter could not cover higher numbers of participants due to the high eligibility requirements. The interviews with the beneficiaries and the counterfactual analysis show that the target groups in Turkey have high demand to implement projects under the Sport field who could reach even the grassroots level, while being not well informed about the centrally managed projects and prefer to implement decentrally managed projects.

39http://www.hakis.org.tr/haberler.php?action=haber_detay&id=1204 40 http://www.avrupa.info.tr/en/eu-response-refugee-crisis-turkey-710 41 Data provided by the NA as of end of 2016 since the start of the Programme in 2014, as given in Annexes-13 and 14. 23 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation

II.4. Internal and External Coherence and Complementarity

18. To what extent are the various actions that have been brought together in Erasmus+ coherent? Can you identify any existing or potential synergies between actions within Erasmus+? Can you identify any tensions, inconsistencies or overlaps between actions within Erasmus+? Key findings:  Erasmus+ implementation in Turkey demonstrates that the three key actions (KA1, KA2 and KA3) are fully coherent while complementing each other.  A significant difficulty has been experienced with the AE and VET actions exhibiting conflicts in terms of scope and content. Coverage and scope of these fields mostly overlap and cannot easily be differentiated by the beneficiaries.  One of the strengths of Erasmus+ in terms of coherence is the centrally managed KA3 actions supporting policy reforms, which highly complements the effectiveness of the decentrally managed KA1 and KA2 projects in Turkey, in addition to facilitating their efficiency.  Some other evidence related to complementarities/synergies include the contribution of the Erasmus+ networks and platforms such as the SE applicants benefit from E-Twinning for partner finding; EPALE helps the AE applicants for partner finding and dissemination; Europass and Youthpass provide certification under AE, VET, HE and youth projects.  No significant tension, major inconsistencies or overlaps are reported nor observed by the evaluators, other than a few inconsistencies regarding project budgets and IT implementation mentioned in Questions 12, 13 and 14. Recommendations: Listed in Section III: Conclusions and Recommendations Erasmus+ implementation in Turkey demonstrates that the three key actions (KA1, KA2 and KA3) are fully coherent and complement each other creating synergies. Beneficiaries agree that Erasmus+ actions support each other without any significant tension experienced to date. However, interviews also reveal that in some particularly large scale institutions, such as the ministries and universities, synergies between KA1 and KA2 projects are missing due to lack of adequate communication within or among them. A significant difficulty has been experienced with the AE and VET actions exhibiting conflicts in terms of scope and content. Coverage and scope of these sectors mostly overlap and cannot easily be differentiated by the beneficiaries. One of the strengths of Erasmus+ in terms of coherence is the centrally managed KA3 actions supporting policy reforms, which highly complements the effectiveness of the decentrally managed KA1 and KA2 projects in Turkey, in addition to facilitating their efficiency. The project of CoHE on quality assurance of HE is a good example, which is likely to have a positive effect on the mobility projects and strategic partnership projects of HEIs under KA1 and KA2, respectively. Some others are reported under the decentrally managed Youth field (KA3) to mobilise the dialogue for policy making with a participatory approach, complementing the KA2 projects thematically, particularly integration to democratic life and active citizenship. Some other evidence related to complementarities and/or synergies includes the contribution of the Erasmus+ networks and platforms such as the SE applicants benefit from E-Twinning for partner finding; EPALE helps the AE applicants for partner finding and dissemination; Europass and Youthpass provide certification under AE, VET, HE and youth projects. No significant inconsistency has been reported except for a few issues related to the project budgets and IT implementation as mentioned in Questions 12, 13 and 14. 19. To what extent does Erasmus+ complement other national and international programmes available in your country? Can you identify any tensions, inconsistencies or overlaps with other programmes? Key findings:  Erasmus+ is a unique programme with its scope, objectives, duration, budget and coverage of mobilities, strategic partnerships and dialogue for policy reforms, which supports national and international priorities in the fields of E&T and Youth. Thus, the Programme complements other national and international programmes implemented in Turkey which include mainly (i) the two direct grants under the HRD OP of IPA I, facilitating additional funds for Erasmus+; (ii) two IPA I funded projects (Strengthening Special Education, Preventing Violence Against Children) of MoNE, (iii) Horizon 2020 having potential synergies concerning Knowledge Alliances and Strategic Partnerships under KA2, and (iv) German-Turkish Youth Bridge. Erasmus+ Programme has also served as a model for development of national programmes (Mevlana, Farabi, Fatih and Youth Projects). Erasmus+ is a unique programme with its scope, objectives, duration, budget and coverage of mobilities, strategic partnerships and dialogue for policy reforms, while complementing some national/international projects (Annex 12) as detailed below: It is a fact that there are ongoing national efforts to create synergies with IPA (2007-2013) under HRD OP and IPA (2014-2020) under Sectoral Operational Programme – Education, Employment and Social Policies. The two direct grants of HRD OP allocated under the IPA I Component IV for additional utilisation of Erasmus+ exhibit complementarity to increase the effectiveness in the fields of SE, VET and AE. This has already become evident in the number of additional projects implemented: (i) in 2014 additional 316 Erasmus+ VET projects were supported under the direct grant of €25 million addressing an additional target 24 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation group of more than 12,700 participants, and, (ii) in 2015 the additional 387 SE and 126 AE projects were supported under the direct grant for €16.96 million addressing an additional target group of more than 7,900 participants. In addition, the two IPA I (2007-2013) funded projects (“Strengthening Special Education”, “Preventing Violence Against Children”) are mentioned by MoNE being complemented by Erasmus+ with regard to inclusive education, combating violence and the disadvantaged having access to education. Furthermore, many outputs of SE projects of primary and secondary schools are used as training and dissemination materials for the IPA funded project of MoNE (“Students Learning about the EU”). As for complementarity with Horizon 2020, a few areas of synergies have been reported concerning Knowledge Alliances and Strategic Partnerships under KA2, allowing institutions to implement institutional development strategies across both programmes. Another complementarity exists between Erasmus+ and the German- Turkish Youth Bridge Programme, which provides opportunities for exchanges of the youth and the higher education sectors between Turkey and Germany. Additionally, some significant examples were mentioned during the interviews as below: (i) Erasmus+ and LLP&YiA projects along with the national Fatih Project of MoNE have facilitated the utilisation of ICT for education at primary and secondary schools; (ii) The national Mevlana Project of CoHE, currently targeting only academicians, is reported to complement the Erasmus+ HE actions which have served as a model. Similarly, the national Farabi Exchange Programmes has been implemented by HEIs for exchange of students and lecturers among universities; (iii) Youth project under KA3 for internationalisation of the Youth Centres in Turkey through quality certificates enables synergy with the IPA funded project of MoYS addressing social inclusion of the youth; and (iv) HEIs are encouraged by Erasmus+ to further cooperate with the EU partners in other projects. While 82% of the questionnaire respondents agree on the existing complementarity, detailed responses indicate the complementarity of Erasmus+ particularly with the national projects such as Mevlana and Farabi exchange projects, Fatih ICT Project and Youth project of MoYS. II.5. European Added Value and Sustainability

20. To what extent Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes produce effects that are additional to the effects that would have resulted from similar actions initiated only at regional or national levels in your country? What possibilities do you see to adjust Erasmus+ or its successor programme in order to increase its European value added? Key findings:  Erasmus+ is a comprehensive programme having considerable effect on internationalisation and EU added value in Turkey.  Acquaintance with EU languages has significantly been increased among the Turkish participants particularly through the mobilities at most for the English language, despite being less than that of LLP&YiA.  Erasmus+ has contributed to the internationalisation of the beneficiary institutions, which gain prestige through the increased cooperation with the EU countries.  The EU Development Plan introduced under the SE KA1 has significantly stimulated a structured approach to create EU added value. Common EU platforms/tools like Eurodesk, EPALE, etc., facilitate EU-wide cooperation.  Availability of adequate institutional and financial resources of the NA ensures sustainability of the future programmes.  No significant co-funding difficulty of the beneficiaries has been reported, despite few incidents experienced by NGOs. High ownership and adequate human resources in post-project periods are evidenced; however, high staff turnover poses a challenge for sustainability.  The dissemination and exploitation levels of the projects remain to be moderate in some projects, since they are mostly output oriented but less focusing on continuity of the results at post-project period, which might reduce the sustainability of the project results. Recommendations: Listed in Section III: Conclusions and Recommendations Erasmus+ is assessed to be a comprehensive programme having considerable effects of internationalisation and EU added value. The responses to the counterfactual question ‘What would have happened without Erasmus+ support?’ reveal substantial evidence on the positive changes brought by Erasmus+, which otherwise would be hard to be realised. Beneficiaries state that “Erasmus+ provided a unique chance for the participants to be exposed to different EU cultures and develop better understanding of the EU values through mobilities and transnational partnerships.” The Programme supports a considerably high number of participants (256.7 thousand) from Turkey for this opportunity only within the past three years (Annex 12). Likewise, the number of partners has already exceeded 10,000 from Programme and Partner Countries (Annex 9). All levels and disciplines are involved under different fields of the E&T with about 220 thousand participants and the Youth field with about 36 thousand participants. In addition to about 290 thousand participants of the LLP and 78 thousand participants of the YiA since 2007, it is strongly agreed that these achievements would not have been realised without these Programmes within the past decade. Acquaintance with EU languages has significantly been increased among the Turkish participants particularly through the mobilities at most for the English language, which is also supported by OLS.

25 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation

However, interviewees assess the contribution of the language support of the Erasmus+ to be less than that of the language support provided under LLP&YiA. Erasmus+ has also contributed to the internationalisation of the beneficiary institutions which gain prestige through the increased cooperation with the EU countries. In addition to cooperation with the 33 Programme Countries, Erasmus+ has also introduced to date cooperation with 57 Partner Countries worldwide (Annex 9). The HE projects under each of KA1 and KA2 are reported to have significantly facilitated the Bologna process. The “EU Development Plan” introduced for SE KA1 projects has significantly stimulated a structured approach to create EU added value. Furthermore, common networks like Eurodesk, EPALE, and Euroguidance facilitate EU-wide cooperation. As for sustainability of EU added value, most of the beneficiaries are assessed to have high ownership of their projects and their results, which ensures sustainability. In addition, almost all of the projects are strongly output-focused and deliver the targeted outputs to contribute to the target groups EU wide. However, despite successful implementation of the projects, sustainability poses a challenge for some projects due to lack of strong focus on the use and dissemination of results after the project ends. Interviews reveal the need for a structured mechanism to allow tracing of outputs for post project activities, particularly for intellectual outputs. The planned impact assessment studies of the NA are highly likely to serve to this end. Availability of adequate institutional and financial resources of the NA ensures sustainability of the Programme implementation. Large-scale beneficiaries particularly HEIs, schools and other public institutions are reported to provide adequate co-funding. However, co-funding poses a challenge for small-scale beneficiaries in Turkey, such as youth NGOs. Still, the interviewed NGOs indicate that they have mobilised their members for co-funding to mitigate the difficulties. The NA confirms that no awarded project has been cancelled due to lack of co-funding since the start of the Erasmus+. HR availability and their continuity after the project end are evidenced to be another important factor to ensure sustainability of the projects, in general. HE and SE institutions are quite strong in this respect, whereas some public institutions are experiencing high staff turnover, which hinders sustainability. Furthermore, the Programme contributes to the accession negotiations under Chapter 26 as indicated in the EC’s Progress Reports for Turkey. The process of convergence of the country with the EU regarding the Europe 2020 targets and the ET 2020 thresholds has greatly benefited from the implementation of Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes. On the other hand, succeeding programmes are expected to consider country specific needs in the targeted sectors to increase the European added value of the Programme that would also contribute to the country’s progress towards socio-economic targets. 21. To what extent Erasmus+ will be able to absorb in an effective way the sharp increase in the budget that is foreseen in the coming years up to 2020 in your country? Could the programme use even higher budgets in an effective way? Do you see challenges to effectively use more money for particular actions or fields of the programme? Key findings:  For a possible sharp budget increase, Turkey has a substantially high absorption capacity available for effective utilisation of Erasmus+ decentralised actions. This is demonstrated by (i) the high institutional capacity of the NA for management of the Erasmus+ Programme, (ii) the strong communication and coordination with the EC as well as other stakeholders in the country, and most importantly, (iii) the high level of satisfaction of the programme beneficiaries and continuation of the very high demand of the target groups in Turkey, both of which make the selection of the projects highly competitive with increased quality.  The only challenge for a more extensive utilisation of an additional budget is related to the centrally managed projects, which needs further promotion.  Further cooperation between the EC and NAU/NA is likely to contribute to ensure the scope of the forthcoming programmes to address the needs of the Programme Countries and their absorption capacities. Adequate human and financial resources are available at the NA and NAU in addition to the very high demand of the target groups in Turkey to ensure efficient utilisation.  For successor programmes, participation of all Programme Countries in decision-making would contribute to efficient and effective implementation of future programmes to ensure the realisation of the specific and general objectives. Recommendations: Listed in Section III: Conclusions and Recommendations For a possible sharp budget increase, Turkey has a high absorption capacity available for effective utilisation of Erasmus+ actions, particularly the decentralised actions managed by the NA, whereas the challenge of lower demand for centrally managed actions is likely to continue. The existing structure enabling fluent communication and strong coordination with the EC, as well as with different stakeholders, based on a mechanism well functioning with the division of responsibilities and duties are evidences indicating Turkey’s capacity for a widened utilisation of the budget, if increased. The substantial amount of national contribution to Erasmus+ and the strong ownership of the beneficiaries for co-funding are evidences for high financial capacity. In fact, the additional total amount of €41.9 million transferred to Erasmus+ from the IPA (2007-2013) funds under the two Direct Grant Agreements has also been well utilised for the waiting list projects with high evaluation scores in the fields of SE, AE and VET.

26 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation

The NA, having demonstrated a successful management of Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes since 2004, has available human resources to respond to an increased demand with a highly accumulated experience appreciated by almost all of the beneficiaries having responded to the questionnaires and interviewed. Well established but flexible institutional capacity of the NA is assessed as an indication for its adaptability to changing conditions. The rate of increase in project proposal applications and the rate of proposals rejected due to the budget quota, despite their reported high scores, are additional strong indications confirming the current absorption capacity. Since 2014 to date, the high demand of different target groups under all fields as current and potential beneficiaries in the country is another strong evidence for effective utilisation of the budget for Erasmus+ actions by the competitively selected beneficiaries (3,944) from a high number of applicants (25,911) with increased quality yet with a success rate of 15.3% (Annex 13). In 2016, 60.15% of the project proposals are above the threshold (Annex 12). Furthermore, this high demand is coupled with a very high satisfaction rate of the beneficiaries to date within the past 14 years, which is confirmed by the average of above 90% responses. 93% of the respondents agree that adequate information is given by the NA about the Erasmus+ Guidelines, and management of the actions including the IT support has been efficiently conducted by the NA. Responses to the questionnaires clearly reflect the beneficiaries of Erasmus+ with 96% willingness to apply for the decentralised actions managed by the NA, whereas, with 86 % willingness to apply for centrally managed actions in the future (Annex 4a). Almost all beneficiaries interviewed report that project development and management capacities of their institutions have significantly increased to manage Erasmus+ projects building upon the capacity already developed during the predecessor programmes. This has been effective in creating an absorption capacity for a possible future sharp increase in the budget. Counterfactual assessment of the beneficiaries’ intension to benefit from the Erasmus+ Programme in the future also indicates their confidence for utilisation of an increased budget. Furthermore, the substantial number of followers of the NA social media accounts for information on Erasmus+ demonstrates availability of potential beneficiaries for the Programme. The involvement of Turkish partners in the Erasmus+ centrally managed programmes can also be mentioned as another indication of absorption capacity. Yet, some of the potential target groups interviewed for the centrally managed Erasmus+ Programmes, report that they are not well informed about the requirements and functioning of the actions in different sectors, even though some of them have national Erasmus+ experiences. Further cooperation between the EC and NAU/NA is likely to contribute to ensure the scope of the forthcoming programmes to address the needs of the Programme Countries and their absorption capacities. Adequate human and financial resources are available at the NA and NAU in addition to the very high demand of the target groups in Turkey to ensure efficient utilisation. For successor programmes, participation of all Programme Countries in decision-making would contribute to efficient and effective implementation of future programmes to ensure the realisation of the specific and general objectives. Section III: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The conclusions and recommendations are derived from evidence based key findings with respect to the five evaluation criteria through quantitative and qualitative methodologies used for the purpose of this mid-term evaluation of the Erasmus+. III.1. Effectiveness: Overall effectiveness of Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes implemented in Turkey has been very high, achieving the targeted specific objectives through concrete and tangible benefits at individual, institutional and system levels. Erasmus+ has been contributing substantially to the achievement of its specific objectives. Positive aspects of the integration of programmes with Erasmus+ include continuity of the high prestige and ownership, a more structured feature with the institutional approach and wider target groups as well as the focus on innovation and creativity for high competitiveness. The Programme is successful in encouraging high numbers of mobilities (mainly under KA1 but also some under KA2) to achieve the above mentioned specific objectives, but particularly developing cross-cultural understanding and promoting European values, on which all the beneficiaries strongly agree. The Programme is also assessed to be successful in encouraging innovative and creative approaches, particularly in KA2 through intellectual outputs delivered by strategic partnerships, which in turn, contribute to the competitiveness and quality improvements EU wide. In addition, the Programme has a positive effect in stimulating LLL through developing awareness of individuals on active citizenship and active labour market as well as contributing to the E&T institutions to offer higher quality non-formal and informal training. However, the share of the budget for AE is the smallest within all actions. Limited ICT based learning in some AE projects and limited quality and duration of some internships encountered in some projects have hindered achieving the targeted results. Multilingualism is highly emphasised by Erasmus+, which is also assessed to be well incorporated in the projects implemented in Turkey, the highest field being HE and the second being SE. Language learning/teaching has been well developed through the project activities implemented, in addition to the 27 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation direct language support of the Programme, mainly through OLS. However, compared to that of LLP&YiA, the language support offered by Erasmus+ is narrower to respond the diverse needs of the project participants in Turkey. On the other hand, as the Programme does not allow for national priorities specific to the country needs, a few negative aspects mainly include limited differentiated approach to access different disadvantaged groups and to implement small-scale Youth actions at local level, and limited language support specific to different beneficiaries of different actions in Turkey. The activities implemented under the three KAs demonstrate positive complementarity throughout a spectrum of effects at individual, institutional and system levels, whereas dissemination and exploitation of results could be further facilitated to improve effectiveness. While successfully achieving the above-mentioned specific objectives, contribution to the general objectives is also assessed to be very high, particularly the strategy and policy documents of the EC and Turkey with reference to Europe 2020 and ET 2020 targets in addition to promotion of EU values, together with the high ownership at individual, institutional and system levels. As an accession country, Turkey is not included in the ET 2020 monitoring process. Still, the influence of Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes has been highly visible in all fields of E&T and Youth. Recommendations for EC to consider: Q1  improving the scope and means of support for developing skills for language learning/teaching to address the different needs of different target groups,  further supporting ICT based learning particularly in the AE field,  providing extension of the duration of the internships in practice and in the Erasmus+ Programme Guide, while also ensuring their quality,  developing measures for quality assurance of the course and internship providers,  providing flexibility for VET Charter through fewer eligibility requirements,  increasing the budget share for AE both in KA1 and KA2,  providing additional explanation in the Erasmus+ Programme Guide about the innovative and creative approaches including intellectual outputs,  enabling national priorities only for specific conditions/needs of the country to respond the diverse needs of the project participants in Turkey to adopt differentiated approaches to access different disadvantaged groups, and to implement small-scale Youth actions at local level. Q2  receiving feedback from the Programme Countries, including accession countries for identifying and assessing the forthcoming E&T targets,  including accession countries into ET 2020 monitoring process or generating a separate ET 2020 monitoring/evaluation report solely designed for those countries. Q3 --- Q4  EC to consider further supporting the dissemination and exploitation of the project results to improve effectiveness.  Q5 --- Q6  further supporting language learning/teaching skills widely,  supporting small scale socially innovative youth projects,  reaching the disadvantaged target groups to enhance effectiveness,  supporting Contact Making Seminars widely,  providing additional budget for dissemination and exploitation. Q7  increasing the overall budget allocated to Turkey,  providing additional funds for ECHE holders,  including an upper budget limitation to the KA1 projects,  increasing the budget share of AE particularly under KA1,  enabling the NA to have flexibility to transfer certain funds among KAs,  offering Turkey further opportunities through restricted calls under KA3. Q8  providing additional explanation in the Erasmus+ Programme Guide and in the report questions to support applicants and beneficiaries to clearly formulate their outputs, outcomes and impact,  enhancing the scope of the language support, ensuring the quality of the courses and internships offered by the providers,  supporting the NA in implementing its Action Plan to address the problems of continuity of the partnerships and transnational mobilities,  Cooperating with NAU and the NA to bring solutions to the visa problems reducing the efficiency and effectiveness of mobilities. Q9  increasing the project budgets covering specific funds for activities of dissemination and exploitation of the results,  supporting specific dissemination means to reach the disadvantaged groups, 28 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation

 producing on-line videos (viral, etc.) in different languages including Turkish, with stories of final beneficiaries indicating impacts of the programmes he/she has participated in, also including those of the centrally managed projects,  collaborating with NAs for facilitation of the dissemination of project results, and organisation of on- line social media activities, like thematic tweets and Good Practices Fairs. III.2. Efficiency: Erasmus+ is managed efficiently in Turkey, yet there is still need for improvement at Programme level to reduce the administrative burden on the applicants and the beneficiaries, most of whom find the application forms, implementation procedures and reporting rather complicated and lengthy. Even though the new IT tools have enhanced efficiency through the integration of the programmes, its design needs to be further improved to become more user-friendly, to avoid inconsistencies, to allow for data sharing and to reduce difficulties of PIC usage and to ensure security in PIC usage. The administrative burden of the NA is also high being engaged in an effort to support the applicants and beneficiaries to ensure efficient usage of the IT tools and producing data needed for analysis and reporting of the Programme progress. The increased budget of Erasmus+ has been successfully managed having a special emphasis on cost- effectiveness in Turkey. Distribution of funds among KA1 and KA2 to date is considered as balanced, proportionate and appropriate, whereas the KA3 has a low share in line with its scope, while a need for more flexibility to transfer funds among KAs is raised by the NA. However, the distribution of KA1 funds among its projects is not well balanced due to the lack of upper limits for individual projects. Allocation of budget for dissemination and exploitation is rather limited. Staff costs for Turkey under KA2 are low particularly for complex projects delivering intellectual outputs. Almost all of the actions have been implemented efficiently, except for the VET Charter due to the additional experience requirements for eligibility. Some problems related to quality and duration of VET internships offered have been experienced. Staff costs are assessed to be rather low. Travel expenses, particularly from rural locations, calculated by distance calculator do not always reflect the real costs accrued. Strengthenning Programme’s monitoring system towards a results- based approach in order to ensure achievement of specific objectives of the Programme. High ownership and capacity of the beneficiaries play important roles in their successful management of the projects, while external factors like visa problems and recent security concerns continue to hinder mobilities. Several striking good project practices exist delivering high quality outputs under all KAs, but particularly the intellectual outputs of KA2 projects, as presented at the Erasmus+ Projects Results Fair in 2016. The system of cooperation and division of tasks among the main stakeholders in Turkey as well as in the EC has been well functioning to ensure the Programme to be implemented smoothly. The Turkish Delegation representing the NAU regularly participates in the Erasmus+ Committee meetings. Yet, despite Turkey’s high contribution to the Erasmus+ budget, Turkey benefits from this structure of coordination to some extent, having only the “observer status” without a voting right. The NA also regularly participates in the annual coordination meetings held by the EC. Although there are thematic working groups, the NA does not participate in all of them. Thus, additional networking, structured transnational meetings and working group meetings for all NAs would further facilitate efficiency of implementation in Turkey. For successor programmes, participation of all Programme Countries in decision-making would contribute to efficiency. Adequate human and financial resources are available at the NA and NAU to ensure efficient utilisation, while that of the applicants and beneficiaries vary according to their institutional capacities. At beneficiary level, the organisations having strong institutional capacity such as public institutions and HEIs are in a better position of co-funding compared to the NGOs and Youth organisations, while no cancellation of project has been experienced due to lack of co-funding. On the other hand, Turkey still needs to benefit more from Erasmus Mundus Programme, despite the efficient implementation of the HE field under KA1 and KA2. Recommendations for EC to consider: Q10  enhancing the NA working group meetings held by the EC to be more effective through being organised more frequently in a more inclusive and structured way with specific themes or common concerns within each sector of the Programme Countries,  facilitating voting rights for all participating countries in the Programme Management Committee by proposing provisions in the regulation establishing successor programme(s),  initiating regular transnational training activities for all NAs’ staff to enable networking and peer learning through sharing of experiences and good practices,  improving the cooperation with the NAs to provide more information about the centrally managed programmes to ensure their utilisation widely,  cooperating with NAU to facilitate the recognition of Erasmus+ programme by the Visa Offices of Erasmus+ Programme Countries and Partner Countries, while providing specific information to the Consulates in Turkey. Q11  further simplification of the application and implementation processes, particularly about the content of the guidelines, such as providing additional explanations about the intellectual outputs, further clarification to the questions in reporting, reducing the administrative burden, particularly 29 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation

with respect to simplification of project proposal application and implementation processes. Similarly, the reporting needs to be improved to avoid lengthy, detailed and repetitive documents, and the guideline providing clarification and practical explanations and examples,  introducing further improvements in the IT usage particularly related to usage of PIC and the security and misusage concerns about PIC, inconsistencies in IT data and budget procedures and developing a security and confirmation system for PIC (see recommendations under Question 14 for details),  increasing the scope of the OLS to increase its utilisation widely and to include the KA1,  reformulating travel expense calculation by distance calculator to reflect the real travel costs, increasing the staff costs under KA2 and providing additional budget for dissemination and exploitation,  reformulating the maximum duration of KA 103 contract period (increase the duration from 24 months to 26 months as it is in KA 107) so as to synchronise HE mobilities and academic semesters with the contract duration,  enabling a pool of course offering partners for partner finding in the AE KA1. Q12  enabling flexibility to the eligibility requirements of the VET Charter to allow for additional applicants,  providing additional explanation to identify the difference between AE and VET in the E&T field. Q13  further reducing the administrative burden, particularly with respect to simplification of project proposal applications and reporting of the projects implemented, by avoiding too lengthy, detailed and repetitive documents, and providing clarification, practical explanations and examples,  adding an interim report in the Mobility Tool+, particularly for projects with long periods of implementation (24-36 months), which would serve both the beneficiaries and the NA to facilitate and strengthen the quality of monitoring in terms of risk mitigation,  enabling some flexibility in management of the budget to reduce the administrative burden on the beneficiaries,  organising additional meetings for the NAs to enable their staff to discuss the challenges faced and lessons learnt and to provide recommendations to further improve the implementation of the Programme. Q14  increasing the search mechanism, enhancing the NA’s access to data for analysis, improving the data uploading and reporting systems, allowing for interim reports and access to data, while preventing the numerical inconsistencies, and ensuring parallel functioning of Mobility Tool+ and EPlusLink, and ensuring efficient usage of PIC and establishing the security and confirmation for PIC utilisation system against false or misuses to solve the below summarised difficulties: (i) Inconsistencies in numerical values between the BO reporting and the NA Statistical reporting; (ii) EplusLink not including a section for the demographic data of the participants to ensure the follow-up / monitoring of all of the applications in TCA; (iii) Lack of parallel functioning of the Mobility Tool+ and EPluslink programmes resulting in lack of synchronised reporting; (iv) Lack of details of the grant data with respect to budget categories/items and the countries; (v) Under the KA107 projects, transfer of the beneficiary requests to the EPlusLink is being done manually, since the interim reports cannot be produced by the Mobility Tool+; (vi) The system managed by the EC not allowing access to data for different assessment purposes of the NA; and (vii) Difficulties in usage of PIC and the security and misuse concerns about PIC usage,  initiating further workshops and meetings of all NAs for peer-learning on measures against IT difficulties. Q15  allocating additional funds to the NAs to facilitate utilisation of results-based approach in monitoring of project implementations to provide feedback to the NA to improve efficiency as well as effectiveness  supporting the NAs to continue with Capacity Building process for their staff and external experts in line with the changing needs of the Programme implementation,  enabling flexibility for the eligibility requirements by developing a special approach to include NGOs and Youth organisations experiencing difficulties, yet delivering high benefit, even addressing untouched areas,  developing measures to incorporate differences in legislations among Programme Countries to facilitate the implementation in the overall HE field, including Erasmus Mundus actions. II.3. Relevance: Relevance of Erasmus+ in Turkey is very high. Objectives of the national policy documents on E&T and Youth fields as well as those of the EU accession negotiations under Chapter 26 on Education and Culture are highly consistent with the general and specific objectives of Erasmus+. Thus, the Programme objectives continue to address the existing needs and challenges of the country, also with regard to Europe 2020 and ET 2020 targets. All stakeholders of the Programme implemented in Turkey, including the beneficiaries, the

30 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation policy makers (mainly MoD, MoNE, CoHE, MoYS and MoLSS) and the NA and NAU confirm that the general and specific objectives of Erasmus+ are fully in line with the objectives and targets at individual, institution and system levels in Turkey. Overall, the beneficiaries agree on the Programme to have addressed their needs in the E&T and Youth fields extensively. In fact, the Programme is assessed to be “unique” in terms of responding to the needs for cultural understanding across Europe and internationalisation, creating additionality. The visibility of the Programme is very high, despite the low rates of selection due to budget limitations, while HE and SE actions are assessed to have the highest within the E&T field. The variety of target areas and eligible beneficiaries under the Erasmus+ actions are believed to be successful in reaching different stakeholders with different needs, which is more diversified in comparison to the LLP&YiA. In this respect, Erasmus+ is successful in responding to the HE, SE and LLL priorities of Turkey, while remaining to be moderate given high variety of needs identified reducing a focused approach. On the other hand, country specific conditions in Turkey require projects to address and integrate specifically the national needs with a differentiated approach while also serving to achieve the targets and benchmarks set by Europe 2020 and ET 2020. For example, the needs of some disadvantaged groups could not be fully addressed, since a differentiated approach could not be adopted in the absence of country specific administrative measures and national priorities, as it was implemented and benefited from within the LLP&YiA. Erasmus+ has been quite responsive to the language learning/teaching needs of the target groups. However, the beneficiaries of VET and AE projects require additional focus on language to implement their activities, since no OLS is offered for KA1, which would otherwise facilitate participation of trainers of different topics. On the other hand, as the level of involvement of the Turkish beneficiaries in the centrally managed programmes is low, a decentrally managed Sport field would contribute to addressing the Youth and Sport Policies particularly in combating gender discrimination, addictions, hatred, and encouraging social inclusion of disadvantaged people. Access to grassroots would also be well achieved should the Sport field be decentrally managed. Recommendations for EC to consider: Q16  introducing administrative measures and national priorities to improve the relevance while addressing specific needs of the target groups; and also supporting language learning/teaching widely,  introducing adjustment to the Programme to better address the specific needs of the target groups in Turkey: (i) Specific well justified national priorities to be identified by the NAs, (ii) Language support to be diversified and extended by the EC, (iv) the Sport field to be decentrally managed to respond to the needs of the targets groups which would contribute to achieving the specific and general objectives of the Programme. Q17  providing flexibility for eligibility criterion to the NA for VET Charter to ensure wide coverage of the target groups. NA to promote VET Mobility Charter,  providing flexibility for the NA in order to address disadvantaged groups through a differentiated approach, including possible national priorities to address the target group needs widely and to consider wider inclusion of youth in the Programme,  enabling Sport field to be decentrally managed by the NAs. III.4. Internal and external coherence and complementarity Being a unique programme with its objectives, duration, budget and coverage of high numbers of mobilities, strategic partnerships and support to policy reforms, Erasmus+ complements other national and international programmes in similar sectors in Turkey. Its implementation demonstrates that the three KAs are fully coherent while complementing each other. Yet, a significant difficulty has been experienced with the AE and VET actions exhibiting conflicts in terms of scope and content. Coverage and scope of these fields mostly overlap and cannot easily be differentiated by the beneficiaries. One of the strengths of Erasmus+ in terms of coherence is the centrally managed KA3 actions supporting policy reforms, which highly complements the effectiveness of the decentrally managed KA1 and KA2 projects in Turkey, in addition to facilitating their efficiency. No other significant tension, major inconsistency or overlap are evidenced, other than the few minor inconsistencies regarding budget allocations highlighted by the beneficiaries, particularly with reference to travel costs and staff costs as referred to under the Efficiency Section above. The Programme complements other national and international programmes implemented in Turkey, for some of which it has also served as a model. Recommendations for EC to consider: Q18  providing sectoral clarifications between AE and VET in terms of their scope and content to avoid confusions and overlaps between VET and AE actions,  facilitating the involvement of Turkish beneficiaries in the centrally managed KA3 actions supporting policy reforms to enable synergies and complementarities with the decentrally managed actions, which will contribute to the overall success of the Programme,  ensuring the continuity of the Erasmus+ networks and platforms in Turkey having complementarities and synergies with the KAs implemented in Turkey.

31 | P a g e National Report on Erasmus+Midterm Evaluation

Q19 -- III.5. European added value and sustainability Robust evidence exists on the substantial changes brought by the implementation of Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes in Turkey, which would have been realised only to a very limited extent without them. Erasmus+ is a comprehensive programme having considerable effect on developing cross-cultural understanding and internationalisation for the Turkish beneficiaries. In addition to enabling communication in EU languages, Erasmus+ has also contributed to individuals and institutions to gain prestige through increased cooperation with the EU countries. Various examples exist for good practices as to the increase of EU visibility country-wide. The high demand for the Programme actions indicates its significant visibility. Turkey has a high absorption capacity available for a successive programme with a possible sharp budget increase. This is demonstrated by (i) the high institutional capacity of the NA; (ii) the smooth communication and coordination with the EC and with other national stakeholders; (iii) the adequate financial resources of Turkey in co-funding, and most importantly; (iv) the high level of satisfaction of the beneficiaries and the high demand of the target groups, both of which make the selection of the projects highly competitive with increased quality whereas the success rate is as low as 15.3% due to budget limitations. Meanwhile, evidence reveals that Turkey does not adequately benefit from the centrally managed Erasmus+ actions, which needs special attention to develop solutions in the forthcoming programming period, such as increasing the allocation of funds for decentrally managed actions. Adequate human and financial resources are available at the NA and NAU in addition to the very high demand of the target groups in Turkey to ensure efficient utilisation. Furthermore, for successor programmes, participation of all Programme Countries in decision-making would contribute to efficient and effective implementation of future programmes to ensure realisation of the specific and general objectives. Recommendations for EC to consider: Q20  cooperating with NAs for increased dissemination and exploitation of project results, particularly for KA2 projects with intellectual outputs, to ensure sustainability of the projects,  additionally supporting a results-based approach in monitoring to be implemented by the NAs would support the sustainability of the project results by providing beneficial feedback to the project beneficiaries to take measures to enhance the conditions for sustainability. Q21  further cooperating with NAs for increased promotion of the centrally managed actions to become widely used by the potential beneficiaries in Programme Countries,  further cooperating with NAU and receiving feedback for identifying and assessing the scope of the forthcoming Programme,  enabling participation of all Programme Countries in decision making for successor programmes, which would contribute to efficient and effective implementation of future programmes and ensure the realisation of the specific and general objectives.

32 | P a g e Draft National Report – Midterm Evaluation Erasmus+

ANNEXES

Annex 1 List of Documents Reviewed Annex 2 Lists of Interviewees Annex 3 Evaluation Scope and Evaluation Questions Annex 4a Questionnaire Results for Erasmus+ KA1 and KA2 Annex 4b Questionnaire Results for LLP Comenius Annex 4c Questionnaire Results for LLP Leonardo da Vinci Annex 4d Questionnaire Results for LLP Grundtvig Annex 4e Questionnaire Results for LLP Erasmus Annex 4f Questionnaire Results for YiA Annex 5 In-depth Questionnaires for KA3 Annex 6 Europe 2020 and Education and Training 2020 Targets and Progress of Turkey with respect to relevant Europe 2020 and ET 2020 Targets Annex 7 Structure of the National Education System in Turkey Annex 8 Provincial Distributions and Types of Beneficiaries Annex 9 Project Partners’ Countries and Mobilities Annex 10 Needs of Target Groups under E&T and Youth Fields and of the Visibility of Erasmus+ Actions in each of the Sectors for the Target Groups in Turkey Annex 11 List of other Programmes Complemented by Erasmus+ Annex 12 Number of Project Proposals and Projects Contracted Annex 13 Project Proposals and their Success Rate in 2016 Annex 14 Erasmus+ Structure

33 | P a g e

Ref. Ares(2017)3348353 - 04/07/2017

Annex-1: List of Documents Reviewed

Council of Higher Education Strategic Plan 2016-2020 CoHE (http://www.yok.gov.tr/documents/10279/21040516/YOK_Stratejik_Plan_2016_2020_ed0706 10/2015 16.pdf) The 2017 Erasmus+ Annual Work Programme for the implementation of EC “Erasmus+”: the Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth and 2017 Sport EC The Erasmus+ Programme Guide, Version 2 20/01/2017 Commission Implementing Decision: adopting a Multi-annual Action EC 11/12/2014 Programme for Turkey on Employment, Education and Social policies European Training Strategy in the field of Youth -Supporting the development of quality youth work in Europe through capacity building January EC (https://www.salto-youth.net/downloads/4-17- 2017 3301/European%20Training%20Strategy%20in%20the%20field%20of%20Youth_en.pdf ) EU Youth Strategy 2010-2018 EC 27/04/2009 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52009DC0200&from=EN) EU Youth Report (2013-2015) EC 15/09/2015 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0429&from=EN) Evaluation of the EU Youth Strategy and Council Recommendation on the EC 03/2016 mobility of young volunteer across EU Turkey 2016 Report for Progress EC (https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood- 09/11/2016 enlargement/sites/near/files/pdf/key_documents/2016/20161109_report_turkey.pdf) European The Erasmus+ Programme; (Regulation EU No. 1288/2013): European 07/2016 Parliament Implementation Assessment Europe 2020 indicators - Education EUROSTAT (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Europe_2020_indicators_- 2017 _education&oldid=301033%20)

Turkish Employment Agency Strategic Plan (2013-2017) ISKUR (http://www.sp.gov.tr/tr/stratejik-plan/s/902/Turkiye+Is+Kurumu+Genel+Mudurlugu+2013- 2013 2017)

MEU Turkey’s European Union Communication Strategy 16/10/2014 (http://www.ab.gov.tr/files/5%20Ekim/iletisim_stratejisi_eng_kapak_eklenmis.pdf)

10th Development Plan of Turkey 2004-2018 MoD (http://www.mod.gov.tr/Lists/RecentPublications/Attachments/75/The%20Tenth%20Develop 2014 ment%20Plan%20(2014-2018).pdf) The National Strategy for Regional Development (2014-2023) MoD 2014 (http://www.bgus.gov.tr/SitePages/bgus.aspx ) Human Resources Development Operational Programme for 2014-2020 MoLSS 2014 (http://www2.ikg.gov.tr/en-us/ipa/ipa20072013(ipai)/ipaivhrd.aspx ) National Employment Strategy (2014-2023) and Action Plans (2014-2016) MoLSS 11/2014 (http://www.uis.gov.tr/Media/Books/UIS-en.pdf) Strategic Plan of the Ministry of National Education (2010– 2014) 2010 MoNE Strategic Plan of the Ministry of National Education (2015-2019) 2014 (http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2015_09/10052958_10.09.2015sp17.15imzasz.pdf)

1 National Education Statistics, Formal Education, 2015/’16 MoNE (http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2016_03/18024009_meb_istatistikleri_orgun_egitim 2015/’16 _2015_2016.pdf)

2014-2018 Lifelong Learning Strategy Paper MoNE 2013 (http://hayatboyu.meb.gov.tr/en/lifelong-learning/) Strategic Plan of ISKUR (2010– 2014) MoNE (https://mtegm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2014_08/13021358_mte_strateji_belgesi_eyle 06/05/2014 m_plani_20142018.pdf) MoNE Strategy Plan for VET (2014-2018) 2014

2015-2019 Strategic Plan of the Ministry of National Education 2014 MoNE (http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2015_09/10052958_10.09.2015sp17.15imzasz.pdf) 2014, 2015, Erasmus+ National Agency Annual Work Plans for 2014, 2015, 2016 and NA 2016 and 2017 2017 2014, 2015, NA Erasmus+ Annual Reports for 2014, 2015 and 2016 2016 and 2017

NA Erasmus+ Potential Success Stories 2015

NA Erasmus+ Statistics 2014-2016

NA National Agency Training Needs Assessment 05/2014

NA Presentation documents for each of the fields of E&T and Youth 2016

NA The Integrated Communication Strategy of the National Agency 2014

Turkish National Plan Social Media Communication Strategy (Türkiye NA 2010 Ulusal Ajansı Sosyal Medya Stratejisi)

Strategy Report for increasing the utilisation of Turkey from the Centrally NA 08/2016 Managed Call for Proposals (in Turkey)

NA RAY Research Base Analysis of Youth in Action Turkey National Report 2015

National Youth and Sports Policy (in Turkish) MoYS 26/11/2012 (http://www.gsb.gov.tr/public/edit/files/Mevzuat/ulusal_genclik_ve_spor_politikasi.pdf)

Project Fiche TR2011/0336.23 Supporting Social Inclusion through Sports MoYS 2014 Education - Phase II Turkey in Education at a Glance 2016: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris OECD 2016 (http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/education/education-at-a-glance- 2016/turkey_eag-2016-84-en#page7) PISA 2015, Results in Focus OECD 2016 (https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf) Turkey - Education Statistics TURKSTAT 2016-2017 (http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/UstMenu.do?metod=kategorist)

2 Ref. Ares(2017)3348353 - 04/07/2017

Annex-2: List of Interviews

Public Institutions

Institution Name / Position Contact Details Date Mehmet YAVUZ, Dept Head, DG Social Sectors and +90 312 294 6503 Ministry of Development Coordinations 16/12/2016 Dilek Okkar SANAMIŞ, Youth sector Expert +90 312 294 6412 +90 312 413 1392 MoNE, Vocational & Technical Education Şennur ÇETİN, Dept Head 13/02/2017 [email protected] MoNE, DG Life Long Learning Nilgün ÇELİK, Teacher +90 312 413 2114 14/02/2017 EPALE Gürkan Gökhan TÜRKER, Teacher Ertan GÖV, Dept Head MoNE, DG Special Education and Deniz GÜLER, Education Expert +90 312 413 3013 15/02/2017 Counselling Serap ERDEĞER, Expert Teacher Davut OLGUN, Dept Head MoNE, DG Strategy Development +90 312 413 1482 17/02/2017 Osman Yıldırım UĞUR +90 312 2210217 MoNE, Ankara Provincial Directorate Türkan ÖZTÜRK 23/02/2017 [email protected] Hülya BAL MoNE, DG of Innovation and Education Mehmet Fatih DÖĞER +90 312 296 9479 27/02/2017 Technologies Ömür ÇOBAN Zeynep ÖÇGÜDER, Dept Head Dilek Selek MEYDANLI, Teacher MoNE, DG EU & Foreign Relations +90 312 413 1855 Ender ERESKİCİ 28/02/2017 [email protected] Matin ÇATAR Binnur UZUN, Manager Ramazan Okan ÖZCAN, Manager +90 312 596 596 6457 01/03/2017 MoYS, DG of Project and Coordination Mehmet ARSLAN (Youthwiki) 0532 405 1747 MoYS, DG of Education, Culture and Hakan DÜLKADİROĞLU, Deputy GM +90 312 596 6730 02/03/2017 Research Erkan ŞAMİLOĞLU, Department Head [email protected] +90 312 596 6251 MoYS, Directorate of Foreign Relations Cemre Berker ÜLKER 02/03/2017 [email protected]

1

Institution Name / Position Contact Details Date İsmail ÖZDOĞAN; Department Head +90 312 428 7220 Hüdazan YAŞIN, Europass 03 /03/2017 [email protected] Vocational Qualifications Authority (MYK) Yelda ERDOĞAN +90312 428 7211 İmren ONBAŞIOĞLU [email protected] Nesrin DOĞAN +90 312 298 7939 [email protected] Canan ÜNVAN +90532 507 7977 Council of Higher Education (YÖK) Prof. Dr. Tuncay DÖĞEROĞLU 03/03/2017 [email protected] Prof. Dr. Sibel AKSU YILDIRIM +90 312 298 7474 [email protected] İlkay AYDIN, Department Head +90 312 413 41 59 /413 41 73 MoNE, DG of Teacher Training and Nilüfer AKSOY, Manager [email protected] 06/03/2017 Development [email protected] +90 312 413 2689 +90 505 737 2670 Gülderen GÜLTEKİN, Department Head [email protected] MoNE, DG of Secondary Education Nur ALTINDAL 07/03/2017 +90 532 366 9264 Kadir ÇETİN [email protected] +90 507 649 8319 +90 312 596 6160 MoYS, DG of Youth Services Serdal ERAVCI, DG Deputy 09/03/2017 [email protected] +90 312 473 3920 MoNE, DG Strategy Development Özlem KALKAN, Expert 09/03/2017 [email protected] Esra HALAT + (90) 312 2945000 Ministry of Labour and Social Security Emre ACAR +90 312 440 9902 14/03/2017 (MoLSS) Hilal ÜNSAL [email protected] Muharrem TEZCAN Sinan TEMÜR, Dept. Head Turkish Labour Agency (İŞKUR) +90 312 216 3529 Mustafa TİRYAKİ 20/03/2017 Job & Vocational Counselling Department +90 312 216 3929 Deniz DOST Doç. Dr Mustafa Hilmi ÇOLAKOĞLU +90312 4131098-99/4131704-04 MoNE Deputy Undersecretary 20/03/2017 Özlem KALKAN mustafacolakoğ[email protected] MoNE, DG of Private Educational Ali KARAGÖZ +90 312 413 2526 04/04/2017 Institutions Elif Çolak SANCI 413 3427 Ministry of Family and Social Policies Tayyar KUZ, Research and Development Department +90 532 712 0325 29 /03/2017

2

(MoFSP) MoYS, DG of Sports (related body) Contacted but Ömer KALKAN, Department Head (Sport Week) +90 312 596 7280 / 431 58 21 Sport Activities Department was on leave

Universities

Institution Name / Position Contact Details Date Prof. Dr. Sibel SÜZEN, Coordinator +90 312 212 6040 /ext.: 2293 Ankara University Onur HOŞNUT, Vice Coordinator [email protected] 10/03/2017 EU Educational Programmes Office Hasan Kara, Erasmus Student Network President in AU,

Board Member in TR Doç. Dr. Bilge Kağan Özdemir (International Relations [email protected] Anadolu University 16/03/2017 Department Head and Erasmus Institutional Coordinator) +90532049607233 [email protected] Gazi University Doç. Dr. Tayfun FINDIK- Erasmus Coordinator +90 312 202 87 83 09/10/2017 +90 312 3241555 /ext.: 3025 Yıldırım Beyazıt Üniversitesi 13/03/2017 Damla BÜLBÜLOĞLU (KA3 Focus Group participant) [email protected]

[email protected] 90 539 322 1291 Celal Bayar Üniversitesi, Manisa Prof. Dr. Sühal SEMŞİT, Jean Monnet Chair 17 March [email protected] Koç University Prof. Dr. Filiz YENİŞEHİRLİOĞLU [email protected] 21/03/2017

Koç University Office of International Burcu SARSILMAZ, EU Office [email protected] 23/03/2017 Programmes (OIP) Coordinator +90 312 2103083; Atilla ERALP, Dept Head Contacted but Middle East Technical University [email protected] Dr. Özgehan ŞENYUVA no response

3

Key Actions (KA1, KA2, KA3), Youth and Sports Coordinators, Partners and Participants

Institution Name / Position Contact Details Date

Sports Federations: +90 (212) 414 77 00 Rıdvan EKMEKÇİ, Intern. Relations 13/12/2017 Turkish Basketball Federation1 [email protected] 29/12/2016

Alper Sedat ASLANTAŞ, Deputy President Turkish Volleyball Federation2 [email protected] Gönenç BENGİSUN, Sport Organisations and +90 505 777 77 32 International Relations Expert 21/03/2017 [email protected] Fuat FIRAT, Fabrika Volleyball Development Manager +90 532 170 03 12

[email protected]

+90 532 626 60 12 3 Turkish Figure Skating Federation Ümit UÇAR, International Relations Coordinator 24/03/2017 +90 532 7237468 +90 533 425 5299 systemandgenerationoffice@gmail Youth Organisations: 11/03/2017 Gürkan AKÇAER, Projects Coordinator .com Sistem ve Jenerasyon Derneği Bledi CAMİ, Project Expert

http://www.gsm.org.tr/ GSM Gençlik Servisleri Merkezi 17/03/2017 Öyküm BAĞCI, Proj. Coordinator +90 312 417 11 / +90 532 696 22 67

Eurodesks: http://eurodesk.ua.gov.tr Phone and e-mail Eurodesk Turkey, NA Meltem VALANDOVA [email protected] 20/04/2017

Anadolu University Eurodesk Mustafa AVCİ https://eurodesk.eu/partners/u/517 16/03/2017 NGOs: www.mavipencere.org Mavi Pencere Özel Eğitim Derneği Gökhan KAYA, Project Coordinator +90 505 258 7891 13-27/12/2016 Esra SABAÇOĞLU, Project Expert [email protected] MESS Training Foundation Müge YAMAN, Project Coordinator +90 535 550 2870 29/12/2016 Private Sector: Mehmet Suphi İNAL +90 532 100 1875 / +90 312 201 07/03/2017 Ankara Chamber of Commerce Özge ŞAHİN 8360

1 Beneficiary of both decentralised KA2 action and centralised sport action. 2 Not a beneficiary; for counterfactual analysis 3 Not a beneficiary; for counterfactual analysis

4

Özüm AKDERE KÖŞKER [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Schools: Özlem ŞENTÜRK, Project Coordinator [email protected] 17/03/2017 Büyük Kolej

Ali Osmanlı Kemal YURTBİLİR , Director +90 506 738 4765 Contacted, no Gazi Mesleki ve Teknik Anadolu Lisesi Murat DEMİRTAŞ, Deputy Direc. +90 312 212 6246 response (GATEM)

Centre for European Union Education and Youth Programmes - National Agency - Focal Group Meetings

Section / Department Name / Position Contact Details Date Director Mesut KAMİLOĞLU +90 312 4096061 26/04/2017 +90 312 4096074; Programme Monitoring Department Şöhret YEDAN DEMİR, Dept. Head 19/12/2016 [email protected] +90 312 4096035; [email protected] Bünyamin GÖKGÖZ, Coordinator +90 312 4096026; Feyza Berkarslan YİĞİT [email protected] School Education Coordinating Unit 20/12/2016 Melda Yıldırım ALGAN +90 312 4096040; Serap EKMEN [email protected] +90 312 4096122; [email protected] +90 312 4096136; [email protected] Hür GÜLDÜ, Coordinator +90 312 4096136; Ahmet Fatih IŞIK [email protected] High Education Coordinating Unit 21/12/2016 Selen TOKGÖZ +90 312 4096136; Özlem YÜCEL [email protected] +90 312 4096136; [email protected]

5

+90 312 4096091; [email protected] Serkan ERGÜL +90 312 4096136; Yasemin UZ [email protected] Adult Training Coordinating Unit 21/12/2016 Şule ÖZKAN KAŞKER +90 312 4096136; Aslı ERGİNOĞLU [email protected] +90 312 4096136; [email protected] +90 312 4096256; [email protected] +90 312 4096256; [email protected] M. Akif KILIÇ, Coordinator +90 312 4096256; Özgür NURDOĞAN [email protected] Abdulnasır BULAK +90 312 4096256; Vocational Education Coordinating Unit Sevgi SUCİN 19/12/2016 [email protected] Didem TOPBAŞ +90 312 4096256; Fatma SÜMER [email protected] Muhammet DEMİR +90 312 4096256; [email protected] +90 312 4096256; [email protected] +90 312 4096058; Kemal BAŞÇI, Coordinator [email protected] Youth Mobility Coordinating Unit 22/12/2016 Zuhal AKDAĞ +90 312 4096018; [email protected] +90 532 2931903; İbrahim DEMİREL, Coordinator [email protected] Youth Partnership Coordinating Unit 22/12/2016 Mehtap CAN, expert +90 312 4096187; [email protected] Dr. Rana Kasapoğlu ÖNDER, Coordinator Communication Department +90 312 4090796 09/01/2017 Celil YAMAN; Necla VATANSEVER; Ahmet TAN IT Department Mehmet TUYGUN, IT Coordinator +90 312 4090796 09/01/2017

6

Ministry for EU Affairs National Authority for Erasmus+ Programme (NAU)

Section / Department Name / Position Contact Details Date Ministry for European Union Affairs Ahmet YÜCEL, Deputy Undersecretary +90-312-2181300 27/04/2017 [email protected] DG Social Regional and Innovative Kayhan ÖZÜM, Director for Social Regional and 07/03/2017 +90-312-2181300 Policies Innovative Policies 05-08/05/2017

DG Social Regional and Innovative 07/03/2017 Petek KARATEKELİOĞLU, Coordinator [email protected] Policies 05-08/05/2017 DG Social Regional and Innovative 07/03/2017 Arzu AKAR, EU Expert [email protected] Policies 05-08/05/2017 DG Social Regional and Innovative 07/03/2017 Melek GÜLSEN, EU Expert [email protected] Policies 05-08/05/2017

EU Delegation to Turkey

Institution Name / Position Contact Details Date EUD Prof. Dr. Mustafa BALCI, Sector Manager [email protected] 26/04/2017

ERASMUS+ KA2 Good Practices Focus Group Meeting

Project Coordinator Institutions Interviewee Contact Details Date Özel Ümraniye Madenler İrfan İlkokulu, Nuriye ERZEN +90 538626 4824 İstanbul

Özel Ümraniye Madenler İrfan İlkokulu, Neşe BAYRAM +90 534 724 1383 İstanbul 13/01/2017 Kapadokya Meslek Yüksek Okulu, Hakan KARAMAN +90 505 375 4206 Nevşehir Mavi Pencere Özel Eğitim Derneği, İzmir Gökhan KAYA +90 505 258 7891 Mavi Pencere Özel Eğitim Derneği, İzmir Esra SARAÇOĞLU +90 536 570 8868

Mehmet Çelikel Lisesi, Zonguldak Özlem KAPLAN +90 544 463 1391

7

Mehmet Çelikel Lisesi, Zonguldak Yıldız PEKTAŞ +90 505 499 8985 13/01/2017 Mehmet Çelikel Lisesi, Zonguldak Nalan Bozkurt AKI +90 532 382 2902

Basketball Federation of Turkey Doç. Dr. Rıdvan EKMEKÇİ +90 543 264 3500 Basketball Federation of Turkey Tuvana TINIZ +90 538 565 5320

ERASMUS+ EVENTS ATTENDED Events Location Date KA2 Good Practices Seminar and Fair Ankara 14/12/2016 National Authority, Erasmus+ Coordination Meeting MEU, Ankara 28/12/2016 Erasmus+ Advisory Board Meeting Ankara 29/12/2017 MEU+UA Questionnaire Consultancy Meeting National Agency, Ankara 16/02/2017

ERASMUS+ and LLP INDEPENDENT EVALUATORS FOCUS GROUP MEETING Independent Evaluators (*) Date (*) The names of the focal group 11 Independent Evaluators participants will be kept anonymous / 16/01/2017 confidential.

8

ERASMUS+ and LLP TRAINERS FOCUS GROUP MEETING Actions Trainers Contact Details Date Erasmus+ Youth and High Education [email protected] Serap BİLAL Mobility Programmes +90 543 456 8716 Erasmus+ Youth and Education&Training [email protected] Necmettin YEMİŞ Programmes +90 533 715 1462 Erasmus+ Youth and Education&Training [email protected] Zeynep Tuğçe Çifterköse GÖÇ Programmes +90 532 597 8619 Erasmus+ Youth and Education&Training [email protected] Aytaç UZUNLAS Programmes +90 533 349 509 Erasmus+ Youth and Education&Training [email protected] Necmi TURGUT Programmes +90 544 675 2190 [email protected] 17/01/2017 Erasmus+ Trainer Evaluation Eylem CERTEL +90 542 511 1484 [email protected] Erasmus+ Trainer Evaluation Onur ÇİFTÇİ +90536 989 3499

ERASMUS+ KA3 BENEFICIARIES FOCUS GROUP MEETING Institution Name / Position Contact Details Date [email protected] Yıldırım Beyazıt Üniversitesi Damla BÜLBÜLOĞLU +90 312 906 1333 Systemandgenerastionoffice@gma Sistem ve Jenerasyon Derneği Gürkan AKÇAER il.com 13/03/2017 +90 533 425 5299 İ[email protected] Zafer Kalkınma Ajansı İskender Cem LEBLEBİCİ +90 555 623 9040

9 Ref. Ares(2017)3348353 - 04/07/2017

Annex-4a: Erasmus+ Questionnaire Results Summary

Questionnaires for Erasmus+ (2014-first half of 2016) targeting beneficiaries of KA1 and KA21

Mails sent - Overlapping Mails not Net mails Questionnaires Mails sent Response rate mails transmitted transmitted responded eliminated KA1 AE 53 53 0 53 51 96,23% KA1 HE 566 321 28 293 190 64,85% KA1 SE 338 299 3 296 224 75,68% KA1 VET 797 768 24 744 294 39,52% KA1 YOUTH 1013 833 44 789 141 17,87% KA2 AE 47 47 0 47 35 74,47% KA2 HE 29 29 2 27 14 51,85% KA2 SE 841 841 9 832 516 62,02% KA2 VET 87 87 1 86 62 72,09% KA2 YOUTH 23 23 1 22 12 54,55% TOTAL 3794 3301 112 3189 1539 47,93%

Questionnaire Respondents having LLP&YiA (2007-2013) experiences

% of Erasmus+ Beneficiaries having LLP % of New comers

or YiA experience KA1 VET 47,4% 52,6% KA1 SE 46,5% 53,5% KA1 AE 19,6% 80,4% KA1 HE 69,2% 30,8% KA1 Youth 59,8% 40,2% KA2 VET 51,7% 48,3% KA2 SE 54,9% 45,1% KA2 AE 16,7% 83,3% KA2 HE 64,3% 35,7% KA2 Youth 45,5% 54,5% Weighted Average 52,8% 47,2%

1 As the number of KA3 is low (46), a focus group meeting was held in addition to an in-depth questionnaire given in Annex- 6. 1

Consolidated Analysis of KA1 and KA2 Questionnaire Responses

EFFECTIVENESS

1. Effectiveness of the Projects in achieving specific objectives of Erasmus+ in E&T Field

Multilingualism, cultural diversity 86% 14%

Cooperation among EU countries 94% 6%

Enhancement of LLL 86% 14%

Support to political reform 41% 59%

Modernisation of E&T systems 87% 13%

Dissemination of good practicess 96% 4%

Innovation and excellence 92% 8%

Transnational cooperation 90% 10%

Labour market, business environment 51% 49%

Skills and competences 96% 4%

Relevant Not Relevant

Effectiveness of the Projects in achieving specific objectives of Erasmus+ of Youth Field

Enhanced internationalisation0,0% 72,7% 27,3% Not relevant Enhanced youth policies, recognition of non- 45,5% 36,4% 18,2% formal/informal learning Relevant Enhanced quality of cooperation0,0% 45,5% 54,5%

Developed skills and 0,0%9,1% 90,9% Highly relevant competences

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2

2. Contribution of Projects to specific objectives of E&T and Youth Fields:

2.1. Effectiveness at individual level (student, learner, youth, trainer, teacher, etc.) in E&T and Youth Fields a) Improved skills and competences (also including language skills and skills for addressing the disadvantaged target groups):

developed skills and competences 8,5% 19,7% 71,8% to address disadvantaged people

developed language skills 4,5%8,7% 86,8%

developed skills for enterpreneurship and business 6,1% 17,6% 76,3% development

I disagree (%) developed skills for improved 8,4% 21,2% 70,5% employability

gained skills and competences for 3,4% 2,6% 94,0% teaching/learning performance Neither agree nor disagree (%) gained competences to utilise new 3,9% 11,2% 84,8% technologies and methodologies I agree (%)

skills and competences are 5,4% 7,8% 86,8% recognised transnationally

gained competence on ICT based 7,2% 20,3% 72,5% learning

gained skills for problem solving, organisation, independent 2,5% 3,1% 94,4% thinking

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

3 b) Improved quality, innovation excellence and internationalisation:

improved quality of academic research 4,0%17,6% 78,4%

improved professional capacity in E&T1,0% 3,6% 95,3%

developed quality for creative and 1,0% 3,1% 95,9% innovative learning

enhanced voluntary service and youth I disagree (%) 2,2% 3,7% 94,1% work

improved participation of youth in 11,9% 33,3% 54,8% Neither agree nor active labour market disagree (%) increased motivation for career 13,0% 33,3% 54,8% development I agree (%)

increased motivation for active 2,1%6,4% 91,4% participation in E&T

increased quality of the education and 2,1%3,4% 94,4% training staff

developed skills for creative and 3,4% 6,4% 90,1% innovative approaches

0,0% 20,0% 40,0% 60,0% 80,0% 100,0% c) Awareness raised on European LLL area and recognition of non-formal and informal learning:

developed understanding of key I disagree (%) 2,5% 0,0% 97,5% competences in adult training

raised awareness on nonformal and 9,6% 25,1% 65,2% Neither agree informal training LLL and recognition nor disagree (%)

raised awareness on the LLL area in the 2,5% 5,0% 92,5% EU (policies, systems, and practices) I agree (%)

0% 50% 100%

4 d) Improved EU and international dimension of the E&T and Youth activities:

improved knowledge on the EU values, targets in E&T and related 2,9%8,6% 88,5% EU Programmes gained knowledge on the EU E&T 2,1% 2,6% 95,4% I disagree (%) policies, systems and practices

increased internationalisation through recognition of diploma 8,6% 17,1% 74,3% and suplaments Neither agree nor disagree (%) gained knowledge on EU 2,2% 1,3% 96,5% communities and cultures

I agree (%) gained international experience through co-work with EU 3,1% 3,5% 93,5% partners

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% e) Enhanced participation in democratic life and active citizenship:

developed EU values on social inclusion, active citizenship and democratic 3,3% 11,3% 85,5% participation

raised awareness on crosscultural 2,4% 2,0% 95,6% differences (social, cultural and linguistic) I disagree gained skills for EU project development (%) 3,5% 7,3% 89,2% and implementation

raised awareness against xenophobia 4,1% 6,6% 89,3% Neither agree nor disagree gained understanding of other cultures, 3,0% 92,7% (%) avoiding prejudices 4,3%

developed motivation for active 2,5% 3,8% 93,7% participation in the social life

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5

2.2. Effectiveness at institutional and systems level a) Effectiveness at institutional and system levels in E&T Field:

HE increased quality in the EU and 3,6% 95,0% internationally 1,4%

SE decreased school leaves 8,1% 24,8% 67,1%

Student attendance increased 8,7% 27,7% 63,6%

Enhanced local and regional 4,8% 13,8% 81,4% cooperation

Enhanced validation of learning 12,7% 27,1% 60,2% outcomes

Addressing disadvantaged groups 7,1% 22,5% 70,5% I do not agree

More innovative and creative 8,6% 88,4% approaches adopted 3,1%

Improved international cooperation 2,2% 3,9% 93,9% neither agree nor disagree More modern, transparant and 3,8% 14,2% 82,0% dynamic institution

Enhanced E&T materials 5,1% 24,3% 70,5% I agree

Enhanced curriculum 8,8% 24,1% 67,1%

Improved EU institutional strategy 5,1% 19,0% 75,9% addressing different needs

Better addressing the needs of 2,1% 7,6% 90,3% target groups

E&T Capacity developed in the EU 1,8% 3,2% 95,1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

6 b) Effectiveness at institutional and system levels in Youth field:

Enhanced local and regional 83,3% 11,4% cooperation 5,3%

Innovative and creative approaches 84,1% 7,6% 8,3% adopted

Enhanced capacity to address 78,0% 16,7% 5,3% disadvantaged people

Increased Youthpass 85,7% 9,0% 5,3% I agree

Improved non-formal and informal 88,0% 7,5% 4,5% learning

Improved quality of youth work and neither 90,2% 5,3% 4,5% voluntarism agree nor disagree

Enhanced international 94,0% 3,8% 2,3% cooperation I do not agree More innovative and creative 88,0% 9,0% 3,0% approaches adopted

More modern, transparant and 82,0% 14,3% dynamic institution 3,8%

The needs of youth and youth 89,5% 7,5% workers better addressed 3,0%

Youth work capacity developed in 91,7% 6,0% the EU 2,3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

7

3. Coverage of Disadvantaged Participants - Types of Disadvantaged People

Disadvantaged Participants (%) - E&T Field

Health Difficulties 7,43%

Geographically Disadvantaged 8,79%

Cultural Disadvantaged (migrants,… 11,56%

People with Special Needs 11,69%

Socially Disadvantaged 14,79%

Difficulties in Educations 15,50%

Economically Disadvantaged 30,23%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Disadvantaged Participants (%) Youth Field

Health Difficulties 6,0%

Geographically Disadvantaged 8,1% Cultural Disadvantaged 10,8% (migrants, refugees, etc)

People with Special Needs 12,9%

Socially Disadvantaged 17,1%

Difficulties in Educations 17,1%

Economically Disadvantaged 27,9%

0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0%

8

4. Factors having a positive effect on Erasmus+ compared to LLP&YiA

Quality of Outputs 0% 96,77% 3%

ECVET and EQAVET 2% 78,00% 20%

Dissemination, exploitation and multipliers effect 0% 93,03% 7%

European Youth Week 25% 62,50% 13%

Internationalisation 1% 90,98% 8%

VET Charter 14% 67,10% 19%

Recognition and validation of Learning Outcomes 1% 92,64% 6%

Partner Countries 1% 94,85% 4%

Institutional Application 1% 88,93% 10% No AE in line with TQF anf EQF 1% 89,09% 10% positive effect ECTS in HE 1% 91,18% 7% (%) Positive OLS 13% 72,71% 14% effect (%) Creative Youth Work 1% 95,35% 4%

Youthpass/Europass 3% 87,17% 10% No idea (%) EVS 12% 71,07% 17%

Youth Strategy Plan 1% 89,26% 10%

Unit Price in Budget 2% 87,36% 10%

Emphasis on cretive and innovative approaches 1% 93,72% 5%

EU added value 2% 88,78% 10%

Variety of Beneficiary eligible 16% 47,35% 36%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

9

5. Effectiveness of the Dissemination Means and Tools

Means specific for disadvantaged people 100% 0%

Media (TV, radio, social media,etc.) 65% 19% 16%

Printed Materials 51% 15% 35%

Informative Meetings, seminars, etc. 52% 15% 34%

Public Means (Municipalities, etc.) 49% 12% 38%

Project Results Platform 48% 22% 31%

Web site, blog, etc. 56% 21% 23%

Effective Not effective No idea

10

EFFICIENCY

6. The extent to which efficiency is decreased through the difficulties faced during the application and implementation of the projects both E&T and Youth Fields

0%

Partnership authorisation 88% 13%0%

Pre-mobility orientation preparations 63% 31% 7%

ECHE implementation 66% 25% 8%

Diploma Supllement and documents produced in EU HE… 46% 40% 14%

VET Charter conditions 37% 28% 35%

42% 20% 39%

61% 27% 13%

Producing/receiving Youthpass Mobility certificates 72% 19% 9%

Implementation of Youth Strategies and Work Plans 63% 28% 8%

Planning of the out-going mobilities and responding the… 23% 76% 1%

International Mobility among HEIs incl. Partner countries 46% 51% 3%

ECHE conditions 63% 29% 8%

Information provided in EU offices 65% 29% 6%

Partner finding 46% 47% 6%

Discontinuity of partnerships (partners leaving before the… 55% 20% 25%

Finding hosting institutions 46% 50% 4%

Project implementation monitoring and evaluation 58% 35% 7%

Producing/receiving Europass Mobility certificates 49% 32% 19%

Implementation of activities in the EU Qualitfications… 59% 34% 7%

Preparation of European Development Plans 58% 33% 9%

Timing of call for proposals and contracting 42% 56% 3%

Project proposals' evaluation and informing about the criteria 55% 39% 6%

Programme conditions and documents required from the… 57% 40% 3%

Announcements and information about Erasmus+ actions 64% 31% 5% No negative change Decreased Efficiency No idea

11

7. Measures taken to improve quality of the project proposals of both E&T and Youth Fields

Pre-mobility orientation 86% 2%12%

Language preparation 66% 4% 31%

Identification of the project conditions (time plan, 96% 2%2% etc.)

Project content preparation 73% 3% 24%

Agreement with the partners 86% 2%12%

Lessons learnt from others, sharing of experiences 80% 3% 16%

On-line informative platforms 62% 5% 33%

Received informatin from NA 93% 3%4%

Reviewed NA documents at the website 95% 2%2%

Attended training and informative sessions of the 87% 3%10% NA

Extrenal consultancy 28% 3% 69%

Established project team 91% 2%8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Effective Not effective No measure taken

12

8. Factors of budgeting affecting Efficiency of both E&T and Youth Fields

Difficulty in transfering budget to 80% 20% partners

Benefits of OLS 69% 31%

Benefit of the support to 92% 8% individuals

Support to Special Need of the 66% 34% disbled people

Support to multipliers events 92% 8%

Benetits of the support to 87% 13% intellectual outputs

Balance between the costs and 95% 5% benefits

Monthly and annual limits in the 92% 8% budget

Adequacy of distance calculator 80% 20% for travel costs

Institutional support for 96% 4% mobilities

Ease of unit pricing in budget 96% 4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Yes No

13

9. Factors of the IT system affecting Efficiency of both E&T and Youth Fields

Project reporting 3,3%11,0% 85,7%

Follow-up of the Proje activities 4,3% 15,2% 80,5%

Project proposal uploading 3,5%13,4% 83,1%

Adequacy of the IT system content 4,0% 28,6% 67,4%

TURNA application 5,4% 14,7% 79,9%

Mobility Tool 5,1% 12,8% 82,1%

PIC registration system 4,4% 15,7% 79,9%

EU Participation Portal Registration system 4,9% 36,6% 58,5%

Verification of the EU Identification (ECAS) 5,8% 25,6% 68,6%

0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0% 70,0% 80,0% 90,0%100,0%

Not satisfied indefferent Satisfied

14

10. Utilisation of the EC systems and platforms supporting Erasmus+ during the project application and project implementation under different actions

 Eurydice 24,2%  On-line Language Support-OLS 52,8%  E-twinning 79,5%  Erasmus+ Project Results Platform 86,5%  Open Education Europa 87,3%  European Shared Treasure 90,8%  Europass 58,4%  Eurodesk 70,5%  Euroguidance Eurpean Consultancy Services 52,9%  Learning Opportunities and Qualifications in Europe 49,6%  SALTO 44,6%  ELGPN 43,1%  European Youth Portal 70,1%  European Youth Platform 58,1%  European Training Strategy in the field of Youth 43,6%  Adam Europe (Projects and Products Portal) 42,7%  ECVET 60,7%  EQAVET 51,3%  School Education Gateway 69,9%  HERE 25,0%  NARIC and ENIC (European Network of Information)Centers in the 31,7% European Region  Knowledge Hub for Higher Education 26,7%

 OTLAS 50,0%  Youthpass 62,5%  European Youth Portal 50,0%  European Youth Platform 37,5%  ETS (European Training Strategy in the field of Youth) 25,0%  Adam Europe (Projects and Products Portal) 65,3%  School Education Gateway 49,8%  EPALE 59,3%  The European Adult Education (Young) Professionals Learning Platform 29,6% (AE-PRO)  HERE 42,9%  Knowledge Hub for Higher Education 57,1%  Academic networks (EENEE, NESET) 50,0%

15

11. Learning Outputs for recognition and validation

Youthpass received by the participants 49% 51%

ECVET received 8% 92%

Europass received by the participants 47% 53%

Yes No

Number of Europasses received by the participants 388

Number of participants benefited from ECVET received 16

Number of Youthpasses received by the participants 32

EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE AND SUSTAINABILITY

12. Complementarity with a national and/or international project for E&T and Youth Fields

18%

82%

Yes No

16

13. EU Added Value of Erasmus+ for E&T and Youth Fields

Understanding of the Youth policies in the 0,0% 100,0% 0,0% EU Enhancement of Youth work and 1,7% 95,7% voluntarism in the EU 2,6%

Development of academic reseach in the EU0,8% 94,4% 4,8%

Increased competitiveness in the EU 4,0% 87,1% 8,9%

Internationalism and European values 3,2% 96,0% 0,8%

Multiligualism in the EU1,8% 96,7% 1,5%

increased employability in the EU 9,3% 83,0% 7,7%

wider utilisation of ICT in the EU 5,9% 83,9% 10,2%

Utilisation of innovative approaches in the 0,6% 98,6% 0,8% No EU EU Added Value Learning EU languages 3,0% 93,1% 3,9%

Benefiting from recognition and validation 6,4% 85,8% 7,8% system Enhanced EU Added Adoption of EU Quality standards 0,6% 98,1% 1,3% Value

Social inclusion, prevention of xenophobia in 3,5% 91,4% 5,0% the EU No idea Active participation of the disadvantaged in 6,8% 84,3% 8,9% the EU

Cooperation with the EU stakeholders0,8% 97,7% 1,6%

Benefit from the EU practices0,7% 98,2% 1,2%

Understanding of LLL in the EU0,3% 98,7% 1,0%

Understanding of EU culture0,6% 98,5% 0,9%

0% 50% 100%

17

14. Willingness to apply to the actions of Erasmus+ implemented in Turkey and the centrally managed programmes for E&T and Youth Fields

96% 93% 86%

14% 7% 4%

Are you willing to apply for this Have you applied or are you Have you applied or are you action again? willing to apply other actions of willing to apply the centrally the Erasmus+? managed programmes?

Yes No Linear (Yes) Linear (Yes) Linear (Yes) Linear (No)

18

Ref. Ares(2017)3348353 - 04/07/2017

Annex-4b: LLP&YiA Questionnaire Results Summary

Questionnaires for LLP&YiA (20007 - 2013) targeting beneficiaries of Comenius, Leonardo da Vinci, Erasmus and Grundtvig

Mails sent to all Mails not Net mails Questionnaires Response

beneficiaries transmitted transmitted responded rate1

GRUNDTVIG 400 19 381 34 8,92% COMENIUS 1489 43 1446 103 7,12% LDV 470 19 451 52 11,53% ERASMUS 177 17 160 6 3,75% YOUTH YİA 717 53 664 17 2,56% TOTAL 3253 151 3102 212 6,83%

1 The low rate of response is due to several facts, among which the most important one being the high turnover of the staffs of the project beneficiaries including coordinators at the schools, uıniversities, training institutions, NGOs, etc. Second important factor is the lengthy time period elapsed after the projects had ended (at least over 3 years, up to 10 years), which make it quite difficult for the project beneficiaries to remember the project details. Thus, these statistics of LLP&YİA, have been carefully used to avoid any incosistency with the overall population. 1

COMENIUS – LLP

Consolidated Analysis of Questionnaire Responses for Comenius Programme of LLP

EFFECTIVENESS

Effectiveness of the Projects in achieving specific objectives of Comenius Programme of the LLP:

1) To what extend was your project relevant in achieving the specific objectives of the Comenius Programme of LLP?

Improved language competences 9,3% 29,9% 60,8% and multilangualism in the EU

Enhanced EU dimension in SE 7,2% 41,2% 51,5% Not relevant Enhanced understanding and knowledge of EU culture, values and 6,2% 24,7% 69,1% languages Relevant

Improved quality of SE 5,2% 39,2% 55,7% Highly relevant

Enhanced transnational cooperation 12,4% 30,9% 56,7% in the field of SE

0% 50% 100%

2) Effectiveness at individual level: 2.1. Has your project brought benefits to the students of SE?

9,3% Yes

No 90,7%

2

2.1 What are the contributions of the projects at individual level?

improved language skills 4,6% 0,0%

raised awareness being against 3,4% 1,1% xenephobia raised awareness on crosscultural differences (social, cultural and 0,0% 0,0% linguistic) I agree (%)

skills and competences are 4,6% recognised transnationally 5,7%

developed capacity for creative 3,4% 1,1% Neither and innovative approaches agree nor disagree (%) gained competence on ICT based 12,6% 6,9% learning I disagree (%) developed motivation for active 3,4% 1,1% participation in the social life

gained skills for problem solving, organisation and independent 4,6% 1,1% thinking developed skills and competences and enhanced learning 2,3% 0,0% performance

gained knowledge on EU 98,9% 1,1% 0,0% communities and cultures

0% 50% 100%

3

2.2. Has your project brought benefits to the teachers and staffs of SE?

1,0%

Yes

99,0% No

2.2. What are the contributions of the projects at teacher, staffs of the SE?

improved language skills 87,2% 10,6% 2,1%

improved professional career and 91,5% 6,4% working quality 2,1%

developed capacy to address 64,9% 26,6% 8,5% disadvantaged people I agree (%) developed capacity for creative and 94,7% 4,3% 1,1% innovative approaches

raised awareness on crosscultural Neither agree 98,9% 1,1% differences in the EU 0,0% nor disagree (%) Adopted new methodologies and 91,5% 7,4% technologies 1,1% I disagree (%)

skills and competences are 88,3% 6,4% 5,3% recognised transnationally

gained competence on ICT based 85,1% 8,5% 6,4% learning

developed skills and competences and enhanced learning 96,8% 1,1%2,1% performance 0% 50% 100%

4

2.3. Has your project brought benefits to the SE institution?

13,5%

Yes

86,5% No

2.3. What are the contributions of the projects at institutions of SE?

Improved capacity to address 52,4% 31,7% 15,9% disadvantaged groups

developed capacity for creative and innovative pedagogic 85,4% 13,4%1,2% approaches

Enhanced transnational 93,9% 3,7% cooperation 2,4%

Decreased SE leaves 52,4% 28,0% 19,5% I agree (%)

Increased SE attendance rate 58,5% 26,8% 14,6% Neither agree nor Improved institutional capacity disagree (%) (more modern, dynamic and 68,3% 25,6% 6,1% transparant) I disagree (%) Improved SE materials and 78,0% 11,0% methods 11,0%

Developed curriculum addressing 64,6% 18,3% 17,1% different needs

Enhanced SE in the EU 86,6% 11,0% 2,4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5

3. Did your project brought benefits to the disadvantaged groups?

48,9% Yes 51,1% No

% of disadvantaged participants covered?

90,0% 81,3% 80,0% 70,0% 60,0% 50,0% 39,6% 37,5% 40,0% 31,3% 30,0% 22,9% 20,8% 20,0% 14,6% % of Disadvanta 10,0% ged 0,0% Participant s

6

EFFICIENCY

4. In what areas did you face difficulties during the project implementation?

Others 29,8% 6,4% 17,0%

Project monitoring and evaluation 75,5% 21,3%3,2%

Issuance of Europass Mobility Document 53,2% 21,3% 23,4% No effect Dissemination and exploitation of the 81,9% 17,0% 1,1% project outputs

Continuity of partnership 83,0% 13,8% 3,2% decreased Partner/host institution finding 63,8% 34,0% 2,1% efficiency

Implementation of activities 77,7% 22,3% 0,0%

No idea Budgeting 67,0% 31,9% 0,0%

Programme conditions and application 72,3% 24,5% 3,2% procedures

0% 50% 100%

5. Were Europasses (Mobility, Skills and CV) issued during your project?

25,5% Yes

74,5% No

7

EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE AND SUSTAINABILITY

6. In what areas did your project brought EU added value?

Enhanced social inclusion, prevention of xenophobia in the 5,5% 92,3% 2,2% EU

Multiligualism in the EU 3,3% 95,6% 1,1%

Wider utilisation of ICT in the EU 8,8% 89,0% 2,2% No EU Added Value Benefiting from recognition and 7,7% 85,7% 6,6% validation system

Adoption of the EU quality Enhanced EU 2,2% 93,4% 4,4% standards Added Value

Adopting creative and innovative 2,2% 97,8% 0,0% approaches in the EU No idea Cooperation with the EU 3,3% 96,7% 0,0% stakeholders

Understanding of EU culture 2,2% 97,8% 0,0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

7. Did you apply for a new project under Erasmus+ SE actions?

Yes 41,5%

58,5% No

8

8. Are you willing to apply to the actions of Erasmus+ implemented in Turkey and the centrally managed programmes both in E&T and Youth Fields?

100,0% 91,2% 86,8% 90,0% 80,0% 70,3% 70,0% 60,0% 50,0% 40,0% 29,7% Yes 30,0% No 20,0% 13,2% 8,8% 10,0% 0,0% Are you willing to apply for Have applied or are you Have applied or are you this action again? willing to apply other willing to apply the actions of the Erasmus+? centrally managed programmes?

9

Ref. Ares(2017)3348353 - 04/07/2017

Annex-4c: LLP&YiA Questionnaire Results Summary

LEONARDO DA VINCI (LdV) – LLP

Consolidated Analysis of Questionnaire Responses for LdV Programme of LLP

EFFECTIVENESS

Effectiveness of the Projects in achieving specific objectives of LdV Programme of LLP:

1) To what extend was your project relevant in achieving the specific objectives of the LdV Programme of LLP?

Support to vocational training of 21,6% 35,3% 43,1% young people

Improved language competences 19,6% 49,0% 31,4% and multilangualism in the EU

Adoption of new technologies 7,8% 51,0% 41,2% through LLL

Transfer of innovation Not relevant 9,8% 41,2% 49,0% transnationally Relevant Highly relevant

Improved cooperation among VET 13,7% 52,9% 33,3% institutionas and business life

Enhanced transnational cooperation 11,8% 37,3% 51,0% in the field of VET

Enhanced vocational skills and 7,8% 23,5% 68,6% competences

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1

2) Effectiveness at individual level: 2.1. Has your project brought benefits to the students, learners, interns, etc. of VET?

13,7% Yes

No 86,3%

2.1 What are the contributions of the projects at individual level?

improved language skills 88,4% 11,6%0,0%

raised awareness being against 79,1% 16,3%4,7% xenephobia

86,0% 9,3%4,7%

Improved employability 65,1% 30,2% 4,7%

skills and competences are recognised 79,1% 11,6%9,3% transnationally developed capacity for creative and 88,4% 11,6%0,0% innovative approaches I agree (%) gained competence on ICT based 86,0% 11,6%2,3% learning Adopted new technologies and Neither 88,4% 11,6%0,0% methodologies agree nor disagree developed skills and competences and 95,3% 4,7%0,0% (%) enhanced learning performance I disagree (%) developed motivation for active 86,0% 11,6%2,3% participation in the social life gained skills for problem solving, 95,3% 4,7%0,0% organisation and independent thinking gained knowledge on EU communities 90,9% 6,8%2,3% and cultures

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2

2.2. Has your project brought benefits to the trainers, teachers and staffs of VET?

4,1%

Yes

No 95,9%

2.2. What are the contributions of the projects at trainers, teachers, staffs of the VET?

improved language skills 87,0% 13,0% 0,0%

improved professional career 93,5% 6,5% and working quality 0,0% developed capacity to address 67,4% 26,1% 6,5% disadvantaged people

95,7% 2,2% 2,2% I agree Developed link among VET (%) 84,8% 13,0% and labour market 2,2%

developed capacity for 95,7% 4,3% 0,0% creative and innovative… Neither agree nor Adopted new methodologies disagree 97,8% 2,2% 0,0% and technologies in The EU (%)

skills and competences are 82,6% 6,5% 10,9% recognised transnationally

gained competence on ICT 87,0% based learning 8,7% 4,3%

95,7% 4,3% 0,0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

3

2.3. Has your project brought benefits to the VET institution?

4,1%

Yes

No 95,9%

2.3. What are the contributions of the projects at institutions of VET? skills and competences are recognised 29,8% 42,6% 27,7% transnationally (ECVET &EQAVET)

developed capacity to address 72,3% 21,3% 6,4% disadvantaged people

developed capacity for creative and 91,5% 6,4% innovative approaches 2,1%

Enhanced transnational cooperation 93,6% 4,3% 2,1% I agree (%) Improved institutional capacity (more 68,1% 27,7% 4,3% modern, dynamic and transparant) Neither agree nor Improved VET materials and methods 72,3% 21,3% 6,4% disagree (%) I disagree Developed curriculum addressing 59,6% 27,7% 12,8% (%) different needs

The needs of the learners and trainers 91,5% 6,4% 2,1% are better assessed

Enhanced VET in the EU 85,4% 10,4% 4,2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

4

3. Did your project brought benefits to the disadvantaged groups?

40,8% Yes 59,2% No

% of disadvantaged participants covered?

70,0% 64,3% People with Special Needs 60,0%

Difficulties in Educations 50,0% Economically Disadvantaged 40,0% 35,7% Cultural Disadvantaged 28,6% 28,6% 30,0% (migrants, refugees, etc) 25,0% Health Difficulties 20,0% 17,9% Social Disadvantaged 10,7% 10,0% Geographical Disadvantaged

0,0% Response Percent

5

EFFICIENCY

4. In what areas did you face difficulties during the project implementation?

Others 44,4% 11,1% 44,4%

Project monitoring and 63,3% 30,6% 6,1% evaluation Issuance of Europass Mobility 46,9% 32,7% 20,4% Document No effect Dissemination and exploitation 65,3% 30,6% 4,1% of the project outputs

Continuity of partnership 67,3% 28,6% 4,1% decreased Partner/host institution finding 55,1% 40,8% 4,1% efficiency

Implementation of activities 69,4% 26,5% 4,1%

No idea Budgeting 59,2% 36,7% 4,1%

Programme conditions and 73,5% 22,4% 4,1% application procedures

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5. Were Europasses (Mobility, Skills and CV) and ECVET issued during your project?

100,0% 91,7%

80,0%

58,3% 60,0% 41,7% Europass 40,0% ECVET

20,0% 8,3%

0,0% Yes No

6

EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE AND SUSTAINABILITY

6. In what areas did your project brought EU added value?

Enhanced social inclusion, prevention of xenophobia in the 2,3% 95,3% 2,3% EU

Multiligualism in the EU 2,3% 95,3% 2,3%

Enhanced employability in the EU 4,7% 83,7% 11,6%

Benefiting from recognition and 14,0% 72,1% 14,0% validation system No EU Added Value Adoption of the EU quality 0,0% 97,7% 2,3% standards

Cooperation with the EU 0,0% 97,7% 2,3% stakeholders Enhanced EU Added Value

Benefiting from good practices in 0,0% 100,0% 0,0% the EU

Adopting creative and innovative 0,0% 97,7% 2,3% approaches in the EU No idea

Better understanding of the VET 2,3% 95,3% 2,3% institutions in the EU

Understanding of EU culture0,0% 97,7% 2,3%

0% 50% 100%

7

7. Did you apply for a new project under Erasmus+ VET actions?

29,2% Ye s

No

70,8%

8. Are you willing to apply to the actions of Erasmus+ implemented in Turkey and the centrally managed programmes both in E&T and Youth fields?

100,0% 93,0% 90,7% 90,0% 80,0% 67,4% 70,0% 60,0% 50,0% Yes 40,0% 32,6% 30,0% No 20,0% 7,0% 9,3% 10,0% 0,0% Are you willing to apply for Have applied or are you Have applied or are you this action again? willing to apply other willing to apply the centrally actions of the Erasmus+? managed programmes?

8

Ref. Ares(2017)3348353 - 04/07/2017

Annex-4d: LLP&YiA Questionnaire Results Summary

GRUNDTVIG (LdV) – LLP

Consolidated Analysis of Questionnaire Responses for Grundtvig Programme of LLP

EFFECTIVENESS

Effectiveness of the Projects in achieving specific objectives of Grundtvig Programme of the LLP:

1) To what extend was your project relevant in achieving the specific objectives of the Grundtvig Programme of LLP?

Improved language competences and 24,2% 48,5% 27,3% multilangualism in the EU

Enhanced EU dimension in AE 12,1% 24,2% 63,6%

Enhanced ICT based methodologies for 45,5% 24,2% 30,3% LLL

Transnational transfer of innovative 18,2% 36,4% 45,5% methodologies for AE Not relevant Relevant Enhanced non-formal training 33,3% 36,4% 30,3% opportunities in AE Highly relevant

Enhanced transnational cooperation in 30,3% 18,2% 51,5% the field of AE

Improved quality of AE 15,2% 24,2% 60,6%

Improved key comptences of adults 36,4% 39,4% 24,2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1

2) Effectiveness at individual level: 2.1. Has your project brought benefits to the learners of AE institutions?

9,1%

Yes

No

90,9%

2.1 What are the contributions of the projects at individual level?

Improved language competences 37,9% 41,4% 3,4% and multilangualism in the EU

Enhanced active participation in 62,1% 34,5% 0,0% social life

Enhanced understanding and knowledge of EU culture, values and 89,7% 10,3%0,0% Highly languages relevant

Enhanced transnational recognition 58,6% 20,7% 10,3% and validation of learning outcomes Relevant

Innovative and creative learning 44,8% 41,4% 6,9% methodologies developed Not relevant

Improved ICT based learning skills 33,3% 30,0% 20,0%

Improved learning performance, key 53,3% 36,7% 0,0% competences and skills

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2

2.2. Has your project brought benefits to the trainers and staffs of AE institutions?

3,0%

Yes

No 97,0%

2.2. What are the contributions of the projects at trainers, teachers, staffs of the AE institutions?

improved language skills 83,9% 12,9% 3,2%

Improved professional development 87,1% 9,7% 3,2% in AE

gained skills to address 71,0% 19,4% disadvantaged people 9,7% I agree (%) developed capacity for creative and 90,3% 9,7% 0,0% innovative approaches

gained knowledge on EU Neither 100,0% 0,0% communities and cultures agree nor disagree Adopted new methodologies and (%) 87,1% 9,7% 3,2% technologies I disagree (%) skills and competences are 77,4% 12,9% 9,7% recognised transnationally

gained competence on ICT based 67,7% 22,6% 9,7% learning

developed skills and competences 90,6% 0,0% in AE 9,4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

3

2.3. Has your project brought benefits to the AE institution?

12,5%

Yes

No 87,5%

2.3. What are the contributions of the projects at institutions of AE?

Improved capacity to address 76,9% 7,7% disadvantaged groups 15,4%

developed capacity for creative and innovative pedagogic 88,5% 3,8% 7,7% approaches I agree (%) Enhanced transnational 92,3% 0,0% 7,7% cooperation

Improved institutional capacity Neither agree nor (more modern, dynamic and 80,8% 7,7% 11,5% disagree (%) transparant)

Improved SE materials and 73,1% 19,2% 7,7% I disagree (%) methods

Developed curriculum addressing 69,2% 26,9% different needs 3,8%

Enhanced AE in the EU 96,2% 0,0% 3,8%

0% 50% 100%

4

3. Did your project brought benefits to the disadvantaged groups?

Yes 41,9%

No 58,1%

% of disadvantaged participants covered?

35,0% 30,0% 25,0% 20,0% 15,0% 31,6% 26,3% 10,0% 21,1% 15,8% 5,0% 5,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%

Response Percent

5

EFFICIENCY

4. In what areas did you face difficulties during the project implementation?

Others 50,0% 0,0% 50,0%

Project monitoring and 65,5% 0,0% evaluation 3,4%

Issuance of Europass Mobility 44,8% 0,0% 31,0% Document

Dissemination and exploitation of 51,7% 0,0% 3,4% No effect the project outputs

Continuity of partnership 75,0% 0,0% 10,7% decreased efficiency

Partner/host institution finding 78,6% 0,0% 3,6% No idea

Implementation of activities 69,0% 0,0% 3,4%

Budgeting 55,2% 0,0%0,0%

Programme conditions and 65,5% 31,0% 3,4% application procedures

0% 50% 100%

5. Were Europasses (Mobility, Skills and CV) issued during your project?

28,6%

Ye s No 71,4%

6

EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE AND SUSTAINABILITY

6. In what areas did your project brought EU added value?

Enhanced social inclusion, prevention of xenophobia in 3,7% 88,9% 7,4% the EU

Multiligualism in the EU0,0% 96,3% 3,7%

No EU Added Value Wider utilisation of ICT in the 7,4% 81,5% 11,1% EU

Benefiting from recognition 7,4% 92,6% 0,0% Enhanced EU and validation system Added Value

Adoption of the EU quality 3,7% 96,3% 0,0% standards

No idea Adopting creative and innovative approaches in the 3,7% 92,6% 3,7% EU

Increased transnational cooperation for improved AE 7,4% 92,6% 0,0% in the EU

0% 50% 100%

7

7. Did you apply for a new project under Erasmus+ AE actions?

34,5%

Yes

65,5% No

8. Are you willing to apply to the actions of Erasmus+ implemented in Turkey and the centrally managed programmes both E&T and Youth Fields?

90,0% 85,2% 85,2% 80,0%

70,0% 63,0% 60,0% 50,0% 40,0% 37,0% Yes 30,0% No 20,0% 14,8% 14,8% 10,0% 0,0% Are you willing to apply for Have applied or are you Have applied or are you this action again? willing to apply other willing to apply the actions of the Erasmus+? centrally managed programmes?

8

Ref. Ares(2017)3348353 - 04/07/2017

Annex-4e: LLP&YiA Questionnaire Results Summary

ERASMUS – LLP

Consolidated Analysis of Questionnaire Responses for Erasmus Programme of LLP

EFFECTIVENESS

Effectiveness of the Projects in achieving specific objectives of Erasmus Programme of LLP:

1) To what extend was your project relevant in achieving the specific objectives of the Erasmus Programme of LLP?

Enhanced understanding and knowledge 16,7% 50,0% 33,3% of EU cultures and values

Improved language competences and 16,7% 66,7% 16,7% multilangualism in the EU

Recognition and validation of the HEI Not relevant 0,0% 66,7% 33,3% diplomas Relevant Highly relevant

Enhanced transnational cooperation 16,7% 33,3% 50,0% among HEIs

establishment of EHEA0,0% 83,3% 16,7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1

2) Effectiveness at individual level: 2.1. Has your project brought benefits to the learners of HEIs?

0,0%

Yes

No 100,0%

2.1 What are the contributions of the projects at individual level?

improved language skills 66,7% 33,3%

Enhanced values for social 66,7% 33,3% inclusion, active citizenship and…

Enhanced academic research 66,7% 33,3% capacity

skills and competences are 66,7% 33,3% recognised transnationally I agree (%)

developed capacity for creative 33,3% 66,7% and innovative approaches Neither agree nor gained competence on ICT based 0,0% 100,0% disagree (%) learning

33,3% 66,7% I disagree (%)

83,3% 16,7%

83,3% 16,7%

gained knowledge on EU 83,3% 16,7% communities and cultures

0% 50% 100%

2

2.2. Has your project brought benefits to the trainers and staffs of HEIs?

16,7%

Yes

83,3% No

2.2. What are the contributions of the projects at trainers, teachers, staffs of the HEIs?

Enhanced professional and 40,0% 60,0% career development

improved language skills 40,0% 60,0%

developed capacity to address 0,0% 100,0% disdvantaged people's needs

raised awareness on crosscultural differences (social, 80,0% 20,0% I agree (%) cultural and linguistic)

Increased capacity for academic 60,0% 40,0% research and publications Neither agree nor disagree (%) Improved academic and 80,0% 20,0% administrative HE quality I disagree (%) gained knowledge on EU 80,0% 20,0% policies, systems and practices

developed capacity for creative 80,0% 20,0% and innovative approaches

developed skills and competences and enhanced 80,0% 20,0% learning performance in HE

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

3

2.3. Has your project brought benefits to the HEIs?

33,3% Yes

66,7% No

2.3. What are the contributions of the projects at HEIs?

Improved capacity to address 0,0% 100,0% disadvantaged groups

developed capacity for creative and innovative 75,0% 25,0% pedagogic approaches

Enhanced transnational 100,0% 0,0% cooperation I agree (%) Enhance academic capacity 100,0% 0,0% and performance

Improved institutional capacity (more modern, 0,0% 100,0% dynamic and transparant) Neither agree nor disagree (%) Improved HE materials and 0,0% 100,0% methods

Developed curriculum 25,0% 75,0% addressing different needs I disagree (%)

Enhanced HEIs in the EU 100,0% 0,0%

0% 50% 100%

4

3. Did your project brought benefits to the disadvantaged groups?

16,7%

Yes

83,3% No

% of disadvantaged participants covered?

120,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

80,0%

60,0%

40,0%

20,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% Response Percent

5

EFFICIENCY

4. In what areas did you face difficulties during the project implementation?

Others 50,0% 0,0% 50,0%

Project monitoring and 33,3% 50,0% 16,7% evaluation

Issuance of Europass Mobility 33,3% 33,3% 33,3% Document No effect Dissemination and exploitation of 33,3% 50,0% 16,7% the project outputs

Continuity of partnership 16,7% 83,3% 0,0% decreased efficiency Partner/host institution finding 16,7% 83,3% 0,0%

No idea Implementation of activities 50,0% 50,0% 0,0%

Budgeting 16,7% 0,0%

Programme conditions and 83,3% 16,7%0,0% application procedures

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5. Were Europasses (Mobility, Skills and CV) issued during your project?

0,0%

Y es N o

100,0%

6

EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE AND SUSTAINABILITY

6. In what areas did your project brought EU added value?

Enhanced social inclusion, prevention of 25,0% 75,0% xenophobia in the EU

Improving langugae skills and multiligualism in 0,0% 100,0% the EU No EU Added Value Wider utilisation of ICT in the EU0,0% 100,0%

Benefiting from recognition and validation 0,0% 100,0% Enhanced EU system of the EU Added Value

Adoption of the EU quality standards0,0% 100,0%

No idea Adopting creative and innovative approaches 0,0% 100,0% in the EU

Cooperation among the HEIs in the EU0,0% 100,0%

0% 50% 100%

7. Did you apply for a new project under Erasmus+ HE actions?

0,0%

Yes

No

100,0%

7

8. Are you willing to apply to the actions of Erasmus+ implemented in Turkey and the centrally managed programmes both E&T and Youth Fields?

120,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

80,0%

60,0% Yes 40,0% No

20,0%

0,0% Are you willing to apply for Have applied or are you Have applied or are you this action again? willing to apply other willing to apply the centrally actions of the Erasmus+? managed programmes?

8

Ref. Ares(2017)3348353 - 04/07/2017

Annex-4f: LLP&YiA Questionnaire Results Summary

YOUTH IN ACTION (YiA) (2007-2013)

Consolidated Analysis of Questionnaire Responses for YiA Programme of 2007-2013

EFFECTIVENESS

Effectiveness of the Projects in achieving specific objectives of YiA Programme: 1) To what extend was your project relevant in achieving the specific objectives of the YiA?

Enhanced cooperation in the EU 14,3% 50,0% 35,7%

Foster quality improvements in youth 50,0% 35,7% 14,3% support systems and no-formal learning

Not relevant Enhanced transnational understanding 14,3% 21,4% 64,3% among the youth

Relevant

Enhanced intercultural dialogue, social inclusion, solidarity and social harmony 7,1% 50,0% 42,9% in the EU Highly relevant

Enhanced skills and competences for active participation and citizenship in 20,0% 46,7% 33,3% the EU

0% 50% 100%

1

2) Effectiveness at individual level: 2.1. What are the contributions of your project to the youth?

improved language skills 71,4% 7,1%

raised awareness being against 92,9% 0,0% xenephobia

raised awareness on crosscultural differences (social, cultural and 100,0% 0,0% linguistic)

improved employability of youth 42,9% 50,0% 7,1%

Transnational recognition and vlidation of skills and competences 92,9% 0,0% developed I agree developed capacity for creative and 92,9% 0,0% innovative approaches

gained competence on ICT based 50,0% 0,0% learning Uncertain Improved skills through new 100,0% 0,0% methodologies

Improved skills and learning performance, enterpreneurship and 100,0% 0,0% initiatives I donot agree developed motivation for active 100,0% 0,0% participation in the social life

gained skills for problem solving, organisation and independent 100,0% 0,0% thinking gained knowledge on EU communities 92,9% 7,1% and cultures gained knowledge on EU communities 100,0% 0,0% and cultures

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2

2.2. What are the contributions of the projects at youth trainers, workers and volunteers level?

improved language skills 85,7% 14,3% 0,0%

improved professional career and Yoth 100,0% 0,0% work quality

developed capacity to address 85,7% 14,3% disadvantaged people 0,0%

raised awareness on crosscultural 100,0% 0,0% differences in the EU I agree (%)

Linkage between youth work and active 71,4% 21,4% 7,1% labour market Neither agree nor disagree developed capacity for creative and 100,0% 0,0% (%) innovative approaches I disagree (%)

developed understanding of the youth 92,9% work and voluntarism in the EU 7,1% 0,0%

skills and competences are recognised 92,9% 7,1%0,0% transnationally

gained competence on ICT based learning 92,9% 7,1% 0,0%

developed skills and competences and 100,0% 0,0% enhanced learning performance

0% 50% 100%

3

2.3. What are the contributions of the projects at the youth groups, NGOs and institutions?

Improved capacity to address 85,7% 14,3% disadvantaged groups

Developed capacity for creative and 92,9% 7,1% innovative pedagogic approaches I agree (%)

Enhanced transnational cooperation 92,9% 0,0% 7,1% Neither agree nor disagree (%) Improved institutional capacity (more 92,9% 7,1% modern, dynamic and transparant) I disagree (%)

Needs of the youth, youth workers, leaders, volunteers are better assessed 100,0% 0,0% and addressed

Developed capacityon youth works in the 100,0% 0,0% EU

70% 80% 90% 100%

3. Did your project brought benefits to the disadvantaged groups?

14 13 12 12 11 10 10 10 10 8 8

6 5

4 3 3 3 2 Yes 2 1 0 No 0

4

EFFICIENCY

4. In what areas did you face difficulties during the project implementation?

Others 88,9% 0,0% 11,1%

Project monitoring and 84,6% 7,7% evaluation 7,7%

Issuance of Europass Mobility 84,6% 7,7% Document 7,7%

Dissemination and exploitation 92,3% 0,0% 7,7% of the project outputs No effect

Continuity of partnership 61,5% 30,8% 7,7% decreased efficiency Partner/host institution finding 84,6% 7,7% 7,7% No idea

Implementation of activities 76,9% 23,1% 0,0%

Budgeting 69,2% 30,8% 0,0%

Programme conditions and 84,6% 15,4% 0,0% application procedures

0% 50% 100%

5. Were Youthpasses issued during your project?

15,4%

Yes

No 84,6%

5

EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE AND SUSTAINABILITY

6. In what areas did your project brought EU added value?

Others0,0% 60,0% 40,0%

Enhanced social inclusion, 0,0% 100,0% 0,0% prevention of xenophobia in the EU

Learning EU languages and 0,0% 100,0% 0,0% multiligualism in the EU

Enhanced youth employability in the 8,3% 91,7% 0,0% EU No EU Added Value Adoption of the EU quality standards0,0% 100,0% 0,0%

Enhanced cooperation among the EU Enhanced EU 0,0% 100,0% 0,0% youth stakeholders Added Value

Capacity developed by sharing of 0,0% 100,0% 0,0% good practices in the EU No idea

Adopting creative and innovative 8,3% 91,7% 0,0% approaches in the EU

Understanding of the institutions on 0,0% 100,0% 0,0% youth work and voluntarism

Understanding of EU culture, 8,3% 91,7% 0,0% societies and business life

0% 50% 100%

6

7. Did you apply for a new project under Erasmus+ Youth actions?

38,5% Yes

61,5% No

8. Are you willing to apply to the actions of Erasmus+ implemented in Turkey and the centrally managed programmes both E&T and Youth Fields?

100,0% 91,7% 90,0% 83,3% 80,0% 75,0% Are you willing to apply for 70,0% this action again? 60,0% Have applied or are you 50,0% willing to apply other actions 40,0% of the Erasmus+? 30,0% 25,0% Have applied or are you willing to apply the centrally 16,7% 20,0% managed programmes? 8,3% 10,0% 0,0% Yes No

7

Ref. Ares(2017)3348353 - 04/07/2017

Annex-5: In-Depth Questionnaire for Erasmus+ Programme KA3 Beneficiaries in Youth Field

Projenin Adı:

Project Name: Yararlanıcı kurum:

Beneficiary Institution: Yaralanıcı kurumun yeri (ili)

Location of beneficiary: Ortaklar ve ülkeleri:

Partners and countries: Başvuru şekli (Lütfen işaretleyiniz): Application type (pls check) a) Avrupa Komisyon Merkezli başvuru CheckBox1 b) EC centrally managed c) Ulusal Ajans başvurusu CheckBox1 d) NA managed Eylemin Alanı (Lütfen işaretleyiniz): Field of Action (pls check): a) Yüksek Öğretim CheckBox1 b) Higher Education c) Okul Eğitimi CheckBox1 d) School Education e) Mesleki Eğitim f) Vocational Education and CheckBox1

Training g) Yetişkin Eğitimi CheckBox1 h) Adult Education i) Gençlik CheckBox1 j) Youth k) Spor CheckBox1 l) Sport

1. Proje ile ne tür bir ihtiyaca yanıt verilmesi amaçlamaktadır? Farklı kitlelere hitap edilmekte midir? Projenin hedef kitlesi için en önemli katkısı nedir?

What type of need is addressed by the Project objective? Does it target different groups? What is the specific benefit for the target group?

a) Projenin Genel Hedefi: General Objective of the Project: b) Projenin Özel Hedefi: Specific Objective of the Project: c) Hedef Kitle (farklı kitleler de olabilir): Target Group (or groups): d) Ne tür bir ihtiyaca yanıt verildiği: What type of need is being responded: e) Projeyi farklı kılan en önemli katkısı / sisteme sağlanan /sağlanacak fayda: Most important contribution achieved/ to be achieved, as a benefit to the system that makes the Project special:

1

2. Proje çıktıları ve sonuçlarının sizin kurumunuz özelinde, Türkiye’deki ilgili sektörde (eğitim ve öğretim, spor, gençlik), ilgili alanında (mesleki eğitim, yetişkin eğitimi, yükseköğretim, okul eğitimi,vb.) ve AB boyutunda nasıl bir etki yaratacağını düşünüyorsunuz?

What effects do you expect that your Project outputs and results will create for your institution, for the relevant sector in Turkey (education and training, sport, youth), in the relevant field (vocational education and training, adult education, higher education, school education, etc.), and what kind of an EU added value will be created (EU dimension of the Project)?

a) Projenin en önemli çıktıları: Key outputs of the Project: b) Bu çıktıların nasıl yaygınlaştırılacağı: Means of distribution of these outputs: c) Projenin sektörde ve ilgili alanda kurumsal ve sistem düzeyinde yaratacağı en önemli etki: Major contribution of the Project for the sector and related field at institutional and system levels: d) Projenin AB boyutundaki en önemli etkisi: Major effect of the Project at EU level: e) Projeniz merkezi bir proje ise, (a) projenin ulusal düzeydeki katkısı, (b) projeye katkınızın AB düzeyinde aktarılması/yansıtılması ile katkısı: If your Project is centrally managed: (a) Project’s contribution at national level, (b) Project’s contribution transferred to/reftlected at EU level:

3. Erasmus+ Programı tasarımında farklı alanların ana eylemler (KA1, KA2 ve KA3) altında birleştirilmesi ve özellikle KA3’ün programdaki yeri ve katkısı hakkındaki değerlendirmenizi kısaca belirtiniz. Deneyiminiz var ise, Hayat Boyu Öğrenme ve Gençlik Programı (LLP & YiA) ile karşılaştırma yaparak değerlendirme yapabilirsiniz. Program tasarımının geliştirilmesine yönelik önerileriniz varsa belirtiniz.

What is your opinion on integration of different fields under the Key Actions (KA1, KA2, KA3), and on the contribution of KA3, in particular, to the Programme. If you have any experience, please make a comparison of the Programme with the Life Long Learning and Youth in Action (LLL&YiA). Do you have any recommendations for improving the design of the Programme?

a) LLP ve YiA ile karşılaştırdığınızda, Erasmus+ Programında farklı alanların ana eylemler (KA1, KA2 ve KA3) altında birleştirilmesi sizce olumlu/olumsuz mudur? Neden? When compared with LLP and YiA, do you consider integration of different fields under the Key Actions (KA1, KA2 and KA3) as a positive/negative development? Why? b) KA3 Eylemi sizin hedeflerinizi gerçekleştirebilmeniz için uygun tasarlanmış bir eylem midir? Neden? Is KA3 well designed to enable achievement of your targets? Why? c) KA1, KA2 ve KA3 eylemlerinin tasarımında iyileştirme önerileriniz olabilir mi? Do you have any recommendations for improvement in the design of KA1, KA2 and KA3?

2

4. Projenin uygulanmasında karşılaşılan önemli bir güçlük oldu mu? Bu sorun nasıl giderildi veya yönetildi? Bu tür sorunların yaşanmaması için yönelik değişiklik/iyileştirme öneriniz var mı?

Have you encountered any major difficulty during Project implementation? How was it managed? Do you have any recommendation to mitigate such problems in advance?

a) Projenizin uygulamasında yaşadığınız önemli bir güçlük? Any major difficulty encountered during Project implementation? b) Bu sorun Erasmus+ Programı tasarımındaki bir eksiklik nedeni ile mi yaşandı? Was this difficulty encountered due to a design weakness of the Programme? c) Program’da iyileştirme önerileriniz: Any recommendations for improvement of the Programme:

5. Projenin uygulanmasında elde ettiğiniz deneyimlerden örnek olabilecek kazanımlar (lessons learnt) var mıdır? Örnek verebilir misiniz?

Do you have any experiences that can be considered as good practices for lessons learned? Can you provide examples?

a) Proje uygulamasında, başkalarına örnek olabilecek iyi uygulamalarınız var mı? Kısaca belirtiniz. Örnek Do you have any examples as lessons learned that can be considered good practices for others? Examples. b) Diğer KA3 projesi hazırlayacak adaylara en önemli tavsiyeniz nedir? What is your key advice to candidates preparing KA3 proposals?

6. Avrupa Komisyon merkezli eylemler hakkında yeterli bilgi sahibi misiniz ve bu eylemlere başvuru hakkında ne düşünüyorsunuz?

Do you have sufficient knowledge on EC centrally managed actions and what do you think about applying to these actions?

a) Avrupa Komisyon merkezli eylemler hakkında yeterli bilgi sahibi misiniz? Do you have sufficient knowledge on EC centrally managed actions? b) Avrupa Komisyon merkezli eylemlere başvurdunuz mu? Have you applied for EC/centrally managed actions? c) Avrupa Komisyon merkezli projeler ile Türkiye’de Ulusal Ajans kanalıyla uygulanan projeler arasındaki sizce en önemli fark nedir? What is the most important difference between the EC/centrally managed and the NA managed projects? d) Sporun yeni bir alan olarak yer almasını nasıl değerlendiriyorsunuz? How would you assess introduction of sport as a new/separate field?

7. Programın, özellikle KA3 bağlamında, ulusal değerlendirmesinde dikkate alınmasını önerdiğiniz başka bir husus varsa lütfen kısaca belirtiniz. Önerileriniz.

Please comment on other issues, if any, that you recommend to be taken into consideration for a national evaluation of the Programme, particularly with respect to KA3. Any recommendations.

Thank you!

3

Ref. Ares(2017)3348353 - 04/07/2017

Annex-6: Europe 2020 and ET 2020 Targets and Progress of Turkey with respect to relevant Europe 2020 and ET 2020 Targets

Europe 2020 Targets

Employment  75% of people aged 20–64 to be in work

Research and development (R&D)  3% of the EU's GDP to be invested in R&D

Climate change and energy  greenhouse gas emissions 20% lower than 1990 levels  20% of energy coming from renewables  20% increase in energy efficiency

Education  rates of early school leavers below 10%  at least 40% of people aged 30–34 having completed higher education

Poverty and social exclusion  at least 20 million fewer people in – or at risk of – poverty/social exclusion

Features of the targets  They give an overall view of where the EU should be on key parameters by 2020.  They are translated into national targets so that each EU country can check its own progress towards each goal.  There is no burden-sharing – they are common goals for all EU countries, to be met through a mix of national and EU action.  They are interrelated and mutually reinforcing - educational improvements help employability and reduce poverty - R&D/innovation and more efficient energy use makes us more competitive and creates jobs - investing in cleaner technologies combats climate change while creating new business or job opportunities.

ET 2020 Benchmarks

Adult participation in lifelong learning - By 2020, an average of at least 15 % of adults should participate in lifelong learning Low achievers in basic skills - By 2020, the share of low-achieving 15-years olds in reading, mathematics and science [3] should be less than 15 %. Tertiary level attainment - By 2020, the share of 30-34 year olds with tertiary educational attainment [4] should be at least 40 %. Early leavers from education and training - By 2020, the share of early leavers from education and training [5] should be less than 10 %.

1

Early childhood education - By 2020, at least 95 % of children between 4 years old and the age for starting compulsory primary education should participate in early childhood education. Specifically, the framework should address the following four strategic objectives: Strategic objective 1: Making lifelong learning and mobility a reality king lifelong learning and mobility a reality mobility a reality The challenges posed by demographic change and the regular need to update and develop skills in line with changing economic and social circumstances call for a lifelong approach to learning and for education and training systems which are more responsive to change and more open to the wider world. While new initiatives in the area of lifelong learning may be developed to reflect future challenges, further progress with ongoing initiatives is still required, especially in implementing coherent and comprehensive lifelong learning strategies. In particular, work is needed to ensure the development of national qualifications frameworks based on relevant learning outcomes and their link to the European Qualifications Framework. Strategic objective 2: Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training. High quality education and training systems, which are both efficient and equitable, are crucial for Europe's success and for enhancing employability. The major challenge is to ensure the acquisition of key competences by everyone, while developing the excellence and attractiveness at all levels of education and training that will allow Europe to retain a strong global role. To achieve this on a sustainable basis, greater attention needs to be paid to raising the level of basic skills such as literacy and numeracy, making mathematics, science and technology more attractive and to strengthening linguistic competences. At the same time, there is a need to ensure high quality teaching, to provide adequate initial teacher education, continuous professional development for teachers and trainers, and to make teaching an attractive career-choice. It is also important to improve the governance and leadership of education and training institutions, and to develop effective quality assurance systems. High quality will only be achieved through the efficient and sustainable use of resources — both public and private, as appropriate — and through the promotion of evidence-based policy and practice in education and training. Strategic objective 3: Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship. Education and training policy should enable all citizens, irrespective of their personal, social or economic circumstances, to acquire, update and develop over a lifetime both job-specific skills and the key competences needed for their employability and to foster further learning, active citizenship and intercultural dialogue. Education and training systems should aim to ensure that all learners — including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, those with special needs and migrants — complete their education, including, where appropriate, through second-chance education and the provision of more personalised learning. Education should promote intercultural competences, democratic values and respect for fundamental rights. Strategic objective 4: Enhancing creativity and innovation, including entrepreneurship, at all levels of education and training. As well as engendering personal fulfilment, creativity constitutes a prime source of innovation, which in turn is acknowledged as one of the key drivers of sustainable economic development. Creativity and innovation are crucial to enterprise development and to Europe's ability to compete internationally. A first challenge is to promote the acquisition by all citizens of transversal key competences such as digital competence, learning to learn, a sense of initiative and entrepreneurship, and cultural awareness. A second challenge is to ensure a fully functioning knowledge triangle of education-research-innovation. Partnership between the world of enterprise and different levels and sectors of education, training and research can help to ensure a better focus on the skills and competences required in the labour market and on fostering innovation and entrepreneurship in all forms of learning. Broader learning communities, involving representatives of civil society and other stakeholders, should be promoted with a view to creating a climate conducive to creativity and better reconciling professional and social needs, as well as individual well-being.

2

Progress of Turkey with respect to relevant Europe 2020 and ET 2020 Targets

An assessment of the contribution of Erasmus+ general objectives with respect to the below Europe 2020 and ET 2020 relevant targets and benchmarks is as follows: “75 % of the population aged 20-64 should be employed” The population and employment statistics of Turkey1 indicate the significant progress of the country employment rate since 2007, corresponding to the start of the LLP&YiA. The rate has increased from 48.2% in 2007 to 54.4% in 2016 of the population aged between 20-64. Despite this significant progress, the rate is still below the EU average of 71.1% in 2016. However, it is striking that while the EU average rates have remained to be rather stable with an increase of only 1.8% within this period, the rates in Turkey have steadily increased with an acceleration of 12.9%. “Share of employed graduates aged 20-34 - having completed upper secondary or tertiary education and having left education 1-3 years ago” The employment rates of the younger graduates aged 20-34, being 61.9% in 2016, is much higher than the employment rate of the population aged 20-64 given above. Despite still being below the EU average (78.2%), the progress in Turkey since 2007 has been considerable with 9.4%2. The progressing figures above indicate effectiveness of the Erasmus+ actions on employability of the target groups, as confirmed by the interviewees. Meanwhile, the interviews strongly support that the employability of the Erasmus+ participants is much higher than the non-participants in Turkey. The Erasmus+ actions particularly in the fields of VET, AE, HE and Youth, have delivered results for contributing to the employability and even active involvement in the labour market, as evidenced by the questionnaire responses. 51% of all respondents agree that their linkage to the labour market and business environment has increased. New methodologies, together with enhanced skills and competences have been effective in improving the employability of these target groups, which is agreed upon by 96% of the respondents. HE field, having the largest share of utilisation, is assessed to contribute to the impact on the academicians, university staff and students with higher employability. As quantitative supporting evidence, the high numbers of Europass reaching to 15.5 thousand for mobilities (CV and skills) and 2.5 million for HE Education Diploma Supplement (EDS) are reported to be an indication of contribution to employability of the Erasmus+ participants3. Meanwhile, the contribution of the Euroguidance along with Ploteus projects of Erasmus+ implemented in Turkey has demonstrated to be very striking. This project has been facilitating the employability of a wide range of target groups including university students, learners, adults, youth, etc., in addition to the teachers and trainers. It is reported that the impact is likely to be created through the guidance and consultancies on employability delivered by ISKUR on average to 30,000 people per year4. The employment target of Europe 2020 above is also addressed by the EC’s IPA I support to Turkey under the Component IV for Human Resources Development Operational Programme (HRD OP)5 with reference to Measure 1 for Employment. The IPA II (2014-2020) Indicative Strategy Paper for Turkey6 has identified the indicator as “Employment rate (15-64 years), total as a percentage” with a baseline of 46.29% in 2017 under the sector for “Education, Employment and Social Policies”. Considering the

1 www.eurostat.eu and www.turkstat.gov.tr 2 www.eurostat.eu and www.turkstat.gov.tr 3 www.myk.gov.tr 4 www.iskur.gov.tr 5 The Accession Negotiations continue under Chapter 19 for “Social Policy and Employment. 6 “Indicative Strategy Paper for Turkey”, adopted on 26/08/2014 (https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood- enlargement/sites/near/files/pdf/key_documents/2014/20140919-csp-turkey.pdf) 3 fact that almost half of the labour force (25-64) has an education below the high school level, the need for promoting LLL becomes more evident. The contribution of Erasmus+ to this end is assessed to be significant. “The share of early school leavers should be under 10% and at least 40% of young should have a tertiary degree” The education statistics of Turkey indicate the progress of the country related to “the early leavers from education and training rate” since 2007, with a decrease from 46.9% to 34.3% in 2016, still much above the average of EU with 10.7% in 20167. However, the progress in this decrease since 2007 has been very high with 26.9%. Similarly, the progress of the country with respect to the indicator for “tertiary educational attainment by age group 30-34” has been significant between the years 2007 and 2016 with an increase from 12.3% to 25.9%. Among several other factors negatively effecting achievement of this indicator (migration, local disparities, participation in seasonal work, etc.) interviews reveal that Erasmus+, as well as its predecessor programmes, have had a positive impact on the progress, yet the attribution of which could not be measured quantitatively. “At least 95% of children (4 to compulsory school age) should participate in early childhood education”: Given that the pre-primary school education is not compulsory in Turkey, with concrete plans by 2020, the rate is much lower than the EU average. The national plan aims to increase the current 49.3% pre- primary schooling rate to 70% and to attain an overall schooling rate of 94% by then. The Erasmus+ and its predecessor programmes are reported to increase the awareness raised on the benefits of the early childhood education through several projects implemented under Erasmus+ SE actions building on Comenius. “Fewer than 15% of 15-year-olds should be under-skilled in reading, mathematics and science” is according to the PISA test results8. Both in 2012 and 2016, performance of 15-year-olds demonstrates insufficient ability levels in reading, mathematics and science than that of the EU average. This skill is included as one of the key competences fundamental for each individual in a knowledge-based society. Thus, the E&T system in Turkey needs to focus on the quality of training, which has also been addressed by most of the Erasmus+ projects. “At least 15% of adults should participate in LLL”. Turkey has had a significant progress in increasing the participation of the adults between the ages of 25-64 in LLL with almost 5 times within the past decade, despite still being lower (5.7% for 2016) than the EU average of 10.8%.9 The ET 2020 target of 15% indicates the need for continuous improvement in Turkey for participation of adults in learning activities together with a LLL culture and volunteering activities. The interviewees report that Erasmus+ AE actions building on Grundtvig contribute to this end significantly with reference to the eight key competences identified by the EC10 including communication in mother and foreign languages, mathematics and science, digital, cultural, social, civic and learning to learn competences.

7 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=t2020_40 8 https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf 9 http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2016_03/18024009_meb_istatistikleri_orgun_egitim_2015_2016.pdf 10 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV%3Ac11090 4

Ref. Ares(2017)3348353 - 04/07/2017

Annex-7: The Structure of the National Education System in Turkey1

Turkey is a Programme (and accession) Country with 79.8 million population. According to the National Education Statistics for 2015-2016 of MoNE, a total of 16.6 million students attend about 61 thousand formal education schools at different levels (pre-primary, primary, and secondary schools), while the total number of teachers is about 993 thousand.2 The number of universities is 183 having about 140 thousand teaching staff, to which 5.5 million students are attending.3

1 Eurydice 2016, https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Turkey:Overview#Common_European_Reference_Tools_Provided_by_the_Eurydice_Network 2 National Education Statistics for 2015-2016 3 Council of Higher Education Statistics (www.yok.gov.tr) 1

Ref. Ares(2017)3348353 - 04/07/2017

Annex-8: Provincial Distribution and Type of Beneficiaries (2014 - to date)

Type of Beneficiaries - All (KA1, KA2 and KA3)

3; 0% 518; 13% 758; 19% 1; 0% 31; 1% Informal Group Cooperative 41; 1% Private Company Public Institution

492; 13% NGO Local Administration HEI Other

2109; 53%

Type of Beneficiaries - KA1 E&T Fields (HE, SE, AE and VET)

2; 0% 1; 0% 1; 0% 9; 1%

Informal Group

560; 32% Cooperative Private Company Public Institution NGO Local Administration 1148; 65% HEI 5; 0% Other 29; 2%

1

Type of Beneficiaries - KA2 E&T Fields (HE, SE, AE and VET)

79; 8% 17; 2% 2; 0% 30; 3%

Private Company Public Institution NGO Local Administration HEI

875; 87%

Type of Beneficiaries - KA1 Youth (Mobility)

100; 9% 1; 0% 29; 3%

Informal Group Private Company

516; 46% Public Institution NGO Local Administration 394; 35% HEI Other

76; 7% 4; 0%

2

Type of Beneficiaries - KA2 Youth (Strategic Partnership)

3; 10%

Public Institution

14; 48% NGO Local Administration 10; 35% HEI

2; 7%

Type of Beneficiaries - KA3 Dialogue between Young People and Policy Makers in the Youth Field

1; 2% 5; 11% 7; 15%

3; 7%

Private Company Public Institution NGO Local Administration HEI

30; 65%

3

Type of Beneficiaries - KA1 in the HE, SE, AE and VET fields

100% HEI 90% Local 80% Administration 70% NGO 60% 50% Public 40% Institution 30% Private 20% Company 10% Cooperative 0% AE staff mobility HE mobilities SE staff mobility VET learner&staff Informal Group mobility

Type of Beneficiaries - KA2 in the HE, SE, AE and VET fields

100% 90% HEI 80% 70% Local 60% Administration 50% NGO 40%

30% Public Institution 20%

10% Private Company 0% More than AE HE SE SE-Schools VET one field only

4

Provincial Distribution of the Number of Projects

ŞIRNAK ŞANLIURFA SİİRT SİVAS SİNOP SAMSUN SAKARYA RİZE OSMANİYE ORDU NİĞDE NEVŞEHİR MUŞ MUĞLA MARDİN MANİSA MALATYA KİLİS KÜTAHYA KONYA KOCAELİ KIRŞEHİR KIRKLARELİ KIRIKKALE KAYSERİ KASTAMONU KARS KARAMAN KARABÜK KAHRAMANMARAŞ İZMİR İSTANBUL İÇEL

IĞDIR ISPARTA HATAY HAKKARİ GİRESUN PROVINCES GÜMÜŞHANE GAZİANTEP ESKİŞEHİR ERZİNCAN ERZURUM ELAZIĞ EDİRNE DİYARBAKIR DÜZCE DENİZLİ ÇORUM ÇANKIRI ÇANAKKALE BİTLİS BİNGÖL BİLECİK BURSA BURDUR BOLU BAYBURT BATMAN BARTIN BALIKESİR AĞRI AYDIN ARTVİN ARDAHAN ANTALYA ANKARA AMASYA AKSARAY AFYONKARAHİSAR ADIYAMAN ADANA 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 PROJECT NUMBER

5

Provincial Distribution of the Number of Projects

S o u S Source: Data received from the NA as of 13/04/2017

6

Ref. Ares(2017)3348353 - 04/07/2017

ANNEX-9 Project Partners’ Countries and Mobilities (2014- to date)

Erasmus+ Partner Countries in all Fields - Number of Projects

Kosovo 20 United States 2 United Kingdom 165 Ukraine 109 Tunusia 24 Slovakia 154 Slovenia 102 Sweden 133 Russian Federation 30 Serbia 47 Romania 801 Portugal 452 Palestinia 13 Poland 447 Norway 14 Netherlands 255 Malta 66 Macedonia 246 Montenegro 6 Moldova 27 Morocco 12 Latvia 170 Luxembourg 3 Lithuania 295 Lebanon 2

Korea (South) 1

Jordan 29 Italy 902

Iceland 2 Countries Israel 3 Ireland 18 Hungary 364 Croatia 173 Greece 94 France 119 Finland 50 Spain 602 Greece 346 Egypt 26 Estonia 118 Algeria 2 Denmark 49 Germany 796 Czech Republic 364 Cyprus (GASC) 13 Belarus 18 Bulgaria 369 Belgium 105 Bosnia and Herzegovina 68 Azerbaijan 81 Australia 1 Austria 148 Armenia 42 Albania 56 Afghanistan 1

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Number of Projects

1 Erasmus+ Partner Countries in E&T Field- Number of Projects

Kosovo 0 United States 1 United Kingdom 95 Ukraine 0 Tunusia 0 Slovakia 26 Slovenia 28 Sweden 98 Russian Federation 0 Serbia 3 Romania 160 Portugal 199 Palestinia 0 Poland 125 Norway 8 Netherlands 206 Malta 9 Macedonia 12 Montenegro 0 Moldova 0 Morocco 0 Latvia 43 Luxembourg 1 Lithuania 46 Lebanon 0

Korea (South) 1

Jordan 0 Italy 339

Iceland 0 Countries Israel 0 Ireland 11 Hungary 182 Croatia 8 Greece 0 France 36 Finland 27 Spain 283 Greece 63 Egypt 0 Estonia 3 Algeria 0 Denmark 29 Germany 680 Czech Republic 254 Cyprus (GASC) 3 Belarus 0 Bulgaria 38 Belgium 87 Bosnia and Herzegovina 0 Azerbaijan 0 Australia 0 Austria 127 Armenia 0 Albania 1 Afghanistan 0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Number of Projects

2

Erasmus+ Partner Countries in Youth Field- Number of Projects

Kosovo 20 United States 1 United Kingdom 70 Ukraine 109 Turkey 137 Tunusia 24 Slovakia 128 Slovenia 74 Sweden 35 Russian Federation 30 Serbia 44 Romania 641 Portugal 253 Palestinia 13 Poland 322 Norway 6 Netherlands 49 Malta 57 Macedonia 234 Montenegro 6 Moldova 27 Morocco 12 Latvia 127 Luxembourg 2 Lithuania 249 Lebanon 2

Korea (South) Jordan 29 Italy 563

Countries Iceland 2 Israel 3 Ireland 7 Hungary 182 Croatia 165 Greece 94 France 83 Finland 23 Spain 319 Greece 283 Egypt 26 Estonia 115 Algeria 2 Denmark 20 Germany 116 Czech Republic 110 Cyprus (GASC) 10 Belarus 18 Bulgaria 331 Belgium 18 Bosnia and Herzegovina 68 Azerbaijan 81 Australia 1 Austria 21 Armenia 42 Albania 55 Afghanistan 1

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Number of Projects

3

Number of Participants to Mobilities - Outgoing

United States 7 United Kingdom 2053 Ukraine 27 Sweden 1266 Spain 4509 South Africa 6 Slovenia 628 Slovakia 516 Singapore 4 Serbia 6 Russian Federation 11 Romania 2598 Portugal 3617 Poland 10203 Philippines 7 Norway 70 Netherlands 3101 Morocco 8 Moldova 5 Mexico 6 Malta 136 Malaysia 22 Luxembourg 7 Lithuania 1804 Lebanon 15 Latvia 828

Kosovo 2

Korea (South) 8 Kazakhstan 1

Jordan 16 Countries Japan 3 Italy 5169 Israel 4 Ireland 158 Iceland 19 Hungary 2439 Greece 658 Germany 11685 Georgia 40 France 1880 Macedonia 286 Finland 631 Estonia 245 Denmark 583 Czech Republic 3949 Cyprus (GASC) 1 Croatia 260 Canada 3 Bulgaria 283 Bosnia and Herzegovina 87 Belgium 1471 Bangladesh 1 Azerbaijan 13 Austria 1281 Australia 3 Algeria 1 Albania 37

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Number of Mobilities Source: Data received from the NA as of 13/04/2017 4 Ref. Ares(2017)3348353 - 04/07/2017

Annex-10: The Needs of the Target Groups and the Visibility of the Erasmus+ Actions in Education and Training Fields and Youth Field

a) The Needs of the Target Groups under the Education and Training Fields and the Youth Field

The Needs of the Erasmus+ Target Groups outlined according to the Needs Assessment Study of the NA as stated in the most recent Annual Work Plan of 2017 considering also the most recent policy documents of Turkey related to the Education and Training Fields and Youth Field is as follows:

1. Education and Training Field: School Education (SE): In the field of school education, the Ministry of Education (MoNE) is the authority that leads the policy and strategic plans of the country. The main strategies and major needs of school education are identified in the 2015-2019 Strategic Plan of MoNE. This document addresses the needs in the below two axis:

The major needs in terms of access to education are;  fostering pre-school education,  increasing the enrolment rate in primary and secondary education,  including the pupils who drop out the formal education,  reducing the early school leaving, enhancing and promoting lifelong learning,  fostering open education,  promoting the inclusion of disadvantaged groups into education as well as the inclusion of female pupils.

The major needs in terms of quality in education are;  improving the quality and quantity of scientific, cultural, artistic and sports activities,  increasing the culture of reading, enhancing extra-curricular courses in order to promote formal and non-formal education,  strengthening the profile of teaching profession, better recognition of teaching skills and qualifications,  improving the quality and quantity of in-service trainings for teachers,  utilising ICT more effectively in education process,  improving the quality of education services for individuals with special needs,  improving the quality of open education,  providing a secure, healthy and hygienic school environment,  improving lifelong guidance, certifying former learnings,  improving foreign language proficiencies.

Adult Education (AE): According to the needs analysis for the adult education field carried out by the General Directorate of Lifelong Learning of the MoNE as a part of the Strategy Paper and Action Plan for Lifelong Learning for 2014-2018, the below needs are identified with the aim of increasing adult learning participation and quality of activities:  increasing awareness of lifelong learning, coordinating,  monitoring and evaluating of the lifelong learning system,

1

 access of disadvantaged groups to lifelong learning,  use of flexible learning methods,  improving lifelong consultation services and acknowledgement of previous learning.

Vocational Education and Training (VET): According to the 2014-2018 VET Strategy Document and Action Plan of Turkey, the needs and priorities of the country are identified in three policy axes, namely accessibility, capacity and employability, which can be seen as “input-process-output” in vocational and technical education.

The major needs in terms of accessibility are as follows:  the need for improving the attractiveness of VET and raising awareness about the importance of VET,  the need for a flexible and permeable system facilitating the permeability between school and programme types,  the need for increasing the accessibility to VET of the people with special needs.

The major needs in terms of capacity are;  coordination and cooperation among actors and thereby improving governance in VET,  improving cooperation between VET schools and industry,  developing a robust quality assurance system in line with EQAVET principles,  improving VET programmes in line with Turkish Qualifications Framework and EQF principles,  improving work-based learning,  adopting a modular system and credit system in line with ECVET principles,  improving foreign language teaching and learning,  improving the capacity of VET teachers and trainers.

The major needs in terms of employability are;  designing and delivering vocational and technical education in line with the labour market needs,  a monitoring system for graduates,  improving the key competencies and transversal skills of VET students including digital skills, entrepreneurship and creativity,  the need for improving national and international mobility of VET students.

Higher Education (HE): According to “the Growth, Quality and Internationalisation: A Roadmap for Turkish Higher Education” report the Council of Higher Education (CoHE) published in 2014, the Turkish higher education system has enhanced its experience in internationalisation by taking part in the EU Education Programmes (namely the Erasmus+ Programme under the LLP) and by extending its research capacity with the Framework Programmes. The number of in and outbound students and staff and recognition of credits and degree mobilities has increased with notable progress. This experience gained needs to be institutionalised for consistency and sustainability. In this respect:  international student and staff proportions should be escalated up to international averages,  participation in the exchange programmes should be extended and  joint research and degree programmes should be promoted.

Accordingly, the internationalisation of the higher education in Turkey is in the top of the agenda of the National Authority (NAU).

2

2. Youth Field: For the youth field, the need analysis of the national context has been evaluated in four topics taking the policy context:  looking at the demographics and projected changes to the youth population in Turkey,  summarising the services currently available, delivered or commissioned by youth initiatives, schools and families, and other partners,  looking at patterns of participation and involvement in activities, overall and for specific groups,  identifying any gaps in services and considering the needs of young people in the light of the national context and policy drivers.

Related to the above-mentioned topics, it is possible to identify some overall needs although there are exceptions among individual authorities. These needs include:  reconfiguration or improvement of services to achieve greater efficiencies,  a move towards further integrating services and adopting more locality-based delivery,  a greater focus on targeted work,  open access provision increasingly delivered by external providers, including voluntary, community, private sectors, and other local departments,  recognition of the need to make more effective use of data collection and recording to plan services and demonstrate achievements,  stronger commitment and more effective approaches to supporting young people’s voice and influence,  the improvement of neighbourhood or district arrangements bringing together a range of partners to assess needs and coordinate provision.

Other needs related with the youth field are;  strengthening the NGOs working in the youth field,  the need for the local, regional and national authorities to continue to provide financial support by implementing transparent, sustainable and collaborative structures that would ensure full participation of young people in decision making processes of policies that affect them,  closer cooperation between the NA and the youth authorities to receive good quality projects based on the actual needs of the field with practicable and sustainable results,  the need for the NA and the national authorities together with the youth NGOs to have a complementary role to improve the youth work in Turkey,  involvement of youth in volunteering activities by including this kind of activities in the curricula at all levels of formal education bringing a global perspective,  integration of non-formal learning methodologies in formal education,  an inclusion strategy for disadvantaged youngsters in Turkey,  a regulation for interns and volunteers, thereby specifying their rights and responsibilities as well as their status.

Source: The NA’s Annual Work Plan, 2017

3

b) The Visibility of the Erasmus+ Actions in each of the Fields for the Target Groups in Turkey

1. Education and Training Field: a) Visibility of Erasmus+ HE actions is assessed to be the highest within the E&T field. The Erasmus+ HE actions demonstrates that a balanced but variety of universities having different scales and geographical distributions have been covered. The number of universities having ECHE has increased with an accelerated rate, and reached to 168 to date with 7 more applications already made. Thus, the KA1 selection ratio is as high as 94.47% with HE having the highest budget share of 54.04% within the total KA1 budget. The high number of mobilities above 139,850 under the KA1 HE (KA103 and KA107) with 567 projects to date having about 58.21% share of all mobilities reflects the high visibility of Erasmus+. As for KA2 strategic partnerships of HEI, the number of projects selected (28) has a share of 2.71% of the KA2 total project number with a budget share of 8.90%. The questionnaire responses indicate that participants from different academic levels and staffs have taken part in a variety of different mobilities, which address their needs. The student selection criteria of the universities are mostly achievement based, but also includes language proficiency. As an indirect evidence of Erasmus+ visibility, it is reported that availability of Erasmus+ ECHE contributes to the credibility of the universities in Turkey. In fact, the top ranked students in Turkey prefer universities with Erasmus+ projects. b) Visibility of Erasmus+ SE actions is assessed to be also very high. Erasmus+ SE is well known and appreciated by the main beneficiary MoNE having the responsibility of all pre-primary, primary and secondary schools (both public and private). To date, more than 6,427 KA101 project proposals have been submitted, out of which only 339 were selected with a 5.27% share due to the budget quota. Similarly, out of the 1,286 KA201 project proposals, only 298 projects could be awarded, and out of the 1.244 KA219 project proposals, only 544 could be contracted with a 19.10% budget share1. The SE projects include more than 88,600 school staff, teachers and students having taken part in the SE projects both under KA1 and KA2 projects contracted within 2014-2016. The questionnaires confirm that mobilities under KA1 SE field have mostly addressed the learning needs of the participants through structured courses (73%), on-the-job training 20% and teaching practices (7%). Almost all report their high satisfaction in terms of addressing their needs, building upon the Comenius Programme of LLP. c) Similarly, the visibility of Erasmus+ VET is assessed to be very high. The number of project proposals for KA102 for VET learner and staff mobility has been very high (5,722), out of which 798 projects are granted with a selection ratio of 13.95%. VET KA1 has the second highest budget share of 25.08% within KA1. Similarly, the high number of KA2 VET project proposals (677) submitted, and only 12.11% contracted as 82 benefiting from the highest budget share of 24.25% of KA2. However, there is only two VET Charter proposed and awarded, due to the high eligibility conditions in this field. The main target groups of VET field vary including students, learners, youth and adults mainly to develop their vocational capacity and to integrate with the active labour market. The interviews confirm that Erasmus+ VET is well-known by these groups. As employability is one of the main needs of the young and adults, VET projects specifically address this governing need. Thus, involvement of the private sector is believed to facilitate wider access to target groups and even unreached ones. d) The visibility of Erasmus+ AE is assessed to be also high. Given the fact that the number of Erasmus+ AE project proposals are quite high (1,531 for KA1 and 449 for KA2 in comparison to the selected ones (53 and 45) having a share of about 3.46% and 10.02% respectively, the Programme is

1 Data provided by the NA as of end of 2016 since the start of the Programme in 2014, as given in Annex-13.

4 well known particularly by the well-established organisations, such as vocational schools, local authorities, public training centres and some CSOs. The KA1 AE projects have addressed the needs of the adult trainers mostly through structured courses (60%), on-the-job training 35%), and training practices (5%). Still, project development and management as well as beneficiary co-funding pose difficulties for CSOs with weak institutional structures.

2. Youth Field: e) Visibility for Youth is high, yet has been decreasing due to the budget limitations of Erasmus+. A wide spectrum of target groups is eligible to implement youth projects from large-scale institutionalised organisations like HEIs to grassroots CSOs and even youth groups. The interviews indicate that Erasmus+ Youth is the only chance for particularly small scale youth organisations and groups to implement projects matching with the objectives of the Erasmus+ Youth field. Therefore, the number of project proposals has been quite high (6,306) for KA1 Youth, while only 17.55% of the proposals could be selected (1,107), despite their high scores. Out of 416 proposals of KA2 Youth field, 27 projects were contracted with a selection ratio of 6.49%. Similarly, the number of proposals of KA3 Youth projects are very high (381), indicating high visibility of this youth action. Only 12.07% could be selected (46 projects) due to budget limitation.

Source: Data received from the NA as of end of 2016.

5

Ref. Ares(2017)3348353 - 04/07/2017

Annex-11: The List of Programmes Complemented by Erasmus+ and its Predecessor Programmes

Implementation Fields Programme / Project Name Funding Period  ERASMUS1 - Improving the Quality of Vocational Vocational Education and Vocational Skills 2014-2017 Education of Young People EC and Turkey

 co-funding under

School Education ERASMUS2 - Improving the Quality of IPA Component and Adult Education by Supporting Professional IV 2015-2017 Education Development of Staff of School and Adult Education EC and Turkey LLP - Promoting Life Long Learning Phases Adult Education 2011-2013 co-funding under I and II IPA  Strengthening Pre-School Education 2010-2013 EC and Turkey  co-funding under  Increasing School Enrolment Rates 2011-2013 IPA Especially for Girls Operation – I  Increasing Primary School Attendance Rate 2011-2013 of Children School Education Strengthening Special Education 2013-2015

Preventing Violence Against Children 2013-2015

 Students Learning About The EU 2014-2016 Turkish Fatih ICT Project 2011/12 -2013/14 Government Mevlana Exchange Program Turkish Higher Education 2011- cont. Farabi Exchange Program Government

 Improving the Quality of Vocational EC and Turkey Vocational 2012-2014 Education and Training, and Vocational co-funding under Education Skills of Young People IPA EC and Turkey TR2011/0336.23 Supporting Social Youth and Sports 2013-2015 co-funding under Inclusion through Sports Education IPA EC and Turkey Higher Education Horizon2020 2014-2020 co-funding under IPA Turkey and Germany Youth German Turkish Youth Bridge 2014 - on Mercator Foundation

1

Ref. Ares(2017)3348353 - 04/07/2017

Annex-12: Number of Projects Proposed and Contracted - The Success Rates Projects Participants in Contracted Projects Organisations Participants in involved Key Action Action Submitted Success Grant Amount incontracted With Special With Fewer Received Contracted BudgetshareProjects Total Rate Contracted (EUR) projects Needs Opportunities Higher education student and staff mobility between Programme and 0,22 9041074 0,04 21503 2639 . . Partner Countries (KA107) 166 37 37 VET learner and staff mobility with VET 1,00 73663 0,00 46 37 mobility charter (KA116) 11 7 Youth mobility (KA105) 0,18 24081979 0,11 209645 29830 530 12705 KA1 - 6306 1107 6334 Learning Higher education student and staff Mobility of 0,94 117279642 0,54 118347 53519 . . mobility (KA103) 561 530 530 Individuals Adult education staff mobility (KA104) 1660 53 0,03 1783126 0,01 170 35512 949 6 .

School education staff mobility (KA101) 0,05 10331763 0,05 88656 4962 12 . 6820 339 522

VET learner and staff mobility (KA102) 0,14 54425059 0,25 239940 29359 654 2361 5722 798 3417

Sub-total Key Action 1 21236 2865 0,14 217016306 1,00 11017 713649 121295 1219 15066 Strategic Partnerships for Schools Only 0,44 13445551 0,19 63805 (KA219) 1244 544 544 Strategic Partnerships for adult 0,10 8483161 0,12 9885 KA2 - education (KA204) 449 45 299 Strategic Partnerships for school Cooperation 0,23 17116169 0,24 71735 for education (KA201) 1286 298 595 innovation Strategic Partnerships for vocational 0,12 17068854 0,24 16789 and the education and training (KA202) 677 82 525 exchange of Strategic Partnerships addressing more 0,14 2011164 0,03 2309 good than one field (KA200) 64 9 64 practices Strategic Partnerships for youth (KA205) 0,06 6001360 0,09 6074 416 27 172 Strategic Partnerships for higher 0,18 6267805 0,09 8421 education (KA203) 158 28 148

Sub-total Key Action 2 4294 1033 0,24 70394064 1,00 2.347 179018 KA3 - Support for Dialogue between young people and 0,12 1380886 1,00 65489 9003 149 2056 policy policy makers (KA347) reform 381 46 165

Sub-total Key Action 3 381 46 0,12 1380886 1,00 165 65489 9003 149 2056 GRAND TOTAL 25911 3944 0,15 288791255 1,00 13529 779138 256732 1368 17122

Source: The NA Statistics for Erasmus+ as of end of 2016 Ref. Ares(2017)3348353 - 04/07/2017 Annex-14: Erasmus+ Structure

ERASMUS+

KA2 KA1 KA3 SPORT Jean Monnet Cooperation for Innovation and the Support to Policy Reform Learning Mobility of Individuals Exchange of Good Practices (Centrally Managed)) (Centrally Managed)

Large Scale European Strategic Partnerships in Learning Mobility of Individuala in the Voluntary Erasmus Mundus Erasmus Master Credit Youth fields of E&T and Youth Joint Master Degrees Guarantee the fields of E&T and Service Events Youth Structured Dialogue Colaborative Partnerships JM Modules (decentrally managed) (Centrally Managed) (Loan Providers) (Centrally Managed) (Decentrally Managed) (Decentrally Managed)

Knowledge in the fields of Mobility Projects for SE Not-for-profit Staff Knowledge Alliances E&T andYouth JM Chairs Sport Events (Centrally Managed) (Centrally Managed)

Initiatives for Policy Mobility Projects for VET Sectoral Skills Alliances Small Colaborative JM Centres of Innovation (Centrally Students and Staff Partnerships (Centrally Managed) Managed) Excellence

Mobility Projects for HE Capacity Building in the Support to European Policy Students and Staff Field of Higher Education Tools JM Networks (Centrally Managed) (Centrlally Managed)

Erasmus+ Networks, Tools and Platforms -Eurydice -ECVET Capacity Building in the Cooperation with Mobility Projects for AE -Europass -EQAVET JM Support to Staff Field of Youth International Organisations Associations -Euroguidance -EQF (Centrally Managed) (Centrally Managed) -Eurodesk -SALTO -European Youth Forum -NARIC -Eurostudent VI -EASQ, ELPGN

Mobility Projects for -IT Support Platforms (EPALE, e-Twinning, Learning Stakeholder Dialogue, Policy and Programme Young People and Youth JM Projects Workers Opportunities and Qualifications in Europe etc.) Promotion -Web Platforms (Youth Portal, , Erasmus (Centrally Managed) Dissemination, Open Education, etc.) - European Agenda for Adult Education -Bologna Secretariat -Academik Networks (EENEE, NESET) -Others

Ref. Ares(2017)3348353 - 04/07/2017

Annex-13: 2016 Project Proposals and their Success Rates

Number of Projects Projects Project % of Project Projects % of Applications Eliminated by Eliminated by Projects Proposals Proposals Projects Eliminated by Projects /Project Compliance Quality Rejected (*) above the Above Awarded* Resemblance Awarded Proposals Assessment Assessment Threshold Threshold KA1 8.640 405 1.946 991 3.342 5.298 61,3% 995 11,5% SE (KA101) 3.246 127 631 337 1.095 2.151 66,3% 108 3,3% VET (KA102) 2.296 127 375 332 834 1.462 63,7% 356 15,5% HE (KA103) 194 1 0 23 24 170 87,6% 170 87,6% HE -Partner Countries 81 0 26 0 26 55 67,9% 21 25,9% (KA107) AE (KA104) 563 25 425 84 534 29 5,2% 28 5,0% Youth (KA105) 2260 125 489 215 829 1.431 63,3% 312 13,8% KA2 1.536 69 445 129 643 893 58,1% 411 26,8% Mixed SE (KA201) 288 31 46 24 101 187 64,9% 23 8,0% SE (KA219) 616 16 161 47 224 392 63,6% 307 49,8% VET (KA202) 287 9 55 17 81 206 71,8% 36 12,5% HE (KA203) 52 5 7 5 17 35 67,3% 12 23,1% AE (KA204) 139 2 100 14 116 23 16,5% 20 14,4% Youth (KA205) 154 6 76 22 104 50 32,5% 13 8,4%

KA3 153 20 75 1 96 57 0 16 10,5% Youth (KA347) 153 20 75 1 96 57 37,3% 16 10,5%

TOTAL 10.329 494 2.466 1.121 4.081 6.248 60,5% 1.422 13,8%

(*) Compliance assessment, quality assessment and assessment of similarities (**) Includes the Turkish applicants of KA219 projects

Source: The NA Statistics, 2016

1

Percentage of Projects above Threshold and Awarded in 2016

100,0%

90,0% 87,6% 87,6%

80,0% 71,8% 66,3% 67,9% 70,0% 67,3% 63,7% 63,3% 64,9% 63,6% 61,3% 60,5% 58,1% 60,0% % of Project 49,8% Proposals 50,0% Above Threshold 40,0% 0 37,3% 32,5% 30,0% 26,8% 25,9% 23,1% % of 16,5% Projects 20,0% 14,4% 15,5% 13,8% 12,5% 13,8% Awarded 11,5% 10,5% 10,5% 8,0% 8,4% 10,0% 3,3% 5,2% 5,0%

0,0%

Source: The NA Statistics, 2016

2