1. Institute for Social Research in Zagreb
Why is it important to experience ERASMUS+? A glance from Croatian society
Branko Ančić, PhD
Institute for Social Research in Zagreb
​Centre for Research in Social Inequalities and Sustainability (CRiSIS)

2. Social impact as a frame of relevance
... the effect on people of any public or private action that changes the ways in which people live, work, play, interconnect, organize to meet their needs and generally how to live as members of society

3. Social impact includes changes…
In lifestyle of people
on their culture
community
on political systems
to the environment
to health and well-being
on personal and property rights
and fears and aspirations.

4. Human communities are special
Why?
Human communities can react to the expectation of change-explaining the potential for intervention is an intervention to an extent!
Human communities can influence the nature of intervention - involvement of people in the processes and strategies of intervention changes in processes and outcomes – „change has a way of creating other changes”.
Human communities are a dynamic system and therefore it is good to conduct social impact assessment.

5. Choosing an imapact
For social impact analysts, the biggest challenge is to limit relevant areas of analysis and to identify the causal relationships between them

6. What can we learn from research so far?
LLP survey (qualitative & quantitative)
Participant report (quantitative)
Mid-term report, (qualitative & quantitative)

7. Research problem Heterogeneous population!
LLP survey 2015.
Four types of educational institutions :
kindergartens,
primary schools,
secondary schools and   adult education institutions.
Heterogeneous population!
Institutional changes
Obstacles for wider participation in the LLP
A variety of potential changes and obstacles!
Which / what kind of changes?
To what extent are they being recognized?
Which / what kind of obstacles?
To what extent are they being recognized?

8. Research methods and samples
LLP survey 2015.
SEMI-STRUCTURED IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS
SURVEY METHOD
(online questionnaires)
FOCUS GROUPS
We examined the common perception of the LLP projects participants and the non-participants: to obtain objective data and draw valid conclusions.
Sampe
Type of institution
No. of institutions
No. of survey respondents
Kindergartens 10 80
Primary schools 75
386
Secondary schools 72
370
Adult education institutions 7 32
Total
164
868

9. Research methods and samples
LLP survey 2015.
Position of the respondents in the institution by type of institution:
Current position in the institution
Type of institution
Kindergartens
Primary schools
Secondary schools
Adult education institutions
Total n % N
Headmasters 10
12,5% 67
17,4% 62
16,8% 6
18,8%
145
16,7%
Teachers/educators 61
76,3%
252
65,3%
277
74,9% 15
46,9%
605
69,7%
Professional associates 4
5,0% 66
17,1% 29
7,8% 7
21,9%
106
12,2%
Administrative staff   5
6,3% 1
0,3% 2
0,5% 12
1,4% 80
100%
386
370 32
868
The role of respondents in the Comenius, Leonardo da Vinci or Grundtvig sub-programme projects by type of educational institution:
LLP project role
Type of institution
Kindergartens
Primary
schools
Secondary schools
Adult education institutions
Total n % N
Participants 40
50,0%
180
46,6%
193
52,2% 20
62,5%
433
49,9%
Non-participants
206
53,4%
177
47,8% 12
37,5%
435
50,1% 80
100%
386
370 32
868

10. INDEPENDENT VARIABLES SET DEPENDENT VARIABLES SET
LLP survey 2015.
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES SET
DEPENDENT VARIABLES SET
Type of LLP sub-sectoral programme
The number of projects in which institution had participated within LLP
Number of included users, or people taking part in the projects within LLP
Type and size of the institution
Index of estimated institutional obstacles for wider participation in the LLP
Index of knowledge, skills and experience transfer of people who participated in the program.
10 indexes of perceived influence:
Willingness of employees to participate in activities of professional development;
Use of new pedagogical/teaching methods;
Development of specific professional skills and language competences of employees;
Capacity for project management;
Internal institutional organization and collective integration;
Development of (inter)sectoral and international partnerships;
Institutional reputation and recognition in the local community;
European dimension in education;
Personal development of attendees (children, students, adult learners);
Treatment of people with disabilities and fewer opportunities.

11. LLP survey 2015. INTERPRETATION
Willingness of employees to participate in activities of professional development
Use of new pedagogical/ teaching methods
Development of specific professional skills and language competences of employees
Capacity for project management
Internal institutional organization and collective integration
Development of (inter) sectoral and international partnerships
Institutional reputation and recognition in the local community
European dimension in education
Treatment of people with disabilities and fewer opportunities
Kinder-gartens
Primary schools
Secondary schools
Adult education institutions
Personal development of attendees (children, students, adult learners)
Legend:
Participants
Non-participants
INTERPRETATION
LLP project participants, as expected, perceive slightly higher influence on almost all dimensions, but the differences are not great
LLP survey 2015.
The median values of standardized indexes of infuence by type of institution and participation of respondents in the LLP projects

12. LLP survey 2015. INTERPRETATION
Willingness of employees to participate in activities of professional development
Use of new pedagogical/ teaching methods
Development of specific professional skills and language competences of employees
Kinder-gartens
Primary schools
Secondary schools
Adult education institutions
Capacity for project management
Internal institutional organization and collective integration
Development of (inter) sectoral and international partnerships
Institutional reputation and recognition in the local community
European dimension in education
Treatment of people with disabilities and fewer opportunities
Personal development of attendees (children, students, adult learners)
INTERPRETATION
Respondents with different positions in the institutions (headmasters, educational staff, professional staff and administrative staff) in majority institutions and on majority of the measured dimensions generally similarly evaluate the LLP institutional influence.
Interestingly: estimates of institution headmasters and those of educational staff are very similar in almost all types of institutions and on almost all dimensions.
LLP survey 2015.
The median values of standardized indexes of infuence by type of institution and position of the respondents in the institution

13. Participant report 2017.
After having taken part in mobility… I intend to participate more actively in the social and political life of my community“
“I have enhanced my employment and career opportunities”
Cultural awareness and expression

14. Mid-term report, 2017. - sample structure (CAPI, 2016/2017)

15.  Perception of visibility of Erasmus+ (all respondents)
POOR
SUFFICIENT
GOOD
VERY GOOD
EXCELLENT
I CANNOT ESTIMATE % M SD
Overall visibility of Erasmus+ results on national level
11,1
11,7
31,2
27,3
9,9
8,8
3,15
1,152
Promotion of good practice by the Agency for mobility and EU programmes
9,1
11,2
29,0
29,5
15,0
6,3
3,32
1,167
The regional distribution of information and promotion activities of the Agency for Mobility and EU Programmes
13,5
14,5
30,3
19,5
13,0
2,96
1,197
The availability of promotional materials with examples of good practice
14,8
15,6
29,3
21,0
11,8
7,5
2,99
1,244
Visibility of the results of the programme in respondent’s area of work
12,5
26,6
10,8
7,9
3,10
1,203

16. NEITHER ENABLES NOR DOES NOT ENABLE I DO NOT KNOW / I CANNOT ESTIMATE
 Realisation of Erasmus+ goals – YOU
DOES NOT ENABLE
NEITHER ENABLES NOR DOES NOT ENABLE
ENABLES
I DO NOT KNOW / I CANNOT ESTIMATE %
Improvement of key competencies and skills of youth ( "key competencies" = basic set of knowledge, skills and attitudes that all individuals need for personal fulfilment and development, active citizenship, social inclusion and employment)
0,1
2,4
85,1
12,4
Inclusion of young people with fewer opportunities or encounter some obstacles that prevent them in active approach to education, training and work
0,9
8,2
70,6
20,3
Promote participation in democratic life in Europe
1,8
9,5
68,6
20,2
Promoting participation in the labour market
2,6
12,8
56,6
28,0
Active citizenship
0,8
7,4
74,1
17,6
Intercultural dialogue
2,7
85,6
11,6
Social inclusion
0,3
5,2
80,4
14,2
Achieving solidarity
9,0
70,7
19,3
Increasing learning mobility opportunities for young people, those active in youth work or youth organisations and youth leaders
3,4
82,3
14,0
Strengthening links between the youth field and the labour market
12,2
53,9
31,3
Enhancing cooperation between organisations in the youth field and/or other stakeholders
5,1
73,2
20,8
Complementing policy reforms at local, regional and national level
4,1
17,1
41,5
37,3
Development of knowledge and evidence-based youth policy
12,0
45,5
40,7
The recognition of non-formal and informal learning
2,8
11,0
63,9
22,3
Enhancing the international dimension of youth activities
0,5
3,1
83,2
13,1
Strengthening the role of socio-pedagogical staff and organizations as support structures for young people
1,0
66,4
24,4

17. NEITHER ENABLES NOR DOES NOT ENABLE I DO NOT KNOW / I CANNOT ESTIMATE
Realisation of Erasmus+ goals – E&T (all respondents)
DOES NOT ENABLE
NEITHER ENABLES NOR DOES NOT ENABLE
ENABLES
I DO NOT KNOW / I CANNOT ESTIMATE %
Improvement of key competencies and skills in general ( "key competencies" = basic set of knowledge, skills and attitudes that all individuals need for personal fulfilment and development, active citizenship, social inclusion and employment)
0,4
3,1
91,1
5,4
Improvement of key competencies and skills with regard to labour market needs
0,8
12,6
72,7
13,9
Contribution to social cohesion
0,3
4,7
88,8
6,2
Create opportunities for mobility for the purpose of formal/non-formal/informal education
2,0
93,0
Strengthen cooperation between the world of education / training and the world of work
1,4
17,6
63,6
17,4
On the level of educational and training institutions to foster improvement of quality, excellence in innovation and internationalization
0,5
7,2
80,2
12,0
Promotion of the emergence and raising the awareness of a European lifelong learning area
5,8
84,3
9,5
Enhancing the international dimensions of education and training
3,8
88,6
7,0
Establishing cooperation of the EU institutions in the field of vocational education and training
0,9
4,4
68,5
26,2
Establishing cooperation of the EU institutions in the field of higher education
1,1
54,9
39,3
Increasing the attractiveness of European higher education institutions
7,8
51,4
39,7
Improving teaching and learning of languages and promoting broad linguistic diversity in the European Union and intercultural awareness
0,2
2,8
90,4
6,6

18. Assessment of the relevance of Erasmus+ specific objectives (YOU)
OBJECTIVE IS RELEVANT FOR MY SECTOR
OBJECTIVE IS NOT RELEVANT FOR MY SECTOR
I DO NOT KNOW / I CANNOT ESTIMATE
Improvement of key competencies and skills of youth ("key competencies" = basic set of knowledge, skills and attitudes that all individuals need for personal fulfilment and development, active citizenship, social inclusion and employment)
84,8
7,8
7,4
Inclusion of young people with fewer opportunities or encounter some obstacles that prevent them in active approach to education, training and work
74,3
13,3
12,4
Promote participation in democratic life in Europe
69,6
16,8
13,7
Promoting participation in the labour market
60,9
21,1
18,0
Active citizenship
75,3
12,8
11,9
Intercultural dialogue
84,6
8,1
7,3
Social inclusion
84,3
8,0
Achieving solidarity
78,1
11,1
10,9
Increasing learning mobility opportunities for young people, those active in youth work or youth organisations and youth leaders
12,9
9,0
Strengthening links between the youth field and the labour market
59,4
20,9
19,8
Enhancing cooperation between organisations in the youth field and/or other stakeholders
71,5
14,3
Complementing policy reforms at local, regional and national level
52,1
20,5
27,4
Development of knowledge and evidence-based youth policy
52,7
26,8
The recognition of non-formal and informal learning
9,5
Enhancing the international dimension of youth activities
76,4
10,8
Strengthening the role of socio-pedagogical staff and organizations as support structures for young people
71,8
12,3
15,9

19. Assessment of the relevance of Erasmus+ specific objectives (respondents from E&T)
OBJECTIVE IS RELEVANT FOR MY SECTOR
OBJECTIVE IS NOT RELEVANT FOR MY SECTOR
I DO NOT KNOW / I CANNOT ESTIMATE
Improvement of key competencies and skills in general ("key competencies" = basic set of knowledge, skills and attitudes that all individuals need for personal fulfilment and development, active citizenship, social inclusion and employment)
90,7
4,8
4,6
Improvement of key competencies and skills with regard to labour market needs
70,7
16,1
13,1
Contribution to social cohesion
83,2
7,4
9,3
Create opportunities for mobility for the purpose of formal/non-formal/informal education
90,4
4,9
Strengthen cooperation between the world of education / training and the world of work
69,0
16,9
14,2
On the level of educational and training institutions to foster improvement of quality, excellence in innovation and internationalization
77,5
12,5
10,0
Promotion of the emergence and raising the awareness of a European lifelong learning area
84,0
7,9
8,2
Enhancing the international dimensions of education and training
85,3
8,0
6,7
Establishing cooperation of the EU institutions in the field of vocational education and training
54,8
30,6
14,6
Establishing cooperation of the EU institutions in the field of higher education
34,7
43,8
24,1
Increasing the attractiveness of European higher education institutions
35,0
44,3
20,8
Improving teaching and learning of languages and to promote broad linguistic diversity in the European Union and intercultural awareness
83,8
10,1
6,1

20. Reference
Glasson, J., Socio-economic impacts 1: overview and economic impacts, in: Morris, P. and Therivel, R. (2000) (ed), Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment, Spon Press, London and New York
Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment, Prepared by the Inter-organizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment.
International Association for Impact Assessment. Social Impact Assessment, International Principles, Special Publication Series No. 2, May
Rietbergen-McCracken, J. and Narayan, D. (1998): Participation and Social Assessment: Tools and Techniques, The World Bank, Washington DC.
Burdge, Rabel J.; A community guide to social impact assessment; Social Ecology Press (2004)
Brajdić Vuković, M., Ančić, B. i Domazet, M.; Podrška: Trajni učinak ili poticajni trenutak?; Nacionalna zaklada za razvoj civilnoga društva (2014)
Ančić, Branko; Klasnić, Ksenija. Evaluacija sektorskih programa Comenius, Grundtvig i Leonardo da Vinci // K internacionalizaciji obrazovanja - Sudjelovanje Republike Hrvatske u Programu za cjeloživotno učenje / Ivan Milanović - Litre ; Ivana Puljiz ; Filip Gašparović (ur.). Zagreb : Agencija za mobilnost i programe EU, Str
Gregurović, M. (2017). ERASMUS+: MLADI NA DJELU Rezultati istraživanja RAY Research-based Analysis and Monitoring of Erasmus+: Youth in Action u Hrvatskoj Agencija za mobilnost i programe EU. [unpublished report]