← Back to Blog
Erasmus+ applications are evaluated by National Agencies — the bodies in each country responsible for managing EU youth funding. Understanding how they assess applications is one of the highest-leverage things a first-time or returning applicant can do. Yet most guides focus on what to write rather than on how evaluators read what you have written.
Who Are the Evaluators?
Evaluators are typically external assessors — practitioners, trainers, or researchers with experience in youth work and non-formal education — commissioned by the National Agency. They work from a standardised assessment grid and score each section of the application against published criteria. Most applications are assessed by two or three evaluators independently; scores are compared and, where they diverge significantly, a moderation process reconciles them.
Evaluators read a large number of applications in a relatively short time. Clarity, specificity, and logical structure are therefore not just stylistic preferences — they are practical necessities. An application that requires the evaluator to infer what is actually meant, or to chase a logical thread across disconnected sections, loses marks simply because of how it is written.
The Assessment Criteria
For Youth Exchange KA1 applications, the main assessment criteria and their approximate weightings are:
- Relevance (30%): Does the project address a genuine need? Is the target group well-defined? Is the European/international dimension justified?
- Quality of project design (40%): Are the objectives SMART? Does the methodology match the objectives? Is the programme logical and well-structured? Is evaluation built in?
- Quality of the project team (20%): Does the consortium have the capacity and complementarity to deliver? Are roles clear?
- Impact (10%): Is there a credible plan for dissemination and exploitation of results beyond the project itself?
The 40% quality-of-design weighting is where most applications are won or lost. A compelling needs assessment means nothing if the programme design does not logically follow from it.
What Evaluators Look For
In the relevance section, evaluators are looking for evidence that you have diagnosed a real problem rather than retrofitted a need to justify an activity you already wanted to do. Citing actual data — survey results, youth policy documents, previous programme evaluations — is significantly more effective than describing general challenges in vague terms.
In the project design section, evaluators are checking whether your learning objectives are genuinely SMART, whether your methodology is appropriate for those objectives, and whether your evaluation approach is capable of actually measuring the outcomes you have promised. They are also looking for evidence of preparation and follow-up activities — the phases before and after the main exchange are required and often under-described.
Common Reasons for Rejection
- Vague needs assessment with no specific data or context
- Learning objectives that cannot be measured ("participants will be more aware of...")
- Programme design that describes activities without explaining the pedagogical rationale
- No preparation activities or Youthpass plan described
- Dissemination plan limited to "we will share on social media"
- Partnership that reads as transactional rather than genuinely complementary
Practical Advice
Read your application as an evaluator would: with no prior knowledge of your organisation, your partners, or your community. Ask whether every claim is backed by evidence, every objective is testable, and every element of the programme is explained. Then read the programme guide again, check every mandatory requirement, and submit with time to spare.