← Back to Blog
Every year, thousands of youth organisations across Europe submit Erasmus+ KA1 applications. A significant portion are rejected — not because the ideas are bad, but because the applications fail to communicate their quality in the language that evaluators are trained to read. Here is what separates funded applications from the rest.
Understand What KA1 Actually Rewards
KA1 — Learning Mobility of Individuals — funds organisations sending staff and young people abroad for learning purposes. Under the Youth strand, this includes youth exchanges, training courses, and volunteering activities. But the key thing to understand is that Erasmus+ is not funding experiences. It is funding learning outcomes. The distinction matters enormously when you sit down to write.
Every section of a KA1 application asks some version of the same question: how does this activity lead to real, demonstrable, transferable learning? If you cannot answer that question clearly for every element of your programme, the application will not score well — however interesting the activity sounds.
The Needs Assessment: Where Most Applications Fail
The needs assessment section — describing why your organisation needs this funding and why these participants need this experience — is consistently the weakest part of unsuccessful applications. Organisations write vaguely about wanting to "empower youth" or "build capacity." Evaluators need specifics.
What are the concrete gaps? Who has identified them and how? What would happen if this activity did not take place? Ground your needs assessment in real data: surveys, community research, previous programme evaluations, national youth reports. Show that you have diagnosed a real problem before proposing a solution.
An evaluator reads dozens of applications in a sitting. The ones that stay with them are the ones that describe a specific situation so clearly that the need for the activity becomes obvious — even unavoidable.
Learning Objectives: Be Concrete
Use SMART objectives. Not "participants will develop intercultural competence" but "participants will be able to identify and articulate three cultural assumptions they held before the exchange that the experience challenged, and describe how their behaviour or thinking has changed as a result." The second version is assessable. The first is not.
Map each objective to a specific activity in your programme. The evaluator should be able to see the logical chain: we identified this need → we designed this activity → it develops this competence → we will measure it this way.
The Programme: Show Your Methodology
Describe not just what you will do, but how and why. Non-formal education methods — fishbowl discussions, world cafés, open space technology, forum theatre — should be named and briefly explained. Show that your team knows how to facilitate learning, not just organise events.
- Include preparation activities before the exchange (they are required and often under-described)
- Plan explicitly for Youthpass — show how participants will reflect on and document their learning
- Describe dissemination: what will you do with the outcomes after the activity ends?
- Include evaluation methods — pre/post surveys, reflection journals, focus groups
Budget: Realism and Transparency
The budget section is less about numbers and more about credibility. Unrealistic costs — flights priced too low, accommodation too cheap — signal inexperience. Include contingency thinking. Show that you have done the research. If you are new to grant management, be honest about your financial controls and demonstrate that you have systems in place.
One More Thing
Read the programme guide. All of it. Every year it is updated, and every year applications are rejected for missing something that was clearly explained in that year's version. Set aside two hours, read it carefully, and check your application against it section by section before you submit.