Your views on the DEAR Programme

An online survey¹ collected reflections on the EU DEAR Programme by various stakeholders involved in Development Education/Global Citizenship Education (DE/GCE): civil society organisations, local authorities, national institutions, scholars, educators, and single individuals who have been involved in DEAR projects or events. The summary that follows reflects the different (and sometimes opposing) positions that emerged.

The survey was circulated via the DEAR newsletter, sent to around 750 subscribers, representing people who got directly or indirectly in touch with the DEAR Programme or the DEAR Support Team (DST) events. Respondents were therefore mostly people (or organisations) working on DE/GCE in various capacities across Europe.

Thirteen questions explored issues of interest for the evaluation of the past - and for the planning of the future - DEAR Programme. Only two questions were compulsory: the typology of stakeholder/ respondent and whether or not the respondent is or was ever part of a DEAR-supported project.

Overall, 78 respondents took part in the survey, 57 of which have been involved in at least one DEAR supported project. The distribution of stakeholders is illustrated in the infographic.

When asked about the future objectives that the DEAR Programme should set, respondents provided detailed answers, which have been clustered in slide 4 (see pdf below).

The objective identified by the most respondents (22) is supporting quality education and the achievement of SDG target 4.7, with relevance given mainly to two aspects: supporting projects that complement on-going activities carried out in schools, nonformal education settings, or related to curriculum development; and supporting the integration of methodologies connected to DE/GCE in all educational settings.

While there is a widespread consensus about the relevance of all educational sectors (formal, nonformal, informal), different views are expressed regarding the learners, with a 50-50 split of opinion around the (inter)generational element of GCE. Half of the respondents affirm the need to support learners of all ages, “to better understand global challenges and their interlinkages, including how their own actions can contribute to address them.” Another respondent noted: “Targeting specifically young people without seeking to improve the attitudes of previous generations can be counterproductive as it contributes to widening the generational gap and placing the responsibility for change on young people alone.”  About half of respondents, on the contrary, suggest to specifically involve - and better represent - youth in the DEAR-supported initiatives. Ten respondents focus indeed on affecting change in youth attitudes and engagement, including enabling young people to articulate their criticism of the existing system.

Another set of responses (16) highlight the need to foster public understanding and citizens’ action on global challenges. The focus of these responses is on creating the conditions for a widespread critical understanding of root causes of global phenomena, their interdependencies, and the impacts of life-styles.

Partly connected to the replies above, 16 respondents also pointed at supporting systemic change, expressed with often articulated responses that mention fostering democratic values, critical voices, plural and diverse societies, transformative-sustainable policies, and countering discriminating patterns and inequalities.

In line with the need to foster democracy, pluralism and critical voices, some respondents (9) explicitly identified the main goal of the Programme in strengthening civil society. The support to civil society organisations (CSOs) is seen as pivotal in connection to three aspects: their capacity to reach a wide range of players that would otherwise have limited access to EU funds; their role as key players in supporting citizen (and youth) critical understanding and engagement; and as a resource for capacity-building of other CSOs and stakeholders.

Finally, 5 responses linked the objective of the DEAR Programme to developing a fair and multilateral dialogue, intended with a double meaning: across borders with partner countries outside of Europe; or a structured dialogue among different typologies of DEAR stakeholders within Europe.

Another question explored stakeholders’ views with regard to the priority issues of the future DEAR Programme.

The integrated nature of SDGs collects 13 responses that point to the importance of an overarching view on their interrelated nature, rather than a narrower selection of single SDGs (on the contrary, 7 responses specifically highlight SDG 4.7 as the main focus of the DEAR Programme). Related to the comprehensive view on SDGs, additional 13 replies stress the need for a global perspective on issues and policies, and mention concepts such as global solidarity, global solutions to global problems, policy coherence for development and development assistance.

Generally, with the sole exception of those mentioning the Climate Crisis (7), responses collected on priorities suggest that stakeholders would rather focus on an approach rather than on specific topics (see slide 5 in the pdf attached).

The complementarity between the EU DEAR Programme and national DE/GCE policies was another aspect of enquiry of the survey, with around half respondents (38) who replied that the DEAR Programme does not complement enough the existing initiatives at national level. A variety of responses were given on the possible strategies to strengthen this complementarity.

Multiple respondents encourage a multi-level policy dialogue for peer-learning and knowledge-sharing between the European Commission and Member States, but also within the different DGs of the Commission (several responses mentioned synergies with other instruments/Programmes), as well as between various state and non-state actors at national level. A financial investment is suggested by some stakeholders, through which the EU supports national plans, and funds initiatives in those Member States with a ‘weaker’ DEAR experience or commitment.

Regarding the DEAR funded partnerships, two views show alternative approaches with one suggesting strengthening the Pan-European nature of DEAR projects (7), and the other reducing the size of consortia (7). Two main reasons are given in favour of the latter: smaller size consortia can better fit the local contexts and be more effective in achieving complementary with national policies; and small-size consortia facilitate inclusion of small and medium organisations. The greater involvement of smaller organisations is raised by many respondents that point at the need of reaching local communities and fit the local context, for stronger impacts.

Finally, the promotion of cross-sectoral cooperation at all levels together and the involvement of other fora in DEAR consultations is often mentioned to strengthen synergies with other communities/instruments/policy levels. One re

The complementarity between the EU DEAR Programme and national DE/GCE policies was another aspect of enquiry of the survey, with around half the respondents (38) who replied that the DEAR Programme does not sufficiently complement the existing DE/GCE initiatives and policies at national level. A variety of responses were given on the possible strategies to strengthen this complementarity.

Multiple respondents encourage a multi-level policy dialogue for peer-learning and knowledge-sharing between the European Commission and Member States, but also within the different DGs of the Commission (several responses mentioned synergies with other instruments/Programmes), as well as between various state and non-state actors at national level. A financial investment is suggested by some stakeholders, through which the EU supports national plans, and funds initiatives in those Member States with a ‘weaker’ DEAR experience or commitment.

Regarding the DEAR funded partnerships, two views show alternative approaches with one suggesting to strengthen the pan-European nature of DEAR projects (7), and the other to reduce the size of consortia (7). Two main reasons are given in favour of the latter: smaller consortia can better fit the local contexts and be more effective in achieving complementarity with national policies; and small-size consortia facilitate the inclusion of small and medium organisations. The greater involvement of smaller organisations is raised by many respondents, who point to the need to reach local communities and fit the local context, in order to have greater impact.

Finally, the promotion of cross-sectoral cooperation at all levels together and the involvement of other fora in DEAR consultations is often mentioned to strengthen synergies with other communities/instruments/policy levels. One respondent provides specific examples: “EU Programmes that are also financing important national budget lines: the AMIF funds (part of them concerns DEAR and GCE activities on migration); the Erasmus+ Programme (specific lines for Schools and Youth); the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF), which are financing Ministries of Education and investing in education, skills and lifelong learning (with specific lines on Global Citizen-ship Education); the LIFE and the Horizon 2020 Programme; European Solidarity Corps; etc.”

When asked about strategies to increase the coherence and impact of the DEAR Programme, respondents stress the need to embrace the diversity underpinning the DEAR sector. DE/GCE initiatives are by definition heterogeneous in terms of practice, stakeholders, approaches and contexts. Some respondents suggest that a comprehensive or centralised intervention logic "from above" would not be able to provide better results and may limit the right of initiative and innovation of applicants. In opposition to this stand, an alternative view suggests setting up high level programme objectives and ensuring that all projects contribute to their achievement and measure impacts against shared indicators, while considering  country-specific contexts.

To collect and aggregate outcomes and impact data at Programme level, multiple respondents stress the use of qualitative data collection methods, as quantitative data alone cannot grasp what happens at the level of communities and numbers do not always capture the real impact of an action/project.

There is widespread agreement about the need for a reframed DEAR-specific model of Monitoring Evaluation and Learning (MEL), which would keep the data collection and analysis ‘simple and tailor-made’. Many replies highlight the need for a different approach - one which supports models of planning, implementation, evaluation and data collection derived from the specific nature of GE/DEAR, rather than from project cycle frameworks. It would help to  acknowledge that assessing transformative education is a challenge. Also, external evaluations, including research results from academia, national, pan-European, and global evaluations could be sources to assess progress.

Besides differences in tools and approaches, a shared opinion emerges on the need to establish a uniform reporting and monitoring system for all DEAR projects. It should be based on a simple online platform, which provides a common reporting database and at the same time ensures flexibility to capture the wide range of contexts.

So far, the DEAR Multi-stakeholder Group (MSG), composed of CSOs, LAs, MSs, academics, practitioners etc, has played the role of a consultative forum to accompany the steering and implementation of the EU DEAR Programme. A few questions explored what its future mandate should be. Answers to this question varied widely, as the phrasing is very open. Nonetheless, a number of keywords repeatedly emerged, such as networking, facilitating exchange, shaping priorities, offering feed-back. A typical response: “MSG could serve as a platform and advisory body for discussions and decisions about strategic goals and priorities of the DEAR Program and how to evaluate them, but also provide space for timely consultations with stakeholders to define and adapt in advance the themes and priori-ties of the future calls for proposals.”

Notably, there were no calls for the MSG to be scrapped. While some respondents were not fully clear on its role – even as active DEAR stakeholders for many years – those who were familiar with it, generally pushed for a greater use of the MSG. This suggests that the MSG has a much greater potential than currently utilised.

Regarding the composition of the MSG, the primary groups identified as participants were: CSOs (either through networks or via individual organisations); Member States (either through MEPs, country representatives or another national body); past and ongoing projects; youth groups. Less evidence was given to scholars and the business sector. An additional takeaway is that more than half of the respondents called for a better representation of youth in the MSG.

While most respondents noted that CSOs should be represented at the MSG, there was a significant split over how that should be orchestrated. A minority noted that representation through organisations like CONCORD or other platforms was the most appropriate, but some were critical of these networks’ domination of the scene.

When asked about how participants can play a more meaningful role to represent a stakeholder group, the majority of respondents stressed that the MSG is an opportunity for exchange and communication “out of Brussels” and can gather ideas and inputs from the country/local level. Some ideas were mentioned including online webinars, consultations and more surveys. Several respondents called for a greater space devoted to sharing ideas that do not originate or reflect the prevailing views in Brussels. Many mentioned that CSOs having a greater role would be one way to bring in new ideas from outside the usual remit. Others suggested that MSG seats should rotate, to enable new ideas and bring fresh dynamics to the discussion and debate.

How can the relevance of the MSG be increased? Over 35% (27) of respondents to this question did not provide an answer, stating that they did not have enough knowledge to make a useful comment. Of those that did respond, the strongest theme was a call for greater transparency and openness of the work of the MSG. Some suggested making part of meetings open (using online tools); emphasis on non-hierarchical exchange; greater follow-up of decisions, with results made public; regular stocktaking of the group’s role and functions; clearer and better-defined roles.

Finally, the survey tried to collect suggestions for a new name for the DEAR Programme, if respondents deemed a change was needed. While 12 respondents suggested there is no need to change the name as it has become well known and recognisable, 48 suggested a new name (and 18 did not comment).

Numerous suggestions were made which included ‘Global Citizenship Education’ (or variations on that), and ‘Global Education and Awareness Raising (GEAR)’ was mentioned various times. Whatever the name, many respondents suggest the need to “…move away from the expression Development Education embracing Global Citizenship” , as it better reflects the international terminology that is gradually used more widely. Among other ideas, there was Active Citizenship & Engagement (ACE) Programme, and references were made to ‘inclusive and sustainable development’ formulated in different variations.

The findings of the survey are being considered for the future DEAR Programme planning, for the redefinition of the MSG mandate, as well as for the design of a renewed Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning framework. Thank you to those who took the time to participate!

_________________

¹ The design of the survey and the preliminary analytical work was carried out by Harm-Jan Fricke, former team leader of the DST.