The word play in the name of the Tic Tac training course (Italy, 17-23 February 2020) reaches the concept of its essence – reminding us of the TacTics for developing quality projects, more specifically within the framework of the Erasmus + program, and building a stable partner network is an important part of this process.

Those of us, who are familiar with Erasmus+, understand the extraordinary chance the program presents, regarding training mobility for everyone. The non-formal methods turn experiences, intercultural communication, getting to know the local reality, etc. into learning. Erasmus+ creates a space to experiment, share experience and practice. Everyone, who has an idea can apply for financing, as long as they can find like-minded partners and clearly and precisely describe what they want to do, why and how they want to do it.

So far, so good. It’s easy. But the facts show that a mere 19 percent of submitted projects (from all countries for the same deadline) are approved (the numbers apply to Erasmus+/Youth workers). There is competition and only “the best” manage to pass through the narrow funnel of project ideas. Is this really the case and what does “quality” project mean? That is the question!

The Tic Tac training course brought us, the project people, back to the starting point, so we can rethink it – where does thinking of and for a project really begin? Guess what – it’s not from the question “what can we do”?

The question is why should we? What will this change for young people, for youth workers and leaders, for us as organizations, for the local reality? How will it contribute to the social change we strive for – not measured in months, but in a broader horizon, set by us – the people writing projects?

Yes, I imagine what you’re thinking – these are the boring parts of the project, related to describing the impact, which are largely a figment of the imagination. That’s exactly what we’re talking about. They are the point, from which the creation of a project should commence, along with researching specific needs of specific target groups. What will be offered as a training opportunity is the answer to that.

Naturally, the world looks differently from different standpoints. The “perfect” way to implement projects meets reality, where in all kinds of practices exist.

The “project market” is open for applications before each deadline. The same proposal “circulates” the National agencies of the partners, in search of financing. The project “developers” focus on writing and neglect the other participants in the process, especially young people, who should be actively involved, as they are the ones for whom this program was created and exists, along with its financing. Not to mention, that they have to develop their own projects. For now, however, they are merely users.

Getting back to the partners – in the best case, they receive a brief resume and an invitation to send a mandate letter to the coordinator. No one shares the project in its entirety, the program or other details with them. They are learned on the go, when (and if) the project is approved.

There are probably dozens of other “schemes” for creating projects, taking them further from the “perfect” version and concept of Erasmus +, which I won’t discuss.

We often discuss another problem with our partners, related to the so-called “trainers” in Erasmus+ trainings. If they are part of a certain organization – guess what – they need work. Which means they need projects, therefore they apply for projects, wherein they can be trainers. Naturally, they propose whatever they can do, to whatever extent they can do it, for these projects, learning to argue and model it in accordance with the program’s priorities, so it can be approved, so it can “pass”.

Former active project participants (participating in projects before making your own is generally a good thing), who have decided to change their vocation, become self-proclaimed “trainers”. Non-formal education, in its essence, does not require the proof of formal diplomas and certificates, which leaves the space wide open for interpretations of what a good and experienced trainer really is. Still, to know non-formal methods is to have a full tool box. But you must be able to use them skillfully and in a logical sequence, know what you can extract from the participants and what you can give back as knowledge and skills through these tools. Knowing certain areas, wherein you are a non-formal educator, helps a lot.

I have always thought that training youth workers on Erasmus+ gives a huge opportunity for people with similar interests and needs to have access to quality training, which is not merely “scratching the surface”, but gives in-depth (self)knowledge, practical skills and develops complex competences. In order for that to happen, the trainers are the ones, who have to set the quality of the experiential training experience. Which is why it is important who they are and what they can accomplish with the methods they wield.

It should be noted that working in an international partner network is becoming ever more difficult, regarding building lasting and stable relationships with partners. The international aspect is more than bonus points in evaluations for every Erasmus+ project. It can give added value and enrich the context, good practices and sharing of experience.

But how do we find partners, who are enthusiastic about our idea, motivated to participate and whom we can trust?

The answer is: make “our” idea a mutual idea.

Naturally, this is hard to do in practice, when you have found your partners via social media or another indirect way. When that’s the case, you don’t really know what kind of people are in the organization, what motives lead them in implementing projects. They, on the other hand, usually feel free from responsibility and loyalty to the project and limit their efforts to sending participants. I say “send”, as there has been a trend of “project tourism” in recent years (a response to treating youths as project “users”), wherein people participate, lead primarily by the attractiveness of the destination, maybe by the subject, and less and less by the desire to contribute to achieving social change, using what they’ve learned. The lack of engagement of the partners with the process of participant selection, neglecting to comply with the set profile, could significantly decrease the quality of an otherwise well written project.

Those are, however, the risks. Whoever wants reliable partners must put a lot of effort in finding them, getting to know them, communicating with them, developing a project together, working long term and in solidarity, in order to achieve change.

Some questions spun me in a vicious circle. E.g., to create a “quality” project, you need time, skills, experience and – mainly – relevance to specific needs of young people and their organizations, as well as measurable impact. To turn a “successful project” into a practice of the organization, rather than a simple “one shot” – you need project perspective, i.e. more effort to maintain the project level, including at the implementation stage; and to keep a team motivated and at expert level, you need resources.

How is all that combined and balanced? How does a civil organization survive?

I leave the variations in the answers to you.

Deiana Dragoeva