Evaluation of Flowchart project A European exchange programme for learning and labour mobility

Judith Staines

March 2011

1

Table of Contents

________________________________________________________ Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 3

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1. Project overview ..................................................................................................................... 5

1.2. Evaluation study aims ............................................................................................................. 5

1.3. Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 5

1.4. Evaluation challenges .............................................................................................................. 6

1.5. Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. 6

2. Project Design & Timeframe .......................................................................................................... 6

3. Project Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 7

3.1. Project proposal objectives ..................................................................................................... 7

3.2. Partner objectives ................................................................................................................... 7

4. Project Partnership Network ......................................................................................................... 9

5. Staff Exchange Programme ............................................................................................................ 9

5.1. Selection of participants ....................................................................................................... 10

5.2. Work placement planning and preparation.......................................................................... 13

5.3. Work placement staff exchange ........................................................................................... 14

5.4. Mentoring & visitor programme planning ............................................................................ 15

5.5. Networking and communication .......................................................................................... 16

5.6. Feedback mechanisms .......................................................................................................... 17

5.7. Value of the exchange programme....................................................................................... 18

6. Conference, Study Visit & Information Resources ...................................................................... 20

6.1. Study visit – Brussels: 2 & 4-5 November 2010 .................................................................... 20

6.2. ‘Mind the Gap’ conference – Brussels: 3 November 2010 ................................................... 21

7. Overall Benefits of Flowchart ...................................................................................................... 23

8. Follow-up Plans ............................................................................................................................ 24

8.1. Future staff exchange programmes ...................................................................................... 24

8.2. European network of migrant advisors ................................................................................ 26

9. Project Management .................................................................................................................... 27

10. Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 28

10.1. Project design & timeframe .............................................................................................. 28

10.2. Project objectives .............................................................................................................. 28

10.3. Staff exchange ................................................................................................................... 28

2

10.4. Conference & Study Visit .................................................................................................. 29

10.5. EU Migrants’ Advisory Services Network .......................................................................... 29

ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................................... 31

A: Evaluation questionnaire – partners ......................................................................................... 31

B: Evaluation questionnaire – staff exchange participants ........................................................... 32

C: Evaluation questionnaire – mentors ......................................................................................... 33

D: List of respondents .................................................................................................................... 34

3

Executive Summary

The Flowchart exchange programme for learning and labour mobility ran from January 2010 to

February 2011 and was a pilot project, funded under the EACEA Citizenship programme. Designed

to explore the value of exchanges between civil society organisations in the EU that provide

information and advice to citizens on free movement rights, it brought together six national advisory

service partners and was coordinated by the European Citizen Action Service (ECAS).

The project set up a partnership network between advice services in England & Wales, Italy,

Northern Ireland, Poland, Romania and Spain and paired them for a programme of 10-day staff

exchange work placements following current labour mobility flow patterns in the EU. This allowed

advice workers to learn about the needs and services for outgoing and returning migrant workers

and their families. They thus increased their intercultural understanding of the contexts of mobility

and gained knowledge about different policies affecting EU free movement rights.

The staff exchange placements were complemented by additional information, learning and

networking elements within the Flowchart project. A high level conference on the better

enforcement of European citizens’ free movement rights was held in Brussels attended by project

partners, staff exchange participants, EU officials and experts. Flowchart participants improved their

knowledge of EU institutions though a study visit to the European Commission and European

Ombudsman’s office, with meetings with senior officials.

The evaluation report presents a socially and culturally oriented analysis of the Flowchart project’s

impacts and results. It examines these from the point of view of individual exchange participants

(advice staff and volunteers) and from the organisational perspective of the six project partners. It

looks at the impacts within the short timeframe of the one year pilot, and outlines longer-term

proposals for follow-up action.

The staff exchange placements were positively received by those involved. There is a strong interest

from participants, host organisations and mentors to continue and extend the programme to other

countries and types of placement. Participants developed their networking and communication

about the exchange through a dedicated Flowchart blog. Feedback mechanisms were built into the

programme to ensure that the knowledge and experience was shared within the partner

organisations and beyond. Participants report an improved understanding and knowledge of free

movement issues and draw on the Flowchart network for advice. As well as the intensive learning

experience, partners and participants found other benefits from the placements, such as knowledge

about different national systems for delivering advice, comparing best practices, sharing models of

quality assurance, advocacy and policy monitoring processes.

Some challenges were encountered to deliver the programme of individual placements, each with

dedicated activity programmes and mentoring support, within the tight timeframe of the pilot

project. The guidelines drawn up by partners were well implemented for the selection process.

Although many participants would have appreciated more planning time, 12 motivated, dedicated

4

and communicative advice professionals undertook structured, intensive work placements which

brought them into contact with new organisational and personal realities and in a range of cultural

contexts.

The ‘Mind the Gap’ conference in Brussels and Study Visit to EU institutions brought the exchange

participants together for the first time, along with the project partners. The initial workshop meeting

between the wider network of participants and partners was fruitful in terms of starting to build a

European network of migrant advisors. The high level conference was attended by over 100

professionals and was well received by project partners and staff exchange participants, most finding

it extremely useful and informative. Some of the advice workers expressed doubts about how in

touch some speakers were with the realities of migrant workers and enforcement of their rights,

although others felt that the speakers did understand the needs and barriers for migrants.

The Study Visit was planned with care to take Flowchart participants to a range of EU institutions

and meetings with senior officials. This broadened knowledge further and, although a few

participants were challenged by the amount of information received, the programme was largely

appreciated in terms of the learning experience and privileged access to EU contacts.

One of the overall aims of the project was to build the foundations for a European network of

migrant advisory services. As part of Flowchart, the partners worked on a Charter to articulate the

commitments of such a network. An online forum has been set up within the European Civil Society

House web platform for network communication. Partners and participants expressed a broad

commitment to continue to work together. There is a definite interest in expanding a staff exchange

programme to additional countries. However, some partners feel a further larger scale project is

required to build a wider network with more scope for interconnections and learning.

Overall impacts of the project were reported through the evaluation process and included

intercultural dialogue and learning, professional development, improved networking contacts and

knowledge of best practice.

The evaluation report concludes with 23 recommendations which address both the Flowchart

project and a future follow-up exchange programme. Key recommendations include the need for a

longer, more extensive exchange programme with additional country partners, in order to maximise

the experience and provide a better basis for comparison and analysis of results. Clear objectives

should be agreed which set common learning outcomes within a shared strategic framework. While

the social and cultural orientation of Flowchart is valued as an important factor underpinning the

pilot’s overall success, there is a need for a better integration in any future programme between

individual professional development and organisational development goals. Other

recommendations relate to the time required for planning and coordination, attention to

consultation and delivery processes, incorporation of best practices from Flowchart (including the

selection guidelines), networking, benchmarking and reporting issues. Given the different needs of

advisory services in Europe in terms of capacity-building, a flexible fund for exchanges that build

knowledge and information-sharing across migrant advisory services is desirable and this might

mirror existing schemes in other sectors.

5

1. Introduction

1.1. Project overview

The Flowchart exchange programme for learning and labour mobility ran from January 2010 to

February 2011. Funded under Citizenship EACEA: Action I - Active Citizens for Europe, it was a pilot

project designed to explore the value of exchanges between civil society organisations in Europe

that provide information and advice to citizens on free movement rights. The project was developed

and led by the European Citizen Action Service (ECAS), with six national advice service partners:

ACCEM – Spain; Citizens Advice (CAB) – England & Wales; Casa dei Diritti Sociali (FOCUS CDS) – Italy;

National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux (NACAB) – Romania; South Tyrone Empowerment

Programme (STEP) – Northern Ireland; Union of Citizens Advice Bureaux (UCAB) – Poland. The

selection of project partner countries followed some of the main current EU labour migration flows,

thus allowing the partnering of countries that export and import labour to and from each other for

the staff exchange.

Exchanges initiated by the programme consisted of:

Project partner meetings

Work placements – 12 advice/information staff from the 6 participating organisations

Study visit to Brussels for project partners and staff exchange participants

Conference with project partners, staff exchange participants, EU officials and experts

Research, writing and dissemination of Report on Worker Mobility in the EU

In different degrees, all the Flowchart project exchanges were focused on learning, information-

sharing and networking. The staff exchange programme of work placements was at the centre of

the project and this was supported by a dedicated blog space for online interaction between

participants before, during and after the staff exchanges.

1.2. Evaluation study aims

Independent evaluation and cultural mobility expert, Judith Staines, was commissioned to evaluate

the Flowchart project and provide a socially and culturally oriented evaluation of the project’s

impacts and results.

1.3. Methodology

After a full briefing on the project, the evaluation expert met project partners at a meeting in

January 2011. She outlined the evaluation approach and incorporated useful feedback.

The evaluation report was based on desk research (project meetings reports, staff exchange

feedback reports, Flowchart blog postings) and an evaluation process which aimed to probe the

motivations and results of the various exchange elements of Flowchart, with particular attention to

the social and cultural elements. Three separate questionnaires were circulated – to project

6

partners, staff exchange participants and mentors, and followed up, where appropriate, by phone

and email. The results were analysed and the main findings are presented in the report.

The evaluator was keen to incorporate elements of Most Significant Change evaluation methodology

(www.clearhorizon.com.au/flagship-techniques/most -significant-change/) since it allows for

monitoring and evaluating a complex participatory project with diverse outcomes and multiple

stakeholders. However, the use of the MSC technique was not best suited to a project which was

completed and without scope for further interactive consultation with participants. It was therefore

only partially implemented but could be considered for a future exchange project.

1.4. Evaluation challenges

Although the project had foreseen the involvement of an evaluation expert from an earlier stage of

the project and this was discussed at the kick-off meeting, the external evaluation process was not

initiated until the latter stages of the project. The evaluation was therefore partly dependent on

feedback mechanisms and outcome measurements designed by the project co-ordinator and

approved by partners. Broad objectives were set and agreed by the partners in the project proposal,

were refined through the partner meetings and, in particular, in the report FLOWCHART – Guidelines

for Participants and Partner Organisations distributed in June 2010. Nevertheless, the input of

evaluation expertise at an earlier stage, in order to shape the project framework and guide mid-term

evaluation processes, would have been beneficial.

The evaluation study was therefore challenged by getting feedback from participants at a late stage

– in some cases, many months after the staff exchange had taken place. Nevertheless, it has proved

useful to get a longer-term view of the value of the exchanges and this has been linked with the

feedback reports submitted at the time of the placements.

There was a relatively short period of time to research and deliver the evaluation study and the

evaluator experienced the normal difficulties in getting responses from busy participants and

partners.

1.5. Acknowledgements

Thanks to ECAS staff (especially Clelia Casalino and Jade Rickman) and to all the project partners and

participants who responded to the questionnaire and evaluation requests for information.

2. Project Design & Timeframe

The Flowchart pilot project ran for one year, plus a short extension to allow for a final partners

meeting in January 2011. The project origins lay partly in the ‘One-Stop Shop’ initiative, run by ECAS

during the EU Year of Workers’ Mobility 2006 in partnership with Citizens Advice International

member organisations (including several of the Flowchart partners), and in subsequent initiatives.

The ‘One-Stop Shop’ project allowed ECAS to develop and test an ‘A-B-C Framework’ – and this

framework informed the conceptualisation and delivery of Flowchart:

7

A – Assistance to migrants: as this is about an inter-professional exchange of best practices of those

who are in direct and constant contact with end-users.

B – Building bridges: through the experience of the exchange and mentoring programme,

participants will look at the social and administrative environment around, relating their work with

other stakeholders (local authorities, third sector bodies etc.)

C – Cooperation: the project encourages participant stakeholders doing similar work to come

together through a study visit, a final conference and on web-based learning platforms.

The project was built around the staff exchange, a learning experience both for individuals and

organisations, which was organised at the mid-point. Other information and professional

development events came in the last stage of the project – a conference, study visit and publication.

3. Project Objectives

3.1. Project proposal objectives

Flowchart project proposal set out the following objectives (integrated with Award Criteria linked to

various aspects of the Citizenship Programme):

To develop an exchange programme among civil society organisations through which

information and advice professionals will learn from each other about how to deal with free

movement issues, via both physical and virtual mobility

To stimulate learning mobility about and for labour mobility, thus promoting a deeper and

more tangible European citizenship

To give citizens the opportunity to interact and participate in constructing a tighter-knit

Europe

In addition, the skills and knowledge transfer among organisations aimed:

To improve their services to European migrants

To cultivate tolerance, understanding and respect for the other’s social, cultural milieu,

needs and perspectives

To enhance peer learning: learning across borders and boundaries between NGOs on the

ground

The project methodology aimed:

To integrate intercultural dialogue

3.2. Partner objectives

As part of the evaluation consultation, the project organiser and partners were asked to define their

objectives for participating in the programme. All had signed up to the overall objectives set out in

the project proposal, although some partners were more involved than others in the

conceptualisation of Flowchart. Nevertheless, it is instructive to examine the motivations of

individual partners, particularly at the end of the project. Objectives may have shifted from the

8

original plan, due to the evolution of the project, to changes in the internal and external project

environment (e.g. political and economic factors, organisational challenges) and/or to factors of

cultural difference:

ECAS: - to encourage transnational mobility between the staff of citizen advice services, in

order to address free movement challenges within the EU

- to have an exchange of information and good practices between partner

organisations

- future objective is to create a network among the partner organisations and to

extend this network to other EU organisations

ACCEM: - to start to work on areas more directly linked to migration issues, mobility and

European citizenship rights

- to work with organisations from other countries that provide wider services,

including to nationals and legally resident third country nationals

CAB: - to build the capacity of UK advisors working with migrant workers from a wide

range of countries, enhancing professional skills and gaining cultural insights which

increase personal understanding of clients’ issues

FOCUS: - to create relationships with European networks

- to reinforce our experience on the project’s topics

- to get more experience of managing European projects

NACAB: - to acquire expertise on advocacy in the field of freedom of movement of citizens in

the EU labour market

- to learn from other NGOs how they provide information services for citizens

STEP: - to build on the experience and shared learning of the ‘One-Stop Shop’ project

- to have the opportunity to look at structures: policy and practice in “sending”

countries who are also “receiving” (UK/RO)

- to identify lessons for European policy

UCAB: - to get closer contact with our counterparts in other EU countries, especially UK

- to enable direct exchange of experiences between advisers and staff members of

umbrella organisations

From this, it is clear that partners were broadly motivated by learning and networking with

professional organisations in the field of free movement issues for migrant workers. Partners value

the differences and similarities between the partners. The project organiser, ECAS, is also focused

on the longer-term objective of building a network. The objectives of the individual partners

essentially echo those of the project proposal, although some elements are specific to individual

NGO partner needs and situations.

9

4. Project Partnership Network

Several project partners already knew each other from the ‘One-Stop Shop’ project and other

projects which ECAS has been involved in. Others knew partners by reputation (e.g. UCAB had basic

knowledge about CAB and ECAS; and they found out about NACAB activities before involvement in

Flowchart). Some had a connection but did not know each other directly – e.g. the NACAB network

of advice bureaux in Romania was built on the UK CAB model. Due to the partnering aspect of the

staff exchange, many project partners had the opportunity to develop new connections through

Flowchart, which has been a positive result of the project.

There was a great diversity of organisational cultures within the partner network, as well as

differences in the types of services and client profiles. For example, CAB (England & Wales) deals

with general citizens advice issues, of which migration represents some 11% of enquiries, while

ACCEM (Spain) deals solely with migration issues. This caused some challenges for the pairing of

organisations for staff exchange placements in order to meet organisational learning needs and

individual interests.

Partners’ comments on the network included one observation from STEP of uneven network

development over the period: finding that the key partners who were familiar with each other

shared an ethos and approach but this was not always clearly explained to or grasped by some

newer partners. NACAB observed that the network is an emerging one and that they had kept

contact with some partners more than others. The pace and process of network development, and

the geographical limitations of the pilot programme, may slow the emergence of a wider EU network

of migrant advisory services.

5. Staff Exchange Programme

The staff exchange programme proposed the selection of 1-3 participants from the partner

organisations, to each spend 10 day work placements in another country, mentored by a

counterpart, to learn about and participate in the life and work of their host organisation and

country. Following the FLOWCHART Guidelines for Participants and Partner Organisations, the

programme should link with the A-B-C framework (see Chapter 2) and have a strong cultural and

social focus, to help individual advisors to know more about where their clients come from or are

going to. The exchange programme was planned to take place between May and early July 2010.

Some logistical issues were encountered in delivering the planned staff exchange. This type of

exchange programme requires a longer preparation time for partner organisations than was possible

within the strict deadlines of this short pilot programme. Two organisations decided that, taking

into account their size and commitments, they would host one participant rather than two. Larger

partner organisations were pleased to be able to send an extra staff member. One late change in

availability of a host organisation caused some misunderstandings but this was subsequently

resolved. Some organisations were late to confirm dates and participants – which affected their

counterparts’ programme organisation as hosts. Nevertheless, the overall quality and results of the

placements have been very positive and the learning about the optimum preparation time for such

an exchange programme has been valuable for all partners.

10

The planned 10 day work placement was found to be too long for some participants and hosts and

was therefore modified. With variations in availability, the work placements ranged from 5 to 11

working days, with an average of just over 8 working days.

Partners used the draft selection criteria produced in February 2010 to identify candidates for the

exchange. The final guidelines and briefing for selection, participants and mentors were finalised in

mid-June after some placements had started. Several participants and hosts had short notice of the

visits and would have wanted a longer preparation time. The planned timetable was slightly

extended and one placement took place in September 2010.

Any future staff exchange programme would benefit from revising expectations based on the

realities encountered in the pilot. It should implement a rigorous planning, co-ordination, delivery

and evaluation process in close consultation with all participants.

Overall, the results and feedback were very positive for those involved in the staff exchange

programme. Although more planning time would have been beneficial, the evaluator found that the

work placements scheme was generally well conceived and executed and delivered the learning and

other benefits expected. The pilot scheme reached motivated, dedicated and communicative

participants, who were hosted by professional and committed organisations and mentors. This

assessment is based on the feedback reports from participants, blogs and the retrospective

evaluation reports around six months after the placements.

5.1. Selection of participants

The selection followed the draft guidelines which set out the type of participant, personal attributes

(enthusiasm, communication skills, sensitivity to migration issues, collaborative mindset and respect

for local cultures), professional experience and skills (notably English language) and availability for

both the work placement and study visit.

Some partners organised an open call for participants:

CAB organised an open call (following the organisation’s existing open protocol and the

project guidelines). There was considerable interest.

ACCEM used the project guidelines for selection. The competition was limited, mainly due to

English language requirement and ability to be away for longer than 2-3 days.

UCAB published the announcement internally but there was not much demand and little

time to follow up. It was difficult to find people who met the selection criteria (good English,

professional level and readiness to leave bureau for 10 days). There was a misunderstanding

about how many staff would be able to participate and a last minute change which meant

finding an extra participant.

Others made a personal selection or other process to determine participants:

FOCUS did not make a formal call or competition: there were only three candidates and two

did not have good enough English.

NACAB issued personal invitations to participants, based on their own goals for

dissemination of ideas, internally and to a wider public.

11

Flowchart project - staff exchange programme 2010

ACCEM (Spain) Marta Sainz de Baranda -> England (17.06.10 – 22.06.10) Micaela Romana Preoteasa->Romania (25.06.10 - 11.07.10) CAB (England/Wales) Clare Coard -> Spain (29.06.10 – 07.07.10) Daniela Blajan -> Romania (28.06.10 – 08.07.10) Emma Cook -> Poland (29.06.10 – 09.07.10) FOCUS (Italy) Amalia Romano -> Romania (28.06.10 – 04.07.10) NACAB (Romania) Mihaela Carstea -> England (15.06.10 – 25.06.10)

Olimpea Neagu -> Spain (29.06.10 – 07.07.10) Bogdan Munteanu -> Italy (21.06.10 – 01.07.10) STEP (N. Ireland) Marzena Czarnecka -> Poland (20.09.10 – 30.09.10) UCAB (Poland) Laurent Berthel -> England (15.06.10 – 25.06.10) Iza Henning -> Northern Ireland (15.06.10 – 24.06.10)

Added value for the staff exchange selection was delivered by:

Several agencies selected participants of the same nationality as the country to be visited

(e.g. Romanian advice worker based in Spain to visit Romania). This gave access to a much

greater scope for exchange and understanding of cultural codes. It brought these staff up to

12

date with the current realities for migrant workers from their former home country and was

highly beneficial.

It was very interesting because I could also appreciate the changes that Romanian society has made in the last ten years since I left Romania. (Micaela Romana Preoteasa, ACCEM)

One agency (NACAB) selected a journalist for the exchange, due to his ability to disseminate

ideas outside the agency network to a wider public. This proved beneficial, although the host

organisation had to devise a slightly different activity programme to meet the need.

As a foreign affairs journalist and collaborator of NACAB in citizen debates in Romania, I was interested in

finding out more about how migrants integrate in their adoptive countries. (Bogdan Munteanu, NACAB)

Participants’ motivation to be part of the project was based on professional interests:

The idea of learning new ways to involve the community, management issues and needs of

citizens, migration and what services can be developed.

I wanted to broaden my knowledge about migration issues, problems and solutions.

I have been working as an adviser for over 3 years and immigration has always been the

topic most interesting to me. I have also been through visa refusals and have clients with

similar problems so I find the subject of labour and movement very interesting.

We have a high proportion of EEA nationals coming to live and work in Birmingham. I

wanted more information on how we can make things easier for them to settle here. I also

wanted to know what problems EEA nationals were facing nationally as well as locally. I had

to apply for the exchange. There were 7 expressions of interest from Birmingham bureaux.

Since the beginning, I found this project very interesting and full of potential. The chance to

share experience and practices with other associations who work in the same field is the

best way to improve our work.

I am interested in international relations and connections. As a member of the NACAB

Board, I am responsible for developing international partnership and cooperation.

Some participants could choose the country they visited, but others were less successful:

I chose STEP in Northern Ireland because there are many Polish migrants in Ireland and

Northern Ireland and STEP has a very good experience in dealing with their problems.

I was particularly interested to go to Poland for an exchange, because I work with Polish

migrants in Northern Ireland who often decide to go back to their home country and ask me

what they need to do and what documents they should take from here to prove they have

been working. I did not have any idea about the law and system in Poland and decided to

learn from experience.

I was interested to collaborate with the Romanian CAB as I am Romanian. It is only because

of this project that I have found out that there is a CAB in Romania.

I would have been more interested in Poland or another Eastern European organisation to

learn about the needs of people moving to the UK [than the country I was allocated].

I was very interested in Poland as the percentage of Polish nationals in Birmingham is quite

high. I wanted to know more about the problems they face when living and working here. I

also wanted to know the situation they have left behind in Poland.

13

I was interested to visit a country that was formerly part of the Soviet Union and see how

they managed the democratic transition, how they are dealing with social and economic

problems and with the Roma community, which is one of the most challenging issues.

Spain is the country with the largest Romanian minority and the problems of Romanians

abroad are the focus of my organisation.

5.2. Work placement planning and preparation

Feedback from the staff exchange participants on the planning and preparation for the work

placement indicated that many would have welcomed additional time and information. In general,

many were not well informed about the wider Flowchart project at the point of selection although

this information gap was reduced by the time of the placement visit. Those who had to apply usually

took the initiative to research the project. In the UK, one of the three selected participants called a

joint meeting which was a useful preparation activity. For some exchange staff, the Flowchart

Guidelines package arrived too late for the preparation stage.

Many participants would have liked more preparation time:

I would recommend sending at least the draft programme of the visit in advance, as long as

possible beforehand.

There was information from other candidates but not much from the Flowchart coordinators

initially. We got information but it was late to prepare the exchange visit to us.

Due to only receiving the Guidelines on 18 June (part way through the visiting participants

stay in the UK), it was a struggle to ensure that what we had planned for them was aligned

with the purpose of the visit. It was the same when we visited them shortly afterwards.

We learned the dates our visitor was coming less than 3 weeks before she arrived. At such

late notice, I was unable to secure a visit to a regional office or with regional government

officers as all colleagues had full diaries. Visitors from the different countries participating in

the programme were available for different days.

Some issues internal to the partner/host organisation affected the planning:

There was some confusion about the dates for the visits and I had to take time off my job,

which I didn’t really want to do. But once committed to this project, I wanted to make sure

that I do it properly. I have lost a few days of pay for this.

I would have preferred more notice of the dates of staff exchange – there was a long delay

in finalising my visit. It came at a very busy time and my heavy workload prevented me from

undertaking much preparation.

We had some difficulties to organise properly the exchange with the second organisation.

We got the information very late about their participation. There were some

misunderstandings between me and the partner coordinator.

Participants contributed good tips on preparation for the exchange:

The best preparation was talking to my clients who want to go back to their home country as

they gave me an idea of the problems and difficulties they may have by asking me what they

14

need to do before leaving the UK and after arriving in Poland. I just wrote down their

questions and took them with me to CAB in Poland.

We had a meeting with all the UK delegates involved prior to our visits.

When the offer came to join the Flowchart project, I read up on the project’s aims so that I

could make an informed decision on whether to apply or not. I wanted to ensure that it was

something I would learn from and be able to share with my organisation.

5.3. Work placement staff exchange

Feedback from participants – positive aspects

I gained experience and practical working methods in terms of migration.

One of the best things was the possibility to find out how they work with migrants and how

volunteers coordinate their activities. I was impressed that most of the daily workload of

FOCUS CDS is carried out by volunteers of different backgrounds. For someone coming from

Romania … the way NGOs rely on volunteers’ work is a relatively new thing.

I think that it is very important for us as an organisation to know the realities from other

countries, to know how other professionals are dealing with the same issues that we are.

Special interest to know how CAB (England) works because NACAB (Romania) was built on

the UK model, though at smaller scale.

To feel myself a bit like a migrant, discovering in a very short time a lot of new issues

(especially linked to the British benefits system and additional requirements for Eastern

European migrants). Some unexpected events (a car accident and illness) were an

opportunity to deal with British institutions (the police and health services)

It was very helpful for me to learn something about the Northern Ireland legal system as I

had clients in my local CAB concerning Polish migrants in N.I.

The new connection with the advice bureau from the country where I need the most

information. Because I speak Polish and English, there were no communication challenges.

It was interesting to see that there are quite a few similarities between views about helping

people, about EU giving same treatment to all members; also the exchange of best practice

and information was useful.

Meeting Reyes and her team; learning so much about ACCEM and the Spanish immigration

system. The visits were interesting and every day was packed with visits and meetings.

Meeting all the other Bureau staff and sharing knowledge about different Bureaus.

Meeting Laurent from UCAB, Poland and seeing how it operates differently to ours. Sharing

best practice.

Getting an insight into the cultural differences of Poland. It was a very informative trip and I

would welcome another opportunity to repeat it.

The chance to get a direct experience of a foreign country society and associations, to

discuss with them the main social issues and share ideas with the other project participants,

who come from other countries and have different points of view.

The quality of the people involved in offering advice and information for migrants.

The cooperation between governments and NGOs offering services for migrants and the

state support for that.

Impressed by the power of the NGOs in Spain to influence public social policy.

15

We highly appreciated how well organised the small team was, focused on dealing with such

a large number of projects. The seriousness of NACAB’s approach to problem-solving has led

them to become an interlocutor with the government and influence on social policy.

Participation in a ‘Peace and Reconciliation’ course was a very specific and great experience.

All the subjects discussed and solutions found can be applied not only in the field of

community work with minorities or foreigners but also in one’s own personal beliefs.

One thing I find absolutely astounding and surprising about Northern Ireland is that so many

cases can be solved with a simple phone call to an institution. Coming from Poland, where

the administration in general does not show any trust towards a citizen, this is completely

shocking.

I found really interesting the quality assurance system CAB uses, since it is a great way of

demanding quality from partner organisations. All volunteers and paid staff are trained to

fulfil their roles. It was also really interesting how CAB collects gaps and misapplication of

laws and uses this information for social policy work and to influence policy-making.

To know the way other organisations work, their approaches when advising people,

methods and services. At Bassetlaw CAB, the debt service was very interesting and the

advice service on benefits. I considered really useful the methodology CAB uses to detect

gaps and bad practices – especially the EBEF (Electronic Bureau Evidence Form) to advocate

and achieve better policies.

Challenges – areas for further improvement (participants & partners)

I had the opportunity to speak to some migrants coming for assistance to FOCUS CDS,

however, they were mainly non-EU citizens. It would have been better to have had a special

appointment with an EU migrant/family, to ask them about the problems they face.

More contact in social time with the hosts over the weekend would have been appreciated.

Much of the content of the meetings was about immigration in general, rather than intra-EU

migration. We learned a great deal about people coming from countries of Africa but the EU

migration issue seemed to get less attention (“they have the same rights as Spanish

nationals” was the official response). I can’t believe this is true, especially during economic

downturn, and I would have liked to learn a lot more on this issue.

Money: there were problems with bank accounts and transfers. UCAB in Poland could not

support me financially when I was there so part of my stay was funded by personal finance

and partly through other partner in Poland. It was reimbursed afterwards. I felt the trip was

somewhat restricted as plans for visits and trips were delayed due to the funding crisis.

I think that only a few days to get an understanding of how a country and its organisations

manage problems are not enough but I am aware of the budget limitations.

5.4. Mentoring & visitor programme planning

The role of the mentors and the proposed structure of the programme for host organisations were

set out in the Flowchart Guidelines. In some cases the mentors were also staff exchange

participants, project partners acted as mentors and, in a few cases, the mentors were other

representatives from the host organisations. Several mentors responded to the evaluation

questionnaire (see Annex D).

16

Programmes varied in content and range, and were also dependent on the availability of visitors for

a shared common programme.

CAB: the programme included 3 days in London and 7 days in local bureaux (three visitors were each

sent to different locations). The London visits hosted by the central CAB office included the Houses

of Parliament and UK Government agencies, which was quite challenging to organise, but

appreciated by participants who thus gained a local, regional and national viewpoint.

STEP: set out the benefits and challenges of sending and receiving staff and highlighted a number of

useful points: the resource implications for an organisation to cope with absence of staff member

and how to provide ongoing management support for them during their placement; compatibility of

expectations between partners; preparation to enable critical evaluation of one’s own organisation

as an outcome. STEP also reported some problems in planning the Flowchart exchange. They

experienced two changes in the Polish organisation they were partnered with, and felt that they had

not been consulted on this, along with a misunderstanding and a lack of coordinated planning on the

timing and needs briefing for the visiting staff member. This situation was due to a proposed change

to the project to add another suitable partner organisation in Poland to extend the staff exchange;

however, in the end, this new partnership was not possible which caused some late changes.

NACAB: commented on how time-consuming it was to receive staff. But from an institutional point

of view they felt it was very beneficial.

UCAB: noted the bureau staff level is often very small and the absence of one staff member can

disturb the running of the service.

5.5. Networking and communication

Participants in the exchange programme were to communicate the experiences of the exchange, via

the dedicated Wordpress blog: http://flowchart4advisersonthemove.wordpress.com/

This was designed as an online open platform for daily diaries and to create a discussion forum on

EU migrant issues between participants and others.

The blog was used intensively during the project period and up to September 2010 but the level of

engagement reduced after the placements. It remains a valuable repository of experience and

impressions.

Staff exchange participants’ use of Flowchart blog

We use it, exchanging information, reading opinions

In the first phase I used it but then was too busy. Talks continue via email.

I did use the blog and was initially very eager to post comments, link to interesting articles

and try to stir up debate. I am afraid that this didn’t succeed. Most migrant advisors are

extremely busy people and they rarely find moments for blogging in their daily schedules.

I’ve done so in a limited way. We encountered problems with the delay for publishing a new

post on the blog.

I used the blog during my exchange. I am too busy to blog or chat after coming back to my

usual affairs.

17

I did not use the blog for networking with other participants, because I was too busy and the

blog was more about social connection rather than exchange of information.

I used the blog but sometimes it didn’t work properly. It was good to find out how all the

organisations involved work.

I used the blog to some extent, though I confess I mostly added to it after I returned rather

than daily updates when I was there as I didn’t have the energy during the visit.

The blog was very useful. However, it needed to be updated and authorised quicker. While

we were away, we would have to wait a number of days for the authorisation. Having access

to other participants’ blogs while on the placement would have been a more interactive

opportunity and maybe more comments would have been made.

I used it especially at the beginning of the project, but now I’m using it less often.

I put my impressions on the blog. It was useful.

Ongoing networking between participants

It’s very helpful to have a network with the countries delivering migrants, such as Romania,

to be in touch with the NGOs and to share information about new legislation, requirements,

social security, pensions.

The exchange helped make contacts which helps when we have clients from those countries.

I made good contacts within the project and would seek advice if an issue came up.

I have definitely extended my network. If I had a client from Poland who was struggling with

anything I thought Poland CAB could help with, I would have no hesitation to email.

Now I can share any issues or questions on the blog, or through the European Civil Society

House page, or direct by email to other participants.

5.6. Feedback mechanisms

The staff exchange participant’s perspective

Some participants had a formal, structured opportunity to share learning within their organisation:

Exchange of experience was presented at a seminar attended by several colleagues from

NACAB network.

I talked in our staff meetings about my involvement in this. I also posted information on our

internal e-bulletin.

I am the only person in the organisation working with the Polish community and I told my

supervisor about what I learned and how this is useful in my work. I keep a note of

everything for myself so I do not forget.

I kept in touch with the UK coordinator and briefed him on my views and experience.

I have submitted a list of areas that I felt could be explored by Citizens Advice. I have also

discussed a couple of areas with my manager.

I was able to feedback more formally to our board of trustees in a written and verbal report.

I was able to use some of the internal reports we have submitted for Flowchart.

It was discussed at Board meetings and at the NACAB General Assembly.

Some participants shared learning informally inside their organisation:

18

Feedback directly with my colleagues from the employment advisors department

During the visit to Brussels the three of us from NACAB had the chance to exchange views

about what we learned. I must admit the discussions were rather informal.

I was able to feedback informally to my team members.

I shared the experience I gained with my organisation, and we’d like to keep on working on

these issues with similar projects.

The project partner’s perspective

Limited scope of project: We have effective systems for dissemination of learning across the

organisation but we did find it rather difficult to prioritise communication about a project which

involved only three participants. (CAB – England & Wales)

Other urgent priorities: … it has been difficult to prioritise … in the face of the major developments

which have been taking place here during the past year. (CAB – England & Wales)

Feedback mechanisms: we shared feedback internally through our staff team and networks to share

and build on the learning from the exchange. Ongoing feedback with other project partners and with

our exchange partner was less coordinated; the method of networking and information sharing

tended to be exclusive to those on the exchange visits. It tended to become more social as opposed

to organisational networking. (STEP – Northern Ireland)

We had a debriefing session with the mentors and collected the opinions of participants in the

exchange, without any clear-cut strategy in this respect. I talked about the project during our

General Assembly. It was a great opportunity to tell members of the network that there are new

emerging opportunities to visit other NGOs outside Romania. (NACAB – Romania)

We planned to publish a Polish language report of the work placement and also publish online the

information gathered during the study visit in Brussels. However, due to the organisation’s heavy

financial and personnel situation, we could not realise this task. We still want to use this information

we gathered for future projects. (UCAB – Poland)

Project visibility in external events

Some participants and partners shared the learning of the project in other networks and contexts:

In a series of debates held in schools, in a project run by the EC representation in Romania, I

often have the chance to mention what I learned in Italy.

We talked about the project during a meeting of the Italian network on Asylum.

5.7. Value of the exchange programme

Feedback from staff exchange participants

I have improved my knowledge about free movement and also, what’s more important, all

of us have created links between one another. If we are ever in need, we can contact each

other and ask for help.

19

I know how the system works in the UK for migrant workers but didn’t know how the

situation looks when they decide to go back to Poland or move to another EU country. The

programme was useful as I could go to Poland and get the information I need for my Polish

clients, and also establish a link between the two countries and advice organisations to

exchange information which is changing all the time.

I think that a lot of our advisers understand better the importance of trying to know more

about the people who decide to settle in the UK. The main thing taken from this was that

not only the migrants need to learn about the culture and customs of the country they

decide to migrate to, but the locals also need to make efforts to understand migrants’

culture etc. to help them integrate better in the community they live in.

I do have a better understanding and knowledge and have attended a couple of seminars on

the issue. It has informed my work in supporting Citizens Advice Bureaux.

I most definitely have a better understanding and knowledge. It is hard to get it all down on

paper because I have learned so much.

Now I know better about free movement issues, both from the European and from the other

countries point of view. I knew how it works in Italy but I didn’t know how the other

countries managed it.

I learned that migrants are the principal actors of migration policy and NGOs have to

influence migration policy in order to assure the well being of individuals.

The quality of the people involved in offering advice and information to migrants is very

important (empathy & ability to understand the other, professionalism, information skills)

I understand better the need for CAB services to adapt continuously to the needs of

migrants in the context of increasing migratory flows.

We definitely talk about the project in our bureau, and even when new volunteers from the countries involved

in this project come to us, they are told about the exchange. People also ask me for information or help on

immigration-related topics more now. (Daniela Blajan, CAB)

Feedback from project partners

It was very valuable – in fact the learning is essential. I am only sorry that the scale of the

exchange was so small. (CAB)

It was good for our visitors to meet Members of the Houses of Parliament and Government

agencies, but the great benefits came from living for a week in the same communities as the

people requiring support. (CAB)

The exchange was a good thing for all organisations. It gave us ideas about other approaches

in managing legal advice centres and social projects for immigrants (FOCUS)

The exchange was valuable for the individual but less so for the organisation. There was a

lack of pre-planning on the project concept to identify clear and measurable outcomes to

provide a degree of strategic and organisational benefit. More emphasis on organisational

learning was required. (STEP)

I believe it was very valuable for the participants because it gave them a broader perspective

on how services and assistance is provided. (NACAB)

The professional learning component of an exchange programme is the most important

benefit. Other benefits include the cultural learning and networking. The greatest challenge

is to find the financial resources to organise such an exchange. (NACAB)

20

It’s really important for everyone in different positions to have the opportunity to be aware

of different ways of working, practices, national policy frameworks, needs and opportunities

etc. (ACCEM)

6. Conference, Study Visit & Information Resources

6.1. Study visit – Brussels: 2 & 4-5 November 2010

This was the first opportunity for all staff exchange participants to meet each other in person, along

with the project partners. An initial half-day workshop was a valuable networking and information-

sharing opportunity and was appreciated by all participants.

Following the Conference (6.2.), a Study Visit of 1.5 days took participants to a range of EU

institutions, including the European Parliament. Most participants gave positive feedback on the

study visit and the only comments were that, if anything, the study programme was a little too

intensive for some. A few participants reported ‘information overload’ by the end of the study visit,

perhaps a result of the 3 day programme (workshop, conference, study visit) which addressed

different levels of knowledge among the participants.

We planned the study visit so that participants could meet high level staff – for example, Mrs Chiara Adamo,

Head of Unit of DG Justice at the European Commission and Mrs Gadesmann, the Media and External Relations

Officer of the European Ombudsman. We visited the European Ombudsman’s office and learned about its role

and mandate, with several examples of its activities. (Clelia Casalino, ECAS)

The project partners’ perspective

It was very useful. Perhaps dividing into smaller groups would make the discussions easier

and more dynamic.

The visits were useful and helpful to systematise my knowledge about these institutions and

their tasks

This was truly excellent – a real privilege to participate. The last day did not ‘deliver’ a lot of

learning but it did allow people to unwind and share some thoughts.

I was expecting to have meetings with key personnel from the institutions we visited. I

appreciated very much the visit.

The staff exchange participants’ perspective

It was useful to see the differences in the social security system and the pension system for

each country. The most important to me was to see the big steps made through a common

European policy in this field.

Very useful, especially the European information resources on migration issues for

dissemination in Romania.

Speakers representing their places of employment seem to be happy with the existing law

provisions but they have no idea how they work in real life.

I found the study visit tiring but very interesting. There was a lot of information.

21

There were meetings that were of interest but some were very dry. The final session on

legal issues was long and went into far too much detail. Meeting the other Flowchart

participants was probably the most interesting.

The programme was a bit tiring, overwhelming us with information.

Before the conference we had the chance to know each other’s experiences and different

policies concerning European citizens’ movement. It shows that more cohesion is needed.

Rights of European citizens should not be different depending on the EU country they live in.

6.2. ‘Mind the Gap’ conference – Brussels: 3 November 2010

Participants were generally very positive about the conference, the quality of speakers and the

content. There were a few comments on the gap between the rhetoric and the reality, particularly

from some of the ‘grassroots’ advisors who confront the daily realities of migrants.

The conference was hosted by the European Economic and Social Committee and we were delighted that the

EESC President, Mr Nilsson, welcomed participants. The keynote speech was delivered by Viviane Reding, Vice-

President of the European Commission and EU Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship.

We had other important speakers such as Mr Diamandouros (the European Ombudsman), Mr Lowe (Head of

Secretariat of the Petitions Committee) and Mrs Verhoeven (Head of SMAS Task Force at the European

Commission). (Clelia Casalino, ECAS)

The level and content of the conference was very good with a high representation of the EU institutions,

although some of the information services presented lacked a close perspective on the reality and how to make

them accessible to all persons within the EU. (Reyes Castillo, ACCEM)

The Flowchart project should have some impact on how EU officials perceive real problems of ordinary people

in the EU. They should have the possibility to learn what the implementation of laws looks like and that it is not

such a perfect system. (Iza Henning, UCAB)

The project partners’ perspective

This was really helpful. I thought the speakers were excellent and very varied so that

everyone attending could find something useful.

The conference was beneficial as it highlighted the similarity of experiences of migrants in

many parts of Europe. It also highlighted how the disparity between EU and domestic law

and social policy has created a hierarchy of citizenship and entitlements which perhaps has

not, until recently, been appreciated at Commission level.

I liked it but I had the feeling the event was only for people who had mastered the

knowledge and language on freedom of movement. I liked very much the intervention of the

EU Commissioner. I had the feeling the speakers were in touch with the realities.

Some comments on the set up: the room was too large and the seating arrangement was

not designed for a debate. At times the speakers did not allow for many questions.

The speeches were perhaps more theoretical, but it was interesting for me to see the

connection between institutional EU-level action and grassroots action of our organisations.

The staff exchange participants’ perspective

The content level was appropriate and complete. For me, most interesting presentations

were from the legal advisor and the Ombudsman.

22

It was useful to find out more about what the European Commission is doing about making

the concept of European Citizenship as real as possible. I wrote an article about it in

Romanian on my blog.

The speakers were experts in their various fields but they were somehow too diverse.

Enforcing movement rights in the EU is a broad theme – maybe it should be cut into

different segments, each with their own conference.

The speakers who represent NGOs or other institutions working with migrants present

perfect and deep knowledge about the migrant issue.

Speakers who are EU officers in general are not aware of how difficult it is for an ordinary

person to exercise his or her rights, especially on the European level. They were absolutely

not in touch with the reality.

This conference was very useful as it gave us all an idea about how the EU handles the issue

of migrant workers and the difficulties they face in everyday life. We could also input from

our point of view what the problems are and possible solutions. The conference also allowed

us to find out about new information website for migrant workers in the EU.

The only thing I would change would be to split the conference into two days as there was

so much new information. For some of us it was very difficult to concentrate in the

afternoon. A break would give us time to think things over and plan questions for next day.

The conference was very interesting. The speakers were definitely in touch with the realities

of migrants and their needs and the need for information services.

I found most of the conference relevant and of interest. It was particularly interesting to

hear an EU Commissioner speak. Some of the content was rather dry. I felt that some of the

Flowchart participants brought the topic to life best.

Very useful to know what they are doing at a European level.

I thought all the speakers were coming from a very ‘hands on’ view of migration needs.

Lots of info, websites and portals. Might be a good idea to link them and give a structure of

the support on offer.

I found the conference very interesting, even if the information services the speakers talked

about were sometimes far from the real migrant needs and far from the reality of some

countries. These kinds of websites and services often don’t deal with the administrative and

legal barriers that migrants face, when moving to other countries. They don’t deal with the

most important barriers: discrimination and race issues.

It was a pleasure to hear the speakers. They were in touch with the realities and up to date

on problems of migrants.

I felt that some staff from EU institutions seem to be a bit out of the reality – they should

participate in exchange visits too, to know better how things are in the field.

23

7. Overall Benefits of Flowchart

In addition to the previous benefits identified by the staff exchange, project partners were asked to

identify the three main benefits of their participation in Flowchart. These are aggregated as follows:

Intercultural dialogue and learning

Increased opportunity for face-to-face discussion

Increased opportunity to EXPERIENCE other cultures

Learning that the problems encountered by migrants are quite similar, regardless of the

country of origin or destination

To broaden my horizons, meet other people and cultures

Professional development

Increased insights into a wider range of issues on migration

More experience of European projects

To share learning, challenges and opportunities

Providing a new beginning for my organisation in terms of having exchange programmes

Networking

Useful contacts

Continued opportunity to network at European level

Contact making, potential partnerships for project proposals

Knowledge of new partners with a broader profile in the migration field

Getting in touch with a leading agency with relevant and outstanding role and actions

Knowledge and good practice

Information on different approaches

To critically evaluate and improve our services against EU Best Practice

Learning about information services provided by other NGOs

To get comprehensive information about citizen advice in other EU countries

Other specific benefits:

It was a good opportunity for our organisation in the long run – we did not have much

contact with NGOs in Spain or Italy before although they are the country choice for most

Romanians looking for a job abroad. I think it is a good opportunity to base future research

on the issue of Romanian labour force migration with these partners. (NACAB)

As I travel around different advice bureaux, I find it easier now to discuss migration issues

having learned from the programme. I feel more confident in posing possible ways forward

for the organisation – including further exchange programmes. (CAB)

24

It’s been an opportunity to develop, analyse and study new partners, actions and future

developments within the EU on internal migration, mobility issues, third country nationals’

situation and legal status. (ACCEM)

8. Follow-up Plans

8.1. Future staff exchange programmes

Project partners recognise the value of the exchange and made suggestions for future programmes.

In respect of the ideal time for a placement, partners made different recommendations indicating

varying needs (between 4 days and 3 weeks). It is noted that there is a potential mismatch between

the high level of interest from some countries (with larger, better organised and resourced advice

services) to visit countries which are ‘exporting’ migrants (e.g. Poland, Romania) which do not

necessarily have the staff and institutional capacity to receive such numbers. The matching of

migration flows and organisational capacity should be addressed in any future programme in the

project design, conceptualisation and partnerships.

ACCEM requests shorter placements – no longer than 4-5 days, stating that 10 days is impossible for

certain staff profiles due to professional commitments. It would be useful to incorporate visits to

other locations in the country to get a wider perspective on policy and practice. Mentors should be

involved in any study visits or networking.

CAB: there is a strong interest in a future programme. The project partner notes that, although the

organisation has 20,000 advisors (16,000 are trained volunteers), few could afford the time or

personal expense, however small, to undertake an extended visit. The recommendation is for

exchange visits for 50 people in the UK, with at least 100 more virtual placements (structured e-

mentoring opportunities, at all levels – from Chief Executive to local advisor). The e-networking

opportunities need to be structured, clearly defined and managed to ensure engagement,

participation and delivery in a highly pressured work environment. CAB feels that a 10 day work

placement was difficult on both sides and is too long. The recommendation is five working days plus

weekends on either side with 8 days accommodation budgeted to allow for social/cultural

interchange activities over the weekends.

FOCUS: would like to have the chance of an exchange programme for a couple of volunteers each

year. 1-2 weeks is the best duration. All are volunteers so money is an issue.

NACAB: definitely interested in future exchanges. With a network of 37 branches, at least one

member per branch could be a potential candidate. They favour a longer exchange (2-3 weeks) in

order to learn and exercise the methods used by the host NGOs with citizens.

STEP: is interested in principle in a future programme but would want to ensure a greater degree of

participation in the pre-planning, outcome measurement and involvement in decision-making from

the outset. They wish to secure exchanges that meet organisational and strategic objectives.

UCAB: is interested in a future exchange programme but not more than 2-3 persons per year. A

placement of around 1 week is ideal.

25

None of the project partners made a strong commitment to cover a proportion of the costs of any

future exchange programme and most said that they definitely could not do so.

Project participants have wide-ranging, ambitious ideas for future staff exchange programmes. In

general, they would favour a scaling up to include more countries, more diverse and multiple

exchanges and better strategies for overcoming the information gap:

A larger participation, including professionals from all the EU countries, can give a larger

perspective on the European realities. A multiple exchange would be interesting – every

participant would have the opportunity to know reality of each country, increasing the

programme to 7-9 months.

I think organisations could be co-opted from the Nordic countries, from Germany and

Austria, as they have experience of working with migrant citizens.

The countries which have to deal with incoming migratory flows like Italy, Spain, UK remain

of interest. Add Germany and France. It would also be very interesting to see the problems

of migrants in other countries, usually out of the media spotlight, where press reports show

the situation is far from ‘ideal’ – e.g. Denmark & Czech Republic.

The only thing to think of might be including all the EU countries, not just a few.

I think that if all EU members are involved in something similar, that might be a help. But

there is definitely a need for more help for the non-EU countries.

Widen the participation to other countries. It could be a way to raise our knowledge about

how free movement issues work in other countries and legislations. It could be useful to visit

as many countries as possible, even though it would be expensive.

We should invite public institutions too, not just civil society organisations. It could be a

good way to lobby.

Add countries such as France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden & Switzerland.

A wider range of countries would be useful – for example, we serve large communities from

Lithuania and Latvia.

To include more countries to give a more general overview. Also to invite members of

administration bodies to participate in the visits so that they know more about reality.

Participants’ ideas on better forms of information-sharing:

I think there should be a system of sharing the information between all the participants

because situations change and there are new questions that need answers.

I think the network has first of all been created. In practice it works via email. I think it would

be good to create a way for all of us to share the experience and ask questions without

repeating them. In this way, others can learn from the questions.

Participants’ ideas on specialist exchange needs:

My interest in this project was largely around the management of NGOs, raising funds,

meeting advice needs and mobilisation of volunteers.

To replicate the programme with other partner organisations and countries, on the topic of

social coordination mechanism.

Participants on how to organise the exchanges better:

26

I think that an event at the outset to bring together all participants, even if via video

conferencing, would be beneficial. That would enable the aims and potential outcomes of

the project to be explained and for participants to meet and get to know each other.

More time for preparation needed. We needed information quicker to plan better.

Give the budget in the same way, half each, but use one half for here and the other half to

take with you when you go to the ‘other’ European country.

More online forums to get everyone talking from the start. Get blogs organised better and

be quicker with authorisation so more interactive.

Provide details of all involved with contacts etc. and a little info on each of them.

Money is a big issue in this project as some people just don’t have it up front and then they

feel they can’t be involved due to not being able to afford the outlay.

The UK partner organisation coordinator did a fantastic job. However, with a little more

time, more money and timely information he would have been able to achieve more.

Better information about the goals and aims of the visits for the participants. Host

organisations should have more information about their role.

8.2. European network of migrant advisors

While this is a key objective of ECAS and was part of the Flowchart partner discussions, for some

partners, the EU network concept is not yet fully evolved or ready for implementation. The future

network was discussed at the final partners’ meeting on January 19 2011 to finalise the Charter on a

Commitment to ensuring Free Movement of Persons/Migrants within the EU. This Charter underpins

the commitment of civil society organisations that provide advice and assistance to migrants to

contribute to a European network of migrant advisors with an online forum.

ECAS notes that the network space has been created online (http://citizenhouse.ning.com/). It has

to be constantly fed by the partners with an exchange of information, comments and mutual help.

STEP comments: The web network has some potential to be beneficial but also has the capacity to

add to rather than detract from the confusion. It is crucial that individuals understand the difference

between their personal opinion and experience / organisational perspectives / experience and the

actual realities of life for very vulnerable migrants and the legal and social policy framework within

which they find themselves.

NACAB: I think it is too soon to try to transform the network into a formal construct – maybe let

them interact a little online and see where it goes. I see the continuation of the project with a

research-based grant, in order to collect grass roots information on problems encountered by

citizens exercising their right to freedom of movement, and then formulate institutional

recommendations based on the findings. I believe the focus should be on using the individuals who

participated in the exchange programme and think of research-based professional initiatives.

ACCEM: I feel this is a project with a lot of possibilities. The theme is very relevant within European

policies.

We are all very close due to the Flowchart project and I feel that we should continue to keep hold of this small

network and work to improve the gap. (Emma Cook, CAB)

27

9. Project Management

ECAS reported on several challenges in the management and delivery of the project. As a one year

pilot, the timeframe was extremely short for the number of actions planned. A prolongation was

agreed with the European Commission to finalise certain elements.

The planned research report (‘Who’s afraid of the free movement of people within the EU’ –

subsequently re-titled as Report on Worker Mobility in the EU) was not completed for publication

and distribution in autumn 2010, as foreseen by the project Activity Schedule. This was due to the

author becoming involved in other work connected to the Hungarian EU Presidency. As a result, the

planned launch at the European Parliament did not happen and the report was published in 2011,

with dissemination through partners due to take place after the end of Flowchart project.

Feedback on the coordination was mostly positive, although there were some comments about

delays and misunderstandings in the staff exchange programme (see Chapter 5). In general, some

participants in the staff exchange did not understand the scale of the European project and expected

a large Flowchart co-ordination office in Brussels, which was not within the remit of this small pilot.

A lot of work went into the FLOWCHART Guidelines for Participants and Partner Organisations. This

valuable document can certainly be useful for future exchanges. However, for Flowchart it was

finalised and circulated rather late for the planning phase. It was sent out after four of the staff

exchanges had started and too close to the other exchange dates to act as an adequate and

professional briefing to mentors and participants about the programme’s aims and roles. In

particular, it was not available in good time to those in a host country planning visitor programmes.

Comments from partners and participants on co-ordination:

The coordination team was professional and helpful

Planning meetings with ECAS were well conducted and gave useful insights as well as simply

planning the exchanges and other programme work.

There was insufficient involvement of the partners in the development of the concept,

project and budget. This impacted on timetables, planning and effective relationship

building.

Maybe, at times, I felt that the pace of the project was a little low. But I am aware of the

challenges one NGO has in working with so many partners as ECAS did on Flowchart.

The project was very well coordinated and the communication was quite fluent.

I think this exchange programme was very well organised and structured. (Micaela Romana Preoteasa, ACCEM)

28

10. Recommendations

The recommendations address both the Flowchart project and a future follow-up exchange

programme.

10.1. Project design & timeframe

R #1 A longer project with more partners, countries and exchanges would allow for a more

extensive experience and greater opportunities for comparison and analysis.

R #2 While the A, B, C Framework was a constant (highlighted in the proposal, Guidelines,

Flowchart blog, Charter), it is unclear to what extent the partners and participants found it

useful in guiding the project concept and delivery. It is recommended that the Framework

text and principles be re-examined in any future project.

10.2. Project objectives

R #3 Clear objectives should be agreed at the outset to ensure that the exchange programme has

common learning outcomes within a shared strategic framework.

R #4 There is a need for a better integration between individual professional development and

organisational development goals. This should be clearly set out in objectives for a future

exchange programme, along with outcome measurements.

R #5 The cultural and social learning aspect of the exchange programme, alongside the intensive

process of sharing information and best practices, generated positive impacts and should be

incorporated into any future programme.

10.3. Staff exchange

R #6 Adequate time should be given to the planning and co-ordination of a staff exchange

programme.

R #7 Staff exchanges should be planned in close consultation with partners, in terms of time

availability for visits and organisational capacity for hosting.

R #8 All partners should commit to a rigorous timetable for delivery and decision-making on staff

exchanges to allow for professional management of hosting and sending.

R #9 The Flowchart guidelines for selection of participants were valuable and can be adapted for

future programmes. The English language requirement inhibited participation in some

countries and could be re-examined in some contexts.

R #10 Best practice from the Flowchart experience should be incorporated into a new version of

the Guidelines, particularly in terms of preparation tips and ideas for feedback mechanisms.

R #11 Participants, hosts and mentors should receive Guidelines and briefing information well in

advance of visits.

29

R #12 In addition to feedback from exchange participants, feedback from hosts and mentors would

be valuable and provide balance.

R #13 A coordinated reporting mechanism would allow the project co-ordinator to record when

and where the project is presented, tracking visibility and sharing of the project impacts.

R #14 Networking of mentors could be a valuable addition to a future programme: learning about

the methods and experiences of other mentors would be useful to improve the programme.

Mentors should be invited to any network event or study visit.

R #15 The use of a blog for project diaries and debate is valuable. However, it should be better

managed, avoiding delays in publishing and authorisation, perhaps through an intranet

system. It must be acknowledged that advisors are generally too busy to use social media

tools for blogging in general work and this limits the blog as an ongoing communication tool.

R #16 Any future exchange project might incorporate specialist themes, individual programmes or

particular training needs. It could involve one-way exchange visits where appropriate. A

needs and capacity analysis would be required to inform the priorities and scope of such a

programme.

R #17 The development of a flexible fund to support exchanges that build knowledge and

information-sharing for professional capacity-building across migrant advisory services,

would be highly beneficial. This might mirror the EU Grundtvig scheme for lifelong learning

mobility and training exchanges (for staff, volunteers and learners).

R #18 Any exchange programme that addresses volunteers and low paid advisory staff must be

extremely responsive and precise in its systems for financial reimbursement of expenses.

10.4. Conference & Study Visit

R #19 Project events which allow partners, staff and volunteers to meet EU officials, experts, visit

institutions and engage in debate and discussion with an equal exchange of views are

valuable learning experiences for both sides.

10.5. EU Migrants’ Advisory Services Network R #20 The ning online platform is a positive start to the online network – it is recommended that

ongoing animation and editorial support be provided to develop participation, either from

inside or outside the existing Flowchart network.

R #21 A follow-up exchange project would help extend the network of contacts and build support

for a more structured EU Migrants’ Advisory Services Network.

R #22 Consideration could be given to developing projects that generate needed European

research or mapping in the field of migrants advisory services and needs (e.g. publications,

web resources, toolkits) for and by the network. This can be a way of promoting the network

and providing valuable tools for others in the field, thus encouraging their participation.

R #23 Close collaboration with relevant networks in the field is recommended, to avoid duplication

and to explore whether the proposed network might operate best independently or as a

30

working group within an existing structure.

31

ANNEXES

A: Evaluation questionnaire – partners 1. What were your objectives in joining the FLOWCHART project?

2. Did you already know the other project partners? 3. How do you feel the FLOWCHART network has developed over the course of the project? Do you have

any professional contacts with other project partners outside the FLOWCHART project? (e.g. new planned joint projects)

4. How did you select the participants for the staff exchange? If there was an open call, was there much

demand/competition? 5. Did you organise any feedback mechanism inside your organisation after the staff exchange/placement

- if so, was this a good way to share the learning? 6. Do you feel the exchange was valuable and relevant for your organisation? (e.g. for the staff

member/s concerned, for mentors, for the organisation overall) 7. Do you have any other staff you think would benefit from a similar staff exchange/placement scheme?

If so, approximately how many staff members per year? How long should the placement last? Would your organisation be able to cover a proportion of the costs? (If so, what %)

8. What do you feel are the benefits and challenges of sending staff on a staff exchange? 9. What do you feel are the benefits and challenges of receiving staff on a staff exchange? 10. Did you attend the conference & study visit in Brussels (November 2010)? - If so, what were your

perceptions of the event/s: a) Mind the Gap conference (3 Nov) How useful did you find this? Was the content level appropriate? Did you feel the speakers were in touch with the realities of migrant advisory needs and information services? Any other comments? b) Study visit (4 Nov) How useful was this – level of content – any other comments?

11. Do you have any comments on how the project was coordinated? (e.g. organisation of meetings and

other project delivery aspects) 12. One of the aims of this project was for information & advice professionals to learn from each other

about how to deal with free movement issues: do you feel you have any new understanding and/or knowledge about these issues?

13. Do you participate in any networks or forums (local, regional, national, international) where you have

been able to share experience and knowledge you have gained from FLOWCHART project? If so, please give details.

14. Overall, what for you have been the 3 main benefits of participation in FLOWCHART? (for you as an

individual, or for your organisation, or both) 15. To what extent do you feel your objectives in joining the FLOWCHART project have been met?

32

16. What do you see as the future of FLOWCHART? Do you have any ideas about how to develop the network?

B: Evaluation questionnaire – staff exchange participants

1. Why were you interested in taking part in the FLOWCHART project staff exchange?

2. Did you have to apply? - If so, was there much competition?

3. Were you particularly interested in that country and/or organisation? – If so, why?

4. Did you know anything about the FLOWCHART project (aims, partners, structure etc.) before your placement?

5. Did you have a chance to prepare for the visit? Do you have any recommendations for the

preparation phase?

6. Was the length and timing of the staff exchange appropriate for you, personally, and for your organisation? Any comments on this?

7. Did you have a chance to feedback what you learned from the staff exchange to your organisation?

- If so, how did this happen? Do you have any recommendations for the feedback phase?

8. Did you use the FLOWCHART blog for networking with other staff exchange participants? Was this useful?

9. What were the most positive aspects of the staff exchange? Were there any particular challenges?

10. Did you attend the conference & study visit in Brussels (November 2010)? - If so, what were your

perceptions of the event/s: a) Mind the Gap conference (3 Nov)

How useful did you find this? Was the content level appropriate? Did you feel the speakers were in touch with the realities of migrant advisory needs and information services? Any other comments?

b) Study visit (4 Nov) How useful was this – level of content – any other comments?

11. Do you participate in any networks or forums (local, regional, national, international) where you

have been able to share the experience and knowledge you have gained from the FLOWCHART project? If so, please give details.

12. Have you participated in any other exchange/training programmes related to migrants’ advisory

issues? Please give details.

13. One of the aims of this project was for information & advice professionals to learn from each other about how to deal with free movement issues: do you feel you have any new understanding and/or knowledge about these issues?

14. Since you participated in the FLOWCHART staff exchange, do you feel that you have extended your

network of people to share issues and questions on migrants’ advisory needs? - If so, how does this work in practice?

15. If a similar European staff exchange programme could be run in future, do you have any

recommendations about how to organise it? Are there any countries or particular professional interests that you would like to see included?

33

16. Any other comments or suggestions on how to improve a future programme?

C: Evaluation questionnaire – mentors

1. How did you get involved as a mentor in the FLOWCHART staff exchange?

2. Did you know anything about the FLOWCHART project (aims, partners, structure etc.) before the staff exchange visits?

3. What did you contribute to the staff exchange? (e.g. programme organisation, programme delivery, hosting etc.)

4. Is this kind of work part of your normal duties? Do you feel you had adequate support and time to

take it on?

5. What do you feel were the benefits of the staff exchange visit? - In particular, for the host organisation and for you as a mentor.

6. Were there any particular challenges or difficulties you had to deal with during the staff exchange?

7. Do you have any recommendations about organising future staff exchanges of this type?

8. The staff exchange participants and project partners attended a conference and study day on migrants’ advisory services and free movement issues in Brussels. Do you think it would have been useful for you to be able to attend this event, and to network with other mentors on the project?

9. Any other comments or suggestions on how to improve a future programme?

34

D: List of respondents

Project coordination partners Tony Venables (ECAS – European Citizen Action Service) Clelia Casalino (ECAS – European Citizen Action Service) Reyes Castillo (ACCEM, Spain) Paul Baird (CAB – Citizens Advice, England & Wales) Carla Baiocchi (FOCUS Casa dei Diritti Sociali, Italy) Ioan Tanase (NACAB – National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, Romania) Bernadette McAliskey/Edel Fox (STEP – South Tyrone Empowerment Programme, Northern Ireland) Laurent Berthel (UCAB – Union of Citizens Advice Bureaux, Poland)

Staff exchange participants Laurent Berthel (UCAB, Poland) Daniela Blajan (CAB, England – Rushmoor) Mihaela Carstea (NACAB, Romania) Clare Coard (CAB, England) Emma Cook (CAB, England – Birmingham/BCABS) Marta Czarnecka (STEP, Northern Ireland) Iza Henning (UCAB, Poland – Radlin) Bogdan Munteanu (NACAB, Romania) Olimpia Neagu (NACAB, Romania) Micaela Romana Preoteasa (ACCEM, Spain) Amalia Romano (FOCUS – Casa dei Diritti Sociali, Italy) Marta Sainz de Baranda (ACCEM, Spain)

Staff exchange programme mentors Laurent Berthel (UCAB, Poland) Reyes Castillo (ACCEM, Spain) Edel Fox (STEP, Northern Ireland) Alina Iosifescu (NACAB, Romania) Ana-Maria Suciu (NACAB, Romania)