Passing the minimum threshold is not the same as being funded. Most Erasmus+ applications that are rejected were not below the minimum — they scored in the 60–72 range, passed every threshold, and still did not make the funded band because competing applications scored higher. The difference between a 65-point application and an 82-point application […]
Receiving an Erasmus+ rejection is disappointing. But the rejection comes with something valuable — a Quality Assessment report that tells you exactly how your application was scored, criterion by criterion, and why each section received the score it did. Most organisations file the rejection email and do not look at the Quality Assessment report again.
The Erasmus Accreditation is one of the most valuable things an Erasmus+ organisation can hold. Once accredited, you receive annual funding for mobility activities without reapplying each year — no full application, no competitive evaluation, no uncertainty. You submit a simplified annual funding request and the grant follows. The gateway to that annual funding is
Between 60% and 75% of Erasmus+ KA2 applications do not receive funding in any given call. Most of the organisations behind those applications had a genuine project idea that could have made a real difference. The idea was not the problem. Erasmus+ applications fail at three distinct points — before evaluation begins, at the minimum
The 2026 Erasmus+ deadline is approaching. You have written your application. Before you submit, there is a final set of checks that every experienced Erasmus+ coordinator runs through — and that every first-time applicant should know about. Applications are rejected for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the project idea: a
KA210 Small-Scale Partnerships are designed for first-time applicants and smaller organisations — but that does not mean the application is easy to write well. A weak KA210 project description is rejected just as decisively as a weak KA220 application. The lower grant amount does not lower the evaluation bar. This guide walks through every component
The Relevance section is the most important part of your KA220 application. It is worth 25 points out of 100 — and it determines whether everything else you write gets read seriously. Evaluators who score a proposal low on Relevance rarely find enough in the other criteria to compensate. A strong Relevance score sets the
Intellectual outputs are the most visible — and most scrutinised — deliverables in a KA220 Cooperation Partnership. They are what the project produces for the wider world: the training curriculum, the toolkit, the digital platform, the open educational resource. Evaluators look at them to judge whether the project justifies its budget, whether the partnership is
Budget planning is where many otherwise strong Erasmus+ proposals fall apart. Applicants either under-budget key activities — making the project look underfunded and unrealistic — or over-request on vague line items that evaluators cannot justify. Both outcomes damage your score on financial capacity and project design. This guide walks you through how Erasmus+ budgets actually
A work plan template is only useful if you know how to fill it in correctly. Most Erasmus+ applicants find generic templates online, copy the structure, and then write activities that are too vague, assign everything to the coordinator, or produce a timeline that back-loads all the deliverables into the final two months. This guide
The sustainability section is where the majority of Erasmus+ proposals lose points they should not lose — not because the project lacks genuine long-term value, but because applicants do not know how to write it in the language evaluators are trained to recognise. “The partnership will continue to collaborate after the project” is not a
The dissemination plan is one of the most consistently underwritten sections in Erasmus+ proposals. Most applicants treat it as an afterthought — a short paragraph mentioning a project website, a few social media posts, and a final conference. Evaluators see this in almost every application they read, and it scores accordingly. A strong dissemination plan
The work plan is the operational heart of your Erasmus+ proposal. It is where evaluators check whether your project is genuinely feasible — whether the activities are realistic, the timeline is logical, and each partner has a clear, meaningful role. A strong work plan does not just describe what you will do; it shows that
Weak objectives are one of the most reliable predictors of a low-scoring Erasmus+ proposal. Evaluators read hundreds of applications — and vague statements like “improve skills,” “raise awareness,” or “foster collaboration” appear in almost all of them. They tell an assessor nothing specific, and they score accordingly. Strong objectives do three things at once: they
The impact section is where many Erasmus+ proposals lose points they should not lose. The content is often there — the project idea is solid, the activities are planned — but it is not written in the language evaluators are trained to recognise. In the 2026 Erasmus+ evaluation framework, Impact accounts for up to 30
The Erasmus+ logical framework — often called the logframe — is one of the most misunderstood parts of the application form. Many applicants either skip it, fill it in as an afterthought, or treat it as a simple summary of activities. All three approaches cost points. Done correctly, the logframe is one of the most
Writing an Erasmus+ proposal for the first time can feel overwhelming. The application form is long, the evaluation criteria are specific, and the competition is tougher than ever. But the good news is that there is a clear, repeatable process behind every successful proposal — and once you understand it, the form becomes far more
Many Erasmus+ applicants assume that evaluators read project proposals from beginning to end, carefully analysing every sentence in equal detail. In reality, evaluation is a structured, time-limited process where clarity, logic, and relevance determine whether your proposal stands out or disappears among dozens of others. Understanding how evaluators actually read Erasmus+ proposals can dramatically improve
