1. Strategy and Quality WG
EG Survey – feedback received from the network
Network meeting in Tallinn, September 29, 2017

2. Purpose Evaluate the past or collect data to understand the future?
Possible to do both or better with just the impact assessment?
Survey just to evaluate whether EG is a tool for promoting needs of the
EC?
Purpose to see what EG means to guidance counsellors and to find
out about our main stakeholders?

3. Target group Guidance counsellors are the main target group
Previous surveys directed towards the public – not relevant
Each national centre should have the opportunity to outline its stakeholders
Other possible target groups; former ELGPN members, responsible national Agencies, other national level stakeholders, trainers of guidance counsellors, end users
Also the EG centers themselves constitute a target group

4. Survey design
Difference in measuring impact among different target groups
Different methods could complement the survey
Open ended questions, multiple choice, interviews, focus groups etc
Introduction to the EG network before interview
Time aspect
Questions could be divided in different categories
An accompanying letter

5. Survey questions
What does Euroguidance mean to people?
How wide-ranging are you stakeholders? What types of organisations/experts/sectors/practitioners etc do you interact with?
When do your stakeholders refer to/contact Euroguidance?
What is the added-value of Euroguidance in the eyes of your stakeholders?
What are the types of products, services, trainings, policy impact that stakeholders have benefited from?
How do you think Euroguidance should evolve over the next 25 years?
Are the priorities and tasks of Euroguidance still relevant?
How can Euroguidance respond to the challenges to European mobility and lifelong learning?
Ask about specific services, not what EG means to people
Ask about benefits of services as well as about impact on a more policy oriented level
Added value - respondents should be given examples of expectations
25 years is a too long perspective – ask EG network members about this
Don’t ask if the priorities are relevant -
EG is not obsolete
Don’t ask about things that go beyond
the respondents knowledge
Examples of possible alternative questions received

6. Other considerations
EG functions mostly on national level a big diversity across the countries due to the service provision differing according to the needs of the target group.
EG centres small units, integrated in bigger well-established national institutions. Institution or Agency brand more visible than Euroguidance brand.
Promoting the European dimension is done by lobbying, networking, relationships etc – work that is hard to trace and measure
How can EC contribute to the work of Euroguidance in terms of governance, financial support and achieving defined goals

7. Conclusions
Many different points of view – is it possible to come up with one common
survey?
Do we want to run such a survey on our own?
How should it be done?
Which recourses do we have for handling all the answers?
Joint financing of external firm?
Resources from EC?
Further discussion in WG:s to reach a decision.

8. Thank you for your attention!
Euroguidance Strategy and Quality Working Group:
Margit Rammo, Estonia
Ilse-Lore Schneider, Germany
Mariano Carballo and Pilar Cabello Carro, Spain
Fotini Vlachaki, Greece
Marko Zupančič, Slovenia
Christine Clement and Peter van Deursen, the Netherlands
Yordanka Dimitrova and Desislava Dobreva, Bulgaria
Josette Attard and Lorraine Aquilina, Malta
Liz Glennon, Ireland
Nina Ahlroos, Sweden
Joke Verlinden, Belgium