M2 on 11-13" April 2016 (ATTENDED by 4 delegates from Denmark, 2 from
Ireland, 3 from Norway, 3 from Portugal, 2 from Lithuania, and an external evaluator from UK)
(xi
‘Welcome and introduction to Lisbon by host partners, including summary outline of
Portugal's history,
(Gxiv) Introduction to meeting by project co-coordinators; outline of meeting’s business and
objectives; acceptance of minutes of previous meeting.
(xv) Report on change of Director at Alytus Youth Centre, one of the partner institutions,
Some concerns had been raised since the first meeting that this might disrupt thelr
project work but the Lithuanian delegates confirmed that any such issues had been
‘esolved. Their Participation would continue as planned, with the support of the new
Director.
(xvi) The trish partners responsible for internal evaluation reported on all delegates
‘evaluations of the first project meeting and project management processes to date.
Scorers and overall satisfaction were very high but it was agreed that more time would
be given at meetings for partners’ assimilation of financial details and issues,
Qxvil) Presentation and discussion of the partners first drafts oftheir State ofthe Art (SOA)
reports, and their implications for proposed case-studies, was the major item of business
{for this meeting. Each presentation went into considerable detall. The minutes of the
‘meeting summarize their contents in detail. They have been uploaded to BASECAMP
‘together with associated power point presentations.
(vit) As the basis for a synoptic overview of the SoA reports, a summary overview was,
presented by the Irish partners. It was agreed that that they would produce a written
overview as the basis for a potential publication disseminating the project’s work in the
project language and if possible in translations into partner languages. It was noted that
allreports had been submitted on time and were similar in content. However, not all
partners had used the agreed guidelines in the same way and it was further agreed that
the synoptic overview would emphasize the key themes of what the SoA reports indicate
about “what works, where, and why” in the implementation of COURAGE policies and
strategies.
(xix) Partners discussed the implications of each SoA report for the alms, content, and
‘methods of the project's proposed case studies. It was agreed that all partners were
proposing a viable focus for at least one case study. It was further agreed that detailed
reports on the intial phase of case study implementation would be delivered by each
partner at the noxt meetin
(xx) The co-ordinators raised a further issue related to the project's having tobe finished by
31" August 2018. The fact that all schools and many youth organisations will still be on
holiday at that time makes it impossible to deliver the proposed final European
conference in the Autumn of 2038 as proposed in the original application. It was agreed
that the conference would have to be brought forward to the Spring of 2018, as would all
forward planning and preparation,
(Qaxi) As the project’s “webmasters”, the Norwegian partners brought delegates up to date
with the structure and current contents of the EUCOURAGE public website. Various
details were discussed and clarified. It was agreed that partner information would follow
‘the standardized format based on that on the current Norwegian input.
(Godii) itwas agreed that al outputs from all the partners would be uploaded initially to
BASECAMP for review and discussion in advance of any subsequent revision and
decisions about whether and when to upload materials to EUCOURAGE.
(Qodii) The importance of each partner's recording and reporting all their dissemination
activities was emphasized and discussed. It was agreed that all partners would keep
‘weekly records, based on their working diaries, of all dissemination activities “large orsmall", within and outside their own institutions. They would use these in turn as the
basis for sending monthly dissemination reports to the project co-ordinators using the
agreed pro-forma
(Qexiv) The merits and costs of engaging professional companies to produce films of the
projects’ case studies were discussed at length. It was agreed that within the reduced
budget these sorts of casts would not be feasible. A viable alternative was presented,
discussed, and agreed upon. Each partner will produce their own films using their own
institution’ resources. Co-ordination and editing will be undertaken by one pf the
partners with significant professional experience and resources in this field
(Qoxv) Issues of style and content forthe films were discussed and clarified. It was agreed that:
‘each film would ast 2-3 minutes all partners would produce outline storyboards for a
‘deadline of October 17; agreements reached on style and content would be formalized
into agreed guidelines to be uploaded to BASECAMP.
Qoevi) The co-ordinators presented draft contents of the training course programmes and
‘publicity material, notin that there would be only one deadline for potential delegates
to apply for KA1 funding. Delegates broke into national groups to discuss their own
potential contributions to course content and reported back with suggestions for
‘modification and implementation,
Updating and clarification on current project expenditures and budgetary allocations,
‘and agreement on updating action matrix specifying “who does what and when".
Qowviil) The meeting included a fll programme of study visits to schools and related cultural
activities in Lisbon,