A co-production of Deaf Journalism Europe, written by Dennis Hoogeveen (DNieuws), with contributions from Wille Felix Zante (Taubenschlag) and Kenny Åkesson (Teckenrapport).

Probably nothing else is so familiar and yet so mysterious as the Erasmus+ programme of the European Union. Since its beginning in 1987, it has offered countless opportunities in youth work, education, adult learning, sport, and beyond. Originally launched for university exchanges, Erasmus+ has grown into a broad educational tool, reaching more than 16 million people of all ages and backgrounds.

Today, it enables students to study abroad, young people to join international exchanges, teachers to follow training courses, and organisations to develop innovative projects. With a budget of 26.2 billion euros for 2021–2027, Erasmus+ now places special focus on social inclusion, digital and ecological change, and democratic participation.

The programme is coordinated by 55 National Agencies across 33 countries. As more people are involved, the greater the chance for different interpretations of rules. Erasmus+ is praised as the flagship of inclusion — but is it truly as it seems? Time to find out the darker side of Erasmus+.

What does inclusion really mean in Erasmus+?

At first, we have to see what inclusion means inside Erasmus+. The programme guide of 2025 immediately begins with Inclusion and Diversity in the chapter “Priorities of the Erasmus+ Programme”. So it is clearly a priority for the European Commission. A summary of what they are explaining: the Erasmus+ programme aims to ensure equal access, inclusion, and diversity by supporting organisations and individuals with fewer opportunities, including Deaf and hard of hearing people. National Agencies and SALTO Resource Centres are responsible for promoting these values and implementing tailored inclusion strategies. A wide range of barriers is recognised, including disabilities, cultural and linguistic differences, economic hardship, and discrimination, which the programme seeks to address through specific support mechanisms and funding accessibility.

One particular part catches our attention: National Agencies are also vital in supporting projects with a view to being as inclusive and diverse as possible. Based on the overall principles and mechanisms at the European level, National Agencies will draw up inclusion and diversity plans to best address the needs of participants with fewer opportunities and to support the organisations working with these target groups in their national context.

Fifty-five National Agencies, fifty-five interpretations

There are 55 different National Agencies in 34 different countries. Even though there are principles and mechanisms at the European level, National Agencies can still write inclusion and diversity plans themselves. That would practically mean 55 different plans inside the programme. We have distributed a survey to those NAs to check how they look at inclusion and how they monitor meaningful participation by Deaf participants. In total, 12 NAs from 11 countries have filled in the survey. Even though the response is 22%, the content of the answers differed greatly from each other, which still would contribute to this article.

Firstly, we have asked them what they thought inclusion of Deaf participants meant in their view. Even though 100% said they knew what this kind of inclusion meant, the answers were very different. Most National Agencies gave practical answers. They talked about paying for sign language interpreters and extra costs for accessibility. Some said they use visual alarms or give more breaks during events. These answers focus on what needs to be done to help Deaf people join Erasmus+ activities.

A few national Agencies gave more general or ideological answers. They said inclusion means having the right attitude and understanding Deaf culture. They believe Deaf people should be part of the project, not just added for points. These answers talk more about values than about practical help.

Inclusion on paper, exclusion in practice

So how are these practicalities and philosophies put into practice? We have interviewed three persons who were involved in Erasmus+ projects where inclusion was used as a shining object to score more points with the assessors. Marek Kanas from Slovakia has been involved in countless Erasmus+ projects. He remembers an exchange project in 2017 where it was clear that they wanted to save money while still benefiting from the image of being inclusive. Marek knew what the budget was like, yet the organisers claimed they had to cut costs. There were no sign language interpreters and there was poor accommodation and low-quality food arranged. Kanas says: “I definitely felt like I was included just to tick a box and receive funding. The experience was clearly more enjoyable for the hearing participants. They kept asking me how to sign certain words, which made me feel like I was there for their entertainment. It felt like I was a joker performing for a medieval king.”

“I felt like a joker performing for a medieval king. They kept asking me how to sign things, but didn’t care about real inclusion.”

 

Mordekaí Eli Esrason from Iceland joined a project where he could express accessibility requirements before the activity started. But upon arriving at the project, there was no interpretation arranged. For two weeks of the activity, he was asked to lip-read and write everything, which cost him a lot of energy. “Another project I participated in was supposed to focus on Deaf people in the LGBTQ+ community, but many of the other participants were not Deaf, and some didn’t even understand what LGBTQ+ meant. It seemed like many were just there on holiday — they drank alcohol every day and even brought it to meetings.”

Another person who has been impacted by inaccessible Erasmus+ projects is Tomasz Olender from Poland. “At a project in Italy, we were told to bring two interpreters who could work from English into Polish Sign Language. The biggest issue was that no one arranged for interpretation from International Sign into spoken English. This meant that the hearing interpreters couldn’t understand the Deaf speakers using IS, so Deaf participants had to interpret into their national sign languages themselves. The hearing interpreters barely did any work.”

When complaints go nowhere

When having negative experiences during a project, what exactly is there in place to make sure it has an effect? This was also asked in the survey to the National Agencies. And we have checked a few websites of National Agencies, which were not very informative. So far, only two respondents said they would take this very seriously by undertaking inspection visits or putting the applicant organisation on a monitoring list, so for the next time they will be evaluated more extensively. Other NAs said they do not have complaints procedures or said they would welcome written emails. Kanas said: “There was an Advanced Planning Visit (APV) before the actual exchange, where all group leaders were hearing and I was, with a colleague, the only Deaf person, without any sign language interpreters. I asked several times what was being discussed, but they kept telling me to wait or only shared a few keywords in writing. I later complained to the National Agency, but I never received any response.”

Esrason states he did not even know he could file a complaint with the National Agency. But he did try to raise issues with the host organisation which had organised the LGBTQ+ project: “Their response was that it was ‘too late to change anything’ because the participants were already selected. They didn’t take responsibility for who they chose to include in the project.”

We have reached out to the European Commission, which is responsible for the execution of Erasmus+. We have asked them what the official complaints procedure is and what responsibilities National Agencies have in the matter of inclusion. A Commission spokesperson stated: “All National Agencies have an inclusion officer in place and many beneficiaries/institutions can also help set up this support at their level. If issues arise, participants should first contact their sending institution or National Erasmus+ Agency. (..). If the matter is not resolved, they can file a complaint with the European Commission.”

What inclusion should really look like

But what would an ideal Erasmus+ project look like where inclusion is truly achieved between Deaf and hearing participants? Kanas advises for National Agencies to have a Deaf evaluator in-house who can assess the inclusion aspects whenever an application involving Deaf people comes across. This evaluator should not come from an organisation such as the National Association of the Deaf, as they can have interests in the project and cannot be entirely neutral.

Esrason: “When a project says it is for a specific group, like Deaf or LGBTQ+ youth, the majority of participants should actually belong to that group — 80% would be a good minimum.”

Olender: “The venue should always be inclusive, taking into account things like lighting and visual access. For example, in one project I was told that accessible fire alarms were ‘optional’. That night, the fire alarm actually went off — and I had no way of knowing. Thankfully, my hearing roommate warned me. These kinds of safety tools must be given directly to Deaf participants, not offered as an option.”

“One night the fire alarm went off, and I had no accessible alert. My hearing roommate had to wake me — the accessible alarm was offered as an option, not a necessity.”

What you can do when inclusion is not respected

So what is the correct procedure if you ever find yourself in an Erasmus+ project where inclusion is not all it seems?

1. Discuss with other Deaf participants if they feel the same.
2. Talk with the host organisation to explain your concerns and possible solutions.
3. Even if there is, for example, no budget for sign language interpreters, explain they should have consulted you before the application and still demand they find budget elsewhere in the project to cover interpreters.
4. If they do not cooperate with any solution, then contact the National Agency of the host organisation and send your complaints. Ask the NA to conduct an inspection visit, or to monitor the host organisation for future projects.
5. Should that not work, then you can file a complaint with the European Commission.

Deaf participants are also encouraged to share their stories with the European Union of the Deaf Youth (for participants in the youth and school programmes), the European Union of the Deaf (for participants in the Education, Adult Education and VET programmes), and the European Disability Forum. There will be a new Erasmus+ programme starting from 2028, and any (positive and negative) experience will be very helpful to improve the Erasmus+ programme.