How to co-build a project with us.

The Erasmus+ youth field runs on two parallel funding logics. KA1 (Key Action 1) funds individuals moving: youth exchanges, training courses for youth workers, job-shadowing, study visits. KA2 (Key Action 2) funds organisations cooperating: building shared methodologies, training materials, curricula, research, toolkits.

The two are funded under the same Erasmus+ programme, administered by the same national agencies, and often involve the same organisations. But the application process, budget structure, deliverables, timeline, and quality criteria are different in almost every operational respect.

When to use which

If the goal is to give specific young people an experience that changes their relationship to Europe — that's KA1. If the goal is to produce something that organisations across Europe can use afterward (a toolkit, a methodology, training materials) — that's KA2. The two often combine in a long-term partnership: a KA2 produces the methodology, KA1 cohorts pilot it.

Most partnerships VJMS pursues will involve both, sequenced over time. Start with a KA1 to build operational trust. Move to a KA2 once the working relationship is proven.

Every Erasmus+ youth project has three operational roles. Often they're played by different organisations; sometimes one organisation plays multiple roles in the same project.

Sending organisations recruit participants from their country, prepare them before departure, handle their travel and visa logistics, and act as their point of contact throughout. For a Vienna-resident young person going on an exchange in Lisbon, VJMS is the sending organisation.

Hosting organisations receive the participants and run the on-the-ground programme — accommodation, meals, daily activities, trainers, local logistics, emergency support. Hosting is operationally more intensive than sending, and the hosting org receives the largest share of the project's Organisational Support budget.

Coordinating organisations write the funding application, sign the grant agreement with their national agency, hold the budget centrally, and report to the NA on the project's behalf. In a KA1 youth exchange, the coordinator is usually the same as the hosting org. In a KA2 partnership, the coordinator is one specific partner — usually the most administratively experienced — and the rest sign on as project partners.

The role we won't play in the foreseeable future: lead coordinator of a Cooperation Partnership. CPs require the coordinator to manage multi-year complexity, large consortiums, and financial accountability we're not yet equipped for. We'll join CPs as a partner where the lead is experienced. We won't lead one until our 2027 accreditation lands and we've delivered several smaller projects well.

The funding flow: European Commission → National Agency → Coordinating organisation → Project partners. The NA receives an annual budget allocation from the Commission, runs application rounds, and disburses funds to approved coordinators. Coordinators receive 80% on signing the grant agreement, the remaining 20% after the final report is approved.

The budget structure depends on the action.

KA1 youth exchange — the cost categories

Organisational Support. A per-participant, per-day amount that covers the work of running the project — staff time, venue, materials, food, on-site facilitation, pre-departure preparation, post-exchange follow-up. Split between sending and hosting organisations, with the hosting share larger because operational load is heavier on-site.

Travel. Calculated by distance band — straight-line distance between sending and hosting cities determines a fixed amount per participant. The grant amount, not the actual travel cost, is what gets disbursed. Spending less means you keep the difference; spending more means the participant covers the gap.

Individual Support. A small daily allowance paid to participants on arrival or via transfer. Pocket money, varies modestly by country cost of living.

Inclusion Support. Real-cost top-ups for participants with fewer opportunities — accessibility adaptations, accompanying support, additional travel where standard band amounts wouldn't cover the journey. Significantly underused across the sector; the EU has been pushing partners to use more of it.

Exceptional Costs. For things outside normal categories — visa fees, specific accessibility costs, certain insurance premiums. Real-cost basis with justification.

KA2 small-scale partnership — the structure

Different model entirely. The budget is a lump sum — either €30,000 or €60,000 for the whole partnership over its duration. You apply for one of the two amounts based on the scope of what you propose to deliver.

Reporting against a lump sum focuses on whether the agreed deliverables were achieved — toolkits produced, methodologies tested, multiplier events held — rather than on line-item expenditure. This dramatically simplifies financial reporting compared to itemised models, and it's why small-scale partnerships are the right on-ramp for organisations new to KA2.

KA2 cooperation partnership — for context

Itemised budget across categories: Project Management & Implementation (a flat monthly rate for the coordinator), Transnational Project Meetings, Multiplier Events, Project Results, Special Needs, Exceptional Costs. Budgets typically €120,000–€400,000 per consortium over 24–36 months. Heavier reporting, full audit potential, more administrative load.

The Erasmus+ calendar runs on annual rounds with fixed deadlines published in the Programme Guide. The exact dates shift slightly year-to-year, but the rhythm is stable.

The annual rhythm

KA1 youth (exchanges and youth worker mobility). Two rounds per year. The first deadline is typically in late February for projects starting between June and December of the same year. The second deadline is typically in early October for projects starting between March and August of the following year.

KA2 small-scale partnerships. Two rounds per year, similar timing to KA1. Projects can start 3–6 months after the decision date.

KA2 cooperation partnerships. Usually one round per year, deadline in March. Projects start 6+ months after decision, run 24–36 months.

How long a good application takes

An honest estimate for an experienced consortium working on a familiar theme: 8 to 12 weeks of focused preparation. That covers partner alignment, theme development, project design, budget construction, application drafting, and review. Less than 6 weeks means rushing; less than 4 weeks means risking rejection or weak project quality.

For new partnerships or unfamiliar themes, expect closer to 14–16 weeks of preparation. The bottleneck is rarely the application form itself — it's the partner alignment work that needs to happen before you can fill the form in coherently.

From submission to project start

VJMS's current cycle

We are targeting the February 2027 round for our first KA2 small-scale partnership application. Partners we begin conversations with now (May 2026) have 9 months to develop a workable application together. That's a realistic timeline, but it's not a generous one — it means starting partner alignment conversations now, not in late 2026.

For KA1, we are joining existing approved projects as a sending organisation through 2026, and applying as coordinator/host for the October 2026 round (project start in spring 2027).

We work with partner organisations in five distinct models. Each has different timeline, commitment, and risk profile.

Model 1 — Sending into your hosted project (active now)

You're an approved KA1 host. You have funding, you have a project, you need a sending organisation for Austrian participants. VJMS recruits, selects, prepares, and supports an Austrian cohort to your exchange. This is the lowest-commitment model and the easiest first project together.

Best for: Established organisations with existing KA1 projects who need an Austrian sending partner. First-project trust builder.

Model 2 — Hosting your sent participants (from Q4 2026)

The mirror of Model 1. VJMS hosts a KA1 exchange in Vienna's 15th district; you send participants from your country to join. We design and run the on-the-ground programme; you handle recruitment and pre-departure on your end.

Best for: Organisations whose participants would benefit from a Vienna-based exchange. Particularly relevant if the theme connects to Vienna's specifics — multilingual urban context, EU institutional presence, intercultural integration models.

Model 3 — Co-applying for a new KA1 (open for the Oct 2026 round)

We design and submit a joint KA1 application — typically with VJMS as coordinator/host in Vienna and one or more partner orgs as senders. Splits the work of developing the project and the rewards of running it.

Best for: Partners who want to shape a project from the start rather than join one already designed. Requires more upfront alignment work than Models 1 or 2.

Model 4 — Co-building a KA2 small-scale partnership (target Feb 2027 round)

2–3 partner organisations across 2–3 countries, 6–24 month project, €30k or €60k lump sum, building a tangible deliverable (toolkit, methodology, curriculum). VJMS is willing to coordinate or partner depending on each partner's experience and capacity.

Best for: Partnerships that already have a shared theme and want to produce something durable together, not just a one-off cohort experience. Requires real commitment — small-scale partnerships are easier than cooperation partnerships, but they're still 6–24 months of joint work.

Model 5 — Partnering on your coordinated KA2 cooperation partnership

You're an established organisation with the capacity to coordinate a cooperation partnership. We join as a partner — bringing Vienna-based participant access, multilingual capacity, and our specific perspective on inclusion in youth mobility. We don't lead at this stage.

Best for: Cooperation partnerships where the lead organisation has clear capacity and we'd be a complementary partner. Particularly aligned where inclusion of underrepresented young people is a central project theme.

Partnerships break when expectations are implicit and turn out to differ. Both sides assume the other knows what's normal; both sides discover too late that "normal" was different. We try to name expectations explicitly so they can be discussed before they break things.

Documentation standards

Every partnership operates against a written project agreement that names: each partner's role and responsibilities, budget allocation, deliverable timeline, communication protocol, conflict resolution mechanism, and exit terms. For KA1 youth exchanges with VJMS as sending org, this also includes the participant selection criteria (we share ours; we expect to see yours).

Communication norms

Email is our primary channel for substantive matters. Real-time messaging (Signal, WhatsApp) for time-sensitive coordination. Video calls (Whereby, Jitsi, or Zoom) for major decisions and milestone reviews. We expect partners to maintain a shared project document — usually a Notion page or Google Doc — that's updated weekly during active project phases.

Some patterns repeat across the European youth mobility sector. Naming them helps both sides avoid them — and design for the things that actually work.

Common failure modes (named to be avoided)

Misaligned expectations on participant profiles. One partner expects a homogeneous, fluent, easy-to-coordinate cohort; the other expects a deliberately mixed group including participants with language barriers and prior trauma. Both interpretations are legitimate. The conflict isn't a participant problem — it's a partnership design problem that should have been resolved in pre-application discussions.

Reporting bottlenecks. One partner is slow on submitting their portion of documentation; the coordinator's overall report runs late; the NA flags the project as non-compliant; trust erodes for everyone. Almost always preventable with milestone-based reporting agreements rather than end-of-project deadlines.

Cultural friction read as ill-will. Different national working cultures interpret communication norms, hierarchy, and time differently. Berlin partners can read Mediterranean partners as unreliable; Mediterranean partners can read Berlin partners as cold. Neither is true; both are operating in good faith from different defaults. The fix is naming the differences early, not redesigning anyone's personality.

Coordinator overload. One partner — usually the coordinator — ends up doing 80% of the work while others do 20%. Resentment accumulates, future partnerships break. The fix is explicit role allocation at the application stage, including realistic time estimates per partner per phase.

Theme drift. What was applied for and what gets delivered diverge over the project lifetime. Sometimes this is good (responding to participant needs); sometimes it's drift away from the funded scope, which creates reporting headaches. The fix is documented mid-project check-ins specifically on theme alignment, not just operational delivery.

What works

Multiple pre-application alignment calls. Not one. The first call is exploratory and aspirational; subsequent calls expose actual differences. By call 3 or 4, the partnership either has real alignment or has surfaced incompatibilities. Both outcomes are useful; both are better than discovering misalignment after the grant is signed.

Documented partner roles, not "we'll figure it out." The "we'll figure it out" stance is an illusion of flexibility that turns into asymmetric work allocation. Written allocation, even if it gets revised later, is more honest.

Mid-project check-ins beyond the formal reports. Quarterly 30-minute partner calls explicitly to surface friction. Most friction is small and easily resolved when named early; the same friction is dramatic and partnership-ending when it accumulates silently for nine months.

Conflict-resolution agreement in writing. Before any conflict happens. What's the process when a partner falls behind? What happens if reporting is late? Who decides on scope changes? Writing this down in calm times means you have something to refer to in stressful times.

Trust built through small projects before big ones. A successful KA1 between two organisations creates the basis for a KA2 between the same two organisations. A KA2 between organisations that have never worked together is high-risk; some succeed brilliantly, many produce significant friction.

What actually happens between "interesting, let's talk" and a project running with real participants.

Step 1 — First conversation (Week 1). A 45-minute video call. We ask what you do, where, with whom, what programmes you've delivered. You ask the same of us. The conversation is exploratory; nothing is committed. The aim is to surface alignment quickly: shared themes, complementary capacities, similar working styles.

Step 2 — Mutual due diligence (Weeks 2–3). We send our statutes, recent project documentation, our OID, our governance structure, and any references from organisations we've worked with. You send the equivalent from your side. Both parties verify the other is a real organisation, legally established, and aligned in mission. This is faster than it sounds for established partners; longer for organisations newer to the sector.

Step 3 — Trial project or full project (Weeks 4 onwards). Two paths from here:

For partners with significant KA1/KA2 experience and where alignment is clear from the first conversations: we move directly to designing a joint funding application.

For partners newer to Erasmus+ — or to us — a smaller joint activity comes first. A jointly-delivered workshop. Attending a TCA together. Hosting a partner-visit. Something that creates real operational shared experience before we commit to a 12-month funded partnership.

Step 4 — Joint application (when timing aligns with a programme round). Application drafting takes 8–12 weeks of focused work. We map this against the relevant Erasmus+ deadline (Feb or Oct, depending on action) and work backwards from there.

Step 5 — Project delivery (after approval, project start). If the application is approved, the project starts 4–6 months after the application deadline. By that point, both sides have already done significant relationship-building, so the project itself runs on infrastructure that already exists.

How to take the first step

Email partners@vjms-wien.eu with the following:

Who you are. Organisation name, country, year founded, approximate size, OID if you have one.

What you've delivered. Recent Erasmus+ projects (KA1 / KA2), other youth mobility experience, your thematic focus areas.

What you're looking for in a partnership. Sending? Hosting? KA2 co-development? Something specific you're working on now?

Realistic timeline on your end. When could you actually start? Which Erasmus+ round are you targeting if any?

We reply within 5 working days with either a calendar link to schedule the first call, or — honestly — a note explaining why we're not the right fit. Both responses are useful information.