This graph illustrates the organizational profile of civic education entities, revealing that the majority of surveyed organizations were either NGOs (45.8%) or associations (43.6%). Educational institutions accounted for 17.5% of the sample.

Other types of organizations, including think tanks, research institutes, community-based organizations, religious entities, professional associations, networks, libraries, and historical sites, were underrepresented in the survey.

The graph shows the primary fields of work for civic education organizations. Civic engagement and participation were the top fields of work for 68.1% of respondents, while social inclusion was the primary focus for the majority of organizations.

The top countries for civil rights efforts were Luxembourg, Romania, North Macedonia, and Albania, while Portugal, the Netherlands, Czechia, Italy, and Slovakia had the lowest percentage. Community building and employability were other prominent fields of work. Health care was not a main field of work.

Finally, "Other" was a primary field for more than 25% of respondents in some countries. Local needs and issues were also prioritized by civic education actors.

The graph demonstrates that the most prevalent types of civic education used by entities include skills for civic engagement at 63%, followed by critical thinking, analytical and problem-solving competences at 58%.

Human rights education was used by 48% of the entities, while intercultural competences and cultural education were used by 42% and 35% respectively. Finally, media literacy and digital competences were used by 34% of the entities surveyed.

These findings suggest that while there is some variation in the specific types of civic education used, many entities prioritize developing skills for civic engagement and critical thinking.

As demonstrated on the graph, civic education actors primarily focus on young people aged 16-29 (83%) and children under 16 (51%). While adults aged 30-65 are the second-largest target group (53.4%), senior citizens receive comparatively less attention (20%).

Professional groups, particularly teachers, receive attention from 38% of civic education actors. Women and men are targeted equally, with some countries focusing more on empowering women.

Ethnic minorities and economically disadvantaged individuals are targeted by some countries, while hard-to-reach learners, sexual minorities, refugees, and asylum seekers receive attention from less than 20% of civic education actors.

The figure illustrates the methodologies and tools used by European civic education actors to promote their work.

Workshops, awareness-raising campaigns, and capacity building are the most popular methods, with publications, digital tools, and training of trainers also commonly used. The least popular methods include augmented-reality tools, exhibitions, and performances. Method preferences vary significantly by country, highlighting the importance of tailoring approaches to specific regions.

Workshops and trainings are the most popular, used by 87.6% of respondents, while augmented-reality tools are the least popular, used by only 4.1%.

The figure demonstrates how civic education actors decide on the topics of their civic education activities.

Most organizations rely on their own in-house expertise, followed by external sources. Online sources of information and expertise are slightly more important than peer exchange, while academic literature is also used to inform their work.

The graph illustrates how civic education actors decide on the methods and tools of their civic education activities, showing a similar trend to the previous graph on the sources used by civic educators to decide on the topics their civic education activities.

The figure illustrates the training needs of civic education actors in Europe. The most common area was new methods, tools and approaches in civic education (57.7%).

The need for training in impact evaluation and evaluative learning was reported by 46.1% of respondents, while 45.3% reported needing training on how to secure funding. Other areas of training needs included innovation and foresight thinking (42.4%), communication (41.8%), organizational development (34.2%), working with media (34%), and building and maintaining partnerships (30.4%).

Respondents also identified a need for training in advocacy, exchanging knowledge and practice with peers, working with public institutions, working with volunteers, and in financial and project management. These findings highlight the importance of targeted and context-specific training programs for civic education actors in Europe.

According to the survey results, national public funding is the most common source of financial support for European civic education actors. It is followed by EU funding and income generated by the entity.

National funding from private companies and national private funding also contribute to the financing of civic education actors, while foreign public and private funding represent a smaller share.

Non-EU member states, as well as Poland and Romania, receive the least national public funding. The availability of designated programmes that support civic education varies considerably between countries.