Mapping Civic Education in Europe

Aggregated Data

Report summary
The following section consists of graphs and figures that summarize the comparative findings from the anonymized online “Mapping Civic Education in Europe” project questionnaires.

The questionnaires were sent out to almost 3000 civic educators from 21 European countries between November 2021 and December 2022. The first questionnaire was divided into four sections, while the second was divided into two.

The responses presented here follow the original questions as they appeared in the questionnaires. For more information on the methodology of the project, the comparative findings, and recommendations on how to strengthen the ecosystem of civic education in Europe, please refer to the report titled "Great Expectations: Demands and Realities of Civic Education in Europe."

0,0% 20,0% 40,0% 60,0% 80,0% 100,0%

What is the legal status of your entity?

The graph displays the legal status of the surveyed civic education actors, indicating that roughly 85% operate as non-profits, while 10% are public and less than 5% are private.


Type of entity, what fits best?

Educational institution
Civil initiative
Social enterprise
Think tank
Community based organization (CBO)
Research institute
Community center
Cultural center
Professional association
Religious entity
Trade union
Self-help/ support group
Historical site

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.


The respondents were asked to specify the geographical reach and impact of their work, with four categories to choose from: local, regional, national, and international.

As indicated on the graph, on average, 64.8% of respondents reported that their activities took place locally, while 47.3% worked in a regional capacity. The majority of respondents (72.1%) indicated that their activities were at the national level, while only 35.5% reported working internationally.

The survey suggests that civic education actors mainly work locally or nationally, with regional work more prevalent in countries with high levels of decentralization or federal states.


The figure illustrates the contexts in which civic educators work, including formal, non-formal, and informal education.

While the majority work in the informal civic education sector, there is a significant intersection with the formal education sector.


Which are your main target groups?

Individuals 16-29 years old
Individuals 30-65 years old
Individuals under 16 years old
Professional groups
Economically disadvantaged individuals
Ethnic minorities
Individuals 65+ years old
Hard to reach learners
People with physical and/or mental disabilities
Sexual minorities
Refugees and asylum-seekers

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.

0,0% 20,0% 40,0% 60,0% 80,0% 100,0%

What is your average annual budget?

The survey data shows that 42.4% of all civic education entities operate on a budget smaller than EUR 100,000 per year, which means limited resources for carrying out their activities.

25.6% of respondents operate on a budget between EUR 100,001 and EUR 500,000, while 22.6% have a budget greater than EUR 500,000, mainly in Belgium, Finland, France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands.

The graphs show how civic education organizations allocate their budgets between core costs and activities. The largest group, 34.8%, spend up to 30% of their budgets on core costs, while 21% allocate between 71% and 100% of their budgets.

Countries with a significant concentration of organizations spending up to 30% of their budgets include Albania, Bulgaria, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, North Macedonia, Slovenia, and the Netherlands.

In contrast, 16.4% of organizations spend between 51% and 70% of their budgets on core costs. The lower part of the graphs shows that 26.2% allocate 71-100% of their budget towards activities, and 24.6% allocate 51-70%.

Understanding these patterns is crucial for policymakers and organizations to ensure sustainable financing for civic education initiatives.

0,0% 20,0% 40,0% 60,0% 80,0% 100,0%

What is the size of your core team? EMPLOYEES

The figure illustrates the staffing patterns of civic education entities in Europe, revealing that the majority have a small core team of up to five individuals (37.8%).

Finland is an outlier, with a significant proportion of entities having a core team of 11 to 20 individuals (35.7%). Over one-third of entities have mid-sized teams with 6-10 individuals (23.5%) or 11-20 individuals (14.6%). Only 18.6% of entities have a core team of 21 or more individuals.

Belgium, Greece, and the Netherlands have a higher prevalence of larger core teams, while Romania and Greece have more entities that rely on voluntary work. The data highlights the relatively small size of civic education entities and suggests a reliance on volunteer work in some countries.


What is the size of your core team? Independent Contractors

According to the figure, independent contractors are a common resource for civic education actors in Europe. Almost half of these actors (47.1%) work with 1–5 independent contractors. 22.5% of entities work with 6–10 independent contractors, while 18.4% work with 11–20.

Although outsourcing work to independent contractors can provide access to expertise and diversity not available in-house, it also indicates possible negative effects of unstable funding on the sustainability of organizations.


What is the size of your core team? Volunteers & interns

The data in the figure highlights the number of regular volunteers and interns working for civic education organizations in Europe.

The most common category is 1-5 regular volunteers and interns (33.7%), followed by 21 or more (27.1%), 11-20 (20.5%) and 6-10 (18%). Only 11.3% of organizations do not have any regular volunteers or interns.

The percentage of organizations with a large number of volunteers varies widely across countries, with Belgium and Finland having the highest percentage of organizations working with 21 or more regular volunteers and interns.

In contrast, Poland and Czechia have a higher percentage of organizations without any regular volunteers or interns.


Did the war in Ukraine change your work ?

The graph shows the impact of the war in Ukraine on civic education actors in 16 countries. 47.8% of respondents reported no impact on their work, while 47.2% indicated a small impact. Only 9.3% reported a fundamental impact on all activities.

The findings suggest that the war had a relatively limited impact on the work of civic education actors, possibly because some entities were located far from the conflict zone or had different focuses.

The data may be interpreted differently in various countries, with civic educators in peace education countries potentially seeing the conflict as an opportunity, while those in highly polarized countries may avoid the topic.

North Macedonia
Your country
other countries in Europe

Would you like to have more peer-to-peer learning opportunities with civic educators? If yes, where?

The data in the presented figure shows the need for peer-to-peer learning opportunities among civic education actors in their own country and in other European countries.

55.1% of respondents expressed a desire for increased peer-to-peer learning opportunities within their own country, while 44.9% expressed the need for such opportunities with other European countries.

Notable differences at the country level show Austria and Portugal having the highest percentage of respondents indicating a need for cross-border peer-to-peer learning opportunities (79.2% and 80%, respectively), while the Netherlands had the lowest percentage (25%).

Overall, the data emphasizes the importance of peer-to-peer learning for civic education actors, highlighting a need for more opportunities at both national and European levels.


If there were a pan-European civic education network, what would you expect from it/ what should it primarily focus on?

Opportunities for joint projects internationally
Exchange of good practice
Exchange on the latest civic education trends, tools and topics
Opportunities for joint projects nationally
Peer-to-peer learning formats
Financial stability and fundraising
Working with politics and institutions
Working in a politically challenging environment
Digitalizing one’s work
Learning sessions
Opportunities for cooperation with authorities
Soft skills

As the figure demonstrates, 75.6% of respondents prioritize opportunities for joint international projects for the potential pan-European network to focus on, while 75.4% believe a pan-European civic education network should focus on exchanging good practices.

Other areas for the network include joint projects nationally (52.3%), peer-to-peer learning formats (49.7%), and financial stability and fundraising (48.2%) training. Though priorities vary among countries, the desire for cross-border collaboration and the exchange of best practices remain consistently high.

The results suggest that a pan-European network could facilitate these priorities and serve as a platform for civic education initiatives.