What the Erasmus+ Project Results Database Can Tell You Before You Write Your Proposal

Start with the evidence already funded

The Erasmus+ Project Results Database can tell you what the programme has already paid for, which organisations have delivered it, what outputs survived public scrutiny, and how evaluators may see your idea in context. Before you write, use it to decide whether your proposal should build on prior work, fill a gap, or choose different partners. Treat the database as evidence for positioning, not as a place to copy wording.

Start with the official Erasmus+ project results search before you draft your needs section. Search for your topic words, but also for the language used by similar beneficiaries: inclusion, digital readiness, adult learning, youth participation, vocational training, green skills, or another field label. Open the project pages that look closest to your idea. Read the summary, partners, countries, results, and public outputs.

The aim is not to prove that your idea is unique in a thin sense. Most good proposals connect to work already funded. The stronger question is whether your proposal can name the existing work, show what remains unsolved, and explain why your consortium can move it further.

Turn search results into proposal decisions

A useful search session should change the proposal, not just fill a background paragraph. Build a small evidence note while you search. For each relevant project, capture the project title, coordinator, partner countries, target group, main outputs, and one sentence on what your proposal can reuse or avoid.

Look for repeated formats. If many past projects created toolkits, training modules, or awareness campaigns, your proposal should not promise another generic version without a sharper use case. If past outputs are scattered, outdated, or hard to apply in your local setting, that becomes a concrete rationale for adaptation, testing, translation, or integration into a live service.

Use the results to make a few practical decisions:

• Keep topics that show a real line of funded activity.
• Drop claims that the database clearly disproves.
• Rewrite vague innovation claims into specific extensions of earlier work.
• Identify outputs that could become references, not competitors.
• Check whether your target group has already been served in the same way.

This turns database search into proposal design. The needs section becomes more grounded. The work plan becomes less repetitive. The impact section can name who will use the result and why previous materials were not enough.

Read partners through their project trails

The database also helps you judge potential partners. A partner profile on a website tells you what an organisation wants to be known for. A project trail shows what it has actually coordinated, delivered, and published with EU funding.

Search each potential partner by name, including name variants and local-language forms. Look at roles. Coordination experience matters, but repeated delivery as a partner can also be valuable, especially for piloting, dissemination, training, or access to a target community. Read the public results attached to their projects. Thin or missing outputs do not always mean poor work, but they are a signal to discuss expectations early.

Country mix is worth checking as well. Erasmus+ proposals often fail in practice because the consortium looks balanced on paper but lacks a clear reason for each national context. Past projects can show whether a partner brings a real local network, a policy niche, a school or NGO base, or technical capacity.

Use the database before sending invitations. Ask better questions: which work package can this organisation lead, what evidence do they bring, and which previous result can they improve? A smaller, clearer consortium often beats a larger list of logos.

Build a short research workflow

Do the research before the writing sprint. Give one person ownership of the search note, then review it with the coordinator and work package leads. The workflow can stay light, but it should produce decisions that the proposal team accepts.

A practical sequence:

• Define the core topic in plain language and in programme language.
• Search the database for both sets of terms.
• Save the closest projects and group them by target group or output type.
• Mark useful references, weak repetitions, and possible partner leads.
• Convert the findings into changes in objectives, activities, and dissemination.

Keep the note short. A proposal team will not use a long desk research file during a deadline week. What they need is a clear view of what already exists, where the gap is, and which partner can credibly address it.

This is also where a structured knowledge system helps. At StrandsUnited, we design and operate platforms for consortium intelligence, member areas, catalogues, and AI assistants that answer with sources. If your organisation runs many proposals or manages a network, a shared evidence base can stop each team from repeating the same searches. You can see the kind of systems we build on our platforms page.

Where this comes from

This article comes from our work with consortium data, proposal research, and community platforms. Our consortium graph combines CORDIS and Erasmus+ open data for 2014 to 2027, covering 83,490 projects, including 24,823 Erasmus+ projects, and 461,953 participation edges between organisations and projects.

We use that graph, along with our grant intelligence engine, to study partner patterns, repeat participation, and funded topic lines. We also operate Impactful and build knowledge systems where communities can keep evidence, outputs, and source-backed answers in daily use. The next step is simple: before drafting, spend a focused search session in the Erasmus+ results data, then turn the findings into partner choices and proposal edits.