Enhancing the security of citizens against terrorism and lone-actor violence in confined spaces such as schools

Expected outcomes

• Projects may contribute to some of the expected outcomes; say which ones and why.
• For each outcome (EO1 to EO4), name who will use or adopt your results (a specific group, not “industry” or “society”), how they get them, and the indicator that shows the change, with baseline, target and date.
• Use the topic's own words for each outcome, so the evaluator can tick it off.

What the scope asks for

Evaluators check the proposal against these sentences of the scope. Answer each one visibly, in the call's own words.

• “Based on a thorough analysis of the phenomenon under consideration in the European context, proposals should look into methodologies of catching and tackling early signs of terrorist threats, isolation and radicalisation, taking into account the social and cultural factors that may influence an individual's vulnerability to radicalisation, such as gender roles and stereotypes.”
• “Proposals should also consider how these factors may impact the effectiveness of prevention programmes and of addressing them by, e.g., creating appropriate programmes, including by modernising approaches for prevention of terrorist and lone actor attacks.”
• “Means for raising awareness (possibly training) of the relevant staff (school staff, employees in public administration, etc., in function of the building under consideration) regarding existing risks and for keeping them up to date on security matters should be tackled and designed to be inclusive and effective for diverse groups.”
• “Ways of improving cooperation between the relevant staff and Police Authorities in this context should be analysed too.”
• “Proposed solutions should be affordable to public schools and other structures accessible to the public that are usually more limited in funding.”
• “Proposals are invited from consortia involving Police Authorities and other relevant security practitioners, Civil Society Organisations, Non-Governmental Organisations, and the appropriate balance of IT specialists, psychologists, sociologists, etc. To ensure the active involvement of and timely feedback from relevant security practitioners, proposals should plan a mid-term deliverable consisting in the assessment of the project’s mid-term…”
• “Activities proposed within this topic should address the issue from various angles, combining both social research with technological development and applications in a logical manner.”
• “Therefore, this topic requires the effective contribution of SSH disciplines and the involvement of SSH experts, institutions as well as the inclusion of relevant SSH expertise, in order to produce meaningful and significant effects enhancing the societal impact of the related research activities.”
• “Proposals should outline the plans to develop possible future uptake and upscaling at national and EU level for possible next steps once the project is finalised.”
• “Proposals should also consider, build on outcomes developed by EU-funded projects, such as the ones under HORIZON-CL3-2024-FCT-01-04 and HORIZON-CL2-2025-01-DEMOCRACY-05, and not duplicate previous research.”
• “If the proposals concern drug-related issues, they are expected to engage with the EU Drugs Agency during the lifetime of the project, including validating the outcomes.”
• “Coordination among the successful proposals from this topic should be envisaged to avoid duplication and to exploit complementarities as well as opportunities for increased impact.”

Conditions that shape the proposal

• Part B, sections 1–3: 45 pages (standard application form). Text beyond the limit is not read; tables and figures count.
• Lump sum: the budget is fixed per work package and paid when each work package is completed. Every work package needs activities and deliverables an evaluator can verify, and the effort must match the money.
• TRL: the topic expects TRL 6–8 by the end of the project. State where you start and the evidence for it.
• Innovation action: evaluators expect a plausible path to commercialisation and named first users or customers.
• Other Eligible Conditions: “The following additional eligibility criteria apply: This topic requires the active involvement, as beneficiaries, of at least 3 Police Authorities[[In the context of this Destination, ‘Police Authorities’ means public authorities explicitly designated by national law, or other entities legally mandated by the…”

Impact pathway and traps

• The topic asks for social sciences and humanities (SSH) expertise. Evaluators look for SSH partners with a real role in the methodology, not a token task.
• Users or citizens are part of the scope. Show how they take part in the design and testing, not only that they are informed.
• The gender dimension is named in the topic. Show how sex and gender analysis enters the research content, not only team balance.
• Keep outputs, outcomes and impacts apart: what you deliver, what changes when others use it, and the long-term effect.
• Link your outcomes to the destination's expected impacts in the Work Programme. Destination impacts are long-term effects, not project deliverables.
• Name the barriers outside the project (regulation, markets, user behaviour) that could block uptake, and what you will do if they do.
• Section 2.3 (the summary canvas) is optional on this call; the old split into scientific, economic and societal impact is no longer required.