Community policing in diverse societies in Europe

Expected outcomes

• Projects should contribute to all of the expected outcomes.
• For each outcome (EO1 to EO2), 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.

• “Proposals should explore innovative and inclusive approaches in police education, training and management that go beyond traditional models, resulting in an effective engagement with a diversifying society.”
• “Proposals should also seek to identify and develop effective practices and training programs that encourage a deeper understanding of diversity among police personnel and integrate a gender-sensitive and intersectional approach when relevant.”
• “In addition, proposals should assess how effective cooperation with Civil Society Organizations (or Non-Governmental Organisations) - representing various communities - can enhance reporting mechanisms, reduce hate crimes, and strengthen trust and cooperation between the police and the population.”
• “By improving police-citizen relations across diverse European contexts, the proposals should aim to contribute to enhanced security and social stability in Europe.”
• “Proposals’ findings should generate valuable insights applicable to varied policing environments, ultimately informing police forces across Europe about non-violent conflict resolution and constructive engagement strategies.”
• “Through collaborative research and training, proposals should equip Police Authorities with the tools, skills and methodologies necessary to effectively serve and engage with diverse communities, foster social cohesion, and build trust throughout Europe.”
• “Activities proposed within this topic should address the issue from various angles, combining social sciences 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 if appropriate and not duplicate previous research.”
• “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.”
• “Furthermore, 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.”

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…”
• Other Eligible Conditions: “In line with the “ restriction on control in innovation actions in critical technology areas ” delineated in General Annex B of the General Annexes, entities established in an eligible country but which are directly or indirectly controlled by China or by a legal entity established in China are not eligible to…”

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.
• For each destination impact you claim, show which of your outcomes feeds it. 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.