CERV-2026-GE · Project proposal
Responsibility
changes the
decision.
REspSHIFT turns consent education into situated judgement, accountable peer action and organisational practice.
24 months6 countries≈300 participants
REresponsibility
01recognise
coercion
coercion
02interrupt
harm
harm
03reinforce
practice
practice
04transfer
evidence
evidence
Visual proposal · working draft for critical review
The proposal in one sentence
Move from knowing the rule to carrying responsibility.
A six-country learning and organisational-change programme for adults aged 18–25, designed to make coercion more recognisable, peer intervention safer and prevention practice more durable.
Greece · Finland · Belgium
The gap is not only informational
Consent can be understood in theory, yet still misread under pressure.
STATED KNOWLEDGE“I know consent matters.”
?pressure · status
persistence · dependency
persistence · dependency
SITUATED JUDGEMENT“I recognise coercion and act.”
REspSHIFT is designed for that difficult middle: where norms, peer dynamics and power shape the decision.
The context
Violence is widespread. Prevention still needs more usable practice.
The proposal connects European evidence with a practical design question: what helps a young adult identify pressure, resist victim-blaming and choose a safer response in real time?
of women aged 18–29 reported physical (including threats) and/or sexual violence.
EU Gender-Based Violence Survey, 2024of respondents in higher education reported at least one form of gender-based violence.
UniSAFEreported sexual harassment, evidence of the everyday contexts prevention must address.
UniSAFEDesign implicationKnowledge transfer alone is insufficient. Participants need structured rehearsal, peer accountability and supported routes to action.
What the programme must solve
Five needs. One connected learning system.
Each need becomes an explicit design requirement, not an assumed outcome.
Pressure, persistence, dependency and power, not only overt force.
Keep responsibility with the person using coercion; interrupt victim-blaming.
Involve men and young men as accountable peers rather than distant observers.
Rehearse safe bystander action, supportive response and appropriate referral.
Embed learning in host routines so individual insight is not left unsupported.
individual judgementpeer actionorganisational reinforcement
The missing bridge
How RESC responds to the five identified needs.
RESC is not a second learning model.
It is the educational structure used to turn the needs into scenario reflection, practice and organisational change.
IDENTIFIED NEEDMMeaningRRecognitionEEducationTTransformation
Recognise coercion
●●○○Pressure · persistence · dependency · power
Locate responsibility
○●●○Keep scrutiny on coercive conduct, not victims
Engage men and peers
●○●○Question norms and practise accountable influence
Practise safer responses
○●●○Bystander action · support · appropriate referral
Reinforce through hosts
○○○●Turn learning into routines that can continue
● primary methodological linkNeeds define what must change. RESC structures how the programme addresses it.
Five sessions · two hours each
A deliberate sequence from recognition to commitment.
Each session adds a decision layer and returns to safe, fictional practice.
SEEConsent & coercive pressure
Notice persistence, dependency, ambiguity and power.
QUESTIONGender norms & victim-blaming
Expose the narratives that displace responsibility.
LOCATEAgency & peer responsibility
Examine how groups distribute silence, status and risk.
ACTSafe intervention & referral
Choose proportionate responses without escalating harm.
COMMITRehearsal, review & prevention
Test judgement and make practical commitments.
Participant outputMore precise recognitionSafer response optionsPeer accountabilityPractical commitments
A credible programme knows its limits
Prevention education, not disclosure extraction.
- Use fictional, non-graphic scenarios
- Build recognition and response options
- Offer clear referral information
- Pause when safety conditions fail
- Report mixed, null or adverse findings
SAFE
LEARNING
SPACEAdults 18–25
No personal disclosure required
LEARNING
SPACEAdults 18–25
No personal disclosure required
- Provide clinical or therapeutic care
- Investigate allegations
- Solicit survivor testimony
- Infer perpetration from scenario scores
- Claim reduced incidence without evidence
The unit of change is larger than the participant
Learning travels through three connected levels.
Judgement
Recognise coercive dynamics and locate responsibility more accurately.
- Scenario decisions
- Confidence to respond
practise
Action
Interrupt harmful narratives and choose safer intervention or referral.
- Peer language
- Bystander options
reinforce
Routine
Adopt practical protocols that make responsible action easier to sustain.
- Two routines per host
- Retention check
Evidence chainpre/post scenarios→facilitator records→adoption evidence→follow-up
No readiness, no delivery
Every cohort passes through a safety gate.
A partner may pause delivery whenever referral, facilitation or participant-safety conditions are not met. Restart requires technical review.
PAUSE AUTHORITYAny consortium partner
01National pathway confirmedNamed focal point · current referral route · emergency information
02Materials technically approvedGBV/consent review · non-graphic scenarios · no disclosure prompts
03Facilitators preparedBoundaries · distress response · escalation · documentation
04Delivery conditions checkedPrivacy · accessibility · participant briefing · voluntary participation
READYcohort may begin
Six settings · one comparison frame
Local relevance without losing the common core.
Each country hosts two cohorts, adapts scenarios and documents delivery under a shared protocol.
12cohortscommon protocol
& RESC method
& facilitation
& evaluation
& sustainability
& accessibility
& multilingual fit
Complementary responsibility
Six partners. Distinct authority. One delivery chain.
TIACoordinator · WP1 & WP2
Governance, ethics, needs assessment and RESC methodology.
EufoníaWP3 lead
Scenario learning, facilitator preparation and specialist GBV input.
CSDWP5 lead
Independent evaluation, evidence review and transfer learning.
Innovation HiveWP4 lead
Organisational adoption, routines and sustainability.
InklusioInclusion partner
Accessible adaptation and inclusive delivery support.
Zone FemmesCommunity partner
Outreach, referral relevance and multilingual adaptation.
KEY EXPERTISEInes Caloisicoordination & RESCMahmoud Assylearning designNoor Ammar LamartyGBV & safeguardingAlexander Gerganovevaluation
SECTION 02THE PROGRAMME THROUGH THE WORK PACKAGES
WP1WP2WP3WP4WP5
Five work packages · one operating system
Three engines. Two rails. One transfer package.
Governance and evaluation run across the full programme while design, delivery and adoption move the work forward.
WP1 · M1–24Governance & safeguardingTIA · coordination · ethics · quality · safety authorityCONTINUOUS CONTROL
co-design
Needs evidence becomes the common learning design.
M1–8TIA
M8design
release
release
pilot
Facilitators turn the design into twelve documented cohorts.
M7–20Eufonía
M20pilot
dossier
dossier
sustain
Hosts convert learning into observable routines.
M8–24Innovation Hive
M24transfer
EU-LEVEL OUTPUTTransfer
package
package
Method · scenarios · safeguarding · adoption · evidence
evidence feeds designevidence tests deliveryevidence qualifies transfer
WP5 · M1–24Independent evaluation & learningCSD · protocol · interim review · final evaluation · refinementCONTINUOUS EVIDENCE
WORK PACKAGE VIEWFROM PROGRAMME LOGIC TO DELIVERY
WP1WP2WP3WP4WP5
From need to usable material
The design package is a controlled release.
- 01Map needs
Compare consent, peer and host-practice needs across six settings.
- 02Co-design scenarios
Translate needs into fictional, non-graphic decision points.
- 03Review risk
Check framing, victim-blaming, accessibility and referral relevance.
- 04Freeze common core
Approve the elements required for cross-country comparability.
DESIGN PACKAGE · RELEASE GATE
01Learning objectiveapproved
02Scenario safetyapproved
03Accessibility reviewapproved
04National referral routerequired
05Measurement linkapproved
RELEASE TARGETM8D2.2 · sensitive
WORK PACKAGE VIEWFROM PROGRAMME LOGIC TO DELIVERY
WP1WP2WP3WP4WP5
Twelve cohorts, one disciplined engine
Scale through preparation, not standardisation alone.
Facilitators deliver a common learning logic while adapting examples, language and access conditions.
24facilitatorsprepared by M10
≈300 adults 18–25≥80% completion5 × 2h per cohortM19 pilots complete
WORK PACKAGE VIEWFROM PROGRAMME LOGIC TO DELIVERY
WP1WP2WP3WP4WP5
Learning needs somewhere to land
Each host converts insight into at least two observable routines.
A routine counts only when there is evidence that it exists in practice, not merely an intention in a meeting note.
12new or strengthened routinestarget: 75% retained after ≈3 months
01
Select
owner namedChoose a feasible routine tied to a programme need.
02
Adopt
evidence loggedApprove the routine and communicate how it works.
03
Use
use observedApply it in a real host process or participant setting.
04
Retain
M22–23 checkCheck whether it remains active after the pilot.
Possible routinesreferral signpostingfacilitator briefingevent safety protocolpeer-response scriptescalation route
WORK PACKAGE VIEWFROM PROGRAMME LOGIC TO DELIVERY
WP1WP2WP3WP4WP5
Independent evidence function
Measure change, then test what the measure can honestly support.
CSD leads an evaluation loop that separates learning signals from claims the design cannot substantiate.
Scenario judgement, norms and response confidence.
Immediate change on standardised measures.
Retention, participant reach and routine status.
Country variation, attrition and implementation context.
Update materials and qualify transfer guidance.
CSDindependent
evaluation lead
evaluation lead
Claim disciplineScenario scores indicate judgement in the task; they do not prove behaviour change or reduced violence incidence.
Critical path
Design by M8. Ready by M10. Learn through M24.
123456789101112131415161718192021222324
WP1Govern & safeguard
WP2Research & co-design
WP3Prepare & pilot
WP4Adopt & sustain
WP5Evaluate & transfer
M8design release
M10delivery ready
M19pilots complete
M23final evaluation
M24transfer package
Five evidence questions
Success is multidimensional and qualified.
Proposed targets are validated by the independent evaluator before implementation.
Mean-point improvement on a standardised 0–100 measure.
pre / post scenarioMean-point improvement on a standardised 0–100 measure.
pre / post scenarioMean-point improvement on a standardised 0–100 measure.
pre / post scenarioMean-point improvement on a standardised 0–100 measure.
pre / post scenario≥80% programme completion; 12 routines; 75% retained.
records / evidence / follow-upBefore fieldworkConfirm scale validity, minimum sample, follow-up feasibility and subgroup analysis thresholds.
The theory of change
From facilitated moments to transferable prevention practice.
RESC lens, safeguarding framework, trained facilitators.
Five-session scenario sequence in 12 cohorts.
Participant measures, delivery records, host routines.
Better recognition, peer response and organisational support.
Materials and evidence that show where the model travels well.
Assumption 01Participants can attend enough sessions to practise and consolidate.
Assumption 02Hosts provide credible safety, referral and adoption conditions.
Assumption 03Evidence is interpreted with attrition and context visible.
Usefulness over visibility
Disseminate what others can actually use.
The communication approach is accessible, non-sensational and avoids survivor stories as promotional content.
Targeted participant communication in six settings.
Host-level learning for practitioners and organisations.
Cross-country evidence, limitations and adaptation.
Concise findings, transfer conditions and cautions.
TRANSFER PACKAGEmethod guide+scenario set+safeguarding tools+adoption framework+evaluation learning
Operational realism
The key risks are known. Controls need named triggers.
The full register contains thirteen risks; these are the proposal-critical controls.
IMPACT
LIKELIHOOD
MONITOR
CONTROL
CONTROL
PRIORITY
Governance ruleEscalate early, document the decision, and change the methodology when evidence or safety requires it.
Total eligible budget
€512,613€461,352 EU contribution€51,261 co-financing
90%EU funding rate
WP3Prepare & pilot€185,284 · 36.1%
WP2Research & co-design€137,118 · 26.8%
WP5Evaluate & transfer€86,749 · 16.9%
WP4Adopt & sustain€67,922 · 13.3%
WP1Govern & safeguard€35,540 · 6.9%
86 person-months
Largest investment follows the labour-intensive work: design, facilitator preparation, twelve cohorts, documentation and cross-country evaluation.
What Europe receives
Not another awareness campaign.
A tested responsibility system.
REspSHIFT connects young adults’ judgement, peer response, host practice and independent evidence in one transferable model.
RErecognise · respond · reinforce
Close the six readiness gaps
Assign owners, evidence and deadlines before final submission.
Protect the common core
Keep safeguarding, measurement and facilitation standards explicit.
Preserve claim discipline
Let the evaluation strengthen the model, even when results are mixed.
Responsibility becomes visible in the choices a system makes possible.