Your KA2 proposal could be perfectly written — and still get rejected. Not because your idea is bad, but because you failed to prove anyone actually needs it. In this post “KA2 Needs Analysis Evidence” we do a research on it.
This post is based on Lesson 2.3 — Stakeholder Evidence from Module 2 of the KA2NA course. In this lesson, we explore why KA2 needs analysis evidence is the single factor that separates funded proposals from rejected ones — and what evaluators are actually checking when they read your needs section.
For more information please check Needs Analysis resources. The AI Agent Node team regularly shares practical insights on what evaluators look for in Erasmus+ proposals.
Why Most Proposals Fail the KA2 Needs Analysis Test
Most applicants make the same mistake. They describe what they want to do. They explain their activities and outline their goals. However, they never prove the problem is real.
Evaluators are not there to be impressed by your vision. They are instructed to verify. That single word changes everything — they are looking for hard evidence that a genuine need exists, and that your organisation actually understands it.
Without that evidence, your proposal reads like a solution looking for a problem. Furthermore, evaluators are specifically trained to spot exactly that gap.
What the Evaluator Guide Says About KA2 Needs Analysis Evidence
The evaluator guide is explicit. Your needs analysis must draw on existing knowledge, know-how, and practice to accurately identify the needs of your target groups and participating organisations.
For specific KA2 actions — such as European Partnerships for School Development — the bar is even higher. The guide requires relevant context, real-life examples, and data to explain definitively why the project is needed. Additionally, it is not enough to show that your own participants will benefit. The project must address needs at a wider scale, beyond those who directly take part.
Moreover, the needs you identify must clearly link to the priorities of the specific Action your project intends to meet. A strong idea that does not connect to those priorities will still be marked down.
The Real Cost of Getting This Wrong
According to the Erasmus+ evaluator guide, if a KA2 proposal fails to demonstrate a convincing needs analysis aligned with the Action’s priorities, the evaluator is instructed to score the relevance criterion as “Weak.” A Weak score on relevance means the entire project is rejected — no matter how strong the rest of the application is.
That is not a partial deduction. It is a full rejection. Consequently, even the most detailed budget, the most experienced consortium, and the most innovative methodology cannot save a proposal that fails on needs analysis.
How to Turn This Around
The good news is that this is one of the most fixable problems in grant writing. Once you understand what evaluators are actually looking for — and why real evidence from your target groups and organisations is the bridge between your idea and their approval — you can build a needs section that holds up under scrutiny.
Indeed, the proposals that pass are not necessarily the most creative ones. They are the ones that show a genuine understanding of a real problem, backed by specific evidence that an evaluator can verify.
In the KA2NA community, we walk you through exactly how to gather, structure, and present the evidence that evaluators need to see. This is not theory — it is the practical process that gets proposals past the relevance threshold. Join us if you are ready to stop guessing and start writing with confidence.
Conclusion
As conclusion, KA2 needs analysis evidence is not a formality — it is the foundation of a fundable proposal. Evaluators are trained to verify that your project addresses real, documented needs aligned with the priorities of the Action. Get this right, and you give your project the credibility it needs to succeed. Join our Training Waiting List, below.
