You Are Not Alone As previously mentioned, the evaluation started from the first year of the project with the analysis of the demand. In each country a focus group has been planned and implemented with the aim to define the course contents. It is necessary to underline that a focus group is a sort of team interview from which an interpretative observation arises. A team is put into a debate, and a moderator stimulates the discussion, trying to make spontaneous opinions and points of view come out. The focus groups have been conduced through a directive technique, orienting the discussion on the bases of a pre-established set of issues to be analyzed. Firstly, the members of the focus were invited to briefly describe own professional role and the institute they belonged to. Then the moderator synthetically described the conceptual objectives of the meeting. After the “presentation” phase, the focus started with the set of questions under issue. The results gathered have been managed at three different levels: a) The written records made during the focus group course were transcribed following the order of the questions made. b) Then, the written records related to each question were subjected to the classical textual analysis technique. In effect, to each question a brief and organic presentation of opinions followed. Subsequently, the material was analyzed and interpreted, taking into consideration both verbal and non verbal observations recorded by the moderator. c) Finally, the answers were elaborated by a specific software for textual analysis: named “Concordance”. This software enables to analyze the context in which a specific word (or groups of words with the same stem) has been used. This operation is particularly useful in order to rebuild, for each word, its thematic references, creating a conceptual map between words and issues faced. The textual analysis has been implemented in two sub sequential steps: the first regarding the entire set of contents, the second for each single question. Some words, even if meaningful (e.g. bullying, context, bully, victim, etc.) have not been considered as explicative of any thematic reference, being themselves excessively recurrent and generic. So, such words have been cut off from the analysis. Then, the “key words” and their frequency have been identified according to each question. These key words offered an explicative synthesis of the contents. Secondly, such words have been aggregated in thematic frameworks according to each specific question. For instance, concerning the first question, the key words have been brought back to the following macro-categories: “causes of bullying”, “consequences”, “solutions”. The deriving grid enables to underline, for each question, the main elements of the discussion and the solutions suggested by the testimonials. So, before the implementation of the training course an evaluation process of the project quality has been put in action. Such process enabled the definition of the following aspects: – The deepening level of the different subjects; – The methods and the didactical articulation; – The logical, chronological and psychological compactness of the pathway. Once defined the training project, it has been implemented. The “tout court” evaluation focused on three main analysis levels: – beneficiaries’ reaction before, during and after the course implementation, in terms of customer satisfaction; – perception of learning contents (knowledge and facts, independently from a check of their application) – learning outputs in relation to the European Qualification Framework. The assumption inspiring the evaluation was that learning/change represents the real parameter of evaluation of the results of a training path, and such variable is expressed by the way of thinking and behaving of people as regards to their own role within an organisation.