3rd Interim Evaluation of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency - EACEA
The purpose of this assignment was to evaluate the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) and its performance in the period 2012–2014. Formally evaluated twice prior to this assignment, the European Commission contracted PPMI to carry out four specific tasks, in particular to:
- provide a synthetic description of the changes the Agency underwent in the period 2012–2014 amid the transition between the two programming periods;
- conduct a retrospective cost–benefit analysis;
- assess the implementation by the EACEA of the actions identified in its Action Plan developed in response to recommendations of the second evaluation;
- draw conclusions and provide recommendations for the future on the basis of the evaluation questions.
The third evaluation of the EACEA was based on a holistic approach to organisational performance analysis, addressing all relevant departments and assessing any significant relationships between identified factors and performance of the Agency. To conduct diagnostic and prescriptive analyses of agency activities, our team identified a set of contextual factors/ variables and key enablers, as well as different types of results of organisational performance, linking all of them together in a single analytical framework. Inspired and largely based on principles of the Common Assessment Framework (CAF), this framework was specifically tailored and remodeled for the purposes of the EACEA evaluation.
Since this evaluation contained the characteristics of both quantitative and qualitative inquiry, a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods were used, including desk research, interviews, case studies, surveys, cost–benefit, cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness analysis, as well as other methods of retrospective and prospective analysis.
By reviewing whether any of the quantitative factors have changed significantly since the publication of the previous cost–benefit analysis and elaborating primarily on various qualitative aspects of organisational performance (e.g. by presenting concrete cases of good practice), this evaluation allowed reporting the results of the retrospective cost–benefit analysis to the budgetary authority. Also, the results of this assignment is expected to improve the EACEA’s performance and the implementation of the EU programmes delegated to this Agency by identifying possibilities for further organisational improvement. Moreover, the Final Report of this evaluation provided evidence on the operation of the Executive Agency framework in the case of EACEA as a multi–programme and multi–parent agency managing many EU programmes and reporting to several DGs of the Commission.