• Summary
  • 1 Introduction
  • 1.1 Purpose of the study
  • 1.2 Background
  • 1.3 Scope of the analysis
  • 1.4 Objective and structure of this report
  • 2 Agencies: a first overall picture
  • 3 Study methods
  • 3.1 Main lines of the study method
  • 3.2 Challenges and potential limitations
  • 4 Agencies: the answered questions
  • 4.1 Relevance
  • 4.1.1 What are the tasks typically entrusted to the agencies?
  • 4.1.2 Who are the final beneficiaries or addressees of the agencies’ outputs?
  • 4.1.3 What have been the rationales of setting-up decentralised agencies and are the rationales still valid?
  • 4.1.4 To what extent have the needs of the various clients / stakeholders been prioritised and matched?
  • 4.1.5 Answering the overall relevance question
  • 4.2 Coherence
  • 4.2.1 To what extent are the agencies' objectives coherent with those of the EU policy served?
  • 4.2.2 To what extent are the agencies' objectives coherent with those of other EU policies?
  • 4.2.3 To what extent are the agencies' objectives coherent with EU cross-cutting priorities?
  • 4.2.4 To what extent are the tasks of the different agencies coherent with one another?
  • 4.2.5 To what extent are the agencies' activities coherent with other European and international institutions?
  • 4.2.6 Answering the overall coherence question
  • 4.3 Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness
  • 4.3.1 What are the actual and expected results and impacts of the agencies’ tasks?
  • 4.3.2 What are the added values that the agencies have provided (or are expected to provide) in fulfilling the Community tasks?
  • 4.3.3 What were the costs of achieving the results and impacts of the agencies?
  • 4.3.4 What are the effects of the different financing arrangements in place?
  • 4.3.5 Have the agencies had any impact in term of proximity to and visibility by EU citizens? If so, which one/ones?
  • 4.3.6 Overall answer to the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness question
  • 4.4 Internal efficiency
  • 4.4.1 What are the common characteristics of