Canada

The study will focus on European Union Member States and European supranational cybersecurity organization and will seek to identify, based on publicly available documents, what are the performance measurement frameworks and indicators embedded in strategies, programs or projects and will be instrumental to designing conceptual frameworks that are both analytically appropriate and adaptable for the dynamic threat environments.

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to support the upcoming 2026 evaluation of the Shared Services Canada (SSC) Cyber Security Program. This evaluation is being led by the Office of Audit and Evaluation (OAE). The objective is to produce a study which includes the lessons learned for developing logic models and identifying performance indicators for programs whose primary objective is to prevent negative outcomes from occurring, such as (but not limited to) public health, security, crime prevention, Disaster Risk Reduction, or others. Furthermore the study will contribute to provide an assessment of how these models define, measure, and evaluate success.

Scope

In addition the study should provide:

• a better understanding of the outcomes that appear on the logic models for “negative outcome” programs. This would include how their outcomes defined and measured. In addition, how are these programs evaluated and assessed for their effectiveness (i.e., progress toward expected outcomes).
• a better understanding on how to measure and evaluate performance that can arise from improved detection practices. “False positives”

The overall objective of the LCBA programme was to promote EU companies on low carbon and circular economy related technologies and services at regional scale in the Americas

The Action contributed to promote and defend EU economic interests, in particular SMEs and small-mid caps, on the regional stage and thus constituted a major operational action in support of an EU Economic

Diplomacy. It also contributed to the limitation and/or reduction of industrial GHG emissions in line with the commitments of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.

The main objectives of this evaluation were to provide the relevant services of the European Union and the interested stakeholders with:

• an overall independent assessment of the past performance of the Public Diplomacy Actions (EU Policy and Outreach Partnership in South America – Phase II and EU Policy and Outreach Partnership, Canada – Phase II), paying particular attention to its results measured against its expected objectives; and the reasons underpinning such results;
• key lessons learned, conclusions and related recommendations in order to improve current and future Actions.

In particular, this final evaluation served to understand the performance of the Actions, their enabling factors and those hampering a proper delivery of results as to inform the planning of the future EU interventions in relation to EU Policy and Outreach Partnerships (EUPOPs) and Cultural Diplomacy. To this end, this final evaluation also looked at the package of Actions as a whole.

The evaluation assessed the Actions using the five standard DAC evaluation criteria, namely: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and perspectives of impact. In addition, the evaluation assessed two EU specific evaluation criteria:

• The EU added value (the extent to which the Actions bring additional benefits to what would have resulted from Member States' interventions only);
• The coherence of the Actions and approach with the EU Global Strategy, the new EU priorities for 2019-2024, as well as with other EU policies and Member State Actions.

Additionally, the evaluation team performed the following tasks:

• Identified type of activities that are frequently included across EUPOP Actions and facilitate the comparison across countries by highlighting the approach, the organisation costs (fees, incidentals) and summarised the key aspects in a table.
• Summarised some best practices per type of initiative/target audience/country in a booklet format.

The evaluation team furthermore considered whether gender, environment and climate change were mainstreamed; the relevant SDGs and their interlinkages were identified, and the extent to which they have been reflected in the implementation of the Actions, their governance and monitoring.

The main objectives of this evaluation are to provide the relevant services of the European Union, the interested stakeholders with:

• an overall independent assessment of the past performance of the Partnership Instrument (PI) funded Policy Dialogues Support Facilities (PDSFs) to be evaluated, paying particular attention to the approach taken under the different PDSFs, as well as paying particular attention to the intermediate or final results measured against their expected objectives; and the reasons underpinning such results;
• key lessons learned, conclusions and related recommendations in relation to the PI approach and use of PDSFs and in order to improve current and future Actions.

The specific rationale for undertaking this evaluation is to assess the relevance, outcomes, and approach of PI funded Policy Dialogues Support Facilities (PDSFs), as well as the added value of the activities in strengthening EU’s partnerships/alliances and its position as a global player in the countries concerned, and reinforcing multilateralism, as expressed in the specific objectives of the PI.

This evaluation contract covers 13 actions. The work to be covered under this contract is a hybrid evaluation of individual actions and, drawing conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned, where possible, when looking at the package of these projects as a whole and the approaches taken on how to use the “SPDF approach” to influence effectively EU interests in the respective countries.

The focus of the evaluation is two-fold:

• On the assessment of the approach taken in relation to PDSFs under the different Actions, progress to date and, by explaining why progress is happening or is not happening as planned, provide recommendations on how to improve the approach in order to achieve the expected objectives of the PI, taking into account problems and opportunities.
• This evaluation will also serve to understand the performance of the Actions, its enabling factors and those hampering a proper delivery of results as to inform the planning of the future funded Policy Dialogues Support Facilities.