EQUAL - Final report - eng - navreme

More documents

Recommendations

Info

EVALUATION OF CIP EQUAL TRANSNATIONAL CO-OPERATION PRINCIPLE Graph 3: Structure of all processed questionnaires from set of questions no.2 (managing structures) according to the respondent’s country of origin (in total 34 questionnaires; the respondents from the Czech Republic represent ca. 23,5 %) 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 8 Czech Republic 3 3 United Kingdom Austria Countries [managing structures] 2 2 2 THE RETURNABILITY OF QUESTIONNAIRES Poland France Portugal 1 1 1 0 0 As it has been already stated herein above, in total, there were received 254 questionnaires, while there were 1,717 e-mail addresses addressed successfully; thus, the returnability of questionnaires is 14.8 %. The questionnaire was distributed on-line in the following language versions: Czech, English, Italian, French, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, and Polish. Although the team took a decision (despite the original offer that was counting only on the Czech and English versions) to translate the questionnaire to the languages of all eleven countries where the investigations were effected (or rather ten because in case of Slovakia good knowledge of Czech was expected), the step did not positively lead to increased returnability. Availability of a particular language version thus has no direct causal connection with the returnability of questionnaires, in our case this is true especially as regards France and Italy, where the returnability is far below the average, contrary to the high returnability achieved in the case of addresses targeted with the invitation to participate written in English despite probably addressing persons of various nationalities – those were generic domains (e.g. .com, .org, etc), and especially representatives of CIP EQUAL managing structures and representatives of the European Commission (under the “other country” section in the graph). Graph 4 shows that Portugal, Poland, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, the United Kingdom and undifferentiated countries are above the average returnability, while all the other countries are below the average. The dark blue column marks the number of filled in questionnaires, and the rest of the column the number of addressed addresses per respective country. The red points mark the questionnaire returnability per respective country. Hereto, we add the following methodological note: while the number of the addressed shows the numbers of e-mail addresses with the proper national domain (e.g. the number of addresses ending with .de means the number of addresses addressed in Germany); the filled-in questionnaires were differentiated by countries, not by home domains because the questionnaires were anonymous, and so the country that a respondent stated at the beginning of the questionnaire. Theoretically, it is therefore possible that a respondent from Brussels stated Germany as the country of origin, but having been addressed by the English version of the letter as Navreme Boheme, s.r.o. 68 Germany Spain The Netherlands Italy Slovakia 11 other
EVALUATION OF CIP EQUAL TRANSNATIONAL CO-OPERATION PRINCIPLE one of the “undifferentiated”, he or she could fill in the questionnaire in English. The first Interim Report contained an extensive set of addresses targeted with the invitation to fill in the questionnaire. This set makes it evident that the country of e-mail address origin and the country of a respondent’s origin correspond in most cases. Thus, we consider the above mentioned example to be an unlikely, yet theoretically possible exception. Graph 4: The number of e-mail addresses addressed as regards the filled-in questionnaires 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Portugal 36,67% 31,63% Poland 25,93% other The Netherlands The number of e-mail addresses addressed as regards the filled-in questionnaires (counties with appropriate language version in green) 21,10% Czech Republic addressed filled-in questionnaires in total returnability 17,55% 17,12% United Kingdom Slovakia 13,86% 11,94% 11,63% 11,17% 3,20% 3,18% Navreme Boheme, s.r.o. 69 Germany Austria Spain France Italy 40,00% 35,00% 30,00% 25,00% 20,00% 15,00% 10,00% 5,00% 0,00%
Page 1 and 2:
Version: 6 (final) In Prague, 19th
Page 3 and 4:
EVALUATION OF CIP EQUAL TRANSNATION
Page 5 and 6:
0. INTRODUCTION 0.1 Foreword EVALUA
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EVALUATION OF
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
2.3.2 Supporting infrastructure EVA
Page 19 and 20:
2.4.4 What has EQUAL brought EVALUA
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
3.4.7 Case studies EVALUATION OF CI
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Short summary of partial outputs (b
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50: 7.1.5 Monitoring and evaluation EVA
Page 51 and 52: EVALUATION OF CIP EQUAL TRANSNATION
Page 57 and 58: Obsah zadávací dokumentace 1. Zá
Page 59 and 60: 1.7. Harmonogram zakázky • Odesl
Page 61 and 62: Konkrétními oblastmi podpory (neb
Page 63 and 64: Mezi tyto výhody, které princip m
Page 65 and 66: Dále se předpokládá velmi inten
Page 67 and 68: 2. Část studie zaměřená na hod
Page 69 and 70: 3. Část studie zaměřená na hod
Page 71 and 72: 4. Analýza specifických aspektů
Page 73 and 74: 5. Analýza zajímavých přístup
Page 75 and 76: určení minimální výše adminis
Page 77 and 78: 6. 5. Zpracování návrhu zajišt
Page 79 and 80: 4. Požadované výstupy a jejich u
Page 81 and 82: Pozn. U anglických překladů jedn
Page 83 and 84: 5.2. Členění nabídky Nabídka m
Page 85 and 86: 6. Hodnocení nabídek Základním
Page 87 and 88: 6.3. Ekonomicky nejvýhodnější n
Page 89 and 90: onal Cooperation OP LZZ. al Coopera
Page 91 and 92: terms of applying transnation al co
Page 93 and 94: specific aspects of ESF projects fo
Page 95 and 96: operation. 6.2. Identification of f
Page 97 and 98: 8.3 Questionnaire Survey EVALUATION
Page 99: EVALUATION OF CIP EQUAL TRANSNATION
Page 137 and 138: Results of the questionnaire survey
Page 147 and 148: 8.5 Evaluation Visits Scenario I. P
Page 151 and 152:
8.7 List of Case Studies Czech Repu
Page 153 and 154:
Visit[N] Interview[R] Name of Organ
Page 155 and 156:
Visi t [N] Poland Inte rvie w[R ] R
Page 157 and 158:
Vi siz s[ N] Inte rvie ws[ R] Name
Page 159 and 160:
Vis its[ N] Int erv iew s[R ] Name
Page 161 and 162:
Vis it[ N] Italy Int erv iew [R] Na
Page 163 and 164:
Section IV: Processes EVALUATION OF
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Italy: EVALUATION OF CIP EQUAL TRAN
Page 173 and 174:
Austria: EVALUATION OF CIP EQUAL TR
Page 175 and 176:
8.9.9 Contacts EVALUATION OF CIP EQ
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Navreme Boheme, s.r.o. 147 EVALUATI
Page 181 and 182:
Dortane, Kristine Navreme Boheme, s
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Development partnership ID E-mail I
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Development partnership ID E-mail D
Page 201 and 202:
Development partnership ID E-mail D
Page 203 and 204:
Development partnership ID E-mail U
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Development partnership ID E-mail P
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Development partnership ID E-mail F
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Development partnership ID E-mail S
Page 223 and 224:
Development partnership ID E-mail S
Page 225 and 226:
Development partnership ID E-mail A
Page 227 and 228:
Development partnership ID E-mail E
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Development partnership ID E-mail N
Page 239 and 240:
Development partnership ID E-mail N
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Organization Development partnershi
Page 247 and 248:
Organization Development partnershi
Page 249 and 250:
Organization pracujících s uprchl
Page 251 and 252:
14 Ing. Ivan Matulík Tel: 577 043
Page 253 and 254:
Pozorovatelé Evropská komise - G
Page 255 and 256:
B - Establishment of entrepreneursh
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
MŠMT odbor koncepce vzdělávací
Page 261 and 262:
E - Equal opportunities for men and
Page 263 and 264:
8.11 Settlement of Comments EVALUAT
Page 265:
show all

EQUAL - Final report - eng - navreme

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?