COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Evaluation of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training based on Article 32 of the CEPOL Regulation (EU) 2015/2219 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL) and replacing and repealing Council Decision 2005/681/JHA
Date: 2022-04-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: CEPOL, EU Member State, European security, application of the law, fight against crime, in-service training, operation of the Institutions, prevention of delinquency, public safety, third country

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 6.4.2022  SWD(2022) 103 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT   Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL  Evaluation of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training   based on Article 32 of the CEPOL Regulation (EU) 2015/2219 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL) and replacing and repealing Council Decision 2005/681/JHA                                 {COM(2022) 153 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

2. 

3. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ..................................................................................... 2 

STATE OF PLAY ................................................................................................................................. 4 

4.  METHOD............................................................................................................................................ 11 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .......................................... 12 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
List of Abbreviations 

AFRIPOL 

African Police Cooperation Organisation  

APEC 

AWP 

CA 

CAAR 

CARIN 

CC 

CCA 

CCWP 

CEP 

Association of European Police Colleges  

Annual Work Programme 

Contract Agents 

Consolidated Annual Activity Report  

Camden Asset Recovery Inter-Agency Network 

Common curriculum  

CEPOL Cybercrime Academy  

Customs Cooperation Working Party  

CEPOL Exchange Programme 

CEPOL 

European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training 

CKC 

CNUs 

COSI 

CSDP  

EASO 

CEPOL Knowledge Centre  

CEPOL National Units  

Standing Committee on Operational Cooperation on Internal Security  

Common Security and Defence Policy 

European Asylum Support Office  

ECTEG 

European Cybercrime Training and Education Group  

EEAS 

EJMP 

EJTN 

European External Action Service 

European Joint Masters Programme 

European Judicial Training Network  

EMCDDA 

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction  

EMPACT 

European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threats 

ENP 

ENTRi 

EPEP 

ESDC 

EU 

eu-LISA 

European Neighbourhood Policy  

Europe’s New Training Initiative for Civilian Crisis Management  

European Police Exchange Programme 

European Security and Defence College  

European Union 

European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large Scale 
IT System  

EUPST 

European Union Police Services Training 

Eurojust 

European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation 

EUROPOLL  European Union Agency for Law Enforcement 

EU-STNA 

EU Strategic Training Needs Assessment  

EY 

FRA 

Ernst & Young 

Fundamental Rights Agency  

 
 
 
FRONTEX 

European Border and Coast Guard Agency 

FWP 

HENU 

HWP 

IPA 

JHA 

JIT 

ICU 

KPI 

LEEd 

LETS 

LEWP 

MB 

MASP 

NCP 

OAP 

OSCE 

OTNA 

SPD 

SNE 

TA 

WP 

Framework Partner  

Head of Europol National Unit 

Horizontal Working Party on Cyber Issues  

Instrument for Pre-Accession  

Justice and Home Affairs 

Joint Investigation Team 

International Cooperation Unit 

Key Performance Indicators 

Law enforcement education 

Law Enforcement Training Scheme 

Law Enforcement Working Party 

Management Board 

Multi Annual Strategic Plan (EMPACT) 

National contact point  

Operational Action Plan (EMPACT) 

Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe  

Operational Training Needs Analysis 

Single Programming Document 

Seconded National Experts 

Temporary agents  

Work Programme 

Member State Abbreviations 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czechia 

Germany 

DK  Denmark 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

Estonia 

Greece 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Latvia 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

Slovakia  

 
 
 
 
HR 

Croatia 

HU  Hungary 

IE 

IT 

Ireland 

Italy 

Other 

UK 

United Kingdom 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The European Union Agency  for  Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL)  was founded in  2000 
and its current legal mandate entered into force on 1 July 2016, resulting from Regulation (EU) 
2015/2219 (hereinafter: the CEPOL Regulation). As per Article 3 of the Regulation, CEPOL’s 
mandate  includes  supporting,  developing,  implementing  and  coordinating  training  for  law 
enforcement  officials.  The  external  study  supporting  this  evaluation  was  conducted  by  a 
consortium of RAND Europe and Ernst & Young (EY). 

Purpose and scope 

As foreseen in Article 32 of the CEPOL Regulation and based on the Terms of Reference for 
the external evaluation, the contractors assessed in the evaluation study: 

1. The effectiveness and efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value of CEPOL and 
of its working practices since 2015. 

2. Lessons  learned  and  recommendations  to  better  respond  to  the  challenges  posed  by  the 
constantly  changing  environment,  against  the  background  of  the  current  authorised  financial 
and human resources for CEPOL. 

The  evaluation  also  had  to  verify  to  what  extent  the  provisions  establishing  the  Agency  are 
aligned with the Common Approach on Decentralised Agencies, looking in particular into the 
Agency's  governance,  internal  structures  and  procedures  and  applicable  administrative  and 
financial  rules.  Another  intention  of  the  evaluation  was  to  provide  solid  grounds  for  any 
possible decision concerning the Agency’s future mandate. 

The results of the evaluation are expected to be used by CEPOL, its Management Board, the 
Commission,  the  Council,  and  the  European  Parliament  and  other  Justice  and  Home  Affairs 
agencies in the future decision-making process regarding CEPOL’s functions and operations. 

The  scope  of  the  evaluation  in  terms  of  subject,  timeframe,  stakeholders  consulted,  and 
territory was: 

•  Subject: The evaluation addresses the objectives of the Agency as established in Article 3 of 
the CEPOL Regulation 2015/2219 of 25 November 2015. In doing so, it covers: the working 
practices  of  CEPOL;  the  provisions  establishing  CEPOL;  CEPOL’s  governance,  internal 
structures,  procedures  and  administrative  and  financial  rules;  CEPOL’s  internal  (within  the 
EU) and external (with third countries) activities; and how the Agency cooperates with other 
EU agencies and international organisations. 

•  Timeframe: The evaluation covers the period 2015 to 2020. 

•  Stakeholders:  The  following  categories  of  stakeholders  have  been  consulted  for  the 
evaluation: CEPOL staff; the CEPOL Management Board; CEPOL National Units (CNUs) and 
National  Contact  Points  (NCPs);  EU  institutions;  Justice  and  Home  Affairs  (JHA)  agencies; 
European level organisations; International organisations; third countries; Framework Partners 
(FWPs); Training participants; and the general public. A full list of stakeholders consulted for 
the evaluation is provided in Annex II. 

1 

 
•  Territory:  The  evaluation  covers  CEPOL’s  activities  with  all  EU  Member  States  (except 
Denmark  ),  third  countries  with  which  CEPOL  has  working  arrangements,  cooperation 
agreements and similar arrangements, and international organisations and EU agencies. 

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

Established as European Police College by Council Decision 2000/820/JHA, CEPOL became 
operational on 1st January 2001 and later an Agency in 2005. The revised CEPOL Regulation 
2015/2219  of  25  November  2015  entered  into  application  on  1st  July  2016.  As  of  that  date, 
CEPOL  became  the  European  Union  Agency  for  Law  Enforcement  Training  (the  acronym 
remained unchanged). 

The general objective of the new Regulation is to align CEPOL with the Lisbon Treaty and to 
give  it  the  appropriate  legal  mandate  to  implement  the  Commission  Communication  on 
“Establishing  a  Law  Enforcement  Training  Scheme”  (LETS)1,  as  well  as  to  improve  the 
governance of CEPOL by seeking increased efficiency. 

The  new  legal  framework  has  modified  CEPOL’s  mandate.  It  now  includes  a  wider  target 
group (all law enforcement agents as opposed to only senior police officers), a more active role 
in the delivery of training activities (the Agency only used to coordinate national academies), 
the task to identify EU strategic training needs, and a more prominent activity in the external 
dimension. 

CEPOL's mission is to provide training and learning opportunities to law enforcement officers 
on  issues  vital  to  the  European  police  cooperation.  Training  covers  topics  ranging  from 
leadership  to  law  enforcement  techniques  and  from  EU  cooperation  to  economic  crime. 
Activities  are  designed  to  facilitate  the  sharing  of  knowledge  and  best  practices  and  to 
contribute to the development of a common European law enforcement culture. 

CEPOL  contributes  to  a  safer  Europe  by  facilitating  cooperation  and  knowledge  sharing 
among  law  enforcement  officials  of  the  EU  Member  States  and  to  some  extent,  from  third 
countries, on issues stemming from EU priorities in the field of security, notably from the EU 
Policy  Cycle  on  serious  and  organised  crime,  now  commonly  know  as  EMPACT  (European 
Multidisciplinary  Platform  Against  Criminal  Threats)2.  Moreover,  CEPOL  assesses  training 
needs  to  address  EU  security  priorities.  The  agency’s  annual  work  programme  is  built  with 
input  from  its  network  and  all  concerned  stakeholders,  resulting  in  topical  and  focused 
activities designed to meet the needs of Member States in the priority areas of the EU internal 
security  strategy.  The  Agency  also  supports  the  EU  Neighbourhood  Partners  through  a  few 
capacity building projects, which cover in different formations the Eastern Partnership Region, 
the MENA countries, Turkey and the Western Balkans. 

CEPOL’s  headquarters  were  relocated  to  Budapest  (Hungary)  as  of  1st  October  2014,  at  the 
initiative  of  the  Member  States,  which  rejected  the  European  Commission's  proposal  of 
merging  CEPOL  and  Europol  in  The  Hague.  The  relocation  from  London  to  Budapest 
happened despite the European Commission's negative opinion. 

1  COM(2013) 172 final. 
2 

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-fight-against-crime/  and  https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-
we-do/policies/law-enforcement-cooperation/operational-cooperation/empact_en 
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-fight-against-crime/ and 

2 

 
                                                 
Description of the intervention and its objectives 

In  accordance  with  the  Better  Regulation  guidelines  for  evaluations  of  the  European 
Commission3, the evaluation examines the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance and coherence 
of the actions of CEPOL, as well as at the achieved EU added value of these actions. Table 1 
below sets out the definition of each of these components. 

Table 1: Overview of cross-cutting evaluation components 

Evaluation 
criterion 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Relevance 

Coherence 

General description based on Better Regulation Guidelines 

This  aim  of  the  effectiveness  criterion  is  to  assess  the  extent  to  which  the  objectives  of 
CEPOL  (as  described  in  the  intervention  logic,  see  Annex  IV)  have  been  achieved.  The 
Better  Regulation  Guidelines  specify  that  as  part  of  this  criterion  the  evaluation  should 
examine why an objective has or has not been met as well as factors driving or hindering 
progress. 

This  criterion  demands  an  assessment  of  the  relationship  between  the  cost  of  operating 
CEPOL and the changes it has led to (or contributed to) because of its activities. For this 
evaluation,  the  benefits of  CEPOL’s  activities  cannot be quantified  so  the focus  is on  the 
costs  of  CEPOL’s  activities  and  the  efficiency  of  CEPOL’s  operations.  Efficiency  is  a 
measure  of  how  resources/inputs  (funds,  human  resources,  expertise,  time  etc.)  are 
converted into results. 

The  relevance  criterion  examines  the  extent  to  which  CEPOL’s  activities  are  in  line  with 
the  needs  of  Member  States,  the  EU  and  its  external  stakeholders.  It  examines  the 
relationship  between  the  CEPOL’s  work  programs  and  the  needs  and  problems  that 
existed in relation to the need for coordination in law enforcement training.  

For  CEPOL,  this  criterion  assesses  the  extent  to  which  activities  and  objectives  of  the 
Agency are: (i) consistent, logical and not overlapping internally, and (ii) seek to achieve 
common  objectives  with  those  of  external  stakeholders  (i.e.  Member  States,  the 
Commission, EU agencies and non-EU agencies). 

EU added value 

This  criterion  aims  to  identify  the  extent  to  which  CEPOL  has  brought  benefits  in 
comparison  with  what  exists  at  EU  and  national  levels.  The  criterion  also  assesses  the 
extent to which CEPOL has helped to improve the coordination of police training. 

Source: Based on Tool #42: Identifying the evaluation criteria and questions4. 

Intervention logic 

To aid the analysis, an intervention logic was created for this evaluation (see Annex IV)5. This is 
the  main  tool  to  understand  causal  and  logical  links  among  the  objectives  of  the  Agency  and  the 
relevance, coherence and effects expected from work and activities. 

3  European  Commission.  n.d.  “Better  regulation  guidelines  -  Evaluation  and  fitness  checks.”  Available  at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/better-regulation-guidelines-evaluation-fitness-checks.pdf 
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/tool_42_en.htm 

4 
5  The  intervention  logic  describes  how  an  intervention  is  expected  to  attain  its  global  objectives,  by  listing  all  its 
activities/inputs (including the governance arrangements for the Agency, the internal structures and procedures and 
the  administrative and financial arrangements) and expected effects (outputs, results and impacts), as  well as the 
assumptions  that  explain  how  the  activities/inputs  will  lead  to  the  effects  in  the  context  of  the  intervention.  An 
intervention logic aims to reconstruct the expected chain of events of an intervention by using a model of causality, 
i.e. demonstrating how an intervention was triggered by needs existing and how it was designed, with the intention 
of producing the desired changes. European Commission n.d. Better Regulation: Guidelines and toolbox. Accessed 
22  April  2021 
from:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-
regulation-why-and-how/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en 

3 

 
                                                 
The  intervention  logic  highlights  CEPOL’s  overarching  objective,  which  is  to  support,  develop, 
implement,  and  coordinate  training  for  law  enforcement  officials.  This  is  a  crucial  role  that  is 
intended to ensure law enforcement officials are equipped to protect human rights, prevent and fight 
serious crime and terrorism, and maintain public order. The specific objectives of CEPOL are to:  

Support  Member  States  in  developing  bilateral  and  regional  cooperation  through  the 

Support  Member  States  in  the  provision  of  training  to  law  enforcement  officials,  in 

Develop, implement and coordinate training on specific thematic areas; 
Develop,  implement  and  coordinate  the  training  of  law  enforcement  officials  when 

 
particular on elements of cross-border and European law enforcement cooperation; 
 
delivery of multilateral training; 
 
 
preparing for participation in EU missions and in capacity building activities in non-EU countries; 
 
of best practice; 
 
and development of law enforcement officials.6 

Develop,  upgrade  and  evaluate  learning  tools  and  methodologies  that  support  the  learning 

Provide training to law enforcement trainers and supporting the development and exchange 

Evaluation framework 

The methodological approach was derived from a careful analysis of the  33 evaluation questions 
set out in the terms of reference and presented in Annex V, and the production of evaluation grids 
separated  by  each  of  the  five  evaluation  criteria.  Building  on  the  evaluation  questions,  the 
evaluation grids include: 

Judgment criteria: statements that need to be confirmed or not confirmed by the analysis. 
Analytical  approach  to  be  used  to  answer  the  evaluation  question.  The  type  of  analysis 

 
 
proposed informed the type of information collected. 
 
 

Indicators: quantitative and qualitative measures that support the analysis. 
Data sources: quantitative and qualitative sources to feed the analysis and indicators. 

In this report, the evaluation criteria are addressed in the order of the Better Regulation Guidelines. 
The evaluation questions are provided in Annex V. 

Baseline and points of comparison 

This  is  the  first  evaluation  carried  out  by  the  Commission;  the  previous  evaluation  was 
commissioned by CEPOL and covered the preceding five years. 

3. 

STATE OF PLAY 

Description of the current situation 

The new legal basis resulting from the 2015 Regulation  (EU) 2015/2219 established CEPOL 
as a European Agency. The Regulation was implemented following the European Parliament’s 
request for the development of a strong EU framework for judicial and police training and built 

6  Article 

3, 

Regulation 

(EU) 

2015/2219. 

Available 

at: 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015R2219&from=EN 

4 

 
                                                 
on the work of the Stockholm Programme.7 The Regulation outlined a range of new tasks that 
included  capacity  building  in  third  countries,  promoting  the  mutual  recognition  of  training 
between Member States  and the assessment of EU initiatives. Moreover,  the new legal  basis 
broadened  CEPOL’s  remit  in  terms  of  external  relations  and  target  audience8,  and  led  to 
changes in its governance structure. The current objectives as outlined in the 2015 Regulation 
(Article  3)  are  supporting,  developing,  implementing  and  coordinating  training  for  law 
enforcement officials. More specifically: 

 Support  Member  States  in  the  provision  of  training  to  law  enforcement  officials,  in 
particular on elements of cross-border and European-level policing. 

 Support  Member  States  in  developing  bilateral  and  regional  cooperation  through  the 
delivery of multi-lateral training. 

 Develop, implement and coordinate training on specific thematic areas. 

 Develop,  implement  and  coordinate  the  training  of  law  enforcement  officials  when 
preparing  for  participation  in  EU  missions  and  in  capacity  building  activity  in  non-EU 
countries. 

 Provide training to law enforcement trainers and support the development and exchange of 
best practice. 

 Develop,  upgrade  and  evaluate  learning  tools  and  methodologies  that  support  the  learning 
and development of law enforcement officials9. 

CEPOL  aligns  its  activities  with  relevant  EU  strategies  and  policies,  such  as  the  European 
Agenda  on  Security,  focusing  its  learning  and  training  outputs  on  threat  areas  such  as 
terrorism, serious and organised crime, cybercrime and the smuggling of migrants10. CEPOL 
has identified cybercrime as the key priority for the coming years, demonstrated by the launch 
in  2019  of  the  CEPOL  Cybercrime  Academy  (CCA).  These  strategic  areas  also  address  the 
priorities outlined in the EMPACT11. 

task  emerged  from  an  acknowledgment 

Another  key  task  of  CEPOL  is  to  conduct  the  EU  Strategic  Training  Needs  Assessment 
(EU-STNA).  This 
the 
establishment  of  the  Law  Enforcement  Training  Scheme  (LETS),  of  the  need  to  address  the 
lack of a systematic process for identifying the evolving training needs for law enforcement in 
the  EU.  The  Regulation  identified  that  this  was  necessary  to  avoid  duplication  and  ensure 
better coordination of training activities.12 The first EU-STNA was launched in 2017. This led 

in  2013,  following 

7  Adopted in 2009 by the European Council to provide a framework for EU action on issues related to justice and 

8 

home affairs. 
Prior to the Regulation CEPOL’s target audience were senior police officers in Member States, but this remit was 
broadened  to  allow  CEPOL  to  cater  to  the  needs  of  the  wider  population  of  European  law  enforcement  officials 
(including the judiciary/prosecutors). 

9  Article 

3, 

Regulation 

(EU) 

2015/2219. 

Available 

at: 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015R2219&from=EN 

10  European  Commission.  2015.  European  Agenda  on  Security:  Strengthening  EU  cooperation  in  the  fight  against 
at:  https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-is-

cybercrime.  Available 

and 

terrorism,  organised 
new/news/news/2015/20150428_01_en 

crime 

11  A four-year cycle set up by the EU in order to create a greater measure of continuity for the fight against serious 
international  and  organised  crime:  https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/law-enforcement-
https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/law-
cooperation/operational-cooperation/empact_en 
enforcement-cooperation/operational-cooperation/empact_en  

12  Article 

4.1. 

Regulation 

(EU) 

2015/2219. 

Available 

at: 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015R2219&from=EN 

5 

 
                                                 
to  a consolidated list  of 184 EU-level  training needs across 21 thematic  categories that were 
distributed among the Member States, with a request to prioritise and rank the training needs. 
CEPOL prepared a report based on these findings, which was later endorsed by the European 
Parliament.  In  addition  to  the  EU-STNA,  CEPOL  also  undertakes  an  Operational  Training 
Needs Analyses (OTNA) on the key priority topics outlined by the EU-STNA. The aim of this 
exercise is to gain a detailed understanding of the profile of the officials to be trained, as well 
as the proficiency and urgency of the training to  be delivered. In 2020, OTNAs were carried 
out  in  five areas:  illegal  immigration;  trafficking  in  human beings;  criminal  finances;  money 
laundering  and  asset  recovery;  and  drug  trafficking.  Multiannual  training  portfolios  are 
informed by the outcome of OTNAs. 

CEPOL  is  governed  through  a  Management  Board,  made  up  of  representatives  from  26 
Member  States  and  the  European  Commission.  The  Chair  of  the  Management  Board  is  a 
representative of one of the three Member States that have jointly prepared the Council of the 
European Union’s 18-month programme. The board meets twice per year and works to adopt 
CEPOL’s  annual  and  multi-annual  work  programming  and  its  annual  budget.  Programming 
documents set out a number of ‘goals’ along with key performance indicators (KPIs) used to 
monitor future progress in consultation with the Member States. The Management Board also 
provides  suggestions  to  improve  CEPOL’s  internal  processes  and  compiles  the  Consolidated 
Annual  Activity  Report  (CAAR)  for  each  financial  year,  which  assesses  the  delivery  of 
activities against requisite work programmes and KPIs. 

CEPOL  is  headed  by  an  Executive  Director  who  is  accountable  to  the  Management  Board. 
The  responsibilities  of  the  Executive  Director  include,  but  are  not  limited  to,  the  day-to-day 
administration  of  CEPOL;  making  proposals  to  the  Management  Board  as  regards  the 
establishment  of  CEPOL's  internal  structures;  implementing  decisions  adopted  by  the 
Management  Board  and  preparing  the  draft  multi-annual  programming  and  annual  work 
programmes  and  submitting  them  to  the  Management  Board.  Between  2016  and  2018 
CEPOL’s  operations  services  were  reorganised,  with  a  dedicated  International  Cooperation 
Unit  (ICU)  now  in  place.  In  addition,  e-learning  provision  and  research  and  analysis  sectors 
were added to an updated Training and Research Unit and legal functions became incorporated 
into  the  Director’s  Office,  rather  than  under  corporate  services.  The  Director’s  office  also 
combines  external  relations,  communications,  and  quality  management  functions,  among 
others (see  Figure 1 below). CEPOL has dedicated  CNUs in  every Member State to  provide 
information  and  assistance  to  law  enforcement  officials  wanting  to  participate  in  CEPOL’s 
activities.  CNUs  also  support  CEPOL’s  operations  and  influence  the  annual  work 
programming. 

6 

 
Figure 1: CEPOL’s Management and Governance Structure13  

Source: CEPOL Single Programming Document 2020-2022. 

The  aforementioned  CEPOL  Management  Board  oversees  the  Agency’s  governance,  risk 
management and internal control practices. This process takes place through the use of tools such as 
progress  reports  (including  performance  indicators  and  audit  recommendations),  annual  activity 
reports and internal/external audits. 

CEPOL’s internal organisational structure is composed of two departments, which are coordinated 
by  the  Head  of  Operations  and  Head  of  Corporate  Services,  as  well  as  three  units  under  the 
supervision  of  a  head  of  unit  (Head  of  Training  and  Research  Unit,  Head  of  International 
Cooperation,  Head  of  Finance,  Procurement  and  Travel).  At  the  level  of  units,  all  managers  are 
accountable for the achievement of objectives and operational and internal control and comply with 
the  reporting  arrangements  within  the  Agency.  The  main  responsibility  of  the  CEPOL  units  is  to 
manage risk and controls on a daily basis.14 CEPOL also uses an Internal Control Framework (ICF) 
to  support  its  decision  making  to  achieve  objectives  and  sustain  operational  and  financial 
performance,  respecting  rules  and  regulations.  CEPOL  does  not  have  a  dedicated  managerial 
position  in  charge  of  risk  management  and  internal  control;  this  is  a  shared  management 
responsibility.  In  addition  to  the  ICF,  CEPOL  has  followed  the  Quality  Management  System 
Standard ISO 9001:2015, since February 2017, when the certification was obtained. 

Staffing 

In  2020,  CEPOL’s  staff  numbered  84  in  total  (see  Table  2).  According  to  CEPOL’s  2020 
Establishment  Plan,  the  Agency  aimed  to  have  33  Temporary  Agent  (TA)  positions  in  2020, 

13  The CEPOL Organogram as of 1 January 2020 describing the changes that will be effective from 2021. 
14  CEPOL 2020 Single Programming Document Years 2020-2022. Available at 

https://www.cepol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Annex-23-2019-MB.pdf p130-131 

7 

 
 
                                                 
complimented  by  19  Contract  Agent  (CA)  positions  and  7  Seconded  National  Expert  (SNE) 
positions. Fluctuations in staffing levels can be attributed to varying needs for the delivery of EU 
projects funded from grant agreements, such as the Western Balkan Financial Investigations project 
concluded in March 2020. 

Table2: Number of CEPOL staff, 2015 – 2020 

Number of staff 
Temporary agents (TA) 

2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020 
26 
9 

Contract agents (CA) 
Seconded national expert (SNE) positions  10 
TOTAL 
45 
Source: CEPOL Consolidated Annual Activity Reports (CAAR) (2015 – 2020). Notes: Staff numbers 
are those at the end of each year. 

32 
30 
5 
67 

30 
32 
7 
69 

31 
46 
7 
84 

25 
18 
6 
49 

30 
17 
6 
53 

The most recent CAAR, published in 2021, noted that the staff turnover at CEPOL continued to be 
relatively  high.  Consequently,  the  Agency  used  a  number  of  interim  staff  and  SNEs  to  fill  in  for 
staff absences, until recruitment of statutory staff was completed and continued the reclassification 
of staff and functions, as well as maintaining teleworking and flexitime arrangements. 

Budget and finances 

CEPOL’s activities are funded through an annual subsidy from the European Commission, as well 
as grant agreements specifically for activities delivered through CEPOL’s ICU15. As shown in the 
table 3 below, CEPOL’s overall revenue increased gradually over the period 2015 to 2020, mainly 
due to a steady increase in the revenue from grant agreements. There was no significant increase in 
CEPOL’s  EU  annual  subsidy  in  the  period  before  and  after  the  new  legal  basis  came  into  effect. 
That is, in 2012, 2013 and 2014 the EU annual subsidy was €8.45 million, €8.45 million, and €8.35 
million respectively. At the time of the new legal basis, in 2015 and 2016, the revenue from the EU 
subsidy remained stable. The subsidy increased to over €10 million in 2018, decreased again to €9 
million in 2019 and increased again to over €10 million in 2020. 

Table 3: CEPOL’s annual budget (‘000 Euro) 
2018 
2016 

2015 

2017 

2019 

2020 

CEPOL's voted budget  
Operational  expenditure  (‘000 
Euro) 
Operational  expenditure  (%  of 
total) 
Buildings  and  equipment  (‘000 
Euro) 

4,429 

4,812  

5,173 

5,897  

4,620  

5,618 

52% 

56% 

56% 

57% 

50% 

54% 

495  

481 

514 

596 

423 

453 

In  2015,  a  €2.5  million  project  was  granted  to  CEPOL  by  the  Commission  to  implement  a  counter-terrorism 
capacity  building  project  in  four  countries  in  the  MENA  region  (CEPOL  Annual  Report,  2015).  The  project 
implementation ended in 2017 and that same year, CEPOL signed two new agreements with different Commission 
services (DG NEAR and EEAS). This was for the implementation of two capacity-building actions: the Financial 
Investigation In-Service Training Programme in the Western Balkans (maximum budget of €2.5 million for 2018-
2019) and the EU/MENA Counter-Terrorism Training Partnership (maximum budget of 6.4 million for 2018-2020) 
(CEPOL  CAAR  2018).  In  2019,  CEPOL  signed  an  agreement  with  DG  DEVCO  for  the  implementation  of  the 
action ‘CT INFLOW – Enhancing Information Exchange and Criminal Justice Response to Terrorism in the Middle 
East and North Africa’ (maximum budget of 7.5 million for 2019-2021) (CEPOL CAAR, 2019). 

15 

8 

 
 
                                                 
Buildings  and  equipment  (%  of 
total) 
Staffing (‘000 Euro) 
Staffing (% of total) 
SUB-TOTAL 
Grant agreements 
CT MENA 
CT2 
FI  
CT inflow 
Euromed Police 
SUB-TOTAL 

GRAND TOTAL 
Proportion  of  total  comprised  of 
grant funding 
Source: CEPOL’s CAARs (2015 - 2020). 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

6% 

5% 

5% 

6% 

4% 

4% 

3,548  
42% 
8,471  

3,347 
37% 
8,641  

3,593 
39% 
9,280  

3,923 
38% 
10,417  

4,265 
46% 
9,308  

4,368 
42% 
10,439 

300  

1,244  

1,816  
907  
-                                     
-                                       
1,946  
-                                        
1,217  
-  
-  
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
4,979  
906  
1,244 
300  
15,396  
10,187  
9,885  
8,771  
32% 
9% 
13% 
3% 

2,381  
1,165  
3,750  
- 
7,296  
16,604  
44% 

- 
-                                        
1,370 
1,178 
3,750 
1,504 
7,802 
18,241 
43% 

CEPOL’s  activities  are  organised  as  part  of  its  annual  work  programme  (AWP),  which  is 
established at the outset of each year and agreed upon with the Member States and the Commission. 
The  programme  contains  detailed  objectives,  expected  results  and  performance  indicators.  For 
example, CEPOL routinely monitors the number of participants for each activity and measures how 
this has changed from year to year, against its annual targets. The AWP also features a description 
of  the  actions  to  be  financed  and  an  indication  of  the  financial  and  human  resources  allocated  to 
each action, in accordance with the principles of activity-based budgeting and management. 

CEPOL offers a range of activities for the learning and development of law enforcement officials in 
the Member States and third countries.  Table 4 provides  data on the number of training activities 
delivered by the Agency over the period 2015 to 2020 by type of activity and year. While CEPOL 
does  itself  deliver  some  activities,  including  residential  and  online  learning,  CEPOL  implements 
most  of  its  activities  through  the  allocation  of  grants  to  Framework  Partners  identified  through 
restricted Call for Proposals that are published every four years. 

2015 
85 
389 
66 

Table 4: Number of training activities by type and year16 
2019 
2017 
100 
105 
468 
598 
98 
95 
9 
8 

2018 
103 
526 
98 
4 

2016 
87 
492 
87 
1 

2020 
4 
47 
169 
22 

Residential  

Exchanges 

Webinars 
Online Courses  1 
Source: CEPOL CAARs (2015 - 2020). 

Residential  training  activities  involve  participants  from  across  the  EU  coming  together  in  one 
location (often not at CEPOL’s headquarters in Hungary) for several days of knowledge, expertise 

Includes learning and training activities carried out in third countries. 

16 

9 

 
 
 
                                                 
and  skill  transference.  The  Activity  Organiser  is  responsible  for  preparing  the  content,  budget 
planning, implementation and logistics. 

The CEPOL Exchange Programme (CEP), formerly the European Police Exchange Programme 
(EPEP) allows law enforcement officers to spend a week in another country with a counterpart. The 
CEP, which is modelled on the Erasmus programme, offers participants an exchange of knowledge 
and good practice, with the opportunity to network and form long lasting professional relationships. 

All  of  CEPOL’s  activities  are  supported  by  the  Agency’s  online  training  platform,  Law 
Enforcement Education (LEEd), which is open to all EU law enforcement officers and is free to 
use.  LEEd  replaced CEPOL’s old  e-learning platform,  ‘e-Net’, in  2020.  CEPOL’s online learning 
offer comprises webinars, online courses and online modules. 

The  CEPOL  European  Joint  Master  Programme  (EJMP)  was  an  EU  academic  programme 
developed in 2015 with the objective of addressing common challenges of police cooperation in the 
area of internal security. The EJMP targeted senior law enforcement officers or experts in general 
management  and  specialist  positions.  From  2020  the  continuation  of  the  EJMP  was  put  on  hold 
after  the  Internal  Audit  Service  identified  non-compliant  practices  around  the  setup  of  the 
programme. 

A  more  recent  activity  was  the  2019  inauguration  of  the  Cybercrime  Academy  (CCA).  Built  to 
train  up  to  100  participants  simultaneously,  the  establishment  of  the  academy  reflects  CEPOL’s 
prioritisation  of cybercrime as  a  growing threat  to European economies and societies. Until April 
2021, the CCA had delivered 38 training activities. 

In  2017  two  CEPOL  Centres  of  Knowledge  (CKCs)  were  established  in  the  areas  of 
counterterrorism  and  CSDP  Missions  to  pilot  a  new  business  model  of  implementing  courses 
through multiannual direct awards granted to Framework Partners. CEPOL’s CKC model intended 
to  bring  together  subject  experts  from  Member  States  and  relevant  EU  Agencies  to  design  multi-
annual training portfolios (including residential and online activities) on given topic areas. CEPOL 
would  be  responsible  for  designing  and  implementing  courses  within  the  CKC,  in  collaboration 
with  hosting  training  institutions  in  Member  States.  The  pilot  aimed  to  increase  efficiency  by 
encouraging  Framework  Partners’  ownership  of  projects,  reducing  the  administrative  burden  on 
applicants  generated  by  the  annual  grants’  procedure  as  well  as  addressing  a  consistent 
underspending  of  resources  and  limited  capacity  of  Framework  Partners  to  implement  CEPOL 
activities. Further to  an  external  evaluation,  CEPOL designed and implemented  a hybrid business 
model  in  2020,  with  a  clearer  division  of  responsibilities.  In  this  hybrid  model,  CEPOL  began  to 
enlist  the  support  of  CKCs,  composed  of  representatives  from  Member  States,  as  well  as  from 
relevant EU JHA agencies and bodies (e.g. Europol, Frontex, EASO), with expertise on a specific 
topic listed in the call for experts. The CKC groups are tasked with helping CEPOL to prepare its 
multiannual  training  portfolio  for  each  thematic  area,  based  on  strategic  and  operational  training 
needs assessments. In 2020, one new CKC was piloted in line with this new business model, with a 
thematic focus on counterterrorism, and one additional pilot is being set up in 2021 focusing on law 
enforcement cooperation, information exchange and interoperability. 

One  of  CEPOL’s  multiannual  objectives  is  to  contribute  to  and  encourage  the  development  of 
research relevant for training activities and to disseminate research findings. To fulfil this objective, 
CEPOL  aims  to  integrate  developments  in  research  and  promote  the  creation  of  stronger 
partnerships between universities and law enforcement training institutes in the Member States. In 
terms of research outputs, since 2009 CEPOL has published several bulletins on an annual basis on 
its  website.  From  2018  onwards,  these  bulletins  were  published  as  the  ‘European  Law 
Enforcement  Research  Bulletin’.  There  were  on  average  two  research  bulletins  published  each 
year between 2015 and 2020. 

10 

 
Described  as  the  Agency’s  ‘flagship  event’  the  CEPOL  Annual  Research  and  Science 
Conference  aims  to  provide  insight  into  the  future  challenges  of  modern  European  policing, 
although no conference has been held in 2017-20. The conference celebrated its 15th anniversary in 
2016  and  brought  together  researchers  and  practitioners  from  across  the  EU  to  explore  the 
challenges  of  law  enforcement  training  and  education17.  In  2017  the  conference  was  organised  in 
collaboration  with  the  Hungarian  National  University  of  Public  Services  and  focused  on 
‘Innovations in Law Enforcement – implications for practice, education and civil society. CEPOL is 
also an occasional host of workshops. Additionally, CEPOL has an e-library and registered users 
of CEPOL’s LEEd platform have online access to more than 300 European and international titles 
of e-journals covering areas such as police science, law enforcement and criminal justice. 

CEPOL  is  required  by  its  mandate  to  design  and  implement  its  activities  in  accordance  with  the 
challenges and needs of the EU. The capacity building in third countries has worked towards main 
policy documents, including the European Agenda on Migration, the European Agenda on Security 
and the Council Conclusions on EU External Action on Counter-terrorism. The EU/Middle East and 
North  Africa  (henceforth  ‘MENA’),  the  Counter-Terrorism  Training  Partnership  (1  and  2)  and 
Financial  Investigation  in-service  training  Western  Balkans  are  projects,  which  have  aimed  to 
enhance the Agency’s role in strengthening the internal security of the immediate neighbourhood of 
the  EU.  The  activities  in  this  area  include  residential  stays,  regional  workshops,  evaluation  visits 
and round tables. 

4. 

METHOD 

Short description of methodology 

Limitations and robustness of findings 

There are a number of limitations of the data collected to inform the evaluation, which should 
be  borne  in  mind  when  interpreting  the  findings.  Below  we  summarise  the  limitations  and 
mitigation measures taken to address them. 

1.  Measuring effectiveness: Measurement of the Agency’s effectiveness is limited by lack of 
statistical,  financial,  and  administrative  data  to  test,  challenge  and  validate  the  expert 
judgements  and  stakeholder  opinions  collected  through  fieldwork  activities.  For  example, 
there is an absence of data to  assess whether the skills and knowledge of CEPOL training 
participants have actually increased as a result of the training provided. 

2.  Relying  on  self-reported  data:  Data  collected  from  stakeholders  through  interviews  and 
surveys is self-reported, may be subject to recall bias and may reflect the specific agenda of 
those consulted.  

Mitigation measure to points 1 and 2: Triangulation of self-reported data with data 
analysed from documentary sources including factual information on the functioning 
of CEPOL, information on CEPOL’s activities, previous evaluation documents, and 
documents related to CEPOL’s partnerships. 

3.  Attributing  outcomes:  In  the  absence  of  a  counterfactual,  there  are  challenges  in 
unequivocally attributing outcomes to the activities of CEPOL. The aim of this  evaluation 
was  to  assess  the  strength  of  evidence  for  CEPOL’s  progress  against  the  intended 
intervention  logic,  rather  than  assess  direct,  verifiable  causality  based  on  strong  empirical 
evidence. 

Mitigation measure: The evaluation is a contribution analysis, rather than an impact 
evaluation assessing causality. 

17  CEPOL 2016 Single Programming Document Years 2016-2018. 

11 

 
                                                 
4.  Quantifying  benefits:  The  inability  to  quantify  the  benefits  of  CEPOL  means  that  this 
analysis  is  unable  to  make  any  concrete  conclusions  about  the  cost-effectiveness  of  the 
Agency. 

Mitigation  measure:  The  efficiency  analysis  focuses  on  the  costs  of  CEPOL’s 
activities and the efficiency of the Agency in light of the resources available. 

5.  Representativeness  of  stakeholder  views:  There  may  be  selection  bias  because  those 
interviewed  and  surveyed  were  selected  by  the  research  team  following  a  stakeholder 
mapping exercise (involving the Commission and CEPOL) and may not be representative of 
all stakeholders of CEPOL.  

Mitigation  measure:  Selection  of  stakeholders  across  a  range  of  groups  including 
those at the EU, Member State, and international levels. 

5. 

ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

This section includes a summary of the analysis carried out during the evaluation. 

5.1 Effectiveness 

Key findings:  

CEPOL  key  programming  documents  consider  and  reflect  the  objectives  of  its 

 
mandate and the priorities of the EU Agenda on Security and related policy documents. 

CEPOL and its stakeholders recognise the importance of the peer-to-peer transfer of 

 
knowledge (‘cascading’) to reach a broader audience. 

 
CEPOL’s EU Strategic Training Needs Assessment (EU-STNA) methodology aligns 
with the priorities set at EU level (EMPACT), while taking into account the input provided by 
national stakeholders in the consultation process. 

CEPOL’s  relationship  with  each  relevant  JHA  agency  and  actor  is  distinctive, 

 
signalling that CEPOL can adapt its working approach to maximise potential synergies. 

 
CEPOL  is  widely  recognised  for  building  trust  and  facilitating  the  development  of 
cooperation among law enforcement services to an extent that would not be achieved by the 
Member States without EU intervention. 

CEPOL has a solid quality assurance mechanism in place to guaranty the high quality 

 
of content and deliver of training activities when CEPOL has full oversight of the process. 

Following  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines,  this  criterion  examines  why  an  objective  has  or 
has not been met, as well as factors driving or hindering progress. The evaluation looked at the 
effectiveness in relation to the general and specific objectives outlined in the intervention logic 
(Annex  IV).  Given  the  diverse  potential  beneficiaries  of  CEPOL’s  work,  the  assessment  of 
effectiveness attempts to provide sufficient details so as to explore what is effective, when and 
for whom. 

The  analysis  of  available  evidence  shows  that  CEPOL’s  AWPs  reflect  both  the  Agency’s 
objectives  and  relevant  EU  priorities.  Most  CNUs/NCPs  indicated  that,  in  their  opinion, 
almost  all  of  CEPOL’s  objectives  have  been  reflected  ‘to  a  great  extent’  in  the  Agency’s 
actions and activities over the past five. 

Multiple  interviewees  noted  that  CEPOL  struggles  to  address  the  enlarged  target  audience 
introduced  by  the  2015  Regulation.  Compared  to  the  total  number  of  law  enforcement 
personnel in the EU, CEPOL directly reaches only a minimal proportion of its target audience. 
It  should  be  noted  that  CEPOL  is  not  expected  to  reach  a  specific  numeric  target  of  law 

12 

 
enforcement practitioners by mandate, as the Stockholm Programme tried to set a quantifiable 
target for law enforcement training activities, yet the proposition did neither find its way in the 
LETS Communication, nor in Regulation 2015/2219. Given CEPOL’s relatively small size (69 
staff  members)  and  annual  budget,  it  is  difficult  for  CEPOL  to  directly  reach  a  sizeable 
proportion  of  the  target  audience.  Police  officers  alone  in  the  26  Member  States  covered  by 
CEPOL  amount  to  around  1.5  officers18,  a  figure  that  does  not  account  for  the  extended 
targeted audience introduced by the 2015 Regulation19. CEPOL activities in 2019, its best year 
on record to date in terms of outreach, reached a total of 34,615 participations (Table 5). The 
available  data20  show  that  CEPOL  training  participants  usually  take  part  in  more  than  one 
activity,  and  with  the  current  system  CEPOL  is  unable  to  distinguish  between  unique 
participants (whereby individuals would be counted only once, even if they attended multiple 
CEPOL courses) and participations (total attendance to CEPOL activities, counting individuals 
multiple  times  for  each  activity  they  attended),  leading  to  an  inaccurate  representation  of  its 
outreach  activities  in  the  Annual  Reports.  Even  admitting  that  CEPOL  managed  to 
substantially enlarge its audience, CEPOL must therefore rely on indirect means to extend its 
reach and address the broadest target audience possible, most notably through the ‘cascading 
mechanism’ and its digitalisation strategy. 

Table 5: Number of participants by training type and CEPOL outreach capacity assuming it 
only targeted police officers 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

202021 

Residential  

Exchanges 

External project 

E-learning webinars 

E-learning modules 

Online course  

Total online 

Total 
participations 

3,073 

2,946 

3,383 

3,062 

3,057 

428 

- 

6,731 

2,709 

51 

492 

281 

598 

507 

526 

527 

468 
1,22622 

10,889 

13,748 

15,415 

3,329 

5,301 

72 

230 

8,570 

141 

29,86423  38,764 

108 

47 

572 

9,491 

14,290 

19,279 

24,126 

reported 

12,992 

18,009 

23,494 

29,003 

34,615   39,401 

Total excluding external 
projects 

Police officers in EU-2624 

12,992 

17,728 

22,987 

28,476 

33,381  38,829 

1,489,896 

1,493,486 

1,498,322 

1,502,053 

1, 
481,297 

n/a 

18  According to Eurostat, in 2019 there were 1,481,297 police officers in the EU 26 (Denmark excluded as not part of 

CEPOL and missing countries estimated with previous available year value). 

19  Eurostat does not provide data on all people in law enforcement. 
20  The survey of training participants shows that, on average, participants attended 3 CEPOL activities between 2015 

and 2020. Survey of training participants (n=769). 

21  Data from a provisional version of the CAAR. 
22  CEPOL  reported  1334  total  participants  from  CT2  and  FI  WB  projects,  however  108  exchanges  were  double 

counted both as FI WB exchanges and CEP exchanges. The table reports data without the double counting. 

23  No disaggregated data available for 2019. 
24  Eurostat only provides data on police officer numbers. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
% of EU-26 police officers 
CEPOL could have 
reached25 
Source: CEPOL CAARs (2015-2020) (participants), Eurostat (police officers). 

1.90% 

1.19% 

1.53% 

0.87% 

2.25% 

n/a 

Given the above, CEPOL should aim to broaden the reach of its target audience through the 
cascading  mechanism  resulting  from  the  training  of  trainers  and  peer-to-peer  transfer  of 
knowledge. The evaluation found that the extent of cascading is inconsistent across Member States 
and largely out of CEPOL’s control. As a matter of fact, Regulation 2015/2219 does not include the 
explicit  promotion  of  the  peer-to-peer  transfer  of  knowledge  in  the  remit  of  CEPOL,  although 
Article  3  includes  the  objective  to  “train  trainers  and  assist  in  improving  and  exchanging  best 
learning practices” and cascading seems the logical means to ensure a broader outreach, given the 
Agency’s current capacity. Information collected shows that CEPOL, while not actively promoting 
cascading,  recognises  its  importance  and  attempts  to  capture  its  impact,  although  with  mixed 
results. CEPOL uses its customised version of Kirkpatrick’s methodology for training evaluation to 
collect  information  from  training  participants  on  the  extent  to  which  they  transfer  knowledge 
acquired  through  CEPOL.  However,  CEPOL’s  reporting  on  cascading  is  inconsistent  –  using 
slightly different metrics in different CAARs, precluding meaningful comparison (see Table 6). 

Table 6: Accounts of the cascading effect reported by CEPOL  

Accounts of the cascading effect reported by CEPOL 
CAAR 
2015 

‘The cascading of gained knowledge is an on-going practice in all Member States.’ 

CAAR 
2016 

CAAR 
2017 

CAAR 
2018 

CAAR 
2019 

‘94%  of  participants  declared  that  they  successfully  transferred  the  obtained 
knowledge in  their  professional  environment.  96% of  line managers  confirmed the 
practical use of the knowledge gained in CEPOL trainings.’ 
‘Last  year  overwhelming  majority  of  the  course  attendants  declared  that  they  had 
shared their acquired skills and knowledge in their national environment.’ 
‘[The]  overwhelming  majority  of  course  attendees  declared  that  they  had  shared 
their  acquired  skills/knowledge  in  their  national  environment.  They  shared  the 
knowledge primarily with their fellow colleagues (88 %), with their line managers 
(46%) or with their staff (36%).’ 
‘Cascading the knowledge gained in CEPOL trainings is strong, participants shared 
the  knowledge  primarily  with  their  fellow  colleagues,  with  their  line  managers 
and/or with their staff.’ 

CAAR 
2020 
Sources: CEPOL CAARs (2015-2020). 

No reference to cascading 

Nonetheless, most of the surveyed CNUs/NCPs and training participants affirm that the knowledge 
and  skills  acquired  through  CEPOL’s  training  programmes  are  being  transferred  by  training 
participants  to  their  peers.  Survey  respondents  were  also  of  the  view  that  cascading  is  not  in 
CEPOL’s  hands,  however,  some  offered  suggestions  as  to  how  CEPOL  could  better  support 
cascading  by:  (i)  actively  including  the  requirement  to  envisage  cascading  activities  for  the 
participants  as  part  of  the  training  developed  by  CEPOL  and  by  its  FWPs,  and  to  report  on 
those;  (ii)  developing  a  process  to  collect  data  to  evidence  the  cascading;  (iii)  developing 

25  CEPOL’s  participant’s  numbers  are  compared  only  to  police  officers,  despite  CEPOL  target  audience  includes 

prosecutors and non-police investigators (e.g. lab personnel). 

14 

 
 
                                                 
operational  guidance  on  how  cascading  could  be  ensured  at  the  national  level;  and  (iv)  actively 
reminding  participants  of  the  importance  of  cascading  their  knowledge  to  their  peers;  and  (v) 
sharing  best  practices  on  cascading.  All  information  collected  by  stakeholders  point  to  the 
conclusion that capturing the impact of the cascading effect is indeed challenging, however, given 
(i)  the  small  number  of  EU  law  enforcement  officials  trained  per  year  as  compared  to  the  entire 
population;  and  (ii)  the  recognised  importance  attributed  by  CEPOL  to  cascading  for  multiplying 
the impact of training activities, there is a strong argument that CEPOL should do more to actively 
promote cascading. 

CEPOL  appears  committed  to  fulfil  its  mandate  when  it  comes  to  cross-border  and 
European-level policing and invests its resources accordingly, with appreciable results. Regulation 
2015/2219  details  three  specific  aspects  of  cross-border  cooperation  and  EU-level  policing  that 
CEPOL’s activities should focus on: (1) training on the implementation and use of international and 
Union  instruments  for  law  enforcement  cooperation;  (2)  training  for  Union  bodies  and  JHA 
agencies;  (3) training on judicial cooperation and practical  use of information exchange channels. 
The evidence collected shows that all three aspects are addressed, as CEPOL dedicates almost one-
third  of  the  total  number  of  its  yearly  training  activities  to  police  cooperation  and  information 
exchange (see Table 7). 

Table  7:  Number  of  CEPOL  activities  dedicated  to  cross-border  cooperation  and  EU-level 
policing between 2016 and 2019 

201626  2017 

201827  201928  2020 

Cross-border cooperation and European-level policing 
Corresponding objective in CEPOL CAAR 

N/A 

1.C 

1.E 

2.C 

32 
21 
94% 
25% 

24 
33 
95% 
33% 

42 
31 
92% 
35% 

Total residential activities 
Total webinars and online courses 
Participants’ satisfaction rate29 
%  of  total  yearly  activities  dedicated  to  police 
cooperation and information exchange30 
Information exchange and EU police and judicial cooperation 
10 
Residential activities 
Webinars and online courses 
11 
Common practices for maintenance of law and order and public security 
Residential activities 
Webinars and online courses 
Special law enforcement techniques 
Residential activities 
Webinars and online courses 
Sources: CEPOL CAARs (2016-2020). 

10 
12 

25 
15 

20 
11 

13 
19 

12 
14 

5 
2 

1 
2 

1 
1 

27 
34 
96% 
25% 

9 
25 

2 
1 

16 
0 

2.3 
2.6 
2.7 
1 
35 
93% 
14%31 

0 
13 

0 
8 

0 
28 

26  No data prior to 2016. 
27  No disaggregated data on implemented activities available for 2018. Data in orange represents activities offered in 

CEPOL training catalogue for the year. 

28  No disaggregated data on implemented activities available for 2019. Data in orange represents activities offered in 

CEPOL training catalogue for the year. 

29  Only overall satisfaction for all training activities is available for 2016 and 2019. 
30  Excluding from the total activities in third countries not covered by CEPOL’s dedicated budget. 
31  The drop compared to the previous years is due to the cancellation of residential activities due to the COVID-19 
outbreak and to the predominance of new COVID related activities offered by CEPOL (82 activities, 32% of total). 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 ‘Strand 2’ of the LETS Communication indicated the need to raise awareness and to reinforce the 
use of law enforcement cooperation mechanisms and instruments to promote effective bilateral and 
multilateral  cooperation  among  Member  States.  The  analysis  of  SPDs  and  CAARs  found  that 
CEPOL  covers  a  wide  range  of  cooperation  mechanisms  and  instruments  through  dedicated 
residential and online training activities. Furthermore, CEPOL exported these activities beyond the 
Union’s border and introduced collaborative mechanisms (such as the courses on JITs delivered in 
collaboration  with  the  EJTN)  to  EU  neighbours  in  the  Western  Balkans,  effectively  extending  its 
support to bilateral and regional cooperation in law enforcement to the EU neighbourhood. 

To  ensure  that  the  appropriate  thematic  areas  are  covered  in  its  training  offer,  CEPOL  developed 
and  launched  the  EU-STNA  to  identify  the  evolving  training  needs  of  CEPOL’s  target  audience. 
The  evaluation  found  that  the  introduction  of  the  EU-STNA  has  strongly  improved  the 
prioritisation  of  training  needs.  Consistent  with  this,  the  overwhelming  opinion  across  all 
consulted stakeholder groups is that CEPOL provides great added value with regard to training on 
specific  crime  areas  compared  to  what  is  offered  at  the  national  level.  Some  of  the  interviewees 
indicated  that  CEPOL’s  training  offer  underserved  certain  thematic  areas  and  categories  (e.g. 
forensics, customs, judiciary), and that the results of the EU-STNA overemphasise the priorities set 
at EU level by the EMPACT at the cost of priorities indicated by stakeholders at the national level. 

CEPOL  progressively  increased  the  number  of  activities  dedicated  to  EMPACT  priorities  - 
except  in  the  year  of  COVID  -  and  their  relative  weight  within  CEPOL  activities  increased 
accordingly  (Table  8).  The  interest  from  training  participants  in  EMPACT  priorities  has  grown 
accordingly, registering a four-fold increase between 2015 and 2019. 

Table 8: EMPACT priorities: activities and participation over 2015-2020 

EU Policy Cycle/EMPACT 
priorities 
Activities 
% of activities on total32 
Participants 
% of participants on total33 
Sources: CEPOL CAARS (2015-2019). 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

46 
30% 
3,629 
28% 

61 
35% 
5,661 
32% 

79 
38% 
10,314 
45% 

107 
51% 
16,453 
58% 

125 
51% 
16,031 
48% 

96 
30% 
19,543 
49% 

The number of CSDP-related activities has increased over time (see Table 9), although it seems to 
have reached the limits of CEPOL’s capacity evidenced by the fact that CSDP-related training ranks 
last among the 21 priorities identified by the EU-STNA, and most of CEPOL’s capacity is therefore 
allocated  to  top  ranking  priorities.  One  interviewed  NCP  confirmed  that  the  interest  in  CSDP-
related activities within CEPOL’s Management Board was low. As it emerged in case study 234, 
CEPOL  can  leverage  a  comparative  advantage  in  the  provision  of  highly  specialised  training  for 
civilian  CSDP  missions,  but  probably  should  leave  generic  pre-deployment  training  to  other 
providers, as there is little added value to gain from CEPOL’s involvement. 

Table 9: Quantitative indicators on CEPOL's CSDP related training 
2019 
12 
717 

2018 
12 
588 

2016 
1 
28 

2017 
7 
245 

2015 
1 
n/a 

2020 
4 
300 

Activities 
Participants 

32  Activities in third countries have not been included in the total. 
33  Participants to activities in third countries have not been included in the total. 
34  Please see a more detailed illustration of the case studies at p. 58. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Satisfaction 
Sources: CEPOL CAARs (2015-2020). 

n/a 

n/a 

96% 

95% 

97% 

92% 

Unlike  CSPD-related  training,  CEPOL  started  providing  capacity-building  activities  in  third 
countries  immediately  following  the  introduction  of  the  new  legal  basis.  Regulation  2015/2219 
enabled CEPOL to receive direct grants from the European Commission to implement projects in 
the  EU  neighbourhood.  CEPOL  has  progressively  received  more  resources  through  direct  grants 
from the European Commission to expand its activity in third countries in the Western Balkans, in 
the Southern Neighbourhood and, most recently, to the Eastern Partnership countries (see Table 4). 
Representatives  from  partner  third  countries  are  particularly  satisfied  with  the  service-oriented 
approach  of  CEPOL,  which  distinguishes  the  Agency  from  other  training  providers  in  a  crowded 
market (also see case study 235). 

Table 10: Quantitative indicators on CEPOL's activities in third countries 
2017 
15 
34 
507 
96% 

2016 
16 
Activities 
n/a 
Exchanges/visits 
281 
Participants 
92% 
Satisfaction 
Sources: CEPOL CAARs (2015-2020). 

2015 
n/a 
n/a 
n/a 
n/a 

2018 
24 
77 
451 
96% 

2019 
42 
187 
1334 
97% 

2020 
62 
18 
572 
100% 

Training of law enforcement trainers was intended by the LETS Communication as a way to reduce 
training gaps across the EU, attributed in part to a lack of qualified trainers. CEPOL responded by 
developing  residential  and  online  activities  dedicated  to  law  enforcement  trainers  and  training 
methodologies (see Table 11). The majority of surveyed stakeholders found that CEPOL achieved 
the objective of providing training to law enforcement trainers. More relevant to the stated objective 
of the LETS is the contribution that CEPOL provides in closing the gap between Member States. 
The majority of survey respondents within all stakeholder categories believe that CEPOL provides 
great added value compared to training for trainers provided at the national level. It is worth noting 
that  in  interviews  ‘training  the  trainers’  emerged  as  a  key  enabler  of  the  cascading  of  knowledge 
from  CEPOL’s  activities  to  Member  States.  Yet,  case  study  336  found  that  CEPOL’s  train  the 
trainers  offer  is  comparatively  smaller  than  that  of  other  EU  JHA  agencies.  Consideration 
should be given to expanding it. 

Table 11: Number of training activities dedicated to train the trainers 

2016 

2015 

CEPOL Activities 
Residential (R)/e-learning 
(E) 
Train the trainers 
Source: CEPOL training catalogues (2015-2020). *In 2020, two residential courses were planned 
but not implemented due to Covid-19 restrictions. 

E  R 

E  R 

E  R 

E  R 

E  R 

0*  0 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

R 

E 

4 

0 

2 

7 

2 

6 

2 

4 

2 

3 

Knowledge-sharing and exchange of best practices, as seen across the CAARs of 2015-2020, was 
pursued  through  the  creation  of  a  cluster  of  services  to  develop  CEPOL  “into  a  European  law 
enforcement knowledge base”. As described above, these services include CEPOL’s e-Library, the 
Lecturers, Trainers and  Researchers Database (LTRdb), the publication of the Bulletin (CEPOL’s 
own scientific periodical), and the Research and Science Conference. The majority of stakeholders 

35  Please see a more detailed illustration of the case studies at p. 58. 
36  Please see a more detailed illustration of the case studies at p. 58. 

17 

 
 
 
                                                 
from  all surveyed categories  believed that  CEPOL ‘fully achieved’ the objective of supporting 
the development and exchange of best practice. 

The  review  of  CEPOL’s  AWPs  between  2015  and  2020  showed  that  CEPOL  actively  seeks  to 
develop, evaluate and upgrade its training digital delivery tools. CEPOL’s objective to upgrade and 
evaluate new learning methodologies has been addressed both in-house by CEPOL’s Training and 
Research  Unit,  and  through  the  network  of  national  training  providers.  The  results  are  different 
‘blended training’ methodologies, which entail a mix of training tools, including event workshops, 
residential training modules and coaching support, with different degrees of interactivity. According 
to  interviewees,  there  is  not  one  good  way  of  blending  the  different  training  tools,  and  results 
depend  on  how  individual  participants  respond  to  different  kinds  of  training.  Yet,  from  the 
evaluation  it  emerged  that  law  enforcement  officials  respond  better  to  practical  cases  and 
operational training, including elements such as tabletop exercises and simulations, suggesting that 
CEPOL could further tailor its training methodologies to its target audience. 

Throughout the 2015-2020 period, CEPOL reached and exceeded most of its targets and it actively 
revised  the  set  of  Key  Performance  Indicators  (KPIs)  to  include  new  challenges  and  address 
emerging issues (see table 45 at page 134 of the Final Report in the external Evaluation for the full 
list of KPIs). The few exceptions align with issues identified by this evaluation and presented in this 
report. CEPOL occasionally missed targets on: (i) reducing the flow of statutory staff turnover, (ii) 
meeting  its  budgetary  commitments/payments,  and  (iii)  the  implementation  of  activities  under 
Framework Agreements. 

Overall,  the  review  of  the  number  of  activities  (see  Table  12)  implemented  by  CEPOL  over  the 
2015-2020 period indicates that the Agency has  effectively delivered the activities planned, often 
adding additional courses or increasing exchange opportunities to meet an increase in demand. As 
expected, the degree of implementation for residential activities and exchanges took a massive hit in 
2020  due  to  the  COVID-19  outbreak,  which  was  only  partially  compensated  by  the  increase  of 
online  activities.  CEPOL’s  training  activities  are  considered  of  good  quality  by  most  of  the 
stakeholders consulted through interviews and surveys and are deemed of poor quality only by a 
very small proportion (1%) of the surveyed training participants. 

Table 12: CEPOL planned vs implemented activities 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

201937 

2020 

Planned  (P)  / 
Implemented 
(I) 

P 

I 

P 

I 

P 

I 

P 

I 

P 

I 

P 

Residential 

80  85 

Webinars 

62  66 

Online courses  1 

1 

80 

79 

1 

87 

87 

1 

88 

10 

95 

8 

86 

4 

98 

4 

103 

105 

102 

103 

98 

100 

81 

I 

4 

128 

142 

145 

169 

330 

468 

535 

47 

Exchanges 

526 
Sources:  CEPOL CAARs (2015-2020), CEPOL Annual Report 2016. 

389 

492 

598 

374 

- 

- 

- 

37  Webinars and online courses appear to be grouped under ‘e-learning activities’ in 2019 and 2020. 

18 

 
 
                                                 
Within  the  surveyed  stakeholder  groups,  CEPOL’s  residential  training  activities  receive  the 
strongest  consensus  regarding  their  quality,  followed  by  seminars  and  conferences,  and  online 
training.  The  great  majority  of  training  participants  found  that  CEPOL  training  meets  their 
expectations  and  training  needs  under  all  aspects  investigated  by  this  evaluation  (see  Figure  2 
below). The training offer is  appreciated for its relevance and breath of topics covered, and 
for filling gaps and adding value to the training provided at the national level. The trainers and 
training materials are also considered of good quality by the surveyed training participants. Beyond 
the  immediate  learning  benefits,  CEPOL’s  training  opportunities  are  also  widely  appreciated  for 
facilitating networking opportunities and strengthening cooperation with European counterparts and 
effectively building trust. 

Several  training  participants  satisfied  with  the  quality  of  CEPOL’s  training  indicated  that  they 
would like to see CEPOL further increase the volume of activities and some would welcome a 
CEPOL  certification  system,  as  proof  of  the  knowledge  acquired.  The  latter  appears  as  an 
objective  in  CEPOL’s  programming  documents,  but  has  not  yet  been  implemented.  Practical 
training and experience sharing are typically used in CEPOL exchange programmes, which also 
received  an  overwhelmingly  positive  judgement  from  all  surveyed  stakeholder  groups  and 
interviewees.  They  stressed  how  operational  collaboration  is  the  most  effective  way  for  law 
enforcement officials to assimilate and internalise new practices. 

The  available  information  during  the  evaluation  on  the  CEPOL  European  Joint  Master 
Programme  (EJMP)  is  too  limited  to  provide  a  decisive  judgement,  however,  the  general 
perception from the few sources available is positive, except for  one account, which lamented the 
absence of exams for assessing and certificating the knowledge acquired, which are, by comparison, 
available in the Frontex programme. The EJMP was discontinued in 2019 after its second edition 
due to issues in the selection procedures of the providers. 

Figure 2: To what extent were you satisfied with the training opportunities offered by CEPOL 
between 2015 and 2020 in terms of: 

k.     Increased opportunities for establishing operational
collaborations with one or more countries
j.      Providing you with information/tools not available
elsewhere

i.      Quality of trainers

h. Strengthening cooperation with European partners

g.     Providing you with tools, methods and knowledge
that you can apply at work /share with colleagues
f.     Filling gaps in and adding value to training provided
at the national level

e.     Allowing for networking opportunities

d.     Meeting your expectations and training needs

c.     Clarity of training material and activities (e.g.
presentations)

b.     Breadth of topics covered

459

422

561

482

526

440

498

536

560

530

197

25

88

236

41

70

143

13

52

186

26

75

178

19

46

229

25

75

188

19

64

163

28

42

148

14

47

160

17

62

a.     Relevance of topics covered

621

95

14

39

1. Satisfied

2. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

3. Dissatisfied

4. Don’t know

CEPOL’s investment  in upgrading and expanding its  online training offer emerged as a positive 
strategy  for  extending  its  outreach  and  enabling  a  smooth  transition  to  the  delivery  of  training  in 
pandemic  times.  However,  the  commitment  to  its  own  strategy  was  discontinuous  over  the  years 
and by CEPOL’s own  admission its online delivery tools fell behind those of other EU agencies. 
CEPOL tried to reinforce its digital offer through the new proprietary online training platform for 

19 

 
 
Law  Enforcement  Education  –  LEEd,  which  went  online  in  April  2020.  All  of  CEPOL’s  online 
activities are now supported by LEEd, which is open to all EU law enforcement officers and is free 
to use. The platform – which is now compatible with mobile devices – presents CEPOL’s training 
activities  clustered  according  to  thematic  areas,  course  type,  and  topical  tags.  According  to 
CEPOL’s Digitalisation Strategy38, LEEd will eventually address some of the requests of its target 
audience,  including  the  categorisation  of  courses  by  level  of  difficulty,  and  a  progression  and 
certification system for the learner. In addition to the training area, LEEd provides a repository of 
articles  from  the  International  Police  Science  Journal  (e-Journals)  with  browsing  and  filter 
capabilities by categories, a forum for the users to communicate, publish or modify content and a 
space  for  conference  management.  LEEd  appears  to  satisfy  the  majority  of  training 
participants,  and  some  explicitly  say  it  represents  an  improvement  from  CEPOL’s  previous 
platform  ‘e-Net’39,  although  opinions  on  LEEd  are  mixed.  Some  find  it  fit  for  purpose,  user-
friendly, and even eye-catching, while others say it is harder to use than its predecessor or find the 
module-based  approach  unintuitive  and  expressed  dissatisfaction  with  content  availability. 
Moreover,  a  non-negligible  proportion  of  surveyed  training  participants  indicated  that  they  were 
unsatisfied with  LEEd’s lack of simplicity and clarity of use, and the ineffectiveness of its search 
engine. 

LEEd’s  deployment  encountered  some  challenges.  It  was  delayed  by  four  months  and  the 
migration  of  content  from  the  previous  platform  suffered  from  further  delays;  some  stakeholders 
also reported bugs and compatibility issues on some operating systems. The hosting infrastructure 
of  the  LEEd  platform,  managed  by  a  German  private  company,  suffered  a  security  breach  on  17 
November 2020. While the overall balance of opinions depicts a positive user experience, LEEd’s 
cumulative issues have been an obstacle to the smooth delivery of online courses at a time when all 
of CEPOL activities moved online due to COVID-19. 

Other issues identified related to the development and delivery of training activities outsourced to 
CEPOL’s  FWPs,  namely  the  short  span  of  the  yearly  training  development  cycle  and  a  blind 
spot in the quality assurance mechanism managed by CEPOL. As for the training development 
cycle,  it  was  pointed  out  that  once  the  thematic  areas  for  training  have  been  approved  by  the 
Management  Board,  the  time  at  the  disposal  of  FWPs  to  undergo  grant  procedures  and  develop 
course content is too short, effectively discouraging FWPs from applying and favouring those with 
off-the-shelf courses that happen to fit the chosen topics. As a matter of fact, the number of grant 
applications  from  FWPs does not  meet the expectations. Outsourced training activities also  suffer 
from  uneven  quality  of  delivery  from  FWPs,  which  CEPOL’s  quality  assurance  mechanisms  is 
currently unable to prevent. 

Finally,  the  selection  of  the  right  participants  for  residential  training  is  crucial  to  ensure  that 
law  enforcement  officials  gain  the  most  out  of  CEPOL  activities,  in  terms  of  exchange  and 
relationship-building. However, stakeholders interviewed highlighted that  participants selected  for 
residential  training  do  not  always  have  a  suitable  profile  in  terms  of  the  level  of  expertise  and 
seniority.  Activity  Managers  within  CEPOL  have  the  power  to  vet  and  decline  participants’ 
applications,  leaving  the  spot  open  for  more  suited  candidates,  but  the  evaluation  finds  that  this 
power is hardly ever used, as it is an established practice to accept the first candidate presented by 
Member States, regardless of his/her profile. 

The  LETS  Communication  identified  a  number  of  training  gaps  that  affected  the  effectiveness  of 
cross-border  cooperation  across  the  EU:  (i)  a  lack  of  qualified  trainers  and  consistent  learning 
materials  on  cross-border  investigations;  (ii)  insufficient  coverage  in  Member  States’  training 

38  CEPOL, 2020, CEPOL Digitalisation Strategy Project “Future learning and development framework for CEPOL”. 
39  Nine  surveyed training participants explicitly  mention  LEEd as an improvement over the previous  system, and a 

factor that enabled CEPOL to achieve its objectives. 

20 

 
                                                 
programmes of EU instruments and the EU dimension of day-to-day policing; and (iii) inadequate 
English language skills, considered a crucial competence for all law enforcement officials involved 
in  cross-border cooperation. Evidence shows that CEPOL addresses  all three  gaps  with  dedicated 
training  activities  (see  Table  13)  and  the  development  of  ‘common  curricula’,  putting  particular 
emphasis on training on EU instruments and EU policing. 

2015  2016 

Table 13: CEPOL activities to address training gaps identified by the LETS Communication 
CEPOL Activities 
Residential (R) / e-learning 
(E) 
Train the trainers 
EU instruments and EU 
9 
policing 
Police English Language 
2 
Source: CEPOL CAARs (2015-2019), CEPOL training catalogues (2015-2020). 

35 
n/a41 

E 
n/a40 

32 
2 

24 
1 

20 
1 

33 
3 

21 
2 

27 
2 

42 
2 

21 
2 

34 
3 

2018 

2020 

2017 

2019 

R 
2 

R 
2 

R 
2 

R 
2 

R 
4 

E 
3 

E 
6 

E 
7 

E 
0 

E 
4 

The  majority  of  respondents  to  the  surveys  were  of  the  view  that  CEPOL  effectively  provides 
training to law enforcement trainers, and training participants have an overwhelmingly positive 
opinion  of  the  trainers  selected  by  CEPOL,  suggesting  that  an  increase  of  CEPOL’s  offer  in  this 
respect  would  be  positively  received.  Similarly,  the  majority  of  stakeholders  believe  that  CEPOL 
has played a key  role in shaping the tools and  materials  for law enforcement training,  effectively 
filling  gaps  in  training  provided  at  the  national  level.  Despite  all  of  this,  the  majority  of  survey 
respondents  within  each  group  believed  that  training  gaps  between  Member  States  have  been 
reduced only ‘to some extent’. However, it should be noted that representatives from national police 
may not be able to offer a fully objective view of this issue, perhaps being inclined to overestimate 
the  strengths  of  their  national  practices  compared  to  alternative  approaches,  especially  when  it 
comes to national key areas of expertise. The analysis of available evidence shows that CEPOL is 
convincingly covering the right bases and is moving in the right direction to further reduce training 
gaps, but there is more distance to be covered to even out the field across the EU. 

The  2015  CEPOL  Regulation  expanded  CEPOL’s  mandate  with  the  responsibility  to  further 
coordinate training between EU agencies in the JHA area. Stakeholders interviewed recognised that 
CEPOL became more proactive in seeking to coordinate activities with agencies and actors in 
this policy sphere, organising annual meetings with both DG HOME and JHA agencies (including 
EASO,  EIGE, EMCDDA, eu-LISA, Eurojust, Europol,  FRA and Frontex) to  synchronise training 
activities.  However,  a  lack  of  sustained  active  collaboration  within  the  JHA  sphere  (e.g.  actors 
contributing to the EU JHA landscape that are not JHA agencies) was noted by some stakeholders, 
for  instance  with  DG  TAXUD,  which  coordinates  training  for  customs  and  tax  authorities  in  the 
EU. Furthermore, it was also suggested within the JHA area that CEPOL should reach out to other 
relevant  groups  that host law enforcement and  prosecutorial  networks, such as the Camden  Asset 
Recovery Interagency Network (CARIN), although, progress was noted in forging cooperation with 
the  European  Network  for  Investigation  and  Prosecution  of  Genocide,  Crimes  against  Humanity 
and War Crimes. Interviewees from JHA agencies unanimously considered CEPOL’s role to be 
complementary  in  achieving  their  objectives.  Synergies  and  working  relationships  varied, 
centring on a number of key themes. Some JHA agencies provide training content to CEPOL, either 
by  sharing  their  topic  expertise  to  inform  CEPOL  modules  in  the  absence  of  CEPOL  in-house 

40 No disaggregated data available. CEPOL’s CAAR 2020 aggregates Training activities in the area of Law enforcement 

leadership and management, Language skills and Train the trainers. 

41 No disaggregated data available. CEPOL’s CAAR 2020 aggregates Training activities in the area of Law enforcement 

leadership and management, Language skills and Train the trainers. 

21 

 
                                                 
specialism,  or  by  supplying  experts  to  deliver  training  or  speak  at  CEPOL  organised  webinars. 
Interviewees  articulated  that  there  is  often  a  clear  division  of  labour,  with  the  JHA  agencies 
responsible  for  the  technical  content  of  training  and  CEPOL  providing  administrative  and 
organisational  functions  to  disseminate  and  structure  modules,  including  through  the  use  of  the 
LEEd platform. CEPOL provides a nexus and forum through which relevant JHA agency training 
can be disseminated to audiences beyond their traditional scope. Infrequently, CEPOL may take the 
lead  in  creating  the  content  for  a  training  course  alongside  JHA  agencies.  The  effectiveness  of 
CEPOL’s tools to pursue its coordination function is less certain.  In undertaking this coordination 
function,  CEPOL’s  interactions  with  JHA  agencies  varies  according  to  identified  synergies  and 
training  needs  of  the  relevant  organisation.  CEPOL  previously  made  use  of  the  JHA  Training 
Matrix to identify training synergies. This methodology required other JHA agencies to list their 
specific  activities,  number  of  participants  in  attendance,  and  the  target  audience  of  them  in  a 
formatted Excel file, which had to be sent to CEPOL. When in use, the matrix was found to be an 
effective  tool  to  map  training  activities,  improve  their  coordinated  delivery,  help  to  reduce 
duplication of training activities. 

Figure 3: In 2014 CEPOL introduced the JHA Training Matrix as a coordinated planning 
tool for training activities. To what extent do you agree with the following statements: 
(CNU/NCPs) 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

a. The Training Matrix was an effective tool to map existing
and planned training activities
b. The Training Matrix improved the delivery of coordinated
training activities
c. The Training Matrix reduced duplications in the offer of
training activities

d. The Training Matrix is accessible, clear and simple to use

e. Stakeholders have been responsive when requested to
provide input for the Training Matrix

1. Strongly agree

2. Somewhat agree

3. Disagree

4. Don’t know

Source: Survey of CNUs/NCP (n=33). 

In 2019,  CEPOL decided  to stop  using the JHA Training Matrix, on the basis that it was not 
systematically completed by agencies, resulting in the collated information being incomplete. In an 
Audit  on  Needs  Assessment  conducted  in  2016  it  was  reported  that  over  half  of  the  training 
activities recorded by the relevant  agencies were uploaded after training had taken place, limiting 
the utility of the Training Matrix for planning purposes. The reasons for agencies not to complete 
the  matrix  may  be  linked  to  perceptions  and  experiences  of  the  JHA  Training  Matrix  being 
cumbersome  to  complete  and  ineffective.  No  structured  methodology  has  replaced  the  JHA 
Training Matrix; instead, CEPOL undertakes coordination through a peer-to-peer approach. 
Some stakeholders considered this shift to ad hoc meetings as increasing the risk of future gaps and 
overlaps in training provision. According to stakeholders, initial requests from CEPOL for agencies 
to  contribute  content  or  speakers  to  training  courses  were  sometimes  received  at  short  notice, 
limiting the Agency’s ability to fulfil such requests. As mentioned above, the working relationship 
and  synergies  between  agencies  varies.  Whilst  the  majority  of  stakeholders  agreed  that  CEPOL’s 
training activities were consistent and complementary with  their own activities, the JHA Training 
Matrix may not have been the mechanism through which this coherence was achieved. Stakeholders 
reported that CEPOL is an active participant in the JHA Agencies Network. Ultimately, some 

22 

 
 
stakeholders questioned whether CEPOL’s updated coordination role, and therefore identity, 
was made clear to all agencies and organisations, as  they linked  it  to  the perceived absence of 
strategic direction or guidance from EU legislative bodies in assisting CEPOL to fulfil this role, as 
CEPOL lacks authority to require agencies to cooperate. Nonetheless, this represents a concern that 
may  undermine  CEPOL’s  external  coherence  in  the  long  term.  Some  EU-level  stakeholders  and 
groups generally accorded with this view of CEPOL being an active cooperating partner when 
coordinating  training  at  the  EU  level,42  although  the  frequency  and  purpose  of  CEPOL’s 
communications varied across organisations.43 The expansion of CEPOL’s activities to train, in 
collaboration  with  other  entities,  relevant  cross-professional  audiences  –  such  as,  for  instance, 
prosecutors  who authorise police use of investigative tools  – was not  perceived to  have impacted 
upon  training  coherence  in  practice.  Some  stakeholder  reported  an  increase  in  CEPOL’s  courses 
produced  with  the  Network  of  Public  Prosecutors  and  the  EJTN  and  the  ENFSI,  although  the 
provision of topics relevant to judges is said to be limited. Stakeholders identified that prosecutors 
and  judges  may  be  more  readily  served  by  other  bodies,  such  as  the  EJTN  and  training 
identification assisted by the European Training Platform. 

The  LETS  Communication  emphasised  the  importance  of  exchange  programmes  as  a  key 
instrument to increase cooperation, share good practice and build trust among EU law enforcement 
officials.  CEPOL  responded  with  a  progressive  increase  of  exchange  opportunities  over  the 
evaluation period both by intensifying exchanges, and by extending exchange opportunities to other 
stakeholder categories and partner third countries within the scope of CEPOL’s projects in the EU 
neighbourhood.  Stakeholders’  opinion  on  the  CEP  is  overwhelmingly  positive.  The  exchange 
programmes  emerged  as  clear  favourites  among  the  interviewees  as  well,  which  stressed  how 
operational  police work  conducted during exchanges is  the most  effective way  to  build a trusting 
relationship between law enforcement services. 

Exchange programmes  are not  the only activity  conductive to  cooperation and trust-building. The 
majority of all consulted stakeholders agree that CEPOL activities as a whole effectively led to an 
increase  in  mutual  trust  among  law  enforcement  organisations.  Moreover,  stakeholders 
believed  that  CEPOL’s  activities  facilitated  an  increase  in  the  number  of  opportunities  for 
cooperation  and  in  the  quality  of  cooperation  between  national  law  enforcement  services  at  EU 
level  as  well  as,  to  a  smaller  extent,  on  a  bilateral  and  regional  basis.  The  majority  of  training 
participants  agree  that  CEPOL’s  training  activities  provide  concrete  opportunities  to  establish 
collaborations  with  their  European  counterparts  and  that  CEPOL  adds  unique  value  to  develop 
cooperation that would not have otherwise been achieved through national means. One interviewee 
underlined  that,  because  of  the  nature  of  their  work,  law  enforcement  officials  are  naturally 
reluctant  to  trust  and  share  information  with  people  they  do  not  know,  but  meeting  their 
counterparts from other Member States during CEPOL’s activities contributes to reduce the barrier 
of mistrust. Several stakeholders also stressed that moving training activities online due to COVID-
19 (which was a positive and responsive step by CEPOL given the circumstances) meant losing one 
of the most impactful aspects of CEPOL’s activity: networking and relationship building, deemed 
crucial  for  effective  cooperation.  Stakeholders  with  direct  knowledge  of  CEPOL’s  external 
activities  consider  that  CEPOL’s  activities  are  an  important  tool  for  improving  relationships 
between  the  EU  and  third  countries,  in  particular,  to  harmonise  investigation  and  prosecution 
practices  with  EU  standards  and  to  reinforce  cooperation  among  partner  countries  with  positive 
effects on regional stability and enhanced dialogue between law enforcement institutions in the EU 
neighbourhood. 

Interviews with one Member State representative (#12) and one EU representative (#9). 
Interviews with two EU representatives (#13, #16) and one JHA agency representative (#4). 

42 
43 

23 

 
                                                 
The  evaluation  has  considered  to  what  extent  the  current  governance  structure  of  CEPOL  has 
brought positive effects to the overall functioning of the agency. Case study 144 addresses aspects of 
CEPOL’s  governance  and  internal  workings  in  more  detail.  Evidence  suggests  that  the  new 
governance  structure  had  positive  effects  on  the  Agency’s  ability  to  fulfil  its  activities  and 
objectives. The 2015 evaluation of CEPOL noted that the relationship between the Management 
Board  (formerly  known  as  the  Governing  Board)  and  the  Agency  was  disproportionately 
skewed towards the former, as Board Members were entirely responsible for developing CEPOL’s 
strategic  direction  and  the  Agency  only  had  an  administrative  and  supporting  role.  The  current 
governance,  which  reinforced  the  role  of  the  Executive  Director,  strikes  a  good  balance  of 
responsibilities  between  the  two,  in  the  opinions  of  the  overwhelming  majority  of  stakeholders. 
Thus the Executive Office is fully dedicated to the Agency and can partly compensate for some of 
the issues affecting the Board identified in the course of the evaluation, namely the turnover within 
the  Board  and  the  low  level  of  engagement  of  a  non-negligible  part  of  Member  State 
representatives.  It  emerged  that the Board consistently suffers from low levels  of participation 
from several Member States, an issue already present in the pre-2015 era and which according to 
these stakeholders remained unchanged by the introduction of the 2015 Regulation. The Executive 
Director emerges prominently as the driving force within the Board, on one hand compensating for 
less engaged Board Members, but also further disincentivising participation. There are also issues 
around representation on the Board, with Member States sometimes appointing persons that are 
unqualified  or  unable  to  commit  to  the  job,  and  the  composition  of  the  Board  does  not  currently 
represent  CEPOL’s  target  audience;  furthermore,  the  Board  also  consistently  lacks  the  balance  in 
gender  representation  required  by  Article  8  of  Regulation  2015/2219,  as  only  35%  of  NCPs  are 
women (9 women out  of 26), and the unbalance is  only slightly reduced to  38% of women when 
accounting for alternate  voting members (19 women out  of 50). The agenda of Board Meetings 
being  cramped  with  administrative  items  is  also  recognised  by  some  interviewed  as  an  issue 
affecting the room for strategic discussion, although CEPOL has already tried to tackle this issue by 
regularly using the written procedure for administrative decisions and by encouraging an increased 
participation of Board Members, also through Strategic Discussion Groups. Thus the great majority 
of  stakeolders  consider  CEPOL  decision-making  procedures  to  be  effective,  despite  the  issues 
identified. 

Communication between the different components of CEPOL’s governance appears effective. 
The  introduction  of  CNUs  improved  CEPOL’s  ability  to  collect  the  necessary  information  from 
dedicated  operational  interlocutors  at  the  national  level.  However,  some  NCPs  feel  they  are 
overloaded  with  information,  which  they  are  able  to  digest  only  through  the  filter  of  CNUs  and 
pointed out a bottleneck in communication at the national level. This is due to the fact that CNUs 
are organised differently in each Member State (as permitted by the 2015 Regulation), and in some 
national setups the NCP and the CNU have been selected from different institutions with hardly any 
contact, affecting the awareness and preparation of some NCP during Board Meetings. High staff 
turnover  among  CNUs  and  CEPOL  has  led  to  the  loss  of  consolidated  relationships  between 
CEPOL  staff  and  Member  States  representatives  and  a  general  difficulty  in  forming  new  ones, 
leading to stiffer and somewhat less efficient communication. 

The analysis has also found that most of the provisions of Regulation 2015/2219 are aligned to 
the requirements of the Common Approach45, and it appears clear that the Common Approach 
informed  the  revision  of  CEPOL’s  Regulation  in  2015,  as  illustrated  in  case  study  146,  with  the 

44  Please see a more detailed illustration of the case studies at p. 58. 

45 

Joint Statement of the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the European Commission on decentralized 
agencies (available here). 

46  Please see a more detailed illustration of the case studies at p. 58. 

24 

 
                                                 
notable  exception  of  the  Executive  Board,  which  was  left  out  of  the  2015/2219  Regulation.  An 
analysis  of  the  compliance  of  the  main  provisions  of  CEPOL’s  legal  basis  defining  the  Agency’s 
internal structures, governance, administrative and financial rules is presented in Table 14 below. 

Table 14: Matrix of correspondence between CEPOL's regulation and working practices and 
the requirements of the Common Approach 

Element of the Common Approach 

Common 
approach 
Internal structure and procedures 
includes  a 
The 
Part II - 
an 
(MB), 
Management  Board 
“Structure and 
Executive Director (ED) and may also 
governance of 
include 
bodies 
agencies” 
(Scientific  Committee  for  training  and 
other advisory bodies) 

internal  structure 

internal 

other 

Par. 10 

Par. 11 

Par. 12 

Par. 27-32 

Par. 14 

25 

is 

their 

from 

[…]  a 

The  MB 
composed  of  one 
representative from each Member State 
the 
representatives 
two 
and 
Commission. 
The  MB  members  are  appointed  for  a 
four-year  renewable  term  taking  into 
account their knowledge in the field of 
training  for  law  enforcement  officials 
and 
relevant  managerial, 
administrative and budgetary skills 
In  order  o  streamline  the  decision-
making  process 
two-level 
be 
structure 
governance 
introduced  […]  small-sized  Executive 
Board  should  operate  and  be  more 
closely  involved  in  the  monitoring  of 
the agency’s activities. 
The MB adopts the Agency’s internal 
rules for the prevention and 
management of conflicts of interest 
The MB is the staff appointing 
authority 
The Agency drafts annual and multi-
annual work programming, which are 
adopted by the MB 
The  ED  is  appointed  by  the  MB,  it  is 

should 

Compliance 

an 

since 

Agency 

is 
The 
it 
compliant 
a 
includes 
Board 
Management 
and 
Executive 
Director,  and  its  legal 
basis 
the 
foresees 
possibility  to  include 
internal 
additional 
bodies. 
advisory 
However, 
the 
Scientific  Committee 
is  not 
for  Training 
implemented. 
Only one EC 
representative is 
included in the MB 

Regulation 2015/2219 
did not introduce an 
Executive Board 

CEPOL’s 
legal basis 

Art. 7 
Administrative 
and 
management 
structure of 
CEPOL 

Art 8 
Composition  of 
the 
Management 
Board 

of 

Art. 9 
Functions 
the 
Management 
Board 

Art. 14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CEPOL’s 
legal basis 
Responsibilities 
of the 
Executive 
Director 

Art 23 
Executive 
Director 
Art 13 
Voting rules of 
the 
Management 
Board 
Art 9 
Functions of 
the 
Management 
Board 

Common 
approach 

Par. 15 

Par. 19 

Par. 13 

Element of the Common Approach 

Compliance 

accountable  to  the  MB  and  reports 
directly to the European Parliament 
The ED is responsible for the 
Agency’s overall management and 
relationship with other EU institutions 
The ED may be removed from office 
by a decision by 2/3 of the 
Management Board 

By  general 
decisions by absolute majority 

the  MB 

rule, 

takes 

The MB uses  2/3  majority as  a voting 
rule for the appointment and dismissal 
of  the  ED,  appointment  of  the  MB 
chairperson,  adoption  of  the  annual 
budget and work programme 

Working procedures 
Par. 10 

When this is deemed as more efficient, 
a  two-level  governance  structure  is 
introduced,  including  a  MB  and  a 
small-sized Executive Board 

Where  appropriate,  other  members  of 
the  MB  may 
include  members 
designated by the European Parliament 
and other stakeholders 

When  relevant  stakeholders  are  not 
represented in the MB, they should be 
involved 
internal 
bodies/advisory bodies/working groups 

agencies’ 

in 

/ 

/ 

/ 

The legal basis does 
not include this 
possibility – even in 
case it is deemed to be 
more efficient 
The legal basis does 
not include this 
possibility – even if 
deemed to be 
appropriate 

The legal basis does 
not include the points 
of involving 
stakeholders– even if 
deemed to be 
appropriate 

The  Commission  should  be  consulted 
on  the  adoption  of  both  annual  and 
multi-annual strategic documents 
The  EP  should  be  consulted  on  the 
the  multiannual  work 
adoption  of 
programme  and 
the 
informed  on 
annual programme 

Art. 10 (1) 
Multi-annual 
programming 
and AWPs 

EPRS, 2018, 
EU Agencies, 
Common 
Approach and 
Parliamentary 
Scrutiny 
Par. 65 

Par. 29 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Common 
approach 
Par. 49 

Element of the Common Approach 

Compliance 

CEPOL’s 
legal basis 

A  Single  Annual  report  should  be 
submitted to the Court of Auditors, the 
EP, the Commission and the Council 

(1, 

of 

Art.9 
c)47  
Functions 
the 
Management 
Board 
Art. 20  
Presentation  of 
and 
accounts 
discharge 

Art. 10 
Multi-annual 
programming 
and AWPs 

Art. 20 
Presentation  of 
and 
accounts 
discharge 

Parr. 56-59 

The  adoption  of  the  budget  is  carried 
out through the discharge procedure, it 
is  overseen  by  the  EP  and  audited  by 
the Court of Auditors 

Administrative and financial rules 
Par. 40 

The  allocation  of  financial  and  human 
resources  to  the  actions  undertaken 
the  principles  of 
complies  with 
activity-based 
and 
budgeting 
management 
The  Agency  sends  the  provisional 
accounts  for  the  financial  year  to  the 
the  Court  of 
Commission  and 
Auditors 

to 

Par. 56 

Notes:  Areas  shaded  in  green  indicate  compliance,  while  areas  marked  in  amber  indicate  non-
compliance. 
Source: Research team’s construction from available evidence. 

CEPOL  has  a  quality  assurance  mechanism  in  place  to  control  its  training  activities  from 
development  to  delivery.  The  evaluation  found  that  CEPOL’s  quality  control  is  effective  in 
guaranteeing high-quality content and trainers when CEPOL is in full control of this process. 
However,  training  activities  outsourced  to  FWPs,  while  still  appreciated  by  participants, 
suffer from instances of variable quality that escape CEPOL’s quality assurance mechanism. 
CEPOL recognises the issue and tried to address it through a new centralised business model which 
has not  found consensus  within the governance.  CEPOL opted then to  adopt  the current  “hybrid” 
model  which  relies  on  both  outsourcing  training  activities  to  FWPs,  and  centralising  training 
development through the CKCs. In the 2015-2020 period, CEPOL invested part of its resources in 
assessing  the  quality  of  its  training  activities  and  the  performance  of  trainers,  as  required  by  the 
LETS and recommended in the 2015 evaluation of CEPOL. Documentation on evaluated activities 
provided  by  CEPOL  confirms  that  all  of  its  activities  –  either  delivered  within  the  EU  or  in 
third countries – do, at a minimum, undergo an evaluation of participants’ satisfaction based 
on Kirkpatrick’s model for training evaluation. However, the Kirkpatrick’s model appears to be 
more of a tool for categorising the levels of training knowledge rather than a practicable method to 
evaluate  them.  In  order  to  robustly  measure  the  effectiveness  of  CEPOL’s  training  offer  in 
improving the capabilities of law enforcement in the EU (in line with the objectives of the Agency), 
methodologies should ideally be experimental (e.g. pre-post design comparing outcomes among a 
group of law enforcement officials that are trained by CEPOL and those who are not). However, the 

47 The Single Annual report is called Consolidated Annual Activity report (CAAR). Art 9. Adds that the CAAR should 

be submitted also the national parliaments.  

27 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
research  team  acknowledge  that  measuring  the  impact  of  training  beyond  satisfaction  and 
knowledge retention is resource-dependent and methodologically challenging, as also pointed out in 
interviews. 

As  for  internal  control  systems,  CEPOL  has  been  using  a  custom  version  of  the  European 
Commission  Internal  Control  Framework  (ICF),  adapted  to  the  CEPOL  context  and  which 
complies  with  13  ICF  standards  and  CEPOL  is  certified  in  accordance  with  the  Quality 
Management System Standard ISO 9001:2015 since 2017. 

The  only  external  factor  influencing  CEPOL’s  effectiveness  that  emerged  prominently  from  the 
analysis  is  the  multiplicity  of  training  providers  that  compete  for  the  attention  of  the  law 
enforcement target audience. At the EU level, as discussed in case study 348 below, CEPOL shares 
segments of its audience with several other EU agencies that run their own training units and have 
developed separate training platforms. While there is evident room for improvement, the EU space 
is one that incentivises coordination, and all JHA agencies interviewed considered there to be good 
synergies between their  own training offering and that of CEPOL. Still, the time law enforcement 
officials  can  dedicate  for  professional  development  activities  is  a  finite  resource,  and  CEPOL’s 
outreach  numbers  are  inevitably  influenced  by  the  availability  of  alternative  options  provided  by 
other  JHA  agencies.  In  the  EU  neighbourhood,  as  discussed  in  case  study  249  below,  the  level  of 
competition  is  much  more  pronounced.  Not  only  does  CEPOL  have  to  compete  for  its  target 
audience  with  international  organisations  and  providers  from  other  third  countries  with  political 
interests in the partner countries, but with the bilateral initiatives of Member States as well. While 
all consulted stakeholders believe that coordination among different providers has much improved 
over  the  years,  turning  some  of  the  duplication  into  synergies,  the  ‘training  market’  in  third 
countries appears significantly oversaturated and there is  room for improvement, at  least  between 
CEPOL’s activities and the Member States’ initiatives. 

Some issues and areas for improvement emerged from the analysis: 

o 
The results of CEPOL in certain areas suffer from under-exposure or low recognition within 
CEPOL’s  own  governance  (i.e.  support  to  bilateral/regional  cooperation,  and  support  to  capacity-
building in third countries). 

o 
The Operational Training Needs Assessment (OTNA), which builds upon the EU-STNA, is 
suffering from a low response rate, resulting in less relevant operationalisation of selected training 
topics. 

o 
CEPOL’s  training  methodologies  could  be  further  tailored  to  its  target  audience  as  law 
enforcement  officials  respond  better  to  hands-on  practical  training  (joint  exercises,  simulations, 
table-top exercises) rather than (virtual) classroom theoretical training. 

The newly implemented e-learning platform LEEd was delayed, albeit the user experience 

o 
appears generally positive. 

The  possibility  to  manage  Union  External  Assistance  funds  introduced  in  Regulation 
o 
2015/2219 proves crucial as CEPOL must rely on external funding from Commission programmes 
to fulfil its objectives in support of the EU external action. 

o 
Although  CEPOL  has  been  effective  at  addressing  the  gaps  in  law  enforcement  training, 
there is room for bringing the Member States’ training systems closer together, as stakeholders still 
recognise disparities in the level of maturity of national training systems. 

48  Please see a more detailed illustration of the case studies at p. 58. 
49  Please see a more detailed illustration of the case studies at p. 58. 

28 

 
                                                 
No  structured  methodology  has  replaced  the  JHA  Training  Matrix;  instead,  CEPOL 

o 
undertakes coordination through a peer-to-peer approach. 

o 
Accounts of cooperation resulting from CEPOL’s activities are anecdotal since national law 
enforcement services do not systematically record or measure their occurrence or impact. CEPOL 
does not measure these outcomes either: while CEPOL’s mandate prescribes the agency to evaluate 
its training, the agency has focused on measuring participants’ satisfaction and learning outcomes. 

The  Management  Board  suffers  representation  issues  in  terms  of  engagement  across 

o 
Member States, gender balance, and CEPOL’s enlarged target audience. 

•  CEPOL  struggles  to  attract  and  retain  suitably  qualified  personnel  as  it  is  not  a  strong 
competitor on the jobs market; the Agency considers that this is mainly due to the low salary 
correction coefficient. 

•  CEPOL’s current  business  model to  outsource part  of the training activities to  Framework 
Partners in the Member States weakens the quality assurance mechanism. 

•  CEPOL  competes  with  several  training  providers  (other  EU  agencies,  international 
organisations, foreign governments, Member States’ bilateral initiatives) for the attention of its 
target audience both within the EU and in third countries. 

5.2. Efficiency 

Key findings: 

 
The number of CEPOL staff increased steadily over the period 2015 to 2020 (from 45 
to  84),  although  there  has  been  high  staff  turnover  (in  part  as  a  result  of  the  Agency’s 
relocation to Budapest). 

Overall, 

the  consulted  stakeholders  agreed 

 
the  benefits  stemming  from 
participating in CEPOL’s activities outweighed the costs for Member States. Whilst the costs 
borne by Member States (including for hosting CEPOL activities and coordinating the CNU) 
vary from one country to another, these are relatively limited.  

that 

 
CEPOL’s resources were managed well and used in the most efficient way possible for 
achieving the Agencies’ objectives. The analysis undertaken by the evaluation team suggests 
that there has been a downward trend in the cost per participant, though these results should be 
interpreted with caution because these are estimates only and rely on some assumptions. 

CEPOL’s  internal  structure  appears  to  operate  efficiently.  The  Agency’s  internal 
 
efficiency has reportedly been boosted by improved governance, human resource management 
system,  and  internal  working  methods  and  procedures.  However,  some  stakeholders  noted 
inefficiencies related to the Management Board’s decision-making process, CEPOL’s planning 
processes and monitoring procedures. 

This  efficiency  criterion  demands  an  assessment  of  the  relationship  between  the  cost  of 
operating CEPOL and the changes it has led to (or contributed to) because of its activities. For 
this evaluation, the benefits of CEPOL’s activities cannot be quantified so the focus is on the 
costs of CEPOL’s activities and the efficiency of CEPOL’s operations. Efficiency is a measure 
of  how  resources/inputs  (funds,  human  resources,  expertise,  time  etc.)  are  converted  into 
results. 

This  evaluation  has considered the costs  incurred by  CEPOL and its broader stakeholders in 
the delivery of its activities, as well as any potential benefits generated. For the purpose of the 
evaluation, the costs have been aggregated at a high-level (broken down by operations, staffing 
and building and equipment to be consistent with CEPOL documentation and reporting, rather 

29 

 
 
than by activities). The inability to quantify the benefits means that this analysis is unable to 
make any concrete conclusions about the cost effectiveness of the Agency. 

As shown in Table 3 above, CEPOL’s over the 2015 to 2020 period, operating costs comprised 
on average 54% of the budget, staffing costs comprised 41% and other costs comprised 5%50. 
The  overall  number  of  CEPOL  staff has  increased  steadily  over  the  period  2015  to  2020 
from 45 to 84 (see Table 2). CEPOL funds Member States’ representatives to participate 
in CEPOL activities through annual allocation of grants to Framework Partners selected via 
restricted  calls  for  proposals  every  four  years.  These  grants  typically  cover  travel, 
accommodation and catering for Member State representatives to attend CEPOL activities. On 
average it sems that €5,000 in additional costs are incurred for hosting each CEPOL activity. 
This  variation  between  Member  States  can  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  Member  States’ 
available resources and infrastructure to host CEPOL activities can vary. Member States fund 
the  cost  of  staff  within  the  CNU  who  act  as  a  liaison  point  for  law  enforcement  officials 
wanting to participate in CEPOL’s activities. There may be other ‘soft’ costs associated with 
Member States’ participation in CEPOL activities, but it is difficult to quantify these costs and 
they  likely  vary  to  a  great  degree  across  the  EU.  Most  of  the  CNU/NCPs,  FWPs 
representatives,  training  participants  and  third  country  representatives  that  responded  to  the 
surveys agreed that the benefits stemming from participating in CEPOL’s activities outweigh 
the costs for Member. These benefits of CEPOL are difficult to quantify, though the evaluation 
found  that  the  overall  outputs  of  the  Agency  are  valued  by  stakeholders  at  the 
EU/national/international  levels.  The  evaluation  considers  whether  CEPOL  could  have 
achieved greater benefits with the same level of human and financial resources, and whether 
CEPOL’s  governance  structure,  organisational  set-up,  management  systems  and  working 
methods have contributed to the Agency’s efficiency, or whether there have been any delays or 
bottlenecks  in  these  internal  structures  that  may  have  negatively  influenced  efficiency.  The 
stakeholders generally perceived that CEPOL’s resources were managed well and used in 
the most efficient way possible for achieving the Agency’ objectives, with only a minority 
of  respondents  indicating  a  partial  efficiency  in  the  use  of  resources.  As  one  measure  of 
efficiency,  the  research  team  calculated  a  high-level  estimate  of  the  cost  per  training 
participant  over  the  period  2015  to  2020,  to  interpreted  with  caution  as  they  rely  on  crude 
assumptions.  There  appears  to  be  a  downward  trend  in  the  cost  per  participant,  which  is 
consistent with the trend observed in the previous evaluation commissioned by CEPOL and the 
views of stakeholders. 

Table 15: Estimated cost per training participant 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

A 

B 

C 

CEPOL’s operating costs (‘000 €) 

4,429 

4,812  

5,173  

5,897  

4,620 

5,618 

Number of participants in training and 
learning activities (n) 

12,992 

17,728 

23,494 

29,003 

34,723 

39,401 

Average cost per participant (€) 

341 

271 

220 

203 

133 

143 

Source:  Operating  costs  were  from  CEPOLs  CAARs  (2015  –  2020)  (as  presented  in  Table  3);  and  participant  information  is  taken  from 
CEPOL CAARs (2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020). Notes: Average cost per participant is the research team’s calculation, where C = A / 
B.  When  calculating  estimated  cost  per  training  participant  from  CEPOL’s  total  costs  (operating,  staff  and  administrative)  the  trend  is 
consistent (i.e. 2015: 1,912, 2016: 487, 2017: 394, 2018: 359, 2019: 268, 2020: 264). 

Representatives of the Management Board, complimented CEPOL’s internal functions for its 
efficient  communication  between  staff  and  strong  leadership  from  the  Executive  Director, 

50  Calculation  made  drawing  from  data  presented  in  CEPOL  Consolidated  Annual  Activity  Reports  (2015,  2016, 

2017, 2018, 2019, 2020). 

30 

 
 
  
                                                 
while  an  EU-level  representative  reflected  on  the  overall  professionalism  of  CEPOL.51 
Nevertheless,  results  from  the  2019  CEPOL  Staff  Engagement  survey  highlight  that  some 
CEPOL staff shared less positive views about the Agency’s internal communication (see case 
study  152).  Despite  clear  internal  structures,  there  was  more  disagreement  observed  amongst 
survey  respondents  in  relation  to  the  efficiency  of  the  CEPOL  Management  Board  decision-
making,  as  well  as  CEPOL’s  planning  processes  and  monitoring  procedures.  Notably,  two 
stakeholders  highlighted  that  the  Management  Board’s  deliberations  and  decision-making 
process  was  often  slowed  down  by  some  representatives’  lack  of  awareness  of  the  EU  law 
enforcement landscape and variance in terms of Member States’ participation in the meetings. 
According to CEPOL staff, CEPOL HQ’s internal structure appears to operate efficiently. 
The  Agency’s  move  towards  greater  digitalisation  of  procedures  (starting  prior  to  the  2015 
Regulation)  was  seen  as  a  positive  development.  Nevertheless,  CEPOL’s  staff  turnover 
might  have  affected  the  Agency’s  overall  efficiency  during  the  2015  to  2020  period. 
CEPOL  has  experienced  a  high  staff  turnover  in  the  past  five  years,  which  the  Agency 
attributes  to  the relocation from  the UK to  Hungary in  2015 and the low country coefficient 
applied  to  staff  salaries.  According  to  CEPOL’s  CAARs,  this  relocation  has  not  assisted 
CEPOL  in  attracting  staff  from  the  broadest  possible  geographical  basis  among  the  Member 
States  (see  also  case  study  153).  In  2020,  Hungarian  citizens  represented  40%  of  all  staff 
employed  at  the  Agency.  As  of  31  December  2020,  CEPOL  does  not  employ  staff  from 
Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Czechia,  Denmark,  France,  Ireland,  Luxembourg,  Malta  and  Slovenia, 
which reflects the lack of applications from suitable candidates in these countries. This point 
was raised also by the European Parliament Committee on Budgetary Control. Despite some 
mitigating  actions  being  implemented,  the  Committee  reported  concerns  on  the  possible 
impact on business continuity and the Agency’s ability to implement activities. Moreover, 
the  disproportionate  number  of  Hungarian  staff  should  be  interpreted  in  the  context  of  the 
EU’s  emphasis  on  attracting  a  diverse  workforce  and  fostering  diversion  in  selection  and 
recruitment  procedures.  These  findings  are  consistent  with  concerns  raised  as  part  of  the 
previous  evaluation  of  CEPOL  (see  case  study  154).  One  CEPOL  representative  stressed  that 
CEPOL’s  internal  decision-making  process  was  sometimes  hampered  by  the  Agency’s 
complex  management  structure,  which  required  multiple  parties  to  approve  decisions.  The 
administrative burden on Member States was highlighted as an issue by stakeholders in the 
previous evaluation. CEPOL now operates under a hybrid business model, which came about 
further to the Member States’ rejection of a totally new business model, meant to streamline 
and simplify the grants management. While the majority of stakeholders agreed that the hybrid 
model  improved  the  quality  of  training  activities  and  helped  produce  a  comprehensive 
multiannual  portfolio,  when  asked  questions  relating  to  internal  efficiency,  the  opinion  was 
less positive. A relatively small share of respondents strongly agreed that the model’s capacity 
reduced the administrative burden on Member States and increased the efficiency of CEPOL in 
organising  and  assigning  training.  Overall,  survey  data  showed  that  CEPOL’s  Framework 
Partner  representatives  were  satisfied  about  their  working  relationship  with  CEPOL. 
The  majority  of  respondents  strongly  agreed  that  i)  the  selection  process  for  Framework 
Partners was clear and streamlined; ii) the roles and responsibilities of Framework Partners is 
clearly  defined  and  allocated;  and  iii)  CEPOL’s  procedures  and  decision-making  process  for 
awarding  grants  to  Framework  Partners  is  sufficiently  fast  and  transparent.  Yet,  most 
Framework  Partner  respondents  stated  that  CEPOL’s  monitoring  and  reporting  requirements 

51 Interview with one EU-level representative (#16). 
52  Please see a more detailed illustration of the case studies at p. 58. 
53  Please see a more detailed illustration of the case studies at p. 58. 
54  Please see a more detailed illustration of the case studies at p. 58. 

31 

 
                                                 
could  be streamlined and simplified. The survey data also  highlighted that some of the roles 
and responsibilities of different national actors interacting with CEPOL (including Framework 
Partners,  National  Units  and  NCPs)  might  be  somewhat  unclear.  The  evaluation  considers 
whether political, economic, social and cultural, or technical factors at the EU or Member State 
level  may  have  affected  the  efficiency  of  CEPOL.  The  only  external  factors  mentioned  by 
stakeholders as having the potential to impact on CEPOL’s efficiency in the last five years and 
also  representing  an  ongoing  threat  was  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  This  evaluation  has 
considered whether the resources allocated to CEPOL have been adequate for the Agency to 
carry out its mandate since 2015. There was no significant increase in CEPOL’s EU annual 
subsidy in the period before and after the new legal basis came into effect in 2016, despite 
the fact that CEPOL’s mandate was expanded. The Internal Audit Service (IAS) Audit Report 
from 2020 highlighted that an inherent risk for CEPOL is the “lack of agreement between the 
Agency  and  the  European  Commission  regarding  the  resources  necessary  to  fulfil  its 
mandate.”  Consistent  with  this,  a  number  of  Member  State-level,  JHA  agency  and  EU-level 
representatives raised these concerns, similarly to the previous evaluation of CEPOL. Many of 
the  respondents  did  not  consider  CEPOL’s  current  resources  to  be  sufficient  in  light  of 
emerging  and  new  challenges  facing  the  Agency.  The  evaluation  identified  two  areas  where 
there was compelling evidence from both desk and field research that additional resource could 
have further enhanced CEPOL’s ability to meet its objectives during the period from 2015 to 
2020: CEPOL’s ability to reach a larger target audience  and CEPOL’s information and 
communication technology (ICT). The analysis of the sufficiency of CEPOL’s resources also 
takes into account CEPOL’s budget implementation. As shown in Table 16, it can be seen 
that CEPOL was capable of absorbing the funding provided to the agency by the EU. 

32 

 
 
 
Table 16: Budget implementation 

Budget implementation 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Budget (EU contribution) (excl. 
external assigned revenue) 
Budget cancelled by MB (amending 
budget)  
Total authorised agency EU 
contribution (closing)  
Committed 

Cancellation of commitment 
appropriations of the year 
(budgeted less committed) 
Paid  

€ 

€ 

€ 

€ 

€ 

% 

€ 

               8,471,309  

               8,641,000  

               9,280,216  

 10,431,827  

               9,308,000  

10,423,904  

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2,594,654 

               8,471,309  

              8,641,000  

              9,280,216  

             10,431,827  

               9,308,000  

               7,829,250  

8,090,826  

8,290,875  

               9,009,906  

     10,205,621  

               9,298,748  

               7,179,123  

                  380,174  

                  350,125  

                  270,094  

                  211,099  

                     9,252  

                  650,127  

4 

4 

3 

2 

0 

8 

              6,692,232  

               6,813,587  

               7,796,649  

               7,970,203  

               8,314,318  

               5,806,184  

€ 

€ 

% 

17 

17 

                 180,662  

               1,213,257  

               1,477,288  

               1,398,594  

Automatic carry forward of 
appropriations of the year into the 
subsequent year (committed less 
paid) 
Cancellation of payment 
appropriations carried over from 
the preceding year 
Excess balance economic outturn 
account of the year (recovered in 
the year after on final agency 
annual accounts and recycled into 
the budget of year n+2) 
as % of total authorised EU 
contribution 
Source: CEPOL’s CAARs 2015 – 2020, CEPOL Report on budgetary and financial management for 2020 (art. 9), the evaluation team notes that the summarised data was kindly provided 
by a representative from DG HOME. 

                  559,216  

                  339,479  

                  984,430  

                  212,578  

               2,235,418  

                 567,666  

                 460,918  

11 

13 

21 

% 

% 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

7 

7 

2 

€ 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5 

3 

18 

0 

0 

10 

                  772,772  

               1,370,471  

 
 
 
 
                
                
 
 
5.3. Relevance 

Key findings: 

• 

CEPOL’s objectives are overall relevant to the EU’s needs and challenges. 

 
CEPOL’s objectives are all relevant for stakeholders’ needs (both in the EU 
Member States and third countries), with some differences between objectives and 
across stakeholder groups. 
 
Training participants  agree that all the main topics  of the  training offer are 
relevant  and  the  offer  adequate  to  their  needs,  in  particular  Terrorism  and 
Trafficking in Human Beings and Environmental crime. 
 
CEPOL’s  ability  to  maintain  its  relevance  has  been  ensured  by  several 
actions  taken  between  2015  and  2020,  such  as  the  introduction  of  EU-STNA  and 
OTNA to identify training needs, the increased alignment to the EMPACT priorities 
and the strengthening of the online training platform. 
 
stakeholders. 
 
positive addition. 

The  inclusion  of  EU-STNA  and  OTNA  was  deemed  a  positive  move  from 

The  establishment  of  the  Cybercrime  Academy  was  generally  seen  as  a 

The relevance criterion examines the extent to which CEPOL’s activities are in line 
with the needs of the EU, Member States and its external stakeholders. It examines 
the  relationship  between  CEPOL’s  work  programmes  and  the  needs  and  problems 
that existed in relation to the need for coordination in law enforcement training. The 
evaluation  of  the  relevance  of  CEPOL  has  taken  into  account  the  Agency’s 
objectives  set  out  in  Article  3  of  Regulation  2015/2219  vis-à-vis  EU  needs  and 
challenges  as  defined by the Stockholm  Programme  and the priorities listed in  the 
EU  Agenda  for  Security  2015-2020  (hereinafter  the  Agenda),  as  well  as  the 
European  LETS.  Overall,  the  evidence  collected  suggest  that  CEPOL’s  objectives 
are relevant to EU needs and challenges. 

CEPOL’s first objective – to support Member States in the provision of training to 
law  enforcement  officials,  in  particular  on  elements  of  cross-border  and 
European-level policing – appears to be aligned with the EU needs and challenges 
stemming  from  the  Stockholm  Programme  and  Agenda,  and  addressed  through  a 
series of activities implemented by CEPOL, such as: 

  Training  on  the  implementation  and  use  of  international  and  Union  instruments 
for law enforcement cooperation, which directly address the need to foster cross-
border cooperation between Member States’ law enforcement services. 

  Training  on  Union  bodies  and  JHA  agencies,  which  responds  to  the  need 
expressed in the Agenda to improve inter-agency and cross-sectoral approaches to 
maximise their contribution to Member States and EU action. 

  Training  on  judicial  cooperation  and  practical  use  of  information  exchange 
channels, which directly addresses the need to ensure that Member States   fully 
exploit existing tools for information sharing. 

Stakeholders did not identify a comparable training provider at the EU or Member 
State level that offered training on EU-wide issues and EU-wide instruments for law 
enforcement cooperation. 

The second objective – to support Member States in the development of bilateral 
and regional cooperation – was not present in CEPOL’s legal mandate prior to the 

 
 
 
2015  Regulation.  The  evaluation  found  that  CEPOL’s  objective  is  relevant  to  EU 
needs  in  so  far  as  it  contributes  to  achieving  greater  cooperation  among  EU  law 
enforcement  services  and  the  exploitation  of  available  instruments  such  as  the 
European Arrest Warrant,55 rogatory letters56 and readmission procedures. However, 
none  of  the  stakeholders  explicitly  identified  the  development  of  bilateral  and 
regional  cooperation  among  Member  States  as  one  of  CEPOL’s  distinct  activities, 
and  thus  did  not  comment  on  its  relevance  in  those  terms,  but  it  was  mainly 
recognised,  as  a  by-product  of  the  networking  and  trust-building  that  results  from 
CEPOL’s residential training and exchange programme. 

CEPOL’s  third  objective  is  to  develop,  implement  and  coordinate  training 
addressing specific criminal or policing thematic areas. The Agenda indicates that 
CEPOL should adapt its yearly training programmes to the priorities set at the EU 
level.  Since  2010,  serious  and  organised  crime  priorities  have  been  defined  at  the 
EU  level  through  the  EMPACT,  which  aims  to  reinforce  European  law 
enforcement’s  expertise  and  cooperation  to  adequately  respond  to  identified 
criminal threats. CEPOL’s objective to develop, implement and support training on 
specific  thematic  areas  appears  relevant  to  EU  needs  as  it  enables  the  Agency  to 
stimulate  and  coordinate  the  production  and  delivery  of  training  on  the  EU’s  top 
priorities. A review of CEPOL AWPs showed that CEPOL gives priority to training 
activities stemming from the priority thematic areas of EMPACT and the Agenda, 
highlighting  CEPOL’s  commitment  to  addressing  EU  needs  and  challenges. 
Stakeholders  reaffirmed  how  the  ability  of  CEPOL  to  adapt  to  new  trends  and 
respond  to  the  requests  for  training  on  specific  thematic  areas  is  crucial  to  remain 
relevant as a training provider. 

CEPOL’s expanded mandate to  support the training of law enforcement  officials 
when preparing for deployment in EU missions (i.e. CSDP) appears to  be in line 
with the need expressed in the Agenda to maximise JHA agencies’ contribution to 
EU  action  and  security  objectives57.  CEPOL  shares  the  mandate  to  deliver  pre-
deployment  training  for  CSDP  missions  with  another  EU-level  training  provider, 
namely the European Security and Defence College (ESDC). However, case study 
258  found  that  the  two  could  cover  different  aspects  of  CSDP  related  training, 
namely the ESDC is better suited to cover pre-deployment training, while CEPOL 
has  an  edge  in  delivering  training  on  specific  crime  topics  relevant  for  civilian 
CSDP  missions. There is no uniformity of opinions about  the overall relevance of 
this  objective.  For  some  stakeholders,  CEPOL’s  involvement  is  expected  and 
necessary;  for  others,  ESDC’s  activities  are  sufficient  to  cover  pre-deployment 

55  Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the 

surrender procedures between Member States. 

56  A rogatory letter is a formal request from a court in one country to ‘the appropriate judicial authorities’ 
in  another  country  requesting  compulsion  of  testimony,  documentary  or  other  evidence,  or  effect  of 
service of process. 

57  The  European  Agenda  on  Security  2015-2020  called  for  strengthening  the  links  between  EU  Justice 
and Home Affairs and the  Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), stressing that EU internal 
security and global security are mutually dependent and interlinked. One of the ways this link has been 
progressively  reinforced  is  through  the  launch  of  Common  Security  and  Defence  Policy  missions 
which,  since  the  first  European  Union  Police  Mission  was  launched  in  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  in 
January  2003  have  deployed  EU  civilian  and  military  personnel  abroad  with  the  aim  of  promoting 
stability and contain potential and effective threats to EU internal security (European External Action 
Service 
https://eeas.europa.eu/archives/csdp/missions-and-operations/eupm-
bih/index_en.htm). 

website: 

58  Please see a more detailed illustration of the case studies at p. 58. 

35 

 
                                                 
training  and CEPOL  could  devote its resources  to providing  training on topics for 
which there is a higher demand. 

CEPOL’s  objective  of  supporting  the  training  of  law  enforcement  officials  in 
capacity-building activities in non-EU countries appears relevant to the needs and 
challenges  of  the  EU,  also  in  line  with  the  2009  Stockholm  Programme,  the 
European  Agenda  on  Security.  The  stakeholders  highlighted  the  important  role  of 
CEPOL  in  this  area  and  confirmed  its  relevance.  They  underlined  how  expanding 
the mandate was an important step and that CEPOL is positively perceived in third 
countries,  becoming  the  “passport”  for  the  EU  when  trying  to  unify  the  law 
enforcement  culture  and  reinforce  cooperation  beyond  its  borders.  A  few 
interviewees,  however,  expressed  the  opinion  that  CEPOL’s  involvement  and 
presence is still too limited (e.g. compared to Europol in areas such as the Western 
Balkans)  and  how  these  activities  may  draw  attention  (and  human  and  financial 
resources) from other activities related to the “core business” of the Agency. 

the  development  and  exchange  of  best  practice  regarding 

Concerning  the  objective  to  provide  training  to  law  enforcement  trainers  and 
law 
support 
enforcement practices and techniques, the analysis shows how it is clearly aligned 
with  the  EU  needs  expressed  by  key  strategic  documents  such  as  the  LETS 
Communication. The development and exchange of best practice has been central to 
CEPOL’s  activities  since  it  was  established,  together  with  the  development  of 
dedicated training for trainers – however, the number of these activities is still quite 
low,  especially  if  compared  to  other  JHA  agencies.  The  evaluation  confirmed  that 
CEPOL  is  uniquely  positioned  to  collect  and  disseminate  knowledge  on  law 
enforcement practices among Member States and that CEPOL is well positioned to 
embed  best  practices  into  training  by  training  European  law  enforcement  trainers. 
Some  stakeholders  also  share  the  view  that  the  quality  of  CEPOL’s  training  is 
heavily contingent upon the quality of trainers, suggesting that improving trainers’ 
skills is highly relevant. 

raising 

the  quality 

requirements  expected 

The objective to develop, upgrade and evaluate learning tools and methodologies 
that support the learning and development of law enforcement officials regarding 
law  enforcement  practices  and  techniques  was  introduced  by  Regulation 
2015/2219, 
from  CEPOL,  as 
recommended in the LETS. The document also called for the “need to ensure high 
quality of delivery” of law enforcement training by defining EU training strands and 
by stepping up the development, delivery and evaluation of the training and learning 
opportunities  needed  to  meet  the  EU’s  cross-border  law  enforcement  challenges. 
The 2015 CEPOL evaluation recommended that CEPOL invests in evaluation tools, 
especially  to  vet  trainers  and  measure  the  effect  of  the  training  courses  on 
participants’ level  of knowledge, instead of limiting the evaluation to  participants’ 
satisfaction  levels.  However,  some  interviewees  who  mentioned  this  topic  during 
the  conversation  did  not  refer  directly  to  CEPOL  as  the  body  responsible  for 
implementing  monitoring  and  evaluation  practices,  but  highlighted  how  relevant 
evaluation methodologies were developed by their own organisation. Moreover, the 
fact  that  CEPOL  still  relies  heavily  on  satisfaction  rates  to  assess  the  quality 
and  impact  of  training  does  raise  some  limitations  on  this  point,  also  with  the 
Kirkpatrick model being more a categorisation tool rather than a realistic evaluation 
method. 

The  evaluation  found  that  CEPOL’s  objectives  are  relevant  to  stakeholders’ 
needs;  the  training  offer  has  generally  responded  to  the  training  needs  of  the 
Agency’s  target  audience  over  the  2015  to  2020  period.  While  there  are 

36 

 
differences  between  the  views  expressed  by  different  categories  of  stakeholders 
responding to the survey, and between objectives for the same stakeholder, there is 
no case where the majority of the stakeholders involved deemed an objective to be 
“not relevant” for their needs. 

Figure 4: To what extent were the following objectives of CEPOL (set out in 
Regulation (EU) 2015/2219) relevant to the needs of your country between 2015 
and 2020? 

a. Support Member States in the provision of training to law enforcement
officials on the implementation and use of international and Union
instruments on law enforcement cooperation.

b. Support Member States in the provision of training to law enforcement
officials on Union bodies, in particular Europol, Eurojust, EMCDDA, Frontex,
their functioning and role.

c. Support Member States in the provision of training to law enforcement
officials, on police and judicial aspects of law enforcement cooperation and
practical knowledge about access to information exchange channels.

d. Support Member States in developing bilateral and regional cooperation
through the delivery of multi-lateral training.

e. Develop, implement and support training on specific thematic areas.

f. Support the training of law enforcement officials when preparing for
participation in EU missions

24

9

17

13

1

23

10

13

7

22

8

3

18

2

13

13

g. Support the training of law enforcement officials in capacity building
activity in non-EU countries.

10

17

h. Provide training to law enforcement trainers

13

15

i. Support the development and exchange of best practice about law
enforcement practice and techniques.

22

9

j. Develop, upgrade and evaluate learning tools and methodologies that
support the learning and development of law enforcement officials.

17

14

5

5

2

2

1- Highly relevant to my country's needs

2- Somewhat relevant to my country's needs

3- Not relevant to my country's needs

Source: Survey of CNUs/NCP (n=33) 

Some stakeholders  raised doubts over the full relevance of the objective  to  support the 
training of law enforcement officials when preparing for deployment in EU missions, as 
they were of the view that CEPOL’s resources should be devoted to providing training on 
topics  where  it  is  more  needed.  The  introduction  of  EU-STNA  and  OTNA  was  an 
important  step  forward  in  ensuring  a  stronger  alignment  of  training  topics  and 
activities  to  stakeholders’  needs,  according  to  stakeholders.  Participants  to  CEPOL’s 
training activities responding to the survey underlined how CEPOL managed to integrate 
its  training  offer  with  courses  on  topics  that  responded  to  specific  needs  and  priorities. 
However,  some  stakeholders  reported  the  limited  number  of  respondents  to  the  OTNA 

37 

 
 
and that the training offer somewhat omitted certain areas or target groups (i.e. forensics, 
customs,  judges).  Furthermore,  for  the  majority  of  Framework  Partners59  answering  the 
survey,  the  instrument  improved  prioritisation  only  to  some  extent,  suggesting  the 
existence of room for further improvement. 

Results of and feedback on the functioning of EU-STNA may need to be reviewed in the 
light of the implementation of the next, revised cycle 2022-2025. 

According  to  Regulation  2015/2219,  CEPOL's  activities  should:  (i)  focus  on  priorities 
and  areas  where  training  can  add  value  for  Member  States  and  the  Union;  (ii)  address 
Union priorities in the area of internal security and its external aspects, in line with the 
relevant  policy  cycles;  and  (iii)  ensure  that  training  needs  assessments  are  part  of  its 
planning  to  enhance  the  effectiveness  of  future  actions60.  This  evaluation  finds  that 
CEPOL  makes  tangible  efforts  to  meet  these  objectives  and  maintain  relevance  in 
doing so. There were mixed findings in relation to CEPOL’s ability to adapt its training 
offer  to  scientific,  technological  and  socio-political  developments.  The  content  of 
CEPOL’s training catalogues is depicted in Table 17 below. 

Table 17: Key developments considered in CEPOL’s training offer 

Development /priority 

Presence in CEPOL’s training catalogues 

Illicit trafficking of waste 

Residential / Seminars 

2020 

Online / webinars 

2015, 2018, 2020 

Trafficking of wildlife and endangered species 

2015, 2017, 2018, 2020 

2015, 2016 

Cybercrime 

2015,  2016,  2017,  2018,  2019, 
2020 

2015,  2016,  2017,  2018,  2019, 
2020 

Chemical,  biological,  radiological  and  nuclear  (CBRN) 
security 

2017 

Artificial Intelligence (AI) 

- 

Quantum and cloud computing, Big data 

2018, 2019, 2020 

5G  (including  the  role  of  suppliers  in  building  and 
operating  5G  networks  and  the  degree  of  dependency  on 
individual suppliers) 

- 

- 

2018 

2019 

- 

Dark web networks and cryptocurrencies 

2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 

2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 

Internet of All Things 

3D printing and scanning 

2019, 2020 

- 

2018, 2020 

2017 

Online trade and illegal trafficking 

2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 

2016, 2018, 2019, 2020 

Intellectual property crime and counterfeiting 

2015,  2016,  2017,  2018,  2019, 
2020 

2019, 2020 

Drone technology and use of drones for the monitoring of 
areas and large events 

2018, 2020 

2016 

Advanced digital and cyber forensics tools 

2015,  2016,  2017,  2018,  2019, 
2020 

2019, 2020 

Migrant smuggling and Trafficking of Human Beings 

2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 

2018, 2019 

Irregular migration 

2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 

2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 

Radicalisation, violence and terrorism, terrorist financing 

2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 

2018, 2019 

Hybrid threats 

Conflicts  on  the  periphery  of  the  EU  (risk  of  returning 
foreign  fighters  as  well  as  the  large-scale  trafficking  of 
firearms originating from these regions) 

Source: CEPOL’s training catalogues (2015 – 2019). 

- 

2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 

- 

- 

Several stakeholders mentioned how CEPOL has been able to adapt its training activities 
to  new  developments,  priorities  and  challenges  faced  by  law  enforcement,  including 

59  Q19:  3  =  strongly  improved  prioritisation  of  CEPOL’s  training  sessions,  5  =  somewhat  improved 
prioritisation  of  CEPOL’s  training  sessions,  1=  not  improved  prioritisation  of  CEPOL’s  training 
sessions , 5= Do not know (Survey of Framework partners, n = 14). 

60  Regulation (EU) 2015/2219. 

38 

 
                                                 
under  COVID-19.  These  efforts  resulted  in  the  production  of  25  COVID-19  related 
webinars (as of 28 February 2020), addressing a mix of new issues that emerged during 
the pandemic, and COVID-19 driven developments in relation to existing issues. On the 
other hand, respondents to all four surveys consistently indicated that CEPOL managed 
to  adapt  only  “to  a  certain  extent”  to  relevant  developments.  Only  in  a  few  cases, 
however, were they  able to  suggest  further developments (see Table 18), but  also  from 
Table  17  it  emerges  how  the  coverage  of  some  technological  developments  is  not 
continuous (e.g. drone technology, 3D printing, AI, IoT), or not present at all (e.g. 5G).  

Table 18: List of topics and developments highlighted by stakeholders as  not duly 
taken into account by CEPOL’s training offer61 

Developments/Topics 

Digitalisation, including the impact of 5G 

Advances in law enforcement personnel recruitment 

Impact of environmental and climate change on law enforcement 

The rise of anti-democratic threats to security 

Developments in forensics 

AI and machine learning 

Cryptocurrencies  

Security and control of communications (including social media activities of terrorist groups) 

Administrative approach of organised crime, including taxation crimes and money laundering 

Fighting and preventing corruption 

Data analysis for investigations 

Hybrid threats and fake news/disinformation 

Source: Survey of CNUs/NCPs (n=33) and of participants (n=769). 

Concerning  political  priorities,  aligning  CEPOL’s  activities  to  the  priorities  for  the 
EMPACT and the use of EU-STNA and OTNA are two elements that indicate a positive 
response  from  the  Agency  in  this  sense.  Concerning  technological  developments, 
CEPOL has upgraded its training delivery platforms, with the transition from e-NET to 
the  LEEd  platform,  launched  in  April  2020,  although  its  implementation  experienced 
some challenges and CEPOL representatives themselves indicated that whilst LEEd was 
a step in the right direction in terms of digital delivery, it is still not enough and a clear 
strategy  is  needed  to  understand  the  right  mix  of  residential  and  online  training  for  the 
future. Finally, particular reference was made by several stakeholders to CEPOL’s efforts 
to  integrate  cybercrime-related  issues  in  its  training  offer.  Most  training  participants 
responding to the survey agree that training activities in this area were adequate, even if 
the need for training remains higher than what CEPOL offers/can offer. Concerning the 
Cybercrime  Academy  established  by  CEPOL,  stakeholders  generally  welcomed  its 
creation as a good; however, a few interviewees expressed more critical opinions on the 
actual implementation of the Academy. It was pointed out that it cannot be considered a 
real “academy” as it does not produce research, and the number of staff working in the 
Academy may be rather low, raising doubts also about the ability of CEPOL to attract the 
best  experts  in  the  field.  It  remains,  according  to  these  stakeholders,  a  place  where 
cybercrime  can  be  discussed,  but  not  taught  or  trained.  According  to  stakeholders 
interviewed,  CEPOL  could  potentially  build  expertise  in  trainers  through  train-the-
trainers programmes and/or by drawing from the private sector. Moreover, the Academy 
cannot be accessed during COVID-19 pandemic, and, the fact that is it hosted in different 

61  Elements  listed  in  the  table  were  reported  only  by  less  than  25  stakeholders  (both  CNUs/NCPs  and 
participants),  while  the  overarching  majority  of  survey  respondents  from  these  categories  of 
stakeholders  either  did  not  have  anything  to  report  or  were  completely  satisfied  with  the  CEPOL’s 
training offer. Nothing was reported by CEPOL Framework Partners.  

39 

 
                                                 
premises other than CEPOL headquarters, posed some challenges especially from IT and 
document workflow perspective. 

Some issues and areas for improvement emerged from the analysis: 

o 
Stakeholders raised questions about the full relevance of certain objectives, such 
as  support  the  training  of  law  enforcement  officials  when  preparing  for  deployment  in 
EU CSDP missions for CEPOL. 

CEPOL  strongly  relies  on  qualitative  assessment  such  as  satisfaction  rates  to 

o 
assess the quality and impacts of training. 

o 
According  to  some,  the  objectives  of  supporting  Member  States  in  developing 
bilateral  and  regional  cooperation  through  the  delivery  of  multi-lateral  training  and 
supporting the training of law enforcement officials in capacity-building activities in non-
EU countries have a relatively lower relevance for CEPOL compared to other objectives. 

o 

Not all developments have been fully considered in the training offer. 

Despite  the  positive  assessment  of  the  EU-STNA  and  OTNA  process,  the  low 

o 
participation rate in the OTNA is a concern. 

The  Cybercrime  Academy  received  some  mixed  reports  from  stakeholders  (no 

o 
research conducted, limited size and ability to attract experts/skills). 

5.4 Coherence 

Key findings: 

The  majority  of  stakeholders  considered  the  roles  and  responsibilities  of  staff 

• 
within CEPOL to be internally clear, defined, and thus coherent. 

Stakeholders  considered  CEPOL’s  remit  and  activities  to  be  coherent  with  and 

 
complementary to other relevant actors at the EU level. 

CEPOL’s role and training offering is also considered to be coherent with training 

 
providers in the Member States. 

CEPOL’s  training  activities  mainly  focus  on  ‘the  European  dimension’,  and  how  to 
enhance  more  effective  cooperation  between  law  enforcement  organisations  in  the 
different thematic areas as compared to the national training providers, who may deliver 
law enforcement training that speaks to their own internal interests. 

The coherence criterion assesses the extent to which activities and objectives of CEPOL 
are:  (i)  consistent,  logical  and  not  overlapping  internally,  and  (ii)  seek  to  achieve 
common  objectives  with  those  of  external  stakeholders  (i.e.  Member  States,  the 
Commission, EU agencies and non-EU agencies). 

The  majority  of  stakeholders  surveyed  or  interviewed  considered  the  roles  and 
responsibilities  of  staff  within  CEPOL  to  be  internally  clear,  defined,  and  thus 
coherent. However, whilst different agencies reported CEPOL to be responsive and 
communicative,  this  did  not  always  result  in  the  effective  resolution  of  ongoing 
operational issues, for example, around the compatibility of CEPOL and other agencies’ 
online training platforms. Around  two-thirds of CNU/NCP survey respondents  reported 
that CEPOL’s planning and monitoring processes could be streamlined. Given CEPOL’s 
comparatively small size, there is arguably reduced opportunity for overlap in its internal 
functions.  However,  evidence  highlights  that  there  may  be  a  disconnect  between 
communications  and  directions  from  the  Management  Board  and  the  staff 
responsible  for  putting  procedures  into  practice,  in  the  absence  of  further  middle-
40 

 
 
management level staffing. One stakeholder reported that the number of staff at CEPOL 
is  skewed  towards  the  Executive  Director’s  office  or  the  Head  of  Operations  function, 
resulting in  the absence of direction through line management for colleagues. This  was 
said to result in staff having to figure out the remit of their role and act accordingly, with 
a lack of a clear strategy from the Management Board as to how CEPOL will evolve its 
law enforcement training offering. This was also evidenced in CEPOL AWP documents, 
with  the  grading  of  staff  considered  to  be  ‘low’  as  compared  to  their  responsibilities. 
This  was  reflected  in  the  2019  CEPOL  Staff  Engagement  Survey  (SES),  which 
identified room for improvement on aspects such as leadership and staff motivation 
and  morale.  The  Internal  Control  Framework  (ICF)  is  seeking  to  enhance  CEPOL’s 
internal coherence, meant to support internal decision-making and adherence to relevant 
rules  and  regulations.  This  new  framework  is  said  to  reflect  the  Commission’s  ICF 
Framework  and  gives  managers  ‘necessary  flexibility’  whilst  ensuring  ‘robust  internal 
control’  in  processes  and  activities  that  are  consistent  throughout  the  organisation. 
Progress against the ICF is monitored through a mix of targets and ‘soft’ controls, such 
as  morale,  integrity  and  leadership.  CEPOL’s  2019  CAAR  identified  internal  control 
deficiencies relating to a lack of formalising controls over technology (i.e. ICT Backup 
Policy  and  disaster  recovery  plan  from  ICT  perspective,  Information  System  Security 
Policy),  and  procedural  framework  for  document  management.  One  stakeholder 
suggested that CEPOL does not have the resources to fill these positions. This suggests 
that, despite an updated coherent framework to instil processes, there might be resource 
gaps in being able to implement this. Interview and survey data indicate that CEPOL’s 
remit and activities are perceived to be coherent with and complementary to other 
relevant  actors  at  the  EU  level.  Evidence  from  the  evaluation  shows  that  CEPOL’s 
relationship  with  each  relevant  agency  and  actor  is  distinctive,  signalling  that  CEPOL 
may  adapt  its  working  approach  to  maximise  potential  synergies.  That  said,  CEPOL’s 
coordination functions are more reactive than proactive, with the absence of a structured 
methodology to map training content across the EU landscape in a coherent manner, as 
mentioned above. The evaluation has considered the extent to which CEPOL’s objectives 
and activities are consistent and aligned with those of other EU level training providers 
(e.g. the EJTN) and those delivered by relevant agencies, e.g. within the JHA Agencies 
Network.  The  evaluation  has  also  tried  to  assess  the  alignment  of  CEPOL’s  activities 
with  projects  and entities  developing specific training materials  (e.g. ECTEG). Overall, 
there 
is  good  coherence  observed  between  the  2015  Regulation  and  the 
requirements to deliver training across other organisations. Whilst the expansion of 
the  CEPOL  target  audience  in  the  2015  Regulation  may  introduce  perceived  overlaps, 
JHA agency stakeholders reported that each agency’s core focus and insights ensure that 
training content is distinctive and tailored according to their respective audiences. Survey 
findings  suggest  that  CEPOL’s  training  activities  are  generally  perceived  to  be 
coherent and complementary with training offered by national  training providers. 
Some  Member  State  and  EU-level  stakeholders  were  critical  of  CEPOL’s 
cybercrime  training  offering,  questioning  the  quality,  consistency  and  breadth  of 
the training provided. 

41 

 
Figure 5: What are your views on CEPOL’s Cybercrime Academy and its role as 
providers of cybercrime training activities? (CNUs/NCPs)  

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1- The Academy should be the only training provider in the
area

2- The Academy should coexist alongside national providers

3- The Academy should coexist alongside other EU providers

4- The Academy is duplicating the work of other national or
European providers and should no longer be active

5- Do not know

Source: Survey of CNUs/NCP (n=33) 

Figure 6: What are your views on CEPOL’s Cybercrime Academy and its role as 
providers of cybercrime training activities? (Training participants survey)  

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1- The Cybercrime Academy should be the only provider

2- The Academy should coexist alongside national providers

3- The Academy should coexist alongside other EU providers

4- The Academy is duplicating the work of other national or
European providers and should no longer be active

5- Do not know

Source: Survey of participants (n=769) 

Interpreting these results, it could be that rather than potential duplication, there may be 
gaps  in  CEPOL’s  cybercrime  training  (in  terms  of  identifying  relevant  stakeholders 
and  existing  content/materials)  as  compared  to  training  developed  within  the  Member 
States  (specifically  within  the  private  sector).  One  stakeholder  noted  that  despite  there 
being good knowledge on cybercrime (applicable to training) within the Member States, 
CEPOL training represents the EU-level perspective, which is valuable in supplementing 
Member State level knowledge. 

Some issues and areas for improvement emerged from the analysis: 

 
There  may  be  a  disconnect  between  communications  and  directions  from  the 
Management  Board  and  staff  responsible  for  putting  procedures  into  practice,  in  the 
absence of further middle-management level staffing to oversee this. 

5.5 EU added value 

Key findings: 

 
Overall, CEPOL’s objective and tasks offered added value compared to  the law 
enforcement training offered by the Member States. CEPOL’s greatest added value rests 
in the Agency’s ability to provide a platform for practitioners to network and exchange 
best practices on JHA issues at the EU-level as well as in third countries. 
42 

 
 
 
 
CEPOL’s added value at the EU level was evidenced by its: (i) important role as a 
training  provider  at  the  EU-level,  particularly  in  identifying  EU  training  priorities;  (ii) 
beneficial contributions to the EMPACT activities in providing training that was tailored 
to stakeholders needs; (iii) valuable role in coordinating the training offer at the EU level; 
and (iv) useful contributions to the EU policy debate on law enforcement training. 

Discontinuing CEPOL’s activities would likely have a significant negative impact 

 
at EU and national levels as this would lead to gaps in training offered at the EU level. 

The EU added value criterion aims to identify the extent to which CEPOL has brought 
benefits in comparison with what exists at EU and national levels. The criterion assesses 
the extent to which CEPOL has helped to improve the coordination of police training. 

This  evaluation  has  considered  whether  CEPOL’s  objectives  and  tasks  have  led  to  an 
enhanced ability of Member States to train their law enforcement officers, and the extent 
to  which  any  benefits  from  CEPOL’s  activities  are  at  least  in  part  attributable  to  their 
EU-level character. 

The  evaluation  found  that  CEPOL’s  objectives  and  tasks  have  offered  added  value 
compared  to  the  law  enforcement  training  offered  by  the  Member  States.  The 
majority of stakeholders that responded to the surveys (including CNU/NCPs, FWPs and 
training  participants)  and  public  consultation  stated  that  CEPOL  added  at  least  some 
value  across  CEPOL’s  key  objectives.  Whilst  the  numbers  were  not  large,  it  is  worth 
noting  that  some  CNU/NCPs  responding  to  the  survey  claimed  that  CEPOL  ‘added  no 
value’ in the following areas: 

  Supporting bilateral and regional cooperation (5 respondents); 
  Supporting capacity building in third countries (3 respondents); 
  Providing training to law enforcement trainers (2 respondents); 
  Developing, implementing  and supporting training on specific thematic  areas (2 

respondents);  

  Preparing officials for EU mission (2 respondents). 

As  mentioned  in  case  study  262,  the  evaluation  found  that  some  stakeholders  lack 
awareness  about  CEPOL’s  capacity  building  activities  carried  out  in  third 
countries, which might explain why they are perceived as adding less value compared to 
other  objectives.  In  fact,  many  respondents  across  the  surveys  and  public  consultation 
responded ‘I don’t know’ when asked about CEPOL’s added value in providing capacity 
building activities in third countries. The research team did not have access to Member 
States’  training  offer  to  analyse  whether  CEPOL’s  offer  added  value  compared  to  that 
offered  by  Member  States.  However,  stakeholders  interviewed  in  the  context  of  this 
evaluation agreed that CEPOL’s objectives and tasks helped to improve the ability of 
Member States to train their law enforcement officials compared to what they could 
have  done  at  the  national  level.  Some  interviewees  stated  that  CEPOL  usefully 
offered  training  on  EU-level  instruments  and  tools  and  provided  insights  into  the 
EU dimension of cross-border issues, which were seldom covered in national training. 
This  is  all  the  more  a  valid  point  for  smaller  Member  States  that  do  not  have  the 
resources  to  provide  tailored  training  on  EU-level  JHA  issues.  According  to  the 

62  Please see a more detailed illustration of the case studies at p. 58. 

43 

 
 
                                                 
interviewees, CEPOL’s greatest added value rests in the Agency’s ability to provide 
a platform for practitioners to network and exchange best practices on JHA issues 
at  the  EU-level.  These  findings  are  consistent  with  those  identified  in  the  previous 
evaluation.  Most  stakeholders  (including  CNU/NCPs,  FWPs  and  training  participants) 
that  responded  to  the  survey  agreed  that  CEPOL  has  played  an  important  role  as  a 
training provider at the EU-level, particularly in identifying EU training priorities. 

Stakeholders  consulted  throughout  the  evaluation  agreed  that  CEPOL’s  contributions 
to the EMPACT activities were beneficial in that CEPOL provides tailored training to 
stakeholders’  needs.  This  was  also  evidenced  by  the  document  review  presented. 
Additionally, public consultation respondents generally agreed that CEPOL had provided 
EU  added  value  in  developing,  implementing  and  supporting  training  across  the 
EMPACT crime priorities in the period between 2015 and 2020. It was also pointed out 
that  CEPOL  was  a  valuable  partner  in  developing  cross-disciplinary  training  within 
specific  EMPACT  priorities.  Some  noted  CEPOL’s  added  value  in  implementing 
capacity building activities in third countries, which reportedly complement those offered 
by  other  EU  agencies.  Stakeholders  consulted  during  the  evaluationevaluation  valued 
CEPOL’s role in coordinating the training offer at the EU level and underlined that 
CEPOL  effectively  communicated  with  the  full  range  of  stakeholders,  although  the 
evaluation  found  that  CEPOL’s  coordinating  role  was  somewhat  unstructured  and 
occurred  on  an  ad-hoc  rather  than  planned  basis,  as  mentioned  above.  Finally,  the 
evaluation  found  that  CEPOL  has  added  some  value  to  the  debate  about  law 
enforcement training in Europol,  though its contribution is difficult to assess. This 
evaluation  has  considered  to  what  extent  CEPOL’s  achievements  would  have  been 
delivered if another actor or organisation had been responsible for delivering the training. 
Drawing  from  the  analysis  presented  above,  the  evaluation  finds  that  CEPOL  is 
uniquely  placed  to  provide  training  to  law  enforcement  officials  at  the  EU-level 
compared  to  other  EU-level  agencies  or  Member  State  training  providers.  When 
stakeholders were asked to provide examples of initiatives or organisations – other than 
CEPOL  –  providing  training  and  capacity  building  for  law  enforcement  at  EU  and 
national  levels,  the  most  cited  organisations  included  Frontex,  Europol  and  national 
training organisations. It was suggested that CEPOL’s added value – compared to other 
EU-level and national initiatives or organisations - rests in its ability to:  

Provide useful training on cross-border issues with an EU lens, which are relevant 

 
to a range of law enforcement officials; 
 
Reach  a  wider  audience  of  law  enforcement  officials  than  could  be  reached  by 
any other EU Agency or national training academy, specifically for targeted training on 
cybersecurity, intellectual property infringement or fundamental rights; 
 
agencies to network and share best practices related to cross-border issues; 
 
organisations. 

Provide  a  platform  for  both  national  law  enforcement  officials  as  well  as  EU 

Act as a direct interlocutor between the EU and third countries and international 

The  evaluation  found,  drawing  from  consultations  with  key  stakeholders,  that 
discontinuing  CEPOL’s  activities  would  have  a  significant  negative  impact  at  EU 
and national levels. 

The research team concludes that CEPOL adds value, as an EU agency dedicated to 
training  law  enforcement  on  cross-border  issues.  Stakeholders  consulted  throughout 
the evaluation unquestionably agreed that law enforcement officers in the EU need some 
training coordinated or provided at the EU-level. This view was also supported by results 
from  the  public  consultation.  Whilst  the  present  evaluation  cannot  assess  the  impact  of 
44 

 
discontinuing  CEPOL  (as  an  independent  Agency  dedicated  to  law  enforcement 
training),  the  evaluation  asserts  that  discontinuing  EU-level  training  for  law 
enforcement  (as  an  EU  offer)  would  have  a  significant  impact  at  EU  and  national 
levels. 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The overall conclusion of the evaluation, carried out between November 2020 and June 
2021, is  that the activities carried out  by CEPOL  are  relevant,  coherent  with  EU needs 
and challenges and bring EU added value. CEPOL is considered as a reliable partner and 
its knowledge management function is one of its most valued assets. This equally applies 
to  the  Agency’s  capacity  building  projects  in  third  countries,  which  suffer  from  a  low 
recognition  rate  even  among  some  stakeholders,  but  are  highly  valued  by  the 
beneficiaries and those familiar with them. 

Yet,  the  evaluation  identified  a  few  issues  under  the  effectiveness  and  the  efficiency 
criteria.  Albeit  recognising  the  Agency’s  efforts  in  terms  of  outreach,  the  evaluation 
found that the population coverage is still extremely limited and the potential to expand it 
–  notably,  through  train-the-trainers  programmes  and  cascade  effect  –  is  not  fully 
fulfilled.  Further  development  of  the  online  activities  can  contribute  to  increasing  the 
number  of  participants;  yet,  it  emerged  from  the  evaluation  that  this  can  have  some 
drawbacks with regard to the quality of the experience and its benefits, considering the 
importance  attached  to  networking  and  personal  relations,  regarded  as  essential  to 
enhance police cooperation. In the face of good synergies and cooperation with most of 
the  other  JHA  actors  including  the  EU  Agencies,  coordination  is  still  ad hoc  and  often 
unstructured,  with  CEPOL  themselves  lacking  the  authority  to  fulfil  this  function. 
Despite  the  Agency  having  developed  good  quality  standards,  these  are  sometimes 
endangered  by  the  lack  of  control  mechanisms  concerning  the  outsourced  activities.  In 
this context, the evaluation found that participants not always having the right profile is 
an issue and is not really tackled. Some concerns also appear in the governance area, in 
that  the  Management  Board  is  not  very  active  and  suffers  from  representation  issues. 
Also,  the  relocation  to  Budapest  has  apparently  negatively  impacted  on  the  Agency’s 
corporate culture and the Agency is struggling to attract and recruit qualified and diverse 
staff. 

It  would  be  unfair,  though,  to  conclude  that  the  evaluation  pointed  to  negative 
conclusions,  in  the  face  of  the  undeniable  efforts  demonstrated  by  the  Agency  and  its 
achievements regards all five evaluation criteria. The evaluation outcomes rather suggest 
that some of the above critical areas are somehow structural, linked to the sheer size and 
lack of ‘critical mass’ of CEPOL. Consideration should be given, to reflect upon which 
format the EU institutions wish to design to continue the relevant activities carried out by 
CEPOL, with a view to expanding the outreach of the training area of law enforcement, 
while fully exploting all possible synergies and economies of scale. 

Below is a list of the main conclusions of the evaluation. 

CEPOL’s key programming documents consider and reflect the objectives of its legal 
basis and the priorities of the EU Agenda on Security. 

This  is  corroborated  by  the  views  of  stakeholders  that  overwhelmingly  perceived  that 
CEPOL’s  actions  and  activities  over  the  2015  to  2020  period  have  duly  reflected  the 
objectives laid out in its mandate. 

45 

 
CEPOL’s  objectives  are  relevant  to  the  EU  needs  and  challenges  defined  by  key 
strategic  documents  and  CEPOL’s  training  offer  is  relevant  to  the  needs  of  EU 
Member States. 

Training participants across the 27 EU Member States also indicated that over the 2015 
to 2020 period CEPOL’s training offer adequately addressed the needs and expectations 
of their countries. 

There  is  scope  for  CEPOL  to  better  reach  its  very  large  target  audience  by  further 
investment in the ‘cascade effect’ and continuing to develop its online offer. 

Article 2 of Regulation  2015/2219  significantly  broadened CEPOL’s target  audience to 
include  prosecutors,  customs  officials,  and  other  persons  involved  in  law  enforcement 
(e.g.  forensic  lab  personnel),  though  no  quantifiable  targets  were  established.  The 
evaluation acknowledge that, given CEPOL’s relatively small size (69 staff members as 
at 2019) and annual budget (€9.3m in 2019), it cannot be expected that CEPOL directly 
reaches a sizeable proportion of the target audience through residential training activities. 
In its current form, cascading relies heavily on the actions of Member States and is not 
consistently  monitored  by  CEPOL.  Also,  CEPOL’s  use  of  the  train-the-trainer  delivery 
approach is limited (delivering only five sessions in 2019). 

CEPOL’s investment in upgrading and expanding its online training offer emerged as a 
positive strategy for extending its outreach; however, its online delivery tools fell behind 
those  of  other  EU  agencies.  The  new  proprietary  online  training  platform,  Law 
Enforcement Education (LEEd) represents a vast improvement from CEPOL’s previous 
platform ‘e-Net’. 

The yearly development cycle for CEPOL’s training activities is deemed to be too short, 
jeopardising quality. 

Prior to CEPOL’s development of training, the Management Board is required to make 
decisions  about  topics,  guidelines  are  drafted,  and  FWPs  undergo  selection  procedures. 
Once  these  processes  are  complete,  according  to  some  stakeholders,  there  is  little  time 
left for quality content development. 

Training  activities  that  have  been  outsourced  to  CEPOL’s  Framework  Partners  for 
development and delivery are less exposed to CEPOL’s quality assurance mechanism, 
resulting in training activities of variable quality. 

CEPOL has a quality assurance mechanism in place to control its training activities from 
development to delivery. Training activities outsourced to FWPs, while still appreciated 
by  participants,  suffer  from  instances  of  variable  quality  that  escape  CEPOL’s  quality 
assurance mechanism. 

Participants  selected  for  CEPOL’s  residential  training  do  not  always  have  a  suitable 
profile in terms of level of expertise and seniority.  

Due to the decentralised nature of CEPOL’s training delivery, CEPOL has limited ability 
to  control  the  suitability  of  attendees,  e.g.  by  their  rank  or  profile  for  the  training. 
Activity  Managers  within  CEPOL  have  the  power  to  vet  and  decline  participants’ 
applications,  but  the  evaluation  finds  that  this  power  is  hardly  ever  used,  as  it  is  an 
established practice to accept the first candidate presented by Member States, regardless 
of his/her profile. 

46 

 
CEPOL’s  Cybercrime  Academy  is  perceived  to  be  an  important  step  taken  by  the 
Agency to address emerging needs, however there is room for continued growth in this 
area. 

The  establishment  of  CEPOL’s  Cybercrime  Academy  received  mixed  reports  from 
stakeholders. While covering a very relevant topic and where demand is high, questions 
were  raised  on  the  actual  mission,  its  limited  size  and  the  ability  to  attract  experts  to 
deliver trainings with relevant knowledge and skills. The activities delivered through the 
Cybercrime  Academy  have  also  been  hampered  by  COVID-19,  precluding  on-site 
residential activities using the specialised facilities. 

CEPOL  activities  are  widely  recognised  for  building  trust  and  facilitating  the 
development of cooperation among law enforcement services. 

The evaluation finds that CEPOL’s objectives and tasks helped to improve the ability of 
Member States to train their law enforcement officials compared to what they could have 
done at the national level. Moreover, stakeholders confirm that CEPOL’s activities have 
facilitated an increase in the number of opportunities for cooperation and in the quality of 
cooperation  between  national  law  enforcement  services  at  EU  level  as  well  as,  to  a 
smaller  extent,  on  a  bilateral  and  regional  basis.  The  majority  of  training  participants 
agree  that  CEPOL’s  training  activities  provide  concrete  opportunities  to  establish 
networking  with  their  European  counterparts  and  that  CEPOL  adds  unique  value  to 
develop  cooperation  that  would  not  have  otherwise  been  achieved  through  national 
means.  This  outcome  is  particularly  attributed  to  CEPOL’s  exchange  programme  and 
residential activities. 

CEPOL’s  work  in  third  countries  is  highly  valued  by  informed  stakeholders,  though 
some within CEPOL’s governance lack awareness of these activities. 

CEPOL projects in third countries effectively contribute towards improving the stability 
in the EU neighbourhood and in building trust with neighbouring countries, however, this 
branch  of  activities  suffers  from  low  recognition  within  CEPOL’s  own  governance. 
Training  in  third  countries  is  a  crowded  market  –  international  organisations,  non-EU 
countries, EU Member States and other Commission funded projects all aim for the same 
target  audience.  Among  these,  CEPOL  is  praised  unanimously  for  its  commitment  to 
provide  training  activities  responding  to  the  needs  of  partner  third  countries.  As  per 
mandate,  CEPOL  manages  dedicated  Union  External  Assistance  funds  to  fulfil  its 
objectives in third countries. 

CEPOL’s governance 

While  there  is  a  good  relationship  between  the  CEPOL  Executive  Director  and  the 
Management  Board,  Management  Board  meetings  are  hampered  by  representation 
issues,  low  engagement  by  some  Members,  and  the  disproportionate  focus  on 
administrative matters. 

The  CEPOL  Management  Board  suffers  from  representation  issues,  such  as  low 
engagement of several Member States; gender imbalance; no customs or border officials; 
the  levels  of  seniority  of  representatives  are  varied.  While  most  Management  Board 
decisions  are  related  to  content  and  strategy,  the  agenda  of  Board  meetings  is  cramped 
with administrative items, leaving little room for strategic discussion. 

47 

 
The relocation of CEPOL and the consistent turnover of staff has resulted in a shift in 
corporate culture and there are challenges in attracting (appropriately qualified) staff. 

The number of CEPOL staff increased steadily over the period 2015 to 2019 (from 45 to 
69), though there has been high staff turnover. The salary correction coefficient applied 
to Budapest indeed plays a key factor in CEPOL’s difficulty in  attracting and retaining 
staff. CEPOL lacks  an inspiring  corporate  culture that motivates staff to  commit to  the 
agency and its mission. Once perceived as a community, CEPOL is now perceived as a 
transitory workplace where it is hard to invest in social commitments. 

CEPOL’s remit and activities appear to be coherent with and complementary to other 
relevant actors at the EU level. 

JHA Agency stakeholders were generally positive about their relationship with CEPOL; 
yet,  the  extent  of  coordination  is  ad  hoc,  varies  by  Agency  and  CEPOL’s  engagement 
with JHA agencies and EU institutions. It emerged that CEPOL could adapt its working 
approach  to  maximise  potential  synergies.  No  structured  methodology  has  replaced  the 
JHA Training Matrix previously used; instead, CEPOL undertakes coordination through 
a peer-to-peer approach. 

48 

 
 
Annex I: Procedural information 

The  external  evaluation  of  the  European  Union  Agency  for  Law  Enforcement  Training 
(CEPOL) was carried out in the period December 2020 - June 2021. Preparatory steps, 
such as the Terms of Reference for hiring a contractor were initiated in Spring 2020 and 
the  roadmap  of  this  initiative  was  published  on  1st  July  2020.  The  Management  Board 
was  informed  about  the  upcoming  evaluation  at  its  meeting  of  December  2017.  The 
agenda planning reference for this evaluation is PLAN/2020/8322. 

An inter-service steering group was set up for the evaluation. The following Directorates 
General  (DGs)  and  services  followed  the  invitation  to  nominate  a  participant  in  the 
interservice  steering  group:  the  Secretariat-General  of  the  Commission  (SG),  the  Legal 
Service  (LS),  the  European  Anti-Fraud  Office  (OLAF),  DG  Human  Resources  and 
Security (HR), DG Budget (BUDG), the Internal Audit Service (IAS), DG Taxation and 
Customs  Union  (TAXUD),  DG  Justice  and  Consumers  (JUST),  DG  International 
Partnerships  (INTPA),  DG  Neighbourhood  and  Enlargement  Negotiations  (NEAR),  the 
Service for Foreign Policy Instruments (FPI) and the European External Action Service 
(EEAS). DG Migration and Home Affairs (DG HOME) chaired the meetings of the inter-
service steering group, which was systemically consulted during the evaluation process, 
including on the Terms of Reference in September 2020. The kick-off meeting with the 
contractor  took  place  on  3rd  December  2020.  The  questionnaire  for  the  public 
consultation, for which the contractor prepared a first draft, was sent to the inter-service 
steering  group  for  input  in  December  2020.  The  inter-service  steering  group  met  in 
January,  to  discuss  the  draft  inception  report;  in  March,  to  discuss  the  draft  interim 
report; in May, to discuss the draft final report; all meetings took place in the presence of 
the contractor. Before, during and after those meetings, the inter-service steering group, 
had  the  opportunity  to  provide  their  comments  on  the  different  draft  reports,  ask  for 
clarifications and submit their suggestions. 

The  services  were  requested  within  framework  contract  HOME/2015/EVAL/02.  Three 
possible contractors applied for carrying out  the  evaluation.  The chosen  contractor was 
Ernst & Young (E&Y) who collaborated with RAND Europe in carrying out the external 
evaluation. The final report of the external evaluation was submitted to the Commission 
for acceptance on 11th June 2021. 

 
 
 
Annex II: Stakeholder consultation 

A  broad  stakeholder  consultation  accompanied  the  external  evaluation.  The  aim  of  the 
process  was  to  obtain  views  on  the  five  evaluation  criteria,  on  the  functioning  of  the 
Agency and on possible future challenges and developments from a range of stakeholders 
working  with  the  Agency  or  benefitting  from  the  work  of  the  Agency.  The  contractor 
carried  out  the  targeted  stakeholder  consultation.  The  Commission's  standards  for 
Stakeholder  Consultations  were  duly  taken  into  account  and  met.  As  part  of  the 
stakeholder  consultation,  the  Commission  conducted  a  public  consultation,  with  the 
purpose of gathering views from private individuals, organisations, the industry and the 
public administration. The replies to the stakeholder consultation addressed all evaluation 
questions.  The  outcomes  of  the  interviews,  the  targeted  surveys  and  the  public 
consultation are reflected fully in the external study and in this Staff Working Document. 
Summarising them in this Annex would be a repetition of the conclusions of the external 
evaluation set out in the main text of this document.  

1.  Public consultation 

In  addition  to  the  targeted  consultations,  the  Commission  organised  an  internet-based 
public  consultation.  The  public  consultation  was  launched  on  18  March  2021  on  the 
European  Commission's  website  and  was  open  for  8  weeks.  The  questionnaire  was 
available  in  English,  French  and  German  and  inputs  could  be  submitted  in  all  official 
languages  of  the  EU.  The  aim  of  this  consultation  targeting  the  general  public  was  to 
gather  views  on  the  Agency.  The  consultation  covered  the  majority  of  the  evaluation 
criteria:  effectiveness,  relevance,  coherence  and  EU  value  added.  As  such,  the  public 
consultation was intended to form part of the input for the external evaluation. 

Profile of respondents 

In  total,  26  responses  were  received.  Of  the  26  contributions  received,  14  (54%)  were 
submitted  on  behalf  of  EU  citizens.  Public  authorities  were  the  next  largest  group, 
accounting  for  seven  (27%)  of  responses,  followed  by  academic/research  institutions 
(n=2, 8%), non-governmental organisations (NGO) (n=1, 4%), trade union (n=1, 4%) and 
other  (n=1,  4%).  Among  the  seven  contributing  public  authorities,  four  indicated 
international  contribution,  two  regional,  and  one  national  scope  of  their  contribution. 
With respect to the geographical distribution of respondents, all contributions came from 
EU Member States. By far the largest group of contributions (n=10, 38%) was submitted 
by respondents based in Germany, followed by Hungary (n=4, 15%) and Belgium (n=3, 
12%). Another eight Member States were responsible for the remainder of contributions, 
no  responses  were  received  from  16  Member  States.  The  vast  majority  of  respondents 
(n=22, 88%) reported actively working in the field of law enforcement training or related 
domains,  while  only  three  (12%)  respondents  reported  being  interested  in  the  field 
without having actively worked in it. Respondents’ background was then likely reflected 
in  their  high  levels  of  familiarity  with  CEPOL.  Relatedly,  the  vast  majority  of 
respondents (n=22, 85%) reported some prior form of engagement with CEPOL. About a 
quarter of respondents (n=7, 27%) reported having cooperated with CEPOL in the past, 
slightly fewer (n=5, 19%) reported having participated in CEPOL training in the past and 
the  largest  group  (n=10,  38%)  reported  having  done  both.  Lastly,  20  (77%)  of 
respondents reported being a registered user in LEEd (CEPOL’s e-learning platform). 

Responses  to  closed  substantive  questions  pertaining  to  the  four  evaluation  criteria 
formed  the  basis  for  this  analysis.  For  each  question,  cross-tabulations  and  other 

 
 
descriptive  statistics  were  prepared  to  assess  the  frequency  of  responses  and  the 
prevalence of particular  views. Where appropriate, quantitative data were broken down 
by  various  demographic  categories  uncovered  in  the  first  stage  of  the  analysis.  The 
consultation  questionnaire  contained  seven  open-text  questions.  The  first  six  invited 
respondents  to  elaborate  on  topics  raised  in  the  previous  set  of  questions,  responses  to 
these  open-ended  questions  were  summarized  in  a  narrative  form  complementing  the 
analysis of the preceding related questions. Question 60 offered respondents the option to 
add any closing comments.  These comments  were summarized in  a narrative form  in  a 
standalone  section.  Below  is  a  summary  of  the  main  findings  from  the  public 
consultation; all detailed result by evaluation criterion are providedin the evaluation. 

Results 

In terms of effectiveness, overall, most respondents agreed that CEPOL has met all the 
listed  objectives,  with  the  exception  of  providing  training  to  law  enforcement  trainers, 
where  only  10  (42%)  respondents  agreed  that  CEPOL  had  met  the  objective.  The  two 
objectives  most  likely  to  be  viewed  by  respondents  as  met  by  CEPOL  were  (1) 
supporting  Member  States  training  on  the  implementation  and  use  of  international  and 
Union instruments and (2) developing, implementing, and supporting training on specific 
thematic areas (both endorsed by 22 (92%) of respondents). 

Concerning  relevance,  all  respondents  agreed  that  law  enforcement  officers  in  the  EU 
needed some training coordinated at the EU level. Most respondents agreed that CEPOL 
had responded to the needs of law enforcement officials in the EU as well as to the needs 
of EU agencies and institutions over the reference period of 2015-2020. 

Looking at coherence, contributors held generally positive views of CEPOL’s coherence 
and  cooperation  with  other  ongoing  efforts.  The  majority  of  respondents  (n=15,  65%) 
agreed that CEPOL’s activities were synergistic with the work of other EU agencies and 
institutions.  Respondents  were  more  likely  to  disagree  (n=10,  42%)  than  agree  (n=4, 
17%)  that  CEPOL’s  activities  overlapped  with  or  duplicated  the  work  of  other  EU 
agencies and institutions. Further, most  respondents  (n=13, 57%)  agreed  that CEPOL’s 
activities incorporated focus on human rights and were more likely to agree (n=10, 42%) 
than disagree (n=1, 4%) that CEPOL’s activities in non-EU countries were coherent with 
other EU cooperation mechanisms with third countries. 

Referring  to  added  value,  the  results  are  consistent  with  respondents’  perception  of 
CEPOL’s  effectiveness.  Areas  where  respondents  were  most  likely  to  agree  CEPOL 
provided added value were training on specific thematic areas (n=22, 92%), development 
and  exchange  of  best  training  practices  (n=20,  83%),  and  developing,  upgrading,  and 
evaluating  learning  tools  and  methodologies  (n=20,  83%).  By  contrast,  only  half  of 
respondents  (n=12,  50%)  agreed  that  CEPOL  added  value  in  providing  training  to  law 
enforcement  trainers  and  twelve  (52%)  agreed  that  CEPOL  added  value  in  providing 
training in preparation for EU missions. 

In addition to the open-text comments, respondents had the option to upload a document 
to  further  support  their  contribution  to  the  consultation.  Two  supporting  files  were 
received.  One  document  stressed  the  importance  of  improving  training  content  on 
victims’  rights  and  victimisation  and  of  enhancing  methods  of  communication  with 
victims  of  crime  among  law  enforcement  agencies.  The  second  submitted  file  was  a 
position  paper  offering  suggestions  echoing  points  made  in  open-text  responses 
throughout  the  survey  and  discussed  above  in  this  report,  including:  (1)  developing  a 
51 

 
more  harmonized  European  police  training  standard,  (2)  utilising  CEPOL  to  enhance 
cooperation  and  exchange  between  police  officers,  (3)  expanding  in-person  training 
provision, and (4) reconsidering CEPOL’s location. 

2.  Online surveys 

Four  online  surveys  were  launched  to  collect  (comparable)  information  from  a  large 
number of stakeholders, and to gather specific contributions that would not be feasible to 
obtain  only  from  interviews.  Input  from  the  survey  contributed  both  to  answer  the 
evaluation questions and to feed the case studies. 

The online surveys were targeted at the following categories of stakeholders: 

  Survey 1: CEPOL National Units (CNUs) and National Contact Points (NCPs). 
  Survey  2:  Member  State  representatives  from  police  academies  and  training 
institutes that are framework partners of CEPOL (e.g. Security Academy of the 
Federal  Ministry  of  Interior  in  Austria,  Cyprus  Police,  Estonian  Academy  of 
Security Sciences). 

  Survey  3:  Representatives  from  third  countries  with  cooperation  agreements 

with CEPOL to understand the external dimension of CEPOL. 

  Survey 4: A sample of CEPOL training participants/target audiences.  

The four surveys were launched at different dates, to allow the research team to collect 
contact  details  from  external  stakeholders  before  proceeding  with  the  launch.  Initially 
planned  to  stay  open  for  three  weeks,  it  was  agreed  with  the  contractor  to  extend  the 
deadline, in order to collect input from all countries. All EU Member States participating 
in  CEPOL  (i.e.  excluding  Denmark)  were  covered,  as  well  as  third  countries  with  a 
cooperation  agreement  with  CEPOL.  The  number  (and  rate)  of  responses  collected  is 
presented in Table 19. 

Table 19: Rate of response per category of stakeholder 
Participant
CNUs/NCP
s63 
s 
- 64 
46 

Framework 
Partners 
44 

Third 
countries 
30 

Survey sent 

3365 

Survey 
completed 
Response rate  72% 

1466 

32% 

767 

76968 

23% 

- 

- 

Total 

120 

82369 

63  Number of unique users answering the survey. 
64  As  the  survey  was  circulated  by  CNUs  among  participants  to  CEPOL  training  activities,  it  is  not 
known  how  many  participants  have  been  targeted.  The  estimated  number  of  possible  targets  is 
approximately 2.5 million.  

65  Responses from both the CNU and the NCP were collected from AT, DE, ES, HU, MT, RO, SK. For 

the other (19) countries, either the CNU or the NCP provided the response.  

66  CZ, DE, FR, HR, LT(2), LV, PL, PT(2). 
67  Armenia, Lebanon (2), Ukraine.  
68  AT(31),  BE(28),  BG(5),  EE(7),  ES(22),  FI(21),  GR(15),  HR(21),  HU(18),  LV(5),  LU(30),  NL(18), 

PL(6), PT(1), SI(16), SK(10), SE(4).  

69  The number drops to 44, considering only CNUs/NCPs, Framework partners and Third countries.  

52 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.  Stakeholder interviews 

Interviews  were  conducted  with  stakeholders  from  41  organisations  across  four 
stakeholder groups and three experts, as listed in Table 35. Topic guides and the content 
of  interviews  were  tailored  to  the  expertise  of  the  interviewee.  Stakeholders  were 
identified through suggestions from the Commission, CEPOL and a stakeholder mapping 
process. The key information obtained was coded into an evidence grid, which served to 
capture the relevant information by each evaluation question. 

Table 20: Organisations consulted for interviews 

Organisation 
Former member of German Management Board 

Stakeholder level 
Member State 

CNU Austria 

CNU Belgium 

CNU Italy 

CNU Portugal 

NCP Finland 

FWP representative, Scuola Superiore San't Anna di Pisa 

European Commission, DG HOME  

European Commission, DG JUST  

European Commission, DG TAXUD  

European Commission, OLAF 

European Commission, DG NEAR 

European Security and Defence College (ESDC) 

European Parliament, LIBE Committee 

European Council, Law Enforcement Working Party (LEWP) 

European Council, Customs Cooperation Working Party 
(CCWP) 
European Council, EMPACT  

European Union Police and Rule of Law Mission for the 
Palestinian Territory (EUPOL COPPS) 
The European Union Agency for Law Enforcement 
Cooperation (Europol) 
European Asylum Support Office (EASO) 

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction 
(EMCDDA) 
The European Union Agency for the Operational Management 
of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security 
and Justice (EU-LISA) 
European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation 
(Eurojust)  
European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) 

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) 

The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) 

53 

Member State 

Member State 

Member State 

Member State 

Member State 

Member State 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

 
Organisation 
The European External Action Service (EEAS) 

Stakeholder level 
EU 

The European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI)  EU 

European Judicial Training Network (EJTN) 

European Crime Prevention Network (EUCPN) 

EU 

EU 

The African Police Cooperation Organisation (Afripol) 

International organisation 

The International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) 

International organisation 

The Organization for Security and Co-operation (OSCE) 

International organisation 

Police Cooperation Convention for Southeast Europe 
Secretariat (PCC-SEE) 
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) 

Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia 

Turkish National Police, Division of European Union, 
Department of International Relations 
Security Academy, Directorate of State Police, Ministry of 
Internal Affairs 
Albanian Security Academy, Directorate of State Police, 
Ministry of Internal Affairs 
Kosovo Academy for Public Safety 

Counter Terrorism in MENA Countries (CT MENA) 

International organisation 

International organisation 

Third Countries – 
cooperation agreement 
Third Countries – 
cooperation agreement 
Third Countries – 
cooperation agreement 
Third Countries – 
cooperation agreement 
Third Countries – 
cooperation agreement 
External relation project 

54 

 
 
Annex III: Methods and analytical models 

1.  Documentary review 

The purpose of this task was to review and collect data and information from all available 
sources to canvass CEPOL’s objectives and tasks, management and governance, internal 
working methods and procedures, and activities. The document review was structured to 
feed  answers  to  all  the  evaluation  questions.  In  addition  to  canvassing  the  CEPOL 
website for relevant documentation, CEPOL and the Commission shared a large number 
of  documents  that  the  evaluation  should  consider.  More  details  on  the  documentary 
sources  can  be  found  in  the  evaluation.  A  data  extraction  template  was  prepared  to 
structure the review of documentation and make sure that information for the evaluation 
is  collected  in  a  systematic  and  efficient  way.  A  simplified  version  of  the  template  is 
provided in  the table below.  In addition  to  these high-level  categories, information was 
also extracted and organised according to the indicators specified in the evaluation grids. 

Table 21: Simplified version of the fields included in the data extraction template 

Category 

Sub-field 

EU needs and 
challenges 

Additional 
information 

CEPOL's 
objectives/tasks 

Additional 
information 

CEPOL's 
actions/activities 

 

Information on the security challenges faced by EU, 
institutions, LEA agencies, scientific and technological 
threats. 

  Specific mention of LEA's training needs to tackle 

EU/cross-border issues.  

  Reference to the need to increase cooperation between 

LEA across the EU; capacity building in third countries. 

  The 2015 Regulation specifies CEPOL's objectives and 
tasks. These are high-level (e.g. developing cooperation 
bilaterally) -  and are different to the detailed work 
programmes or activities - see below. 

  Any significant changes to CEPOL's actions that 

occurred over the 2015-2020 period. 

  Without extracting, note if the document includes (i) 

indicators to measure whether CEPOL has achieved its 
objectives; (ii) an assessment on CEPOL's results 
(achieving objectives; completing tasks). 

  The detailed activities and actions of CEPOL as 
specified in the multi-annual and annual work 
programmes (e.g. training activities). 

  Any significant changes to CEPOL's actions that 

occurred over the 2015-2020 period. 

Additional 
information 

  Without extracting, note if the document includes (i) 
number and or list of activities organised; (ii) M&E 
tools/indicators to measure outcomes; (iii) Results 

55 

 
 
Category 

Sub-field 

Education and 
Training 

Science and 
Research 

International 
Cooperation 

Additional 
information 

Monitoring and 
Evaluation 

Additional 
information 

Governance 
structure 

Additional 
information 

Internal working 
methods and 

achieved through activities. 

  Residential 

activities 

(at  CEPOL 

and 

through 

Framework partners) 

  Online courses 
  Exchange Programmes 
  European Joint Masters' programme 

 

 

Information on CEPOL conducted research, 
publications/journals, conferences, relationship with 
academic partners 

Information relating to the external actions of CEPOL, 
information on the nature and extent of their engagement 
with third/non-EU countries 

  Without extracting, note if the document includes (i) 
number and or list of activities organised; (ii) M&E 
tools/indicators to measure outcomes; (iii) Results 
achieved through activities 

  Key performance indicators (KPIs) that CEPOL use to 
track/monitor performance (no need to extract at this 
stage but note where they can be found and what they 
seek to measure); evaluation reports or reviews of 
CEPOL actions/activities - may be internal or external 
assessments, including satisfaction surveys from training 
participants 

  Notes (i) whether the document includes results 

references of any available evaluation reports; (ii) results 
mapping to the KPIsl (iii) explicit mention of the 
cascade effect of CEPOL's courses (i.e. the extent to 
which knowledge acquired through CEPOL's training 
trickles down at the national level when the LE agent 
complete training) 

 

Information on the high-level oversight and steering of 
CEPOL according to its governing arrangements (the 
Management Board, Executive Director, Senior 
Leadership) 

  Take note of any important (i) changes in CEPOL's 

governance between 2015-2020; (ii) steps to improve 
communication between different parties (e.g. executive 
director and Management Board)  

  Decision-making processes and accountability processes 

of CEPOL 

56 

 
Category 

Sub-field 

administrative set up 

Additional 
information 

  Take note of any important (i) changes in CEPOL's 

structure between 2015-2020; (ii) steps to streamline 
processes  

Human resource 
management 

  How CEPOL attracts, retains and develop staff and 

wider human resources, details on the number of staff, 
their background, staff morale, staff turnover etc.  

Additional 
information 

Budget 

Additional 
information 

Business 
model/Framework 
partners 

Additional 
information 

Cooperation with 
JHA agencies 

  Take note of any important (i) changes in CEPOL's 
human resources between 2015-2020; (ii) steps to 
streamline processes  

  Details of CEPOL's budget - financial resources, 

costs/overheads, grant funding, other sources of revenue  

  Take note of any important (i) changes in CEPOL's 

budget plans between 2015-2020; (ii) where additional 
funds might be needed; (iii) plans to increase/reduce 
budget 

 

Information on CEPOL's Knowledge Centres (CKC), 
information on the organisation and assignment of 
training by Member States/CEPOL on specific thematic 
areas (e.g. cyber, counterterrorism) through the 
new/hybrid business model   

  References to (i) changes to CEPOL's business model; 
(ii) Member States' views on the new or old business 
model; (iii) timeline related to the new business model 

 

 

Information on CEPOL's 
cooperation/engagement/relationship with other EU 
agencies in the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) area 
including Europol, Eurojust, Frontex, EMCDDA, EASO 
etc.  
Information on the training matrix (used to align 
training offer between JHA agencies)  

2.  Public consultation, online surveys, stakeholder interviews 

See  Annex  II  for  a  synopsis  of  the  consultation  activities  including  the  public 
consultation, online surveys and stakeholder interviews. 

3.  Expert panel 

The research team was supported by three international experts on law enforcement and 
crime-related  matters  in  the  EU.  At  the  outset  of  the  evaluation,  the  consultant  team 
benefitted from the experts’ thoughts, comments and suggestions on: 

57 

 
  The basic parameters of the evaluation; 
  The issues at stake and how CEPOL fits within the broader EU JHA landscape;  
  Our  approach  for 

the  stakeholder  and  expert  consultation,  and  which 

organisations and individuals to approach. 

The experts provided feedback on all drafts and deliverables prepared over the course of 
this  evaluation.  The  experts  helped  steer  the  overall  approach  and  made  suggestions 
regarding  literature,  stakeholders  and  methodologies.  The  members  of  the  expert  panel 
are listed in the table below. 

Table 22: Members of the expert panel 

Expert 

Professor Mike Levi 

Professor Letizia Paoli 

Bo Anderson 

4.  Virtual visits to CEPOL 

Affiliation 

Cardiff University 

Leuven Institute of Criminology 

Independent 

On  Wednesday  16  and  Friday  18  December  2020,  in  the  preparatory  phase  of  the 
evaluation, the research team held a series of virtual (because of travel restrictions due to 
the  COVID-19  pandemic)  visits  or  meetings  with  senior  representatives  from  CEPOL. 
This included CEPOL’s Executive Director, Mr Detlef Schroeder, as well as the relevant 
Unit Heads from Corporate Services and Operations (specifically, Training and Research 
and  International  Cooperation).  These  meetings  allowed  the  research  team  to  collect 
preliminary  contextual  information  about  the  function  of  CEPOL  to  help  guide  the 
evaluation.  On  Monday  12  and  Tuesday  13  April  2021,  in  the  analysis  phase  of  the 
evaluation,  a  second  series  of  virtual  visits  or  meetings  with  senior  CEPOL  staff  were 
held. These meetings allowed the research team to ask CEPOL more targeted questions, 
stemming  from  the  analysis  of  the  data  collected  to  date  and  test  preliminary 
recommendations  and  policy  ideas.  All  of  these  conversations  were  guided  by  a  topic 
guide, audio recorded, and written notes shared among the research team. 

During the first virtual visit to CEPOL, CEPOL’s staff provided the research team with 
detailed information about the agency’s inner workings and factors influencing CEPOL’s 
operations  since  the  introduction  of  the  new  legal  basis  in  2016.  During  the  second 
virtual  visit  to  CEPOL,  the  research  team  and  CEPOL  staff  discussed  some  of  the  key 
findings that emerged from the evaluation’s other data collection activities.  

5.  Case studies 

Three case studies were conducted focusing on: 

  CEPOL’s governance, human resources management and working methods, 
aimed at looking at the high-level oversight and steering of CEPOL according to 
its  governing  arrangements  (the  Management  Board,  Executive  Director  and 
Senior  leadership),  how  CEPOL  attracts,  retains  and  develops  staff  and  wider 
human  resources  and  decision-making  processes  and  accountability  processes. 
The case study provides inputs relevant to answer evaluation questions 10; 14, 16 
17 and 21. 

  The  external  action  of  CEPOL  (intra  and  extra-EU),  aimed  at  investigating 
CEPOL’s  international  cooperation  and  capacity  building  activities  in  Third 
58 

 
Countries,  taking  a  closer  look  at  the  extent  to  which,  and  with  what  results, 
CEPOL provides training to prepare law enforcement officials for participation in 
Union missions and training for law enforcement officials from third countries. 
  Lessons  learned  from  other  EU  training  units  (e.g.  within  Europol,  EASO, 
Frontex) who deliver training to law enforcement officials and cross-professional 
audiences across the EU, to identify lessons learnt and transferrable elements for 
CEPOL. 

The aim of the case studies was to  analyse more  in  depth  some key elements  linked to 
CEPOL’s  structure,  governance  and  activities.  The  information  collected  through  the 
case  studies  was  used  for  the  purposes  of  the  overall  evaluation,  including  answering 
specific  evaluation  questions,  but  also  to  provide  additional  details  on  the  above-
mentioned topics, providing a detailed picture of the three key elements selected, which 
would have not been addressed as comprehensively in the overall evaluation. Each case 
study  was  carried  out  using  a  combination  of  desk  and  field  research.  Data  collection 
benefitted from the evidence gathered from interviews and online surveys implemented 
targeting  the  whole  evaluation.  Additional,  ad-hoc  interviews  were  organised  for  each 
case study to collect new and more specific information and data. 

6.  Workshops 

On  Thursday  15  April  2021  the  research  team  held  a  virtual  workshop  with 
representatives  from  the  Commission  to  discuss  some  key  themes  emergent  from  the 
evaluation  and  potential  recommendations.  In  the  meeting,  the  research  team  presented 
the draft conclusions and corresponding recommendations and invited questions from the 
Commission  to  ensure  the  recommendations  have  been  fully  assessed  in  terms  of  their 
legal, practical, political and economic feasibility. Discussion was also aimed at ensuring 
that the proposed stakeholders for each recommendation are correct.  

On  Wednesday  12  May  and  Monday  17  May  the  research  team  held  two  virtual 
workshops  with  representatives  from  CEPOL  to  discuss  key  findings  and  potential 
recommendations.  Prior  to  these workshops  CEPOL staff were provided  with  a written 
summary  of  the  key  issues  and  suggestions.  During  the  sessions  the  research  team 
presented the key findings and suggestion, and this was followed by detailed discussions 
with  members of the CEPOL staff to  ensure issues were fully understood and to  check 
feasibility of the suggestions being made. 

Detailed  minutes  of  all  workshop  were  recorded  and  used  for  refinement  of  and 
integration with the final report. 

The  two  final  workshops  -  held  with  representatives  from  the  Commission  and 
CEPOL  respectively  –  aimed  to  discuss  some  of  the  emerging  findings  from  the 
evaluation  and  preliminary  suggestions  to  address  identified  areas  for  improvement. 
These issues are listed below, along with a summary of the feedback received from the 
two stakeholder groups. 

7.  Limitations of evaluation and mitigation measures 

There are a number of  limitations of the data collected to  inform  the  evaluation, which 
should  be  borne  in  mind  when  interpreting  the  findings.  Below  we  summarise  the 
limitations and mitigation measures taken by the research team to address them. 

1.  Measuring effectiveness: Measurement of the Agency’s effectiveness is limited 
by  lack  of  statistical,  financial,  and  administrative  data  to  test,  challenge  and 

59 

 
validate  the  expert  judgements  and  stakeholder  opinions  collected  through 
fieldwork  activities.  For  example,  there  is  an  absence  of  data  to  assess  whether 
the skills and knowledge of CEPOL training participants have actually increased 
as a result of the training provided. 

2.  Relying  on  self-reported  data:  Data  collected  from  stakeholders  through 
interviews  and  surveys  is  self-reported,  may  be  subject  to  recall  bias  and  may 
reflect the specific agenda of those consulted. 

Mitigation measure to points 1 and 2: Triangulation of self-reported data 
including  factual 
with  data  analysed  from  documentary  sources 
information  on  the  functioning  of  CEPOL,  information  on  CEPOL’s 
activities,  previous  evaluation  documents,  and  documents  related  to 
CEPOL’s partnerships. 

3.  Attributing outcomes: In the absence of a counterfactual, there are challenges in 
unequivocally  attributing  outcomes  to  the  activities  of  CEPOL.  The  aim  of  this 
evaluation  was  to  assess the strength  of evidence for CEPOL’s progress  against 
the  intended  intervention  logic,  rather  than  assess  direct,  verifiable  causality 
based on strong empirical evidence. 

a.  Mitigation measure: The evaluation is a contribution analysis, rather than 

an impact evaluation assessing causality. 

4.  Quantifying  benefits:  The  inability  to  quantify  the  benefits  of  CEPOL  means 
that  this  analysis  is  unable  to  make  any  concrete  conclusions  about  the  cost-
effectiveness of the Agency. 

a.  Mitigation  measure:  The  efficiency  analysis  focuses  on  the  costs  of 
CEPOL’s  activities  and  the  efficiency  of  the  Agency  in  light  of  the 
resources available. 

5.  Representativeness of stakeholder views: There may be selection bias because 
those  interviewed  and  surveyed  were  selected  by  the  research  team  following  a 
stakeholder mapping exercise (involving the Commission and CEPOL) and may 
not be representative of all stakeholders of CEPOL. 

a.  Mitigation  measure:  Selection  of  stakeholders  across  a  wide  range  of 
groups including those at the EU, Member State, and international levels. 

60 

 
 
Annex IV: Intervention logic 

61 

 
 
 
 
Annex V: Evaluation questions 

Number  Evaluation question 
Efficiency 
5 

To  what  extent  did  CEPOL’s  AWPs  address  the  objectives  set  out  in  Regulation  (EU) 
2015/2219  and  the  priorities  stemming  from  both  the  EU  Agenda  on  Security  and  the 
renewed EU Security Union Strategy? 

5.1:  To  what  extent  has  CEPOL’s  objective  –  as  set  out  in  the  2015  Regulation  –  to 
support  Member  States  in  the  provision  of  training  to  law  enforcement  officials,  in 
particular  on  elements  of  cross-border  and  European-level  policing  been  duly  taken  on 
board in the CEPOL’s AWPs? 

5.2:  To  what  extent  has  CEPOL’s  objective  –  as  set  out  in  the  2015  Regulation  –  to 
support  Member  States  in  developing  bilateral  and  regional  cooperation  through  the 
delivery  of  law  enforcement  training  between  Member  States,  Union  bodies  and  third 
countries been duly taken on board in the CEPOL’s AWPs?   

5.3:  To  what  extent  has  CEPOL’s  objective  –  as  set  out  in  the  2015  Regulation  –  to 
develop,  implement  and  support  training  on  specific  thematic  areas  been  duly  taken  on 
board in the CEPOL’s AWPs?   

5.4:  To  what  extent  has  CEPOL’s  objective  –  as  set  out  in  the  2015  Regulation  –  to 
support  the  training  of  law  enforcement  officials  when  preparing  for  participation  in  EU 
missions been duly taken on board in the CEPOL’s AWPs?   

5.5:  To  what  extent  has  CEPOL’s  objective  –  as  set  out  in  the  2015  Regulation  –  to 
support  the  training  of  law  enforcement  officials  in  capacity  building  activity  in  non-EU 
countries been duly taken on board in the CEPOL’s AWPs?   

5.6:  To  what  extent  has  CEPOL’s  objective  –  as  set  out  in  the  2015  Regulation  –  to 
provide training to law enforcement trainers and support the development and exchange 
of best practice about law enforcement practice and techniques been duly taken on board 
in the CEPOL’s AWPs?   

5.7:  To  what  extent  has  CEPOL’s  objective  –  as  set  out  in  the  2015  Regulation  –  to 
develop, upgrade and evaluate learning tools and methodologies that support the learning 
and  development  of  law  enforcement  officials  about  law  enforcement  practice  and 
techniques been duly taken on board in the CEPOL’s AWPs?   

5.8:  To  what  extent  do  CEPOL’s  actions  and  activities  laid  out  in  the  AWPs  fit  with  the 
priorities  stemming  from  both  the  EU  Agenda  on  Security  and  the  renewed  EU  Security 
Union Strategy? 

6 

To what extent did CEPOL meet its core objectives as set out in Regulation (EU) 2015/2219? 

6.1: To what extent did CEPOL support Member States in the provision of training to law 
enforcement officials over the 2015-2020 period? 

6.2: To what extent did CEPOL support Member States in developing bilateral and regional 
cooperation through the delivery of multi-lateral training over the 2015-2020 period? 

6.3:  To  what  extent  did  CEPOL  develop,  implement  and  support  training  on  specific 
thematic areas over the 2015-2020 period. 

6.4:  To  what  extent  did  CEPOL  support  the  training  of  law  enforcement  officials  when 
preparing  for  participation  in  EU  missions  and  in  capacity  building  activity  in  third 
countries over the 2015-2020 period? 

6.5: To what extent did CEPOL provide training to law enforcement trainers and support 
the development and exchange of best practice over the 2015-2020 period? 

6.6:  To  what  extent  did  CEPOL  develop,  upgrade  and  evaluate  learning  tools  and 
methodologies  that  support  the  learning  and  development  of  law  enforcement  officials 
over the 2015-2020 period? 

7 

8 

To what extent has CEPOL achieved the goals of its AWPs between 2015 and 2020? 

How effective was the implementation of CEPOL’s activities (learning and training, exchange 
programme, research, the Masters Programme, etc.)? What factors contributed to successful 
delivery and what obstacles were encountered? 

8.1:  To  what  extent  did  the  implementation  of  CEPOL’s  actions  and  activities  (learning 
and training, exchange programme, research, the Masters, etc.), as set out in the AWPs, 
prove to be effective? 

8.2: Which are the factors that most contributed to successful delivery of CEPOL’s actions 
and activities and which are the main obstacles encountered over the 2015-2020 period? 

8.3:  To  what  extent  did  CEPOL  and  its  working  procedures  prove  compliant  with  the 

62 

 
 
 
Number  Evaluation question 
Efficiency 

Common Approach for Decentralised Agencies? 

9 

To  what  extent  did  CEPOL  affect  the  ‘training  system’,  for  example  in  terms  of  better 
coordination  of  training  and  reduced  training  gap  across  the  EU?  To  what  extent  did  CEPOL 
generate impacts on the ground that increased operational cooperation and mutual trust? 

9.1: To what extent did CEPOL’s training offer provide better coordination of training and 
reduced training gap across the EU? 

9.2:  To  what  extent  did  CEPOL’s  training  offer  generate  impacts  on  the  ground  that 
increased operational cooperation and mutual trust across the EU? 

10 

To  what  extent  have  the  changes  in  the  CEPOL  governance  structure  resulting  from  the 
implementation of the new mandate affected the effectiveness of CEPOL? 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

1 

10.1:  To  what  extent  did  CEPOL  new  governance  structure,  set  out  in  the  2015 
Regulation, help the Agency better fulfil its objectives and tasks than the previous set-up? 

10.2: To what extent did the relation between the Management Board and the Executive 
Director  improve  with  the  Regulation  (EU)  2015/2219  compared  to  Council  Decision 
2005/681/JHA? 

To what  extent  are  the CEPOL  tools  to  monitor,  review  and evaluate  its  outputs  and  results 
adequate for ensuring accountability and an appropriate assessment of performance? 

To what extent and how have external factors influenced the effectiveness of CEPOL? 

What are the benefits generated by CEPOL’s activities and the costs incurred?  

To  what  extent  has CEPOL  efficiently  used  its  human  and financial  resources  to  achieve  the 
goals set out in its AWPs during the 2015-2020 period? 

To  what  extent  are  available  resources  adequate  for  meeting  the  goals  set  out  in  its  AWPs 
during the 2015-2020 period? 

15.1: To what extent are available resources adequate for delivering on the ambitions and 
needs of CEPOL in the next 5 years? 

To what extent have the CEPOL governance, organisational set-up, management systems and 
working methods been conducive to the efficiency of its operations? 

Is there scope for simplifying the administrative set-up and working methods in the context 
of the current administrative and financial regulations? 

To what extent and how have external factors influenced the efficiency of CEPOL? 

18.1: To what extent are external factors likely to influence the efficiency of CEPOL in the 
next 5 years? 

To  what  extent  has  CEPOL  been  relevant  in  view  of  the  EU  needs/challenges?  Is  it  still 
relevant in view of current needs and challenges? 

1.1: To what extent is CEPOL’s objective – as set out in the 2015 Regulation – to support 
Member  States  in  the  provision  of  training  to  law  enforcement  officials,  in  particular  on 
elements of cross-border and European-level policing relevant to EU needs and challenges 
over the 2015 to 2020 period?  

1.2: To what extent is CEPOL’s objective – as set out in the 2015 Regulation – to support 
Member  States  in  developing  bilateral  and  regional  cooperation  through  the  delivery  of 
law  enforcement  training  between  Member  States,  Union  bodies  and  third  countries 
relevant to EU needs and challenges over the 2015 to 2020 period?   

1.3: To what extent is CEPOL’s objective – as set out in the 2015 Regulation – to develop, 
implement  and  support  training  on  specific  thematic  areas  relevant  to  EU  needs  and 
challenges over the 2015 to 2020 period?   

1.4: To what extent is CEPOL’s objective – as set out in the 2015 Regulation – to support 
the  training  of  law  enforcement  officials  when  preparing  for  participation  in  EU  missions 
relevant to EU needs and challenges over the 2015 to 2020 period?   

1.5: To what extent is CEPOL’s objective – as set out in the 2015 Regulation – to support 
the  training  of  law  enforcement  officials  in  capacity  building  activity  in  non-EU  countries 
relevant to EU needs and challenges over the 2015 to 2020 period?   

1.6: To what extent is CEPOL’s objective – as set out in the 2015 Regulation – to provide 
training  to  law  enforcement  trainers  and  support  the  development  and exchange  of best 
practice  about  law  enforcement  practice  and  techniques  relevant  to  EU  needs  and 
challenges over the 2015 to 2020 period?   

1.7: To what extent is CEPOL’s objective – as set out in the 2015 Regulation – to develop, 
upgrade  and  evaluate  learning  tools  and  methodologies  that  support  the  learning  and 
development of law enforcement officials about law enforcement practice and techniques 
relevant to EU needs and challenges over the 2015 to 2020 period?   

1.8:  To  what  extent  have  CEPOL’s  activities  and  actions,  as  laid  down  in  CEPOL  multi-
annual and annual work programmes (AWPs), been relevant to EU needs and challenges 
over the 2015-2020 period? 

63 

 
Number  Evaluation question 
Efficiency 
2 

How far is CEPOL adapted to the relevant economic, technological, scientific, social, political 
or environmental advances? 

3 

4 

To  what  extent  have  the  outcomes  of  the  CEPOL  AWPs  covering  the  2015-2020  period 
responded to the needs of its multiple stakeholders (policymakers, scientific community, law 
enforcement officials and prosecutors in the context of the independence of justice)? 

To  what  extent  has  CEPOL’s  training  offer  over  the  2015-2020  period  responded  to  the 
training needs of CEPOL’s target audience and is still relevant to the current training needs of 
CEPOL’s target audience? 

Coherence 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

To  what  extent  are  CEPOL’s  actions  and  activities  internally,  as  set  out  in  the  AWPs, 
coherent? 

This question was merged with Question 16 during the Inception Phase (see ‘efficiency’)  

To  what  extent  did  the  objectives  of  CEPOL  set  out  in  the  2015  Regulation  contribute  to 
aligning  its  structure  and  governance  to  other  JHA  agencies,  progressing  towards  the 
Common Approach? 

To what extent are the objectives and tasks of CEPOL set out in the 2015 Regulation coherent 
with the EU policy developments? 

To what extent are the objectives and tasks of CEPOL set out in the 2015 Regulation coherent 
with and complementary to the objectives and activities of the Commission and EU agencies?  

23.1:  What  have  been  the  overlaps  and  potential  synergies  with  EU  authorities  and  EU-
level  training  providers  such  as  the  European  Cybercrime  Training  and  Education  Group 
(ECTEG) and the European Judicial Training Network (EJTN)? 

23.2:  To  what  extent  are  the  objectives  and  tasks  of  CEPOL  set  out  in  the  2015 
Regulation coherent with and complementary to the objectives and activities of and of the 
Member States?  

23.3:  What  have  been  the  overlaps  and  potential  synergies  with  national  training 
providers? 

EU Added Value 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

To what extent have CEPOL objectives and tasks, as set out in the 2015 Regulation, helped to 
improve the ability of Member States to train their law  enforcement compared to what they 
could do at national level? 

What was the role and contribution of CEPOL to the JHA policy area, for example in terms of 
implementation of the EMPACT, European Training Scheme, identification of training priorities 
and overall coordination of training at EU level? 

To  what  extent  have  CEPOL  actions  and  activities,  as  set  out  in  the  AWPs,  provided  a 
European level resource for informing the policy debate on training? 

To what  extent  has CEPOL been  more  effective  in  achieving  its  objectives,  as set out  in  the 
2015  Regulation,  in  the  2015-2020  period  compared  to  existing  or  alternative  options  of 
implementing  (training) objectives  and  policies  in  the  strategic  documents referred  to  below 
(e.g.  by  the  Member  States,  through  the  Commission  services  themselves,  an  executive 
agency, etc.)? 

What  would  be  the  likely  impact  in  the  event  CEPOL’s  actions  and  activities  were 
discontinued? 

Lessons learned 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

What are the lessons learned in terms of synergies with other JHA agencies? 

What are the lessons learned in terms of cooperation with international organisations, such as 
SELEC and UNODC? 

What are the lessons learned in terms of external action?  

What are the lessons learned in terms of communication/dissemination/cascade effect?  

What  conclusions  and  recommendations  relating  to  the  findings  can  be  drawn  from  the 
evaluation of CEPOL and its work programmes relating to the 2015-2020 period?  

64 

 
 
 
 
Annex VI: Observations and Recommendations by the 
Management Board   

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training  

Five-Year Evaluation Report 
2015-2020  

Observations and Recommendations by the 
Management Board    

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of Contents 
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. 67 

Foreword ................................................................................................................... 68 

Area evaluated: Effectiveness ................................................................................... 68 

(extend outreach of target audience through a cascading effect) .............................. 68 

Area evaluated: Effectiveness (participant’s profile) ................................................ 69 

Area evaluated: Efficiency  (MB decision process, planning and monitoring 

procedures) ...................................................................................................... 70 

Area evaluated: Efficiency (staff turnover) ............................................................... 71 

Area  evaluated:  Efficiency  (quality  assurance  mechanism  for  outsourced 

training activities) ............................................................................................ 71 

Area evaluated: Efficiency (Cybercrime Academy) ................................................. 73 

Area evaluated: Relevance ........................................................................................ 73 

Area  evaluated:  Coherence  (strengthen  cooperation  with  other  JHA  and 

CEPOL’s role as a coordinator on training aspects) ....................................... 74 

Area evaluated: Added value (including training activities in third countries)......... 75 

Other aspects ............................................................................................................. 76 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Observations and Recommendations by the Management Board    

Foreword  

Article  32  of  the  European  Parliament  and  Council  Regulation  (EU)  No 
2015/221970 stipulates that: 

 ‘By 1 July 2021 and every five years thereafter, the Commission shall ensure that 
an  evaluation  assessing,  in  particular,  the  impact,  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of 
CEPOL  and  of  its  working  practices  is  carried  out.  The  Commission  shall  submit 
the  evaluation  report  to  the  Management  Board.  The  Management  Board  shall 
provide its observations on the evaluation report within one month from the date of 
receipt.  The  Commission  shall  then  submit  the  final  evaluation  report,  together 
with the Commission's conclusions, and the Management Board's observations in 
an Annex thereto, to the European Parliament, the Council and the Management 
Board. The findings of that evaluation report shall be made public’. 

In  order  to  support  the  Management  Board  to  provide  its  observations  on  the 
evaluation  report,  a  reporting  panel  was  established  by  Decision  of  the 
Management Board 33/2021/MB.  

the  evaluator’s  report  and  main 
The  Management  Board  concurs  with 
recommendations.  Yet  some  of  the  recommendations  cannot  be  effectively 
addressed  with  the  current  limited  human  and  financial  resources  allocated  to 
CEPOL.   

The  Management  Board  reviewed  the  five-year  evaluation  for  each  of  the  areas 
covered and provides the following observations and recommendations.  

Area evaluated: Effectiveness  

(extend outreach of target audience through a cascading effect) 

Observations 

The  assessment  of  CEPOL’s  effectiveness  was  positive  as  the  evaluation  found 
that CEPOL’s key programming documents consider and reflect the objectives of 
its  legal  basis  and  the  priorities  as  set  out  in  the  2015  EU  Agenda  on  Security. 
Moreover,  the  introduction  of  the  EU-Strategic  Training  Needs  Assessment 
methodology,  developed  to  identify  gaps  in  knowledge,  skills  and  competencies 
and training needs, has strongly improved the prioritisation of training needs. 

70 OJ L 319, 4.12.2015.p.1  

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Yet the study recommends that CEPOL should aim to reinforce the outreach and 
impact  of  the  Agency.  This  could  be  achieved,  for  instance,  by  integrating 
cascading (i.e. multiplying the outreach as a result from the training of trainers and 
peer-to-peer transfer of knowledge) more systematically into all activities, stepping 
up the train-the-trainer programme, with a special focus on law enforcement senior 
managers,  and  continuing  to  develop  and  strengthen  its  online  offer.  This  would 
help CEPOL to better address its target audience, as broadened in the legal basis 
in  force  since  2016,  now  including  prosecutors,  customs  officials,  and  other 
persons involved in law enforcement (e.g. forensic lab personnel).  

MB reflections 

The  Management  Board,  while acknowledging that  cascading remains  a national 
responsibility, encourages CEPOL to do the utmost in its capacity to further extend 
outreach of the target audience.  

MB recommendations 

1.  CEPOL  shall  further  expand  the  train-the-trainer  programme,  and  a  special 

focus on law enforcement senior managers.  

2.  CEPOL shall investigate the options for professional certification that could be 
offered  in  the  context  of  train-the-trainer  programme  versus  applicable 
standards on the market (e.g. ISO 29993:2017 Trainer Certification)  

3.  CNUs  supported  by  CEPOL  shall  develop  a national  cascading  system to  be 
systematically  integrated  into  the  training  activities  and  monitored  in terms  of 
outreach to the broaden target audience, with due regard to the specificities at 
national level.    

4.  CEPOL  should  further  continue  the  successful  implementation  of  online 

qualification services. 

Area evaluated: Effectiveness (participant’s profile) 

Observations  

The evaluator identified that participants selected for CEPOL’s residential training 
do  not  always  have  a  suitable  profile  in  terms  of  level  of  expertise  and seniority. 
However, stakeholders reported that CEPOL Activity Managers are now reviewing 
more carefully participant applications. 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MB reflections 

Management Board takes note that the issue is being addressed and encourages 
both CNUs and CEPOL’ Activity Managers to continue the practice of conducting 
selection of participant in strict compliance with the set criteria.  

Area evaluated: Efficiency (MB decision process, planning and 
monitoring procedures) 

 Observations 

The Management Board takes note that in terms of efficiency, the evaluation found 
that the benefits stemming from participating in CEPOL’s activities outweighed the 
costs for Member States, and that CEPOL’s resources were managed well. 

The  evaluation  also  concluded  that  there  were  some  inefficiencies  related  to  the 
Management Board’s decision-making process, CEPOL’s planning processes and 
monitoring  procedures.  Board  meetings  are  attended  by  large  numbers  of 
delegates per Member State, not always properly representing the full spectrum of 
the law enforcement bodies and their inputs. Several stakeholders observed that, 
while most Management Board decisions are related to content and strategy, the 
agenda of Board meetings is cramped with administrative items, leaving relatively 
little room for strategic discussion. 

It  was  recommended  that  Member  State  representatives  further  strengthen 
coordination within their countries, with a view to gather and address the needs of 
the entire law enforcement community. In particular, the evaluation highlighted the 
importance  of  the  role  of  CEPOL’s  Management  Board,  as  a  body  which  should 
reflect and relay all inputs and demands beyond the academic world, notably from 
the  operational  level  in  their  Member  States,  to  be  fed  into  the  Board’s  strategic 
decisions.  In this  context,  attention  should  also  be  paid  to gender  representation 
within  the  Management  Board,  as  also  highlighted  by  the  European  Parliament, 
which – in the context of the 2019 discharge procedure – urged CEPOL to ensure 
gender balance when nominating their members. 

MB reflections 

The Management Board agrees with the recommendation that the Board meetings 
should focus  more on  strategic  discussion  and less  on  administrative  matters.  At 
the same time, the MB would like to emphasise the importance of the Operational 
and EU Strategic Needs Assessment as an essential tool to reflect the operational 
demands  and  bring  up  needs  of  the  field,  hence  the  commitment  of  Member 
States in participating to these assessments is crucial.  

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On  participation  of  other  law  enforcement  bodies  in  the  MB  meetings,  the  MB  
highlights  that  police  usually  represents  the  majority  within  the  law-enforcement 
community, therefore the representation level mirrors the real situation. The same 
applies  to  the  matter  of  gender  representations  that  reflects  the  national  gender 
balance within MS, therefore both aspects are beyond CEPOL’s outreach.  

 MB recommendation 

5.  The  MB  shall  further  streamline  the  meeting  agenda  to  focus  on  strategic 

matters.  

Area evaluated: Efficiency (staff turnover) 

Observations 

While the evaluator assessed that CEPOL’s internal structure appears to operate 
efficiently,  it  was  noted  that  CEPOL’s  staff  turnover  might  have  affected  the 
Agency’s  overall  efficiency  during  the  2015  to  2020  period.  The  turnover  of  staff 
has  resulted  in  a  shift  in  corporate  culture  and  challenges  in  attracting 
appropriately qualified staff. 

MB reflection 

The Management Board takes note of the finding and highlights that the relocation 
of CEPOL from UK to Hungary had a strong impact on staff turnover due to lower 
salary  coefficient  combined  with  under  graded  positions  for  key  functions  in  the 
establishment plan.  

MB recommendation  

6.  The  MB  hereby  takes  this  opportunity  to  flag  these  aspects  for  the 
stakeholders in the decision-making fora, and recommends that the grading of 
posts in CEPOL should be aligned with those in other JHA Agencies.   

Area evaluated: Efficiency (quality assurance mechanism for 
outsourced training activities) 

          Observations 

The  evaluator  noted  that  CEPOL  now  operates  under  a  hybrid  business  model, 
which  combines  the  traditional  grant  approach,  consisting  in  tendered  topics 
among the eligible Framework Partners, and the ‘new’ CEPOL Knowledge Centre 
method,  consisting  in  a  cluster  of  experts  specialised  in  a  topic.  This  mixed 
method is meant to streamline and simplify the grants management and has been  
71 

 
 
 
          
 
 
         
 
 
 
put  in  place  after  the  Management  Board  rejected  the  complete  abolition  of  the 
grant  system.  CEPOL  was  generally  capable  of  absorbing  the  EU  funding  it 
received. 

According  to  the  evaluators’  finding,  the  yearly  development  cycle  for  CEPOL’s 
training activities is deemed to be too short, jeopardising quality. Prior to CEPOL’s 
development  of  training,  the  Management  Board  is  required  to  make  decisions 
about  topics,  guidelines  are  drafted,  and  Framework  Partners  undergo  selection 
procedures. Once these processes are complete, according to some stakeholders, 
there  is  little  time  left  for  quality  content  development,  as  the  yearly  cycle  has 
come to an end. Consequently, Framework Partners with no ‘off-the-shelf’ training 
solutions that could be offered during this limited timeframe are discouraged from 
applying to organise a course. The result is that the number of grant applications 
from Framework Partners is constantly decreasing.  

Among  its  key  finding,  the  evaluator  notes  that  the  training  activities  that  have 
been  outsourced  to  CEPOL’s  Framework  Partners  for  development  and  delivery 
are  less  exposed  to  CEPOL’s  quality  assurance  mechanism.  This  results  in 
training  activities of  variable  quality.  CEPOL  has  a quality  assurance mechanism 
in  place  to  control  its  training  activities  from  development  to  delivery,  which  was 
found  to  be  effective  in  guaranteeing  high-quality  content  and  trainers  when 
CEPOL  is  responsible  for  both  developing  and  delivering  training.  Training 
activities  outsourced 
to  Framework  Partners,  while  still  appreciated  by 
participants,  are  sometimes  of  variable  quality,  as  they  have  not  always  been 
systematically screened by the CEPOL’s quality assurance mechanism. 

MB reflection 

The  Management  Board  shares  the  opinion  that  CEPOL  has  proven  to  be 
successful in implementing the funds it received, however considers that using the 
term ‘absorption of EU funds’ is not appropriate in the context of EU Agencies.  

Management  Board  recognises  the  establishment  of  CEPOL  Knowledge  Centre 
as an efficient model of implementation of training activities, where the Agency has 
taken  on  board  the  central  administration  of  the  budget.  However,  the  additional 
necessary human resources are missing to deploy this model on a full scale, for all 
training activities.   

 MB recommendation 

7.  CEPOL  should  do  the  utmost  in  its  capacity  to  gradually  extend  the  CEPOL 
Knowledge  Centre  model  to  other  training  activities,  within  the  limits  of 
available resources.   

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Area evaluated: Efficiency (Cybercrime Academy)  

Observations 

According to the evaluator, the CEPOL’s Cybercrime Academy is perceived to be 
an important step taken by the Agency to address emerging needs but should be 
further improved, especially with regards to the training offers addressing specific 
technical skills, such as cryptocurrency, access to (big) data and encrypted data, 
which can hardly be covered by single Member States alone. 

MB reflections 

The  Management  Board  shares  the  apprehension  of  the  evaluator  that  training 
offer should focus on topics that cannot be addressed at national level, especially 
on evolving new technologies such as Artificial Intelligence, big data analysis and 
data  encryption,  as  evidenced  by  the  training  needs  assessments  conducted  by 
CEPOL.  At  the  same  time,  MB  considers  that  Cybercrime  Academy  should  also 
envisage a train-the-trainer component, aiming for qualified trainers.  

          MB recommendation 

8.  CEPOL should be enabled to further invest into its cybercrime training offer, to 

cover for relevant topics to be better addressed at the European level.  

9.  MB  considers  in reference to recommendation  n°2 that  cyber  related train-of-
trainers activities should be best supported by certification of the trainings.  

Area evaluated: Relevance  

Observations 

The  evaluation  confirmed  that  CEPOL’s  objectives  are  relevant  to the  EU  needs 
and challenges defined by key strategic documents and CEPOL’s training offer is 
relevant to the needs of EU Member States.  

The evaluator also mentions that there were mixed findings in relation to CEPOL’s 
ability  to  adapt  its  training  offer  to  scientific,  technological  and  socio-political 
developments.  

73 

 
 
 
 
 
          
 
 
 
          
 
 
MB reflections 

Management  Board  considers  that  second  remark  could  have  been  better 
substantiated to enable further analysis. Nevertheless, MB agrees that the training  

offer  should  be  flexible  to  adapt  to  new  developments,  and  to  this  end  CEPOL 
conducts regular strategic and operational training needs assessments.  

MB recommendation 

10. CEPOL should consider the further application of the existing model to satisfy 

emerging training needs.  

Area evaluated: Coherence (strengthen cooperation with other JHA 
and CEPOL’s role as a coordinator on training aspects) 

Observations 

The evaluation concludes that CEPOL’s remit and activities appear to be coherent 
with and complementary to other relevant actors at the EU level. Yet, the extent of 
coordination  is  ad  hoc,  varies  by  Agency  and  by  CEPOL’s  level  of  engagement 
with  JHA  agencies  and  EU  institutions.  This  means  that  there  is  some  room  for 
improvement.  

The evaluation highlights the importance for CEPOL to streamline its activities to 
focus  on  key  priorities  within  the  European  Multidisciplinary  Platform  Against 
Criminal  Threats,  the  Security  Union  Strategy  and  recent  internal  security 
strategies, while remaining open to assessing and catering for the specific training 
requests  of  Member  States  within  this  framework.  In  that  regard,  CEPOL  should 
increase  its  cooperation  with  other  Agencies  in  general,  and  with  Europol  in 
particular,  in  order  to  maximise  synergies  as  widely  as  possible.  In  this  context, 
CEPOL  has  accepted  to  take  the  lead  in  the  coordination  of  the  common 
horizontal  strategic  goal  on  “capacity  building  through  training,  networking  and 
innovation”  during 
the  European 
Multidisciplinary  Platform  Against  Criminal  Threats.  Likewise,  it  is  recommended 
CEPOL should increase its coordinating role, also when contributing to implement 
all  the  internal  security  strategies,  including  the  Counter  Terrorism  Agenda, 
adopted in December 2020, and both EU Strategies on Organised Crime and on 
Trafficking, adopted in early 2021. 

the  upcoming  cycle  2022-2025  of 

Linked to this, it is recommended that CEPOL plays a central role in coordinating 
law  enforcement  training  among  all  different  stakeholders,  and  notably  the  other 
training 
JHA  agencies.  Rather 
stakeholders,  CEPOL  should  aim  to  become  “the”  EU  hub  for  law  enforcement 
training. While the Agency is not in a position to cater for all training needs itself, it 
has a unique role in mapping and monitoring the catalogue of existing law  

in  competition  with  other  EU 

than  being 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
enforcement training  offers  provided by  all  JHA  agencies and other  stakeholders 
and to act as a portal for law enforcement practitioners looking for suitable training 
opportunities at the EU level. 

MB reflections 

The MB does not fully share the opinion on the coordination matters, e.g referring 
to  the  existing  working  arrangements,  but  agrees  that  there  is  some  room  for 
improvement. 

The Management Board supports the initiative that CEPOL becomes “the EU hub 
for  law  enforcement  training”.  However,  MB  considers  that  the  coordinator  role 
cannot be effectively achieved in absence of adequate staffing level and moreover 
until  this  is  catered  for  in  the  CEPOL’s  legal  mandate  which  should  be 
complementary to the legal mandates of other JHA Agencies.  

Area evaluated: Added value (including training activities in third 
countries) 

Observations 

The  evaluation  concluded  that,  regarding  the  EU  added  value,  all  consulted 
stakeholder  groups  were  of  the  view  that  CEPOL  indeed  provides  added  value 
with regard to training on specific crime areas compared to what is offered at the 
national  level.  CEPOL  capacity  building  projects  in  third  countries  effectively 
contribute towards improving the stability in the EU neighbourhood and in building 
trust with neighbouring countries. Although training in third countries is a crowded 
market, CEPOL is praised for its commitment to provide training responding to the 
needs  of  partner  third  countries.  As  per  mandate,  CEPOL  manages  dedicated 
Union External Assistance funds to fulfil its objectives in third countries. 

Finally,  as  regards  the  activities  carried  out  by  CEPOL  in  third  countries,  it  is 
confirmed  that  these  should  continue,  where  possible,  and  in  line  with  the  EU’s 
external policy. However, considering the resources available to the Agency, it is 
recommended they should not deflect attention from the core priorities referred to 
above,  while  ensuring  that  they  meet  concrete  needs  and  have  a  real  added 
value. 

MB reflection 

The  Management  Board  agrees  with  evaluator’s finding  and  recommendation  on 
activities in third countries.  

MB recommendation 

11. CEPOL  will  continue  implement  training  activities  in  third  countries  to  the 
possible  extent  with  due  consideration  to  the  available  capacities  of  CEPOL 
and Member States.   

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other aspects  

The  significant  changes  in  the  EU  internal  security  landscape  generate  an 
increased  demand  for  law  enforcement  training  where  the  priorities  are  shifting 
topics  such  as  cybercrime,  migration,  counterterrorism,  artificial 
towards 
intelligence. 

In  multi-annual  perspective,  the  outreach  of  CEPOL  became  more  than  double: 
number  of  participants  has grown from  ca.  18,000  in 2016 to  ca.  40,000 in 2021 
which  reflects  exploding  demand  and  necessity  for  the  training  activities  that  the 
Agency delivers. 

Six years after the entry into force of its new legal mandate71 on 1 July 2016 and 
sixteen years  since  the  inception  of  CEPOL as  an  EU  Agency,  CEPOL operates 
with 33 Temporary Agents in its establishment plan.  

Due  to  insufficient  resources,  this  demand  could  be  only  followed  by  increasing 
the  online  learning  component,  which  did  not  entirely  satisfy  the  need  of  the 
stakeholders.  The  number  of  tasks  assigned  to  the  Agency  and  its  stakeholder 
expectations  continue  to  grow,  which  CEPOL  cannot  satisfy  due  to  the  lack  of 
available financial and human resources. 

The  present  mandate  brought  about  new  coordination  and  analytical  tasks  for 
CEPOL, together with implementing capacity-building projects in third countries by 
managing  dedicated  Union  External  Assistance  funds,  however  this  was  not 
accompanied with any additional training agents post.   

The MB is of the opinion that genuinely addressing most deficiencies identified by 
the evaluation report and confirmed by the reflections of the Management Board, 
just as some of the recommendations (notably MB recommendations 3, 6, 7 and 
8)  emerging  from  the  evaluation  report,  would  require  amendment  of  CEPOL’s 
legal  mandate  and  the  related  Legal  and  Financial  Statement,  to  provide  the 
agency  with  additional  resources,  justified  by  evidence-based,  clear  business 
needs.  

Accordingly, MB recommends for the  consideration of the European Commission 
to  table  a  legislative  proposal  on  amending  CEPOL’s  current  legal  mandate  and 
the  related  Legal  and  Financial  Statement,  in  order  to  increase  the  Agency’s 
impact and address the current recommendations. 

1]

71

 Regulation (EU) 2015/2219 of the EP and of the Council on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement 

Training (CEPOL) 

76