This report summarises the findings of four projects performed by the Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI) for the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) between 2013 and 2014. MSB is responsible for managing appropriation 2:4 Emergency management, which aims to increase national crisis preparedness. The overall purpose of the projects performed by FOI has been to support MSB's process of directing the appropriation, allocating the appropriation between projects seeking funding, and finally evaluating the funded projects. Focus has been on creating a comprehensive view on the process, to study the structure of MSB's yearly directive for the appropriation, the structure and wording of objectives presented in this directive, the relationship between objectives and the objectives defined by the projects associated to these objectives, and finally on how to estimate what effects completed projects have had on actual crisis preparedness. As a starting point a design perspective was applied to MSB's appropriation process. This enabled an understanding of how the central elements of the process, i.e. direction and allocation of the appropriation and following-up of the projects funded, relate to each other and fulfil the overall purpose of the appropriation. Two areas, structure and wording of objectives in the directive and the evaluation of the results of the projects funded by the appropriation, were chosen for further studies. Objectives express a desire for something to be fulfilled. Considering the objectives in the directive it is important to make the distinction between objectives and the more specified actions. Actions express something very specific to be executed. Objectives on the other hand, imply a higher degree of freedom, it is, for example, not always specified how an objective can or should be fulfilled. For MSB, it does not matter whether both objectives and actions are included in the directive or not. That is, as long as the distinction between them is made clear to those central agencies and county councils seeking project funding and that both objectives and actions logically support the overall purpose of the appropriation. MSB is required to annually evaluate and account for the effects on national crisis preparedness generated by the projects funded by the appropriation. These effects are, however, very difficult to measure. An alternative way, suggested in the report, is to apply indicators to achieve an indication whether an objective has been fulfilled or not. This study recommends that suitable indicators should be developed for each funded project rather than on an overarching level. The summarised effects of the appropriation on a national level must thereafter be inferred. Other recommendations include that both the application form and the evaluation form filled in by the project manager should be designed with respect to whether the project is aiming to fulfil an objective or an action. Also, MSB should consider the balance between objectives and actions in the directive as it affects the division of responsibility between MSB and the project managers in terms of defining the effect chain, from project activities up to crisis preparedness on a national level.