The Main Purpose of Policy Evaluation - Essay Example

Background Dr. Hayes defines evaluation as an activity designed to judge the merits of a government policy or programme (Hayes, 2001). Evaluation involves evaluation research which entails the use of systematic collection of data, analysis of information and the interpretations in relation to the design, implementation and impact of a given public policy (Hayes, 2001). This paper attempts to identify the actual purpose of policy evaluation. It examines the various components of public policy and relates it to the importance of these components to various public policies. It also examines some elements of implementation and the human interactions in the control and implementation of public policy evaluation. Through this analyses, conclusions are drawn on the actual role and purpose of policy evaluation. Policy Evaluation as a Planning & Decision Making Tool The main purpose of policy evaluation is that it is used as a tool for planning and decision making in the public sector. Weiss identifies that “some of the new programs are logical extension of earlier efforts: some represent radical departures from the past and a plunge into uncharted waters” (Weiss, 1998a p6). Public policy is conducted by and for numerous stakeholders. Stakeholders are the main parties in a project who have interests in the project (Weiss, 1998a p79). They include the benefactors (usually, members of the society who will benefit from the public policy), elite interest groups, community groups, commercial contractors, poor people, Non-Governmental Organizations and many more (Weiss, 1998b). Policy Evaluation is a tool that enables planning and decision making to ensure that the policy attains the best results in terms of political, economic, social, psychological and technological interest of all the parties (Nagel, 2002). Public Policy Evaluation as a Monitoring & Risk Management Tools Sometimes, data for the effect of a public policy is not readily available. In such times, project evaluation becomes a source of information for the various stakeholders. This is because it enables the creation of an independent body that purposely oversees the trends of a given project and document them. Thus, communication and information gathered by the evaluation team provides relevant information and data for important elements of the society (Weiss, 2002). This helps in the evaluation of governments and public position holders. In the early stages of policy planning, there is the theory based evaluation process. “Theory based evaluation is a mode of evaluation that brings to the surface the underlying assumptions about why a program will work...” (Weiss, 2002 p103). This means that policy evaluation has some inherent components of risk management. Gerston also identifies that there are two methods of project evaluation. One of them is process evaluation and the other is outcome evaluation (2010). The process approach involves evaluating policies as and when they are implemented. Policy evaluation also involves the establishing of clear policy goals and the identification of milestones (Schilder, 2000). Thus, in the process approach, these milestones and goals act as the foundation for the measurement of the projects progress against set standards. Through this, there could be the identification of new risks and the incremental planning to include important things that were left out of the previous plans. Therefore through the proactive approach of policy evaluation, a policy can be evaluated and important questions can be asked at different points. Pirog identifies some risk-oriented questions that a project evaluation effort might ask like: 1. Interaction of the programme with policies, laws, administration and innovation. 2. What works better 3. Fundamental research designs and what it has achieved. When reasonable answers are identified for each phase, the research can proceed and risks can be reasonably averted. Outcome Analysis Outcome analysis involves the evaluation of the final policy when it is set in motion. Gerston identifies two main forms of outcome analysis which are quality assurance and the measurement of change (2010). Quality assurance involves the evaluation of stakeholder satisfaction. The ends that were expected in the process are measured against the set standards of the process. Measurement of change involves the realistic examination of the effects of the policy on the lives of people it was designed for. This involves the use of certain tools and techniques that provide the relative view of how the public policy is felt amongst the masses. These outcome analyses help in terms of accountability (Weiss, 1998b). Also, legislators want to know the exact extent of their policies and legislations on the masses. This provokes political debates that ultimately lead to the improvement of the society. Steps of PPE & Importance Davies and MacDonald identify that policy evaluation involves eight steps. Each of these steps play significant and crucial roles in supporting policies to attain their objectives. The first step involves environmental mapping. It successfully identifies all stakeholders and all the relevant factors. The second step involves the identification of the purpose of the policy. The third step involves the design of the evaluation plan. In this phase, the purpose and the stakeholders are matched. The fourth phase involves the identification of the main success factors of the project. This involves definition of important indicators that spell out the success of the project. The fifth step involves data collection which leads to the collection of empirical information about the project. The sixth stage involves interpretation of the data through scientific methods. It aids the proper analysis of the project through empirical methods. The seventh phase involves the incorporation of feedback from stakeholders and the final stage involves the creation of an action plan meant to present constructive criticisms and contributions to the project. This is done through the provision of feedback to the key players of the project (Schalock, 2001). Human Intervention in Public Policy Evaluation Weiss (1998b) identifies that evaluation of public policy was initially done by project sponsors. However, the scope was expanded and other independent parties got involved in the evaluation process. In both cases, there is a degree of human issues that come to play in the public policy evaluation process. First of all, there is the risk of postponement which can make the whole process a but cumbersome (Weiss, 1998b). This means that people might have a desire to reschedule things which can affect the evaluation process or even change the whole project significantly. This will require a change in variables in the evaluation process. Secondly, the shifting of responsibility by parties in a public policy project can lead to issues (Weiss, 1998b). This means that evaluators might encounter difficulties that might make it hard to diagnose problems and issues in order to present the full view of a situation. Thirdly, there is the issue of window dressing. In other words, evaluations might come with some elements of artificial activities that might put the project in a favourable light (Weiss, 1998b). This could be to create a good public relations stint that will benefit the sponsors or some interest groups in the project. This effectively creates a cloud over the project and its efficiency. Politics & Evaluation of Public Policy Taylor & Balloch (2005) identify that there is a lot of politics that is emanated by interest groups in a project. This means that the interactions by various interest groups makes it difficult for projects to be undertaken and completed. This is because it leads to the digression of plans and causes some levels of disagreements. These stakeholder interactions lead to several problems that can affect the definition of the scope of an evaluation exercise (Weiss, 1998b). This causes so much problems and affect the setting of standards and the evaluation process itself. Learning & Control Weiss (1998b) identifies several elements of public policy evaluation that leads to control and learning. First of all, a good evaluation process needs to have a recording process (Weiss, 1998b). In other words, the exercise must contain some element of recording which will identify the progress made and also gather and summarize important information. This will enable the process to be tracked in a progressive fashion. Also, there should be a strong communication and feedback system (Weiss, 1998b). This means that feedback should be communicated with important quarters in the evaluation exercise. Information must flow from parties on the field to senior practitioners in the organisation carrying out the evaluation. The initial goals of the project must be used as yardstick to identify the critical success factors (Weiss, 1998b). The evaluators will have to make a conscious effort to highlight the main critical success factors and relevant information during the process. Also, elements of accountability to stakeholders in the evaluation process need to be identified and highlighted appropriately (Weiss, 1998b). This supports the learning process and provide a strong understanding and knowledge base to merit a proper evaluation. Conclusion In conclusion, policy evaluation is an important planning and decision making tool. It helps in the monitoring of stakeholder needs and helps in risk management. The outcome analysis enables possible suggestions that can improve the project. Human intervention in public policy implementation like stakeholder politics and other elements of the project team makes it quite difficult for evaluation to be conducted. Also, proper record taking, good communication, identification of critical achievements and other accountability measures must be known fully to ensure that project consultants learn and get to know more about a project. References Davies John Kenneth & MacDonald Gordon (1998) Quality, Evidence & Expectations in Health Promotion London: Taylor & Francis Group Gerston, Larry (2010) Public Policy Making Process & Principles ME Sharpe Publications. Hayes Wayne (2001) Defining Evaluation Available online at: http://profwork.org/pp/evaluate/def.html Accessed: 14th February, 2012. Just Richard, Hickwett Darrell & Scwhitz Andrew (2005) The Welfare Economics of Public Policy Edward Elgar Publishing Nagel, Stuart (2002) Handbook of Public Policy Evaluation London: SAGE Publications Pirog, Maureen (2009) Social Experimentation Program Evaluation & Public Policy Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Publishing. Schalock Robert (2001) Outcome-Based Evaluation London: Springer Publishing. Schilder Ard (2000) Government Failure & Institutions in Public Policy Evaluation Amsterdam: Van Gorcum Taylor, David & Balloch Susan (2005) The Politics of Evaluation: Participation and Policy Implementation.London: Prentice Publishing. Weiss, Carol (1998a) Evaluation: Methods of Studying Programs & Policies New York: Prentice Hall. Weiss, Carol, H. (1998b) Have We Learned Anything New About the Use of Evaluation? American Journal of Evaluation Vol 19 No 1 pp 21 – 33 Weiss, Carol H. (2002) Theory Based Evaluation: Themes of Change for Poverty Reduction Programs in Evaluation & Poverty Reduction: Proceeding from a World Bank Conference Feinstein Osvald & Cicciotto, Robert: World Bank Publications. Read More