|
Session Title: Using Strategic Planning and Strategic Evaluation as Learning Processes
|
|
Panel Session 631 to be held in Versailles Room on Friday, November 9, 1:55 PM to 3:25 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the Government Evaluation TIG
|
| Chair(s): |
| David J Bernstein,
Westat,
davidbernstein@westat.com
|
| Discussant(s):
|
| Kathryn Newcomer,
George Washington University,
newcomer@gwu.edu
|
| Abstract:
Strategic planning and strategic evaluation are components of a comprehensive and thoughtful accountability cycle, and have a symbiotic relationship. Strategic evaluation activities can inform managers, staff, and stakeholders about program performance, and provide input for developing a strategic plan. Strategic plans can be used to establish a strategic evaluation and performance monitoring agenda. This leads to thoughtful and more rigorous monitoring of program progress, achievement of goals and objectives, and identification of unintended consequences. The panel will begin with a brief discussion of the Government Performance and Results Act and Program Assessment Rating Tool requirements for strategic planning. Panelists will then explore the relationship between strategic planning, strategic evaluation, and program performance, and how these activities contribute to organizational learning. Panelists will focus on how a strategic planning and strategic evaluation can contribute to sound practice, accountability, and a more in depth understanding of program performance.
|
|
Alternative Approaches to Developing Strategic Performance Plans
|
| David J Bernstein,
Westat,
davidbernstein@westat.com
|
|
Alternative approaches to strategic plans focused on performance include traditional 'top-down' driven strategic planning, with high-level managers developing a strategic plan to guide organization activities. Stakeholder-oriented strategic plans involve a 'bottom-up' approach, with customer and other stakeholders having input to the strategic planning process. Performance-driven strategic planning involves comparing existing levels of performance to a desired level, with 'gap analysis' to identify activities to reach desired goals. Benchmark-driven strategic planning is a variant of this, with desired levels of performance determined by comparison to 'best-in-class' or other performance standards. Ideally all of these approaches, but especially the latter two, use evaluations and performance measures to inform the strategic planning process. Most strategic planning processes are not easily categorized, and involve a hybrid of these approaches to meet decision makers' needs. This presentation will discuss the differences between these approaches, including illustrations from the presenter's 24 years of evaluation practice.
|
|
|
Strategic Thinking as Applied at the Portfolio and Program Level by the Cooperative State Research Education Extension Service
|
| Djimé Adoum,
United States Department of Agriculture,
dadoum@csrees.usda.gov
|
|
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) integrates strategic planning, strategic thinking, budget formulation, operations management, oversight and evaluation. Although as an agency within the USDA, CSREES generally limits formal strategic planning to aligning the goals and objectives of the CSREES Strategic Plan with those of the USDA Strategic Plan, the range of programs and funding lines within CSREES requires strategic thinking and coordination at multiple levels. CSREES adopted the Portfolio Review Expert Process, including grouping of projects and programs into portfolios aligned with CSREES strategic objectives and periodic self-assessment and review by external panels of experts. This presentation addresses how CSREES Planning and Accountability and National Program Leaders (NPLs) use strategic thinking at the program and portfolio levels, and communicate and coordinate these processes within CSREES.
| |
|
Strategically Planning Evaluations to Maximize Learning About Program Performance
|
| Stephanie Shipman,
United States Government Accountability Office,
shipmans@gao.gov
|
| Valerie J Caracelli,
United States Government Accountability Office,
caracelliv@gao.gov
|
|
In a federal environment with tight evaluation resources and escalating demands to report program results, federal agencies need to learn how to strategically plan evaluations for maximum impact. While no program should evade scrutiny, the need for evaluative information is more pressing for some than others. Which of the following is more important in deciding which program to evaluate: program size, centrality to agency mission, or political sensitivity? This paper describes the various ways that several federal agencies decide when and what to evaluate and how their context affects their decision making. Cases were selected to capture diversity in approaches. We present factors mentioned as constraining evaluation capacity, and potentially creative approaches agencies devise to manage their evaluation accountability function. The paper concludes by stressing the importance of a strategic approach to planning evaluations that would further a program's mission, use evaluation resources more effectively, and better inform policy making.
| |
|
Communicating Lessons Learned From Strategic Planning and Evaluation to Policymakers
|
| Rakesh Mohan,
Idaho State Legislature,
rmohan@ope.idaho.gov
|
|
For evaluation to serve as the feedback loop in the public policy process, we must effectively communicate to policymakers what we learn from strategic planning and evaluation. However, this communication is not an easy task. Getting policymakers' attention is challenging. Who is responsible for communicating this information to the policymakers -- evaluators, program officials, or both? Who are these policymakers and are there others who influence the policy process? How and when should we communicate with them? How do we establish an ongoing working relationship with policymakers and other key stakeholders? These questions will be discussed using examples from Idaho state government.
| |