|
Session Title: Evaluation Policy in the Environmental Field: Are We in an Age of Slow Growth, Rapid Transformation or Running in Place?
|
|
Panel Session 398 to be held in Centennial Section C on Thursday, Nov 6, 4:30 PM to 6:00 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the Presidential Strand
|
| Chair(s): |
| Andy Rowe,
ARCeconomics,
andy.rowe@earthlink.net
|
| Discussant(s):
|
| Kathryn Newcomer,
George Washington University,
newcomer@gwu.edu
|
| Abstract:
Until recently, 'environmental program evaluation was best described as "emergent" and "growing." Environmental institutions' investments in environmental program evaluation have typically been 'ad hoc' or 'shoe-string', done in response to external demands for performance information and not because a visible evaluation policy supported its execution. However, we have real signs that environmental program evaluation can be described as 'maturing, and that environmental organizations are considering the role of evaluation policy within their performance management responsibilities. Through the examples of Washington State's King County, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency the presenters and discussant will engage the audience in a dialogue about Environmental Program Evaluation policy: At this time, how important are formal policies for promoting environmental program evaluation practice? If it is important, what is our vision of environmental evaluation policy? How can environmental institutions close the gap between having a vision of evaluation policy and having a practicing evaluation culture?
|
|
Evaluation Policy, Planning and Implementation: A Local Government Perspective on the Environmental Field
|
| Michael Jacobson,
King County Executive's Office,
michael.jacobson@kingcounty.gov
|
|
King County, Washington has been finding ways to use program evaluation, evaluation tools, and evaluation approaches in its efforts to deliver better public services and improve environmental outcomes. Although most program evaluations are conducted by the County's legislative Auditor and serve an oversight function, there are instances where programs have conducted program evaluations for improvement purposes (Local Hazardous Waste, Public Health programs). In addition, the county has used logic model methodology to establish priority outcomes and performance measures as the basis of the county's KingStat performance management program. Furthermore, evaluation approaches are being built into program design and performance systems, such as the county innovative use of the Environmental Behavior Index, a social marketing approach to environmental behavior in county residents. As the County works on these performance management building blocks a question stands out: does this all add up to an "evaluation policy" for the County environmental programs?
|
|
|
Evaluation Policy on the Move at the United States Environmental Protection Agency
|
| Betsy Shaw,
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
shaw.betsy@epa.gov
|
|
In March 2008, EPA's Deputy Administrator announced a vision and action statement specifically in support of program evaluation. The goal of the announcement was to institutionalize a corporate and strategic approach to program evaluation that has the Agency operating processes for identifying, prioritizing, investing in, and then using program evaluation results. This is the first time that "program evaluation" as a distinct activity has received such high-level endorsement from EPA's senior leadership. Now the hard work of forging a durable program evaluation policy at EPA has just begun. Key elements supporting an evaluation exist: senior level support, growing use of logic modeling and performance measurement, and a core group of staff with evaluation expertise. However, other critical elements are nascent or nonexistent: regular budget, regular access to external experts, applied experience within programs, and evaluation partnerships with other government players at the federal, state, tribal, or local level.
| |