|
Session Title: Valuing Evaluation in Government: A View From Three Neighboring Countries
|
|
Panel Session 772 to be held in Huntington B on Friday, Nov 4, 4:30 PM to 6:00 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the Government Evaluation TIG
|
| Chair(s): |
| Robert Lahey, REL Solutions Inc, relahey@rogers.com
|
| Abstract:
This session will provide an overview of the practice of Evaluation in the federal public sector in each of the USA, Canada and Mexico - how it is perceived; how it gets carried out; and, how it supports the public good. The development and evolution of performance monitoring and Evaluation has not been static in any of the three countries, typically changing as a result of a number of possible factors - a change in government; a public sector reform; new emphasis on possible uses; etc. The session in highlighting the key features of the model used in each of the countries, will show differences and similarities for the way each government uses Evaluation in carrying out the business of government. In this context, how each government values Evaluation will start to become apparent.
|
|
The Monitoring and Evaluation System of Mexico
|
| Agustin Caso Raphael, Secretaria de Hacienda y Credito Publico, agustin_caso@hacienda.gob.mx
|
|
In elaborating the Mexican model for performance monitoring and evaluation (M&E), the presentation will make some comparisons with M&E as practiced in the USA and Canada. A key focus will be put on how M&E information is being used in government - in planning, programming and budgeting - and how this has evolved as the M&E system has matured. Emphasis will also be given to how evaluation plays out in the interaction of the three levels of government in Mexico. Critical structural aspects aimed at ensuring transparency in information flows and the delivery of timely and useful M&E information will also be discussed. With a Presidential election set for 2012 in Mexico, there will be some looking ahead to the future of the M&E system.
|
|
|
The Canadian Monitoring and Evaluation System: Lessons Learned From Thirty Years of Development
|
| Robert Lahey, REL Solutions Inc., relahey@rogers.com
|
|
This presentation will highlight the key elements of the Canadian Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system, with a focus on both the structure of the system and the way that it is being used in government. An important element of the Canadian experience is the way that the model has evolved over the past thirty + years. Some key elements of the model will be described - the 'drivers' that have been put in place and that serve to generate demand for M&E information; various checks and balances to maintain the independence/neutrality of the Evaluator, without impeding the Evaluator's role in knowledge generation and dissemination; the emphasis placed on 'transparency' as a key element of the enabling environment; and, the various capacity building efforts aimed at 'professionalizing' Evaluators. Efforts to bring Evaluation information closer to expenditure management in government and some of the challenges for the future will also be addressed.
| |
|
Can Program Evaluation be More Valued in the United States?
|
| John Pfeiffer, Office of Management and Budget, john_r._pfeiffer@omb.eop.gov
|
|
The art and science of program evaluation has a long and distinguished history in the United States. Thus, its relatively limited use as a guide to program management and funding decisions by policy makers seems somewhat surprising. This presentation by a long-time career program examiner at the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will explore the reasons why program evaluation has been less influential than might have been expected as a decision-making resource, with particular attention to the differing needs and values of policy officials and evaluators and the institutions within which they work. The presentation also will explain recent steps being undertaken by OMB under the Obama Administration to improve the quality and usefulness of program evaluations and will outline ways to make the results of program evaluation more widely felt.
| |