|
Session Title: Addressing the Public Policy Evaluation Imbalance: A Realistic Approach
|
|
Panel Session 276 to be held in Huntington B on Thursday, Nov 3, 10:45 AM to 11:30 AM
|
|
Sponsored by the Government Evaluation TIG
|
| Chair(s): |
| Steve Montague, Performance Management Network, steve.montague@pmn.net
|
| Abstract:
This panel session makes the case that evaluation in the public policy domain is out of balance and has been largely irrelevant, favoring usually small discretionary expenditures as evaluands over bigger and more important mechanisms of policy. This in turn has created a systemic bias in terms of not just what gets evaluated, but what types of evaluation approaches are deemed to be acceptable. The panelists will argue that part of the current malaise or imbalance which faces evaluation, dangerously leaving the review field over to theoreticians, auditors and score carders, has been self inflicted and that it is time for evaluators to drop some of their sacred cows and to get into the (public policy) game (Shepherd 2011). Some of the key 'new' principles to be discussed will be the idea of relevance before rigor, focusing on a few basic issues related to need, success and cost-effectiveness (alternatives), open discussion of theories of change and implementation, a realist approach to study design, data collection, knowledge accumulation and reporting - combined with a high engagement approach
|
|
Public Policy Evaluation: The Current Imbalance
|
| Robert Shepherd, School of Public Policy and Administration Carleton University, robert_p_shepherd@carleton.ca
|
|
This panel session makes the case that evaluation in the public policy domain is out of balance and has been largely irrelevant, favoring usually small discretionary expenditures as evaluands over bigger and more important mechanisms of policy. This in turn has created a systemic bias in terms of not just what gets evaluated, but what types of evaluation approaches are deemed to be acceptable. This first panelists will argue that there is a malaise and imbalance in terms of the evaluation of public policy. He has authored articles on this subject and will be speaking from the perspective of having ben a former Director of Evaluation in a major regulatory agency, a consultant practitioner and from his current perspective as Assistant Professor in the School of Public Policy and Administration at Carleton University. Dr Shepherd will note that a part of the current malaise or imbalance which faces evaluation, dangerously leaving the review field over to theoreticians, auditors and score carders, has been self inflicted and that it is time for evaluators to drop some of their sacred cows and to get into the (public policy) game (Shepherd 2011). He will also contribute to the 'new principles' discussion of the second presenter.
|
|
|
Public Policy Evaluation: Time for New Principles of Practice
|
| Steve Montague, Performance Management Network, steve.montague@pmn.net
|
|
This presentation will pick up on the situation of imbalance or malaise laid out by the first presenter - and suggest that it is time for new principles of public policy evaluation. The presenter will draw on his experience as a former public sector evaluator and current consultant practitioner to outline some new principles going forward. Some of the key 'new' principles to be discussed will include the idea of relevance before rigor, focusing on a few basic issues related to need, success and cost-effectiveness (alternatives), an emphasis and open discussion of theories of change as well as theories of implementation, a realist approach to study design, data collection, knowledge accumulation and reporting - all conducted using a high engagement approach.
| |