...

evaluation

by user

on
Category:

design

19

views

Report

Comments

Transcript

evaluation
Analisi e valutazione delle politiche pubbliche
docente: Gloria Regonini
Slides di raccordo tra
•Regonini G. (2001), Capire le politiche pubbliche’
e
•National Science Foundation, The 2002 User Friendly
Handbook for Project Evaluation
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf02057/nsf02057.pdf
NB: tutte le parti in inglese sono tratte da The 2002
User Friendly ..
The Handbook for Project Evaluation
Differenza tra politiche, programmi, progetti
Tra tutti i concetti, quello di policy è il più inclusivo
POLICY
The Handbook for Project Evaluation
Program/project
A program is a coordinated approach to exploring a specific
area.
A project is a particular investigative or developmental activity
funded by that program
da ‘Capire le politiche pubbliche’: la dinamica del policy making
Il ciclo del policy making (in rosso v. 5-6 cap)
5 cap: la formazione
dell’agenda: zuppa
primordiale..
5 cap e 6 cap:
attori, tipi di
politiche..
Adaptation
Succession
Agenda Setting
6 cap: il potere di
agenda
Termination.
Assessment
Formulation
5 cap: la front
line
6 cap: ruolo dei
burocrati..
Implementation
Adoption
5 cap e 6 cap:
regole, tipi di
politiche..
5 cap e 6 cap:
attori, tipi di
politiche..
da ‘Capire lle politiche pubbliche’: la dinamica del policy making
Il raccordo tra i due
cicli: politico (in
rosso v. 5-6 cap) e
analitico (in blu v. 34 cap)
1. Diagnosis and Problem
identification
Adaptation
Succession
Agenda Setting
Termination.
2. Ex ante evaluation
5. Ex post evaluation
Assessment
4. Monitoring
Formulation
Implementation
3. Implementation Planning
Adoption
da ‘Capire lle politiche pubbliche’: policy analysis/evaluation
1. Diagnosis and Problem
identification
policy analysis
2. Ex ante evaluation
5. Ex post evaluation
4. Monitoring
3. Implementation Planning
policy evaluation
The Handbook for Project Evaluation
1. Diagnosis and Problem
identification
policy analysis
2. Ex ante evaluation
5. Ex post evaluation
4. Monitoring
policy evaluation
3. Implementation Planning
L’handbook
inizia da qui
Dall’analisi delle politiche alla loro valutazione  che cosa è la valutazione
Evaluation is “a systematic and objective assessment of an
ongoing or completed project, program or policy, its design,
implementation and results.”
Evaluation is:
– a reality test
– a learning mechanism
http://www.worldbank.org/ieg/ecd/docs/annex_e.pdf.
Differenza tra monitoring/assessment e evaluation
monitoring/assessment: misurare la febbre
evaluation: capire come sta il malato
Dall’analisi delle politiche alla loro valutazione
I criteri
Le classiche ‘3 e’ descritte in ogni manuale di management:
• economicità,
• efficienza,
• efficacia
+
• equità
A partire dalle riforme avviate nei primi anni ’90 negli Stati
Uniti e in Gran Bretagna, il Managing-For-Results (MFR) è
diventato la parte centrale del New Public Management
(NPM).
Dall’analisi delle politiche alla loro valutazione il logic model
CONTROLLO INTERNO
ALL’ENTE
POLITICA VALUTATA
INPUTS
ECONOMICITA’
PROCESSI
OUTPUTS
EFFICIENZA
VARIABILI
ESTERNE
OUTCOMES
IMPATTO
EFFICACIA
Dall’analisi delle politiche alla loro valutazione
Gli aspetti esaminati
Gli aspetti sottoposti a valutazione sono riconducibili alle seguenti categorie:
Input
Capacità di acquisire le risorse secondo criteri
di economicità
3. Implementation Planning
Processo
Capacità di gestire la complessità
4. Monitoring
Outputs
Capacità di fornire i prodotti richiesti
Performance assessment
Outcomes
Impatto
Capacità di fornire soluzioni ai problemi
all’origine del progetto
- risorse finanziarie
- risorse umane
- ICT
- risorse conoscitive
- procurement di beni e servizi (diretto, outsourcing..)
- risorse normative (chiarezza del mandato..)
- le interazioni con gli stakeholders
- gli imprevisti dell’attuazione..
- beni
- servizi
- regolazione..
5. Ex post evaluation
- adeguatezza
- tempestività
- soddisfazione dei destinatari
Capacità di modificare stabilmente il contesto
o le condizioni di vita dei destinatari
- effetti duraturi nel tempo
- effetti a prova di condizioni avverse...
The Handbook for Project Evaluation
Types of analysis
Diagnosis
and Problem
identification
Ex ante
evaluation
ex ante
in itinere
ex post
The Handbook for Project Evaluation
4 parts
1. Evaluation and types of evaluation
2. The steps in doing an evaluation
3. An overview of quantitative and qualitative data
collection methods
4. Strategies that address culturally responsive
evaluation
The Handbook for Project Evaluation
1.Formative evaluation
1.1. An implementation evaluation is an early check to
see if all essential elements are in place and operating.
1.2. The purpose of a progress evaluation is to assess
progress in meeting the goals of the program and the
project.
2. Summative evaluation = impact or outcome evaluation
it takes place after the project has been
established and the timeframe posited for
change has occurred.
In a summative evaluation, it is important to
consider unanticipated outcomes
The Handbook for Project Evaluation
1. Evaluation and types of evaluation
The current view of evaluation: the relationships between
evaluation and program implementation.
Planning, evaluation, and implementation are all parts of a
whole
The Handbook for Project Evaluation
The Handbook for Project Evaluation
formative evaluation
performance
indicators
Project Description
basic
research
(statistical data..)
Performance indicators
provide a snapshot of
accomplishments in
selected areas; however,
in contrast to evaluations,
the information is limited
and is unlikely to provide
an explanation of why a
project may have
succeeded or failed.
summative evaluation
Research studies
provide targeted
indepth exploration
of issues, but are not
intended for
decisionmaking,
They are designed to
explore conceptual
models and
alternative
explanations.
THE EVALUATION PROCESS
Six phases:
1. Develop a conceptual model of the program and identify key
evaluation points
2. Develop evaluation questions and define measurable
outcomes
3. Develop an evaluation design
4. Collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Provide information to interested audiences
The evaluation processSix phases
1. Develop a conceptual model of the program and identify
key evaluation points
Every proposed evaluation should start with a conceptual
model to which the design is applied.
A typical model has four categories of project elements
that are connected by directional arrows:
· Project inputs
· Activities (cfr outputs)
· Short-term outcomes (cfr outcomes)
· Long-term outcomes (cfr impact)
The evaluation processSix phasesDevelop a conceptual model
A logic model identifies these program elements and shows expected
connections among them
Dall’analisi delle politiche alla loro valutazione i criteri
Incrociando l’unità di analisi con gli aspetti esaminati, si
ottiene una mappa dei criteri di valutazione di questo tipo:
POLITICA VALUTATA
CONTROLLO INTERNO
ALL’ENTE
INPUTS
ECONOMICITA’
PROCESSI
OUTPUTS
EFFICIENZA
VARIABILI
ESTERNE
OUTCOMES
IMPATTO
EFFICACIA
The evaluation processSix phases
2. Develop Evaluation Questions and Define Measurable Outcomes
a. Identifying key stakeholders and audiences
b. Formulating potential questions of interest to the stakeholders and
audiences
c. Defining outcomes in measurable terms
d. Prioritizing and eliminating questions
a. Identifying key stakeholders
List the audiences for
your
evaluation
Identify
persons/spokespersons
for each audience
Describe the particular
values, interests,
expectations, etc.,
that may play a key role
as criteria in the analysis
and interpretation stage
of your evaluation
The evaluation processSix phases2. Develop Evaluation Questions and Define
Measurable Outcomes
Defining outcomes in measurable terms
Steps to translating a general goal into a measurable objective.
The question of measurability
GOAL AND OBJECTIVE WORKSHEET
1.
Briefly describe the purpose of the project.
2.
State the above in terms of a general goal:
3.
State an objective to be evaluated as clearly as you can:
4.
Can this objective be broken down further? Break it down to the
smallest unit. It must be clear what specifically you hope to see
documented or changed.
5.
Is this objective measurable (can indicators and standards be
developed for it)? If not, restate it.
6.
Once you have completed the above steps, go back to #3 and
write the next objective. Continue with steps 4, and 5, and 6.
The evaluation processSix phases2. Develop Evaluation Questions and Define
Measurable Outcomes
Defining outcomes in measurable terms
The classical approach: results must be statistically significant: unlikely
to occur by chance in more than 1 to 5 percent of the observations.
But this method has some limitations. Other methods:
– 1. For very large samples, “effect size”: only those significant outcomes that
result in a change that exceed one-third of a standard deviation are
considered meaningful.
– 2. previous history: the history can provide a realistic baseline against which
the difference made by a project can be assessed
– 3. expert judgment: standards are developed after consultation with differing
experts and stakeholders
The problem of feasibility
Three kinds of resources need to be considered:
– time,
– money,
• A general guideline is to allocate 5 to 10 percent of project cost for the
evaluation.
– staff capability
The evaluation processSix phases
3. Develop an Evaluation Design
3.1.
Selecting a methodological approach and data
collection instruments
Two general methodological approaches:
– quantitative
– qualitative
(v. ch. 5)
The evaluation processSix phases3. Develop an Evaluation Design
3.2. Determining who will be studied and when
a. sampling
Sampling methods for quantitative studies: random sampling is the
appropriate method to make generalizations from the sample to
the universe, i.e., all project participants, all sites, all parents.
Three types of errors
Type
Cause
Remedies
Sampling Error Using a sample, not the
entire population to be
studied.
Larger samples
Sample Bias
Repeated attempts to reach
nonrespondents
comparison of characteristics of nonrespondents with those of
respondents
Some did not participate
or provided incomplete
information
Response Bias questions were
misunderstood or
respondents chose not to
tell the truth
Careful pretesting
careful editing
The evaluation processSix phases3. Develop an Evaluation Design  Determining who will be
studied and when
b. comparison groups
The task is not only to show that the outcomes occurred, but to make the case
that the outcomes can be attributed to the intervention and not to some other
factors.
IL METODO SPERIMENT
A LE
Tempo t1
Gruppo
sperimentale
Tempo t2
Esposizione
alla policy
Gruppo di
controllo o di
comparazione
Differenza tra
e
= effetti policy
The evaluation processSix phases3. Develop an Evaluation Design 
Determining who will be studied and when
Unfortunately, in most real-world applications these
conditions cannot be created.
Alternative: to look for relationships between levels of
implementation of some program and the outcome. The
evaluation thus examines the extent to which differences in
exposure or implementation relate to changes in
outcomes.
The evaluation processSix phases3. Develop an Evaluation Design  Determining
who will be studied and when
c. timing, sequencing, frequency of data collection.
General rule: project evaluations are strongest when data are
collected at least two points in time:
1. before an innovation is first introduced
2. after it has been in operation for a sizable period of time.
The evaluation processSix phases
4. THE EVALUATION PROCESS: CARRYING OUT THE STUDY AND
REPORTING
4.1.Data collection
4.2.Data analysis
4.3.Reporting
4.4.Dissemination
4.1. Data collection
Issues:
· Obtain necessary permission, provide incentives to participate in your
evaluation .
· Consider the needs and sensitivities of the respondents.
· Make sure your data collectors are adequately trained .
· Obtain data from as many members of your sample as possible.
· Cause as little disruption as possible to the ongoing effort.
The evaluation processSix phases4. The evaluation process
4.2.Data analysis
·
·
·
·
Check the raw data and prepare them for analysis.
Conduct initial analysis based on the evaluation plan.
Conduct additional analyses based on the initial results.
Integrate and synthesize findings.
The evaluation processSix phases4. The evaluation process
4.3. Reporting
Formal reports typically include six major sections:
a. ·
Background
b. ·
Evaluation study questions
c. ·
Evaluation procedures
d. ·
Data analysis
e. ·
Findings
f. ·
Conclusions (and recommendations)
The evaluation processSix phases4. The evaluation processReporting
a. Background
(1) the problem or needs addressed,
(2) a literature review, if relevant,
(3) the stakeholders and their information needs,
(4) the participants,
(5) the project’s objectives,
(6) the activities and components,
(7) location and planned longevity of the project,
(8) the resources used to implement the project,
(9) the project’s expected measurable outcomes.
The evaluation processSix phases4. The evaluation processReporting
b. Evaluation study questions
the questions that the study addressed and some important questions
that could not be addressed
c. Evaluation procedures
the report describes the groups that participated in the evaluation study.
If sampling was used:
• how the particular sample of respondents included in the
study was selected from the total population available
• whether or not any comparison or control groups were
included.
It is helpful to include a table that summarizes:
• the evaluation questions,
• the variables,
• the data gathering approaches,
• the respondents,
• the data collection schedule.
The evaluation processSix phases4. The evaluation processReporting
Data analysis
This section describes the techniques used to analyze the data that were
collected:
• the various stages
• the checks carried out
• the techniques used in sampling
Findings
This section presents the results of the analyses described previously.
Each question presented in the section on evaluation study questions is
addressed: answers
– positive
– negative
– inconclusive
Visuals such as tables and graphical displays are presented
The summary of findings would always include a statement of what
was learned
The evaluation processSix phases4. The evaluation processReporting
d. Conclusions (and recommendations)
The conclusions section reports the findings with more broad-based and
summative statements.
Sometimes the conclusions section goes a step further and includes
recommendations.
Other Sections
Formal reports also might include:
· An abstract: a summary presented in approximately one-half page of
text.
· An executive summary: a summary, as long as 4 to 10 pages, that
provides an overview of the evaluation, its findings, and implications.
The evaluation processSix phases4. The evaluation processReporting
How Do You Develop an Evaluation Report?
The background section can be based largely on the
original evaluation design document.
Reports are written for broad lay audiences, as well as for
professional audiences:
•
•
•
nontechnical summaries
electronic media
slides..
One of the errors frequently made is the attitude of “I
analyzed it, so I am going to report it.” Results with little
information of interest can be put in appendices or some
technical supplement.
Different reports may have to be provided for the different audiences.
The evaluation processSix phases4. The evaluation processReporting
Formal report outline
I.
Summary sections
– A. Abstract
– B. Executive summary
Background
II.
– A.
– B.
– C.
– D.
– E.
– F.
– G.
– H.
– I.
– J.
III.
Problems or needs addressed
Literature review
Stakeholders and their information needs
Participants
Project’s objectives
Activities and components
Location and planned longevity of the project
Resources used to implement the project
Project’s expected measurable outcomes
Constraints
Evaluation study questions
– A. Questions addressed by the study
– B. Questions that could not be addressed by the study
The evaluation processSix phases4. The evaluation processReporting
Formal report outline
IV.
Evaluation procedures
A.
Sample
• 1.
• 2.
• 3.
Selection procedures
Representativeness of the sample
Use of comparison or control groups, if applicable
– B. Data collection
• 1.
• 2.
Methods
Instruments
– C. Summary matrix
V.
• 1.
Evaluation questions
• 2.
Variables
• 3.
Data gathering approaches
• 4.
Respondents
• 5.
Data collection schedule
Findings
– A. Results of the analyses organized by study question
VI.
Conclusions
– A. Broad-based, summative statements
– B. Recommendations, when applicable
The evaluation processSix phases4. The evaluation processReporting
Disseminating the Information
Various audiences with whom you would like to share findings:
·
The funding source(s)
·
Potential funding sources
·
Others involved with similar projects or areas of research
·
Community members, especially those who are directly
involved with the project or might be involved
·
Members of the business or political community, etc.
Dall’analisi delle politiche alla loro valutazione i criteri
Impact
Impact criterion is primarily a recommendation that all significant
consequences should be taken into account
–
–
–
–
the totality of the effects
the effects in the longer term
the expected and unexpected effects,
the positive and negative effects
da Looking Back, Moving Forward. Sida Evaluation Manual, cit
“In contrast to outcome monitoring, which examines whether targets have
been achieved, impact evaluation is structured to answer the
question: how would outcomes such as participants’ well-being have
changed if the intervention had not been undertaken?” (da
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_evaluation )
Dall’analisi delle politiche alla loro valutazione i criteri
The problem of causal attribution
Impact, in the strict sense, is the difference between the changes that
have actually occurred and the changes that would have occurred
without the intervention.
The hypothetical state of affairs to which we compare real changes is
known as the counterfactual.
The role of control groups
Monitoring and IE
Program impacts
confounded by local,
national, global effects
IMPACTS
OUTCOMES
Users meet
service
delivery
OUTPUTS
Gov’t/program
production
function
INPUTS
slide da: Lori Beaman,Impact Evaluation: An Overview
difficulty
of
showing
causality
Essential Methodology
•Difficulty is determining what would have happened to the individuals or
communities of interest in absence of the project
•The key component to an impact evaluation is to construct a suitable
comparison group to proxy for the “counterfactual”
•Problem: can only observe people in one state of the world at one time
slide da: Lori Beaman,Impact Evaluation: An Overview
Dall’analisi delle politiche alla loro valutazione i criteri
da Ugo Trivellato, UNO SCORCIO ALLA VALUTAZIONE DEGLI EFFETTI DI POLITICHE
PUBBLICHE, Milano, 14 novembre 2008
Fly UP