Appendix - Analysis of evaluation in the New Zealand public management system
Anchoring the evaluation regime Should the evaluation regime be anchored in the legislative or executive branch, or both, and where within those branches? | Evaluative activity should be anchored in both the legislative and executive branches, primarily because the two branches of government will be looking to evaluate government activity from different perspectives – the legislature will essentially look to develop some understanding of the effectiveness of government policies and programmes from an accountability perspective, whilst the executive should be looking be looking to build any learnings into strategic management and policy development processes. |
Anchoring evaluation capacity within organisations What are the advantages and disadvantages of (a) centralised versus decentralised evaluation capacity and (b) using internal versus external evaluators? | The agencies within which evaluative activity could be anchored will differ depending upon the nature of the activity:
|
Evaluation coverage What kind of activities should be covered by evaluation? | All government policies and programmes should be subject to evaluation. This is not to suggest that they should all be evaluated however. Those programmes most likely to be subject to evaluation should be selected according to a mix of criteria that could include consideration of: the basis on which the programme has been funded – if on a pilot basis only then continued funding should be dependant upon a positive evaluation; the significance of the policy or programme to wider governmental policies; and whether public comment suggests that there are significant issues associated with implementation of policy in the area (for example, current public concerns about the impacts of migration in the Auckland area could lead to some evaluation of immigration and settlement policies). |
Using evaluation in decision-making What are the key domains of use, and how can evaluation utilisation be improved? | As the criteria outlined above suggest evaluation should be linked to a range of other public management systems – including the budget process (where reallocation processes could be supported by the information generated); audit (where Parliament has significant concerns about the performance of a particular policy); strategic management systems (so that strategies can be amended where appropriate); and the policy development process. |
Fostering demand What are the most effective ways of fostering demand for evaluation activity? | Demand for evaluation will increase if the end-users – policy analysts, managers, Ministers and parliamentarians – can see how they can use the information generated to support decision- making. In some cases this can be prompted through the encouragement of central agencies, and setting expectations on chief executives. A related issue is that of fostering supply – which will in turn have an impact on demand (particularly by chief executives as both suppliers and end-users). If evaluative activity is only utilised to support an accountability regime it is difficult to envision any burgeoning of evaluative activity within agencies in the public sector. |
