Policy Evaluation

The stages of the policy process include agenda setting, problem definition, alternative development, option selection, adoption, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, policy change, and termination.

The primary objective of monitoring is to make sound and designative claims about the consequences of policies with reference to facts.

Monitoring answers questions concerning whether the policy has produced its intended outcome and provides raw data on the accomplishments and outputs.

Evaluation is not only about facts but also about values. It answers the question of what value is the outcome.

The main question in policy evaluation is not one of facts or action, but one of values. It asks, of what worth is the outcome?

Theodoulou and Kofinis define policy evaluation as a process by which general judgments about quality, goal attainment, program effectiveness, impact, and costs can be determined.

The purpose of policy evaluation is to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of a program, assess its impact on people, and identify what has been achieved and what has not.

Dye defines policy evaluation as "learning about the consequences of public policy".

Evaluation is characterized by its evaluative nature and its focus on values, unlike other policy-analytic methods that primarily deal with facts and actions.

Bowens, T'Hart, and Kuipers argue that policy evaluation is an inherently normative act and a matter of political judgment.

The main premise of pseudo-evaluation is that assessments of worth or value are self-evident or uncontroversial.

The main premise of formal evaluation is that the aims and objectives that are explicitly stated are adequate indicators of the value or worth of policies and programs.

Decision-theoretic evaluation aims to surface and decipher both the hidden and the observable goals and objectives of stakeholders, whereas pseudo-evaluation and formal evaluation primarily rely on explicitly stated goals and objectives.

The main categories of evaluation according to Knill and Tosun are administrative evaluation, judicial evaluation, political evaluation, and scientific evaluation.

The goal of administrative evaluation is to ensure that public policies achieve their objectives with the least possible cost and stress on those who are affected by them.

The subcategories of administrative evaluation according to Theodoulou and Kofinis are process evaluation, outcome evaluation, impact evaluation, and cost-benefit analysis.

Process evaluation focuses on the way a policy or program is administered and implemented by responsible agencies and evaluates the means by which a policy is delivered to the target group.

Output evaluation analyzes the immediate, direct, tangible, and measurable results of a policy or program, while outcome evaluation aims to assess broader and longer-term impacts of the policy and program on target populations.

Impact evaluation focuses on the effects and reflections of the program and policies on systems, policies, and society as a whole, assessing the program's contribution to larger changes in the society.

The goal of judicial evaluation is to primarily focus on legal concerns with the formulation and implementation of policies and programs.