1 / 17

Why evaluate policy?

Why evaluate policy?. To establish whether a policy is having an effect. To determine whether that effect is positive or negative (in terms of what it was meant to achieve).

nili
Download Presentation

Why evaluate policy?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Why evaluate policy? • To establish whether a policy is having an effect. • To determine whether that effect is positive or negative (in terms of what it was meant to achieve). • To see whether a policy produces other, collateral effects that were not intended, and whether those effects are positive or negative. • To determine whether, in a given policy field, policies in one geographical area are more or less successful than those in another geographical area.

  2. Why it’s complicated • How to measure impact? • Policy is not always neutral – may be instrumental for parties/politicians • Results subject to different interpretations • The identity of the evaluator may affect the evaluation

  3. Relationship between imprisonment and crime rate, US 1991-1998Source: Ryan S. King, Marc Mauer & Malcolm C Young, Incarceration and Crime:A Complex Relationship (Washington: The Sentencing Project, 2005).

  4. Relationship between imprisonment and crime rate, US 1984-1991Source: Ryan S. King, Marc Mauer & Malcolm C Young, Incarceration and Crime:A Complex Relationship (Washington: The Sentencing Project, 2005).

  5. Relationship between imprisonment and crime rate, US 1984-1998

  6. Why it’s complicated • How to measure impact? • Policy is not always neutral – may be instrumental for parties/politicians • Results subject to different interpretations • The identity of the evaluator may affect the evaluation

  7. Relationship between imprisonment and crime rate, US 1984-1991Source: Ryan S. King, Marc Mauer & Malcolm C Young, Incarceration and Crime:A Complex Relationship (Washington: The Sentencing Project, 2005).

  8. Relationship between imprisonment and crime rate, US 1991-1998Source: Ryan S. King, Marc Mauer & Malcolm C Young, Incarceration and Crime:A Complex Relationship (Washington: The Sentencing Project, 2005).

  9. Non-prison related explanations for variation in the crime rate • Economic downturn – crime levels rise • Expansion of drug use (crack cocaine) – crime levels rise • Economic growth – crime levels fall • Reduction in drug use – crime levels fall • Community policing – crime levels fall

  10. US prison population • 1972: 330,000 • 2004: 2,100,000 • Increase in US population: 40% • Increase in prison population: 636%

  11. ‘Three strikes’ laws: USSource: Trevor Jones &Tim Newburn , ‘Three strikes and you're out: exploring symbol and substance in American and British crime control politics’, British Journal of CriminologyVol 46 No 5 (2006), pp. 781-802Number of people incarceratedunder ‘three strikes’ laws (on data available in 2005)

  12. ‘Three strikes’ laws: USSource: Trevor Jones &Tim Newburn , ‘Three strikes and you're out: exploring symbol and substance in American and British crime control politics’, British Journal of CriminologyVol 46 No 5 (2006), pp. 781-802

  13. ‘Three strikes’ laws: UKSource: Trevor Jones &Tim Newburn , ‘Three strikes and you're out: exploring symbol and substance in American and British crime control politics’, British Journal of CriminologyVol 46 No 5 (2006), pp. 781-802

  14. Peter John, Analysing Public Policy (London: Continuum, 1998) Evert Vedung, Public Policy and Program Evaluation (New York: Transaction, 1997), esp. Ch. 1

  15. Policy evaluation is ... • Careful • Retrospective • Useful and ... • ‘Intervention goals are not the only permissible evaluation criteria’ • Vedung, Ch. 1

More Related