Search results

Ewaluacja towarzyszy interwencjom publicznym od prawie 100 lat. Przynajmniej odmomentu rozpowszechnienia modelu NPM (new public management) nie powinnoulegać wątpliwości, że ewaluację należy traktować jako narzędzie zarządzania i jej rolaoraz efektywność powinny być analizowane w tym kontekście. Tymczasem relacjaprocesów ewaluacji i zarządzania nie wydaje się być szeroko omawiana w literaturze.Niniejszy artykuł jest próbą wypełnienia tej luki. Prezentuje wybór literatury poświęconejzarządzaniu (głównie strategicznemu) i ewaluacji, odnoszącej się do miejsca ewaluacjiw cyklu zarządzania interwencją publiczną. Następnie proponuje model ewaluacji jakoprocesu towarzyszącego zarządzaniu interwencją publiczną, który może stanowić podstawę przyszłych analiz wykorzystania ewaluacji.

Evaluation has accompanied public interventions for almost 100 years. At least since the prevalence of the NPM model evaluation should be regarded as a management tool and its role and effectiveness ought to be analyzed in this context. Meanwhile, the relationship of evaluation and management processes does not seem to be widely discussed in the literature. This article is an attempt to fill this gap. It presents a selection of the literature on management (mainly strategic) and evaluation relating to the place of evaluation in the management cycle of public intervention. Then it proposes a model of evaluation as the process accompanying the management of public intervention, which may be the basis for future analyzes of the use of evaluation.

Effectiveness of implemented under the EU cohesion policy measures has become a significant issue. The relevance of the topic is undeniable, given the ongoing discussion of the results of public interventions conducted at the EU level and the resulting concept of an integrated approach to study the effects of actions undertaken within the cohesion policy. Based on various studies conducted to date, the authors argue that the effectiveness of the funds targeted to Polish regions could be greater if more care was focused on complementarity among the undertaken actions. The paper concentrates on issues related to complementarity between programs and projects implemented under EU Cohesion Policy in regional level Poland. Case study of one of Polish region - namely, Łodzkie - shows that adopted methods and tool, which should provide complementarity do not work in a proper way. The results suggest the existence of severe restrictions when it comes to assessing the actual intensity of complementarity and the resulting synergy effects. As both the analyses of documentation and the comments of participants during in-depth interviews indicate that the complementarity of projects is misunderstood or deliberately distorted (so that the highest score during the application stage can be obtained), it can be stated that the scale of complementarity is far from satisfactory. Conducted research enabled the authors to elaborate conclusions and recommendation on what solutions should be taken into account in aim to improve implementation of complementarity concept in the next financial perspective for years 2014-2020. ; samorząd województwa łódzkiego ; Tomasz Kupiec

For many European Union (EU) member states, the Cohesion Policy (CP) was the channel through which the practice of evaluation was transmitted into domestic administration. Studies have shown that the EU member countries differ in terms of their evaluation capacity and activity. None of those studies, however, addresses regional governments, which are important actors in CP management systems. Our article presents the first cross-state comparative study on the evaluation activity and use by regional authorities in Poland and Spain. We explain the observed differences in evaluation using the concept of internal propensity and external pressure on evaluation, which in the case of regions, is imposed by the EU as well as national authorities.

La pratique de l'évaluation est essentielle pour la responsabilisation et l'apprentissage des administrations qui mettent en œuvre des politiques complexes. Cet article explore les relations entre les structures des systèmes d'évaluation et leurs fonctions. Les conclusions sont basées sur une analyse comparative de six systèmes nationaux chargés d'évaluer la politique de cohésion de l'Union européenne. L'étude identifie trois types de structures de système d'évaluation : centralisées avec une seule unité d'évaluation, décentralisées avec un organe de coordination et décentralisées sans organe de coordination. Ces systèmes diffèrent en termes d'orientation thématique des évaluations et d'utilisateurs ciblés. Les systèmes décentralisés se concentrent sur les utilisateurs internes des connaissances et produisent principalement des études opérationnelles ; leur fonction principale est l'apprentissage orienté vers l'intérieur pour une mise en œuvre harmonieuse du programme. Les systèmes centralisés remplissent une fonction plus stratégique, et tiennent compte du public externe et de la responsabilité externe des effets. Remarques à l'intention des praticiens Les praticiens qui conçoivent des systèmes d'évaluation multi-organisationnels doivent garder à l'esprit que leur structure et leurs fonctions sont interdépendantes. Si l'on vise à la fois l'imputabilité et l'apprentissage, le système d'évaluation a besoin d'un degré minimum de décentralisation d'une part, et de la présence d'un organe de coordination actif et indépendant d'autre part.

Evaluation practice is vital for the accountability and learning of administrations implementing complex policies. This article explores the relationships between the structures of the evaluation systems and their functions. The findings are based on a comparative analysis of six national systems executing evaluation of the European Union Cohesion Policy. The study identifies three types of evaluation system structure: centralized with a single evaluation unit, decentralized with a coordinating body and decentralized without a coordinating body. These systems differ in terms of the thematic focus of evaluations and the targeted users. Decentralized systems focus on internal users of knowledge and produce mostly operational studies; their primary function is inward-oriented learning about smooth programme implementation. Centralized systems fulfil a more strategic function, recognizing the external audience and external accountability for effects.Points for practitionersPractitioners who design multi-organizational evaluation systems should bear in mind that their structure and functions are interrelated. If both accountability and learning are desired, the evaluation system needs at least a minimum degree of decentralization on the one hand and the presence of an active and independent coordination body on the other.

Evaluation units, located within public institutions, are important actors responsible for the production and dissemination of evaluative knowledge in complex programming and institutional settings. The current evaluation literature does not adequately explain their role in fostering better evaluation use. The article offers an empirically tested framework for the analysis of the role of evaluation units as knowledge brokers. It is based on a systematic, interdisciplinary literature review and empirical research on evaluation units in Poland within the context of the European Union Cohesion Policy, with complementary evidence from the US federal government and international organizations. In the proposed framework, evaluation units are to perform six types of brokering activities: identifying knowledge users' needs, acquiring credible knowledge, feeding it to users, building networks between producers and users, accumulating knowledge over time and promoting an evidence-based culture. This framework transforms evaluation units from mere buyers of expertise and producers of isolated reports into animators of reflexive social learning that steer streams of knowledge to decision makers.

Why do some types of evaluation use prevail in certain contexts and not in others? The aim of this article is to advance knowledge about organisational factors of evaluation use, that is, determinants of evaluation use grounded in organisational theories. We critically review existing frameworks of organisational factors of evaluation use, highlighting key differences between them and pointing out discrepancies with empirical insights. We discuss the merits of two potential areas for future research that can help concretise theoretical stances: considering organisational legitimacy as a potential direct determinant of evaluation use and incorporating a dynamic perspective in organisational frameworks of evaluation use.