Editing Policy analysis (section)

==Evaluation==
The success of a policy can be measured by changes in the behavior of the target population and active support from various actors and institutions involved. A public policy is an authoritative communication prescribing an unambiguous course of action for specified individuals or groups in certain situations. There must be an authority or leader charged with the implementation and monitoring of the policy with a sound social theory underlying the program and the target group. Evaluations can help estimate what effects will be produced by program objectives/alternatives.  However, [[Correlation does not imply causation|claims of causality]] can only be made with [[Randomized controlled trial|randomized control trials]] in which the policy change is applied to one group and not applied to a control group and individuals are randomly assigned to these groups.<ref>{{cite web |title=Social and Behavioral Sciences Team 2016 Annual Report |work=SBST.gov |publisher=[[Executive Office of the President of the United States]] / Social and Behavioral Sciences Team, [[National Science and Technology Council]] |date=2016 |url= https://sbst.gov/download/2016%20SBST%20Annual%20Report.pdf |access-date=27 February 2017 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170310213025/https://sbst.gov/download/2016%20SBST%20Annual%20Report.pdf |archive-date=10 March 2017 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Haynes |first=Laura |title=Test, Learn, Adapt: Developing Public Policy with Randomized Controlled Trials |publisher=[[United Kingdom Cabinet Office]] Behavioral Insights Team |date=2012 |url= http://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/id/eprint/201256 |via=London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Using Randomized Control Trials to Evaluate Public Policy |url= https://innovation.govspace.gov.au/using-randomised-control-trials-evaluate-public-policy |publisher=Australian Government |access-date=27 February 2017 |archive-date=25 July 2019 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20190725215637/https://innovation.govspace.gov.au/using-randomised-control-trials-evaluate-public-policy |url-status=dead}}</ref>

To obtain compliance of the actors involved, the government can resort to positive sanctions, such as favorable publicity, price supports, tax credits, grants-in-aid, direct services or benefits; declarations; rewards; voluntary standards; mediation; education; demonstration programs; training, contracts; subsidies; loans; general expenditures; informal procedures, bargaining; franchises; sole-source provider awards...etc.<ref>Michelle A. Saint-Germain, California State University</ref>{{full citation needed|date=December 2023|reason=There is no such source citation in this article.}}

===Steps for conducting a policy evaluation===
Policy evaluation is used to examine content, implementation or impact of the policy, which helps to understand the merit, worth and the utility of the policy. Following are National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy's (NCCHPP) 10 steps:<ref>{{cite document |last1=Morestin |first1=F. |last2=Castonguay |first2=J. |date=2013 |title=Constructing a logic model for a healthy public policy: Why and how? |location=Montréal |publisher=National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy}}</ref>

; Planning:
* Clarify the policy
* Engage stakeholders
* Assess resources and evaluability
* Determine your evaluation questions
* Determine methods and procedures
* Develop evaluation plan

; Implementation:
* Collect data
* Process data and analyze results

; Utilization:
* Interpret and disseminate the results 
* Apply evaluation findings

Details of such a plan may vary by institution and context. For example, a [[Public Health Ontario]] revision of the above replaces the first three steps with "describe the program", "identify and engage partners", and "determine timelines and available resources", while otherwise retaining the model.<ref>{{cite web |title=At a Glance: Goals-based Evaluation for Health Promotion |date=September 2023 |publisher=[[Public Health Ontario]] |work=PublicHealthOntario.ca |url= https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/Documents/A/2023/aag-goals-based-evaluation-health-promotion-programs.pdf |access-date=16 December 2023}}</ref>

===Rapid evaluation and assessment methods===
There is sometimes a need for policy assessment to be conducted at speed, using rapid evaluation and assessment methods (REAM).<ref>{{cite journal |last1=McNall |first1=Miles |last2=Foster-Fishman |first2=Penny G. |date=June 2007 |title=Methods of Rapid Evaluation, Assessment, and Appraisal |journal=American Journal of Evaluation |volume=28 |issue=2 |pages=151–168 |doi=10.1177/1098214007300895|s2cid=2699534 }}</ref>

Characteristics of REAM include setting clear and targeted objectives at the start of a policy cycle, participation and interdisciplinary teamwork, simultaneous collection and analysis of data, and the staged reporting of findings. These require front-loaded effort: consulting with funders and achieving buy-in from informants who will face competing demands during implementation phases. They also blur the distinction between evaluation and implementation, as interim findings are used to adapt and improve processes.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Brusset |first1=Emery |last2=Cosgrave |first2=John |last3=MacDonald |first3=Wayne |title=Real-time evaluation in humanitarian emergencies |journal=New Directions for Evaluation |issue=126 |date=Summer 2010 |volume=2010 |pages=9–20 |doi=10.1002/ev.326|s2cid=144295552 }}</ref>

Rapid methods can be used when there is a short [[policy cycle]]. For instance, they are often used in international development to assess the impact of aid policies in response to natural disasters. It has been suggested that rapid assessment methods may be necessary to evaluate energy and climate policies in the context of the climate emergency.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hampton |first1=Sam |last2=Fawcett |first2=Tina |last3=Rosenow |first3=Jan |last4=Michaelis |first4=Charles |last5=Mayne |first5=Ruth |date=17 February 2021 |title=Evaluation in an Emergency: Assessing Transformative Energy Policy Amidst the Climate Crisis |journal=[[Joule (journal)|Joule]] |volume=5 |issue=2 |pages=285–289 |publisher=[[Cell Press]] |doi=10.1016/j.joule.2020.12.019|bibcode=2021Joule...5..285H |s2cid=233951003 |url=https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:8c4bca8f-9312-4382-9db1-bc88e1ace890 }}</ref>

=== Value to policymakers ===

Policy analysis affects policymakers' decisions by introducing them to new ideas to consider, through the work of policy analysts summarizing ideas and frameworks found in the relevant literature.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Shulock |first=Nancy |date=1999 |title=The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much of it? |url= http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1520-6688(199921)18:2<226::aid-pam2>3.0.co;2-j |journal=Journal of Policy Analysis and Management |volume=18 |issue=2 |pages=226–244 |doi=10.1002/(sici)1520-6688(199921)18:2<226::aid-pam2>3.0.co;2-j |issn=0276-8739|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

Policymakers tend to value policy analysis more depending on the cause of a policy problem. Evidence of a purposeful cause for a problem can compel policy decisions more than unguided causes.<ref>{{cite book |last=Stone |first=Deborah A. |contribution=Causal Stories and the Formation of Policy Agendas |date=2009 |doi=10.2307/j.ctv1mjqv11.6 |editor-first=Richard M. |editor-last=Valelly |title=Princeton Readings in American Politics |pages=34–50 |publisher=[[Princeton University Press]]}}</ref>