Dr. M. Abul Kashem Mozumder and Dr. Md. Shairul Mashreque :
Public policy in each policy area is implemented in the form of projects, Sub-projects and programs. Projects or various sub-projects clearly indicate policy intervention of the implementing agencies in the form of budget, authorization and agreement with funding authorities. Projects have to be implemented in a planned manner with sufficient evaluation and monitoring if policy goals are to be achieved. Evaluation facilitates smart policy implementation in a number of ways: assessing degrees of compliance, discovering unintended consequences of projects and programs, identifying obstacles and constraints in implementation and factors of departure from policy objectives. Numerous projects and sub projects in implementation under technical assistance are subject to evaluation and monitoring. Evaluation may terminate the life of a project if operational loopholes and lapses are detected, and if experiences with experimental projects are unhappy.
The next phase of project implementation may commence if it is found that the project is capable of implementation and merits continuation to contribute to institution building. Evaluation aspects of policy implementation is wide-ranging with a mass of research activities, studies, observation and surveys for report writing, internal and external assessment of programs as well as institutional and non-institutional participation in performance assessment.
Implementing agarics usually go for evaluation and monitoring to obtain reliable information about the level of policy efficiency and effectiveness. They are concerned about achievement of policy goals, for example, decrease of infant mortality, reduction of income poverty, and increase in enragement status of the poor, etc. Such agencies try to see whether the stated programs are cost-effective and determine programs are terms of cost-benefit ratio. Financial viability of implementing agencies functioning with staff is also examined for the sake of organizational sustainability.
Evaluation is of two major types: On-going evaluation (formative evaluation) and ex-post evaluation (Summative evaluation) On-going evaluation is done at the on-going process to take timely corrective action to facilitate efficient implementation and prompt action. Ex-post evaluation refers to the process of assessing policy outcomes on the completion of the implementation process. Evaluation generates implementation relevant information in relation to the extent to which problems have been mitigated, clarification and critique of values driving a policy, aid in the adjustment and reformulation of program and providing a basis for respecting problems. Besides, there is a mid-term evaluation usually carried out by the external evaluators in the case of large projects. Ad hoc evaluation may be carried out to deal with ‘major technical and management problems.’ Terminal evaluation is conducted shortly before the completion of the project either to ’round off the implementation stage or as an input into the formulation of the subsequent phase.’ In the midst of project implementation the project team may initiate to complete the of on-going monitoring and evaluation findings.
The report contains assessment of progress, manner of implementation of the project, adjustment of work plans, identification and solution of the problems and information to all stakeholders for necessary action. Monitoring aspect of evaluation as an important function of the project team enables the funding authorities to ensure that ‘funds are being used efficiently and effectively for authorized purposes.’ Implementing agency can obtain useful information from monitoring report about the ‘progress of implementation, problems encountered and action taken for its solution’. While conducting evaluation and monitoring the project team normally consult with beneficiaries or stakeholders about anticipated problems during implementation stage.
Evaluation is also a sort of an assessment of the pre-existing policies at implementation within the institutional framework. A number of policy making institutions intend to control the actions of implementing officials so that they comply with the rules of business. The constitutional body like the office of the comptroller and auditor general enjoys statutory authority as an arm of the parliament’ to make a comprehensive review and appraisals of schemes with systems audit to ensure value for money (Sapru 1994; 121). Besides, there are various commissions and committees instituted by the government to find facts, highlight major problems of implementation and organizations dysfunctions and offer recommendations for policy improvement and reformulation. Enquiry commissions or probe bodies may be formed in case of complaints to identify fraud, irregularities, ineffectiveness, corruption and graft.
The evaluation of policy implementation enjoys a variety of techniques that include quantitative evaluation techniques, randemised experimental technique, quasi-experimental techniques, cost-benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, costs-effectiveness analysis, and qualitative techniques like participant observation and rapid reconnaissance technique. This is not a complete list of techniques thus followed by and large by the implementing agencies for the stated purpose. There are other techniques too that include; network technique, bar chart information, organizational responsibility chart, micro-level project impact techniques with quantifiable techniques, integrated management cycle (IMC) and PRA. Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) is usually used to cater to implementation needs of the agencies. Operationally it is a strategic method that serves to investigate and assess resources, situation and contraints for the improvement of the programs of development policies. It involves a careful diagnosis of the problems of implementation assessing its impact on the beneficiaries in every phase of implementation.
The evaluation team uses PRA to identify certain problems of implementation and gather information within the time frame for a project progress review, PRA method considers environmental, economic and institutional patterns. In making livelihood analysis of the project area the evaluation team uses PRA techniques like transect, participatory mapping, social mapping, venn diagram, seasonal calendar, pie diagram, network diagram, daily routine diagram, flow chart, resource flow chart, case study, mini survey, sustainability matrix analysis, need assessment, rapport, building, billboard voting, focus group discussion (FGD), triangulation, SWAT analysis, cloak analysis and card analysis. These techniques are interlinked helping the evaluation team to achieve the objectives of evaluation.
PRA rests on the principle that beneficiaries are capable of interpreting their own problems and needs, the key principles of PRA include: the right attitude, the right behaviour, flexibility and innovation, diversity, a shift of things to people value their knowledge and learn from it and reversing the value system and shift in professional views.
In various stages of project implementation PRA may well be used either alternatively to more conventional and often more problematic methods like baseline surveys, or socio-economic studies, or as an additional step, like when using a PRA to focus a farming system approach (Nagel et. al 1989 cited is Technical project P. 137) In connection with evaluation of implementation PRA provides an intimate understanding of problem. It focuses on ‘certain problems within limited time available for a project progress review, carried out by part of evaluation team. This is sort of participatory evaluations initiated by evaluation team to generate information as inputs from the beneficiaries.
