Quantitative analysis at local and national level
Getting It Right and Why It Matters
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6113201 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Mark Pennington (0000-0003-0508-9828, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, corresponding author), Mark William Pennington (London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine), Joanne Gray (0000-0001-5425-4979, Teeside University, Middlesbrough, UK), Cam Donaldson (0000-0003-4670-5340, Glasgow Caledonian University), Janet Walker (0000-0001-9384-5413, Newcastle University), Janet S Walker (0000-0002-1971-114X, Newcastle University), Heather O Dickinson (Newcastle University), Heather Dickinson (Newcastle University) |
| Year | 2012 |
| Volume | 27 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 145-167 |
| Publication date | 2012-04-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Public Policy and Administration (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0952-0767 • E-ISSN: 1749-4192 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/0952076711403537 |
| OpenAlex | W2133818742 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 11 |
The formulation of evidence-based policy necessitates rigorous, objective evaluation of policy initiatives and, consequently, there has been a significant growth in evaluation of social policy over the last ten years. Alongside this, there is a recognition that the application of new policy initiatives needs to be flexible in order to be relevant to local populations. As a result, pilots and pathfinders are encouraged to undertake local evaluations in addition to national evaluations commissioned by central government. These dual evaluations are seen as a vehicle to provide evidence on effectiveness whilst accommodating heterogeneity of needs and provision. We suggest that without clear delineation of roles, dual evaluations are inefficient, likely to put additional pressure on busy practitioners (and the recipients of new services) to comply with varying data demands, and present policy makers with confusing messages. In this article we focus on the potential for local and national evaluations to reach different conclusions by demonstrating how a simplistic application of quantitative techniques at local level can lead to inappropriate conclusions which contradict national findings. We make a number of recommendations that might facilitate better coordination of local and national evaluations
Business · Economics · Local authority · Local government · National Policy · Political science · Public economics · Public relations · Advanced Causal Inference Techniques · Evaluation and Performance Assessment · Health disparities and outcomes · Law · Public Administration
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |