Policy monitoring

Last updated

Policy monitoring comes a range of activities describing and analyzing the development and implementation of policies, identifying potential gaps in the process, outlining areas for improvement, and holding policy implementers accountable for their activities. [1]

Contents

Definition

Monitoring policy development and implementation is an integral component of the policy cycle and can be applied in sectors including agriculture, health, education, and finance. Policy monitoring can improve policy information among stakeholders, and the use of evaluation techniques to provide feedback to reframe and revise policies. [2] Waterman and Wood derived policy monitoring from agency theory, describing a process where policymakers monitor the actions of their bureaucratic agents who implement and enforce policies. This monitoring allows policymakers to compensate for their agents’ greater knowledge of the policy process, and enables them to be well-informed decision makers. Thus policy monitoring allows policymakers and interested actors to systematically examine the process of creating a policy, implementing it, and evaluating its effects. [3] Policy monitoring activities can be used to collect and analyze data related to the development and implementation of specific policies. It can also help link policies to specific outcomes and help identify and evaluate policy impacts. Policy impacts can include specific changes in behavior (e.g., increased number of people wearing seatbelts), finances (e.g., increased tax revenue), health status or epidemiology (e.g., reduced number of new HIV infections) or other social indicators (e.g., reduced crime rates, reduced levels of pollution). Data from policy monitoring can be used to support advocacy efforts and guide the development of new, timely, and relevant policies. Policy monitoring should also include the identification of operational policy barriers that can be addressed through policy and program reform, and findings can support improved implementation of existing policies. [4]

Challenges

Numerous actors and stakeholders can influence the movement of policy from inception to implementation. Well-maintained documentation and review of all key stakeholders involved in a policy can help advocates for a given policy—such as military reform, water rights, or disability legislation—prepare to address different ideologies, capacities, or interests of key actors. [5] Limiting stakeholder analysis only to government and official policymakers may ignore major groups that can support policy development. [6] Policy monitoring coalitions should agree on what they are monitoring and be succinct in their recommendations to policymakers. [7] Policy initiatives themselves are often controversial, and policy monitoring can be contentious because it shows how well policy implementers and enforcers are doing their jobs. Those conducting policy monitoring should be thorough in their data collection and unbiased in their presentation of facts. [8] Robust trainings on policy monitoring work can help organizations be systematic and effective in their policy monitoring efforts. [9]

Existing Models and Frameworks for Policy and Advocacy Monitoring

PEPFAR

The United States President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)’s Monitoring Policy Reform tool outlines the progression of policy development related to HIV from problem identification to monitoring and evaluation. The tool supports a relatively simple and uniform monitoring process which can be applied to any policy area. This tool can guide policy monitoring efforts throughout the policy reform process.

PEPFAR's six stages of the policy reform process:
Stage 1: Identify baseline policy issues by conducting situation assessment
Stage 2: Engagement of stakeholders in developing common policy agenda
Stage 3: Develop policy
Stage 4: Official government endorsement of policy
Stage 5: Implementation of policy
Stage 6: Evaluation of policy implementation (PEPFAR)

Food and Agriculture Organization [10] Working Cycle for Country Approach

The FAO's Food and Agriculture Policy Decision Analysis (FAPDA) is a policy monitoring tool that provides a working cycle technique to identify policy problems and improve analysis of policy issues. By incorporating FAPDA outputs, such as a web-based tool, country policy review, and policy analysis report, policy dialogue can be more systematic and encompass different actors interested in FAPDA data.

The cycle includes:  Phase 1: Preparatory Phase  Phase 2: Focal Point Training  Phase 3: Policy Identification  Phase 4: Quality Control and Validation  Phase 5: 1st Discussion Focus of Analysis  Phase 6: Analysis  Phase 7: 2nd Discussion on Findings (FAO)

World Health Organization

The World Health Organization has started to develop dedicated monitoring systems for policy interventions on the social determinants of health that improve health equity, such as social protection and gender equity policies. [11]

Gender

Policy monitoring can be performed through different issue-driven lenses, such as gender sensitivity or gender equality. Gender-sensitive policy monitoring analyzes any gender aspects of a policy or policy issue, and considers the impact of the policy on both men and women, as well as its impact on gender relations. For example, a policy that is shown to have improved the welfare of a household may not necessarily affect all household members positively or equally, and may have even exacerbated gender inequity. Gender-sensitive policy monitoring can help advance gender equity and improve policy implementation. Civil society and other stakeholders can use policy monitoring techniques to systematically gather data on the gender aspects of policies and use these data to influence policymakers to favor gender-equitable health policies¬¬¬—these processes are essential to facilitating gender mainstreaming. [12]

Application

A 2012 study analyzed planned policy interventions across the 22 publicly accessible PEPFAR Partnership Frameworks to understand how the interventions are related to PEPFAR and country or regional priorities. The study found that “policy monitoring by donors, partner country governments, and civil society stakeholders can help measure whether policy interventions are occurring as planned in order to further HIV prevention, care, and treatment and health system goals and, if not, can point to needed changes." [13]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Transportation planning</span> Process of planning for movement of people and goods

Transportation planning is the process of defining future policies, goals, investments, and spatial planning designs to prepare for future needs to move people and goods to destinations. As practiced today, it is a collaborative process that incorporates the input of many stakeholders including various government agencies, the public and private businesses. Transportation planners apply a multi-modal and/or comprehensive approach to analyzing the wide range of alternatives and impacts on the transportation system to influence beneficial outcomes.

Development communication refers to the use of communication to facilitate social development. Development communication engages stakeholders and policy makers, establishes conducive environments, assesses risks and opportunities and promotes information exchange to create positive social change via sustainable development. Development communication techniques include information dissemination and education, behavior change, social marketing, social mobilization, media advocacy, communication for social change, and community participation.

Program evaluation is a systematic method for collecting, analyzing, and using information to answer questions about projects, policies and programs, particularly about their effectiveness and efficiency.

Policy analysis or public policy analysis is a technique used in the public administration sub-field of political science to enable civil servants, nonprofit organizations, and others to examine and evaluate the available options to implement the goals of laws and elected officials. People who regularly use policy analysis skills and techniques on the job, particularly those who use it as a major part of their job duties are generally known by the title Policy Analyst. The process is also used in the administration of large organizations with complex policies. It has been defined as the process of "determining which of various policies will achieve a given set of goals in light of the relations between the policies and the goals."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief</span> United States governmental initiative

The United States President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is a United States governmental initiative to address the global HIV/AIDS epidemic and help save the lives of those suffering from the disease. Launched by U.S. President George W. Bush in 2003, as of May 2020, PEPFAR has provided about $90 billion in cumulative funding for HIV/AIDS treatment, prevention, and research since its inception, making it the largest global health program focused on a single disease in history until the COVID-19 pandemic. PEPFAR is implemented by a combination of U.S. government agencies in over 50 countries and overseen by the Global AIDS Coordinator at the United States Department of State. As of 2023, PEPFAR has saved over 25 million lives, primarily in Sub-Saharan Africa.

ADDIE is an instructional systems design (ISD) framework that many instructional designers and training developers use to develop courses. The name is an acronym for the five phases it defines for building training and performance support tools:

A needs assessment is a systematic process for determining and addressing needs, or "gaps", between current conditions and desired conditions or "wants".

Impact evaluation assesses the changes that can be attributed to a particular intervention, such as a project, program or policy, both the intended ones, as well as ideally the unintended ones. In contrast to outcome monitoring, which examines whether targets have been achieved, impact evaluation is structured to answer the question: how would outcomes such as participants' well-being have changed if the intervention had not been undertaken? This involves counterfactual analysis, that is, "a comparison between what actually happened and what would have happened in the absence of the intervention." Impact evaluations seek to answer cause-and-effect questions. In other words, they look for the changes in outcome that are directly attributable to a program.

The Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Program is responsible for collecting and disseminating accurate, nationally representative data on health and population in developing countries. The project is implemented by ICF International and is funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) with contributions from other donors such as UNICEF, UNFPA, WHO, and UNAIDS.

Population Action International (PAI) is an international, non-governmental organization that uses research and advocacy to improve global access to family planning and reproductive health care. Its mission is to "ensure that every person has the right and access to sexual and reproductive health, so that humanity and the natural environment can exist in balance with fewer people living in poverty". PAI's headquarters is in Washington, D.C.

MEASURE Evaluation strengthens capacity in developing countries to gather, interpret, and use data to improve health. MEASURE Evaluation creates tools and approaches for rigorous evaluations, providing evidence to address health challenges, and strengthens health information systems so countries can make better decisions and sustain good health outcomes over time. MEASURE Evaluation is a cooperative agreement awarded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and five partner organizations: ICF International, John Snow Inc., Management Sciences for Health, Palladium, and Tulane University. This MEASURE Evaluation partnership provides technical leadership through collaboration at local, national, and global levels to build the sustainable capacity of developing nations to identify data needs, collect and analyze technically sound data, and use that data for health decision-making.

Global Health Initiatives (GHIs) are humanitarian initiatives that raise and disburse additional funds for infectious diseases – such as AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria – for immunizations and for strengthening health systems in developing countries. GHIs classify a type of global initiative, which is defined as an organized effort integrating the involvement of organizations, individuals, and stakeholders around the world to address a global issue.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social and behavior change communication</span>

Social and behavior change communication (SBCC), often also only "BCC" or "Communication for Development (C4D)" is an interactive process of any intervention with individuals, group or community to develop communication strategies to promote positive behaviors which are appropriate to their settings and thereby solving the world's most pressing health problems. This in turn provides a supportive environment which will enable people to initiate, sustain and maintain positive and desirable behavior outcomes.

The UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) is the statistical office of UNESCO and is the UN depository for cross-nationally comparable statistics on education, science and technology, culture, and communication.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theory of Change</span> Methodology for social impact

Theory of Change (ToC) is a methodology or a criterion for planning, participation, adaptive management, and evaluation that is used in companies, philanthropy, not-for-profit, international development, research, and government sectors to promote social change. Theory of Change defines long-term goals and then maps backward to identify necessary preconditions.

The PRECEDE–PROCEED model is a cost–benefit evaluation framework proposed in 1974 by Lawrence W. Green that can help health program planners, policy makers and other evaluators, analyze situations and design health programs efficiently. It provides a comprehensive structure for assessing health and quality of life needs, and for designing, implementing and evaluating health promotion and other public health programs to meet those needs. One purpose and guiding principle of the PRECEDE–PROCEED model is to direct initial attention to outcomes, rather than inputs. It guides planners through a process that starts with desired outcomes and then works backwards in the causal chain to identify a mix of strategies for achieving those objectives. A fundamental assumption of the model is the active participation of its intended audience — that is, that the participants ("consumers") will take an active part in defining their own problems, establishing their goals and developing their solutions.

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is a combined term for the processes set up by organizations such as companies, government agencies, international organisations and NGOs, with the goal of improving their management of outputs, outcomes and impact. Monitoring includes the continuous assessment of programmes based on early detailed information on the progress or delay of the ongoing assessed activities. Evaluation involves the examination of the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and impact of activities in the light of specified objectives.

Gender budgeting means preparing budgets or analyzing them from a gender perspective. Also referred to as gender-sensitive budgeting, this practice does not entail dividing budgets for women. It aims at dealing with budgetary gender inequality issues, including gender hierarchies and the discrepancies between women's and men's salaries. At its core, gender budgeting is a feminist policy with a primary goal of re-orienting the allocation of public resources, advocating for an advanced decision-making role for women in important issues, and securing equity in the distribution of resources between men and women. Gender budgeting allows governments to promote equality through fiscal policies by taking analyses of a budget's differing impacts on the sexes as well as setting goals or targets for equality and allocating funds to support those goals. This practice does not always target intentional discrimination but rather forces an awareness of the effects of financial schemes on all genders.

Gender mainstreaming in teacher education policy refers to efforts to examine and change processes of policy formulation and implementation across all areas and at all levels from a gender perspective so as to address and correct existing and emerging disparities between men and women. It is a strategy to change the process of policy design, implementation and evaluation by taking into consideration the gender specific and often diverse needs, priorities, interests and values of differently positioned men and women. In this context, gender mainstreaming is about awareness of the existence of gender disparities and their causes and implications, and ensures that they are addressed at each phase of the policy cycle or policy analyses and revision.

American International Health Alliance (AIHA) is a nonprofit organisation aiming for assisting the global health. The organisation has managed more than 175 partnerships and project across the globe. In 2012, AIHA obtained the support of President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief [PEPFAR] project to strengthen the blood service in Central Asia, Ukraine, and Cambodia. Due to its structure based on the programmatic modal and dynamic condition, this organisation is suitable to assist the community or worldwide countries which have limited resources, and it is beneficial for sustainable evolution. AIHA is contributing to improve the worldwide health conditions. This organisation has been associated and largely contributed in the HIV-related area since 2000.

References

  1. ↑ Hardee, Karen; Laili Irani; Ron MacInnis; Matthew Hamilton (2012). "Linking Health Policy With Health Systems And Health Outcomes" (PDF). Washington DC: Futures Group, Health Policy Project.
  2. ↑ Wong, Cecilia; Craig Watkins (2009). "Conceptualizing Spatial Planning Outcomes: Towards an Integrative Measurement Framework". The Town Planning Review. 80 (4/5): 481–516. doi:10.3828/tpr.2009.8.
  3. ↑ Waterman, Richard; Dan Wood (1993). "Policy Monitoring and Policy Analysis". Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 12 (4): 685–699. doi:10.2307/3325346. JSTOR   3325346.
  4. ↑ Hardee, Karen; Laili Irani; Ron MacInnis; Matthew Hamilton (2012). "Linking Health Policy With Health Systems And Health Outcomes" (PDF). Washington DC: Futures Group, Health Policy Project.
  5. ↑ Jones, Harry (February 2011). "A Guide to Monitoring and Evaluating Policy Influence" (PDF). Overseas Development Institute.
  6. ↑ Hardee, Karen; Imelda Feranil; Jill Boezwinkle; Benjamin Clark Benjamin (2004). "The Policy Circle: A Framework For Analyzing the Components of Family Planning, Reproductive Health, Maternal Health, and HIV/AIDS Policies" (PDF). Washington DC: Futures Group, Policy Project.
  7. ↑ Wong, Cecilia; Craig Watkins (2009). "Conceptualizing Spatial Planning Outcomes: Towards an Integrative Measurement Framework". The Town Planning Review. 80 (4/5): 481–516. doi:10.3828/tpr.2009.8.
  8. ↑ Wood, Dan (1991). "The Dynamics of Political Control of the Bureaucracy". The American Political Science Review. 85 (3): 801–828. doi:10.2307/1963851. JSTOR   1963851. S2CID   154833500.
  9. ↑ Jones, Harry (February 2011). "A Guide to Monitoring and Evaluating Policy Influence" (PDF). Overseas Development Institute.
  10. ↑ "FAPDA". Food and Agriculture Organization. 2013. Retrieved 9 September 2013.
  11. ↑ Pega, Frank; Valentine, Nicole; Rasanathan, Kumanan; Hosseinpoor, Ahmad Reza; Neira, Maria (2017). "The need to monitor actions on the social determinants of health". Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 95 (11): 784–787. doi:10.2471/BLT.16.184622. PMC   5677605 . PMID   29147060. Archived from the original on November 2, 2017.
  12. ↑ Smith, Mohga Kamal (2001). "Enhancing Gender Equity in Health Programmes: Monitoring and Evaluation". Gender and Development. 9 (2): 95–105. doi:10.1080/13552070127749. JSTOR   4030592. S2CID   70517291.
  13. ↑ Judice, Nicole (2012). Monitoring HIV Policy Interventions in PEPFAR Partnership Frameworks (PDF). Presented at Second Global Symposium on Health Systems Research in Beijing, China.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.