Components of a Public Administration Program

A complete and adequate description of the components of a program is essential to evaluate its implementation.

The components are:

– the strategies,

– activities,

– behaviors,

– forms of communication and

– technologies for the implementation of the program and the specification of the beneficiaries and the place where the implementation takes place.

An adequate and precise identification of the components of the program will make it possible to assess which aspects of the program were implemented as planned and which factors could influence differences in implementation.

Correct specification of components was noted to assess concerns regarding the scope of the program (intended beneficiaries). In addition, it conjectures about the possible links between the results of the implementation and the results of the program itself (in terms of production, intermediate results, impacts, etc.)…

At the same time, the specification (or detail) of the contents of the program is a requirement of the evaluation process.

The very initiative to plan and carry out the evaluation process contributes to a more adequate and realistic specification of the program content. This is an important condition to ensure that the program is more effective (because the internal consistency of the program has undergone a preliminary review) and, secondly, that the evaluation of results and impact is more effective since the performance of the program is compare with more consistent and realistic goals and expectations.

To allow the evaluation that the process can improve the design and specification of a public program, some techniques can be used.

1 – Formative evaluation: based on data collected from pilot projects and beneficiaries on the implementation of a particular intervention and providing information on the feasibility of certain activities and instruments and the extent to which they are appropriate for the design plan and the beneficiaries provided;

2 – Verification of “evaluability” systematic set of procedures for the correct development of the theory behind a public program, detailing and clarifying the intended uses of the data in the evaluation process, before the start of a full-scale evaluation.

His most important steps include (Scheirer, 1994: 49-50):

a) Engage key policy makers, managers and staff through a series of meetings to clarify their expectations for the program and the evaluation itself;

b) Using a model called matrix logic diagram, detailing the expected causal relationships between three aspects of the program: resources assigned to the program, execution of specific activities planned by the program and expected results;

c) Refinement of the theory behind the program through an interactive process, using project site visits and available information, to examine the reality of field operations and the extent to which the proposed theory is plausible;

d) Clarify the intended uses for the information obtained from the evaluation, through discussions with policy makers and program administrators, including changes to the program;

e) Use of theory to help in the specification of the program. application of theories relevant to the substantive topic from which the program arises, and the use of data to elucidate underlying processes.

This type of evaluation process is important not only to specify program content, but also to link program activities to measures (indicators) of income that will be used in later impact evaluations.

The term theory here refers to the interrelated principles that explain and assume the behavior of a person, group, or organization.

Chen (1990) distinguishes two types of theories:

– the regulations, which define what a program should be and

– the causal, which empirically describes the causal relationships between the proposed solutions (including contextual factors) and the result.

The central problem in this case is to investigate the effectiveness of the program and to achieve this purpose, it uses the mechanisms to establish causal relationships between the actions of a program and the final result.

The purpose of such evaluation can be defined as the identification of the net effects of a social intervention. Like the goal evaluation, this approach is carried out after the end of the program or the same steps.

Evaluation processes – This type of evaluation systematically investigates the development of social programs in order to measure the coverage of the social program, establish the degree to which the goal is being achieved and, especially, monitor its internal processes. The objective is to detect possible defects in the development of procedures to identify barriers and obstacles to their implementation and generate important data for their reprogramming, through the registration of events and activities.

Thus, the proper use of the information produced during the development of the program allows changes in its content during execution. Unlike, therefore, the previous approaches, this evaluation method is carried out simultaneously with the development of the program, also called formative evaluation. Its implementation requires, however, that we can design the flows and processes of the program.

In addition, it presupposes the existence of an adequate management information system, which serves as the basis for the work of managers and evaluators when appropriate.

An application of the evaluation methodology of social programs:

A comprehensive evaluation system through methodologies that provide for the evaluation of results and evaluation processes. In addition, the scenarios and forms of operation used in the proposed model.

Evaluation of results:

Here, results are defined as immediate results, long-term results (impacts), and medium-term results (impacts).

For the evaluation, the use of impact indicators is suggested to measure the long-term results, related to the objectives of the program and product indicators to measure the immediate and medium-term results. Output indicators measure the effects of the program: on the target population as a whole and between u

serve the program. In the first case, two types of output indicators should be proposed, with field research or with the help of existing databases and/or inputs:

– Degree of global coverage:

It measures the coverage rate of the target population of the program. Both the deficit and the surplus of beneficiaries are the reasons for the changes in the route. The first demonstrates the need for expansion, and the second, that there is a waste of resources (not eligible since the target population is benefiting);

– The degree of coverage varies according to the program:

It measures the participation of different subgroups of the proposed target population. This index can portray discrimination (or bias) in the selection of program clients according to region, age, sex, etc. Regarding the second point, that is, the evaluation of results for the users of the program, it can be used to measure benefit indicators, which take into account the specific objectives of each program or project.

Rob Vos (1993) gives some examples of the most used indicators among program users and the target population:

1 – for nutrition programs – malnutrition rates by age, mortality and morbidity;

2 – for education programs – rates of illiteracy, repetition, dropout; schooling coefficients and degrees of education;

3 – to health programs – mortality rates in general, infant mortality, maternal mortality and birth rates, fertility and life expectancy at birth;

4 – for housing programs – quantitative housing deficit, quality of housing construction and availability of basic services. The indicators show the means of input or the resources available to achieve the objectives. Scarce and inadequate resources (in terms of finances, manpower, equipment, etc.). It almost always tends to undermine the expected results.

Vos (1993) mentions some examples of more common input indicators such as:

a) – to nutrition programs – availability of food per person;

b) – to education programs – student/teacher ratio, student/school, number of series offered by the school and availability of teaching materials for students;

c) – for health programs – number of doctors per capita, for health posts per capita; of beds per inhabitant and vaccines available per capita.

But the access indicators make it possible to identify the determinants that make effective use of the resources available in the programs to achieve the planned goals. The most common are:

a) – to health programs – the number of medical consultations per equivalent adult; distance to the nearest health service, disposable income per family (so useful to facilitate the purchase of medicines, for example) and cultural factors;

b) – for education programs – outside the school, curricular adaptation and disposable income for the family (to enable, for example, the purchase of school supplies).

In addition, the use of questionnaires allows knowing customer satisfaction, being a good indicator of quality but not the only one or the most complete. In this sense, it is still possible to establish composite indicators through the construction of indices formed by a set of attributes defined from the characteristics of the service.

Evaluation process The evaluation process can be defined as a way to identify the actual content of a public program, where it is being developed as planned, is it reaching its intended audience, and whether the benefits are being distributed at the planned intensity ( Scheirer, 1994: 40).