Talk:Policy analysis

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).

Evaluation vs. analysis

Someone should make the difference clear, if there is one, and back it up with citations. RedHouse18 18:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

- Article Evaluation**

I liked the article and the content it possessed. The thing I would change or add, would be to go more in depth on the type of policies that are being analyzed. If an elected official implemented a new policy for the state educational standards, how would policy analysts go about that? Something more along the lines of that. h_b80, 18 September 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by H b80 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Table 1

Resolved

– No such content remains in the article.

Where is "Table 1" (mentioned section "Decision Methods for Policy Analysis — Step 5")? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.179.72.230 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

There are several gaps in information, such as missing Table 1. Son of Romulus (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Steps

Resolved

– No such problem remains in the article.

Why are there steps 2 and 5 but not steps 1, 3, 4, 6, ... ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.179.72.230 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Article evaluation

I liked the article and the content it possessed. The thing I would change or add, would be to go more in depth on the type of policies that are being analyzed. If an elected official implemented a new policy for the state educational standards, how would policy analysts go about that? Something more along the lines of that. h_b80, 18 September 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by H b80 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@H b80: But this article isn't about any particular type of policy being analyzed; it's about policy analysis as a general practice. If there are specific types or processes of PA that only apply to particular kinds of policies, those could be covered in sections (and to an extent already are). Such differences (to the extent they exist) require reliable sources in order for us to write about them here; we can't just assert that they are real, nor make up examples to which to apply what we imagine are special cases. See the WP:No original research policy. In short, Wikipedia's editors not allowed to do our own policy analysis in the course of writing about policy analysis. :-) See also the "WP:What Wikipedia is not" policy; this site doesn't exist as any kind of how-to guide, nor is it a textbook or other form of pedagogical material. It is strictly an encyclopedia. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Methodology

There is a problem with the links on the "a priori" and "a posteriori", probably because they are addressed in the same article, unless the "posteriori" author intended to point to the empirical evidence article. 68.207.123.27 (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Done The mentioned "a posteriori" now links to Empirical evidence. Thanks for the input. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Self-sourced section

This section needs independent sourcing to demonstrate that it deserves any WEIGHT in this article

NCCHPP's 10 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.^[1]

The ten steps are:^[2]

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

References

[1]
Morestin, F. and Castonguay, J. (2013). Constructing a logic model for a healthy public policy: why and how? Montréal, Québec: National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy.
[2]
https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/eRepository/At_A_Glance_Evaluation_2015.pdf

-- Also I doubt anybody knows what "NCCHPP" is. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

For NCCHPP check http://www.ncchpp.ca/en/. I was just crosschecking about the facts displayed and I saw this sources, so added it. For independent sourcing publichealthontario.com reference is good because NCCHPP looks like a Quebec website. But there are other evaluation models too, this one from their national website by looks seems to be a simple (nonpromotional) and understandable model than the ones in textbooks. As a reader I would like to see some content and a model regarding this or summary with directions, simply for information. I don't know much about the wiki rules and tacts but as an Administrator I think this information might help you to update the article as you see fit with fair understanding. Happy Editing.117.215.194.175 (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't really see a WP:WEIGHT problem here; to the extent there might look like one, it's because so much of the article remains undeveloped, and is tagged all over the place as needing expansion. The solution is to add more info, not remove this info. As a former professional policy analyst, I don't see anything even faintly controversial about the NCCHPP outline. It would just of be great utility to add more material and sources. The article already identifies a boatload of sources; it's simply not using most them, just piling them up as a pair of lists at the end of the article, as if this is DMOZ.org. But WP:ISNOT a Web directory or a bibliography site; the real reason we have for identifying reliable books and sites on this topic is to use them as sources for the current and additional material. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

ELs

Which of these should stay, and which should go?

External links

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
- A Guide to Evaluation in Health Research
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health
The California Endowment papers (The Challenge of Assessing Policy and Advocacy Activities)
- Strategies for Prospective Evaluation Approach - Part I
- Moving from Theory to Practice - Part II
United States Government Accountability Office papers
World Bank: Impact Evaluation Toolkit

-- Jytdog (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

United States Government Accountability Office papers, could be removed. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention content seems to have the plain English approach than Canadian Institutes of Health Research links.174.4.185.9 (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for talking. The CDC thing is actually from 1999 and i was thinking that one should go. Jytdog (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The CIHR and CDC[P] materials don't seem particularly relevant; evaluating research and evaluating program[me]s are not the same thing as evaluating policy (laws, regulations, organizational policies). Research (we hope – rather than kneejerk reactions) leads to policies which lead to programs (and evaluation of their effects). They correlate but are not the same topic: 1) problem identification, impetus; 2) decision, rules; 3) actions, effects. The CE material (in two parts) does seem on-target. The first GAO item is also program evaluation; the second is quantitative data analysis (another form of research analysis); the third is back to program evaluation. The World Bank this is also off-target, and is about impact of programs again. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 03:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

So none of them, really. Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, except "The CE material (in two parts) does seem on-target." Personally, I don't care much about ELs, and prefer to convert them into inline citations for something when possible. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 20:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)