Évaluation: l’indépendance à l’épreuve de la relation entre mandants et mandataires

L’article suivant rend compte des résultats d’un atelier tenu à l’occasion du congrès 2015 de la SEVAL. L’atelier portait sur l’indépendance des évaluateurs et des évaluatrices du point de vue de leur relation avec les commanditaires de l’évaluation. Sur la base d’un exemple de mandat concret présenté par deux intervenants – l’évaluatrice ainsi que le conseiller d’État mandant de l’évaluation en question – les différents garde-fous contractuels, communicationnels et procéduraux aptes à garantir une pleine indépendance de l’évaluation ont été discutés. Il en est ressorti que quatre dimensions étaient cruciales pour le succès de la démarche : les conditions-cadres de l’évaluation, la récolte des données, les relations avec les évalués, ainsi que la phase de restitution des résultats.

Political science and public administration: The saga of a difficult relationship

This paper is based on 'The perennial ugly duckling-public sector education in tertiary institutions before and after Coombs, an invited contribution on management education delivered at the Sydney Academics Symposium on the Coombs Commission in Retrospect, IPAA National Conference, 28 November 2001.

Partnership, politics and public administration: a case study of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Efforts to reform the public sector reflect the social, political and economic environment within which government must function. The recent demands by the public for more consensual decision-making, as well as more efficient, effective and responsive public service, have resulted in a number of reform initiatives, including an emphasis on partnership development. The purpose of this thesis is to examine partnership arrangements within the public sector. Specifically, the thesis will assess the value of partnerships and their impact on government by examining six partnership arrangements involving the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). The OMNR, having recently been awarded the 1992 Institute of Public Administration of Canada Award for Innovative Management, on the theme of partnership development, is being lauded as an example for other government agencies considering similar alliances. The thesis begins by introducing the concept and practice of partnership within the public sector in general and the OMNR specifically. Descriptive analysis of six OMNR partnerships is provided and a number of criteria are used to determine the success of each of these arrangements. Special attention is paid to the political implications of partnerships and to those attributes which appear to contribute to the successful establishment and iii maintenance of partnership arrangements. The conclusion is drawn that partnerships provide the government with an opportunity to address public demands for greater involvement in decision-making while accommodating government's limited financial resources. However, few truly collaborative partnerships exist within the public sector. There are also significant political implications associated with partnerships which must be dealt with both at the political and bureaucratic levels of government. Lastly, it is argued that while partnerships within the OMNR are experiencing some difficulties, they constitute a genuine attempt to broaden the base of decision-making and to incorporate the concerns of stakeholders into resource management.

Planning and implementation efficacy as a determinant of health risk communication outcomes: Case studies of the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS)

This study was conducted under the auspices of the Subcommittee on Risk Communication and Education of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs (CCEHRP) to determine how Public Health Service (PHS) agencies are communicating information about health risk, what factors contributed to effective communication efforts, and what specific principles, strategies, and practices best promote more effective health risk communication outcomes.^ Member agencies of the Subcommittee submitted examples of health risk communication activities or decisions they perceived to be effective and some examples of cases they thought had not been as effective as desired. Of the 10 case studies received, 7 were submitted as examples of effective health risk communication, and 3, as examples of less effective communication.^ Information contained in the 10 case studies describing the respective agencies' health risk communication strategies and practices was compared with EPA's Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication, since similar rules were not found in any PHS agency. EPA's rules are: (1) Accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner. (2) Plan carefully and evaluate your efforts. (3) Listen to the public's specific concerns. (4) Be honest, frank, and open. (5) Coordinate and collaborate with other credible sources. (6) Meet the needs of the media. (7) Speak clearly and with compassion.^ On the basis of case studies analysis, the Subcommittee, in their attempts to design and implement effective health risk communication campaigns, identified a number of areas for improvement among the agencies. First, PHS agencies should consider developing a focus specific to health risk communication (i.e., office or specialty resource). Second, create a set of generally accepted practices and guidelines for effective implementation and evaluation of PHS health risk communication activities and products. Third, organize interagency initiatives aimed at increasing awareness and visibility of health risk communication issues and trends within and between PHS agencies.^ PHS agencies identified some specific implementation strategies the CCEHRP might consider pursuing to address the major recommendations. Implementation strategies common to PHS agencies emerged in the following five areas: (1) program development, (2) building partnerships, (3) developing training, (4) expanding information technologies, and (5) conducting research and evaluation. ^

The James Sprunt studies in history and political science.

At head of title: The University of North Carolina.