Friday, March 02, 2012

Things They Should Invent: improvement-only program and policy reviews

When a government announces it's going to "review" a program or policy, it most often means they're looking for places to cut funding.

I think that's limiting. They should also be reviewing not just for efficiencies, but for effectiveness. How could the program or policy fulfill its intended purpose better? They should be required to review everything through this lens at regular intervals, as a completely separate process from efficiency reviews. No looking at saving money, just looking at how the program could be better. Then they could issue reports, and interesting stuff would gain media attention and, if it's popular with the public, public support.

For example, parental leave could fulfill its mandate most effectively by providing 100% parental leave benefits, which would nearly double the cost of the program. It could also fulfill its mandate more effectively than it is now by offering the option of compressed parental leave, which would have little impact on the cost. This probably wouldn't come up in an efficiency review, but it would be a significant way to improve the effectiveness of the program.

This could also help win over the "Yes, but..." vote. If politicos know that a program is going to be subject to an effectiveness review, they might be willing to vote in a program that's better than the status quo but not as good as it could be, because there's a mechanism to help it get as good as it could be.

How many sub-par programs and policies are we subjected to because there's no apparatus for "How can we make this better?", only "How can we make this cheaper?"

2 comments:

M@ said...

As someone who has, from time to time, been paid to do the actual reviewing of programs and policies, I think it's probably a better situation than you perceive.

Typically, a program is reviewed constantly -- the Assistant Deputy Minister, Deputy Minister, and Minister all have to authorize the budget all through their ministry, so any significant outlay is constantly coming under question. Projects and programs are constantly comparing themselves to the current government's aims, be they policy (e.g. Ontario's "Open for Business" initiative) or legislation (the direct driver for most of what I've done in recent years), to ensure that they can justify their own outlay.

Those projects and programs that can easily demonstrate their adherence to either policies or legislation are usually safe. Those that can't are usually cut. The reason they hire consultants is often to make the case for the project or program that the government's objectives are being met.

The problem is, I think, that a lot of programs have undergone "reviews" in recent months that are more of a setup job. Some asshole gets into office (say, the mayor's office) on the strength of his campaign against gravy, so he has to find *something* to attack. A government is in serious deficit, so it has to find *something* to cut. Welcome to politics.

But rest assured, most government programs are dying to tell the story of how they've improved the lives of the citizenry, and are afforded the opportunity to tell that story on an annual basis at least. It's only borderline cases that make it to the news.

impudent strumpet said...

I'd hope they look for more than just adherence to policy and legislation and actively look for improvement, but I'm glad they are at least thinking qualitatively rather than just about bottom line.

But you're right, ever time I *hear of* a program review, it's all budget-cutty.