Abstract
The Dutch evaluation landscape has not stopped evolving over the past decades. In 2015, evaluation culture was qualified as ‘mature’, particularly in terms of the coverage of policy domains (pluralism), institutionalisation in government, parliament and the Netherlands Court of Audit. Underneath a central governmental obligation to evaluate all policies periodically, Dutch policy departments have very differently shaped their evaluation policies and evaluation capacity. There is also active utilisation of evaluation, although generally not obligatory. Despite the fact that evaluation Is not a recognised profession or an independent academic discipline, there is a wide supply of organisations and institutions performing (also) evaluation research. Since 2012, the Dutch Evaluation Society supports their professional development and the exchange of knowledge and expertise. By the time of writing this contribution, new initiatives were being developed to further increase evaluation capacity in the central government.
Carolien Klein Haarhuis worked as a researcher at WODC by the time of writing this contribution. She currently works for the Dutch Ministry of Finance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The author wishes to thank Prof. Dr. Frans Leeuw for comments on two earlier versions of this contribution. In addition, Dr. Marieke Gorree is thanked for additional expert views, particularly with regard to auditing and evaluation on the local level.
- 2.
For efficiency reasons, we do not refer to the separate interviews throughout the chapter, as opposed to references to desk material and previous studies, which are included.
- 3.
Leeuw (2009) used the term ‘policy appraisal’, referring to this instrument.
- 4.
In 2017, a parliamentary motion was adopted in which the executive is requested to include an evaluation paragraph in all legal and policy proposals implying a ‘substantive change’. This evaluation paragraph should explain whether and if so, how the proposal will be evaluated.
- 5.
The SCP has a permanent methods division.
- 6.
This is not to deny that every policy initiative could be evaluated in a programmatic way, starting with ex ante research and moving via process evaluation and output monitoring to an effectiveness study (Klein Haarhuis 2016). In practice, effectiveness studies quite often are the first evaluation since the start of a policy initiative.
- 7.
An example is the evaluation of the reorganisation of the national police and relevant legislation. Here several rounds of evaluations took place covering a period of five years since the introduction. Another example is a multi-annual structural evaluation programme—ex ante and ex post—specifically for environmental legislation, the ‘STEM’-programme (see Uylenburg et al. 2011 for a meta-evaluation of STEM).
- 8.
A guideline for Societal CBA that was first developed to the domain of infrastructure and environment, has been rewritten and published to serve a variety of policy domains (Romijn and Renes 2013).
- 9.
For example, over a three-year period (2008–2010) parliamentarians referred to publications by research institute WODC (Justice and Security) for over 700 times (Van der Laan et al. 2013).
- 10.
The DAO was installed per September 1, 2017 with the wider mission to strengthen the knowledge and research position of the Second Chamber of Parliament (Tweede Kamer 2017).
- 11.
With the exception of the knowledge division in the department of Education (see below).
- 12.
CPB = Central Planning Bureau, SCP = Social Planning Bureau, WODC = Scientific Research and documentation Centre, KIM = Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis and RIVM = National Institute for Public Health and the Environment.
- 13.
For example, of published ex ante evaluation studies only 4% was performed internally (Klein Haarhuis and Smit 2017) and experts within various policy departments estimated that this also holds for ex-post evaluation studies.
- 14.
No assessment of evaluation quality was made. In part, this finding of 42% can be explained by the fact that the overarching policy goals in the government budget (the focus of the Court of Audit) were often not precisely reflected in concrete evaluation studies. Policy officials came up with a number of explanations for the lack of effectiveness evaluations (Netherlands Court of Audit 2012, 2013), among which: it is unclear how to evaluate effectiveness; it was impossible to form a control group or baseline measurement; it is too early to assess effectiveness; budget was lacking; other parties are evaluating or have evaluated the policy at hand; impact evaluation has little added value; the policy has been ended.
- 15.
Although the interest for more thorough evaluation programming is on the increase, however.
- 16.
Thus far, the accent has been on inspection. The aim is to give evaluation a larger foothold in the near future.
- 17.
At the Social Affairs Department, a comparable advisor ‘Chief Science Officer’ has been active, however, not specifically in relation to evaluation but with a wider assignment regarding knowledge-related issues.
- 18.
- 19.
In the context of ‘targeted use’, Leeuw (2009) previously observed a growth of evaluation and accreditation committees in the Netherlands, relating to the domains of health, education, crime and justice. ‘Programs and interventions can be subsidised only if an ex ante evaluation has demonstrated plausibility with regard to the underlying theory and future impact’.
References
Algemene Rekenkamer/Netherlands Court of Audit. (2012). Effectiviteitsonderzoek bij de rijksoverheid. The Hague: Algemene Rekenkamer.
Algemene Rekenkamer/Netherlands Court of Audit. (2013). Effectiviteitsonderzoek bij de rijksoverheid: Vervolgonderzoek. The Hague: Algemene Rekenkamer.
Bourgeois, I., & Cousins, J. B. (2013). Understanding dimensions of organizational evaluation capacity. American Journal of Evaluation, 34(3), 299–319.
Bovens, M., Hart, P., & Kuipers, S. (2008). The politics of policy evaluation. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 319–335). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cochrane Netherlands. (2018). http://netherlands.cochrane.org/. Accessed on 28 February 2019.
CPB. (2011). Zicht op effectiviteit. Studie naar evaluatieontwerpen voor onderwijs- en wetenschapsmaatregelen. The Hague: CPB Achtergronddocument. www.beleidsevaluatie.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/cpb-achtergronddoument-zicht-op-effectiviteit-van-beleid.pdf. Accessed on 28 February 2019.
Goslinga, S., Siglé, M., & Van der Hel, L. (2016). Het meten van effecten van de handhaving door de Belastingdienst. Tijdschrift voor Toezicht (3).
Government of the Netherlands. (2011). Aanwijzingen voor de Regelgeving. http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005730/2011-05-11. Accessed on 28 February 2019.
Jacob, S., Speer, S., & Furubo, J. E. (2015). The institutionalization of evaluation matters: Updating the international atlas of evaluation 10 years later. Evaluation, 21(1), 6–31.
Johnson, K., Greenseid, L. O., Toal, S., King, J. A., & Lawrenz, F. (2009). Research on evaluation use: A review of the empirical literature from 1986 to 2005. American Journal of Evaluation, 30(3), 77–410.
Klein Haarhuis, C. M. (2016). Evaluatievermogen bij beleidsdepartementen, praktijken rond uitvoering en gebruik van ex post beleids- en wetsevaluaties. The Hague: WODC (forthcoming). M.m.v. A. Parapuf.
Klein Haarhuis, C. M., & Niemeijer, E. (2009). Synthesizing legislative evaluations: Putting the pieces together. Evaluation, 15(4), 403–425.
Klein Haarhuis, C. M., & Smit, M. (2017). Ex-ante research explored: Numbers, types and use of ex-ante policy studies by the Dutch government. Evidence & Policy, 13(4), 647–668.
Leeuw, F. L. (2009). Evaluation policy in the Netherlands. In W. M. K. Trochim, M. M. Mark, & J. Cooksy (Eds.), Evaluation policy and evaluation practice: New directions for Evaluation (Issue 123, pp. 87–102). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ministry of Education. (2015). Notitie over Zicht op Effectiviteit. Intern document Directie Kennis.
Ministry of Finance. (2015). Regeling Periodiek Evaluatieonderzoek (RPE). Staatscourant, 83. http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0035579/2015-01-01. Accessed on 28 February 2019.
Ministry of Finance. (2016). Handreiking beleidsdoorlichtingen. www.rijksbegroting.nl/beleidsevaluaties/evaluaties-en-beleidsdoorlichtingen/handreiking. Accessed on 28 February 2019.
Ministry of Finance. (2017). Operatie inzicht in kwaliteit (Letter to Parliament). https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/kamerstukken/2017/04/10/kamerbrief-aandachtspunten-commissie-financien-over-focusonderwerp-en-operatie-inzicht-in-kwaliteit. Accessed on 28 February 2019.
Nielsen, S. B., Lemire, S., & Skov, M. (2011). Measuring evaluation capacity: Results and implications of a Danish study. American Journal of Evaluation, 32(3), 324–344.
NVRR. (s.a.). Nederlandse Vereniging van Rekenkamers en Rekenkamercommissies (Online library). www.nvrr.nl/bibliotheek. Accessed on 28 February 2019.
Panel van Advies IOB. (2011, 2013, 2014). Eerste, tweede en derde advies van het panel van advies. The Hague: Inspectie Ontwikkelingssamenwerking en beleidsevaluatie. www.rijksoverheid.nl/ministeries/ministerie-van-buitenlandse-zaken/inhoud/organisatie/beleidsevaluatie/panel-van-advies. Accessed on 28 February 2019.
Pater, C., Sligte, H., & Van Eck, E. (2012). Verklarende evaluatie, een methodiek. Amsterdam: Kohnstamm Instituut.
Romijn, G., & Renes, G. (2013). Algemene leidraad voor maatschappelijke kosten-batenanalyse. The Hague: Centraal Planbureau, Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving. www.mkba-informatie.nl/index.php/download_file/force/241/456/. Accessed on 28 February 2019.
Rijksacademie voor Financiën, Economie en Bedrifsvoering. (2017). Maatwerkcursus Beleidsdoorlichtingen. https://www.rijksacademie.nl/. Accessed on 28 February 2019.
TIER. (2011). De evidence based beleidsmaker en toezichthouder: Een master voor professionals in evidence based policy and evaluation. www.tierweb.nl/assets/files/UM/TA/MEPE%20brochure%20nov.2011(1).pdf. Accessed on 28 February 2019.
Tweede Kamer. (2017). Over de Tweede Kamer. www.tweedekamer.nl/over_de_tweede_kamer. Accessed on 28 February 2019.
Uylenburg, R., de Boer, J., Peeters, M. G. W. M., & Oosterhuis, F. H. (2011). Het STEM-geluid bij de evaluatie van milieuwetgeving. Arnhem: STEM Publicatie, 2011/1. https://dare.uva.nl/search?identifier=d9393ced-70b1-43ba-81e8-a169f6b30a0d. Accessed on 28 February 2019.
Van der Laan, A. M., Beijaard, F., Geurts, T., Kalidien, S. N., & Van Straalen, E. K. (2013). Self-evaluation, Research and Documentation Centre (WODC) Ministry of Security and Justice (2006–2012). The Hague: WODC. https://www.wodc.nl/binaries/zelfevaluatie-wodc-2006-2012_tcm28-92074.pdf. Accessed on 28 February 2019.
Van Gils, G., & Leeuw, F. L. (2010). Leren van evalueren: Onderzoek naar het gebruik van evaluatieonderzoek bij het Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken. The Hague: Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Volkskrant. (2017). Burgemeester Aboutaleb loopt onnodig groot veiligheidsrisico. www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/burgemeester-aboutaleb-loopt-onnodig-groot-veiligheidsrisico~a4483405/. Accessed on 28 February 2019.
ZonMw, Commissie Evaluatie Regelgeving. (2013). Brochure Programma Evaluatie Regelgeving. The Hague: ZonMw. www.zonmw.nl/nl/onderzoek-resultaten/kwaliteit-van-zorg/programmas/programma-detail/evaluatie-regelgeving/. Accessed on 28 February 2019.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Overview of interviews and key informants in the recent evaluation capacity study regarding Dutch central policy departments (Klein Haarhuis 2016).
Department | Division | Date (2015) |
|---|---|---|
Foreign Affairs Development co-operation | IOB | 2 September |
Internal Affairs | Financial-economic division (FEZ) together with Knowledge division DG Wonen en Bouwen | 13 October |
Economic Affairs | FEZ/BEC DG Enterprise and Innovation—Regiegroep M&E (later BAT) Division of General economic policy (AEP) Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) Legislation and legal affairs (5 pers.) | 15 July |
Finance | Inspectie der Rijksfinanciën (IRF), Bureau Strategic Analysis (2 officials) | 26 August |
Infrastructure and the Environment | Legal Affairs main division (HBJZ) (2 officials) and | 16 July |
FEZ (Finance, Management and Control—FMC) | 24 August | |
Another official HBJZ | ||
Education | Knowledge division (3 officials) | 1 July |
Research co-ordinator DG for Higher Education | 26 August | |
Legislation and legal affairs division (DWJZ) | 14 July (e-mail and telephone) | |
Social Affairs | FEZ and Knowledge division, DG SZI | 15 July |
Justice and Security | WODC (EWB, 4 officials) and top management | 8 June, 20 October 15 June (telephone) |
Research co-ordinator | 11 August | |
Official involved in previous large evaluation of administrative law Policy official | 25 August | |
Health and Sports | FEZ | 15 September |
Commission for the Evaluation of laws and regulations (CER) at ZonMw | 8 April | |
Other | ||
National Audit Office | 2 officials | 1 September |
Council of State | Official, telephone communication | 24 November |
Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) | Top management | 16 November |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Klein Haarhuis, C. (2020). The Netherlands. In: Stockmann, R., Meyer, W., Taube, L. (eds) The Institutionalisation of Evaluation in Europe . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32284-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32284-7_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-32283-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-32284-7
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)