La evaluación de lo público: prácticas y comunicación en las instituciones públicas costarricenses / Evaluation of public matters: practices and communication in Costa Rican public institutions

IF 0.3 Q4 COMMUNICATION
Diana Acosta-Salazar
{"title":"La evaluación de lo público: prácticas y comunicación en las instituciones públicas costarricenses / Evaluation of public matters: practices and communication in Costa Rican public institutions","authors":"Diana Acosta-Salazar","doi":"10.5783/rirp-22-2021-07-119-136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The evaluation was not until a little more than two decades ago a relevant matter for public activity, concentrated in execution and guided by intuition, public approval or some data to record success in government work. This story has changed due to an increasingly demanding national and international context requiering transparency of public actions, efficiency in activities that each government in turn prioritizes, and of course, the effectiveness of what is proposed. The practice of evaluation in the Costa Rican state system is governed by an exhaustive normative and procedural framework. However, this platform has not necessarily ruled the execution of communication in the institutions. According to a study performed out in Costa Rican institutions between 2019-2020, first with a mapping of the communication units carried out with a survey (43) examining their operation, projects they execute and some evaluation practices they carry out; lack of rigorous evaluation practices were identified. Furthermore, these units there has no obligation to carry out operational planning of their annual activities, to apply systematic evaluations, nor are they obliged to prepare reports on the work carried out. Subsequently, an inquiry was conducted through interviews (22) with planning heads of the institutions and governing bodies to learn about the evaluation regulations, the formats and platforms used, inter-institutional link for evaluation and the scope of the mandatory nature of this function. The results suggest that the praxis of the units is dominated by the macro-institutional planning exercise that uses matrices and quantitative formats that record compliance but do not evaluate effects, changes, or impact of their activities, which reduces visibility of the public value provided by state sector, and to which is also added the work accomplish by the communication units. The true evaluation in the State is limited to a few government projects registered within the National Development Plan and not to a daily action in the entire state system. Some of the planning offices even indicate that neither planning, and even less evaluation, constitute a resource that is considered as strategic, conversely, they are seen more as an operational, compliance and organization resource, and for the different areas the filling of matrices and formats to record the execution of their tasks is an additional burden. In fact, one of the difficulties raised by these offices is the planning of their annual programs with objectives that can be evaluated, a position that is also recognized by the Contraloria General de la Republica (Comptroller General of the Republic), which indicates the absence, in a relevant percentage, of objectives in public institution programs. For the communication units, this set of practices produces inertia in the communicative action, little or no influence of the communication units in the institutional decision-making process, and an operational focus on execution, which reduces their strategic role. It is also clear that there is a predominance in the use of techniques and tools for reporting results in communication that does not correspond to evaluation, measurement is used with greater emphasis, and even in some cases the use of reportings which not apply to neither of the two processes.","PeriodicalId":42959,"journal":{"name":"Revista Internacional de Relaciones Publicas","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Internacional de Relaciones Publicas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5783/rirp-22-2021-07-119-136","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The evaluation was not until a little more than two decades ago a relevant matter for public activity, concentrated in execution and guided by intuition, public approval or some data to record success in government work. This story has changed due to an increasingly demanding national and international context requiering transparency of public actions, efficiency in activities that each government in turn prioritizes, and of course, the effectiveness of what is proposed. The practice of evaluation in the Costa Rican state system is governed by an exhaustive normative and procedural framework. However, this platform has not necessarily ruled the execution of communication in the institutions. According to a study performed out in Costa Rican institutions between 2019-2020, first with a mapping of the communication units carried out with a survey (43) examining their operation, projects they execute and some evaluation practices they carry out; lack of rigorous evaluation practices were identified. Furthermore, these units there has no obligation to carry out operational planning of their annual activities, to apply systematic evaluations, nor are they obliged to prepare reports on the work carried out. Subsequently, an inquiry was conducted through interviews (22) with planning heads of the institutions and governing bodies to learn about the evaluation regulations, the formats and platforms used, inter-institutional link for evaluation and the scope of the mandatory nature of this function. The results suggest that the praxis of the units is dominated by the macro-institutional planning exercise that uses matrices and quantitative formats that record compliance but do not evaluate effects, changes, or impact of their activities, which reduces visibility of the public value provided by state sector, and to which is also added the work accomplish by the communication units. The true evaluation in the State is limited to a few government projects registered within the National Development Plan and not to a daily action in the entire state system. Some of the planning offices even indicate that neither planning, and even less evaluation, constitute a resource that is considered as strategic, conversely, they are seen more as an operational, compliance and organization resource, and for the different areas the filling of matrices and formats to record the execution of their tasks is an additional burden. In fact, one of the difficulties raised by these offices is the planning of their annual programs with objectives that can be evaluated, a position that is also recognized by the Contraloria General de la Republica (Comptroller General of the Republic), which indicates the absence, in a relevant percentage, of objectives in public institution programs. For the communication units, this set of practices produces inertia in the communicative action, little or no influence of the communication units in the institutional decision-making process, and an operational focus on execution, which reduces their strategic role. It is also clear that there is a predominance in the use of techniques and tools for reporting results in communication that does not correspond to evaluation, measurement is used with greater emphasis, and even in some cases the use of reportings which not apply to neither of the two processes.
公共评估:哥斯达黎加公共机构的实践和传播/公共事务评估:哥斯达黎加公共机构的实践和传播
直到二十多年前,评价还是一个与公共活动相关的事情,集中在执行上,以直觉、公众认可或一些数据为指导,记录政府工作的成功。这个故事已经改变了,因为越来越多的国家和国际环境要求公共行动的透明度,每个政府轮流优先考虑的活动的效率,当然还有提议的有效性。哥斯达黎加国家制度中的评价做法是由详尽的规范和程序框架指导的。然而,这个平台并不一定统治了机构传播的执行。根据2019-2020年期间在哥斯达黎加各机构进行的一项研究,首先绘制了传播单位的地图,并进行了一项调查(43),审查了它们的业务、执行的项目和一些评估做法;发现缺乏严格的评价做法。此外,这些单位没有义务对其年度活动进行业务规划,没有义务进行有系统的评价,也没有义务就所进行的工作编写报告。随后,通过与各机构和理事机构的规划主管面谈(22次)进行了调查,以了解评价条例、使用的格式和平台、机构间评价联系以及这一职能的强制性范围。结果表明,这些单位的实践受到宏观制度规划工作的支配,这些规划工作使用矩阵和定量格式来记录遵守情况,但不评估其活动的效果、变化或影响,这降低了国有部门提供的公共价值的可见性,并且还增加了通信单位完成的工作。国家真正的评估仅限于在国家发展计划内登记的几个政府项目,而不是整个国家系统的日常行动。有些规划办公室甚至指出,规划,更不用说评价,都不构成被认为是战略性的资源,相反,它们更多地被视为业务、遵守和组织资源,对于不同领域,填写记录其任务执行情况的表格和格式是额外的负担。事实上,这些办公室提出的困难之一是他们的年度计划的目标是可以评估的,这一立场也得到了共和国总审计长(Contraloria General de la Republica)的认可,这表明在一定比例的公共机构计划中缺乏目标。对于传播单位来说,这一套做法在传播行动中产生了惯性,传播单位在制度决策过程中几乎没有影响,并且将业务重点放在执行上,从而降低了它们的战略作用。同样明显的是,在通信中使用的报告结果的技术和工具占主导地位,而这些技术和工具与评价不相符,更强调使用测量,甚至在某些情况下使用的报告不适用于这两个过程中的任何一个。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
25.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
4 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信