Using evidence in shaping disability policy in Romania: the case of sheltered workshops

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Petrescu ◽  
Mihaela Lambru
Keyword(s):  
Public Administration ◽  
Disability Policy ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Employment Policy ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
Sheltered Workshops ◽  
Evidence Based Policy ◽  
Work Integration ◽  
Disability Employment ◽  
The Impact

Background: The importance of using evidence to inform the policymaking process has been well established in the literature and practice. In Western countries evidence-based policy (EBP) is already accepted and implemented in many policy areas, including disability policy. In Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) the interest in EBP (evidence-based policy) is new and limited, hampered in many aspects by the regional specificity of the public administration and welfare services reform.Aims and objectives: The present article aims to explore the development of evidence-based disability employment policy in Romania, in a specific area of work integration: sheltered workshops.Methods: The article draws on the findings of extensive research on sheltered workshops that included multiple research methods, such as public policy analysis, social documents analysis, and secondary data analysis of quantitative and qualitative data.Findings: A number of issues concerning the implementation of evidence-based disability policy in Romania have been identified. Some of these issues are related to the administrative and policy capacity of the government. Others are linked to the limitation of the advocacy capacity of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) active in the disability area, or to the weak presence of the academic/research community in the disability policy forum.Discussion and conclusions: There is a limited knowledge of how evidence-based disability policy is developed in CEE countries. This article will emphasise the role of the sheltered workshops in shaping the policy solutions in the area of work integration for persons with disabilities. The article will contribute to better understanding of the disability policy reform, looking closely at how the evidence is built and used within the disability policy process.<br />Key messages<br /><ul><li>The paper explores pathways of evidence use to support decisions on disability policy in Romania.</li><br /><li>The disability reform in Romania is influenced by Welfare State and Public Administration reform, EU integration process, EU Disability Action Plans (DAPs) and the signing of the UN Convention of Persons with Disabilities.</li><br /><li>The social economy framework has influenced the employment opportunities for persons with disabilities. The sheltered workshops have become an important actor in promoting work integration for people with disability. Also the sheltered workshops have an important role in modernising evidence-based disability employment policy</li><br /><li>The lack of statistical data and relevant knowledge about what works, and the impact on the integration of people with disabilities, is impeding the development of both disability rights and disability services, and has determined the adoption of policy decisions that have profoundly affected work integration in this area.</li></ul>

The search for impact in British probation: from programmes to skills and implementation

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Raynor
Keyword(s):  
Evidence Based ◽  
Quantitative Methodology ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Qualitative And Quantitative ◽  
What Works ◽  
Evidence Based Policy ◽  
History Of ◽  
Evaluative Research ◽  
The Impact

Social scientists have often had difficulty evaluating the impact of probation services, partly because expectations and political circumstances change and partly because appropriate methodologies have been slow to develop. This chapter outlines the history of evaluative research on probation. It describes the limitations of early probation research which led to erroneous conclusions that ‘nothing works’, and goes on to show how more recent research has been based on a fuller understanding of practitioner inputs through research on programmes, skills and implementation. This is starting to lead to a better understanding of which practices are effective (‘What Works’). The chapter advocates a mixed qualitative and quantitative methodology for evaluative research which combines understanding, measurement and comparison. Finally, it points to some risks to evidence-based policy which arise from current populism and post-truth politics.

Diagnosis and prognosis of Australia&s health information for evidence-based policy

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 40-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kees Van Gool ◽  
Emily Lancsar ◽  
Rosalie Viney ◽  
Jane Hall ◽  
Philip Haywood
Keyword(s):  
Health Information ◽  
Waiting Times ◽  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Waiting Lists ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Cost Shifting ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Evidence Based Policy ◽  
The Impact

Without adequate information it is difficult to determine the success or failure of health policies. This paper assesses the adequacy of Australia&s health information for evidence-based policy. Three policy areas are analysed: the impact of changing the public and private health financing mix; waiting lists and waiting times; and pooling of funds. In each, the issue is analysed to identify the key policy questions, the available data and existing analyses are examined, and gaps in data availability and analysis are assessed. There is variability in the extent and usefulness of current health information. In terms of the impact of changing the financing mix, there is good information on the distribution of finance, but much less available on comparative use or efficiency of public and private hospitals. There is comprehensive information available on waiting lists and waiting times but little analysis of the implications of this for equity of access or the costs and benefits of reducing waiting times. There is insufficient information for the development of the capitation based formulae required for the introduction of the pooling of funds, nor enough information to assess the extent and impact of current cost-shifting which might be addressed by pooling funds. While the concept of evidence-based medicine has been embraced with regard to specific treatment decisions, there has not been a parallel investment in the use of evidence to drive policy decisions.

scholarly journals Introduction to 2021-1

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anders Buch
Keyword(s):  
Public Management ◽  
New Public Management ◽  
Employment Policy ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
Apparent Lack ◽  
Policy Documents ◽  
Cost Cutting ◽  
New Public ◽  
Disability Employment

In this first issue of Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies in 2021, we have compiled six articles and one book review. The first article, Leading the Way? State Empoyers’ Engagement with a Disability Employment Policy, by Kaja Larsen Østerud, investigates governmental labor market attempts to integrate persons with disabilities in Norway. Specifically, the study addresses policy documents and analyzes interviews with state employers to investigate their engagement with the policy. Østerud concludes that even though the employers recognize the importance of the policy, their engagement to enact it is passive and forged with obstacles. Mainly, the New Public Management discourse of productivity standards and cost-cutting, combined with an apparent lack of disabled applicants, makes state employers reluctant to actively promote the implementation of the policy (...)

Advocacy for Evidence-Based Policy-Making in Public Health: Experiences and the Way Forward

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-94
Author(s):  
Deepshikha Chhetri ◽  
Fernando Zacarias
Keyword(s):  
Policy Making ◽  
Health Service Delivery ◽  
Health Impact ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Political Commitment ◽  
Positive Health ◽  
Policy Action ◽  
Evidence Based Policy ◽  
The People ◽  
The Impact

Evidence-informed policy action has improved the health of populations for decades; however, in many contexts, there is limited evidence that it does, mostly because of shortcomings in the process of policy-making. Evidence-based policy-making assists in making decisions about projects and programmes at every stage by using evidence to inform the policy process, rather than directly targeting the objectives of the policy. Although health policy in itself is defined distinctively by experts, it encompasses aspects of ‘public policy in health’ and ‘health in all policies’. By focussing on factors like laws and regulations, and by gaining political commitment for a specific goal, health policies and the resulting programmes can be changed and improved to enhance the health of communities. This process first involves the identification and description of the problem and the evidence-based interventions to solve it. While planning policy, the major actors involved should be identified but all stakeholders should participate in this process. Policy change requires a pragmatic shift in the rules to allow new ways of doing things, deriving programmes with stronger measures, or revising standards for a positive health outcome. These changes involve a very complex process as policymakers need to think of various factors which influence their decision-making, such as evidence of feasibility, stakeholders’ priorities, health impact, socio-political considerations and their effect on the process, and efforts of advocacy groups. A mechanism needs to be developed to evaluate the impact of current policies and every effort should be made to include evidence and research findings in the formulation of new and improved policies, for better health service delivery and to improve the health of the people.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document