Evaluation tools
of public policies

For deinstitutionalization
and promotion of autonomy

Evaluation tool
of public policies on homelessness

The lessons learned from the innovation projects on homelessness, Housing Rights and H4Y FUTURE, have shown the need to provide public administrations with effective tools to evaluate and improve their policies. In this context, this public policy evaluation tool focused on the deinstitutionalization and promotion of the autonomy of people experiencing homelessness is born. This tool seeks to measure how public policies facilitate social inclusion and empowerment of people, promoting their ability to make decisions and control their lives.

Aware of the tendency towards path dependence or institutional inertia in public administrations, the evaluation of public policies is presented as a possible tool for administrations to measure the degree of institutionalization and promotion of autonomy of public policies related to homelessness. It is intended to facilitate the evaluation of the degree to which their policies contribute to social inclusion and people's autonomy.

Why this tool
Institutionalization implies that people are dependent on systems and structures that limit their autonomy and freedom. Focusing policies towards deinstitutionalization is necessary to empower people, promoting their ability to make informed decisions and live independently.
What this tool is for
This document serves to evaluate and improve public policies related to homelessness, ensuring that they promote people's autonomy and social inclusion. When in this tool we talk about public policy, we refer to any action or activity that public administrations take to address a need or solve a problem, therefore, public policies encompass a broad set of actions that can include everything from laws and regulations to direct services provided to people. It is important to note that the focus of this tool is on public policies related to homelessness and does not include services or benefits directed at vulnerable populations in general.
How is it used?
In order to carry out the self-assessment of public policy from a deinstitutionalizing perspective, two forms are proposed, one in-depth and one light.

Light evaluation form

This tool seeks, among other things, to invite reflection on public policies on homelessness. The conditions for forming an evaluation team may not always be available, but this should not be an impediment to using it. This version proposes a review and reflection if the conditions for an in-depth analysis are not possible. Although the analysis is more agile, it is still useful to detect improvements and ensure that public policies are continuously evaluated. Some considerations on this format:

  • Although it is intended to be an individual version, this format can also be applied for separate team reflections ("asynchronous", where each person does his or her own analysis according to his or her own time).
  • Although this approach is less formal, it still allows for the generation of valuable ideas and reflections. The tool is designed to be a support throughout the construction and improvement process, not just a final evaluation. It is a dynamic resource that accompanies daily practice.

Individual reflection:

  • The professional, whether at the technical or managerial level, can reflect on the questions and indicators individually. Reflect on each one based on your experience and knowledge of the context: the objective is to allow a space for self-evaluation, where you can reflect on your daily practices.

2. Rapid review of the policy or program:

  • The person answers the questions directly, based on his or her knowledge and daily experience. If you do not have all the information, you can write down those points that generate doubts or areas where you need to go deeper later.

3. Personal reflection:

  • It is suggested that after each block of indicators, the person reflect on how he or she believes the service or program being evaluated could be improved. This reflection can be written down for later use or shared with colleagues.

4. Scaling and implementation of improvement measures:

  • As this is individual work, the focus of this format is on professional reflection rather than on application. However, it is recommended, if possible, to use the reflections made to generate spaces for reflection with the team or ways of scaling up the learning.

5. Review periodically:

  • It is recommended that the individual revisits the indicators regularly to ensure that he/she remains on track and adjusts his/her practice as needs arise.

In-depth evaluation form

First, an in-depth evaluation is proposed as the ideal scenario for a more complete analysis of public policy. It is suggested that the analysis should be carried out with the participation of a multidisciplinary team. This process makes it possible to measure and identify opportunities for transforming the intervention in homelessness situations.

Create a reflection team:

  • Form a team with people of different profiles (professionals from different areas, managers, etc.). It is essential to include people with direct experience in the subject and professionals from different sectors to obtain a complete and balanced vision. If possible, it is also recommended to invite beneficiaries of the public policy to the team.

2. Individual reading of the document:

  • Each team member should carefully read the public policy to be analyzed and:
  • Decide how you rate each indicator on the rubric.
  • Note the evidence or proof that supports your assessment.
  • Propose concrete actions to improve the areas identified as deficient.
  • If a team member does not have enough information about an indicator, he/she should discuss it with the team during the sharing.
  • Team members can meet by profile (e.g., technicians, managers) to work on the document and gather their input prior to the joint meeting.

3. Sharing:

  • The team meets to share and reflect on each indicator, discussing evidence, doubts and suggestions.
  • The objective is to reach an agreement and establish a joint assessment as a team. The evidence and improvement actions proposed by each member should also be documented and an action plan for improving public policy should be drawn up.

4. Digitization and report generation:

  • Use the digital assessment tool to enter consensus ratings for each indicator.
  • The digital tool will process the data and generate an automatic report that includes:
  • A summary of the ratings obtained.
  • Documented evidence and suggestions for improvement.
  • An analysis of the areas requiring attention and the strengths of the evaluated policy.

5. Implementation of improvement measures:

  • Implement improvement measures as planned, monitoring progress and adjusting actions as necessary to ensure the success of the plan.
EVALUATION BEGINS