Dutch municipalities and provinces have been obliged to have an audit office or audit office function for about 20 years. How does the audit office work nowadays and what contribution does it make to decentralized administration? That is the question at the center of this article. To this end, the authors list the available knowledge about audit offices or committees and present the results of their own analysis of 982 audit reports from 234 audit offices or committees from 308 Dutch municipalities. The audit office or committee has been institutionalized in the vast majority of municipalities and in all provinces. Council members are increasingly less likely to (also) be members of this board and the output has increased slightly from approximately one to an average of one and a half surveys per year. Where initially mainly business management-oriented subjects were examined, some broadening to more policy-related themes has taken place. Municipal councilors are quite satisfied with their audit office or committee. At the same time, the actual social effects of policy are rarely measured in audit institutions. Moreover, council members make little use of audit reports in controlling the municipal board, and audit offices or committees also add little to their framework-setting role. Little is known about the extent to which the research of the audit offices makes a more objective contribution to the administration and strengthening of the functioning of the municipal council, which is also a theme for future research.

In the more than 15 years that decentralized audit offices have existed in the Netherlands, little attention has been paid to the research methods they use. This article focuses on how the research methods used by decentralized audit offices have developed and to what extent they use new technology. New technology has changed a lot in 15 years, which offers new possibilities for research, but also raises new questions. Based on an empirical analysis of audit reports, it can be concluded that decentralized audit offices adopt a standard approach to document and file analysis and interviews, with only limited application of innovative technology. On the basis of a theoretical exploration of the relevant literature and a simple qualitative analysis of research by the Netherlands Court of Audit and the Rathenau Institute, a framework has been developed in which the opportunities and risks of the application of new technology in decentralized audit office research are described. This can provide a handle for future application. Decentralized audit offices can use this for (more) reflection on their research methods and innovation, in order to develop to maturity while remaining young.

In maart 2020 verscheen het boek Beleidsevaluatie in theorie en praktijk van Peter van der Knaap, Valérie Pattyn en Dick Hanemaayer. Joost Fledderus bespreekt de inhoud van het boek en geeft aan welke meerwaarde het biedt voor (aankomende) beleidsonderzoekers.

The Dutch central government has a long history in its search to meaningfully present policy effects. One of the instruments that was developed to this end is the Policy Conclusion (beleidsconclusie). This part of the annual report, which has been mandatory since 2013, should provide a judgement for every policy article on its results in the year 2017. To what extent has the Policy Conclusion been successful in its aims? And how do various governmental departments give substance to it? For this article, all policy conclusions that were composed for the most recent reporting year were examined. Among others, our analysis shows that departments differ greatly in their interpretation of what the Policy Conclusion should include, such as the usage of sources and the way in which intended results are (re)addressed. In addition, it was found in the Policy Conclusions that a tendency exists to put a strong focus on positive outcomes.

Regularly, doubts about the independence of research leads to heated discussion. This is especially true if things have gone wrong. This issue explores the question how research organizations and researchers can defend themselves against improper influence: the conscious and active pursuit of too positive research results by commissioners or government officials. This article outlines a number of dimensions of how establishing good, independent research can be structured in a systematic and sensible manner. Independent inquiry manifests itself in position, judgment, and appearance or image. Institutional safeguards form the basis for professional roles and responsibilities that can fulfill the requirements of independent research in the political arena.

Citizens and scholars excel in identifying and analysing government failure. It is important indeed to understand public sector, but while governments in the Low Countries are doing well on average and very well from an internationally perspective, most attention is focused on the errors and mishaps. This article argues for a robust positive perspective on the public sector as a complement to existing research. From a scientific perspective, public administration must set itself the ambition to connect and aggregate existing positive insights even better. From a social perspective, the discipline must prevent the gap from being filled by a wholesale rejection of democratic government or the use of unproven miracle cures. This article elaborates the starting points for Positive Public Administration, arguing that this perspective should be comprehensive, context related, inter-subjective, learning-oriented, and robustly scientific in nature. The article also introduces the other contributions in this special issue, which together give an initial interpretation of positive public administration.

New insights from the field of positive psychology led to the insight that people learn more effectively from positive feedback. Policy evaluation aims to improve public policy programmes through contributing to both accountability and learning. This ambiguous ambition has contributed to a considerable body of research into the impact of policy evaluation. Too often the conclusion is that the outcomes of policy evaluations – which are often negative by nature – are sparsely used by policy makers. This has led to series of improvements in the way we carry out evaluations. First through technical improvements and then by more responsive approaches. Both have not led to the desired breakthrough. Building on a number of positive evaluation studies, we advance a more positive approach in policy evaluation. Focussing on the successes in policy programmes rather than on its failures may contribute to evaluation impact. Consequently, we think a more positive, appreciative approach and using data to find success in policy making is necessary for policy evaluators to be more effective. This article presents practical examples of positive policy evaluations and successful use of data in the domain of policy evaluation.

Lack of safety leading to death or injury has many aspects: personal violence, traffic, accidents at home or the work place, not to mention other external sources as radiation and fine dust or internal sources like diseases. In this paper we restrict ourselves to the lack of safety in traffic as a system, and address the following questions: (1) Is traffic a system with one dominant responsible actor (Ministry of Traffic)? (2) What explanations are offered for the lack of safety? (3) Who is responsible for safety? (4) What sort of interventions are suitable for enhancing safety? and (5) What type of process/consultancy is most appropriate for answer the preceding questions?
The paper arrives at its conclusions via an indirect way, namely a short analysis of what a system comprises and what constitutes an explanation, responsibility and effectiveness. It appears that we are all causally involved in the lack of safety, and we are all responsible at all levels of society: micro-individual, meso-organizational and macro-societal. Therefore a promising route to maximize safety is a governance perspective comprising multiple stakeholder co-responsibility. It remains to be seen whether this perspective should replace the predominant command and control governance or complement it.

De positieve benadering van evaluatie in relatie tot het bereiken van succes is een frisse wind. Het wordt inderdaad tijd dat evaluatoren gebruikers meer helpen en stimuleren om van (beleids)ervaringen te leren. En: dat geëvalueerden zich daarvoor vanaf het begin openstellen. Aandachtspunt is wel dat de evaluator daarbij zijn of haar waardevolle kritische (kennis)blik niet verliest.

Policy evaluation has two main functions: it should lead to policy oriented learning and facilitate accountability. Rendering account is considered an important democratic duty but is not very popular with politicians and, hence, public officials. Learning is popular, but in practice it is often difficult to organize or, indeed, witness.
This contribution addresses the question how, in both functions, policy evaluation could be better utilized. As a starting point we the tension between scientific and political rationality and the barriers associated with these different worlds to the development of knowledge.
As indispensable for sound and productive knowledge management in government the article outlines the importance of societal values, policy effectiveness as a research angle, and the independence of researchers at major evaluations. In addition, relevant research questions, high methodological quality, responsiveness, good timing, and clear and accessible reporting are indispensable. It is argued that these are by no means abstract notions but can be brought into real day-to-day practice.
The conclusion is that a knowledge agenda for policy evaluation that is based on the search for effective policy interventions and societal values can help to bridge politics and science.

One of the classic issues in literature on policy evaluation is that of utilization: how can we make sure the results of evaluative inquiry are used more and better? Traditionally, the answer to this question is often searched in improvement of evaluation quality (accuracy, reliability, independence of the researcher) or evaluation processes (more interaction and responsiveness). Although these are and remain crucial elements for any evaluation, the focus remains on the supply side of evaluation. The psychological insight that people tend to learn more from positive feedback and success is not taken into account.
In this article, we ask whether and how a more positive form of evaluation may contribute to a more effective cycle of learning and accountability. What if – instead of failure, compliance, and accountability – the main focus of monitoring and evaluative inquiry would be to identify and foster achievements that were successful and effective? How would such a positive approach look like and how can it help the actual utilization and usefulness of evaluation? On the basis of theory and international case studies the article describes how focusing on the positive elements of policy and/or implementation may contribute to the demand for and utilization of evaluations.

Een lerende overheid heeft behoefte aan beleidsevaluaties die niet alleen van betekenis zijn voor het onderwerp waarop deze primair gericht zijn, maar ook bijdragen aan bredere, systematische opbouw van kennis en ervaring. Het interdepartementaal verbinden van expertise verruimt daarbij het zicht op factoren die het leren bevorderen of belemmeren.
Een centrale vraag is of de door het beleid beoogde publieke belangen inderdaad bevorderd worden. Beleidsevaluatie moet dan niet alleen gericht zijn op effectiviteit en doelmatigheid ten aanzien van relatief gemakkelijk meetbare indicatoren, maar ook op lastig te kwantificeren essentiële waarden zoals subjectief welzijn, rechtvaardigheid en maatschappelijke aanvaardbaarheid. Het verdient aanbeveling kostbare evaluatie-energie te concentreren op belangrijke kwesties waarover vooraf discussie of onzekerheid bestaat.
Uit een oogpunt van doelmatige beleidsvoorbereiding, en omdat de uitwerking van wetgeving en beleid ex post niet altijd eenvoudig is vast te stellen, is veel aandacht nodig voor ex ante evaluatie. Van onderzoek naar werkingsmechanismen van beleidsmaatregelen wordt in dit verband terecht veel verwacht.
Er is sprake van een paradoxaal spanningsveld tussen verwetenschappelijking en politisering van beleid. Daarom is stevig verankerde, onafhankelijke en onpartijdige beleidsevaluatie onmisbaar. Hoge methodologische kwaliteit biedt extra houvast om deze functie geloofwaardig te kunnen vervullen.
In het streven naar systematische opbouw van kennis en ervaring naast dossier-specifieke doelbereiking kan het helpen als evaluaties zowel een specifiek als een breder geldend algemeen deel bevatten. Belangrijk is ook te sturen op een evenwichtige evaluatieportfolio per beleidsterrein, met aandacht voor ex ante en ex post methoden, uiteenlopende waarden, en verschillende informatiebronnen. Naast best practices moet daarbij ook minder geslaagd beleid in beeld worden gebracht. Voor de bruikbaarheid van evaluaties voor de praktijk is goede vertegenwoordiging van het bottom-up perspectief noodzakelijk.
Evaluatie van beleid vereist gedegen inbedding binnen de nationale kennisinfrastructuur, effectieve samenwerking met kennisinstellingen en het up-to-date houden van het evalueren zelf. Dat is cruciaal voor het evaluatievermogen van de lerende overheid.

On April 8^th 2015, Jan Schrijver got his PhD at Maastricht University (Arno Korsten was his doctoral thesis supervisor) on research into 40 years of Dutch administrative policy (1969 to 2009). This period largely coincided with his career as a senior civil servant (1976 to 2003). The expectation often predicted in Public Administration was that a shift from government to governance (from cockpit thinking to a network society) would occur in the dominant administrative theory. However, this shift was not detected in the Departments of Home Affairs and Agriculture during the research period. In the literature on Dutch local administration, qualitative (and often ambivalent) information is generally to be found. On the one hand, this literature emphasizes the inevitability of this shift and offers a lot of case descriptions. On the other hand, Dutch handbooks on local administration devote little attention to this development and contain many views that point to stubborn administrative methods employed by old-style governors. The author concludes that Dutch national administration converges to one firm, while local administration diverges into a leading group of municipalities and a group of followers.