This aims to strengthen capability for evaluating how central administrative agencies assess policies. To that end, the article provides problems of how central administrative agencies evaluate policies and improvements. Meta-analysis, which e... This aims to strengthen capability for evaluating how central administrative agencies assess policies. To that end, the article provides problems of how central administrative agencies evaluate policies and improvements. Meta-analysis, which evaluates the entire assessment process, diagnoses limits of evaluations, utilizes the information and makes sure policy analysis properly performs. Meta-evaluation not only checks analysis results but also systematically evaluates the assessment system―including evaluating environment, results, and information. This analysis can find out the characteristics of something in common and different about central administrative agencies' policy review. Meta-analysis of central administrative agencies' policy assessment is useful since it can help conduct a comparative analysis of policy assessment―such as its methods, indicate and direction. To that end, the utilized policy enforcement infrastructure to determine which policy assessments would be used and categorized into five types. And the article selected Foreign Policy evaluation and Multicultural Family Policy evaluation among type-Ⅴ policies. That's because the two policies are similar in applied groups and related to many center administrative agencies. In order to analyse meta-evaluation, the article drew an indicator of detailed evaluation and assessment model used for the pre-study. It also verified the validity of them using the Delphi method, involving experts. As a result, the determined five evaluation areas, the fifteen models and twenty-five detailed evaluation indicators; and conducted an analysis on meta-evaluation. The analysis result showed that the two policy assessments have three things in common: First, they state a legal basis for evaluations applicable to a law and their targets are related to the city master plan. Second, there are personnel and organizations only for evaluations. But, the annual budget for evaluating the two policies is not established by central administrative agencies. There are no appraisees' opinions on evaluation results and prior education on assessment. Third, the policy assessments are undisclosed. Fourth, no incentive is provided. There are no advantages ―such as add points, fiscal effects―nor disadvantages caused by evaluation results, causing indifference. The result also said differences between the two policy assessments: First, they have guidelines on evaluations but they have different features. Foreign Policy evaluation have a guideline on independent appraisals, affecting a purpose, interested parties, and an index of evaluation. But, Multicultural Family Policy evaluation have a guideline on how to establish next year's master plan that partly includes evaluations on policies. It makes it difficult to clearly identify evaluation items above. Second, the two policy evaluations are different in time. Unlike the policy assessments of foreigners, the Multicultural Family Policy evaluation can be reflected in next year's budgets. Third, Foreign Policy evaluation have institutional regulations on using results but no systems of reviewing inspections on performance. On the other hand, Multicultural Family Policy evaluation has no institutional regulations but been checked about performance by external evaluation institutes. Central administrative agencies need to strengthen capability for evaluating policies by complementing the following details: Central administrative agencies should ⅰ) clarify institutional regulations on policy assessment by devising an independent evaluation guideline of evaluating policies; ⅱ) enhance reliability of evaluation by educating and communicating with appraisees; ⅲ) establish evaluation index fit for purposes; ⅳ) introduce institutional regulations on using evaluation results; ⅴ) open the result to the public; ⅵ) provide incentives for excellent evaluation institutes or policy makers, fostering motivation and interest in assessment. ，韩语毕业论文，韩语论文 |
