PL03 EVALUATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICIES AT WORK
Authors: Pimbert Stéphane 
Published: July 2024

Abstract
The purpose of evaluating public policies is to determine whether the means implemented make it possible to produce the expected effects of this policy and achieve the objectives assigned to it.
The evaluation of public policies consists of making a value judgment on a given intervention, in particular by questioning its relevance and effectiveness.
In everyday language, the word evaluation refers to two notions: measurement and judgment.
Better management of public money and accountability for its use are imperative for budgetary reasons, but also in a society where transparency requirements are becoming more pressing.
The evaluation of public policies is attracting growing interest from public institutions, decision-making circles, researchers, and more generally in civil society. In all areas, whether health, education or work, it is now a question of designing policies informed by evidence.
The objective sought through the evaluation process is in this case to be able to demonstrate the contribution of an organization to the prevention of occupational risks and the improvement of health and safety at work.
We will talk about evaluating the impact of actions carried out in terms of prevention.
It is therefore a question of being interested in the effects produced by the achievements and prevention actions produced by the organization. We are talking about the effects in terms of prevention, therefore in companies and on workers. It is not simply a question of evaluating the action of the prevention organization, but also and above all of evaluating the actions implemented in companies and their effects on the health of workers. In other words, it is not a question of evaluating the number of prevention brochures distributed to companies or the number of connections to the prevention organization's website, but rather of the recommendations implemented in companies and their effects in terms of prevention. In other words, it is not a question of knowing how many information documents have been distributed, but rather of knowing whether companies and workers have read them, whether it has brought them anything, whether they have changed their practices accordingly, and whether this has had a beneficial effect for companies and their employees in terms of health and safety at work.
The questions we ask ourselves in this process of evaluating prevention actions are the following: what happened? Did we do well? What was the real impact of prevention actions? Are the effects as expected? How to do better?
Evaluation differs from different forms of control and audit in that it is mainly interested in the effects of actions on beneficiaries and not on the functioning of a service or organization.
Nor is it an approach based on claims and the evolution of statistics on work accidents and occupational illnesses, which would be a reductive and truncated vision of the evaluation of the prevention actions carried out.
The evaluation process aims to question the relevance and effectiveness of occupational risk prevention actions carried out with the aim of contributing to prevention, and to analyze as objectively as possible how they contribute to improving health and safety at work.
Prevention institutes have decided, under the leadership of their management bodies, to communicate more widely on the added value generated by their organization and on the positive societal impact of their actions, by taking stock of and describing their good practices. evaluation of their policies, strategies or programs.
For a long time, these prevention institutes have multiplied studies and surveys intended to prove the quality and effectiveness of their various research work, training programs, brochures, communication actions, etc. But although a good level of quality and efficiency is important and necessary to achieve the desired results, this is not enough to demonstrate a real contribution to health and safety at work. The institutes then asked themselves how to implement a methodology that would make it possible to continuously evaluate and improve the impact of their policy, strate Evaluate: why and for what purpose?
Making your vision a reality
Taking into account the mission of their organization, the evolution of societal demands in terms of public spending and the way in which government bodies, foundations and charitable associations carried out evaluations in order to explain how they spent the sums collected and for what result, the institutes try to provide proof that their strategic and operational plans meet this mission, and thus demonstrate the relevance of their activities and actions.
Be accountable and provide proof of responsible resource management
Prevention institutes are financed by public funds or by taxes or contributions paid by companies. They must therefore provide proof that their actions and practices are effective, relevant and efficient. Institutes must justify their choices of research topics, demonstrate the effectiveness of their work and explain how the results are transferred to appropriate targets, used and effective.
Demonstrate the social and economic value of actions and respond to societal demand
In a world where increasing importance is given to return on investment, publicly funded organizations face new demands for efficiency, relevance and effectiveness. As the level of funding is increasingly directly linked to these three criteria, the ability to demonstrate the social impact of actions becomes a crucial issue, as well as an ethical objective.
Prevention institutes are subsidized either by companies, by public insurance programs financed by premiums, or directly by the State. Whatever the source of financing, the management of funds must be impeccable. Furthermore, due to the fiscal and accounting pressure exerted today on governments and public organizations, their financial rigor and their performance must be demonstrated and the resources invested must be justified in the eyes of public opinion. Governments and donors tend to view any expenditure as an investment, and therefore choose to invest in institutes based on their performance. We live in an environment where resources are scarce and are the subject of increasing attention.
Performance is generally evaluated according to three criteria: effectiveness (does an organization fulfill its mission well?), efficiency (makes the best use of the resources allocated to it to accomplish its mission?), relevance (the mission of the organization serves still the objectives of the stakeholders?).
This is why the institutes are keen to demonstrate that when they decide on a policy (strategy, research, campaign, implementation), it is not only because they think this choice is right, but also because that they have studied the needs and expectations of interested parties, the needs for prevention, and because they have anticipated the intermediate results and impacts of this policy (strategy, research, campaign, implementation). Finally, they want to assess whether their contribution to improving health and safety at work is real.
Present results, respond to legitimate requests and meet short-term requirements.
Most actions in the field of OSH are carried out over the long term, because their effects on the health and safety of workers are most often manifested over time periods which exceed the duration of an action plan. Improving health and safety at work takes time and goes through several stages – awareness, understanding and ownership, action, impact.
There is therefore an antagonism between, on the one hand, the legitimate and short-term expectations of society and constituents and, on the other hand, the effects, most of the time long-term, of the policies implemented. This is why relying on a suitable methodology is essential to provide convincing, reliable and convincing answers.gy or programs on health and safety at work.