In the Policy Evaluation system in Japan, performance measurement (called “jisseki hyoka” in the system) is most frequently used and the use of program evaluations (“sogo hyoka”) is limited. In this article, the author discusses how we can utilize program evaluations as a means of supplementing performance measurement, by analyzing the case of the United States. Under the framework of GPRA Modernization Act (GPRAMA), program evaluations are being utilized for developing and revising performance goals, for setting performance indicators, and for supporting program reforms.

  Program evaluations could solve part of problems in the Policy Evaluation system in Japan, including the difficulty in setting indicators and non-use of evaluation results.

  Aims of this article are firstly to describe difficult but necessary situations to place program evaluation and methods for constructing effective program models using scientific impact evaluation in the fields of human services including health and social welfare arena solidly in the society of Japan, and secondly to discuss issues and social conditions to promote the approaches.

  We found that the first step and the fundamental point to start formative evaluation approaches for building effective program models is for principal stakeholders, especially practitioners and administrators associated with the program to be sharply conscious of the goal attainment with which the social program fulfills its mission in Japan. We also found it important in the development of evaluation approaches for building effective program models in Japan to conduct result-centered scientific program evaluation, to place emphasis on effective program models including EBPs, and to accumulate evidence of the program models building their database, and to share the information with stakeholders in the society with improving systems for achieving them.n.

  The Japan Evaluation Society approved the Guidelines for the Ethical Conduct of Evaluations in December 2012. As an important feature of professionals is self-governance, this means that evaluators are more matured as a profession. Since other professions have tackled this task for long periods, their efforts can provide useful implications to evaluators. This paper compares financial analysts and evaluators in light of three ethical aspects: theory, institution, and practice.

  Detailed description on situations which may cause ethical problems can improve practical value of the Guidelines but this requires a platform to continuously collect actual cases. Each evaluator has more room for judgment because consensus is hardly made on interpretation and application of ethical codes in this field. As case discussion is a meaningful training, preparation and use of teaching materials for case discussions is an effort worth making.

  This paper discusses how results of policy evaluation are utilized in resource allocation process of government, taking examples of Performance Budgeting practices. More specifically, the paper analyzes practices of “Performance-informed Budgeting (PIB),” and information (performance information and other ones) and methodologies utilized there, by discussing domestic and foreign countries’ examples.

  Practices of PIB well show that, although performance information of specific program/project on effectiveness (results) is fundamental under “Results-based Management,” and therefore plays important role in making decisions on financial resource allocation, the information itself tells nothing about neither increase nor decrease of budget amount. Much other information such as government and/or department priorities, strategies, and more detailed situation of programs/projects is needed to make decision on resource allocation. In other words, under PIB, budget allocation for specific programs/projects is discussed in the context of “allocative efficiency” for realizing government and/or department-level outcomes.

  In implementing PIB, many governments have been introducing “Rating” system that could effectively and efficiently analyze multiple evaluation criteria as a tool for utilizing performance and other information simultaneously in decision-making process. Rating system structurally contains various constraints, however its practical usefulness and effectiveness make it popular among many governments. Practical examples imply rather direct reflection of the rating results into budget decision.

  MSC（Most Significant Change）is a participatory monitoring and evaluation tool widely utilized by international NGOs. Author has analyzed four characteristics of MSC based on literature review and MSC implementation in Bangladesh NGO, considering MSC is effective for learning purpose evaluations of Japanese NGO projects. The four characteristics are as follows: 1）a monitoring and evaluation tool, 2）a participatory evaluation tool, 3）a qualitative analysis tool and 4）means for organizational learning.

  After the MSC practice in Bangladesh, it has been observed that MSC has advantages of participatory evaluation, such as awareness raising, capacity building and mutual understanding of stakeholders and some functions to compensate for limitations of participatory evaluation, such as “validity” and “representativeness” to some extent.

  Furthermore, regular implementation from the beginning of project and staff capacity building like interview skill training are important for better MSC implementations.

  In order to make MSC more utilized by Japanese NGOs in future, further study is needed, such as to consider about importance of evaluation using MSC, present situation of NGO evaluation in Japan and merits and possibilities of MSC introduction to Japanese NGO.