ABSTRACT
This chapter looks at how evaluation is or is not accommodated within emergency policy making. It looks at the policy response in two countries facing a similar exogenous shock or emergency, a terrorist incident. The chapter explains the differences in policy response, using neo-institutionalist approaches. It focuses on the introduction of emergency policy after 9/11 in the United Kingdom and United States. The chapter reviews emergency legislation to see what evaluation processes are present in the emergency legislation that was introduced in the post-9/11 period. It reviews secondary documents, such as reports by Supreme Audit Institutions, other independent reports, and academic papers commenting on the effectiveness and evaluation components of the legislation. The chapter looks in particular at government responses in the United States and United Kingdom related to terrorist incidents. It reviews how policy makers considered evidence, whether they built in mechanisms to assess evidence after the legislation was introduced, and how legislation was adjusted because of further evaluation.
