University of Southern California



University of Southern California

School of Policy, Planning and Development

Instructor: Matthew Newman

Phone - 510.654.6100 x202

email – newmanma@usc.edu

Class Dates/Location: September 8-9

October 20-21

November 10-11

Class Hours: Friday – Saturday, 9 – 5

Office Hours: By appointment

1 COURSE DESCRIPTION

PPD 542 is a graduate-level introduction to policy and program evaluation. Evaluation can serve as the cornerstone for evidence-based public policy making, but only if evaluations are done effectively and presented to decision makers in a thoughtful and compelling manner.

Students in PPD 542 will learn about the context in which policy and program evaluation exists, including how to choose what to evaluate and when, how to present results to decision makers, and the ethics of evaluation. Students will also learn the basics of how to conduct evaluations, and the strengths and weaknesses of the various approaches. Because evaluation is analytical and often data intensive, students will be exposed to statistical analysis techniques, and will have the opportunity to conduct analyses using real-world data.

CLASS FORMAT

This class is taught in the intensive format. The course sessions will consist of lectures, facilitated discussions, in class exercises, and student presentations. A weekly schedule of course activities is presented at the end of the syllabus.

TEXTBOOKS & COURSE RESOURCES

• Required Textbook: Wholey, Joseph, Harry Hatry and Kathryn Newcomer, Editors. 2010. Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation (3rd Edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (Note that this is the 3rd edition. There is a newer 4th edition but the 3rd edition is fine and widely available used)

• Blackboard website: blackboard.usc.edu -- will host the discussion board and link to all of the other course resources. The instructor will use this website (as well as email) to communicate with the class.

• Other articles, reports, and web sites demonstrating concepts relevant to the class may also be assigned.

COURSE REQUIREMENTS

1. Complete all assigned readings, including textbook, articles, and cases.

2. Evaluation memo. Before the first class session, students will prepare a brief (2-3 page) memo to a department head, elected official, or other decision maker recommending a program or policy for evaluation.

3. Homework/problem sets. There will be several problem sets/homework assignments throughout the term.

4. Final paper. Working individually or in small groups (up to 3 participants), students will complete an evaluation proposal. The proposal will suggest a program for evaluation and will identify the reasons why the program is suitable for evaluation, the logic or framework underlying the program, the evaluation method(s) to be relied upon, and the data sources and data collection methods to be utilized. This proposal will be equivalent in length and detail to a term paper.

5. Class participation. Participation in class discussions, exercises, and presentations is a course requirement.

Specific instructions for all assignments will be provided (via blackboard, email, or in class) in advance of due dates.

 

GRADING

10% Evaluation proposal memo

25% Class participation/presentations

30% Homework Assignments

35% Final evaluation proposal

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

Students must maintain strict adherence to standards of academic integrity, as described in SCampus (). In particular, the University recommends strict sanctions for plagiarism, as defined in SCampus:

11.11 Plagiarism

A. The submission of material authored by another person but represented as the student's own work, whether that material is paraphrased or copied in verbatim or near-verbatim form.

B. The submission of material subjected to editorial revision by another person that results in substantive changes in content or major alteration of writing style.

C. Improper acknowledgment of sources in essays or papers.

Note: Culpability is not diminished when plagiarism occurs in drafts, which are not the final version. Also, if any material is prepared or submitted by another person on the student's behalf, the student is expected to proofread the results and is responsible for all particulars of the final draft.

Academic accommodations. Any student requesting academic accommodations based on a disability is required to register with Disability Services and Programs (DSP) each semester. A letter of verification for approved accommodations can be obtained from DSP. Please be sure the letter is delivered to your instructor as early in the semester as possible. DSP is located in STU 301 and is open early 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The phone number for DSP is (213) 740-0776.

COURSE OUTLINE

First Session (September 8 -9)

Friday:

1. Introduction and Objectives of the Class

a. Wholey, Chapter 1

b. OMB Rating the Performance of Federal Programs

c. Cook, et. al., "Report on the Status of Payday Lending in California." Silicon Valley Community Foundation, 2009.

2. Evaluation Methods and Approaches: Outputs, Outcomes and Logic Models

a. Wholey, Chapters 3, 5

Saturday:

3. Context/Audience

a. Shulock, Nancy, “The Paradox of Policy Analysis: If It Is Not Used, Why Do We Produce So Much of It?” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management Vol. 18, No. 2 (Spring, 1999), pp. 226-244

b. Wagner, Neil, “Publication Bias May Permanently Damage Medical Research.” The Atlantic, October 15, 2011:

c. KSG Case 1233.0 “From Research to Policy: The Cigarette Excise Tax.”

4. Experimental Designs

a. Wholey, Chapter 7

b. Smith, Gordon C S and Pell, Jill P., “Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomized controlled trials.”

c. Freedman, David H., “Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science.” Atlantic Monthly, November 2010:

d. Kolata, Gina, “Method of Study Is Criticized in Group’s Health Policy Tests.” New York Times, February 2, 2014.

e. Kolata, Gina, “Guesses and Hype Give Way to Data in Study of Education.” New York Times, September 2, 2013.

Second Session (October 20-21)

Friday:

5. Working with data: Comparing two populations; Regression Analysis

a. Wholey, Chapter 20.

b. Chabris, Christopher F. and Daniel J. Simons, “Does This Ad Make Me Fat?” New York Times, March 8, 2013.

6. Quasi Experimental designs

c. Wholey, Chapter 6

d. LA teacher evaluation

e. Trochim, "The Regression Discontinuity Design"

f. Team Read Case, parts A & B

Saturday:

7. Ethics and fairness of program evaluation

g. Wholey, Chapter 28, pp. 670 -672

h. Buckley, Cara, “To Test Housing Program, Some Are Denied Aid” NYTimes (Dec 8, 2010):

i. Song, Jason and Felch, Jason, “Times updates and expands value-added ratings for Los Angeles elementary school teachers.” Los Angeles Times, May 7, 2011:

8. Collecting and working with data

j. Wholey Chapter 11

9. Non-experimental Designs:

k. Caskey, "Payday Lending: New Research and the Big Question"

l. Cheadle, "The California wellness foundation's Health Improvement Initiative: evaluation findings and lessons learned"

m. Wholey, Chapter 8

n. Wholey, Chapter 17

Third Session (November 10-11)

Friday:

10. Evaluation Pitfalls

a. Wholey Chapter 23

b. Men's Health, "What if Bad Fat Is Actually Good for You?":

c. Public Transit parts A & B

11. Surveys and focus groups

a. Wholey, Chapter 12

b. Fowler, chapter on Sampling

c. Montana Meth Project survey report

Saturday:

12. Cost effectiveness and cost benefit analysis

a. Wholey, Chapter 21

13. Presenting Evaluation Results

a. Wholey, Chapter 25

[pic]

-----------------------

PPD 542

Policy and Program Evaluation Syllabus

Fall 2017

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download