Project Summary: Quantitative Design At this point in the course, you have been introduced to the major developments in quantitative policy evaluation designs. Now you will have to the opportunity to develop a defensible quantitative design that takes into account the strengths, limitations, and tradeoffs that are involved in employing these designs to address major policy problems. For this Assignment, use all of the information you have gathered so far about your Final Project, your understanding of the program, stakeholders, and theoretical and logical framework of the project, and some of your earlier thinking regarding an appropriate evaluation design. QUESTION: Write a 2- to 3-page defensible quantitative design for your selected program that addresses the following: Explain how you will select treatment and control groups if the design is a field experiment. Explain what techniques you might use to address selection bias if the design is a quasi experiment. Explain how you might address internal validity if the design is a nonexperimental design. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Introduction to Quantitative Evaluation Introduction Some of you may have experience filling out federal forms for student financial aid or have been the recipient of Pell grants. If so, you know it is a complex procedure. What you may not know is that the federal government is implementing simplification procedures that will reduce the complexity of the application process. This activity is the result of quantitative evaluation experiments that documented the direct relationship of simplification of the process to increases in college enrollment, grant awards, and applications in general. In addition to quantitative evaluation, cost benefit and cost effectiveness analysis are also methods that have been used for many decades in policy analysis and program evaluations. In the past decade, there have been several developments in quantitative research design, two of which are particularly significant for evaluation. This week, you review quantitative approaches that range from the traditional to the newer approaches and apply them to specific scenarios. Learning Objectives Students will: Evaluate quantitative design methods for assessing the impact of public programs and initiatives usage of medical services Examine impact and of nudging in quantitative policy evaluation Analyze techniques of quantitative design Analyze internal validity for non-experimental designs ____________________________________________________________________________________ Required Resources Note: To access this week's required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus. Readings Langbein, L. (2012). Public program evaluation: A statistical guide (2nd ed.). Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe. o Chapter 4, Randomized Field Experiments (pp. 73109) o Chapter 5, The Quasi Experiment (pp. 110142) o Chapter 6, The Nonexperimental Design: Variations on the Multiple Regression Theme (pp. 143208) McDavid, J. C., Huse, I., & Hawthorn, L. R. L. (2013). Program evaluation and performance measurement: An introduction to practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. o Chapter 7, Concepts and Issues in Economic Evaluation (pp. 271308) Mills, C. (2013). Why nudges matter: A reply to Goodwin. Politics, 33(1), 2836. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases. USAID. (2013). Impact evaluations. Retrieved fromhttp://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/IE_Technical_Note_2013_0903_Final.pdf United States Government Accountability Office (USGAO). (2009). Randomized experiments can provide the most credible evidence of effectiveness under certain conditions. In Program evaluation: A variety of rigorous methods can help identify effective interventions (pp. 2026). Retrieved fromhttp://www.gao.gov/assets/300/298907.pdf Optional Resources Green, D., & Winik, D. (2010). Using random judge assignments to estimate the effects of incarceration and probation on recidivism among drug offenders. Criminology, 48, 357359. Institute of Politics. (Producer). (2013). Nudging policy: Behavioral economics in the public square[Video file]. Retrieved from http://forum.iop.harvard.edu/content/%E2%80%9Cnudging%E2%80%9D-policy-behavioral-economics-public-square Johnson, E., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Do defaults save lives? Retrieved fromhttp://www.dangoldstein.com/papers/DefaultsScience.pdf Khandker, S. R., Koolwal, G. B., & Samad, H. A. (2010). Handbook on impact evaluation: Quantitative methods and practices. Retrieved fromhttps://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/2693/520990PUB0EPI1101Official0Use0Only1.pdf?sequence=1 McKinsey Quarterly. (Producer). (2011, June). Nudging the world toward smarter public policy: An interview with Richard Thaler [Audio podcast]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.mckinsey.com/insights/public_sector/nudging_the_world_toward_smarter_public_policy_an_interview_with_richard_thaler The World Bank Independent Evaluation Group. (2006). Impact evaluation: The experience of the independent evaluation group of the World Bank. Retrieved fromhttp://ieg.worldbank.org/Data/reports/impact_evaluation.pdf