Project Summary: Final Evaluation Research Design Note: Your Final Project is due to the Instructor by Day 1 of this week. So far in this course, you have developed all of the parts of your Final Project and have analyzed the key points for each element for your Executive Summary. QUESTION: Submit your completed Final Project by reviewing and editing your Assignments to create a cohesive paper. Add an Introduction and Rationale for the study. Your Final Project should be 4 to 6 pages in length. Note: This is not a cut and paste exercise. During the term, you have developed all of the groundwork for your Final Project, but now you must create a cohesive document. For example, although stakeholders may be mentioned, it would not be necessaryand could be unwiseto include all of the detail that may have been considered in the design phase. As another example, simply pasting in the logic model with no explanation would not prove enlightening for any reader who is unfamiliar with the logic model process. Below, you will find an outline of topics that should be addressed in your Final Project. You are not required to exactly follow this outline; however, you must be certain that each component is clearly addressed in your final design. Although your project for this course is only a design document and not a full report, you will find it useful to review your Learning Resources. Many of the same points and principles apply equally well at the research design stage. Your Final Project will include the following elements: Problem definition and intervention description Logic model or logframe Development of indicators Data collection strategy Evaluation design, needs assessment, or formative or summative impact evaluation Data analysis strategy Stakeholder requirements _________________________________________________________________________________ Introduction You have completed your evaluation and expect your conclusions will result in the discontinuance or modification of existing policies or programs or in the implementation of your recommendations in terms of a new program that you have shown to be effective. However, it does not quite happen that way. The program you have evaluated shows signs of problems. Your findings do not seem to have resulted in major changes in program or policy direction. It may also seem that your recommended changes are implemented in ways you had not imagined or, at worst, your findings seem to have been ignored. What happened? This week, you examine scenarios that might occur with evaluation findings and reports. Learning Objectives Students will: Analyze public programs Develop evaluation research 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 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 10, Using Performance Measurement for Accountability and Performance Improvement (pp. 375410) o Chapter 11, Program Evaluation and Program Management (pp. 411437) Birkeland, S., Murphy-Graham, E., & Weiss, C. (2005). Good reasons for ignoring good evaluation: The case of the drug abuse resistance education (D.A.R.E.) program. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28, 247256. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases. McDavid, J. C., & Huse, I. (2011). Legislator uses of public performance reports: Findings from a five-year study. American Journal of Evaluation, 33(1), 119. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases. Vanlandingham, G. R. (2010). Escaping the dusty shelf: Legislative evaluation offices efforts to promote utilization. American Journal of Evaluation, 32(1), 8597. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases. Muhlhausen, D. B. (2011). Evaluating federal social programs: Finding out what works and what does not. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/evaluating-federal-social-programs-finding-out-what-works-and-what-does-not Optional Resources Chelinsky, E. (1987). What have we learned about the politics of program evaluation? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(3), 199213. Pritchett, L. (2002). It pays to be ignorant: A simple political economy of rigorous program evaluation.TheJournal of Policy Reform, 5(4), 251269. Pritchett, L., Woolcock, M., & Andrews, M. (2010). Capability traps? The mechanisms of persistent implementation failure. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cgdev.org/files/1424651_file_Pritchett_Capability_FINAL.pdf