Project Summary: Public Programs Evaluators need to have a realistic understanding of the context of evaluations, the political uses of evaluations, and the conditions under which information from evaluations are used to advance stakeholder, agency, and sponsor interests. For this Discussion, consider various public programs and evaluations from this course and your professional experience. QUESTION: Post 1 to 2 page of an explanation of why public programs appear to survive despite having been deemed ineffective. Be sure to address all of the following: Explain reasons for why a program like D.A.R.E. might be different or considered less effective from other public programs. Extend the analogy to least two other federal programs where critics have maintained that few, if any, work. Explain how evaluations, particularly those mandated by legislatures and the executive, should be used. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 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