|
Session Title: Perspectives on Conducting Quality Evaluations at Various Levels of Government
|
|
Panel Session 615 to be held in CROCKETT D on Friday, Nov 12, 1:40 PM to 3:10 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the Government Evaluation TIG
|
| Chair(s): |
| Rakesh Mohan, Idaho State Legislature, rmohan@ope.idaho.gov
|
| Discussant(s):
|
| Kathryn Newcomer, George Washington University, newcomer@gwu.edu
|
| Abstract:
Focusing on the role of evaluation in government, this session will highlight differences among various levels of government (county, city, state, federal and international) in how quality in evaluation is addressed. The three standards offered by House (1980) - truth (validity), beauty (credibility), and justice (fairness) – will be used as one framework to illustrate differences among the different levels of government. Through the panel, the presentations will highlight not only the strategies that differ among the different levels, but also the ways in which the three standards vary in importance and weight. Barriers to achieving the standards and the unique challenges at each level of government will be described. Recommendations for evaluators in working at each level will be offered.
|
|
Quality Standards in International Development Evaluation
|
| Patrick Grasso, World Bank, pgrasso45@comcast.net
|
|
High-quality evaluation of international development assistance is important because of the stakes involved for the well-being of people in poor and middle-income countries, but also challenging because of the difficult and complex environments in which assistance is delivered. Efforts to ensure high-quality evaluation have led to the development of standards by a number of organizations, including the OECD/DAC Evaluation Network of the major donor countries, the Evaluation Cooperation Group of the International Financial Institutions (such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund), and the United Nations Evaluation Group. Drawing on examples of actual practice, this paper examines the use of these standards guiding evaluations of the effectiveness of development assistance.
|
|
|
A Pragmatic Approach to Ensuring Quality in County Government Evaluation
|
| David J Bernstein, Westat, davidbernstein@westat.com
|
|
County governments, like other local governments, may not have the staff and funding resources to dedicate to evaluation that the United States Federal government has. This does not mean that county governments do not dedicate some level of resources to ensuring that their programs are efficient, effective, and equitable. To paraphrase the Late Speaker of the House Tip O’Neil, if “all politics is local,” then all local evaluations are political. The presenter will reflect on the 17 years that he spent conducting evaluations, developing and analyzing performance measurement systems, and advising local government managers and elected officials on ways to ensure quality evaluation and accountability in county government. He will share his philosophy on ways to ensure quality evaluation standards in a context that is inherently political.
| |
|
Rigorous Evaluation and City Government: Examples From New York City's Center for Economic Opportunity
|
| Kathryn Henderson, Westat, kathrynhenderson2@westat.com
|
| Debra Rog, Westat, debrarog@westat.com
|
| Jennifer Hamilton, Westat, jenniferhamilton@westat.com
|
|
In 2006, the NYC Mayor’s Office established the Center for Economic Opportunity to work with City agencies to design and implement evidence-based initiatives to reduce poverty and increase self-sufficiency through education, employment programs for disconnected youth, and at-risk and low-income populations. A key hallmark of the initiative is an explicit policy on evaluation as a tool for accountability and decision-making therefore CEO has contracted with Westat and Metis Associates to lead an evaluation efforts for about 35 of CEO’s anti-poverty programs. This presentation outlines the role of these evaluations in enabling CEO to (1) measure the benefits to participants in these programs, and (2) inform the work of both policy makers and program managers. The discussion will include the challenges confronted, the strategies used to deal with the challenges, and the ways that results from the evaluations have been used to strengthen program operations and make funding determinations.
| |