|
Methodological Issues Involved in Evaluating Large Scale Regional Economic Development Initiatives: Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development (WIRED) as a Case Study
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Kevin Hollenbeck, Upjohn Institute, hollenbeck@upjohn.org
|
| Linda Toms Barker, Berkeley Policy Associates, linda@bpacal.com
|
| Jeff Kaplow, Public Policy Associates, jkaplow@publicpolicy.com
|
| Abstract:
This paper recounts our organizations' experiences in addressing key methodological issues in evaluating the Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development (WIRED) initiative, a large scale economic and workforce development initiative. The first issue is how to attribute outcomes to project activities when a rigorous randomized controlled trial (RCT) is not feasible. What are the pros and cons of a matched comparison area approach?
A second methodological issue concerns length of time for outcome measurement. Changes in economic growth and worker preparation and training are likely to take many years. Third, the paper discusses how the evaluations of WIRED attempted to map and analyze social networks.
In short, the purpose of this paper is to contribute to the field of workforce development and economic development program evaluation by describing how thorny issues of attribution, outcome dynamics, and social network mapping can be addressed in evaluating large scale multi-county initiatives.
|
|
Case Study: An Approach to Examining Team Science in the Age of Translational Research
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Kathryn Nearing, University of Colorado, Denver, kathryn.nearing@ucdenver.edu
|
| Samantha Farro, University of Colorado, Denver, samantha.farro@ucdenver.edu
|
| Marc Brodersen, University of Colorado, Denver, marc.brodersen@ucdenver.edu
|
| Abstract:
The Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (CCTSI) funds 'team science' awards through its pilot grant program. These seed grants are awarded to teams of investigators based at multiple research/healthcare institutions and whose expertise collectively spans the translational spectrum. The programmatic theory of change is that novel collaborations will facilitate innovation and the emergence of new discoveries, as well as the translation (application) of results/advancements to improve clinical and community-based practice. This paper will present key characteristics of team science and a case study analysis of the first two cohorts of pilot awards. The analysis will examine the nature of the research question(s) being explored, how the experience impacted the development of translational research core competencies, and the research productivity of these teams compared to other pilot awardees. Emerging insights (re: opportunities and challenges of team science as an approach to fostering cutting-edge research) will also be presented.
|
|
Developmental Evaluation to Inform Programs Implemented Based on Meta-Analysis Recommendations
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Juna Snow, Innovated Consulting, jsnow@innovatedconsulting.com
|
| Michael Coplen, Federal Railroad Administration, michael.coplen@dot.gov
|
| Joyce Ranney, Volpe Transportation Center, joyce.ranney@dot.gov
|
| Abstract:
This paper presentation will share lessons learned from a developmental evaluation (Patton, 1994; 2009) of a multistakeholder group that formulates safety recommendations for the railroad industry. The analysis group situates itself within the high-stakes context of safety in tension with the productivity-pressured worker. The group, comprised of key representatives of the government (regulatory), labor (unions), and management (carriers), is charged with the role of independent meta-analysis with the purpose of creating change within the practice of switching operations ultimately to reach its goal of zero fatalities. The evaluator has conducted a retrospective study on the implementation process and its effects since the group's last report, in preparation for the release of its new report in 2011. The evaluator continues to serve the group as an embedded member who provides ongoing direction and reflection through the evaluative lens, balancing the at times contentious values, to provide support and foster innovation within the safety operations within the railroad industry.
|
| | |