This case asks the participants to be responsible in the situation of a government official for the selection of an evaluation design to put to evaluate the impact of a social program. The goal is the disadvantages that are made in the real world, if they try to balance the desire for a rigorous and credible evaluation design with the logistical, political, financial and ethical constraints that so often arise in the evaluation of social programs illustrate. Participants are asked to assess the strengths and we … Read more »

This case asks the participants to be responsible in the situation of a government official for the selection of an evaluation design to put to evaluate the impact of a social program. The goal is the disadvantages that are made in the real world, if they try to balance the desire for a rigorous and credible evaluation design with the logistical, political, financial and ethical constraints that so often arise in the evaluation of social programs illustrate. Participants are asked to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the three possible evaluation designs as criteria of scientific rigor, political feasibility, financial feasibility and logistical implications of each design. HKS case number 1,903.0
«Hide

from
Daniel Björkegren,
Dan Levy,
Michael McCreless
4 pages.
Release date: 30 April 2009. Prod #: HKS448-PDF-ENG
Design impact valuations: Jamaica’s PATH program HBR case solution

[related_post themes="flat"]