Political Science 5930: Evaluating Public Programs

Prerequisite: Graduate Standing

Summer 2005

ABOUT THE INSTRUCTOR:

Dr. Brett S. Sharp, Assistant Professor, has been a practicing public administrator for over fourteen years. He received his Ph.D. and Master of Public Administration from the University of Oklahoma and a B.S. in Political Science/Public Affairs with a minor in Religious Studies from Oklahoma State University. He is currently the Associate Director of the Oklahoma Policy Research Center at UCO. He is the immediate past president of the Oklahoma Chapter of the American Society for Public Administration.

            Office:            LA 102-J                                                                    Email: bsharp@ucok.edu

            Telephone:      (405) 974-5526                                                           Fax:    (405) 974-3823

            Web Site:        http://www.libarts.ucok.edu/political/faculty/sharp

COURSE DESCRIPTION:

This course addresses the process of change and reform of American social programs and interventions the role of feedback information in the administrative and policymaking processes. This course is intended to provide a broad introduction to the field of program evaluation. The goals of this course are to better understand (1) the nature of program evaluation; (2) history of program evaluation; (3) techniques of program evaluation; and (4) dissemination of program evaluation information. Students will develop an appreciation of the role of science and professional knowledge in the problem-solving process. Students will also enhance research skills, including design, data collection, analysis, and report writing.

TEACHING METHODS/LEARNING EXPERIENCES:

Student will read three books related to program evaluation and analyze them through a political and administrative perspective culminating in a review essay. The instructor will help guide the readings by meeting with the student at various times in the semester. The student will also be required to develop a proposed evaluation plan for an existing or hypothetical public program.  The instructor will provide more information this last project.

TEXTS

Fitzpatrick, Jody L., Sanders, James, R., and Worthen, Blaine R. (2004). Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines (3rd Ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon [Required]

Rossi, Peter H., Freeman, Howard E., Lipsey, Mark W. (2004). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (7th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Required: Available from Instructor]

Patton, Michael Quinn. (1996). Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Required: Available from Instructor]

Scott, Gregory M. & Garrison, Stephen M. (2002). The Political Science Student Writer’s Manual (4th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall [Available from UCO or Thompson’s bookstore].

Course Schedule - Summer 2005

OUTSIDE WORK

Based upon the Oklahoma Regents’ Statement on Course Workload and Homework [OSRHE II-2-34], a college student should expect to spend at least135 hours working toward a 3-hour course. The message the Oklahoma Regents are trying to communicate is that if you have a full time job (30-40 hours) you should not simultaneously expect to maintain a full-time academic schedule (15 hours). If you expect to do well, expect to put in the time!

ADA STATEMENT

The University of Central Oklahoma complies with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Students with disabilities who need special accommodations should make their requests by contacting the coordinator of Disability Support Services at 974-2459. Their office is located in the Administration Building, Room 211. Students should also notify the instructor of special accommodations needs by the end of the first week of class.

EVALUATION METHODS AND GRADING

            Instructor will determine course grades                 Grading components include:

            using the following scale:                                                     Meetings with Instructor                10%

                            90 -100        =         A                                             Book Review Essay(s)                   50%

                            80 - 89        =         B                                             Program Evaluation Design           40%

                            70 - 79        =         C 

                            60 - 69        =         D 

                              0 - 59        =         F 

REQUIREMENTS FOR BOOK REVIEW ESSAY

Your report should be in the form of an essay which includes concise summaries and more extensive analyses of the assigned books. Using the book review from a refereed journal (provided by the instructor) as a model and Scott and Garrison’s The Political Science Student Writer’s Manual as a guide, write a 12-15 page review essay due by close of business, Friday, July 29. As part of your analysis, answer the following questions within the text of your report:

            1.         What does each book contribute to your understanding of program evaluation and design?

            2.         What is the purpose of each book and its central thesis (philosophy or perspective)?

            3.         Does each book achieve its goals?

            4.         What is the method or approach used by the authors to reach their conclusions?

            5.         Are the conclusions credible?

            6.         What are the implications for the study and practice of public administration in the realm of program evaluation?

            7.         What are the primary strengths and weaknesses of each book?

            8.         Would you recommend this book to someone interested in public administration as applied to the process of program evaluation? Why or why not?

The book review essay will be graded on format, grammar, summary of key points, and quality of analysis.

MEETINGS WITH INSTRUCTOR

Discussion of the assigned readings is an important part of succeeding in this course and is required of all students. Meeting with the instructor provides an opportunity for you to ask questions, clarify issues, and deepen your understanding of the concepts covered in the assigned readings. If you are unable to make a meeting as arranged, you are responsible for rescheduling at the instructor’s convenience and availability.

PROGRAM EVALUATION DESIGN

Select a real public program or develop a fictionalized organization and prepare an evaluation design. Your design should account for diagnostic procedures, program monitoring, impact assessment, efficiency measures, and the social/political context of reporting the results. Your design will be graded on quality of research design, format, grammar, presentation, content, creativity, and feasibility.

ACADEMIC HONESTY

Cheating = Failure (please refer to attached Academic Integrity Statement). Cheating is unacceptable conduct and will result in an automatic grade of “F” for the course, and be reported to Academic Affairs. Students are required to do all of the work for this class on their own. Copying answers to exercises or examinations from anyone constitutes cheating. Allowing another student to copy one’s answers will be treated as cheating. A student may discuss exercises and case briefs with others before preparing his or her own answers, but the answers must be each student’s own work product. Consulting with the instructor about any assignment does not constitute cheating and is encouraged.

The Political Science Department of the University of Central Oklahoma is asking all students taking political science courses to read the following Academic Integrity Statement. Our purpose in doing so is to ensure that all our students are aware of what is improper academic behavior.

Academic Integrity Statement

As members of the academic community, students are expected to recognize and uphold standards of intellectual and academic integrity. The Political Science Department expects that its students will conduct themselves honestly. This means, above all, that students submit for credit work that is the product of their own efforts. Principles of academic integrity require that all dishonest work be rejected as a basis for academic credit, and that students refrain from any and all forms of dishonorable conduct in the course of their academic work.

The examples and definitions given below are intended to clarify the standards by which academic honesty and integrity is judged. The list is merely illustrative of some of the more common infractions. It is not intended to be exhaustive. Any question a student has about what constitutes inappropriate behavior should be directed towards their instructor. The rule of thumb to follow is: If in doubt, ASK!

Definitions and Examples

Plagiarism - Plagiarism is presenting another person’s work as one’s own. Plagiarism includes not only the exact use of another’s words, word for word, but also the paraphrasing or summarizing of the works of another person without acknowledgment, including the submitting of another student’s work as one’s own. The student is responsible for understanding the legitimate use of sources, the appropriate ways of acknowledging academic, scholarly, or creative indebtedness, and the consequences of violating this responsibility. In case of doubt, give a citation of the author you are using. Failure to indicate the extent and nature of one's reliance on other sources is plagiarism. A plagiarized paper will result in a failing grade on the work in question, and perhaps, for the entire course.

Cheating on Examinations - Cheating on examinations involves giving or receiving unauthorized help before, during, or after an examination. Examples of unauthorized help include the use of notes, texts, or “crib sheets” during an examination (unless receiving instructor approval), or sharing information with another student either during or after an examination.

Falsification - It is a violation of academic honesty to misrepresent material or to fabricate information in an academic exercise or assignment (e.g. false or misleading citation of sources, the falsification of the results of experiments or of computer data).

Multiple Submissions - It is a violation of academic honesty to submit substantial portions of the same work for credit more than once without the explicit consent of the instructor to whom the material is being submitted the second time.