1fAWAwx

Recommendations

Info

C H A P T E R 7 EVALUATION AS A TOOL FOR IMPROVING FEDERAL PROGRAMS Since taking office, President Obama has emphasized the need to determine what works and what does not in government, and to use those answers to inform Federal policy and budget decisions. The President’s 21st Century Management Agenda, submitted to Congress with the fiscal year 2010 Budget, set bold goals for building a more efficient, more effective government that contributes to economic growth and strengthens the foundations for economic prosperity (OMB 2009a). Today, evaluating Federal programs and interventions to understand their impact, and developing the infrastructure within agencies to support a sustained level of high-quality evaluations, remains an Administration priority. By rigorously testing which programs and interventions are most effective at achieving important goals, the government can improve its programs, scaling up the approaches that work best and modifying or discontinuing those that are less effective. This Administration has supported the use of rigorous, high-quality “impact” evaluations to measure changes in a variety of outcomes targeted by Federal programs, ranging from earnings to health to electricity usage. Many factors affect whether Federal programs achieve their goals, and identifying impacts specifically attributable to programs is challenging. An impact evaluation is a particular type of program evaluation, and aims to measure the causal effect of a program or intervention on important program outcomes. This chapter focuses on impact evaluations. “Process” evaluations (another type of program evaluation) and performance measurement also contribute to building evidence about how well programs are working, but differ in important ways from impact evaluations (Box 7-1). Building on the efforts of previous administrations, the Obama Administration is working to reform the Federal Government’s approach to improving program performance. In addition to emphasizing transparency and accountability in tracking progress toward agencies’ priority goals, this new approach also aims to complement and to draw on the Administration’s 269
Box 7-1: Impact Evaluations, Process Evaluations, and Performance Measurement Program managers use many approaches to assess how programs operate and how well they work. Impact evaluations aim to identify the causal effects of a program or intervention on some outcome or outcomes of interest. Impact evaluations are distinct from other types of program evaluation and performance measurement. For example: • Process evaluations analyze the effectiveness of how programs deliver services relative to program design, professional standards, or regulatory requirements. For instance, a process evaluation might focus on whether a program is reaching the target number of participants or whether caseworkers are consistently following a specified protocol for providing services. Process evaluations help ensure that programs are running as intended, but in general these evaluations do not directly examine whether programs are achieving their outcome goals (GAO 2011). • Performance measurement is a broader category that encompasses “the ongoing monitoring and reporting of program accomplishments, particularly progress toward pre-established goals” (GAO 2011). Typically, performance measures provide a descriptive picture of how a program is functioning and how participants are faring on various “intermediate” outcomes, but do not attempt to rigorously identify the causal effects of the program. For instance, performance measures for a job training program might capture how many individuals are served, what fraction complete the training, and what fraction are employed a year later. But these measures will not answer the question of how much higher these individuals’ employment rates are as a result of having completed the training. Nonetheless, performance measures serve as important indicators of program accomplishments and can help establish that a program is producing apparently promising (or troubling) outcomes. While process evaluations and performance measurement are useful at all stages of a program’s maturity, they can be particularly useful for providing evidence about how programs are working in the early years of a program’s history when impacts on program outcomes may not be detectable and rigorous, high-quality impact evaluations are not possible. A logic model—a tool that depicts the intended links between program investments and outcomes and helps to ensure program activities will achieve desired outcomes—can facilitate agency efforts to develop high-quality “intermediate” indicators of impacts as well as an understanding of alternative causal channels that can affect important program outcomes. 270 | Chapter 7
Page 1 and 2:
ECONOMIC REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT To
Page 4:
C O N T E N T S ECONOMIC REPORT OF
Page 8 and 9:
economic report of the president To
Page 10 and 11:
year-old. In the meantime, I’m go
Page 12:
the annual report of the council of
Page 16 and 17:
C O N T E N T S CHAPTER 1. PROMOTIN
Page 18 and 19:
APPENDIX 1: COMPONENTS OF THE RECOV
Page 20 and 21:
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S RECORD
Page 22 and 23:
2.15. Housing Starts, 1960-2013....
Page 24 and 25:
3.1. Forecasted and Actual Real GDP
Page 26 and 27:
C H A P T E R 1 PROMOTING OPPORTUNI
Page 28 and 29:
Opportunity, Growth, and Security i
Page 30 and 31:
crisis—continue to rebound and co
Page 32 and 33:
Figure 1-4 Real GDP Per Working-Age
Page 34 and 35:
Figure 1-6 Change in Poverty Rate F
Page 36 and 37:
Figure 1-7 Domestic Crude Oil Produ
Page 38 and 39:
Figure 1-8 Growth in Real Per Capit
Page 40 and 41:
Figure 1-9 Unemployment Rate by Dur
Page 42 and 43:
e needed to make up for a decades-l
Page 44 and 45:
Annual percent change 2.50 15-year
Page 46 and 47:
Figure 1-14 Share of National Incom
Page 48:
Along with steps that create jobs,
Page 51 and 52:
corner, with purchases increasing d
Page 53 and 54:
the four quarters of 2013, or enoug
Page 55 and 56:
Percent of GDP 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -
Page 57 and 58:
Percent 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 Figure 2-3
Page 59 and 60:
In the euro area, the unemployment
Page 61 and 62:
Figure 2-6 Cumulative Flows into Mu
Page 63 and 64:
Figure 2-7 Household Deleveraging,
Page 65 and 66:
Box 2-1: The 2013 Comprehensive Rev
Page 67 and 68:
Percent 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 Figure 2
Page 69 and 70:
Figure 2-11 State and Local Pension
Page 71 and 72:
Percent of GDP 2 1 0 Figure 2-14 Cu
Page 73 and 74:
Box 2-2. Administration Trade Polic
Page 75 and 76:
Upon completion, the TPP and T-TIP
Page 77 and 78:
percent of households report that i
Page 79 and 80:
Figure 2-18 Petroleum Net Imports,
Page 81 and 82:
Figure 2-21 U.S. Per Capita Consump
Page 83 and 84:
Percent 11 Figure 2-22 Unemployment
Page 85 and 86:
Figure 2-25 Predicted vs. Actual Ma
Page 87 and 88:
Box 2-4: Unemployment Duration and
Page 89 and 90:
The Long-Term Outlook The 11-Year F
Page 91 and 92:
Growth in GDP over the Long Term As
Page 93 and 94:
Box 2-5: Immigration Reform and Pot
Page 95 and 96:
Even with this growth, however, the
Page 97 and 98:
families. The other half was for in
Page 99 and 100:
ecause of rapidly declining stock a
Page 101 and 102:
Obama Administration and the 111th
Page 103 and 104:
Figure 3-1 Recovery Act Programs by
Page 105 and 106:
other cases, new measures expanded
Page 107 and 108:
Figure 3-2 Recovery Act and Subsequ
Page 109 and 110:
Box 3-1: Other Administration Polic
Page 111 and 112:
challenges, and how economists have
Page 113 and 114:
Table 3-5 Estimated Output Multipli
Page 115 and 116:
Figure 3-7 Quarterly Effect of the
Page 117 and 118:
Table 3-6 Estimates of the Effects
Page 119 and 120:
International Comparison The 2008 c
Page 121 and 122:
Box 3-2: The U.S. Recovery in Compa
Page 123 and 124:
Table 3-7 Tax Relief and Income Sup
Page 125 and 126:
traditionally been jointly financed
Page 127 and 128:
downturn in the economy. Even thoug
Page 129 and 130:
Figure 3-11 Recovery Act Cumulative
Page 131 and 132:
The Recovery Act also invested in r
Page 133 and 134:
helped individuals who chose to ret
Page 135 and 136:
the period, even though total power
Page 137 and 138:
average—then the resulting increa
Page 139 and 140:
Alternative Minimum Tax relief, bus
Page 141 and 142:
Through the end of a Individual Tax
Page 143 and 144:
y Poterba (1994), states and locali
Page 145 and 146:
Table 3-11 Fiscal Support for the E
Page 147 and 148:
spells. Because the resulting unemp
Page 149 and 150:
literature uses two different appro
Page 151 and 152:
Table 3-12 Summary of Cross-Section
Page 153 and 154:
the CMS projections show real per-c
Page 155 and 156:
will accrue to workers as higher wa
Page 157 and 158:
Box 4-1: Two Measures of Growth in
Page 159 and 160:
Figure 4-1 Growth in Real Per Capit
Page 161 and 162:
in particular may not exactly track
Page 163 and 164:
find that even those seniors who di
Page 165 and 166:
the slowdown in real (that is, infl
Page 167 and 168:
health care costs for an individual
Page 169 and 170:
estimate for the ACA found that its
Page 171 and 172:
Figure 4-4 Medicare 30-Day, All-Con
Page 173 and 174:
agreements among the providers them
Page 175 and 176:
payment for physician services, the
Page 177 and 178:
Box 4-3: The Cost Slowdown and ACA
Page 179 and 180:
2010a; 2011; 2012c; 2013a; 2014), w
Page 181 and 182:
Figure 4-6 Recent CBO Projections o
Page 183 and 184:
Conclusion The evidence is clear th
Page 185 and 186:
facilitated this private-sector tec
Page 187 and 188:
esulting gap between the actual gro
Page 189 and 190:
Table 5-1 Sources of Productivity I
Page 191 and 192:
Table 5-2 Nonfarm Private Business
Page 193 and 194:
of the productivity improvement res
Page 195 and 196:
Figure 5-3 Growth in Productivity a
Page 197 and 198:
improving and college completion ra
Page 199 and 200:
Box 5-2: Does Inequality Affect Pro
Page 201 and 202:
Percent 3.5 Figure 5-5 Composition
Page 203 and 204:
• Just two of the largest U.S. te
Page 205 and 206:
Box 5-3: Just-in-Time Manufacturing
Page 207 and 208:
Figure 5-7 Exclusive and Shared All
Page 209 and 210:
Box 5-4: Spectrum Investment Polici
Page 211 and 212:
To stimulate investment in more adv
Page 213 and 214:
Because current uses of technology
Page 215 and 216:
Box 5-5: Electronic Health Records
Page 217 and 218:
about the array of services and sup
Page 219 and 220:
and, in such cases, provides partie
Page 221 and 222:
Box 5-6: The Leahy-Smith America In
Page 223 and 224: Box 5-7: Pay-For-Delay Settlements
Page 226 and 227: C H A P T E R 6 THE WAR ON POVERTY
Page 228 and 229: Measuring Poverty: Who is Poor in A
Page 230 and 231: thresholds ever since. These dollar
Page 232 and 233: of necessary items, including food,
Page 234 and 235: Table 6-1 Poverty Rates by Selected
Page 236 and 237: Box 6-3: Women and Poverty While wo
Page 238 and 239: However, this reflects smaller decl
Page 240 and 241: Percent 25 Figure 6-1 Trends in the
Page 242 and 243: Box 6-4: Social Programs Serve All
Page 244 and 245: of low- and middle-income workers a
Page 246 and 247: particularly valuable since they es
Page 248 and 249: Figure 6-4 Official vs Anchored Sup
Page 250 and 251: deep market poverty driven by the b
Page 252 and 253: work: in 2010, for example, unemplo
Page 254 and 255: out of poverty through job training
Page 256 and 257: e noted that researchers have found
Page 258 and 259: 2012). Among the children of low-ea
Page 260 and 261: Education appears to be one of the
Page 262 and 263: Friedman, and Rockoff (2011) find t
Page 264 and 265: including an additional $25 a week
Page 266 and 267: Figure 6-11 Recovery Act and Subseq
Page 268 and 269: Empowering Every Child with a Quali
Page 270 and 271: modernize America’s high schools
Page 272 and 273: low-income Americans and their chil
Page 276 and 277: program evaluation efforts. For exa
Page 278 and 279: went to preschool would have had if
Page 280 and 281: y adopting successful interventions
Page 282 and 283: Box 7-2: Using Behavioral Economics
Page 284 and 285: Box 7-3: “Rapid Cycle” Evaluati
Page 286 and 287: Figure 7-1 Outlays for Grants to St
Page 288 and 289: performance data, fewer than half o
Page 290 and 291: Investment Act programs. The PROMIS
Page 292 and 293: Figure 7-2 Inventory of Beds for Ho
Page 294 and 295: example, included a nondiscretionar
Page 296 and 297: Other benefits of considering evalu
Page 298 and 299: with the treatment effect and thus
Page 300 and 301: unemployment insurance wage and ben
Page 302 and 303: hard for researchers to access for
Page 304 and 305: REFERENCES Chapter 1 Almunia, Migue
Page 306 and 307: ____. 2014. “Press Release: Janua
Page 308 and 309: and the TPP at the Peterson Institu
Page 310 and 311: Increase Employment Evidence from t
Page 312 and 313: ___. 2010b. “The Economic Impact
Page 314 and 315: ___. 2012. World Economic Outlook A
Page 316 and 317: Polak Annual Research Conference. W
Page 318 and 319: Baicker, Katherine and Amitabh Chan
Page 320 and 321: Daly, Mary, Bart Hobijn, and Brian
Page 322 and 323: Nominal Wages,” International Jou
Page 324 and 325:
Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Revie
Page 326 and 327:
Chien, Colleen V. 2012. “Reformin
Page 328 and 329:
GAO (Government Accountability Offi
Page 330 and 331:
Jorgenson, Dale. 2001. “Informati
Page 332 and 333:
Integration in Economic Development
Page 334 and 335:
_____. 2007. “Improving the Safet
Page 336 and 337:
Dahl, Gordon B. and Lance Lochner.
Page 338 and 339:
Heckman, James J. and Dimitriy V. M
Page 340 and 341:
Ludwig, Jens and Douglas Miller. 20
Page 342 and 343:
Sharkey, Patrick. 2009. “Neighbor
Page 344 and 345:
_____. 2013. “Practical Evaluatio
Page 346 and 347:
www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/comm
Page 348:
Stock, James H., and Mark Watson. 2
Page 352 and 353:
letter of transmittal Council of Ec
Page 354:
Council Members and Their Dates of
Page 357 and 358:
The Members of the Council Betsey S
Page 359 and 360:
Act has had on reducing health care
Page 361 and 362:
Statistical Office The Statistical
Page 364:
A P P E N D I X B STATISTICAL TABLE
Page 367 and 368:
INTEREST RATES, MONEY STOCK, AND GO
Page 369 and 370:
2013-to-2014 TABLE NUMBER MATCH 201
Page 371 and 372:
Year or quarter Table B-1. Percent
Page 373 and 374:
Table B-2. Gross domestic product,
Page 375 and 376:
Table B-3. Quantity and price index
Page 377 and 378:
Table B-5. Real exports and imports
Page 379 and 380:
Year Total 2 Table B-7. Real farm i
Page 381 and 382:
Table B-9. Median money income (in
Page 383 and 384:
Year or month Civilian noninstituti
Page 385 and 386:
Year or month All civilian workers
Page 387 and 388:
Table B-14. Employees on nonagricul
Page 389 and 390:
Table B-15. Hours and earnings in p
Page 391 and 392:
Year and month Interest Rates, Mone
Page 393 and 394:
Year and month Table B-18. Money st
Page 395 and 396:
Table B-20. Federal receipts, outla
Page 397 and 398:
Table B-22. Federal receipts, outla
Page 399 and 400:
Table B-24. State and local governm
Page 401 and 402:
End of month Table B-26. Estimated
Page 403 and 404:
B-7. Chain-type price indexes for g
Page 405 and 406:
B-28. National income by type of in
Page 407 and 408:
B-48. Employment cost index, privat
Page 409 and 410:
B-65. Producer price indexes by sta
Page 411 and 412:
B-81. Federal receipts, outlays, su
Page 413 and 414:
B-99. Farm output and productivity
Page 415:
B-111. International reserves Inter
show all

1fAWAwx

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?