Degree | Type | Year | Semester |
---|---|---|---|
2500259 Political Science and Public Management | OT | 3 | 2 |
2500259 Political Science and Public Management | OT | 4 | 0 |
In the case of students of the political science degree, it is assumed that the student knows, at least, the concepts and theories worked on in the subjects "Administration and Public Policies", "Public Management" and "Methodology of political analysis" .
This course aims to give an overview of the reality of the field of public management evaluation, both in the literature and in the professional world. The general objective is to provide students with the information and tools they need to understand the conceptual boundaries of the field, the methods that can be used and the issues that are present in the current debate about the usefulness of evaluation for public management and for the analysis of policies.
Whether students end up as central, regional or local government officials, or if they end up working as policy advisors, in the private sector or in the Third Sector, they will most likely need to work in contact with professional evaluators and consultants. Therefore, they should develop studies that provide information on the performance and costs of the organization, services, programs or policies in which they work.
The course is developed through the analysis of cases that illustrate the evaluation in professional practice. The students will be involved through practical exercises that allow them to make the ideas present in the literature more tangible and put them in touch with the real world.
This is an optional subject for students who want to learn practical approaches that will serve in their professional career as a consultant or analyst. It is important then the interest, the good humor and it can be present in most of the sessions.
T0. Introduction
- What is the course about, what should we learn and what is the commitment of the teacher and students?
T1 Definition, purposes, type and use of the evaluation
- Definitions and typologies.
- When to do an evaluation? Think about the use from the beginning.
- Evaluation questions.
T2. Theories
- The main theoretical branches in the development of policy evaluation.
- The great authors and their main contributions.
T3 Qualitative methodology
- Conceptual and theoretical approach.
- Methodological approach.
- Qualitative techniques.
- Analysis of cases through seminars and practices.
T4 Measuring performance through indicators
- Theoretical approach.
- Characteristics and types of indicators.
- Methodology for the construction of indicators.
- Indicators management models.
- Analysis of cases through seminars and practices.
T5 Needs assessment
- Document the needs.
- Indicators and quantification of needs.
- Analysis of cases through seminars and practices.
T6. Design evaluation
- The theory of change.
- The design of the policies.
- Analysis of cases through seminars and practices.
T7 Evaluation of the implementation
- Analysis of the administrative and management process
- Variations in the organizations providing the final service.
- Variations in the profiles of the user and beneficiary populations.
- Analysis of cases through seminars and practices.
T8 Impact evaluation
- Impact evaluation with comparison groups.
- Impact evaluation based on statistical control.
- Analysis of cases through seminars and practices.
T9 economic evaluation
- Cost evaluation (ingredients).
- Cost effectiveness evaluation.
- Analysis of cases through seminars and practices.
The calendar detailed with the content of the different sessions will be presented on the day of presentation of the subject. It will be uploaded to the Virtual Campus, where students will also be able to access the detailed description of the exercises and practices, the various teaching materials, and any necessary information for the proper follow-up of the subject.
The subject "Evaluation of Public Management" has 6 cr ECTS, that is, a total of 150 hours of student dedication (25 hours per credit). These hours are structured in the following training activities and in the teaching methodology indicated:
Directed activities:
- Classes / seminar: Analysis of the contents in seminar format based on the readings of the recommended bibliography and its application to specific cases. Supported by exhibitions by the teacher.
- Practices: application of evaluation techniques to real cases of public policies.
- Presentation of papers: group presentations and evaluation round.
Supervised activities:
- Support tutorials to carry out the work and follow the course.
Autonomous activities:
- Reading of texts: individual exercise.
- Study: realization of diagrams and summaries.
- Writing of papers: application of concepts and methods to a specific problem. Group exercise
Title | Hours | ECTS | Learning Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|
Type: Directed | |||
On-site classes / Seminars | 28 | 1.12 | 13, 3, 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 16, 17, 21, 18, 4 |
Type: Supervised | |||
Classroom practices | 18 | 0.72 | 1, 8, 12, 11, 9, 15, 16, 17, 21, 20, 19, 4 |
Group work tutoring | 2 | 0.08 | 1, 2, 7, 8, 12, 14, 11, 15, 16, 17, 21, 20, 22, 19 |
Tutoring | 2 | 0.08 | 3, 1, 2, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 4 |
Type: Autonomous | |||
Readin (50h) | 0 | 0 | 10, 15, 17, 20 |
Studying (10h) | 14 | 0.56 | 1, 2, 11, 15, 17, 21, 20 |
Written essays (40h) | 0 | 0 | 13, 3, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 11, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 21, 20, 22, 18, 19, 4 |
The final grade is composed of:
• Continuous evaluation (seminars and class participation): 25% of the grade
• Practices: 50% of the grade
• Course work: 25% of the grade (group work of three and four people)
Students will be entitled to the recovery of the subject if it has been evaluated of the set of activities, the weight of which must be a minimum of 2/3 of the total grade of the subject.
To have access to revaluation, the previous grades should be 3,5.
Continuous evaluation (seminars and participation) is excluded from the revaluation process.
The student will be entitled to the revaluation of the subject if he or she has been evaluated of the set of activities the weight of which equals a minimum of 2/3 of the total grade of the subject.
The student who performs any irregularity (copy, plagiarism, identity theft...) that can lead to a significant variation of the qualification of an evaluation act, will be qualified with 0 this act of evaluation. In case there are several irregularities, the final grade of the subject will be 0.
In accordance with article 117.2 of the UAB Academic Regulations, the evaluation of those students who have been enroled before may consist of a single synthesis examination. The students who wish to be evaluated this way should contact the professor at the beginning of the semester.
Title | Weighting | Hours | ECTS | Learning Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Classroom practices | 50 | 16 | 0.64 | 13, 3, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 11, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 21, 20, 22, 18, 19, 4 |
Seminars and class participation | 25 | 28 | 1.12 | 13, 3, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 11, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 21, 20, 22, 18, 19, 4 |
Written essays | 25 | 42 | 1.68 | 5, 6, 14, 11, 15, 16, 17, 22, 18 |
IN CATALAN OR SPANISH
Col·lecció Ivàlua de guies pràctiques sobre avaluació de les polítiques públiques. Barcelona, Ivàlua, 2009-2011 (vid. referències per les sessions del programa)
Autors varis. 1999, Indicadores de Gestión para las Entidades Públicas. Asociación Española de Contabilidad y Administración de Empresas.
Ballart, X. 1992 ¿Cómo evaluar programas y servicios públicos? Madrid, Instituto Nacional de Administración Pública, 1992
Ballart, X. 1994 “Clientes de un servicio cultural. Una experiencia de evaluación con ‘focus groups’”. Gestión y Análisis de Políticas Públicas, núm. 1
Ballart, X. 1996 “Modelos teóricos para la práctica de la evaluación de programas”. A Q. Brugué i J. Subirats, Lecturas de Gestión Pública, Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Administración Pública, Boletín Oficial del Estado
Ballart, X. C. Riba 1996 “Políticas de seguridad: el caso del uso del casco en Barcelona”, Hacienda Pública Española, núm. 135, 1996.
Ballart, X. C. Riba, J. Blasco 2011, “Minimum Income and Labour Market Integration Processes: Individual and Institutional Determinants”. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociologicas, Núm. 133
López, J i A. Gadea, 1992 El Control de Gestión en la Administración Local.Barcelona: Gestión 2000
Kaplan, R.S. y D.P. Norton 2000 El Cuadro de Mando Integral Barcelona, Gestión 2000
Rosselló, David 2008 Evaluación de Políticas Culturales Barcelona, Ariel
Ruíz Olabuénaga, J.I.1996 Tècnicas de Investigación cualitativa. Bilbao: Universidad de Deusto.
IN ENGLISH
General
Rossi, Peter et al. 2003, Evaluation. A Systematic Approach. Sage.
Vedung, Evert, 2000, Public Policy and Program Evaluation, Transaction.
Weiss, Carol, 1998 Evaluation, 2nd edition, Prentice Hall.
Theory-Driven
Birckmayer, J. and C. Weiss, 2000, “Theory-Based Evaluation in Practice: What do we learn?” Evaluation, 24 (4) August 2000.
Donaldson, S. 2003, “Theory-Driven Program Evaluation in the New Millenium” in Donaldson and Scriven, Evaluating Social Programs and Problems: Visions for the New Millennium, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Management Control – Performance Management
Kaplan, R.S. D.P Norton, 1996 The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Harvard Business School Press
Van de Walle, S. G. Bouckaert, 2007
“Perceptions of Productivity and Performance in Europe and The United States”, International Journal of Public Administration, 30, 1123-1140,
Economic Evaluation
Levin, H. 1983, Cost Effectiveness. A Primer. Sage.
Pennisi, G., P.L. Scandizzo, 2006, “Economic Evaluation in an Age of Uncertainty”, Evaluation, 12 (1) 77-94
Causal Relations
Ballart X. C. Riba, 1995, "Impact of Legislation Requiring Moped and Motorbike Riders to Wear Helmets", Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol.18 (4).
Ballart X. C. Riba, 2002, “Forest Fires: Evaluation of Government Intervention Measures,” Policy Sciences, Vol.35 (4) 361-377
Campbell, D. T., H. L. Ross, 1968, “The Connecticut crackdown on speeding: time series data in quasi-experimental analysis”. Law and Society Review. 3 (1), 33-53
Cook, T. D. and D.T. Campbell, 1979, Quasi-experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for field settings, Houghton Mifflin.
Surveys
Fowler, 1993, Survey Research Methods, Sage.
Van Ryzin, G. 2007, “Can citizens accurately judge public performance?” Paper presented at EGPA, Madrid.
Role of evaluator
Brown, P., 1995, “The role of the evaluator in comprehensive community initiatives”. In J.P. Connell, A.C. Kubisch, L.B. Schorr, C.H. Weiss New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods and contexts. Washington DC: Aspen Institute.
Lincoln, Y. S. 2003, “Fourth Generation Evaluation in the New Millennium” in Donaldson and Scriven, Evaluating Social Programs and Problems: Visions for the New Millennium, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Case studies
Stake, R. 1995, The art of case study research. Sage.
Trained observers
Greiner, J.M., 1994, “Use of ratings by trained observers”. In J.S. Wholey, H.P. Hatry, K.E. Newcomer (eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Focus groups
Dean, D.L., 1994, “Howto Use Focus Groups”. In J.S. Wholey, H.P. Hatry, K.E. Newcomer (eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Systematic Observation
S.D. Mastrofski et al., 1998, Systematic Observation of Public Police: Applying Field Research Methods to Policy Issues. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice.
Role playing
Turner, M.A., W. Zimmerman, 1994, “Acting for the Sake of Research: The Use of Role-Playing in Evaluation”. In J.S. Wholey, H.P. Hatry, K.E. Newcomer (eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Expert Judgment
Averch, H.A., 1994, “The Systematic Use of Expert Judgment”. In J.S. Wholey, H.P. Hatry, K.E. Newcomer (eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Liverani, A., H.E. Lundgren, 2007, “Evaluation systems in Development Aid Agencies: An Analysis of DAC Peer Reviews 1996-2004”, Evaluation, 13 (4), 241-256.