Cutting-edge research and public service are at the heart of the Evans School of Public Affairs. Our faculty members, students, and partners work together to tackle important challenges in:
Nonprofit management
Environmental policy and management
Poverty studies
Education
International affairs
Public management, policy analysis, and finance
And much more
Our research projects contribute substantially to innovative policy and management solutions, civic engagement, and academic collaboration in communities worldwide. Find out more about our:
Our research and outreach centers at the Evans School of Public Affairs provide innovative analysis and solutions for many different issues locally, nationally, and internationally. Our centers include:
Benefit-Cost Analysis Center aims to improve the understanding and use of benefit-cost analysis as a decision-making tool through research, outreach, and standardization of benefit-cost analysis methodology.
Cascade Center is a nationally recognized education provider for the public and nonprofit sectors. Cascade Center courses are designed to help on-the-job managers and leaders develop their skills, make their programs more effective, and enhance their service to the communities they support.
Center for Urban Simulation and Policy Analysis fosters greater understanding of the relationship between urban growth and public policy. The center has as its centerpiece "UrbanSim," a software-based simulation model that allows metropolitan planning organizations and others to forecast the likely effects of land use and transportation plans and policies.
Human Services Policy Center pairs applied analytic research with the promotion of policies that improve the lives of children, families, and communities.
Marc Lindenberg Center for Humanitarian Action, International Development, and Global Citizenship works to expand teaching, research, and service opportunities in the areas of humanitarian action, international development, and global citizenship.
West Coast Poverty Center serves as the hub for knowledge and awareness of the causes and consequences of poverty and effective approaches to reduce it in west coast states. The center is a joint project with the University of Washington’s School of Social Work and the College of Arts and Sciences.
William D. Ruckelshaus Center provides expertise to improve the quality and availability of voluntary collaborative approaches for policy development and multi-party dispute resolution. The center is a joint venture between the Evans School at the University of Washington and Washington State University Extension.
The Water Center brings together experts from a range of disciplines to understand and resolve water problems and water health. The center is joint project with the University of Washington’s College of Forest Resources, the College of Engineering, and the College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences.
Other research and outreach projects at the Evans School include:
Access to pre-published research in the individual areas of Evans School faculty expertise through the Evans School Working Paper Series,
And worldwide academic collaboration among teachers of public administration, public policy, and related subjects through our Electronic Hallway
Benefit-Cost Analysis Center
The core aim of the Benefit-Cost Analysis Center is to improve the understanding and use of benefit-cost analysis (BCA) as a decision-making tool. Our research and outreach is geared toward:
Improving and standardizing benefit-cost analysis methodology,
Strengthening relationships between institutions that use it,
Diseminating information about its use and misuse, and
Expanding its use when appropriate.
This involves working with a variety of government agencies and academic professionals whose work involves benefit-cost analysis. We accomplish this through:
Benefit-cost (or cost-benefit) analysis (or BCA) aims to inform the decision-making process with specific types of information, namely measures in monetary terms of willingness to pay for a change by those who will benefit from it, and the willingness to accept the change by those who will lose from it.
The use of monetary terms provides a common metric. Its purpose is not to price everything, but rather to order choices in a way that is informative about social choices for decision makers.
The Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis is an international
organization dedicated to the advancement, encouragement, and exchange
of ideas, research, and other activities related to:
Benefit-Cost analysis (BCA),
Cost-effectiveness analysis,
Risk-benefit analysis,
Applied welfare economic analysis, and
Damage assessments.
This includes the intersection with other disciplines such as economics, law, engineering, policy, decision sciences and the natural sciences.
The Society has adopted the following primary goals:
Bring together individuals from diverse disciplines and from different countries and provide them opportunities to foster collaboration and exchange information, ideas and methodologies related to the practice and theory of benefit-cost analysis and applied welfare economics;
Encourage applications of benefit-cost and applied welfare analysis, and promote dialogue between practitioners and others who are interested in benefit-cost analysis;
Facilitate the development and dissemination of knowledge about benefit-cost and applied welfare analysis methods and their applications;
Develop and update standards of practice for benefit-cost and applied welfare analysis.
Foster methods to improve communication and consideration of benefit-cost methods and results.
The central purpose of the Benefit-Cost Analysis Center is to disseminate information to those working in government agencies and academic institutions who use benefit-cost analysis (BCA) methodology.
Our conferences play an important role in this, and help us in reaching our goal to start a national conversation on standards to follow in applying benefit-cost analysis (BCA) as a decision-making tool.
Advancing Social Policy-Making Through Benefit-Cost Analysis: Challenges and Opportunities
June 24-25, Washington, D.C.
This national policy forum is funded by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and will:
Examine the role of benefit-cost analysis in social policy-making
Highlight the new opportunities presented by recent uses of benefit-cost analysis in social arenas
We will also aim to develop strategies for making Benefit Cost Analysis more practical, consistent, and implementable, within the social policy fields.
We have invited leading scholars, practitioners, lawyers, and policy-makers to share ideas about the implementation of benefit-cost analysis techniques and procedures. We also hope conference participants will offer advice on how improve the quality of social benefit-cost analysis and increase the usage of it in regard to social programs at all levels of government.
Conference Schedule and Highlights
Day 1: Tuesday, June 24 – 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The conference will present the following panels, highlighting recent successes of integration between benefit-cost analysis and social policy-making with and emphasis on identifying transferable lessons.
The Use of Evidence-Based Research on Children’s Outcomes to Promote Economic Competitiveness: The Case of the Partnership for America's Economic Success will describe how partnership-supported research about the rates of return for specific child development strategies has been used to establish new ways to justify investments in children.
Panel Chair: Robert Dugger, Managing Partner, Tudor Investment Corporation
Greg Duncan, Edwina S. Tarry Professor, School of Education and Social Policy, and Faculty Fellow, Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University
Robert Bradham, Senior Vice President of Business Development and Government Affairs, Greater Richmond Chamber of Commerce
Lessons from Government Experience with Benefit-Cost Analysis: USA and the EU will discuss the extent to which benefit-cost analysis improves decision-making, and will explore how such use can be fashioned to have greater impact with respect to the analysis of federal social programs
Panel Chair: John Graham, Dean, Pardee RAND Graduate School of Public Policy and Dean-Designate, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University
John Morrall, Branch Chief, U.S. Office of Management and Budget
Kimberly Thompson, Associate Profesor of Risk Analysis and Decision Science, School of Public Health, Harvard University
Jonathan Wiener, Perkins Profesor of Law and Environmental Policy, Duke University
Using Benefit-Cost Analysis in the State Legislature: Case Study of the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) will have senior staff members of the Washington State Senate examining whether or not benefit-cost analysis effectively contributes to state level decision-making.
Panel Chair: Steve Aos, Assistant Director, Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Richard Ramsey, Fiscal Analyst, Washington State Senate Ways and Means Committee
Tim Skeel, Principal Economist, Seattle Public Utilities, City of Seattle
Integrated Administrative Data Systems: Generating Benefits and Costs in Real Time Over Time will examine how integrated administrative data enables measurement of investments and returns across agency boundaries, leading to a transformation in social policy.
Panel Chair: Dennis Culhane, Professor of Social Welfare Policy, School of Social Policy and Practice; and Professor of Psychology in Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania
Richard Burgess, Manager/Database Area Supporting DHS/CSES, Department of Information Technology, State of Michigan
Pete Bailey, Chief, Office of Research and Statistics, South Carolina
Manuel Moreno, Research Director for the Chief Executive Office, Research and Evaluation, Los Angeles County
Martha Moorehouse, Division Director for Children and Youth Policy, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
John Fantuzzo, Greenfield Professor of Human Relations, University of Pennsylvania
Day 2: Wednesday, June 25 – 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. The second day of the conference will focus on identifying research strategies that will make Benefit-Cost Analysis more practical and useable in future social policy-making.
Key Factors Enabling Rigorous Research to Influence Policy: Lessons from Welfare, Education, and Other Areas will discuss concrete examples in which rigorous research findings – including benefit-cost results – have had a meaningful impact on policy decisions, and instances when they did not. The goal is to identify key ingredients that make for successful impact.
Panel Chair: Jon Baron, Executive Director, Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy
Robert Shea, Associate Director for OMB Administration and Government Performance, U.S. Office of Management and Budget
Ron Haskins, Senior Fellow and Co-Director, Center for Children and Families, Brookings Institution
Robert Slavin, Director, Center for Research and Reform in Education, The Johns Hopkins University; Director, Institute for Effective Education, University of York; and Co-Founder and Chairman, Success for All Foundation
Missing Shadow Prices from Benefit-Cost Analyses of Social Programs will examine how analysis of social programs can be improved by giving attention to shadow prices.
Panel Chair: Dave Weimer, Professor of Public Affairs and Political Science, LaFollette School of Public Affairs, University of Wisconsin
Robert Haveman, John Bascom Emeritus Professor, LaFollette School of Public Affairs and Department of Economics, and Faculty Affiliate, Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin
V. Kerry Smith, W.P. Carey Professor of Economics, Arizona State University
Philip Cook, ITT/Terry Sanford Professor of Public Policy Studies, Professor of Economics and Sociology, and Associate Director, Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University
Issues in the Development of Principles and Standards for Conducting Social Benefit-Cost Analysis will address areas and process for development, historical experience, templates, and values for analysis in developing principles and standards in the field of benefit-cost analysis.
Panel Chair: Scott Farrow, Professor and Chair, Department of Economics, University of Maryland - Baltimore County
Arnold Harberger, Distinguished Professor of Economics, University of California, Los Angeles
Lynn Karoly, Senior Economist, RAND Corporation
Lester Lave, Professor of Economics, Carnegie Mellon University
David Weimer, Professor of Public Affairs and Political Science, LaFollette School of Public Affairs, University of Wisconsin
End of Conference Luncheon
Keynote Speaker: Jonathan F. Fanton, President, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
Where:The Liaison Capitol Hill, An Affinia Hotel, 415 New Jersey Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. Rooms will be held until May 30 for a special meeting rate of $289 plus tax. Parking will be available for $34/day. Reserve your hotel and parking reservations at 202.638.1616.
Conference and membership registration fees:
Conference registration for current members: $75
Conference registration for nonmembers: $100
Membership for Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis: $75
Conference Registration and Membership Package: $125
Meeting Agenda
Day 1: Wednesday, June 25
Registration and Check-In: 11:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.
Lunch with keynote speech "The Power of Measuring Social Benefits" by Jonathan Fanton, president of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, : 12:45-1:45 p.m.
Panel 1 – States, Localities, and Benefit-Cost Analysis: 2:30 – 3:45 p.m. Panel Chair: Ken Acks of the Cost Benefit Group
Regulatory Regime Change under Federalism: Do States Matter More? by W. Gray of Clark University and R. Shadbegian of the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
The Net Social Benefit of Transforming Six Public Housing Projects into Mixed-Income Communities by T. Boston of Georgia Institute of Technology and L. Boston of EuQuant
A Retrospective Assessment of the Pittsburgh Midfield Airport Expansion by J. Sturgis of Carnegie Mellon University
Variations on a Theme: Benefit-Cost Analysis and Environmental Regulation in Pennsylvania by W. Delavan of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Panel 2 – Uncertainty and Risk: 4:00-5:15 p.m. Panel Chair: Scott Farrow of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County
How to Integrate Risk Assessment and Benefit-Cost Analysis by A. Jessup, C. Nardinelli, D. Mancini, and L. Bush of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Office of Management and Budget
Early Identification and Treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease: Desirable Social and Fiscal Outcomes by D. Weimer and M. Sager of the University of Wisconsin
The Importance of Uncertainty in a Benefit-Cost Analysis of Flood Proofing Policy Decisions for Adaptation to Sea-level Rise by M. Schultz of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and P. Fischbeck, and M. Small of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Carnegie Mellon University
Homeland Security Benefit-Cost Analysis: Small Steps Forward, Giant Leaps To Go by E. Shapiro of Rutgers University
Reception and Open-Poster Session: 5:30-6:30 p.m.
The Costs and Benefits of a Green Mixed-Use Brownfield Redevelopment Project in New York by K. Acks of the Cost Benefit Group
The Fatal Flaw of Benefit-Cost Analysis: The Problem of Person-Altering Consequences by G. Cresip of Southern Methodist University
Benefit-Cost Analysis in Foreign Direct Investment: Trends, Limitations, and Prospects by N. Dasgupta of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Random Error and Simulation Models with an Unobserved Dependent Variable as Applied to the Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act by S. Farrow of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County
A Full Cost Analysis of Using Backup Generators to Meet Peak Electricity Demand by E. Gilmore, P. Adams, and L. Lave of Carnegie Mellon University
Riparian Buffers and Hedonic Prices: A Quasi-Experimental Analysis of Residential Property Values in the Neuse River Basin by O. Gin, C. Landry, and G. Meyer of East Carolina University
Different Measures of the Value of Changes in Risks: The Reference State Matters by J. Knetsch of Simon Fraser University
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Mercury Control Technologies for Virginia by V. Satyal of the Virgina Department of Environmental Quality
Mapping Environmental Preferences for Ambiguous Natural Resources by S. Vajjhala, A. John, and D. Evans of Resources for the Future and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The Relevance of the Scitovsky Paradox by A. Schmitz of the University of Florida
Getting the Sulpher out of Gasoline: Costs and Benefits by G. Jenkins of Queen's University
Dinner on your own
Day 2: Thursday, June 26
Continental Breakfast: 7:30-8:00 a.m.
Panel 3 – Federal Practice: 8:00-9:15 a.m. Panel Chair: Betsy Cody of the Congressional Research Service
Benefit-Cost Analysis at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by S. Grosse of the Centers for Disease Control
Benefit-Cost Analysis and the Performance of Homeland Security Spending by J. Ghez of the RAND Corporation
Agency Capabilities and Performance in Applying Benefit-Cost Analysis by R. Belzer of the Regulatory Checkbook
The Influence of Economists in the Federal health, Safety and Environmental Agencies by R. Williams of George Mason University
Panel 4 – International Issues and Applications: 9:30-10:45 a.m. Panel Char: Jack Knetsch of Simon Fraser University
Potential Practices for Integrating International Impacts into Regulatory Impact Analyses by D. Mancini of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget
Socioeconomic and Financial Evaluation of Infrastructure and Transport Projects with Environmental Impacts by C. Leon, M. Ruiz, and M. Romero of the University of Las Palmas
Cost-Effectiveness Methods and Practice in Education: A Critical Review of Program Evaluation in Developing Countries by M. Pirog, K. Krutilla, T. Guzman, and C. Dew of Indiana University
Benefit-Cost Analysis and International Collective Action: The Case of Climate Change by D. Cole of Indiana University
Panel 5 – Time, Mortality, and Quality of Life: 11:00a.m.-12:15p.m. Panel Chair: TBD
Incorporating Nonmarket Time Into Benefit-Cost Analyses of Social Programs by D. Greenberg of the University of Maryland, and P. Robins of the University of Miami
Changing Profiles: Lags and the Social Rate of Time Preference by Topic by K. Patora of the Washington State Department of Ecology
Should Agencies Value Mortality Risk Reductions Differently Depending on the Context? by L. Robinson
Valuation of Quality of Life Losses Associated with Nonfatal Injury: Insights from Jury Verdict Data by D. Aiken and W. Zamula of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
Buffet Lunch and Society Meeting: 12:15-1:45 p.m.
Panel 6 – Methods Pushing Boundaries: 1:45-3:00 p.m. Panel Chair: David Weimer of the University of Wisconsin
Policy Establishment Costs: The Normative Implications for Benefit-Cost Analysis by K. Krutilla of Indiana University
Environmental Decisions without Benefit-Cost Analysis: A Ranking-Based Alternative by J. Horowtiz and J. Quiggin of the University of Maryland-College Park
The Irrelevance of the Compensation Test by R. Zerbe of the Evans School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington
Using Benefit Cost Analysis to Assess Nonprofit Performance by J. Cordes and C. Coventry of George Washington University
The Welfare Economics of Sharing Fixed Costs of Product Safety Regulation, Presentation (1,007 KB PDF) by Richard Just; presented by Richard Just
The Information Industry, Distant Use Value and the Exxon Valdez, Presentation (235 KB PDF) by R. Scott Farrow and Douglas M. Larson; presented by Scott Farrow
Cost-Effective Species Conservation, Presentation (768 KB PDF) by Mark Plummer
Note: The links provided mainly connect to sources outside the Center's website, either to webpages or directly to .pdf or .doc files. Approximate sizes of PDF files have been included. Depending on your browser settings, the files may open in your browser or automatically begin downloading.
Richard O. Zerbe
Benefit-Cost Analysis Center
Evans School of Public Affairs
University of Washington
Box 353055
Room 226 Parrington Hall
Seattle, WA 98195-3055, USA Phone: 206-616-5470 Email: zerbe@u.washington.edu
The nonpartisan Civic Engagement for the 21st Century Project at the Evans School is dedicated to forming a new model for solving complex community challenges by renewing and transforming civic engagement into a process that:
Better informs citizens
Fosters improved decision-making
Capitalizes on the thoughts of a spectrum of people
And improves the quality of life for current and future generations
The project goes beyond theory to actually convene people around current regional challenges through various events at the Evans School.
Find out more about the background of the project.
Background
Through a philanthropic gift from the Boeing Company, we were able to launch the Civic Engagement for the 21st Century Project at the Evans School in 2006.
The goal of the project is to create a new model of civic engagement that makes use of available forms of communication today.
Why is it important to renew civic engagement and create a new model for it?
A number of social and political forces in the world today inhibit our ability to find shared values and develop creative solutions to critical political problems. These forces include:
Polarization
Cynicism
Disillusionment
Lack of civility
How will the new model help change the current state of civic engagement?
The research involved in designing the model will generate new knowledge about how to improve democratic governance through effective dialogues between citizens, policymakers, and stakeholders.
Who will use the new model for civic engagement?
Citizens who want more knowledge and control over their future, and leaders who are seeking to better serve citizens and manage the political risks associated with change.
Distinguished Practitioner-in-Residence Norman B. Rice, a former City of Seattle mayor, is laying the foundation of the Civic Engagement for the 21st Century project. A number of major initiatives were in the Rice Administration were guided by five core principles of strong community engagement:
Center the engagement on policy rather than politics.
Framing questions around values first and issues second allows for building common ground and eases the divisiveness that is prevalent in today’s political environment.
Have meaningful civic engagement or no engagement at all.
Giving citizens the opportunity to shape the questions and answers requires compassionate leadership, trusting the process rather than controlling it, and not having presumptions about what the results of the process will be like.
Hyper-communication is key.
A public endeavor will never fail from too much communication. Today’s technology has expanded the toolbox for communicating and can help move people along a continuum from being informed - to interested - to involved.
Civic engagement requires political will.
Communities need to identify and support leaders who:
Have the political will of investing in civic engagement,
And continue that investment even when putting their own re-election chances at risk.
Civic engagement should look beyond governance.
Leaders must learn to leave boundaries and biases aside in order to get the heart of policy issues. This requires strategies at the regional level where silos of governance are brought down, working through territorial disputes, and prioritizing collaboration.
These same five core principles are used in all Civic Engagement for the 21st Century events hosted by the Evans School, which will put the project’s research to practice in discussing regional policy issues.
The focus of the Civic Engagement for the 21st Century project at the Evans School is not to advocate for particular perspectives. Rather, the focus is the advancement of meaningful, inclusive dialogue when addressing issues of public concern.
We will do this by studying effective components of civic engagement, including the new technologies of today, and the different roles each of us play in the process, including:
Individual citizens
Public-private partnerships
Nonprofits
Elected officials
Academic institutions
The media
The work involved with the project will ultimately result in:
Creating a new model of civic engagement that provides innovative methods for increasing civic participation and creativity in solving complex policy issues.
Using the new model to host a set of forums at the Evans School on regional policies that address issues urban communities face today such as affordable housing and homelessness, the socioeconomic integration of immigrants, racial inequities, and religious expression.
Introducing the new model of civic engagement and the best-applied practices of it through publications and a documentary.
Mentoring a body of leaders educated on the value and methodology behind effective civic engagement.
Our commitment to advancing leaders in the public interest at the Evans School goes beyond the work of our research and outreach centers. Our faculty is among the top in the public policy and management fields when it comes to cutting-edge research and outreach. We make this work available to the public through key projects such as:
Public Service Clinics match the research interests of Evans School students with needed projects among regional public and non-profit agencies for producing things such as program evaluations, strategic plans, policy analyses, and new program designs.
Civic Engagement for the 21st Century aims to create a model of civic engagement that emphasizes shared ownership and success for efforts around complex policy issues at the local and national levels. Former Seattle Mayor Norman B. Rice, one of our distinguished practitioners-in-residence, leads the project.
Community Vitality Project works to understand what policies are most effective to reduce poverty and enhance vitality in communities that vary by urban-rural location, in terms of racial and ethnic diversity, and with regard potential economic linkages with surrounding areas.
Urban Institute’s Arts and Culture Indicators in Communities Project provides a model for measuring the value of art in society and the changing landscape of support for artists in a first-of-its-kind statistical portrait of cultural vitality. Assistant Professor Joaquín Herranz, Jr. contributed to this project as a consulting research associate at the Urban Institute.
The Electronic Hallway serves as a reservoir of case studies for those who teach public policy and administration.
Nonprofit Accountability Clubs examines how voluntary programs seek to mitigate agency conflict and resolve agency dilemmas in nonprofits and nongovernmental organizations.
Find out more about the faculty and staff at the Evans School who makes these projects possible.
Community Vitality Project
Understanding Levers to Reduce Poverty for Individuals and Communities
What are key ways to reduce poverty in communities? With funding from the Northwest Area Foundation, researchers from the Evans School are working to understand what policies are most effective in communities that vary by urban-rural location, in terms of racial and ethnic diversity, and with regard potential economic linkages with surrounding areas.
The five-year, $1.5 million Community Vitality Project will produce research papers that analyze the levers that both reduce poverty and enhance community vitality, with the goal of making recommendations for effective policies within the 8 states that the Northwest Area Foundation serves: Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa.
Nonprofit Accountability Clubs
Nonprofit Accountability Clubs seeks to better understand the phenomenon of voluntary regulation by nonprofits and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The scale and scope of work done by these two entities has grown in recent years, resulting in increased governance challenges and the need for more oversight mechanisms.
This project, led by Mary Kay Gugerty, examines how voluntary oversight programs by nonprofits and NGOs can mitigate agency conflict, enhance the confidence of principals in nonprofits, and make reporting requirements less onerous. The research produced aims to answer:
In which sectors and under what conditions do such voluntary programs emerge?
How do these programs shape the behaviors of the principals and the nonprofits?
With the Evans School Working Paper Series, you have access to our faculty’s research on relevant public policy and management issues prior to publication. All of the papers are available in PDF format and require Adobe Acrobat Reader to view.
While the papers are suitable for high-level scholarly and professional publications, they are still under the review process and may be subject to revision. Because of this, the papers should only be cited as Evans School Working Papers to preserve the integrity of the scholarly contribution and author’s copyright.
Abstract: This paper, part of a forthcoming comparative volume on “The Public Interest and the Academic Research Enterprise,” edited by David Dill (University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill) and Frans Van Vught (European Commission and University of Twente, the Netherlands), analyzes public policies toward academic research in the U.S. state of California. Taking a broad view of state research policies, it first surveys the history and recent trends in the state’s support of the research and graduate education missions of the University of California, identifying serious problems and emerging challenges plaguing the state’s prospects to sustain UC’s historic elite quality in these areas, which underpins the state’s research effort. Then, much of the paper is devoted to a survey and analysis of the political economy of California’s numerous state funded research programs, both those based at the University of California and the increasingly important ones (most notably the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine or CIRM) independent of UC. Broadly, the conclusion is that even a state as large and wealthy as California is poorly situated to develop coherent and independent research policies as states lack the necessary independent brokering institutions analogous to the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health at the federal level, and policymakers have fewer buffers against political influences. Moreover, in California particularly the populist, highly polarized and media-influenced political culture makes coherent state policymaking for research a major challenge. Finally, California policymakers have done little to build institutional expertise in this area in either the executive or legislative branch.
Using Private Demand Studies to Calculate Socially-Optimal Vaccine Subsidies in Developing Countries By Joseph Cook, Marc Jeuland, Brian Maskery, Donald Lauria, Dipika Sur, John Clemens, and Dale Whittington
Abstract: Although it is well-known that vaccines against many infectious diseases confer positive economic externalities via indirect protection, analysts have typically ignored possible herd protection effects in policy analyses of vaccination programs. This paper develops a transparent, accessible economic framework for assessing the private and social economic benefits of vaccination, and employs economic data from stated preference studies (e.g., contingent valuation and choice modeling) to demonstrate socially-optimal policies, starting with a depiction of Pigouvian subsidies applied to herd protection from vaccination programs. Our depictions of marginal social benefits highlight some counter-intuitive implications of herd protection not commonly observed in the applied policy literature. We illustrate the approach using economic and epidemiological data from two neighborhoods in Kolkata, India, and recent data on the indirect effects of cholera vaccination in Matlab, Bangladesh. We fit a simple mathematical model of how protection changes with vaccine coverage, and use new data on costs and private demand for cholera vaccines in Kolkata, India to approximate the optimal Pigouvian subsidy. We find that, if the optimal subsidy is unknown, selling vaccines at full marginal cost may, under some circumstances, be a preferable second-best option to providing them for free.
The Cost-Effectiveness of Typhoid Vi Vaccination Programs: Calculations for Four Urban Sites in Four Asian Countries By Joseph Cook, Marc Jeuland, Dale Whittington, Chirstin Poulous, John Clemens, Dipkia Sur, Dang Duc Anh, Magdarina Agtini, Zulfiqar Bhutta, and the Domie Typhoid Economics Study Group
Abstract: The burden of typhoid fever remains high in impoverished settings and increasing antibiotic resistance is making treatment costly. One strategy for reducing the typhoid morbidity and mortality is vaccination with the Vi polysaccharide vaccine. We use a wealth of new economic and epidemiological data to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Vi vaccination against typhoid in sites in four Asian cities: Kolkata (India), Karachi (Pakistan), N. Jakarta (Indonesia), Hue (Vietnam). We estimate that a vaccination program targeting all children (2-14) would cost US$189, US$232, and US$712 per DALY averted in Kolkata, Karachi, and N. Jakarta. These programs would be considered “very cost-effective” under a wide range of assumptions. Community-based vaccination programs that also target adults in Kolkata and Jakarta are less cost-effective because incidence is lower in adults than children, but are also likely to be “very cost-effective”. Any type of program in Hue, Vietnam would not be cost effective (US$3,924 per DALY averted for a program targeting children 5-14yrs old) because of the low typhoid incidence there. Although the study does not address the important question of whether the social economic benefits of vaccination exceed the social costs, Vi vaccination programs targeting children in the sites in Kolkata, Karachi and N. Jakarta look to be attractive investments. They would be among the better half of interventions for Asia compiled by the Disease Control Priorities Project, although health policymakers will want to carefully compare the cost effectiveness of Vi vaccination with other public health priorities.
What Matters for Excellence in Ph.D. Programs? Latent Constructs of Doctoral Program Quality Used by Early Career Social Scientests
By William Zumeta, Emory Morrison, Elizabeth Rudd, WZ, Maresi Nerad
Abstract: Latent class analysis reveals that social scientists evaluate the quality of their Ph.D. program with one of two approaches. Graduates of elite programs rely heavily on perceptions of the program's academic rigor; others use perceptions of diverse factors including program support and socialization. Faculty tend to use the latter approach.
How Much Higher Education Does the Nation Need? By William Zumeta
In this paper, first, we assess the difference between societal need for educated people and market demand for them, concluding that, while projected market demand is a logical lower bound estimate of societal needs, needs can emerge and/or be newly articulated in the policymaking process that would not be projected using standard assumptions. We make the case that, over the relevant planning horizon, such needs for educated people are more likely to exceed trend-based projections than to undershoot them. We next explore the limits of precise "manpower forecasting" of demand and supply, which has not proved very successful in the past and seems unlikely to be any more accurate now given the rapidity of change-much of it change that cannot realistically be foreseen with precision far in advance-in economies and societies today. Then, we delve into some of the key evidence and analytic issues on both the demand and supply sides of this need-for-higher-education question a bit more, paying particular attention to the relevant economic frameworks and evidence, especially trends in labor market demand for educated people as reflected in their market earnings.
Ethical Benefit Cost Analysis as Art and Science: Ten Rules for Benefit-Cost Analysis By Richard O. Zerbe
Abstract: Modern benefit-cost analysis has been mischaracterized by a wide spectrum of non-practitioner, mainly legal critics. Economists and users or producers of BCA in the past have chosen to remain unaware of the need to make the foundation of benefit-cost analysis clear. Yet economists have come to realize or been forced by practicality (e.g. in addressing issues of charity, and through environmental evaluation and contingent valuation where moral sentiments play a role), to see that a more inclusive view of BCA allows a wider scope for evaluations, and a more solid framework for its use. As part of the process of making the basis for BCA clearer and more useful, this article begins to develop rules and standards of practice. In doing this it shows that BCA is not a mechanical exercise but rather an art form involving nuanced judgment about what information is most useful for public policy. In introducing ethical BCA as an art form, most criticisms of BCA are obviated. The criticisms are shown to be governed by one or more of the rules for ethical BCA introduced here.
Abstract: This conversational and slightly autobiographical essay attempts an answer to the question "What is environmentalism?" It offers a narrative of the progress of contemporary environmentalism from a movement largely concerned with questions of wilderness to one more focused on the normative dimensions of place.
Abstract: The "convergence hypothesis," originally introduced into the literature in environmental ethics by Bryan Norton in 1992, argues that under certain conditions those holding the view that moral obligations can only be extended to humans (anthropocentrists) and those holding the view that moral obligations can be extended beyond humans to other animals and perhaps to whole ecosystems (nonanthropocentrists) can nonetheless agree on the same environmental policies. In his more recent work Norton distances himself from this hypothesis arguing in favor of a strategy of overcoming these divisions. This paper argues that the convergence hypothesis is still needed for those, like Norton, who count themselves as "environmental pragmatists" and defends the hypothesis against some of its critics.
Abstract: Several influential environmental ethicists have long argued that restored ecosystems can never duplicate the value of original ecosystems and further may represent an affront to those systems. A key part of this argument is that ecological restorations are not ?natural? but rather humanly created artifacts. While it is held that we do have moral obligations to natural entities we do not have moral obligations to artifacts. I accept this description of what restorations are and argue that we can have substantive moral relationships with, or at least through, artifacts. If this argument succeeds then the fact that ecological restorations are human artifacts should be inconsequential to the determination of their value.
Abstract: Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) play an increasingly important role in public service provision and policy making in sub-Saharan Africa, giving rise to needs for new forms of regulatory oversight of such entities. In response, a number of initiatives in NGO self-regulation are taking place in Africa, a region not typically noted for its institutional innovation. This paper examines the emergence of these initiatives through cross-national data on 20 African countries and three case studies. Self-regulation in Africa falls into three types: national guilds, NGO-led clubs and voluntary codes of conduct. National guilds have the advantage of providing regulatory coverage for the entire sector, but are difficult to establish because they require strong pre-existing collective action institutions and good-faith cooperation on the part of governments. Voluntary clubs are increasingly prevalent; clubs have stronger standards and regulatory power that guilds, but typically have much weaker coverage. Voluntary codes are the most common form of self-regulation, but have the weakest regulatory strength.
Abstract: The School Finance Redesign Project, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, seeks to answer the question, "How can resources help schools achieve the higher levels of student performance that state and national education standards now demand?" To this end, the project initiated more than 30 research studies and expert papers. The project's research reports and commissioned papers describe a system in which educators understand the need to press for higher achievement and are attempting to implement reforms to improve student learning. However, SFRP's work also indicates that the current education finance system is primarily an accident of history and politics, consequently impeding efficient resource allocation and use. SFRP findings point to plausible ways of focusing money, time, and attention on learning, including applying lessons from the learning sciences, implementing system incentives, supporting out-of-school interventions and core instruction, and revising funding formulas and allocation practices. Finally, this research points to the need for ongoing research into best practices, out-of-the-box thinking, and a system shaped by the concept of continuous improvement.
The effects of sexual orientation and marital status on how couples hold their money
By Marieka M. Klawitter Evans School Working Paper No. 2007-02 (192 KB PDF)
Abstract: Previous research has shown that intrahousehold bargaining power in different-sex couples affects household expenditures and how families hold their money. This paper examines the portfolio of bank accounts held by same-sex and different-sex couples and its relationship to bargaining power and individual and relationship characteristics. Data from the U.S. Survey of Consumer Finances suggest that married couples are much more likely to hold money jointly than are same-sex or unmarried different-sex couples, even after accounting for the effects of other characteristics. However, many couples of all types hold money in joint accounts and do so more often in longer term relationships and when rearing children. Proxies for bargaining power help predict whether money will be held in individual accounts for unmarried different-sex and same-sex couples, but not for married couples. These patterns could reflect greater matching of married couples on preferences or the effects of legal and social institutions that differ by marital status and sexual orientation.
Abstract: Improving poor households' access to capital is a common element of rural strategies that are designed to induce growth. To inform this notion a number of studies have sought to assess the negative impact of credit constraints on farm households' efficiency. By and large, these studies have used the household as the unit of analysis, an approach that can be problematic in settings where there are gender-based market imperfections and where there are significant gender-based asymmetries in how rights, resources, and responsibilities are distributed within the household. The analysis in this article shows that imperfections in the capital market impair households' efficiency and that women's constraints matter: in addition to the efficiency loss associated to the husbands' credit constraints, when women are unable to meet their needs for capital their households experienced an additional drop in efficiency of 11%. These results have two important implications. First, they indicate that studies which try to measure the efficiency impact of credit constraints based only on the household's head (if present, typically the husband) are likely to provide an incomplete assessment, and significantly underestimate the true impact of those constraints. In addition, these results provide efficiency-based arguments for enhancing women's access to capital.
2006 Working Papers
Banked or Unbanked? Individual and family access to savings and checking accounts
by Marieka Klawitter and Diana Fletschner Evans School Working Paper No. 2006-16 (139 KB PDF)
Abstract: In this paper, we use data on married and unmarried different-sex couples from the U.S. 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances to build on the empirical literature about access to mainstream financial services. We find that, compared to families with higher incomes, low income families are much less likely to have bank accounts and that, even within families with bank accounts, not all individuals have accounts. This is important since individuals without accounts may lack access to financial services and credit building, may be at a financial disadvantage within their family, and may be at financial risk if their partners die or their partnerships end. Education, employment, race, marital status, and women?s health are also important predictors of individual as well as family ownership of bank accounts. Our results suggest that there are no important differences in the chances of having accounts for male and female partners, but that family and individual characteristics affect the types of accounts families hold and whether or not money is held jointly.
Rural Women's Access to Credit: Market Imperfections and Intrahousehold Dynamics
by Diana Fletschner Evans School Working Paper No. 2006-14 (124 KB PDF)
Abstract: Using husbands? and wives? individual perceptions of their access to credit in rural Paraguay, this paper contributes to the empirical literature on credit rationing in three ways. First, by determining individual-specific credit rationing status, it improves over most studies that carry out the analysis at the household level. Second, it identifies gender-specific factors that constrain individuals? access to credit. Finally, it evaluates the extent to which women?s limitations in the financial market are ameliorated by their husbands. The most significant findings of the paper are that i) compared to men, women are more likely to be non-price rationed; ii) women?s rationing status responds to a different set of factors than men?s; and, iii) husbands may choose not to intermediate capital to their wives even when they are able to do so. Results from this exercise provide empirically sound support for the assumptions underlying women-targeted credit programs and indicate that studies carried out at the household level may present an incomplete and biased assessment of who is likely to be constrained, why they are constrained, and what is the extent of the constraints.
Constructing and Reconstructing Gender: Reference Group Effects and Women's Demand for Entrepreneurial Capital
by Diana Fletschner and Michael C. Carter Evans School Working Paper No. 2006-13 (130 KB PDF)
Abstract: Women's acquisition of entrepreneurial capital may be restricted by demand side identity constraints as women who pursue non-traditional entrepreneurial livelihoods may stand at odds with activity-regulating social norms. By explicitly incorporating social norms into a model of women?s decision-making, this paper provides an analytical framework that helps understand the social factors that limit women?s demand for capital. The model shows that because of these social effects, a credit program that relaxes supply constraints may reconstruct gender norms and have a social multiplier effect, shifting an entire group or community to a higher-income equilibrium. Using a social effects econometric framework, the paper then confirms the existence of reference group effects on women?s demand for entrepreneurial capital in rural Paraguay. Identification of these as endogenous social effects relies on the separate measurement of each woman?s social reference group, allowing the use of village-level fixed effects to sweep away confounding contextual influences. Results are robust to the use of a restricted reference group comprised solely of ?inherited? family members, and analysis of demand by male partners reveals that the social effect is gendered and hence likely to reflect social norm effects rather than endogenous social learning or exogenous social effects.
Can Institutional Features of Hospitals Help Explain Nursing Shortages?
by Marsha G. Goldfarb, Robert S. Goldfarb, and Mark C. Long Evans School Working Paper No. 2006-12 (312 KB PDF)
Abstract: This paper contributes to the economics literature on nursing market shortages by developing a model that can explain two distinct kinds of nursing shortages: economic shortages, involving continuing unfilled, budgeted positions, and "noneconomic" professional standards shortages. Our model posits the existence of both "premier" and "funds-constrained" hospitals within a specific labor market, and specifies the budgeting process at funds-constrained hospitals. "Premier" hospitals set efficiency wages to lower nursing turnover. Funds-constrained hospitals typically pay lower wages and therefore face residual nurse supply curves. Limited budgets and residual supply curves can produce both economic and professional standards shortages. Our explanation is consistent with several stylized facts about nursing markets, and generates the interesting prediction that expansion of a funds-constrained hospital's budget can reduce the professional standards nursing shortage while increasing unfilled, budgeted positions.
Intertemporal Choice and Development Policy: Cross Country Evidence on Time Inconsistent Discount Rates
by C. Leigh Anderson and Mary Kay Gugerty Evans School Working Paper No. 2006-11 (188 KB PDF)
Abstract: Using original data from Vietnam and Russia, we find that individual's discount rates change over time, replicating earlier results from the United States and Israel. We find that commonly held beliefs about gender differences do not hold, and that agricultural populations have higher discount rates, but that they vary less over time than their urban counterparts. We argue that these behaviors have important implications for the design of savings and credit programs, and that they are more likely to influence resource allocation in developing countries because there are fewer formal institutions and competitive markets to temper their effects.
Outside Funding and the Dynamics of Participation in Community Associations
by Mary Kay Gugerty and Michael Kremer Evans School Working Paper No. 2006-10 (292 KB PDF)
Abstract: The poor and disadvantaged are widely seen as having weak organizations and low rates of participation in community associations, impeding their political representation and economic advancement. A number of policy initiatives aim to build participation and organizational strength among the disadvantaged by funding local community associations. Taking advantage of random assignment in a program which provided support to women's community associations in Kenya, we find little evidence that outside funding expanded organizational strength but substantial evidence that funding changed group membership and leadership. The program led younger women, more educated women, and women employed in the formal sector to enter the groups. Men, educated women, and new entrants moved into leadership positions, and government officials increased efforts to build vertical links to the groups. The rate at which members left groups due to conflicts doubled and exit rates among older women, the most socially marginalized demographic group, increased by two-thirds. A dynamic model based on the findings may help explain the relative weakness of organizations of the disadvantaged and low civic participation among the disadvantaged.
The Impact of Child Support Enforcement Policy on Nonmarital Childbearing
by Robert D. Plotnick, Irwin Garfinkel, Sara McLanahan, Inhoe Ku Evans School Working Paper No. 2006-09 (81 KB PDF)
Abstract: A simple analysis of economic incentives implies that stricter child support enforcement will tend to reduce nonmarital childbearing by raising the costs of fatherhood for unmarried men. We investigate this hypothesis with a sample of women from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, to which we add information on state child support enforcement. We examine childbearing behavior between the ages of 15 and 44 before marriage and during periods of non-marriage following divorce or widowhood. The estimates indicate that women living in states with more effective child support enforcement are less likely to bear children when unmarried, especially if they are young, never-married, or black. The findings suggest that policies that shift more costs of nonmarital childbearing to men may reduce nonmarital childbearing.
Abstract: This paper estimates the effects of various college qualities on several early adult outcomes, using panel data from the National Education Longitudinal Study. I compare the results using ordinary least squares with three alternative methods of estimation, including instrumental variables, and the methods used by Dale and Krueger (2002) and Black and Smith (2004). I find that college quality does have positive significant effects on most outcomes studied using OLS. While there is some evidence of positive selection bias in the OLS results, the alternative methods rarely produce findings that are significantly different from the OLS estimates. Furthermore, alternative methods have their own limitations, which are discussed. Across methods of estimation, there is solid evidence of positive effects of college quality on college graduation and household income, and weaker evidence of effects on hourly wages.
Abstract: Using data from the National Education Longitudinal Study, I measure the effects of 72 secondary school qualities on 41 outcomes, including students' test scores, educational attainment, labor market outcomes, family formation, and other behaviors. While several prior studies have found insignificant effects, I show that many school qualities, including both resources and policies, have significant effects on more outcomes than one would expect by chance. This paper provides insight into the types of school reforms that are likely to produce positive effects on students. I find that schools that promote discipline, academic rigor, and educational attainment produce consistently positive results.
To Move or Not to Move: Relationships to Place and Relocation in HOPE VI
by Rachel Garshick Kleit and Lynne C. Manzo Evans School Working Paper No. 2006-05 (375 KB PDF)
Abstract: As the HOPE VI program redevelops public housing, residents must relocate. Little is known about how residents might make the choice to stay or go, if given one. Survey interviews with 200 residents of Seattleâ??s High Point HOPE VI project provide the data to address four questions about HOPE VI moves. First, what factors predict residentsâ?? initial choice to stay on-site during redevelopment or move permanently away? Second, how does the initial choice predict actual move behavior? Third, what is the role of place attachment and place dependence on resident relocation choices? Fourth, what is the role of other trade-offs in decision-making? Findings suggest that public housing residents' family situations and place dependent considerations shape initial relocation preferences, while their family situations may be the more important influence on their actual move. Implications for the HOPE VI program are discussed.
Bounded Rationality and Preference Variability Along the Policy Chain in Vietnam
by C. Leigh Anderson, Alison Cullen and Kostas Stamoulis Evans School Working Paper No. 2006-04 (397 KB PDF)
Abstract: This paper explores two questions: first, is bounded rationality demonstrated in populations outside the laboratory experiments of the U.S and Europe? Second, are there systematic differences in decision making procedures between those who regularly allocate public resources, and those who are more frequently the intended recipients of these policy decisions? To test for differences we sample across individuals in Vietnam who vary by the frequency and responsibility they have over public resource allocation decisions. Our findings indicate that within both groups, individuals are more likely to satisfice than maximize, and that there are significant differences between policy makers and program recipients.
Understanding the supply response of local public goods to environmental service payments
by C. Leigh Anderson Evans School Working Paper No. 2006-03 (179 KB PDF)
Abstract: Many environmental services, such as agricultural biodiversity and water quality, can be considered local public goods, whereby providers receive private consumption benefits from the service they produce. In these cases, the appropriate model is one that recognizes the decision-maker as both a producer and consumer. This paper develops a simple household model to look at the supply response to payments for environmental services (PES). In contrast to the traditional results of a weak or negative supply response for food crops, the results for environmental services suggest that under most conditions their quantity supplied and quantity demanded will rise in response to a price increase. Experimental evidence, however, suggests that predicting supply requires going beyond traditional assumptions of rational maximization. For the case of local public goods, other considerations include how individuals make decisions under uncertainty, the importance of fairness, and how individuals behave as part of the collective.
The Effect of Environmental Sources of Crop Loss on Farmers' Willingness to Pay in Chiapas, Mexico
by C. Leigh Anderson, Leslie Lipper, Mauricio Bellon Evans School Working Paper No. 2006-02 (300 KB PDF)
Abstract: New technologies such as seed varieties are usually designed assuming that a representative consumer or target recipient will respond as though they have optimized a utility function conditioned by the statistical probabilities of certain events occurring. However, there is a substantial literature that challenges this expected utility model, and that acknowledges individual decision making is based on subjective risk perceptions rather than statistical probabilities. In this paper we seek understanding of how patterns in how different qualitative and quantitative dimensions of risky outcomes affect risk perceptions. Our focus is on farmers in Chiapas, Mexico, and their willingness to pay (WTP) for a seed variety that reduces the frequency of maize crop yield loss. Our results suggest that the technology with which a loss reduction is delivered is less important than the source of the loss. WTP is greatest to reduce catastrophic loss from drought and chronic loss from pests. Socio-demographic variables are better predictors of WTP for creoles than for improved varieties. Past losses, which can be obtained through survey and secondary records, are better predictors of WTP for hybrids that reduce catastrophic risk. At least from the farmer viewpoint, this may usefully inform crop breeding priorities.
Abstract: This article extends network management scholarship by integrating sectoral differences within a proposed theoretical framework encompassing extant conceptions of network management. Even as the emergent field of network management scholarship advances, current research tends to generalize network management approaches based on assumptions that organizations behavior similarly within a network regardless of whether the organizations are governmental, nonprofit, or commercial. Consequently, existing research does not fully account for whether sectoral differences have implications for network management. This article provides evidence that sectoral differences and composition within a network matter because the differences provide strategic opportunities and constraints for public managers involved in coordinating multi-sector networks. This article makes several contributions to network management scholarship. First, this article provides a framework that reviews and situates current conceptions about network coordination within a passive-to-active continuum of managerial approaches. Sectoral differences are situated and integrated within this framework. Second, this article provides an empirically-based investigation of a quasi-natural experiment that examines sectoral differences in multi-sectoral workforce development networks in Boston. The article's findings suggest that integrating sectoral orientations within a passive-to-active network managerial continuum may help clarify and categorize the strategic options and trade-offs that public managers may consider in coordinating multi-sectoral networks.
The Electronic Hallway
The Evans School's Electronic Hallway serves faculty who teach public administration, public policy, and related subjects through:
A database of quality teaching cases
Curriculum materials and teaching notes
Videos of select cases being taught by experienced teachers
Classroom instruction in case teaching and writing
Public Service Clinics link the skills and services of second year Master of Public Administration (MPA) students with the real-world needs of nonprofit and public agencies. For more than a decade, our students have produced program evaluations, strategic plans, policy analyses, and new program designs.
How It Works
During their last year of study, MPA students are required to complete a Degree Project, which demonstrates their mastery of analytic and organizational skills. By enrolling in the Public Service Clinics, students are able to choose from a variety of research topics proposed by local agencies, nonprofits, or students themselves.
The projects take two academic quarters to complete, and can be done in one of two formats led by experienced faculty:
Public Service Clinics where all students are partnered with an agency
Degree Project Seminars where some students work with an agency and some students work on topics independent of an agency
Students and agencies are invited to learn more about the structure and timeline for Public Service Clinics and Degree Project Seminars by contacting the Public Service Clinics at psclinic@u.washington.edu or 206.221.3676.
Structure & Timeline
Structure
Public Service Clinics and Degree Project Seminars are the same in that students work in seminar settings with the guidance of a faculty advisor and the support of peers through two six credit courses during their last year of study at the Evans School.
The only difference is that students in Public Service Clinics all work with agencies, while some students in Degree Project Seminars work with agencies and some work on topics independent of an agency. Both formats are organized around broad themes of public policy.
Timeline
Autumn Quarter
Mid September: A call for proposals is sent to nonprofits and public agencies
End of October: All agency proposals are due on October 31; faculty members review them and selected topics are posted online for students to choose from
Early November: All self-proposed student topics and applications for available agency topics are due
Late November/Early December: Agencies are notified of matches and the first meeting with the student(s) and faculty advisor is scheduled; letters of agreement are drafted
Winter Quarter
January: Letters of agreement are finalized; agencies pay half of their participation fee
January-March: Students develop a work plan, identify research questions and methods, and conduct a literature review. By March, students write the background and introductory portions of their degree project and are implementing their research methods.
Spring Quarter
April: Agencies meet with the student(s) and faculty advisor for a progress report
May: Draft products are prepared and reviewed
June: Students present a final report of their findings to the agency, Evans School community, and others at Presentation Day; agencies pay the second half of their participation fee for successfully completed projects
Find out more about upcoming deadlines and events for the current academic year and how to submit a proposal by contacting the Public Service Clinics at psclinic@u.washington.edu or 206.221.3676.
Deadlines & Events
October 31: Agency Topic Proposals Due We are now soliciting proposals from public and nonprofit organizations for the 2008-09 academic year. Agencies are invited to submit a proposal, view past degree projects of outstanding merit, and learn more about the structure and timeline of the Clinics and Seminars.
November 6: Topics Fair New this year, agencies who submit topics and students interested in participating in the Clinics or Seminars are invited to meet face-to-face at the Degree Projects Topics Fair from 4:45 - 6 p.m. on November 6 in the Parrington Hall Commons. Agency represenatives will bring materials about their organization or project to share with students who are shopping for topics. Agencies should RSVP to psclinic@u.washington.edu.
November 10: Self-Generated Student Topic Forms Due Students submitting their own topics to the Clinics or Seminars must submit a proposal form by November 10.
November 12: Student Applications Due Students applying for Clinic or Seminar topics must submit applications for their topic three choices by November 12.
For more information, contact the Public Service Clinics at psclinic@u.washington.edu or 206.221.3676.
Submit a Proposal
The process for proposing a research topic is the same for both Public Service Clinics and Degree Project Seminars. Please note that Clinic and Seminar themes should be considered when preparing proposal topics.
Student Topics Independent of an Agency: Students wishing to complete a degree project independent of an agency in a Degree Project Seminar should email the instructor of available seminar themes with their project idea.
Agency Proposal Form
The Public Service Clinics at the Evans School is intended as a peer and faculty facilitated vehicle to connect the research, organizational change, and capacity building needs of community organizations and public agencies with graduate student degree projects. Each clinic and seminar is limited in size to ten students.
If you have more than one project you wish to submit, please complete a separate form for each project.
If a student is matched with your topic, you will need to meet with this student and clinic professor in December to develop a letter of agreement.
All fields followed by * are required.
Self-Proposed Student Topic Form
If you want to participate in a clinic or seminar through the Public Service Clinics and have your own self-generated topic, please fill out this form. The Public Service Clinics' matching process works best when both the agency and the student understand and agree to the project's focus and goals. For this reason, we want to ensure that you and your agency contact have already met and thoroughly discussed and understand your topic.
Additionally, you must have discussed the $1250 participation fee with your agency and instruct them to contact psclinic@u.washington.edu indicating whether they will be paying the fee or requesting financial assistance before your proposal will be considered. Please contact us if you have any questions.
Please note that once you are accepted into the Public Service Clinics, you are required to meet with your clinic or seminar instructor and agency contact in December to develop a letter of agreement.