Centers & Research

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:

Our research projects contribute substantially to innovative policy and management solutions, civic engagement, and academic collaboration in communities worldwide. Find out more about our:

You can also tap into the Evans School faculty areas of expertise in public policy and management.

Research and Outreach Centers

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:

Other research and outreach projects at the Evans School include:

Benefit-Cost Analysis Center

The core aim of the Benefit-Cost Analysis Center is to improve the understanding and use of benefit-cost analysis (or 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 (BCA). We accomplish this through:

  • Founding the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis,
  • Convening with government benefit-cost analysts at the federal, state, and local levels, and
  • Publishing academic papers on benefit-cost analysis (BCA) methodology

Upcoming Conferences

Advancing Social Policy-Making Through Benefit-Cost Analysis: June 24-25, 2008
First Annual Meeting for the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis: June 25-26, 2008

Find out more about benefit-cost analysis (BCA) and our conferences and papers.
Support for the Benefit-Cost Analysis Center is provided by the Evans School of Public Affairs and the MacArthur Foundation.

Stay Connected

Join our mailing list to receive updates on our news and events.

What is benefit-cost analysis?

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.

Find about more about the Benefit-Cost Analysis Center and the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis.

Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis

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 cost-benefit analysis (BCA), cost-effectiveness analysis, risk-benefit analysis, applied welfare economic analysis, and damage assessments.

First Annual Meeting: June 25-26, 2008 Find out more >>

Find out more about the Benefit-Cost Analysis Center and our conferences and papers.

Conferences & Papers

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.

Upcoming Events

Advancing Social Policy-Making Through Benefit-Cost Analysis: June 24-25, 2008

First Annual Meeting for the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis: June 25-26, 2008

To receive information about future Benefit-Cost Analysis Center events, register your contact information with us today.

Papers and Presentations

The Relevance of the Scitovsky Reversal Paradox for Cost-Benefit Analysis (562 KB PDF) by Andrew Schmitz of the University of Florida and Richard O. Zerbe of the Evans School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington

2007 Conference Papers & Presentations

To submit a paper for inclusion on our website, please our paper submission form.

2008 Benefit-Cost Analysis Conference

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.

Register today >>
(Registration for this conference requires a registration code. If you have not received your registration code, please contact evansors@u.washington.edu.)

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 of Tudor Investment Corp. who was involved in the creation of the Partnership for America's Economic Success
    • Panelists to be announced
  • 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 of the Pardee RAND Graduate School of Public Policy
    • Panelists: John Morrall of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Jonathan Wiener of Duke University, and Katherine Swartz of Harvard 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 of WSIPP
    • Panelists: Richard Ramsey of the Washington State Senate Ways and Means Committee
  • 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 and psychology and director of the Cartogrpahic Modeling Lab at the University of Pennsylvania who works with Philadelphia Kids Integrated Data System Project
    • Panelists: Richard Burgess of Michigan State University, Walter Bailey of the South Carolina Office of Research and Statistics, Manuel Morena of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services, Martha Moorehouse of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and John Fantuzzo of the 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 of the Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy
    • Panelists: Robert Shea of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution, and Robert Slavin of Johns Hopkins University
  • 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 at the La Follette School of Public Affairs at the University of Wisconsin
    • Panelists: Philip Cook of Duke University, Robert Haveman of the La Follette School of Public Affairs, and Kerry Smith of Arizona State 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 of the Department of Economics at the University of Maryland Baltimore County
    • Panelists: Arnold Harberger of the University of California, Los Angeles, Lynn Karoly of the RAND Corporation, Lester Lave Carnegie Mellon University, and David Weimer of the La Follette School of Public Affairs at the University of Wisconsin
  • End of Conference Luncheon
    • Keynote Speaker: John Fanton, president of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

Register today >>

Find out more about the Benefit-Cost Analysis Center and Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis.

Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis Meeting

First Annual Meeting of the Society for Benefit Cost Analysis

When: June 25-26, 2008
*This meeting will follow the Advancing Social Policy-Making Through Benefit-Cost Analysis conference on June 24-25.

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

Register for the meeting >>

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

 

 

Register for the meeting >>

 

Find out more about the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis and the Benefit-Cost Analysis Center.

2007 Conference Papers & Presentations

Papers and presentations from our 2007 Benefit-Cost Analysis Conference held May 18-19.

Transportation Benefit-Cost Analysis: It's All About Inputs!
Paper (556 KB PDF) / Presentation (470 KB PDF)
By Chris Williges and Mahmoud Mahdavi
Presented by Chris Williges

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Private Versus Semi-Private Inpatient Rooms in a New Hospital
Paper (129 KB PDF) / Presentation (336 KB PDF)
By Anthony Boardman and Diane Forbes
Presented by Anthony Boardman

Using the Kaldor-Hicks Tableau Format for Cost-Benefit Analysis and Stakeholder Evaluation
Paper (171 KB PDF) / Presentation (96 KB PDF)
By Kerry Krutilla
Presented by Kerry Krutilla

An Ethical Benefit-Cost Analysis
By Richard Zerbe Jr.
Presented by Richard Zerbe Jr.

Suggested New Steps Toward the Practical Implementation of Cost-Benefit Analysis
Paper (83 KB PDF)
By Arnold Harberger
Presented by Arnold Harberger

Galactosemia: Testing Newborn Infants for Metabolic Disorders
Paper (485 KB PDF) / Presentation (189 KB PDF)
By Cathy Carruthers, Ron Scott, Mike Glass, John Thompson
Presented by Cathy Carruthers

Production Response to Increased Imports
Presentation (307 KB PDF)
By Lynn Kennedy and Andrew Schmitz
Presented by Andrew Schmitz

The "Stern Review" and Its Critics: Implications for the Theory and Practice of Benefit-Cost Analysis
Paper (197 KB PDF) / Presentation (730 KB PDF)
By Daniel Cole
Presented by Daniel Cole

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
Presented by Mark Plummer

To Trade or Not to Trade: The Endowment Effect and Manipulations of the Reference State
Paper (72 KB PDF)
By Jack Knetsch and Wei-Kang Wong
Presented by Jack Knetsch

Find out more about the Benefit-Cost Analysis Center.

Contact Information & Leadership

The Benefit-Cost Analysis Center is led by Richard O. Zerbe with assistance from:

Contact Information

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

Join our mailing list to receive updates on our news and events.

Civic Engagement for the 21st Century

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.

Find out more about the five core principles of civic engagement providing the foundation and scope for the project.

Five Core Principles of Civic Engagement

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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.
  5. 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.

Find out more about Norman B. Rice and the foundation and scope of the project.

Foundation and Scope

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.

Find out more about our other key projects, grants, and awards.

Key Projects, Awards, and Grants

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:

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?
  • Who establishes voluntary programs?
  • Who participates in voluntary programs?

Find out more about related nonprofit accountability research and Mary Kay Gugerty.

Nonprofit Accountability Research

This research is a compilation of papers presented at various Nonprofit Accountability Clubs conferences.

Nonprofit Accountability Clubs: Voluntary Regulation of Nongovernmental and Nonprofit Organizations (377 KB PDF) by Mary Kay Gugerty and Aseem Prakash, Evans School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington

Benefits of Accreditation for Fundraising Nonprofits in the Netherlands (259 KB PDF)by René Bekkers, Utrecht University and Vrije Universitei Amsterdam, Netherlands

A History of Nonprofit Clubs in the United States (291 KB PDF) by Woods Bowman, DePaul University

The Emergence of Collective Accountability Standards in the Humanitarian Sector (390 KB PDF) by Maryam Zarnegar Deloffre, George Washington University

What Determines the Emergence and Structure of Clubs Among State Nonprofit Associations? (250 KB PDF) by Mary Tschirhart, Maxwell School of Syracuse University

Nonprofit Umbrella Associations as Reluctant Clubs (232 KB PDF) by Dennis R. Young, Georgia State University

The Impact of Sponsorship on Club Design (286 KB PDF) by Angela Bies, Texas A&M University

The Emergence of Nonprofit Clubs in Developing Countries (71 KB PDF) by Mary Kay Gugerty, Evans School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington

Does Self-Regulation Work? Some Evidence from Europe (63 KB PDF) Andreas Ortmann of Charles University Economics Institute, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic

Can Self-Regulatory Club Goods Serve Mission Accountability? (299 KB PDF) by Dana Brakman Reiser, Brooklyn Law School

Rethinking Advocacy Organizations Concept Paper (312 KB PDF) by Mary Kay Gugerty and Aseem Prakash, Evans School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington

Institutions, Culture and Advocacy Strategies: Comparing Climate Change and Biodiversity Advocacy in Japan, Germany and the United States (100 KB PDF) by Miranda Schreurs, Freie Universität Berlin

The Logic of Advocacy: Strategy and Competition among Organized Interests (92 KB PDF) by McGee Young, Marquette University

The Strategic Use of Branding by Advocacy Groups (88 KB PDF) by Maryann Barakso, American University

Structuring Global Advocacy: Explaining Organizational Change and the Emergence of Transnational Networks (132 KB PDF) by Hans Peter Schmitz, The Maxwell School at Syracuse University

The Market for Human Rights (112 KB PDF) by Clifford Bob, Duquesne University

Institutional Environment and the Organization of Advocacy NGOs in the OECD (112 KB PDF) by Elizabeth A. Bloodgood, Concordia University

Shaping Civic Advocacy: International and Domestic Policies towards Russia’s NGO Sector (92 KB PDF) by Sarah L. Henderson, Oregon State University

Religious Institutions as Transnational Actors: An Economic Approach (102 KB PDF) by Anthony Gill, University of Washington

Find out more about the Nonprofit Accountability Clubs.

Working Papers Series

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.

2008 Working Papers Series

2007 Working Papers Series

2006 Working Papers Series

2008 Working Papers

The Public Interest and State Policies Affecting Academic Research in California
By William Zumeta

Evans School Working Paper No. 2008-01 (1.5 MB PDF)

  • 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.

Re-visiting Socially-Optimal Vaccine Subsidies: An Empirical Application in Kolkata, India
By Joseph Cook, Marc Jeuland, Brian Maskery, Donald Lauria, Dipika Sur, John Clemens, and Dale Whittington

Evans School Working Paper No. 2008-02 (535 KB PDF)

  • 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

Evans School Working Paper No. 2008-03 (500 KB PDF)

  • 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

Evans School Working Paper No. 2008-04 (572 KB PDF)

  • 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.

2007 Working Papers

The Moral Journey of Environmentalism: From Wilderness to Place
By Andrew Light
Evans School Working Paper No. 2007-07 (125 KB PDF)

  • 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.

Does a Public Environmental Philosophy Need a Convergence Hypothesis?
By Andrew Light
Evans School Working Paper No. 2007-06 (142 KB PDF)

  • 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.

Restorative Relationships: From Artifacts to Natural Systems
By Andrew Light
Evans School Working Paper No. 2007-05 (129 KB PDF)

  • 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.

Models of NGO Self-Regulation: Theory and Evidence from Africa
By Mary Kay Gugerty
Evans School Working Paper No. 2007-04 (62 KB PDF)

  • 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.

The School Finance Redesign Project: A Synthesis of Project Work to Date
By Paul T. Hill
Evans School Working Paper No. 2007-03 (345 KB PDF)

  • 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.

Women's Access to Credit: Does it Matter for Household Efficiency?
By Diana Fletschner
Evans School Working Paper No. 2007-01 (122 KB PDF)

  • 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.

College Quality and Early Adult Outcomes
by Mark C. Long
Evans School Working Paper No. 2006-07 (215 KB PDF)

  • 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.

Secondary School Characteristics and Early Adult Outcomes
by Mark C. Long
Evans School Working Paper No. 2006-06 (285 KB PDF)

  • 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.

Network Management Strategies
by Joaquín Herranz, Jr.
Evans School Working Paper No. 2006-01 (359 KB PDF)

  • 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:

The policy areas of these cases include:

For more information visit The Electronic Hallway.

Public Service Clinics

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:

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
  • Mid October: All agency proposals are due, faculty remembers 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 6-7: Student Information Sessions
Second-year MPA students are invited to join Evans School faculty members and student services staff on October 6 and 7 for one of two presentations on degree project requirements and options for completing it independently or through a Public Service Clinic or Degree Project Seminar. Alumni will also be on hand to talk about their degree project experiences. Find out more »

October 15: 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.

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.

  • Agency Proposal Form: Agencies can submit proposals from May-October
  • Self-Proposed Student Topic Form: For students working with an agency
  • 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.

Before filling out the form, we suggest you review our agency information and student information on writing a successful topic proposal. For more information, contact the Public Service Clinics at psclinic@u.washington.edu or 206.221.3676.

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.

Please provide some background information about your agency.

Fee Statement

Half of the fee is due upon signing a letter of agreement with the student in January and half upon successful completion of the project in June. If no, please complete B.

We will contact you for your credit card information.

A limited amount of financial assistance is available through the financial assistance fund for agencies unable to pay part or all of the fee.

My organization is eager to support other agencies unable to pay the fee for the Public Service Clinics. Please accept a donation to the financial assistance fund that will go towards helping financially strapped agencies take advantage of the Clinics this year.

1-2 sentences.

Please describe the project. What would you like to find out or have accomplished, what is the desired project outcome?

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

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.

All fields followed by * are required.

Agency Information
Agency Address

Please provide background information about the agency.

Please describe the project in more detail, what is the current situation that the organization or program faces and how will your degree project help the organization and its target population?

If you have selected a specific clinic, please also discuss your choice.

Click here for sample bios.

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Apply for Clinics & Seminars

The Public Service Clinics at the Evans School is intended as a peer and faculty facilitated vehicle to connect student degree project research with the research, organizational change, and capacity building needs of community organizations and public agencies. Participation is a powerful way to represent the Evans School and assist the community.

Each clinic and seminar is limited in size to ten students. Please submit a separate application for each of your top three choices.

Once accepted into the Public Service Clinics you are required to meet with your clinic or seminar instrucation and agency contact in December to develop a letter of agreement.

All fields followed by * are required.

Proposed Topic and Agency

Click here for sample bios.

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Clinic & Seminar Themes

The 2008-09 academic year offers three themed Public Service Clinics and three themed Degree Project Seminars led by faculty members with expertise and experience in their respective areas.

Public Service Clinic Themes

Degree Project Seminar Themes

There is student information and agency information available for developing research proposals by contacting the Public Service Clinics at psclinic@u.washington.edu or 206.221.3676.

Eliminating Poverty

This clinic looks at how we address poverty in a society that provides a very limited safety net by researching topics related to:

  • Income support programs
  • Tax policy
  • Child support
  • Labor market policies
  • Programs for low and middle income workers
  • Educations programs for at-risk children
  • Teen childbearing
  • Health Insurance
  • Social services for low and middle income families

This clinic is led by Robert Plotnick and will relate to work being done by the West Coast Poverty Center. Plotnick, co-chair of the West Coast Poverty Center, is a social policy economist who has taught courses and written widely on American poverty, income inequality, and social welfare policy.

Find out more about available topics in this clinic and other