For this Unit 4 assignment, you will prepare an APA-formatted essay of at least 500 words reflecting the opposing view of the topic that you selected in Unit 3. When preparing an informative or expository essay, it is important to identify multiple perspectives. Investigating all sides of a topic enables you to interpret a larger picture and prepare logical content. In Unit 3, you selected a topic question, determined a viewpoint, and created your assignment based on that viewpoint. For Unit 4, you will write an APA-formatted essay on the opposite viewpoint of your selected topic. Specifically, your submission must include the following: · A title page with the correct APA formatting · An abstract page with correct APA formatting · An introduction paragraph based on the opposing viewpoint of your Unit 3 topic question · This requires the creation of a new thesis statement. · It requires 3 supporting subtopics. · It requires the new thesis statement to be the last sentence of the introduction paragraph. · Develop at least 3 transitional paragraphs. Transitional paragraphs are the expanded paragraph information based on your thesis subtopics. · Develop a concluding paragraph. Remember to restate your thesis statement in the conclusion. Readings and Notes “Levels of Evaluation” Policy Evaluation  The notion of “systematic” policy and program evaluation only dates back to the 1970s when questions were raised about the outcomes of the Johnson era's War on Poverty programs. Simply, the poor did not seem too much better off, despite some programmatic attention--and dollars--spent on improving their situation. This story ends as it began. Recall that the first week discussed the emergence of hyperfederalism in which all parties (jurisdictions and agencies) try to get as much of the others' share without too much common (national) public good associated with their efforts. One of the better-known War on Poverty programs was called the Model Cities Program. The original (White House) idea for this program was experimental. It called for funding a small number of large cities, such as New York, Philadelphia and Chicago with especially acute slum problems. When the bill went to Congress, it was clear that unless the base of (support for) the program grew, it would not pass. (Recall GCT on expanding the base to insure a bill's passage often waters down its original intentions, or, dissipates them.) A then leading senator, Senator Edward Muskie (D-Maine) said he would only vote for the bill if cities such as Augusta, Bangor and Portland were made eligible for aid. The bill passed in 1966 and even small cities like Poughkeepsie were not only eligible, but received money as well for public housing projects. By most people's sights, the program utterly failed to reduce the existence of slums anywhere. No one now knows whether the original intentions might have led to a greater chance for program success. Instead of massive funding for a few projects, t ...

1. For this Unit 4 assignment, you will prepare an APA-formatted
essay of at least 500 words reflecting the opposing view of the
topic that you selected in Unit 3.
When preparing an informative or expository essay, it is
important to identify multiple perspectives. Investigating all
sides of a topic enables you to interpret a larger picture and
prepare logical content. In Unit 3, you selected a topic question,
determined a viewpoint, and created your assignment based on
that viewpoint. For Unit 4, you will write an APA-formatted
essay on the opposite viewpoint of your selected topic.
Specifically, your submission must include the following:
· A title page with the correct APA formatting
· An abstract page with correct APA formatting
· An introduction paragraph based on the opposing viewpoint of
your Unit 3 topic question
· This requires the creation of a new thesis statement.
· It requires 3 supporting subtopics.
· It requires the new thesis statement to be the last sentence of
the introduction paragraph.
· Develop at least 3 transitional paragraphs. Transitional
paragraphs are the expanded paragraph information based on
your thesis subtopics.
· Develop a concluding paragraph. Remember to restate your
thesis statement in the conclusion.
Readings and Notes “Levels of Evaluation”
Policy Evaluation
The notion of “systematic” policy and program evaluation only
dates back to the 1970s when questions were raised about the
outcomes of the Johnson era's War on Poverty programs.
Simply, the poor did not seem too much better off, despite some
programmatic attention--and dollars--spent on improving their

2. situation. This story ends as it began. Recall that the first week
discussed the emergence of hyperfederalism in which all parties
(jurisdictions and agencies) try to get as much of the others'
share without too much common (national) public good
associated with their efforts.
One of the better-known War on Poverty programs was called
the Model Cities Program. The original (White House) idea for
this program was experimental. It called for funding a small
number of large cities, such as New York, Philadelphia and
Chicago with especially acute slum problems. When the bill
went to Congress, it was clear that unless the base of (support
for) the program grew, it would not pass. (Recall GCT on
expanding the base to insure a bill's passage often waters down
its original intentions, or, dissipates them.) A then leading
senator, Senator Edward Muskie (D-Maine) said he would only
vote for the bill if cities such as Augusta, Bangor and Portland
were made eligible for aid. The bill passed in 1966 and even
small cities like Poughkeepsie were not only eligible, but
received money as well for public housing projects. By most
people's sights, the program utterly failed to reduce the
existence of slums anywhere. No one now knows whether the
original intentions might have led to a greater chance for
program success. Instead of massive funding for a few projects,
the money was spread thin throughout the country. Certainly the
wrong kind of factions played a leading role in diluting the
goals of the program.
a. Strategic Evaluation
When we discussed the adoption of policies, we introduced two
broad explanations, one is incrementalist that is largely
political--and the other comprehensive-rational that derives
from market-like calculations. This dualistic situation is no less,
and probably more true as we consider policy evaluation. As
policies try to accomplish something, it appears straightforward
that we should be able to determine whether they did so.
The Model Cities example tells us that policy intentions are
invariably compromised to achieve political viability. Intentions

3. must also include their interpretation by prior decisions of the
courts—otherwise, the latter will subsequently void them. At
the local level, despite its overwhelming support, Megan's (sex
offender) Law in New Jersey was voided for both its vagueness
and infringement on the civil rights of convicted (child-abuser)
criminals. So the law had to be rewritten and then upheld by the
Supreme Court.
So, the question of how well policies have done cannot escape
inclusion of a whole host of influences that make determining
their benefits a risky matter. The way risk can be reduced is to
adopt as much of a rational stance in evaluating whether
policies have succeeded. Simply put, the higher the ratio of
benefits to costs, the more satisfaction presumably appears. Of
course, the idea of a strategic evaluation is to compare all the
benefits derived with all the costs for each attempted policy
goal. The outcome will reveal their cost effectiveness. The
larger question is whether the value of all the benefits of policy
goals exceeds their costs. There is no assurance that we can
measure a policy’s values with any certainty. Some social
benefits resist common valuation (freedom from fear of crime
does not mean the same thing to everyone) and others defy
measurement (breathing clean air, even minimums are subject to
judgment).
Yet, because of the difficulty in measuring values, it creates a
peculiar outcome for public policies. Even as policies bring
about both satisfaction and dissatisfaction with program
outcomes, these effects impact the future positively. That is, as
combinations of costs and benefits, winners and losers,
unanticipated consequences, spillovers, and both informal and
formal evaluations appear on the horizon, collectively, they
initiate the policy cycle once again—they produce new political
demands and calls for support.
b. Levels of Evaluation
Public programs, obviously, vary considerably in what they are
trying to accomplish. Striking differences exist between the
goals of transportation and healthcare programs. It is, therefore,

4. important to know what kind(s) of evaluation are required.
There are five “levels of evaluation” as devised by Trisco and
League (1978) that deal with the types of goals being
considered:
Purely formal evaluation. Here policy outputs are measured.
Areas such as monitoring routine tasks and procedures are
determined. Questions of budget compliance and personnel
performance are important.
Client satisfaction evaluation. First, do staff members
understand whom the client or customer is? Can measures of
client satisfaction be addressed using both formal and informal
methods?
Outcomes assessment. What were the desired outcomes of the
program(s)? Have intentions been satisfied? To what degree
were they translated into feasible implementations? How well
can quantification be introduced into the methodology?
Expense and effectiveness. Can the costs and the impact of the
program be measured with a cost-benefit analysis? How cost
effective was the program: were the stated costs fulfilled or
exceeded on a per capita basis? What would happen to the target
population in the absence of the program?
Long-term consequences. Over time, is the program curing the
problem or addressing the concern it was designed to fulfill?
How can the program continue to justify its existence? Can any
alternatives to its delivery system be proposed for
improvement?
The first two types of evaluation are straightforward. These
evaluations (formal and client evaluations) can be conducted
using and collecting existing data or by creating surveys or
doing interviews. The third to fifth evaluations (outcomes, cost-
benefit and long-term) involve more demanding methodologies.
They are largely the subject matter of the MPA's Program
Planning and Evaluation course.
c. Process of Evaluation
The tone and tenor of these notes emphasize the significance of
employing rational analysis in evaluating programs. To a large

5. extent, there is no alternative. At the same time, absent
uniformly measurable outcomes, evaluation must constantly
deal with hitting a moving political target. Many federal
programs, as well as ones funded by states, require conducting
some form of evaluation--sometimes through in-house means,
but usually involving outside evaluators. What Lester Salamon
of Johns Hopkins calls the “evaluation industry.” It includes
university professors and institutes, private consulting firms,
accounting firms and former legislators and administrators.
Academics are on both sides of the fence. In the various applied
project contracts they receive, academics employ outside
evaluators. They also conduct such evaluations for agencies and
programs.
d. Focus Groups
Many people say they understand what focus groups are or have
employed them. The origin of the focus group comes from the
advertising industry and is advanced by applied psychologists.
The basic idea is to collect data from a small group, sometimes
more than one, that represents existing or potential customers
and to hear what they like about your product, improve it, or to
learn about what new products they might like to see marketed.
Clemons and McBeth (2000) offer some helpful suggestions
about how to utilize focus groups. Facilitators ask questions of
a group that have special value, not only because of their
liveliness, but also of their ability to see individuals interacting
with one another. Together, they allow the facilitator to probe
more deeply into people's thinking--something impossible to do
in a survey. As Morgan (1998) states: "Using this approach,
researchers . . . learn through discussion about conscious,
semiconscious, and unconscious psychological and socio-
cultural characteristics and processes among various groups."
Morgan also identifies five unique qualities of focus groups:
One, focus groups can get below the surface of what people are
saying. Facilitators can learn about implied, unspoken, and
incidental knowledge that underlines people's views. Much of
the discussion revolves around facilitators employing open-

6. ended questions. One garners a lot simply by saying: "Please go
on" or "um hum."
Two, focus groups inform researchers of the views of
participants in their own words. It is from such discussions that
subsequent survey evaluation questions might be developed.
Three, focus groups offer opportunities to examine people's
intents and meanings by the way they use certain phrases or
expressions that reflect important symbolic content or direction.
Four, focus groups provide ways to learn about how individuals
become influenced by one another as part of a larger group. As
public programs exist in communities, attention can be paid as
to how people react to each other's assessments of program
activities that mirror real-life discussions.
Five, focus groups supply a means by which survey questions
can be developed. While we might not use the term valid to
describe the resulting questions, they will certainly be
authentic.
Some conditions need to be met to make focus groups
successful: Group size should be between nine to twelve people.
The composition of the focus group should reflect the
population of the target group. Its composition by variables of
importance such as age, sex, education, income and the like.
Facilitators must be trained and experienced. A good idea is to
get a recommendation from someone whom you can rely on for
an honest assessment of past performance. Facilitators must
include everyone in the discussion.
Only the facilitator and maybe an assistant will be present, no
exceptions as outsiders will be a distraction. (This rule also
insures integrity of the remarks.) Focus groups are tape-
recorded and transcribed. Where possible, a modest honorarium
should be paid to participants. Often in public agencies, this
money can be associated with travel and meals.
Not everyone thinks focus groups are helpful in the evaluation
process. Criticisms include expenses for the facilitator and
participants. The ability to generalize is handicapped by the less
scientific way of drawing the sample. It is not random, but

7. highly purposeful. Yet, as an exploratory tool to complement
other methods, focus groups are worth the effort. They may be
especially valuable in dealing with disadvantaged people who
are often reluctant to reply to surveys. If the importance of the
focus group can be made evident, efforts to recruit people to
participate will be easier.
Please answer the following discussion questions with as much
detail as possible.
You must also reference the textbook (link below) and the notes
provided to support your statement/opinions:
1. How do the Levels of Evaluation -- from the attached notes --
apply to the evaluation of one of your local agencies? You
might just think about two or three of them or, you might wish
to discuss a hypothetical usage in order to create guidelines for
improved evaluation.
2. Has focus group methodology been used in your agency or
place of work? Did it follow the suggested guidelines noted
above? Were the results useful?
3. Of the four implementations settings, do any stand out with a
policy discussed in the news this past month?
4. Do you agree with H. George Frederickson's argument that,
the best way to work on Education Quality is to work on
Education Equality? Why or why not?
Textbook - Social Equity and Public Administration by

8. Frederickson:
https://books.google.com/books?id=W2imBgAAQBAJ&printsec
=frontcover&dq=Social+Equity+and+Public+Administration&hl
=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5uLuph9DLAhXFOT4KHTu2AdQQ
6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q&f=false