PAFF 510 MATH ASSIGNMENT
Woodward Johnson
LogicModelAssignment2.docxLogic Model Assignment (25 points – 10 for memo & 15 for logic model)
Consider a policy or social program that actually exists, that you would like to propose or that someone else has proposed. Choose an area that interests you and that you know something about. Prepare a description of the theory of the mechanism of how your program works to affect the outcome.
If you are looking for a program – I recommend reading through this report from UCLA on the impact of Washington DC’s voucher program.
Write this up as memo (~ 400 words) to a boss or collaborator who is working with you to develop the program. This is not someone you need to convince about the importance of the outcomes or the program.
Make sure that you including the following:
(1) What is (are) the outcome(s) (dependent variable(s)) the program is designed to affect? If there are many outcomes, restrict your analysis to one outcome or two closely related outcomes. (For example, your program program’s goal might be to raise high school graduation rates in urban areas and so the outcome is graduation rate.) Make sure that you state the outcome(s) explicitly.
(2) Describe your program—what it is. This should be as explicit as possible, not vague generalities. This section should be brief: a half double-spaced page at the most. Do not include marketing or promotion: your reader does not need to be convinced of the importance of the project. Write an objective and concrete statement of what the program literally does but do include implementation details.
(3) Using a path diagram and a narrative description, describe your theory of how the program is supposed to work. Both the path diagram and the narrative description should make clear the mechanism(s) through which the program will affect the outcome. So, if a link is not obvious, break it down into the steps along the way, illustrating the intervening variables.
This section should illustrate to your readers why they should believe that the program will work—will affect the outcome(s). It should also make clear what the weak linkages are.
This part (3) is the main focus of the assignment.
Notes and advice:
· The circles represent variables and the arrows represent causal effects. Make sure that you understand clearly the unit of analysis in your theory—the individuals to whom the variable applies: For example, is the program working on students, on schools, on cities?
· There can be many mechanisms through which a program works. If so, pick only a couple and just note that there are other mechanisms. These should be more detailed than the logic models you see in many grant proposals and papers. Each link should be spelled out and made believable.
· Draw your logic model by hand. Using software takes unnecessary time and (much more importantly) makes it hard to insert extra variables and arrows or to change what is there. If you absolutely must draw this in software, do not do that until the last possible point when you have already finalized your logic model by hand. To submit the logic model by email scan just the diagram part.
· Do not include introductions, motivations, background, marketing and so on.
· Do not include inputs, resources, or (detailed) activities. This logic model is not an implementation-oriented one: It focuses on mechanism. Implementation is done more effectively after you understand clearly the mechanism. So, this logic model should not look like Figure 2.9. It should look more like Figure 2.8 or the top of p. 45 but with more details (e.g., more branches, more intervening variables).
· Do use the tips on pp. 43-45. These tips were developed based on commonly made errors!
· Check that each separate causal link makes sense isolated. Check that you are not missing causal links between variables on the page.
Rubric for Logic Model Assignment
|
Issue |
A level work |
B level work |
C level work |
F level work |
|
Independent variable (program)
|
Clearly defined indep var in narrative and path diagram
All effects on outcome (except contextual vars) lead ultimately from indep var |
Clearly defined indep var in narrative and path diagram
Some effects on outcome lead ultimately from indep var |
Some definition of indep var in either narrative or path diagram |
No clearly defined indep var |
|
Dependent variable (outcome) |
Clearly defined Dep var in narrative and path diagram
No other unspecified outcomes are de facto outcomes
|
Clearly defined dep var in narrative and path diagram
Almost no other unspecified outcomes are de facto outcomes
|
Some definition of dep var in either narrative or path diagram
Other unspecified outcomes are de facto outcomes
|
No clearly defined dep var |
|
Intervening variables |
Clearly defined Interv variables in narrative and path diagram
The bulk of preceding variables are logical causes and following variables are logical consequences Does not confuse process and mechanism
|
Mostly clearly defined Interv variables in narrative and path diagram Most of preceding variables are logical causes and following variables are logical consequences Does not confuse process and mechanism |
Some definition of interv variables in either narrative of path diagram Some of preceding variables are logical causes, and some following variables are logical consequences Confuses process and mechanism |
Intervening variables are not variables Preceding variables are not logical causes and following variables are not logical consequences Completely substitutes process for mechanism |
|
Issue |
A level work |
B level work |
C level work |
F level work |
|
Mechanics of Assignment |
Narrative of mechanism is clear, concise and avoids marketing in favor of program description.
Clearly describes variables and mechanisms. The bulk of path diagram has clearly drawn variables, explicit relationship arrows, and includes signs to show positive or inverse causal effects |
Narrative portion is clear, concise and contains little marketing in favor of program description.
Describes variables and mechanisms, Most of the path diagram has clearly drawn variables, explicit relationship arrows, and includes signs to show positive or inverse causal effects |
Narrative portion is confusing and/or contains mostly program marketing language. Path diagram is missing some variables and/or some arrows and signs |
Narrative does not explain the program or variables.
Path diagram missing many arrows and signs. |
|
Writing quality |
Writing is very clear
Arguments are cogent &persuasive
Organization is sensible & clear
Language is correct and concise
No repetition |
Writing is fairly clear
Arguments are fairly cogent & persuasive
Organization is mostly sensible & clear
Language is mostly correct
Some unnecessary repetition |
Writing is unclear
Arguments are not cogent & persuasive
Poor organization
Language has mistakes
Much unnecessary repetition |
Writing is unclear
No arguments are made
No organization
Language has many mistakes
Much repetition |
