PPD 561A Fall 2009 DRAFT May 27, 2009

PPD 561A: Policy Analysis Practicum School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California

Instructor Professor: Juliet Musso Office: RGL 300 Office Hours: TBA and by appointment Telephone: 740-0636 e-mail: [email protected]

Course Description

This is the first part of the two-semester capstone course for the Master of Public Policy (MPP) degree. The Practicum reinforces through application the skills developed in the MPP program, engaging students in conducting policy research on behalf of a client in the community.

Students work in groups to conduct policy research and produce a report for an organization or public official. The students will be assigned to one of a set of clients recruited by the instructors, and will refine the project in consultation with the client. Assignments will be made based on the fit between client needs and student skills and interests, as discussed below (p. 4). Students will not be permitted to move between projects following the initial assignments.

PPD 561A (1 unit) requires four meetings in class and regular team meetings. It focuses on issue framing, project scoping and proposal development. PPD 561B (3 units) involves policy research and analysis, and production of final report and briefing.

Learning Objectives. PPD 561A requires students to apply the theoretical frameworks and technical skills learned in the program to scope out the issue concerning the assigned client, and to negotiate and plan a feasible policy analytic project. The specific objectives are:

 Literature review, project scoping, and methodological design. Review relevant published literature on the topic, and frame an actionable policy analysis proposal that is client-focused and methodologically rigorous. Students will “define” the problem from the perspective of the client and the public, scope a project that can be completed with the resources available (time and team skills), develop the appropriate research design and identify data needs and analytic frameworks. This will inevitably require narrowing and refining of the issue or problem focus of the project. In so doing, all team members must complete at least one expert interview in addition to literature review.

 Team management: Students will develop team management systems and a work plan to support collaboration and interface with the client. They should identify team roles, establish times for regular meetings, and put together a plan for production of intermediate products and deliverables. Regular team meetings are a requirement of this class and students are encouraged to meet with the instructor regularly as well.

 Client relations: The groups will also meet with the client and identify how they will communicate during the project. Teams should make arrangements to keep the client apprised of their progress, and must be respectful of the organizational and political environment within which the client operates.

1 PPD 561A Fall 2009 DRAFT May 27, 2009

Recruitment of Clients and Assignment to Teams

The recruitment of clients and assignment of students to project teams mirrors how project assignment might proceed in a consulting organization or governmental evaluation agency. The instructor, acting in effect as the “principal,” is responsible for initial project identification. On behalf of the class, the instructor recruits clients and identifies in broad terms the client objectives and project methodology. There is an attempt to identify a range of project opportunities within different sectors (private/public/nonprofit), with differing methodological approaches, and with attention to an array of substantive areas.

Prior to the initiation of class, students are surveyed as to their interests and skill levels, and they are also asked to submit a current resume. The projects will be posted prior to the commencement of class, and student provided an opportunity to rank-order their top five project preferences. Project assignments will be made by the instructor, who will construct teams with attention to student preferences, skills and specialization areas, and to workability within the team. Again, once project assignments are made, students will be expected to work with the group and the client. Should project workability or client side issues arise, the instructor will work out necessary adaptations, maintaining the integrity of the project team.

Course Requirements and Expectations

1. Resume review and revision. All members of the class must submit a resume prior to the first meeting of the class. In this meeting we will briefly discuss resume standards, and the instructor will review resumes and return with suggestions for improvement, if needed. Five percent of the class grade will be based on timely resume submission.

2. Issue diagnosis/literature review. All individuals in each group are required to inform themselves on the broader intellectual, political, and organizational context of the issue through a review of pertinent published literature (academic studies; government reports, etc.) Each group member will write a 2- to-3 page (single spaced) issue diagnosis memo to the group (graded by instructors) that summarizes his or her independent thoughts on the issue. We encourage the groups to work together to “carve up” the issue diagnosis in a way that permits the individual issue diagnosis memos to speak to the group project as a whole. Twenty-five percent of the grade will be based on this memo.

3. Portfolio. Each individual in the group will maintain a portfolio of work that they have contributed to the project. For PPD 561A, this must at the least include the following: documents included in literature review; interview questions and notes from at least one expert interview (in person or telephone), and the individual section that each individual contributed to the draft proposal. The contents of the portfolio will be available to other group members and reviewed by instructors in evaluating team performance. Ten percent of the grade will be based on portfolio contents.

4. Peer review. Each individual in the group will be evaluated by fellow group members with respect to their contributions to group process, including for example leadership, communications skills, consistency in attending groups and meeting deadlines, creativity of ideas, etc. Ten percent of the grade will be based on peer review scores.

5. Project proposal. Each team will prepare a seven-to-ten page (single spaced) prospectus, for approval by the client and instructor. This will include a brief issue statement/literature review, research methodology, and work plan. The instructors will review and critique a draft prior to submission to the client, and the score will be weighted between the individual and final versions (see Table 1, below). The methodology may employ quantitative methods (statistical analysis; cost-benefit

2 PPD 561A Fall 2009 DRAFT May 27, 2009

analysis; operations research) and/or qualitative methods (interviewing, focus groups, field observation; archival research). Each group member must contribute a section, and this must be part of the portfolio.

6. Human subjects review. All student groups are required to determine whether federal regulations require human subjects review through the USC Institutional Review Board (IRB). If required they will submit required material to the IRB prior to conducting research.

7. Project management. Students are required to meet regularly as a group, and to arrange meetings as required at the convenience of the client. The students will be expected to function professionally in managing the project and in all meetings with the client. They are also expected to develop internal procedures and systems for project management, and to respond in a proactive and constructive manner to unanticipated problems and challenges that arise in the process of getting the work done.

6. Faculty and TA consultation. Throughout the process the instructor and teaching assistant will be available to trouble-shoot issues. We encourage groups to make appointments to meet with instructors outside of class. The instructors will also provide regular feedback on interim products to ensure quality deliverables. They ordinarily will not, however, direct the research unless groups experience severe workability issues.

Table 1: Grade weight by assignment Assignment Length Due date % of Grade Resume (individual) 1 p. sngl. Aug. 22 5 Independent Issue Diagnosis (ind.) 2-3 pp. sngl Oct. 24 25 Draft Project Proposal (group) 5-7 pp. sngl Nov. 22 15 Peer review (ind.) Nov. 29 10 Portfolio (ind.) Nov. 29 10 Final Proposal and Work Plan (group) 7-10 pp. sngl. Dec. 13 35 100%

Form and Style. All products should be single-spaced. (Page lengths do not include appendices and other attachments) All assignments must be written in plain, concise prose, as described in Strunk and White's Elements of Style. The client also will have the opportunity to provide expectations with regard to form and style. Submission policies. All assignments must be submitted digitally, typically to the class digital drop box unless otherwise noted. (Note that the portfolio is assembled on an individual file exchange). For individual projects, the file naming protocol is lastname_assignment (e.g., musso_resume). For group work, the file naming protocol is group name_assignment (e.g., “Mayor_predraft). I will grade down assignments that are tardy, submitted incorrectly, or require renaming. Please inform me in advance if you must miss a deadline.

Academic integrity: Students should maintain strict adherence to standards of academic integrity, as described in SCampus (http://www.usc.edu/dept/publications/SCAMPUS/). In particular, the University recommends strict sanctions for plagiarism: defined below:

3 PPD 561A Fall 2009 DRAFT May 27, 2009

Figure 1: SCAMPUS Section 11.11 Plagiarism A. The submission of material authored by another person but represented as the student's own work, whether that material is paraphrased or copied in verbatim or near-verbatim form. B. The submission of material subjected to editorial revision by another person that results in substantive changes in content or major alteration of writing style. C. Improper acknowledgment of sources in essays or papers. Note: Culpability is not diminished when plagiarism occurs in drafts that are not the final version. Also, if any material is prepared or submitted by another person on the student's behalf, the student is expected to proofread the results and is responsible for all particulars of the final draft.

Source: SCampus University Governance; http://www.usc.edu/dept/publications/SCAMPUS/governance/gov05.html All material referenced within drafts and reports must be properly cited, including identification of author, title, publication, institutional affiliation or press, date, and URL if found online. If you have any questions about academic integrity or citation standards, please ask in advance.

Policy on late and missing assignments: I will grade late assignments down substantially. Please inform me in advance if you must miss a deadline.

Syllabus revision. I will regularly assess progress and elicit student feedback regarding the course. If necessary I will revise the syllabus to make it more suitable. This may include extension of deadlines if necessary.

Academic accommodations. Any student requesting academic accommodations based on a disability is required to register with Disability Services and Programs (DSP) each semester. A letter of verification for approved accommodations can be obtained from DSP. Please be sure the letter is delivered to me (or to TA) as early in the semester as possible. DSP is located in STU 301 and is open early 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The phone number for DSP is (213) 740-0776.

Human Subjects Compliance and Review: Students are expected to pursue their research ethically and in compliance with the university’s codes regarding human subject protections. The University Park Institutional Review Board is the review and compliance body formed to protect human subjects in biomedical and social science. It is empowered to review all research proposals, funded or not, which are conducted by the faculty, staff, graduate or undergraduate students which involve the use of human subjects. Human subject means a living individual about whom an investigator conducting research obtains (a) data through intervention or interaction with the individual; or (b) identifiable private information. See the full description of the IRB at http://www.usc.edu/admin/provost/irb/. The mission of the Office of Compliance is accessed at http://www.usc.edu/admin/compliance/mission.html.

Project teams that collect primary data about human subjects (e.g., through interviewing, focus groups, or surveys) will need to file appropriate paperwork with the USC Institutional Review Board. This will be discussed in more detail in class. More information on Institutional Review Board review procedures may be accessed at the federal Health and Human Services website. Several chapters from the Institutional Review Board Guidebook posted there may be of specific interest: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/irb/irb_chapter1.htm.

4 PPD 561A Fall 2009 DRAFT May 27, 2009

Readings The Policy Practicum brings into sharp relief a variety of professional issues: 1) the role of the analyst as well as its inherent limitations; 2) the variety of assignments that policy analysts may encounter in practice; and 3) methods available to policy analysts. Readings on reserve explore various methodological frameworks and explore dimensions of the consultant’s experience.

Required Readings

Dean Hammer and Aaron Wildavsky, “The Open-Ended, Semistructured Interview: An (Almost) Operational Guide.” In Aaron Wildavsky, ed., Craftways: On the Organization of Scholarly Work. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1993, pp. 57-101.

Miller, D. C. & Salkind, N.J. (2002). Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement (6th ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Chapter 2: "Basic Guide for the Design of a Social Research Proposal.”

Terry Moore, “A practical guide for managing planning projects.” Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring 91, Vol. 57 Issue 2, p 212.

Further references will be made available by the instructors to assist with your methodological development, and will be identified as appropriate in the schedule of courses. We will post a separate listing of useful chapters in the reference books listed below, which we encourage you to consult in developing your methodology.

Reference Books

The following books are valuable resources that contain more in-depth discussion of professional skills and methodological considerations relevant to project planning. All are available through the university library system and we can make some chapters or readings available on the class web site. Bickman, Leonard and Debra J. Rog, 1998. Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Block, Peter, 1981. Flawless Consulting: A Guide to Getting Your Expertise Used. Austin: Learning Concepts. Creswell, John, 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Frankfort-Nachmias, Chava and David Nachmias, 2000. Research Methods in the Social Sciences (6th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers. Golembiewski, Robert T, 2000. Handbook of Organizational Consultation. New York: Marcel Dekker. Lippitt, Gordon L. and Ronald Lippitt, 1986. The Consulting Process in Action 2nd ed. San Diego: University Associates. Miles, Matthew B. and A. Michael Huberman, 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Miller, Delbert C. and Neil J. Salkind, 2002. Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement 6th Ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

5 PPD 561A Fall 2009 DRAFT May 27, 2009

Reference Books, Cont. Nachmias, C.F. & Nachmias, D. (2000). “Ethics in Social Science Research” (Ch. 4) and “Writing Research Reports” (Appendix B) in Chava Frankfort-Nachmias and David Nachmias, Research Methods in the Social Sciences, Worth Publishers Scott, Gregory M. & Stephen M. Garrison. (2002). The Political Science Student Writer's Manual. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Syer, John and Christopher Connolly, 1996. How Teamwork Works: The Dynamics of Effective Team Development. New York: McGraw-Hill. J. S. Wholey, H.P. Hatry, & K. Newcomer (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation (2nd ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Yin, Robert K., 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Course Schedule: Scoping and Planning the Project

Meeting 1: Course orientation and project overview September 9  Overview of course requirements; client roster and project assignment process  Discussion of expectations for professionalism in working with the client; preparing for the first client meeting  Project scoping and management  Alumni panel: project scoping and client-focus

Required Readings:  Terry Moore, “A practical guide for managing planning projects.” Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring 91, Vol. 57 Issue 2, p 212.  Dean Hammer and Aaron Wildavsky, “The Open-Ended, Semistructured Interview: An (Almost) Operational Guide.” In Aaron Wildavsky, ed., Craftways: On the Organization of Scholarly Work. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1993, pp. 57-101.

Resume due in digital drop box August 22 (prior to class).

Client roster will be posted on or before Sept. 9. Project preferences will be solicited, and assignments made within a week. Student groups must meet as a team at least once prior to class on October 7.

6 PPD 561A Fall 2009 DRAFT May 27, 2009

Meeting 2. Issue Diagnosis Workshop October 7  Overview of IRB and academic integrity standards  Review of issue diagnosis concepts and issue diagnosis instructions  Review of semi-structured interview techniques

Issue diagnoses due in digital drop box Oct. 24

Meeting 3. Proposal Workshop November 11  Feedback on issue diagnoses  Overview of proposal expectations  Overview of research design and analytic approaches Required Reading:  Miller, D. C. & Salkind, N.J. (2002). Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement (6th ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Chapter 2: "Basic Guide for the Design of a Social Research Proposal.” Recommended:  Creswell, J., (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Draft project proposal due in digital drop box November 22 Peer review and portfolio submission required by November 29

Meeting 4. Research Planning Workshop December 2  Feedback on proposal and work plans. After revision groups submit proposal to clients.  Next steps in research and analysis; methodological review as required.

Final Proposal (including issue diagnosis/literature review, methodological treatment, and work plan) due in digital drop box on final exam date

7