學門類別
哈佛
- General Management
- Marketing
- Entrepreneurship
- International Business
- Accounting
- Finance
- Operations Management
- Strategy
- Human Resource Management
- Social Enterprise
- Business Ethics
- Organizational Behavior
- Information Technology
- Negotiation
- Business & Government Relations
- Service Management
- Sales
- Economics
- Teaching & the Case Method
最新個案
- A practical guide to SEC ï¬nancial reporting and disclosures for successful regulatory crowdfunding
- Quality shareholders versus transient investors: The alarming case of product recalls
- The Health Equity Accelerator at Boston Medical Center
- Monosha Biotech: Growth Challenges of a Social Enterprise Brand
- Assessing the Value of Unifying and De-duplicating Customer Data, Spreadsheet Supplement
- Building an AI First Snack Company: A Hands-on Generative AI Exercise, Data Supplement
- Building an AI First Snack Company: A Hands-on Generative AI Exercise
- Board Director Dilemmas: The Tradeoffs of Board Selection
- Barbie: Reviving a Cultural Icon at Mattel (Abridged)
- Happiness Capital: A Hundred-Year-Old Family Business's Quest to Create Happiness
New York City's Teen ACTION Program: an Evaluation Gone Awry
內容大綱
This video-based case explores how an impact evaluation for a promising after-school program in New York City went awry. In 2006, New York City's Mayor Michael Bloomberg created the Center for Economic Opportunity (CEO). Designed as an innovation fund, CEO tested anti-poverty programs by applying an evidence-based approach. One of CEO's programs, Teen ACTION, was developed to provide after-school service-learning opportunities to at-risk youth. Teen ACTION's model was based on a rigorously evaluated program which had proven to significantly reduce rates of teen pregnancy and course failure among participants when compared to a control group. But when it came time to evaluate Teen ACTION's impacts, CEO ran into significant hurdles. With rare candor, CEO officials, Kristin Morse and Carson Hicks discuss on video how flaws in the program's evaluation strategy, coupled with random unforeseen events like the Swine Flu, rendered the evaluation results unusable. HKS Case Number 2027.0.