Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

Summary
Pages 1-18

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 1...
... • Is this investment a justifiable use of scarce resources relative to other investments? Ideally, decision makers would have available to them the evidence needed to answer these questions, informing their investments and increasing the investment returns.
From page 2...
... In this report, the committee highlights the potential for economic evidence to support these investments; describes challenges to its optimal use; and offers recommendations whose implementation can promote lasting improvement in its quality, utility, and use.
From page 3...
... For example, high-quality economic evaluations are characterized by a clearly defined intervention and a well-specified counterfactual; a previously established perspective, time horizon, and baseline discount rate; accurate cost estimates of the resources needed to replicate the intervention; and consideration of the uncertainty associated with the evaluation findings. In addition, the committee concluded that registries can increase uniformity of practice, and that the acknowledgment of equity concerns can enhance the quality and usefulness of economic evaluations.
From page 4...
... Funders, policy makers, program developers, program evaluators, and publishers engaged in science communication each have unique opportunities to help achieve this advancement, but those opportunities, in turn, will depend in no small part on the incentives offered by the various stakeholders to each other. Given the crucial need to improve communication among and between stakeholders, sometimes even at the most basic level, the committee identified key messages that producers and consumers of economic evidence 3 Intermediaries are defined as stakeholders who use economic evidence to enhance practice and policy through advocacy, technical assistance, or other avenues.
From page 5...
... It is the committee's hope that these best practices will serve as the basis for long-term improvements to support the production of clear, credible, and applicable economic evidence for decision makers. Such practices depend upon the type of economic evaluation being performed, and range from describing the purpose of an intervention, the alternative with which the intervention is compared, and the time horizon for the analysis; to valuing all the resources needed to implement and sustain the intervention; to determining the extent to which impacts are included; to employing sensitivity analysis.
From page 6...
... RECOMMENDATION 2: In support of high-quality and useful eco nomic evaluations of interventions for children, youth, and families, producers of economic evidence should follow the best practices delin eated in the checklist below for reporting the results of cost analyses, cost-effectiveness analyses, benefit-cost analyses, and related methods.
From page 7...
... RECOMMENDATION 4: To achieve anticipated economic benefits and optimize the likelihood of deriving the anticipated outcomes from evidence-based interventions, public and private funders5 should en sure that resources are available to support effective implementation of those interventions. RECOMMENDATION 5: Providers of postsecondary and graduate education, on-the-job training, and fellowship programs designed to develop the skills of those making or seeking to inform decisions related to children, youth, and families should incorporate training in the use of evidence, including economic evidence, in decision making.
From page 8...
... maintains a database of estimates of outcome values; (3) archives longitudinal data for multiple purposes, including improved tracking of children and families and the development of better estimates of long term impacts and shadow prices; (4)
From page 9...
... SUMMARY 9 RECOMMENDATION 10: Public and private funders, policy makers, program developers, program evaluators, and publishers engaged in science communication should strengthen the incentives they provide for the production and use of high-quality economic evidence likely to be of high utility to decision makers.
From page 11...
... , generate results in a sensitivity analysis using loss parameters greater than 0 when accounting for new rev enue required to pay for an intervention or for impacts on taxes paid or transfer payments. -- Determine the time horizon for the analysis, and when costs or outcomes accrue over multiple years, the base case discount rate and age or point in time to which to discount (e.g., start of the intervention or a standardized child age)
From page 12...
... --  Use micro costing procedures whenever possible to improve the quality of intervention cost estimates and facilitate implementation and replication. --  Define major intervention activities and identify costs associated with each, including who bears those costs.
From page 13...
... Advancing Practices (all core practices plus the following) : --  Conduct CEA only when an intervention has been evaluated us ing research designs that can produce unbiased causal estimates of impact.
From page 14...
... Advancing Practices (all core practices plus the following) : --  Conduct BCA only when an intervention has been evaluated us ing research designs that can produce unbiased causal estimates of impact.
From page 15...
... -- The counterfactual (baseline or status quo) with which the inter vention is compared -- The perspective for the analysis and any subperspectives examined, with associated results -- The currency and reference year for all monetary values -- The assumed deadweight loss parameter, if one was used -- The horizon for measuring economic values and, when discounting is used, the discount rate and time (or age)
From page 16...
... -- Which impacts are observed versus linked or projected, for whom they are linked or projected, and the linking or projection method -- For the impacts valued in the monetary unit (if any) , the prices used,*
From page 17...
... with disag gregation by outcomes observed versus projected and, where pos sible and relevant, by tangible versus intangible benefits (e.g., for crime or child abuse and neglect) -- The implications of methods (e.g., omission of resources in CA, prices applied in CA, causal evidence on outcomes, exclusion of outcomes, linkages or projections of outcomes, valuation for out comes)


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.