Using the Results from Rigorous Multisite Evaluations to Inform Local Policy Decisions

Evidence‐based policy at the local level requires predicting the impact of an intervention to inform whether it should be adopted. Increasingly, local policymakers have access to published research evaluating the effectiveness of policy interventions from national research clearinghouses that review and disseminate evidence from program evaluations. Through these evaluations, local policymakers have a wealth of evidence describing what works, but not necessarily where. Multisite evaluations may produce unbiased estimates of the average impact of an intervention in the study sample and still produce inaccurate predictions of the impact for localities outside the sample for two reasons: (1) the impact of the intervention may vary across localities, and (2) the evaluation estimate is subject to sampling error. Unfortunately, there is relatively little evidence on how much the impacts of policy interventions vary from one locality to another and almost no evidence on the implications of this variation for the accuracy with which the local impact of adopting an intervention can be predicted using findings from an evaluation in other localities. In this paper, we present a set of methods for quantifying the accuracy of the local predictions that can be obtained using the results of multisite randomized trials and for assessing the likelihood that prediction errors will lead to errors in local policy decisions. We demonstrate these methods using three evaluations of educational interventions, providing the first empirical evidence of the ability to use multisite evaluations to predict impacts in individual localities—i.e., the ability of “evidence‐based policy” to improve local policy.     

Unsafe sex: do feelings matter?

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships among self-efficacy for condom use during distress (SE-Condom Distress), self-efficacy related to general HIV prevention skills (SE-HIV), and HIV risk behaviors, attitudes, and knowledge. Two hundred and twenty two adolescents with psychiatric disorders between 13 and 18 years-old participated. Participants completed measures related to HIV Self-Efficacy, HIV Attitudes, and Sexual Behaviors. Self-efficacy for condom use during distress (SE-Condom Distress) was significantly associated with more HIV protective behaviors. Controlling for observed covariates, SE-Condom Distress was the only variable significantly associated with consistent condom use in a multiple logistic regression (OR=2.43). Self-efficacy regarding condom use during affective arousal is closely associated with HIV-related attitudes and behaviors. Clinicians need to be alert to subtle signs of distress as adolescents contemplate safer sexual behavior.     

What’s Inside and Outside the Law?

In this article I take up a conceptual question: What is the distinction between ‘the law’ and the behavior the law regulates, or, as I formulate it, the distinction between what is ‘inside’ the law and what is ‘outside’ it? That conceptual question is in play in (at least) three different doctrinal domains: the constitutional law doctrines regarding the limits on the delegation of legislative powers; the criminal law doctrines regarding mistakes of law; and the constitutional rights doctrines that turn on the distinction between state action and the acts of non-state actors. I argue that legal doctrines should turn solely on normative considerations and should not turn on answers to conceptual questions. However, the doctrines I discuss appear to turn on the conceptual question regarding what is ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ the law. I show how each of these doctrinal areas appears to raise this conceptual issue, and I explain how the doctrines might or might not escape being held hostage to conceptual controversy.     

The strategic value of new university technology and its impact on exclusivity of licensing transactions: An empirical study

Commercialization of new university technology within the new product development process is an important tool by which established firms can expand their innovative capabilities. The strategic importance of the university technology to the firm, however, can vary considerably. An exclusivity agreement is a useful tool to protect the firm’s investment and help ensure that value is appropriated through the commercialization process. An empirical study of 66 technology transfer projects in the information and communications technology industry reveals that licensing transactions are usually secured by some form of exclusivity agreements when the product innovation enabled by the new university technology is new-to-the-firm or new-to-the-market and the firm’s perception of the strategic value of the new technologies is high.