Sign up for The Corona Observer quarterly e-newsletter

Stay current with Corona Insights by signing up for our quarterly e-newsletter, The Corona Observer.  In it, we share with our readers insights into current topics in market research, evaluation, and strategy that are relevant regardless of your position or field.

View our recent newsletter from December, 2017 here.

* indicates required




We hope you find it to be a valuable resource. Of course, if you wish to unsubscribe, you may do so at any time via the link at the bottom of the newsletter.

 


The Complexities of Higher Education for Low-Income Students

In our recent blog series on Higher Education we’ve been discussing issues like the cost of attending college, the economic value of a college degree, and the impact of student loan debt.  Today, let’s drill down and examine these issues for low-income students, specifically.  Our review of the data on these issues suggests that both the costs and benefits of a college degree may be amplified for low-income students.

Last year, The Atlantic reported on an analysis by the Institute for Higher Education Policy that found that most colleges are unaffordable for all but the wealthiest students.  For students with a family income of $69,000 (which is higher than the U.S. median income) only about 25% of colleges were in reach, even assuming the family saved 10% of its discretionary income for the 10 years before college, the student worked 10 hours a week at a part-time job during college, and the student obtained all the federal student loan dollars they were eligible for.

More recently, NPR reported on a Wisconsin HOPE Lap study showing that in addition to struggling to pay for college, many college students struggle to pay for food and housing while they’re in college, which makes it harder for them to focus and learn as well as less likely to complete college.

Indeed, these pressures make it less likely that low-income students go to college at all. A 2010 study in the American Sociological Review analyzing data from two large single-cohort longitudinal surveys found that college graduates were more likely than those without college degrees to have come from high-income families, to have well-educated parents, to have high levels of cognitive ability, and to have social networks that supported college plans. However, they also showed that the economic returns on a college degree were greatest for those students who matched the characteristics of those least likely to complete college (low-income, less social support, etc.).  In other words, disadvantaged students who made it through college had a greater wage gap with their non-college “peers” compared to the wage gap for more-advantaged individuals. (To be clear, the average post-college wages of disadvantaged students were still lower than those of more-advantaged students.) The article offers the caveat that there may be other unmeasured characteristics that determine which disadvantaged individuals complete college and which do not, and that those characteristics might be responsible for some of the wage gap.

Still, the unaffordability of college for lower-income students functionally means there are fewer spots available for those students.  So, although they may benefit more from college than their wealthier peers, there are fewer options available to them.  One piece of good news for them is that the value of a college degree may be less dependent on the particular school than is often believed.  A 2014 study in the Economics of Education Review found that once student characteristics (e.g., cognitive ability, income) and other selection factors were controlled for, differences in the average earnings of graduates from 30 Texas colleges were minimal.

A final benefit of college for low-income students is social capital.  We’ve covered this previously in our blog series as well. The greater gains in economic returns for disadvantaged students may in part be due to larger gains in social capital. This is a point made strongly by J.D. Vance in his book, Hillbilly Elegy.  Importantly, greater social benefits come from less advantaged students being able to network with more advantaged students.  If the educational system becomes too stratified by socioeconomic status (i.e., some schools enroll only wealthier, academically-prepared students and some enroll only disadvantaged students) there will be fewer social capital gains for the disadvantaged students.  Similarly, stratified systems tend to draw less support for government funding, as a recent article in the Atlantic notes.

We hope you’ve been following along with the Corona Insights Higher Education blog series this quarter. This is the sixth post in the series – click here to see all of our posts on higher education and stay tuned for more.


Investigating Student Loan Debt

As a firm with collective decades spent earning advanced degrees on top of our professional work with higher education organizations, we are not new to the issue of growing student loan debt. We’ve all heard the complaints about rising student loan debt in America. Many of them stem from uncertainties about the economic benefits for graduates and for society overall. Parents might ask – how will my student ever climb out of the mountain of debt they’re buried under when they graduate? Public officials might ask – how will these students be anything other than an impediment to national economic progress when “70 percent of college students graduate with a significant amount of loans” and “more than 40 million Americans hold student loans, and many struggle with repayment?”

To be clear, this is not intended to denigrate the value of a higher education degree. As we’ve noted both in this blog series and in previous Radiance blogs, the evidence supports the long-term economic value for individuals and for society of a higher education degree. Instead, the goal of this blog is to shed light on the critical perspectives, shifting demands, and various approaches to solving the problems related to student loan debt in America.

From an economic perspective, not only does growing student loan debt potentially impact the career paths and outcomes of individual students, it also places a drag on the short-run of the American economy.  Indeed, over the last decade, student loan debt has more than doubled, growing from ~$500 billion in 2008 to a staggering $1.5 trillion in 2018. When graduates (even those with relatively high-paying salaries) are bogged down by heavy student loan debt, they spend less and they save less.

As we’ve seen when working with our higher education clients in recent years, students are increasingly focused on the return on their investment as they seek assurance related to their ability to pay off the debt they’ve incurred. This compels them to be shrewder consumers of the products of higher education; a potential benefit for both students as well as institutions of higher education. Students not only have to do more research into the services being offered across different institutions of higher education, they must think more carefully about personal finance and learn a few fundamentals, like what it means to default on a loan payment and the difference between a variable and fixed interest rate. Simultaneously, colleges and universities have been challenged by the career-related demands from students to be more innovative, distinctive, and societally relevant.

An alternative national approach to the burden of student loan debt is simply eliminating the costs of higher education altogether. Some countries, like Germany, have taken this approach by doing away entirely with tuition fees. Convinced of the long-term societal benefits for a highly educated workforce, Germany has invested in their students through overwhelming access to a higher education. Whether or not this approach will work, however, is still up for debate as some predict that, eventually, Germany will have to reinstate tuition fees to some degree.

Regardless whether the solution to growing student loan debt in America lies in policy, in higher education as an industry, in the shrewdness of students as customers, or in something else entirely, perhaps there is a silver lining in the burdens placed upon students and higher education as an industry as they are now. Namely, students have had to be considerably more intentional in planning for their careers while simultaneously new skills and financial fundamentals that set them up for success in the long-run. At the same time, colleges and universities operating in an industry that is notoriously slow to adapt to evolving societal demands have had to be innovative in their approaches to attracting students and persuasive in maintaining higher education’s vital civic role in society.

We hope you’ve been following along with the Corona Insights Higher Education blog series this quarter. This is the fifth post in the series – click here to see all of our posts on higher education and stay tuned for more.


GoodBusiness – The State of Corporate Philanthropy in Colorado

We were very excited to work with B:CIVIC, the Denver Chamber, DaVita, TIAA and the University of Denver to collect data about how businesses in Colorado are engaging with and giving to their communities. It was great to see that businesses of all sizes across Colorado are engaging in corporate philanthropy, especially at the local level. It was also interesting to see that in addition to cash donations, many businesses are offering support for their employees to donate time and money.

The report can be found here.


The Economics of Higher Education: An Interview with Jill Tiefenthaler, President of Colorado College

As Corona Insights explores the state of higher education, we turned to one of the experts in Jill Tiefenthaler, the 13th president of Colorado College. President Tiefenthaler is a leading scholar in field of the economics of higher education and has a thorough understanding of the key issues facing colleges and universities today. See our interview below:

  1. To start us off, can you tell us a bit about your background and areas of expertise in higher education?

I have a background in both higher education teaching and administration, which has informed my scholarship on the economics of higher education. After receiving my M.A. and Ph.D. in economics from Duke University, I joined the faculty of Colgate University, where I also served as department chair and associate dean of the faculty. Prior to becoming president of Colorado College, I worked as provost and professor of economics at Wake Forest University.

I’ve served as president of Colorado College since 2011. During my tenure, I’ve overseen a historic alliance that created the Colorado Springs Fine Arts Center at Colorado College, the development and implementation of the Building on the Block strategic plan, and the largest fundraising campaign in the college’s history.

My academic focus is on the economics of higher education, particularly in relation to the liberal arts. I published an essay on the economic challenges facing liberal arts colleges in “Remaking College: Innovation and the Liberal Arts” (Johns Hopkins University Press, October 2013). I also teach a course on “The Economics of Higher Education” each year.

  1. In your view, what is the economic value of a higher education degree, both in terms of individual social mobility and in terms of the contributions to society as a whole? In other words, what are the economic benefits of higher education?

On both an individual and societal level, education pays. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that the economic returns (net of costs) to the individual of both a bachelor’s and associate’s degree are about 15% per year.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 2016 Current Population Survey indicates that the median weekly earnings for persons 25 and over with a Bachelor’s degree are $1,156, compared with $692 per week for those with a high school diploma. And, this earnings gap is only widening, suggesting that there is less economic mobility for those without a college degree than in the past. A report by the Pew Research Center indicates that the median annual earnings gap between college and high school graduates for Millennials in 2013 was $17,500. By contrast for the “Silent” generation in 1965, the earnings gap was only $7,499 (in constant dollars). Additionally, the unemployment rate for those holding a Bachelor’s degree (2.7%) is almost half the unemployment rate for those with a high school diploma (5.2%) (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey, 2016).

Beyond the individual benefits, there are many public benefits of higher education in terms of civic engagement and use of public services. Those with college degrees are more likely to vote, more likely to volunteer and have better health outcomes including lower obesity rates, lower smoking rates and increased frequency of exercise. They are also less likely to be unemployed or in poverty and more likely to have saved for retirement.

  1. How have federal and state policy shaped the landscape of the economics of higher education, both in general and for private colleges like Colorado College? How do policy changes related to government subsidies play into the rising average cost of tuition and fees?

Over the past few decades, we’ve seen a reversal in how public college is funded. For example, in Colorado in the year 2000, the state funded approximately 2/3 of the cost of attending public college, and students paid about 1/3 in the form of tuition. Now, the funding structure is reversed, with students shouldering roughly 2/3 of the cost of college (Colorado Commission on Higher Education).

In Colorado, a significant factor in curbing state funding for education has been the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR), passed in 1992. TABOR limits the amount of tax revenue the government can collect and spend, essentially limiting the state’s ability to invest in the future. Although the economy is currently growing and there is greater demand for highly educated workers, Colorado cannot retain the revenue to increase spending on education.

I would say that these cuts in state funding have affected public institutions more than they have affected Colorado College as a private institution. CC only receives about 1% of its total revenue from state and federal funding, so we have long been a tuition-dependent institution. Our tuition has actually increased at a slower rate than public institutions in recent years, in part because we’re able to provide each student a subsidy from the college’s endowment and annual philanthropic giving beyond what their tuition covers. State schools are now having to operate more like private institutions, raising tuition and growing their endowments to compensate for the loss of government subsidies.

We hope you’ve been following along with the Corona Insights Higher Education blog series this quarter. This is the fourth post in the series – click here to see all of our posts on higher education and stay tuned for more.


Graduate Students and their Changing Expectations

At the risk of coming off as someone with early-onset curmudgeon-ness, back in my day graduate students went to graduate school only focused on their academic education—and liked it! (We also walked uphill in the snow both ways, or something.) The program I joined (originally with the intent of pursuing a PhD) was very academic-focused—a terminal master’s wasn’t a thing in that program, and all students, even master’s-enrolled students, were expected to develop the skills necessary to become high-quality researchers. The program thus intensely focused its resources on high-quality teaching, conference attendance, and various research opportunities. Scant few resources (time or money) were put towards the overall student experience in the program or even the college.

After working with various higher education institutions, I have found that student expectations are changing. I see students wanting more than just a good education; they want to connect with those around them. I’ve found alumni looking back and wishing they had been given more opportunities to build stronger relationships with those in their programs and even their programs’ broader communities. In many cases, these students and alumni are looking to the university, individual college, or even department or program to provide the opportunities to build those connections.

Why are they changing? I’m not entirely sure. Perhaps the societal focus on the quintessential college (undergraduate) experience has residually affected the graduate experience, with students making the transition expecting something more akin to, albeit more mature than, their undergraduate experience. It’s also possible that, with the ever-expanding graduate offerings (certificates, short courses, terminal master’s, etc.), a greater number of students are entering programs that are less life-consuming than the classic PhD. Or perhaps graduate students are behaving more like a classic customer, reviewing their options and realizing that most graduate programs will offer the basic education they need, giving them the opportunity to make decisions on what else the program offers. Even more likely, it’s some combination of the three.

Universities must realize they cannot disregard these changing student expectations. Most universities are facing competition that is fiercer than ever. Many states and regions have a plethora of options for the future graduate student, and chances are that one or two of those options are breaking free from pervasive perceptions of the university as rigid, unchanging, and traditional—and are innovating their offerings, including the student experience.

We hope you’ve been following along with the Corona Insights Higher Education blog series this quarter. This is the third post in the series – click here to see all of our posts on higher education and stay tuned for more.


Cousins with a Lot in Common: Culturals and Colleges—Part 2

In this blog post, we’re exploring how some of the trends in arts & culture also apply to higher education. Previously, we focused on how arts & culture and higher education are both facing a shifting paradigm that is forcing them to rethink what it means to be a cultural or a college or university. Today, we’re going to dive deeper into changes in how people interact with these organizations and what they expect of them.

User-defined experiences

Technology has allowed a high level of personalization across many domains, and as a result, there are higher expectations for being able to personalize products and experiences. One of the big findings from CultureTrack ’14 was that people were interested in self-curating their experiences when going to an arts & cultural event or space. Further, CultureTrack ’17 found that different groups of people were interested in using technology to enhance their arts & cultural experiences.

What might self-curation mean for higher education? Many colleges and universities have already realized that the experience of getting a degree can be as or even more important than the actual degree. Offering students ways to customize this experience is vital. This doesn’t necessarily mean changing the content of your offerings. It does call for engaging and relevant messaging that resonates with students with their own big future goals. If they don’t find what they are looking for, they’ll look to self-curate their education someplace else.

Additionally, convenient formats are increasingly important for the higher education consumer. Instead of declaring online courses and degrees as inferior, colleges and universities should be figuring out how to make the quality of these options as high as the on-campus options because for some students, these may be their only options.

Another major finding from CultureTrack ’14 was that cultural consumers were “promiscuous” when it came to experiencing arts & culture—they wanted to experience a little bit of everything. And there is a similar pattern in education. As STEM transforms into STEAM and then STREAM (science, technology, reading, engineering, art, and math), we can see how the focus on a well-rounded education has become popular again. Given the growth of the knowledge economy, students are interested in experiencing a broader array of education opportunities, even after they have a degree, for both personal growth and career growth.

Wanted: Civic leaders

CultureTrack ’17 also examined people’s philanthropy for arts & culture. Most of the major reasons for giving or not giving to arts & cultural organization involved social impact. That is, cultural consumers are more interested now in the type of impact that arts & cultural organizations are having on society and their community. They are expecting arts & cultural organizations to act as civic leaders.

This pattern seems to hold true for institutions beyond cultural ones, such as colleges and universities. Both donors and students are expecting colleges and universities to be interested in having a social impact. Academia rewards faculty for scholarship and knowledge creation, but colleges and universities also need to encourage faculty to figure out ways to apply that knowledge in the community in an impactful way.

One of the other outcomes of recent technological advances is that people spend less time engaging with other people in real life. However, people crave contact, connection and a civic commons. Plus, we know that loneliness is bad for our health. Community institutions, like culturals and universities or colleges, are some of the remaining spaces for engaging with other people. Civic leaders can provide opportunities for people in the community to engage with other people.

Where to next?

While change is often stressful, it is exciting to see the ways that higher education and arts & culture are evolving to meet the needs and expectations of the future. Some colleges and universities and some culturals have been adapting to meet the needs of their students, patrons, and community. For example, the San Francisco Opera has been using pop-up events to reach new patrons. Importantly, the opera is using these pop-up events to test an idea quickly, learn from the outcome, and move forward. Similarly, Georgetown University is testing different ways of delivering higher education. In both these examples, the organizations are giving themselves permission and space to experiment.

If you are a higher education institution or a cultural who needs to adapt to this shifting paradigm, there are a couple of things to consider:

  • What parts of your identity as an organization are critical (like your mission and vision) and what parts could be adapted? Where is there room to experiment?
  • How can your organization bring people together? How can you have a greater impact on the community? How are you sharing the story of your impact?
  • How are you addressing issues of access and inclusion?
  • Can people create an experience at your organization that aligns with their needs and interests?

We hope you’ve been following along with the Corona Insights Higher Education blog series this quarter. This is the second post in the series – click here to see all of our posts on higher education and stay tuned for more.


Cousins with a Lot in Common: Culturals and Colleges—Part 1

One of the benefits of our work at Corona Insights is the sheer variety, both in our clients and their respective industries. This breadth allows us to cross-pollinate ideas across seemingly disparate fields and share industry-spanning trends with our clients.

Our work in arts & culture and higher education is long-standing. That long arc of time, combined with several curious minds, has led us to a few insights.

Arts & culture and higher education have more in common than one might think. Both industries are tradition-bound, often collections-based and led by knowledge experts. Tenure matters in these fields; as do professional credentials. Both are slow to change and find it difficult to anticipate emerging consumer demands.

Each is also experiencing seismic shifts as consumers, most notably Millennials (and now Gen Z too), are making vastly different choices than previous generations. Plus, technology is redefining how we engage with just about everything.  Take food for example. As Applebee’s market share declines, the demand for freshly prepared grab-and-go snacks increases. Did you hear that we aren’t really eating meals anymore? Welcome to the snacking era. No wonder napkin use is down too.

In this blog post and a follow up one, we will explore and apply some of the trends in arts & culture to higher education.

Shifting paradigms

In this new context, culturals are having to rethink just about everything. From engaging younger and more diverse audiences to leveraging technology to augment the visitor experience, museums and arts groups are seeking relevance in news ways.

As LaPlaca Cohen revealed in their most recent national study of cultural consumers, CultureTrack ’17, things have changed dramatically since they conducted their first study in 2001.

“For today’s audiences, the definition of culture has democratized, nearly to the point of extinction. It’s no longer about high versus low or culture versus entertainment; it’s about relevance or irrelevance. Activities that have traditionally been considered culture and those that haven’t are now on a level playing field. With the traditional notion of “culture” no longer being a distinguishing factor, it is up to cultural organizations to reassert culture’s purpose in an increasingly complex world, by powerfully articulating and delivering on their essential impact.”

With seemingly endless ways to spend one’s leisure time and endless modes of communicating and consuming content, the definition of “cultural” has expanded to include activities such as outings in city parks and watching Hulu. Curators and arts critics are finding that their roles are changing as consumers self-curate their experiences. They want to consume collaboratively and share with their friends (as revealed in CultureTrack ’14).

So too is the definition of higher education changing, much to the chagrin of academics. Long gone are the days when professors were sages on stages and students spent four years sitting at a series of desks, turning in assignments on time, and deciding whether or not to live on campus (and go to the occasional kegger, let’s be honest).

Consumers are demanding choice in higher education, and they are demanding evidence that the education they purchase will lead to their desired outcomes. A college degree is a capital investment after all. Higher education, like arts & culture, is being scrutinized more closely for its ROI – return on investment. Increasing student loan debt, questions about the value-add of a college degree, and high-growth jobs that don’t require a post-secondary education are making the consumer stand up and say, “why?”. They are also voting with their feet when it comes to demand for online offerings (which offer the same convenience that online streaming of entertainment does) and an understanding of the total cost of ownership (i.e., what’s my degree really going to cost once you figure in housing?). Employers are seeking alternatives as well – alternative credentials, badges, and certificates that prove someone has what it takes to be successful in the job today.

Higher education’s role in society is also being questioned. As democratization permeates industries, one can’t help but ask, “If it isn’t for everyone is it worth keeping?”. If a college degree is only for the well-to-do or those who live in larger cities as opposed to small, rural towns, is it accessible enough? Is it inclusive?

Today, power is in the hands of the consumer. And consumer behavior is changing industries. Restaurants, shopping malls, content consumption, and transportation are all being redefined for relevance. Higher education and arts & culture are no exception.

Next Time

In part two of this blog, we’ll explore further the similarities between higher education and arts & culture in terms of how people interact with these organizations and what they expect of them.

We hope you’ve been following along with the Corona Insights Higher Education blog series this quarter. This is the first post in the series – click here to see all of our posts on higher education and stay tuned for more.


The State of Higher Education: A Corona Insights Blog Series

In 2011, Pew Research Center published a comprehensive report entitled “Is College Worth It?” that shed light on the primary issues within higher education, including cost and value; monetary payoff; views on the mission of colleges; student loans; and more. Despite the daunting title of the report, the survey results suggested that, overall, Americans in 2011 understood the benefits of higher education, as “an overwhelming majority of college graduates—86%—say that college has been a good investment for them personally” and that those with a college degree earn roughly $20,000 more a year than those without a college degree.

In 2014, Corona Insights considered the same question posed in the 2011 Pew report and similarly concluded, “Yes, that college degree is still worth the cost of attendance.”

Gelling with the 2011 Pew report findings, the table included here shows a large gap in 2012 median wages between Colorado adults aged 30-34 with at least a bachelor’s degree and those without. As noted by Corona CEO Kevin Raines, the value of a college degree lies in the long-term financial payoff: “As a general rule, unless you plan to retire at 30, it’s pretty clear in this simple analysis that there’s a positive long-term financial payoff to pursuing higher education.”

Now, in 2018, higher education still contends with this question about the value of a college degree as well as a new slate of issues, including stout public skepticism, ballooning student loan debt, and the growing gap in access for low-income and minority students. In light of these issues (and others), the state of higher education in America is as fuzzy as ever.

A simple Google search of “higher education in America” demonstrates the complexity and the breadth of the issues facing colleges and universities today, as the search yields article titles ranging from “Higher Education Is Bad for America—Here’s How” to “Americans love higher education, just not their universities.” At a time when 58% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents believe higher education has a negative effect on America, the average cost of college in America is higher than anywhere else, and student loan debt nears $1.5 trillion, higher education, as an industry, needs to be cognizant of these complicated issues as well as intentional and imaginative in responding to them.

This quarter, the Corona Insights team takes a deeper dive into the main issues, trends, and opportunities lying before the industry of higher education in America. While higher education is a vastly complex system that cannot be fully analyzed in a blog series over the course of a few months, we hope to illuminate what the most recent studies, pertinent data points, and established experts can tell us about the state of higher education in America and how institutions are rising (or not) to the challenge.

Over the next few months, we’ll examine some of the most intricate and significant topics relevant to the state of higher education in 2018, such as public perceptions of higher education in America; the economics of higher education; the use of data to better serve today’s students; and the need for institutions of higher education to strategically differentiate from other institutions. Stay tuned to the Radiance blog as we tangle with some of the toughest problems facing the world of higher education today.


Creative Ways to Get Useful and Actionable Data for a Small Budget Needs Assessment

The American Evaluation Association invited their Topic Interest Groups (TIGs) to each take over their blog for a week in 2018. As part of the Needs Assessment TIG, Beth and Kate were invited to write one of the blogs with tips for doing needs assessments. With help from Matt Bruce, they wrote about how to do a needs assessment with a small budget. This post originally appeared on the AEA365 blog on March 21, 2018.


Hello! We’re Beth Mulligan and Kate Darwent from Corona Insights, a firm that provides research, evaluation, and strategic consulting services for government and nonprofit organizations.  We are often contacted by clients who have both very limited resources and a very strong desire to understand and address the needs in their community (whether “their community” is low-income residents of a city or county, library patrons, Latinx children in their school district, or some other group). Here are some suggestions for creative ways to get useful and actionable data for a small budget needs assessment.

  1. Use secondary data sources.  Start by searching for and reviewing relevant existing reports or datasets.  This may include reports from state agencies or national organizations that reveal insights about your target population, relevant Census data, or previous studies conducted by your client.  Making sure you know what is already known before collecting new data is the first step to managing limited resources.
  2. Use your client’s resources creatively.  Although the client may have a limited budget to pay for outside help, they may be able to offer their own time and effort, or may have volunteer staff available, or may have other budgets for materials like printing or mailing that they can use.  Help the client to determine where they most need your help and expertise, and where they can take on tasks themselves with your guidance.
  3. Remember that perfect is the enemy of good.  Although we may prefer to conduct 15 key person interviews, would conducting two be better than zero?  Oftentimes, yes.  And though we would like to survey everyone in the community by mail, and send no fewer than two follow-up mailings, is the information we will get from a single mailing better than nothing? Would the information from an open-link survey or an intercept survey at some community events be better than nothing?  The judgment about whether to use what we may think of as lower-quality methods depends on the trade-offs in each situation.  In a situation where the population is relatively small and engaged, it may be reasonable to post an open-link survey on social media.  In other situations, it may be acceptable to do two interviews with service recipients rather than a representative sample survey.  No one solution will fit all situations, but be open to various non-optimal solutions that find the best compromise between quality and cost, especially when you have difficult-to-reach target populations.

Sometimes budget restrictions shrink or disappear when the client understands the value of more expensive options.  Don’t hesitate to communicate the benefits of things like greater coverage, higher response rates, participation from more stakeholder groups, expertise in data analysis, mapping, and so on.  Hopefully you won’t have to make tradeoffs because of financial resources, but in case you do, we hope these suggestions help you maximize the resources available to help a client serve their community better.

Rad Resource:

Conducting Quality Impact Evaluations Under Budget, Time and Data Constraints.  Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating Needs Assessment (NA) TIG Week with our colleagues in the Needs Assessment Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from our NA TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on theaea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.


Membership Association Recap

Over the past three months we’ve been focusing on our blog writing on membership associations.

Here is a recap of our recent posts:

Corona Insights has long worked with membership associations from research to consulting and we hope these insights prove useful to your organization.

To stay on top of our recent blog posts, be sure to sign up for our quarterly newsletter, The Corona Observer.

And stay tuned for a new topic in the second quarter!