1 / 9

The French Youth Experimentation Fund (Fonds d’Expérimentation pour la Jeunesse – FEJ)

The French Youth Experimentation Fund (Fonds d’Expérimentation pour la Jeunesse – FEJ) . Mathieu Valdenaire (DJEPVA - FEJ) International Workshop “Evidence-based Innovation: the Role of Evaluation and Social Experiments” Barcelona, September 26th 2013. Overall objectives.

jerod
Download Presentation

The French Youth Experimentation Fund (Fonds d’Expérimentation pour la Jeunesse – FEJ)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The French YouthExperimentationFund(Fonds d’Expérimentation pour la Jeunesse – FEJ) Mathieu Valdenaire (DJEPVA - FEJ) International Workshop “Evidence-based Innovation: the Role of Evaluation and Social Experiments” Barcelona, September 26th 2013

  2. Overall objectives • Started in 2009, the fund main goals are: • To promotestudentachievement; • To improve social and professionalintegration of young people (under 25 yearold). • Original experimentation agenda set by a commission on youthpolicy, including all stakeholders • The fundaimsatinspiringevidence-basedpoliciesrelated to youth by: • Promoting and supportinginnovative local initiatives; • Rigorouslyassessingtheirimplementation and impact to provetheirefficacybeforedecidingwhetheritshouldbescaled up.

  3. Funding and organization • Funded by a public-privatepartnership: • French central government (Ministry of Youth) • Privatepartners, such as the Total Foundation • Overall budget of 163 million euros between 2009 and 2013… • … of which 24 million are dedicated to evaluation • Organization of the Fund • Board of Directorswhichincludesrepresentatives of public and privatepartners: definesthematicpriorities and decides on the allocation of funds • Scientificcommittee: issues recommendations about experimentationfields and evaluationmethods • Dedicated team at the national Ministry of Youth: manages the fund and monitors the experiments

  4. Actors of the experiments • Who are the experimenters? • Project leaders: Associations, Local governments, Public institutions,Schools, Training centers and universities, Chambers of commerce, etc. • Evaluation teams: Researchcenters, Academics, Privateconsultants • The emergence of experimentalprojets: bottom-up and top-down schemes • Eachprojectisevaluated by an independantevaluationteam - evaluationis 100% funded by the FEJ • Project developers and evaluators are jointlyresponsible for insuringthat the intervention isevaluated in a waythatmakesit possible to measure the impacts of the project

  5. Key figures BetweenApril 2009 and September2013: • 16 calls for proposals • Over 1700 candidates' applications • 554 projectscoveringa large range of topics • 295 evaluation reports expected • Averagelength of experimentations≈ 2 years • 498 000 young people beneficiaries of thoseactions

  6. Evaluation methods: principles • Necessity of identifying and measuring the effects of experimentalpolicies on beneficiaries: requiresrigorousevaluationprotocols • Not onlyoutcome monitoring, but identification of the changes in outcomesthat are directlyattributable to the program • This raisesclassicalevaluationproblems, i.e. confusion betweencorrelation and causality • Counterfactualanalysis: how wouldoutcomes of participants have changed if the intervention had not been undertaken? • Emphasison impact evaluationsincluding a control group, preferablywithrandomassignment (RCTs) • Qualitative methods are alsoused: • Quantitative evaluationmethods and RCTs are not feasible for all projects, especiallysmallscalesones; • Quantitative methods do not allow to answer all relevant questions.

  7. Evaluation methods: first lessons of experience • Evaluation issues have to be discussed before the implementation of the projects: • Randomization • Work induced by the experiment on the field • Need to assure absence of compensation for members of control group members: access to usual policies only • Treatment has to be precisely described • Likeeveryevaluationmethod, RCTsrequireadvancedresearchskills to: • Design a validevaluationprotocol • Monitor surveys (importance of response rates, especiallyamong the control group), secureaccess to individual data • Performeconometrictreatments, robustnesschecks etc. • A complementarybetween quantitative et qualitative results?

  8. Capitalizing on experimentalresults • Generalization of experimentalprojects • Example: Awareness Campaigns for Parents of Middle School Students • An exception more than a general case • Experimentsallow to learn not only on a project, but on a public policy instrument • Externalvalidity issues: • Voluntary participation to social experiments • Awareness of participation in an experiment and potentialbiases • General equilibriumeffects • Resultsneed to beinterpreted • Need for dialogue betweenpolicy-makers and researchersthatevaluateprojects • Experiments are also a way to easethis dialogue

  9. Thanks for yourattention For more information, visithttp://www.experimentation.jeunes.gouv.fr/ (in French…)

More Related