Mixed Methods in Action: OPRE’s Federal Case Studies

Mixed methods research—combining quantitative and qualitative approaches—is increasingly essential in federal evaluation. At the forefront of this movement is the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE), which supports rigorous, real-world evaluations of programs serving children and families. OPRE uses mixed methods not just to strengthen data quality but to uncover deeper, more actionable insights about how and why programs succeed or struggle.

In this article, we’ll explore how OPRE applies mixed methods in its federal case studies and what researchers, policymakers, and practitioners can learn from this approach.

What Are Mixed Methods?

Mixed methods evaluation integrates both quantitative data (e.g., surveys, program records, impact measures) and qualitative data (e.g., interviews, focus groups, observations) in a single study. This approach is especially useful in human services, where context, experience, and process matter as much as outcomes.

Benefits of mixed methods include:

• Capturing both what works and why it works
• Illuminating participant experiences and provider perspectives
• Identifying unintended consequences
• Strengthening the interpretation of quantitative findings

OPRE applies this approach to evaluate everything from early education and employment initiatives to family support and youth development programs.

Why OPRE Uses Mixed Methods

Federal programs operate in complex, real-world environments. A single data point—like job placement rates or school readiness scores—can’t tell the full story. OPRE designs its evaluations to:

• Understand implementation challenges
• Identify barriers to access or equity
• Assess local variation in service delivery
• Contextualize impacts with on-the-ground insights

This richer perspective helps federal leaders make more informed, responsive policy decisions.

OPRE Mixed Methods Case Studies

Let’s take a look at several OPRE-funded evaluations that illustrate mixed methods in action:

1. Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES)

Focus: Early childhood education
Methods Used:

• Large-scale quantitative child assessments and parent/teacher surveys
• In-depth classroom observations and qualitative interviews

Impact: Helped OPRE and Head Start improve classroom quality standards and staff training based on how programs were actually implemented, not just on outcome metrics.

2. Parents and Children Together (PACT) Evaluation

Focus: Responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage programs
Methods Used:

• Randomized control trials (RCTs) to measure program impacts
• Qualitative interviews with participants and staff
• Case studies of service delivery across locations

Impact: Combined findings revealed how program culture, staff-client relationships, and community context influenced both engagement and outcomes.

3. Pathways for Advancing Careers and Education (PACE)

Focus: Career pathways for low-income adults
Methods Used:

• Quantitative data on employment and earnings
• Focus groups with participants to understand career decisions
• Interviews with program staff to assess implementation fidelity

Impact: Mixed methods helped uncover why some career pathways had stronger impacts than others and how support services influenced long-term outcomes.

4. Child Welfare Information Gateway User Study

Focus: Improving access to child welfare resources
Methods Used:

• Website usage analytics (quantitative)
• User interviews and journey mapping (qualitative)

Impact: Helped improve usability and navigation for diverse user groups including child welfare professionals and parents.

5. Building Bridges and Bonds (B3) Evaluation

Focus: Evidence-informed fatherhood programming
Methods Used:

• Experimental designs to test different program components
• Staff interviews to assess implementation and fidelity
• Participant focus groups to explore perceptions of effectiveness

Impact: Led to more nuanced insights into what kinds of fatherhood supports resonate with different populations.

How Mixed Methods Add Value

Here’s a snapshot of what mixed methods bring to federal evaluation:

Evaluation Component	Quantitative Approach	Qualitative Complement
Program Impact	Randomized control trial	Participant interviews to interpret results
Implementation	Service tracking data	Staff interviews and site observations
Participant Experience	Survey responses	Focus groups and ethnographic methods
Accessibility and Equity	Disaggregated outcome analysis	Community engagement and contextual inquiry

This synergy improves internal validity, external relevance, and equity responsiveness in federal research.

Lessons for Researchers and Policymakers

OPRE’s case studies illustrate that mixed methods aren’t just a “nice to have”—they’re mission-critical in evaluating human services. Key takeaways include:

• Start with integration in mind—don’t bolt qualitative work onto a quantitative framework after the fact.
• Engage communities and stakeholders early to identify relevant questions and data sources.
• Train teams across disciplines so that researchers can work collaboratively and interpret results holistically.

When done well, mixed methods produce insights that numbers—or narratives—alone could never deliver.

FAQs