Suchergebnisse

In a 1987 article, Peter R. Rossi promulgated "The Iron Law of Evaluation and Other Metallic Rules." The Metallic Laws were meant as an informal (and humorous) overstatement of the weakness of contemporary evaluations of social programs. Rossi' s underlying worry was not so much about the state of evaluation technology in the abstract, but, rather, in its inability to advance our broad understanding of social problems and what to do about them---in other words, to make evaluation policy relevant. Rossi attributed the continuing failure to develop successful "large-scale social programs" to the failure to build a strong knowledge base for this kind of "social engineering." The qualities of studies that enable such accumulated learning are variously labeled "external validity," "generalizability," "applicability," or "transferability." This Special Issue includes five papers that seek to explore and apply this understanding.

Since its creation, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has changed from an antihunger program to an income-supplementation program. Because the program (and its predecessor Food Stamp Program) was not designed for this purpose, the result is a program that has many unintended and, many believe, negative effects. The key challenge is to modernize a massive income support program that started as a small food assistance program. The author proposes an effort to rationalize the current patchwork of programs that make up the U.S. safety net—in a way that balances what looks to be long-term weak demand for labor with the need to minimize the work and marriage disincentives in current law.

AbstractIn the 1960s, various social programs were started (like Head Start) or dramatically expanded (like AFDC). Loosely, this period of expansion is called the Great Society. Too many Great Society social programs, unfortunately, have been disappointments—at least when compared to the high hopes of the '60s. Even if they "work," most of us wish that they worked much better. Some people take such statements to mean that the Great Society's social programs should be defunded. Most Great Society programs, however, are surely here to stay, for they serve important social functions. How many of us really think there could be an America without a social safety net? It is now time to do the difficult and unglamorous work of systematic program improvement. Instead of testing program efficacy over and over again, we should engage in ongoing and evidence‐based efforts to increase program effectiveness (in both large and small ways). © 2009 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.