Growing recognition that many government programs may be ineffective, or at best of unproven effectiveness, has led to the evidence-based policy movement—an effort to ensure that proposed and existing public programs have been shown to achieve their objectives. Rigorous evaluation is central to this movement. In this article, I briefly review the history of evaluation of social programs and the barriers to the application of effective evaluation to public policy.
BarnowBurt S.1987. The impact of CETA programs on earnings: A review of the literature. Journal of Human Resources22 (Spring): 157–93.
3.
BaronJon. 5October2011. Gold standard program evaluations, on a shoestring budget. Education Week.
4.
BaronJon. 17July2013. Statement to the House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Human Resources Hearing on What Works / Evaluation. Washington, DC: Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy.
5.
BellStephen H.OlsenRobert B.OrrLarry L.StuartElizabeth A.2016. Estimates of external validity bias when impact evaluations select sites non-randomly. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis38 (2): 318–35.
6.
BetseyCharles L.HollisterRobinson G.PappageorgiouMary R.1985. Youth employment and training programs: The YEDPA years.Committee on Youth Employment Programs, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
7.
BoteinBernard. 1965. The Manhattan Bail Project: Its impact in criminology and the criminal law process. Texas Law Review43:319–31.
8.
CameronDrew B.MishraAnjiniBrownAnnette N.2016. The growth of impact evaluation for international development: How much have we learned?Journal of Development Effectiveness8 (1): 1–21
9.
CampbellDonald T.StanleyJulian C.1963. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research in teaching. Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally.
10.
ChanJohn K.UedaStefanie M.SugiyamaValerie E.StaveChristopher D.ShinJacob Y.MonkBradley J.SikicBranimir I.OsannKathrynKappDaniel S.2008. Analysis of phase II studies on targeted agents and subsequent phase III trials: What are the predictors for success?Journal of Clinical Oncology26 (9): 1511–18.
11.
CochranWilliam G.CoxGertrude M.1950. Experimental designs. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
12.
DanzigerKurt. 1990. Constructing the subject. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
DehueTrudy. 2005. History of the control group. Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science. doi:10.1002/0470013192.bsa285.
14.
DitmanKeith S.CrawfordGeorge G.ForgyEdward W.MoskowitzHerbertMacAndrewCraig. 1967. A controlled trial for the use of court probation for drunk arrests. American Journal of Psychiatry124:160–63.
15.
EarleH. H.1973. Police recruit training: Stress vs. nonstress. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
16.
FisherR. A.1925. Statistical methods for research workers. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.
17.
FisherRonald A. 1935/1971. The design of experiments. 9th ed.Basingstoke: Macmillan.
18.
ForsetlundLouiseChalmersIainBjørndalArild. 2007. When was random allocation first used to generate comparison groups in experiments to assess the effects of social interventions?Economics of Innovation and New Technology16 (50): 371–84.
19.
FrakerThomasMaynardRebecca. 1987. The adequacy of comparison group designs for evaluations of employment-related programs. Journal of Human Resources22:194–227.
20.
GamoranAdam. 2018. Evidence-based policy in the real world: A cautionary view. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (this volume).
21.
GreenbergDavidShroderMark. 2004. The digest of social experiments. 3rd ed.Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
22.
HaskinsRonBaronJon. 2011. Building the connection between policy and evidence: The Obama evidence-based initiatives. London: NESTA.
23.
HaskinsRonMargolisGreg. 2015. Show me the evidence: Obama’s fight for rigor and results in social policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
24.
IoannidisJohn P. A.2005. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. Journal of the American Medical Association294 (2): 218–28.
KurtzbergR. L.SafarH.CaviorN.1968. Surgical and social rehabilitation of adult offenders. In Proceedings 76th American Psychological Association convention. Washington, DC: APA.
27.
LaLondeRobert. 1986. Evaluating the econometric evaluations of training with experimental data. American Economic Review76 (4): 604–20.
28.
LevineRobert A.WattsHaroldHollisterRobinsonWilliamsWalterO’ConnorAliceWiderquistKarl. 2005. A retrospective on the negative income tax experiments: Looking back at the most innovative field studies in social policy. In The ethics and economics of the basic income guarantee, eds. WiderquistKarlAnthony LewisMicahelPressmanSteven, 95–106. Aldershot: Ashgate.
29.
LindquistEveret Franklin. 1953. Design and analysis of experiments in psychology and education. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
30.
ManziJim. 2012. Uncontrolled: The surprising payoff of trial-and-error for business, politics, and society. Philadelphia, PA: Basic Books.
31.
McCallWilliam Anderson. 1923. How to experiment in education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
32.
NewhouseJoseph P.1993. Free for all? Lessons from the Rand health insurance experiment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. 2014. Performance improvement, 2013–14. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
34.
RieckenHenry W.BoruchRobert F.1974. Social experimentation. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
35.
RosenbergMaurice. 1964. The pretrial conference and effective justice. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
36.
StapletonV.TeitelbaumL. E.1972. In defense of youth: A study of the role of counsel in juvenile courts. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
37.
StromsdorferErnstBloromH.BoruchR.BorusM.GueronJ.GustmanA.RossiP.ScheurenF.SmithM.StaffordF.1985. Recommendations of the Job Training Longitudinal Survey Research Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.
38.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2013. Program evaluation: Strategies to facilitate agencies’ use of evaluation in program management and policy making. Report to Congressional Committees GAO-13-570. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office.
39.
WarrenM. O.1967. The Community Treatment Project: History and prospects. In Law enforcement science and technology: Proceedings of the first national symposium on law enforcement science, and technology, ed. YefskyS. A.Washington, DC: Thompson.
40.
ZiaMohammad I.SiuLillian L.PondGreg R.ChenEric X.2005. Comparison of outcomes of phase II studies and subsequent randomized control studies using identical chemotherapeutic regimens. Journal of Clinical Oncology23 (28): 6982–91.
