Evaluation Of Federal Social Programs

Monograph on the evaluation of social policy programmes in the USA - discusses the application of evaluation techniques and the use of evaluation within the institutional framework (legislative and executive branches), with particular reference to the hew department and the labour administration. References.

USA. Research results of a study of the federal system for the evaluation of social policy programmes - distinguishes four types of evaluation, viz. Programme impact, programme strategy, project evaluation and project rating, covers administrative aspects, organizational relationships between national level and local level, financial aspects and personneling, evaluation techniques, etc., and includes recommendations. Bibliography pp. 121 to 134.

In October 2016, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened a 1-day public workshop on Principles and Practices for Federal Program Evaluation. The workshop was organized to consider ways to bolster the integrity and protect the objectivity of the evaluation function in federal agenciesâ€"a process that is essential for evidence-based policy making. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions from the workshop.

Reform of welfare is one of the nation's most contentious issues, with debate often driven more by politics than by facts and careful analysis. Evaluating Welfare Reform in an Era of Transition identifies the key policy questions for measuring whether our changing social welfare programs are working, reviews the available studies and research, and recommends the most effective ways to answer those questions. This book discusses the development of welfare policy, including the landmark 1996 federal law that devolved most of the responsibility for welfare policies and their implementation to the states. A thorough analysis of the available research leads to the identification of gaps in what is currently known about the effects of welfare reform. Evaluating Welfare Reform in an Era of Transition specifies what-and why-we need to know about the response of individual states to the federal overhaul of welfare and the effects of the many changes in the nation's welfare laws, policies, and practices. With a clear approach to a variety of issues, Evaluating Welfare Reform in an Era of Transition will be important to policy makers, welfare administrators, researchers, journalists, and advocates on all sides of the issue.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 fundamentally changed the nation's social welfare system, replacing a federal entitlement program for low-income families, called Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), with state-administered block grants, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. PRWORA furthered a trend started earlier in the decade under so called "waiver" programs-state experiments with different types of AFDC rules-toward devolution of design and control of social welfare programs from the federal government to the states. The legislation imposed several new, major requirements on state use of federal welfare funds but otherwise freed states to reconfigure their programs as they want. The underlying goal of the legislation is to decrease dependence on welfare and increase the self-sufficiency of poor families in the United States. In summer 1998, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) asked the Committee on National Statistics of the National Research Council to convene a Panel on Data and Methods for Measuring the Effects of Changes in Social Welfare Programs. The panel's overall charge is to study and make recommendations on the best strategies for evaluating the effects of PRWORA and other welfare reforms and to make recommendations on data needs for conducting useful evaluations. This interim report presents the panel's initial conclusions and recommendations. Given the short length of time the panel has been in existence, this report necessarily treats many issues in much less depth than they will be treated in the final report. The report has an immediate short-run goal of providing DHHS-ASPE with recommendations regarding some of its current projects, particularly those recently funded to study "welfare leavers"-former welfare recipients who have left the welfare rolls as part of the recent decline in welfare caseloads.

"Evaluation has rapidly developed into an exciting inter-disciplinary academic and applied research field. Indications are that this specialty will continue to expand and become more rigorous and demanding. Vast numbers of fields (and different methodologies) are using evaluation research techniques now. Yet, relatively little attention has been paid to the consequences of systematic evaluation practice-particularly as it affects the development (and, in some cases, continued existence) of numerous social programs. The Evaluation of Social Programs addresses these questions. It is a unique book-offering up-to-date views of experts drawn from government, universities, charitable foundations, and independent research organizations who are leading practitioners or consumers of social programs research" -- Dust jacket.

Explains how to analyze social policy and programs and how to design new programs or evaluate and improve existing ones. Analysis, evaluation and design of social policy and programs. Students of Social Work Policy or Social Work practitioners interested in learning more about the analysis, evaluation and design of social policy and programs.

Addressing an issue of burning interest to every taxpayer, a Heritage Foundation scholar brings objective analysis to bear as he responds to the important—and provocative—question posed by his book's title. Of course, the answer to that question will also help determine whether the American public should fear budget cuts to federal social programs. Readers, says author David B. Muhlhausen, can rest easy. As his book decisively demonstrates, scientifically rigorous national studies almost unanimously find that the federal government fails to solve social problems. To prove his point, Muhlhausen reports on large-scale evaluations of social programs for children, families, and workers, some advocated by Democrats, some by Republicans. But it isn't just the results that matter. It's the lesson to readers on how Americans can—and should—accurately assess government programs that cost hundreds of billions of dollars each year. At the book's core is an insistence that we move beyond anecdotal reasoning and often-partisan opinion to measure the effectiveness of social programs using objective analysis and scientific methods. At the very least, the results of such analysis will, like this book, provide a sound basis for much-needed public debate.

Addressing an issue of burning interest to every taxpayer, a Heritage Foundation scholar brings objective analysis to bear as he responds to the important—and provocative—question posed by his book's title. Of course, the answer to that question will also help determine whether the American public should fear budget cuts to federal social programs. Readers, says author David B. Muhlhausen, can rest easy. As his book decisively demonstrates, scientifically rigorous national studies almost unanimously find that the federal government fails to solve social problems. To prove his point, Muhlhausen reports on large-scale evaluations of social programs for children, families, and workers, some advocated by Democrats, some by Republicans. But it isn't just the results that matter. It's the lesson to readers on how Americans can—and should—accurately assess government programs that cost hundreds of billions of dollars each year. At the book's core is an insistence that we move beyond anecdotal reasoning and often-partisan opinion to measure the effectiveness of social programs using objective analysis and scientific methods. At the very least, the results of such analysis will, like this book, provide a sound basis for much-needed public debate.