Premium
On the “When” of Social Experiments: The Tension Between Program Refinement and Abandonment
Author(s) -
Epstein Diana,
Klerman Jacob Alex
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
new directions for evaluation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.374
H-Index - 40
eISSN - 1534-875X
pISSN - 1097-6736
DOI - 10.1002/ev.20213
Subject(s) - abandonment (legal) , logic model , computer science , program evaluation , raising (metalworking) , theory of change , logic program , random assignment , management science , political science , logic programming , programming language , public administration , management , economics , law , engineering , mechanical engineering , statistics , mathematics
Modern program evaluation theory posits a rigorous impact evaluation tollgate. Programs are developed and tested via rigorous impact evaluation (often, but not exclusively, random assignment). Programs that pass this tollgate proceed to broader rollout. Results from implementing this theory are disappointing. Few programs pass the tollgate, raising the question: What now? Refine the program or abandon it? Epstein and Klerman ([Epstein, D., 2012]) posit that piloting and verifying the intermediate steps of the logic model can screen out programs unlikely to pass the rigorous impact evaluation tollgate. Again, that proposal raises the question: How should we proceed when a program fails to satisfy its own logic model? Refine the program or abandon it? The chapter presents several perspectives on this question and compares them against the Social Innovation Fund's experience with one of its grantees.