The effectiveness of federal programs is often unknown. Many programs operate for decades without ever undergoing thorough scientific evaluations. One such example is Head Start, the pre-K education program for disadvantaged children. A large-scale evaluation using random assignment demonstrated that almost all the benefits of the program disappear by kindergarten.[1]
Far too frequently, the amount of money spent to alleviate social problems is considered a measure of success. Instead, success should be measured by the degree to which the programs actually reduce the problems. While continually spending taxpayer dollars on government programs may symbolize the compassion of program advocates, it does not mean that actual social problems are being alleviated.
To plug this information gap, the evidenced-based policy movement seeks to inform and influence policymakers through scientifically rigorous evaluations of the effectiveness of government programs.[2] In other words, the movement provides tools to figure out what works and what does not work.
Evidence-based policymaking, based upon scientifically rigorous impact evaluations, is necessary to determine whether federal tax dollars are spent wisely. Rigorous impact evaluations provide policymakers improved capability to exercise oversight of government programs and be more effective stewards of the federal purse. There is little merit in continuing programs that fail to ameliorate their targeted social problems.[3] Programs that are not known to work or that do not work at all do not deserve continued funding.