03/01/2015, Fabio → Segnalazioni letture | Commenti (0)
Consigliamo la lettura di un interessante articolo di Ron Haskins pubblicato recentemente sul New York Times: Social Programs That Work.
L'articolo indica un obiettivo da perseguire anche in Italia: mettersi nelle condizioni, attraverso la conduzione di studi rigorosi, di capire quali politiche si sono rivelate efficaci (e in che misura lo sono) al fine di decidere se rifinanziarle o meno.
"Over time, an evidence-based approach should be a prerequisite for any program to get federal dollars. Shamefully, this has not been the case. When John M. Bridgeland led Mr. Bush’s Domestic Policy Council, he was amazed to find 339 federal programs for disadvantaged youth, administered by 12 departments and agencies, at a cost of $224 billion. Very few had been evaluated to determine whether they made a difference.
The evidence-based movement separates the wheat from the chaff. If this movement spreads to more federal programs, especially the big education, employment and health programs supported by formula-based grants, we can expect consternation and flailing as many program operators discover that their programs are part of the chaff.
This is why rigorous evaluation is often unpopular, for politicians in both parties."
Ron Haskins è codirettore del Center on Children and Families presso la Brookings Institution ed ha scritto insiema a Greg Margolis il volume “Show Me the Evidence: Obama’s Fight for Rigor and Results in Social Policy”.
