Evaluating programs is not an easy task and government spend time and money to ensure that the programs produced the desired results. The articles basically highlights the programs undertaken by the government are evaluated based on data and evidence collected. There are programs that need data and there are programs that are needed to be evaluated based on the evidence or the results which achieved the specific objectives of the program.
Based on the article one the central aspect highlighted is that government wants results first. This initiative was undertaken because it was reported that government programs evaluated barely make a difference. Mainly, this initiative provides assistance and knowledge at no cost whose states and legislators
…show more content…
Programs evaluated on the basis of producing results if not then that should be scrapped. The main reason is that government do not want to fund programs that are ineffective as resources put in place could be wasted as have been for many programs. However, sometimes the programs are complicated and show little impact in the long run, thus there can be alternatives identified to to channel these programs to be workable. Like in the case in the article the transitional work programs were executed as planned but having a transitional job made a little difference in the probability in the job market. The results shown in the first year of the program was inconsistent with the impacts on recidivism (Houston, 2011). I think it's too soon to see the impact of such programs and judge it unsuccessfulness. I think the human behavior do requires time to change and to judge the that transition in one year could be too early. To choose alternative for such program could cost money, should it produced the same result would not make any difference. On the other I think the evaluation program should have quality time to assess every performance and the