Investigators of the influence of evaluations on policy decisions have noted three main routes to influence: instrumental, conceptual, and political/symbolic. This study, an inquiry into the effect of evaluations of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) program, found a fourth main way that evaluations exert an influence: imposed use. The Safe and Drug Free Schools office of the U.S. Department of Education obliged districts to select a program that met its “Principles of Effectiveness,” which most districts construed to mean that the program had to be on the department’s approved list. Because results of D.A.R.E. evaluations repeatedly showed that D.A.R.E.’s effectiveness on knowledge and attitudes was neither sustained nor led to lower use of drugs, D.A.R.E. did not make the “lists.” Hence, many districts dropped or scaled back D.A.R.E. This kind of imposed use is likely to become more common when government agencies make greater demands for accountability.

No abstract

Evaluators sometimes wish for a Fairy Godmother who would make decision makers pay attention to evaluation findings when choosing programs to implement. The U.S. Department of Education came close to creating such a Fairy Godmother when it required school districts to choose drug abuse prevention programs only if their effectiveness was supported by "scientific" evidence. The experience showed advantages of such a procedure (e.g., reduction in support for D.A.R.E., which evaluation had found wanting) but also shortcomings (limited and in some cases questionable evaluation evidence in support of other programs). Federal procedures for identifying successful programs appeared biased. In addition, the Fairy Godmother discounted the professional judgment of local educators and did little to improve the fit of programs to local conditions. Nevertheless, giving evaluation more clout is a worthwhile way to increase the rationality of decision making. The authors recommend research on procedures used by other agencies to achieve similar aims.

PurposeChild marriages and unions can infringe upon adolescent and youth sexual and reproductive health (AYSRH). Interventions increasingly promote strategies to transform social norms or foster the agency of adolescent girls. Recent empirical studies call for further understanding of how social norms and agency interact in ways that influence these practices, especially in contexts where girls' agency is central.MethodsA secondary cross-case analysis of three qualitative studies (in Brazil, Guatemala, Honduras) was conducted to inform the investigation of how norms and agency may relate in sustaining or mitigating child marriage.ResultsSocial norms dictating how girls/young women and how men should act indirectly led to child marriages and unions. The data showed that (1) social norms regulated girls' acceptable actions and contributed to their exercise of “oppositional” agency; (2) social norms promoted girls' “accommodating” agency; and (3) girls exercised “transformative” agency to resist harmful social norms.ConclusionsResearch should advance frameworks to conceptualize how social norms interact with agency in nuanced and context-specific ways. Practitioners should encourage equitable decision-making; offer confidential, adolescent-friendly AYSRH services; and address the social norms of parents, men and boys, and community members.

No abstract