‘We know it works. . .’: The Troubled Families Programme and the pre-determined boundary judgements of decontextualised policy evaluation

Abstract

This article draws on the Troubled Families Programme (TFP) to highlight the ways in which particular contexts – such as socioeconomic and symbolic structures – are neglected in forms of evaluation with an establishment orientation. The article problematises two key aspects of decontextualised evaluation: firstly, the privileging of pre-determined relations of cause and effect; and secondly, the unproblematized framing of policy problems. More contextualised forms of evaluation are presented as a way to open up boundaries of investigation. Lastly, it is argued that an anti-naturalist foundation for evaluation can broaden the scope of learning beyond the original framing of a policy.

Re-purposing evaluation to learn about social justice: Reconfiguring epistemological politics through the regulative ideal of ‘participatory parity’

“…Causation does not need to follow the science of prediction that is dominant in establishment-oriented forms of evaluation (Silver and Crossley, 2019). The causal logic for anti-naturalist evaluation is one of explanation.…”

“…The possibilities for critical assessment of the values that are internal and associated with the intervention remain constrained (Gates, 2018: 210). The external values that shape the construction of policy 'problems' and 'solutions' are considered outside the boundaries of investigation for an evaluation (Silver and Crossley, 2019). The idea that the primary purpose of evaluation is to find out whether an intervention delivers the originally designed effect(s) is rarely contested (Stame, 2018: 439).…”