Pay‐for‐Success Development in the United States: Feasible or Failing to Launch?

Social impact bonds, known as pay‐for‐success (PFS) initiatives in the United States, have attracted attention as a novel strategy for financing and providing preventive services to the most vulnerable populations. This article provides an exploratory qualitative analysis of the Preschool PFS Feasibility Pilot grant applications and projects initiated by the U.S. Department of Education to encourage state and local exploration of PFS for implementing high‐quality preschool programs. Drawing on the public administration evidence base that informs PFS design, the authors examine the feasibility pilots’ features and investigate why grant applicants saw PFS as a promising strategy for achieving their preschool program goals. The challenges encountered, lessons learned, and perceived viability of fully executed PFS preschool programs are also discussed. Findings show that few projects are advancing toward formal PFS arrangements, with many struggling to overcome constrained capacities, structural and political barriers, and inherent incentives to minimize risk and loss.     

Comparative Implementation Research: Directions and Dualities

Abstract

The study of policy implementation developed steadily and considerably in the 1970s and 1980s through two generations of research. Since then progress towards a more rigorous scientific “third generation research paradigm”, assumed to be crucial for further theoretical development, has been much slower and more uneven. Comparative studies figure prominently in this respect. On one hand they are strongly encouraged but on the other they are difficult to conduct according to best practice advice in the textbooks. Comparative implementation research is the theme of this special issue. In this Introduction the articles included are presented, focusing on how they deal with some of the issues posed by the norms of a rigorous “third generation” approach. Reasons for the state of affairs in implementation research are discussed. Some inherent dualities and tensions in contemporary comparative implementation research are identified as particular challenges.     

Crucial Factors in Implementing Radical Policy Change: A Comparative Longitudinal Study of Nordic Central Agency Relocation Programs

Abstract

Why do public policies succeed or fail? The aim of this article is to contribute to answering this enduring research question in policy research through a comparative study of the variable efforts by Nordic governments to relocate their central agencies from the capital regions over a period of several decades. This was a radical redistributive policy program premised on a policy instrument – coercion – which was very alien to political systems characterized as consensual democracies. Hence, it is no surprise that only two out of seven relocation programs of any substance were successful. The really intriguing research question here is how any relocation program was achievable at all in a policy context where this was very unlikely. A broadly based multi-theoretical analytical framework linking interest groups, institutions, human agency in the form of policy entrepreneurship/design and situational factors is employed to solve this research puzzle. Findings from this study offer important contributions to the following research fields: comparative public policy, radical policy change and most specifically the so-called third generation of public policy implementation research.     

From alcohol to liquid ecstasy (GHB)--a survey of old and modern knockout agents. Part 1: historic and classic knockout agents

Alcohol has been the most important knockout drug in history and literature and continues to play an essential role up to now. Blunt force to the head in the form of a knockout punch is another mechanism leading to a transient loss of consciousness. Diethyl ether and chloroform are among the classical knockout substances. Although they have meanwhile been replaced by modern sedatives and hypnotics, their use is still observed in isolated cases.     

How Credible Is the Evidence,and Does It Matter? An Analysis of the Program Assessment Rating Tool

This research empirically assesses the quality of evidence that agencies provided to the Office of Management and Budget in the application of the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), introduced in 2002 to more rigorously, systematically, and transparently assess public program effectiveness and hold agencies accountable for results by tying them to the executive budget formulation process and program funding. Evidence submitted by 95 programs administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for the PART assessment is analyzed using measures that capture the quality of evidence and methods used by programs and information on characteristics of agencies that might relate to program results and government funding decisions. The study finds that of those programs offering some evidence, most was internal and qualitative, and about half did not assess how their performance compared to other government or private programs with similar objectives. Programs were least likely to provide externally generated evidence of their performance relative to long‐term and annual performance goals. Importantly, overall PART and results scores were (statistically) significantly lower for programs that failed to provide quantitative evidence and did not use long‐term measures, baseline measures or targets, or independent evaluations. Although the PART program results ratings and overall PART scores had no discernible consequences for program funding over time, the PART assessments appeared to take seriously the evaluation of evidence quality, a positive step forward in recent efforts to base policy decisions on more rigorous evidence.     

The Power of Symbols—Communism and Beyond

Examining the revolutionary origins of Soviet communism this paper argues that symbolic structures were crucial in the making of Soviet communism as a political force. It conceptualizes symbolizations as contingent interpretive acts that capture people in extraordinary situations of dissolutions of political order. In the first part, I identify the dramatic and imaginative sources of the Bolshevik Revolution, which created a schismogenetic system, in which symbolic structures of time, representation, and leadership would become disintegrative forces in Soviet society. In the second part, I elaborate on the creativity of political symbolism by understanding symbolizations as rites of passage, constructions of origins and ends, as well as reality-creating self-fulfilling prophecies. Rather than to know the origins of symbols, the proposition here is to understand how symbolic meanings contributed to the creation not only of the empirical-objective world of Soviet communism but also of dominant social science interpretations.     

Comparison of five DNA quantification methods

Six commercial preparations of human genomic DNA were quantified using five quantification methods: UV spectrometry, SYBR-Green dye staining, slot blot hybridization with the probe D17Z1, Quantifiler™ Human DNA Quantification kit and RB1 rt-PCR. All methods measured higher DNA concentrations than expected based on the information by the manufacturers. UV spectrometry, SYBR-Green dye staining, slot blot and RB1 rt-PCR gave 39, 27, 11 and 12%, respectively, higher concentrations than expected based on the manufacturers’ information. The DNA preparations were quantified using the Quantifiler™ Human DNA Quantification kit in two experiments. The measured DNA concentrations with Quantifiler were 125 and 160% higher than expected based on the manufacturers’ information. When the Quantifiler™ human DNA standard (Raji cell line) was replaced by the commercial human DNA preparation G147A (Promega) to generate the DNA standard curve in the Quantifiler™ Human DNA Quantification kit, the DNA quantification results of the human DNA preparations were 31% higher than expected based on the manufacturers’ information. The results indicate a calibration problem with the Quantifiler™ human DNA standard for its use with the Quantifiler™ Human DNA Quantification kit. The possible reasons for the problem are discussed and a solution is suggested. The results emphasise the need for standard reference DNA material and standard methods for DNA quantification.