| Abstract: | Social programs legislated as entitlements are attractive to promoters of health and welfare services because of the programmatic security and stability such a status offers. Yet existing entitlements and other publicly funded services routinely fail to exhibit the high performance standards that an entitlement status requires. Such "flaws" as confusion over purpose, obstructive procedures, inefficient administration, and cost overruns can also serve important functional and political purposes. Therefore, administrators and evaluators who are in a position to witness these discrepancies will sometimes find their roles as manager and critic compromised. Instead of pursuing policies that would satisfy entitlement principles, they may only be in a position to implement and defend the "flaws" as reasonable compromises. There is the risk, however, that the public will remain skeptical about overall programmatic results despite optimistic evaluation reports. More careful legislation, more disciplined administration, and more neutral evaluation will be required if human services are to retain the public's confidence. |
