Handle9:

 

If you are making the claim that it's a worthwhile policy but we can't measure any improvement then you are back to doing policy by feels. It's as silly as the law and order nuts who claim that longer sentences will automatically reduce crime.

 

The policy would have had an expected outcome otherwise it should never have been approved. What is it's effectiveness in acheiving that outcome? That is what should be considered if we are taking an evidence based approach.

 

I think you are missing the point here. Even at its worst, even with no justification whatsoever, feeding kids still feeds them. That is a bottom line and it is worthwhile as hell. It is not like the money is being diverted to something like roads.

Maybe it isn't as effective as something else. Maybe the money could be better used elsewhere. But until then at least it is doing something worthwhile. No way is this equivalent to longer sentences reducing crime. To return to my original question, how can feeding kids be a bad thing?