The No-Spin Evidence Review
We summarize recent program evaluations and explain what the evidence really shows. More >
Latest No-Spin Evidence Report
Mathematica (July 2026) published RCT findings for Networks for School Improvement (NSI), a $300M Gates-funded initiative in which schools collaborate to use continuous improvement methods to test and refine strategies addressing a common challenge. This large, high-quality RCT found small positive impacts on academic and behavioral outcomes in schools focused on 9th grade improvement (e.g., moving the average student from the 50th to 53rd percentile), and no positive impacts in schools focused on 8th grade improvement, after 2-3 years of implementation.
What We Do
We provide plain-language, no-spin summaries of recent studies on “what works” in social spending. We also highlight a common problem in study reporting: Study abstracts often portray programs as effective when the study’s results don’t support such claims.
We focus on abstracts because of their central role in research communication. Many readers rely on abstracts for a study's main take-aways - due to time constraints or paywalls on full-report access - so their exaggerated claims can lead to programs being mislabeled as “evidence based” and expanded despite weak or null findings.
Each No-Spin report assigns a rating – “accurately reported,” “somewhat accurately reported,” or “not accurately reported” – based on how well the abstract reflects the study’s primary findings and notes any important limitations that could affect study validity. We explain the basis for each rating and, where needed, suggest revisions to make the abstract more accurate.
We mainly report on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) because, when feasible and well-conducted, they're considered the strongest method of evaluating program effectiveness.
Learn more about our review process.
