The No-Spin Evidence Review
We summarize recent program evaluations and explain what the evidence really shows. More >
Latest No-Spin Evidence Report
Chetty et. al. (November 2026) posted a study examining whether a new non-RCT “Digital Twins” method to evaluate US job training programs can match the results of 37 previously-conducted RCTs. While the study found impressive correlation between Digital Twins and RCT results, additional confirmatory research – in which all method parameters and procedures for testing it against additional RCTs are publicly prespecified – is needed to establish whether it can reliably reproduce RCT results and is ready for practical use.
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.
