Was "Follow Through" a social or scientific program? After an initial period, new regulations mandated that 80 percent of "Follow Through" funding was to be allocated to the provision of service while 20 percent was to be used for knowledge production. The regulations themselves suggest that "Follow Through" was principally "a federally funded education program which contained a built-in research component". An inevitable conflict exists when one attempts to operationalize a federal program in education that possesses both service delivery and research and development objectives. Rivlin "et al." point out that "the byzantine complexity of the public policymaking process makes the conduct of social experiments extremely difficult". Given the reduction in funding, the decision to engage in an effort to evaluate the effectiveness of various interventions in an empirical experiment appears appropriate and straightforward. However, if the change is not reflected in Congressional legislation or communicated clearly at the local level, issues of implementation and conflict with deeply held values inevitably result. There is much evidence that indicates confusion about the intent of the "Follow Through" evaluation at the administrative level.