Social provision in the United States is highly decentralized. Significant federal and state funding flows to local organizational actors, who are granted discretion over how to allocate resources to people in need. In welfare states where many programs are underfunded and decoupled from local need, how does decentralization shape who gets what? This article identifies forces that shape how local actors classify help-seekers when they ration scarce resources, focusing on the case of prioritization in the Housing Choice Voucher Program. We use network methods to represent and analyze 1,398 local prioritization policies. Our results reveal two patterns that challenge expectations from past literature. First, we observe classificatory restraint, or many organizations choosing not to draw fine distinctions between applicants to prioritize. Second, when organizations do institute priority categories, policies often advantage applicants who are formally institutionally connected to the local community. Interviews with officials, in turn, reveal how prioritization schemes reflect housing agencies’ position within a matrix of intra-organizational, inter-organizational, and vertical forces that structure the meaning and cost of classifying help-seekers. These findings illustrate how local organizations’ use of classification to solve on-the-ground organizational problems and manage scarce resources can generate additional forms of exclusion.

Over the last decade, large-scale replication projects across the biomedical and social sciences have reported relatively low replication rates. In these large-scale replication projects, replication has typically been evaluated based on a single replication study of some original study and dichotomously as successful or failed. However, evaluations of replicability that are based on a single study and are dichotomous are inadequate, and evaluations of replicability should instead be based on multiple studies, be continuous, and be multi-faceted. Further, such evaluations are in fact possible due to two characteristics shared by many large-scale replication projects. In this article, we provide such an evaluation for two prominent large-scale replication projects, one which replicated a phenomenon from cognitive psychology and another which replicated 13 phenomena from social psychology and behavioral economics. Our results indicate a very high degree of replicability in the former and a medium to low degree of replicability in the latter. They also suggest an unidentified covariate in each, namely ocular dominance in the former and political ideology in the latter, that is theoretically pertinent. We conclude by discussing evaluations of replicability at large, recommendations for future large-scale replication projects, and design-based model generalization. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.