nhartBPC

Thanks for the question. It turns out this is really tricky. The point of evidence-based policymaking is to have high-quality information that can inform decisions about policies. Rarely will the evidence direct a policymaker what the should do, which takes into account value systems and resource availability, as well as the body of evidence. Is an unemployment rate of 5% high, therefore justifying action, or low and justifying a focus on other priorities. How we determine whether a problem exists and how to define it can be shaped by evidence, but also relies on other factors.

In practice, it can be difficult and sometimes challenging to interpret what the evidence says or even means. For one reason, policymakers often aren't trained in reading or understanding scientific information. For another reason, sometimes there are conflicting studies that use slightly different methodological approaches and arrive at different conclusions.

So what do we do? Well, for starters there's a role for science communication, trusted intermediaries, and knowledge brokers to help responsibly convey findings. We can also engage in better efforts to make research transparent and openly available to encourage thoughtful dialogue about meaning, limitations, and implications for practice. We can also promote activities like having systematic reviews, which consider an entire body of research and information on a given topic to generate summary conclusions.

Great question! The U.S. government has a great infrastructure for protecting data -- though there can always be improvements. A commission on cybersecurity back in 2016 made some really targeted recommendations for government to step up its game. And in 2017 the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking made recommendations about ensuring senior leaders are in place to protect privacy as part of data lifecycle management.

Here's one new thing that is happening today -- government agencies are currently establishing chief data officers. This is a requirement that came about as part of a new law called the Foundations for Evidence-based Policymaking Act (P.L. 115-435). The goal is that this senior leader will have as a daily charge to work in partnership with systems experts (CIOs), privacy officers, and other agency leaders to ensure that data are protected appropriately but also beneficially used to gain insights about programs and policies.

It may seem like a small step, but today most agencies don't have someone filling this role. Moving forward, this alone will likely lead to significant changes in how we implement certain data practices in the federal government.

This is a great post to see -- in a discussion about evidence-based policymaking!

The Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking offered a few great examples in its final report. They referenced the work of Raj Chetty on moving to opportunity and understanding economic disparities. One of my favorite projects Chetty undertook was re-analyzing the data from the HUD Moving to Opportunity Study. When initially completed, HUD had only short-term outcomes. But Chetty extended the analysis with more years of information to generate new findings, which have revolutionized how we think about the potential benefits of housing vouchers. Just one example of many!

Great question. To be honest, Members of Congress have a tough job. They are constantly bombarded with information from voters, constituents, media, researchers, lobbyists, friends, etc. We expect them to magically sift through the array of information to always make good and informed decisions. In practice, lawmakers often have an incredible staff operation that supports their work, helps them prioritize information, and enables translation or filtering of research. In my experience, I've seen Republican and Democratic committee staff work together on common solutions to addressing the opioid epidemic, resolving criminal justice disparities, strengthening the disability insurance program, and even building systems to encourage evidence-based policymaking. These staff used available evidence and expertise to tackle tough problems. The staff were then instrumental in working with respective Members of Congress to educate, consider their views, and ultimately address complex policy issues.

So if we're interested in helping lawmakers have the expertise to address complex challenges faced by our society, we should also identify ways to set up institutions to have the capacity to support defining problems and identifying solutions based on evidence. I've written fairly extensively about the issues facing the U.S. Congress in the past and lets just say there's definitely a lot of room for improvement, but also a lot of success stories!

​