Policy Analysis and Decision-Making Capacity project (Phases 1-3)¶

Element · All elements
Evidence · 2 claims (2 for) · 1 study (1 qualitative), q1 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 2 claims rest on one study

Description¶

A project funded by the Office of Science and Data Policy within ASPE at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, aimed at improving how evidence is used for decision-making within government, particularly HHS. "During Phase 1 of the project, we conducted a review to assess grey and peer-reviewed literature describing whether and how effectively decision-makers use program evaluation findings to inform their decisions." Phase 2 comprised interviews with thought leaders and experts; Phase 3 plans include "convening a technical expert panel to further discuss potential opportunities to create or improve a systematic approach to using evidence for decision-making within government."

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Funding and sponsorship by ASPE's Office of Science and Data Policy
• Engagement of thought leaders and experts in evaluation, dissemination, and evidence use

Constraints¶

• Phase 3 may be conducted at a later date and had not yet been carried out when the report was published

Target Learners¶

• Government decision-makers within the Department of Health and Human Services

Target Learning Goals¶

• Using program evaluation findings and research evidence to inform program and policy decisions

Claims¶

• Subject matter interviews reveal barriers to evidence use in government: untimely evidence, research not geared to decision-makers, limited understanding of evidence, and organizational influences [+W]
• Interview respondents identify collaborative relationships, trust in evidence and its users, clarity on research types, and supportive leadership as facilitators of evidence use [+W]

Related Elements¶

Examples¶

• Improve relationships between evidence producers and decision-makers and build staff capacity and government infrastructure for accessing relevant research
• Interactive and alternative review practices: applicant response rounds, sandpits, bibliometric scoring, decision aids, lotteries, and crowdfunding

Key Sources¶

• Julieta Lugo-Gil, Dana Jean-Baptiste, Livia Frasso Jaramillo. (2019). Use of Evidence to Drive Decision-Making in Government. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research. https://www.mathematica.org/publications/use-of-evidence-to-drive-decision-making-in-government