Additional State Examples
The appendix lists state examples pertaining to each of the above principles.
1. Agree Upon and Codify Standards and Terms Used to Describe Evidence
Minnesota Management and Budget defines process, outcome and impact evaluations and terms used to describe a program or service’s impact on outcomes, such as “proven effective” or “promising.”
In 2019, Mississippi lawmakers passed legislation that updated statutory definitions of terms, including “evidence-based,” “research-based,” “promising” and other types of programs. The law defines an evidence-based program as an intervention program with multiple-site randomized controlled trials across diverse populations and promising programs as those that have had at least one rigorous controlled evaluation. The law requires the state’s corrections, health, education and transportation agencies, and others determined by the Legislative Budget Office, to catalogue and categorize all funded programs based on these standards.
North Carolina’s Appropriations Act of 2018 instructed the Office of State Budget and Management to define tiered levels of evidence—ranging from services or practices that are “proven effective” or “promising” down to those that are “proven harmful.” The law also calls for an evidence hierarchy to describe the relative strength of different types of evidence.
Florida, Oregon and Utah have established basic definitions of evidence, spelling out what constitutes evidence.
Nebraska, Minnesota, North Carolina and Texas have established tiered definitions of evidence (i.e., an advanced definition that distinguishes multiple levels of rigor, such as “proven effective” and “promising”).
2. Build Consensus Across Branches of Government
Alabama lawmakers passed legislation in 2019 to create a Commission on the Evaluation of Services. Co-chaired by executive and legislative leaders, the commission evaluates how effective state services are and advises the legislature and the governor on program evaluation and how to allocate resources.
In lieu of legislation, Colorado’s Joint Budget Committee and the Governor’s Office of State Planning and Budgeting produced a joint memo outlining the definitions and process for evidence-based policymaking, allowing for greater flexibility to quickly enhance what works and change what does not.
In 2019, New Mexico lawmakers passed SB 58, which requires the state budget division and the legislative finance committee to jointly develop an annual inventory of programs and services.
3. Commit Resources and Staff Capacity to Generating and Using Quality Data and Research
As a nonpartisan fiscal and policy advisor to the legislature, California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office analyzes the annual governor’s budget, reviews program and departmental proposals, and prepares reports on topics of interest to the legislature. One example is “Improving In-Prison Rehabilitation Programs,” a 2017 report that recommended evidence-based rehabilitation programs and regular evaluations to ensure that the programs are implemented with fidelity.
Colorado lawmakers established and funded the Evidence-Based Practices Implementation for Capacity Resource Center in 2013 to support the use of evidence-based practices among agencies that serve juveniles and adults involved in the justice system. In addition, the legislature appropriates $500,000 annually to the Office of State Planning and Budgeting to fund multi-year evaluations of any program.
The District of Columbia funded The Lab @ DC, a dedicated scientific team inside the Office of the City Administrator to design and evaluate evidence-based policy and program interventions. The team recently partnered with the Metropolitan Police District to study the effects of police officer body-worn cameras on police and community interactions.
Minnesota and New Mexico have dedicated evaluation teams linked to their budget offices.
Mississippi lawmakers in 1973 established the Joint Legislative Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review, or PEER, to conduct performance evaluation and expenditure reviews. Guided by a mission of improving “the economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of state government through its reviews of state agency programs and issues,” the nonpartisan standing committee analyzes state agency programs and provides timely and accurate information to enable legislative oversight. In 2015, PEER added a Performance Accountability Office to support the legislature’s performance budgeting revitalization initiative, including implementation of the Pew-MacArthur Results First Initiative.
Pursuant to New Hampshire law that requires certain state-funded services to be delivered as intended, or with fidelity to their original models, the Department of Health and Human Services conducts fidelity reviews to make sure programs are delivered as intended.
4. Direct Resources to Programs, Policies and Practices That Are Backed By Research—and Encourage Promising Ones to Build a Research Base
As part of its partnership with the Pew Results First Initiative, the Iowa Department of Corrections (DOC) inventoried current programs, collected data on the evidence of effectiveness, and used research studies to categorize programs based on their likelihood of reducing recidivism. As a result, the DOC shifted resources to proven programs that support the department’s goals.
Colorado’s evidence continuum (see figure on previous page) provides a framework for describing the evidence supporting a program currently, and how a program can move along the continuum with evaluation and implementation support.
Mississippi’s Joint Budget Committee requires state agencies to summarize research and specify whether the new program or activity is evidence-based, research-based, a promising program or none of the above. If a proposal lacks research, the agency describes its plan for evaluating a pilot program.
New Mexico’s SB 58 requires agencies to specify how much of the funds they request in their budgets will be spent on evidence-based programs. The law also requires state agencies to prioritize evidence-based programs and helps lawmakers decide whether to shift dollars to programs and services that are more effective than others not validated by research.
In 2003, Oregon lawmakers passed legislation requiring five state agencies to gradually increase funding for evidence-based programs from 25% in 2007 to 75% in 2011 and beyond.

5. Embed Evidence Into State Budgeting Processes and Decisions
Beginning in 2016, Colorado included evidence requirements in budget instructions for state agencies. When applying for new or expanded programs or services, agencies must summarize the available research and expected effects on outcomes, the expected return on investment for the program or service, and the agency’s evaluation plan.
In 2018, Minnesota Management and Budget introduced evidence-based budget proposal forms. Agencies use the forms to highlight the evidence base for proposals that they want categorized as “evidence-based” during the budget review process.
State legislators, in consultation with staff of Mississippi’s Joint Legislative Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review, developed “Seven Elements of Quality Program Design.” The process ensures that new funding requests are supported by existing research demonstrating a program’s effectiveness or a plan for rigorous research of a pilot program. The framework offers questions policymakers can ask regarding the program’s research base and implementation plan. For the fiscal year ending in June 2016, the Legislative Budget Office began requiring agencies seeking new program funding to complete the seven elements as part of their annual budget request. A copy of the seven elements is included in the Legislative Budget Office’s annual budget instructions.
In 2003, New Mexico’s Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) developed a Legislating for Results framework to use research and performance data to inform budget decisions. Analysts review appropriation requests and use the framework to prioritize programs with evidence of effectiveness. Noting that committee hearings offer legislators a “key opportunity to use performance data and evidence to build a budget and inform policy development,” LFC lists questions that lawmakers may ask agency staff. They can ask, for example, how much of their budget request will be used to implement or expand evidence-based interventions.
Tennessee’s Department of Finance and Administration requires agencies to tie new budget requests to policy objectives, such as investing in programs and initiatives that are supported by evidence and research.
Utah’s Office of Management and Budget requires state agencies to submit a business case form, which describes what problem the new funding will solve, how the new funding will be used, the expected results or outcomes, and which measures will be used to track the changes over time.
6. Foster a Culture of Continued Learning
In California, the Legislative Analyst’s Office advises the legislature on evidence-informed policymaking and is developing a training curriculum for legislators and legislative staff.
The Result First Initiative collaborated with its in-state partners in Illinois, Minnesota and North Carolina to deliver evidence trainings to agency staff for both educational purposes and to leverage the content and engagement to further the states’ goals and build on evidence-based policymaking progress to date.
To increase the use of science to inform policy decisions, California and New Jersey have established legislative science fellow programs. The New Jersey Legislature in 2019 funded the Eagleton Science and Politics Fellowship program. Run by the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, the program appointed four Ph.D. scientists and engineers to work full time for one year in the executive or legislative branch, where they serve as science advisors to agency leaders and legislators.
7. Garner Support Through Clear Communication and Messaging
The District of Columbia registered a pre-analysis plan for evaluating its police body-worn camera program and presented the plan for feedback across a diverse set of public meetings and with an interactive website designed for lay audiences.
Minnesota Management and Budget’s inventory of programs assigns color-coded ratings of effectiveness for over 400 publicly funded programs and services. Users can filter data by area of interest (e.g., criminal justice or early childhood), outcome measured, population and rating type (e.g., proven effective, promising and theory-based).
New Mexico’s Legislative Finance Committee created a dashboard report and agency report cards to synthesize performance data and facilitate focused discussions on evidence-based initiatives.
The NCSL Evidence-Informed Policymaking Work Group was staffed and this report was prepared by Kristine Goodwin, program director, and Luke Martel, group director, for NCSL’s Employment, Labor and Retirement Program. Other NCSL staff contributors included Kate Blackman and Iris Hentze, who reviewed and offered valuable insights on various drafts of this report, Linnette Vasquez, who provided administrative and meeting support, and Jane Andrade and Steve Miller, who edited and designed the report.
This report was prepared under the direction of the NCSL Evidence-Informed Policymaking Work Group, which was made possible through generous support from The Pew Charitable Trusts. Their continued support and assistance to NCSL and state legislatures are gratefully acknowledged.
NCSL first convened the work group in late 2019 when the group began a months-long process of identifying and refining key principles that help to support evidence-informed policymaking. The bipartisan, crossbranch member group includes state legislators, senior legislative and executive branch staff, researchers and NCSL leaders who are dedicated to advancing the use of evidence in their states. With support from The Pew Charitable Trusts, the group has met virtually in 2020 to refine these principles and advise NCSL on its new Center for Results-Based Governing.
NCSL extends deep appreciation to each work group member for reviewing drafts and lending their time and insights as this report took shape—from the first brainstorming discussions in late 2019 to the final review of this publication. We are grateful to them for dedicating their energy and time, especially during the difficult early months of 2020, when the onset and fallout from COVID-19 demanded so much of both.
Through their engagement and dedication, we learned what has worked in multiple states to successfully implement an evidence-informed approach, and which factors have paved the way for states to use quality data and research to inform their decisions. It is the intent of NCSL and this work group that the principles and examples presented here will help guide and inform results-based governing now and well into the future.
Evidence-Informed Policymaking Work Group Members
Alabama
- Senator Arthur Orr, Alabama Legislature
- Shonda Stallworth, Senate fiscal officer, Alabama Legislative Services Agency, Alabama Legislature
California
- Brian Brown, deputy legislative analyst, California Legislative Analyst's Office
Colorado
- Senator Chris Hansen, Colorado Legislature
- Aaron Ray, deputy director for education, workforce and environment, Office of State Planning & Budgeting
- Seth Walter, analyst, Office of State Planning and Budgeting
Iowa
- Beth Skinner, director, Iowa Department of Corrections
Minnesota
- Peter Bernardy, enterprise director for results management, State of Minnesota
Mississippi
- Linda Triplett, performance accountability director, Performance Accountability Office, Joint Legislative Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review (PEER)
New Mexico
- Micaela Fischer, program evaluation manager, New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee
North Carolina
- Jenni Owen, director of strategic partnerships, Office of the Governor
- Representative Dennis Riddell, North Carolina Legislature
Oregon
- Senator Elizabeth Steiner Hayward, Oregon Legislature
Rhode Island
- David Yokum, director, The Policy Lab at Brown University
This report was prepared under the direction of the NCSL Evidence-Informed Policymaking Work Group, which was made possible through generous support from The Pew Charitable Trusts. Their continued support and assistance to NCSL and state legislatures are gratefully acknowledged.