4. Evaluation Policy and Learning

Regents Grants were launched in 2022 to establish a formal partnership between Arizona’s public universities and state agencies to encourage and improve research & learning. These are funded by voter protected Technology and Research InitiativeFunds–guaranteeing between 12 and 15 million in annual funding for the evaluation of public programs conducted by professional researchers and academics. The initial grants focused on issues such as Valley Fever and dust, contaminated water, recycling and air quality. Additionally, at least 20 agencies have current partnerships with universities or research firms, including for research on programming that affects mental health and transportation resources for veterans, rehabilitation and reentry programming for different intervention points for youth in the juvenile corrections system, out-of-state occupational licensing barriers, safety and welfare work against elder abuse, research on the effect of Sickle Cell disease and extreme heat on Arizonans’ health, machine learning and groundwater withdrawal, and much more.

The Colorado Governor’s Office of State Planning and Budgeting (OSPB) publishes annual guidance to state departments requiring the use of data and evidence in the state’s budget process. It also provides definitions for key research and evaluation terms and “encourages agencies to use the evidence continuum outside the budget process as a means to evaluate programming internally, and to guide discussions with OSPB analysts and internal and external stakeholders.”

The Colorado Evaluation and Action Lab was “created in 2017 under the leadership of the Governor’s Office to work “with a broad range of government and community partners…to obtain the best available evidence to address” key policy priorities. This collaboration continues to this day, as the Lab is an active partner with OSPB and legislative staff to create best practices for building evidence. The Lab also supports the design and implementation of the state’s performance management system.

In June 2024, the Executive Board for P20 WIN, the state longitudinal data system, reviewed and updated a learning agenda to cover the priority areas for analysis across the ten agencies that are part of P20 WIN. The learning agenda focuses on cross-cutting topics and agencies are working to develop actionable data requests based on the topics in the agenda.

The Connecticut State Data Plan includes priorities for evaluation, including increased tracking of evidence and impact to deliver more efficient and coordinated services, and evaluation practices, such as use of ‘mixed methods.

In the FY 2024 Operating Budget (HB 195, 84 Del. Laws, c. 81) there are two sections of Epilogue language (legislative intent) that connects the government with external researchers: Section 52 enables the Office of Management and Budget and Controller General’s Office to contract with the University of Delaware and/or Delaware State University for statistical analysis of data for state operated programs, services, policies and/or procedures. Section 282 appropriates $17,377,000 to the University of Delaware to support academic research and public service programming.

The Kentucky Center for Statistics (KYSTATS) has developed a research agenda for 2023-2025 focused on issues of equity. The theme of the KYSTATS 2023-2025 Research Agenda is to optimize data to expand data usage to inform policy, programs, and equity in the evolving Commonwealth. The Board has identified four primary objectives with a focus on linking education and workforce data from multiple sources (KRS 151B.133) to identify pathways of students through employment to be used to guide impactful decisions throughout the Commonwealth of Kentucky’s education system and training programs (KRS 151B.132).

The Government Evaluation Act of 1995 establishes a system for periodic review of the executive branch agencies and independent agencies of state government to evaluate their efficacy and performance. Within the act, agencies are required to demonstrate their goals, how they are meeting them, and the corrective measures they are taking in the event they are unfulfilled. Moreover, the Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability also conducts independent reviews of state agencies focusing on effectiveness.

A 2010 Maryland law established the Maryland Longitudinal Data System Center as an independent agency to bring together data from multiple sources to establish a system that contains detailed information about Maryland students, their educational experiences and outcomes, their interaction with child welfare and juvenile services, the degrees and credentials they obtain and their workforce experiences and outcomes. The MLDS Center is overseen by a 15 member Governing Board, which guides the work of the Center through the establishment of a research agenda and annual output priorities. The Center produces dashboards, reports and data tables to support the work of various stakeholders.

A 2019 Maryland law created the Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability (OPEGA), which at the direction of the Joint Audit and Evaluation Committee, conducts evaluations. OPEGA evaluates the efficiency, effectiveness, and economy with which resources are used in meeting desired results. Evaluations also evaluate whether the governmental activity or unit operates in an open, accountable, fair, and non-discriminatory manner.

In 2018, Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB) adopted an evaluation policy that governs its use of impact evaluations by the Results team. It requires public release of all completed evaluation reports regardless of findings. The policy outlines key principles for evaluation: rigor, relevance, independence, transparency, and ethics. It also requires pre-registration of evaluations and final results. In 2024, MMB published key research priorities to guide its continued expansion of evaluation support across the enterprise.

Minnesota’s Statewide Longitudinal Education Data System and Early Childhood Education Data System match administrative education and employment data from five state agencies, from pre-kindergarten through completion of postsecondary education and into the workforce. The Minnesota P-20 Education Partnership, established by state statute, governs both systems, explicitly connecting policymakers and external researchers. The SLEDS Research and Data Advisory Committee reviews and develops research and evaluation proposals, approving 14 during 2021 and 2022 that met the State’s priorities.

​​The NJ State Policy Lab assists the State and its many communities in the design, implementation, and evaluation of state policies and programs by conducting rigorous evidence-based research that considers equity, efficiency, and efficacy of public policies and programs in holistic and innovative ways. ​The State Policy Lab is housed in the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy of New Jersey’s public research university, Rutgers University – New Brunswick and runs as a partnership between the Bloustein School and the School of Public Affairs and Administration in Rutgers-Newark.

​By utilizing the combination of strong ties to NJ’s diverse communities and significant expertise in collecting, cleaning, and analyzing data, the NJ State Policy Lab engages and collaborates with stakeholders such as community groups, the state government, and municipal governments to create high quality datasets and evidence that reflects our state’s diversity and empowers state policy makers to address the needs of NJ communities more effectively, innovatively, and equitably

Since 2018, the InnovateOhio Data Analytics Program has connected dozens of state agencies with external researchers to deliver multiple policy informing analytics projects through secured project zones – including infant mortality, early childhood analytics, and healing communities. The DataOhio Portal not only provides results of research projects but provides public datasets as another means for providing researchers access to Ohio’s data.

To advance Tennessee’s evidence-based budgeting efforts, the Office of Evidence and Impact (OEI) defined five evidence steps, conducted program inventories, developed evidence reviews, and provided evidence-building technical assistance, such as guidance for prioritizing programs for evaluation funding and implementation. In 2023, Tennessee developed evaluation guidelines to help direct efforts toward quality evidence to information decision-making. In 2024, the state released a learning agenda in partnership with the governor’s office and departments across the enterprise. OEI also helps departments engage external research partners to evaluate state programs.

The Utah Data Research Center (UDRC) was created by a 2017 law to integrate data from the Utah System of Higher Education, Utah System of Technical Colleges, Utah State Board of Education, Utah Department of Health, and the Utah Department of Workforce Services. Together, these constitute the “P20W” pipeline. UDRC offers “data products” (such as academic-quality research, reports, and dashboards) and “data as a product” for external researchers. UDRC annually publishes a research agenda in priority order including the primary stakeholder and research description. It also maintains a public archive of previous years’ learning agendas.

The Utah Data Research Center’s July 2023-June 2024 research agenda investigates themes related to education and workforce outcomes. Previously published research agendas are publicly available. As of July 1, 2022, UDRC was transferred from the Utah Department of Workforce Services to the Utah System of Higher Education per a 2022 Utah law.

Since 2012, at the direction of the legislature, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) has produced a series of inventories of evidence-based, research-based, and promising programs. These inventories are developed with the aim of informing state agencies about effective and cost-beneficial options for service provision. In addition, a 2013 state law directed the Department of Corrections, in consultation with WSIPP, to: (1) compile an inventory of existing programs; (2) determine whether its programs were evidence-based; (3) assess the effectiveness of its programs, including conducting a benefit-cost analysis; and (4) phase out ineffective programs and implement evidence-based programs. As a result of laws like these that require evidence reviews and/or direct outcome evaluations, WSIPP has published hundreds of benefit-cost analyses in a wide variety of issue areas over the past 10 years. The WSIPP benefit-cost framework allows the translation of program effects into dollars and cents and has been emulated by several state governments across the country. 

In 1988, the Legislature changed its current focus to program evaluation or performance auditing, which involves evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of programs and analyzing related policy issues. The goal of the Program Evaluation Section and the Management Audit Committee is to provide the Legislature with useful, objective, and timely information about the extent to which desired program results are being achieved. This information is intended to facilitate legislative and executive actions to improve state government and to consider policy alternatives to current programs.