The success of federal agencies in creating and using evidence-based policies hinges on (1) their commitment to include routine use of evidence—including research and program evaluations—in program design and funding decisions and (2) their capacity to adapt their operating practices accordingly. The recent push toward using evidence more deliberately in government meant that federal agencies needed to quickly improve the accessibility of existing evidence. They also had to foster internal capacity to fairly judge its quality and applicability; build capacity and support for routinely using evidence within program and policy offices to support policy development and monitoring; and create a consensus within agencies around sensible ways to categorize, rate, and apply evidence. Common evidence standards, open access to evidence review platforms, and mandates for embedding rigorous evaluations into funded programs are among the most influential tools agencies have used in this new era of evidence-based policymaking.
BormanGeoffrey D.D’AgostinoJerome V.1996. Title I and student achievement: A meta-analysis of federal evaluation results. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis18 (4): 309–26.
CottinghamPhoebeMaynardRebecca A.StagnerMatthew. 2004. Programs and policies in education, crime and justice and social welfare: Practical recommendations based on 14 test-bed reviews. Evaluation and Research in Education18:28–53.
4.
EarleJaniceMaynardRebecca A.NeildRuth Curran. 2013. Common guidelines for education research and development. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences & National Science Foundation. Available from http://ies.ed.gov/pdf/CommonGuidelines.pdf.
MarshallMartinPronovostPeterDixon-WoodsMary. 2013. Promotion of improvement as a science. The Lancet381 (9864): 419–21.
10.
MaynardRebeccaGoldsteinNaomiNightingaleDemetra Smith. 2016. Program and policy evaluations in practice: Highlights from the federal perspective. In New directions for evaluation, ed. PeckL. 109–34. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
PetrosinoAnthonyBoruchRobert F.SoydanHalukDugganLornaSanchez-MecaJulio. 2001. Meeting the challenges of evidence-based policy: The Campbell collaboration. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science578 (1): 14–34.
Sama-MillerEmilyAkersLaurenMraz-EspositoAndreaZukiewiczMarykateAvellarSarahPaulsellDianeDel GrossoPatricia. 2016. Home visiting evidence of effectiveness review: Executive summary. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TiptonElizabethYeagerDavidIachanRonaldo. 2016. Developing a theory of treatment effect heterogeneity through better design: Where do behavioral science interventions work best?Washington, DC: Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. Available from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED567217.pdf.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2005. Program evaluation: OMB’s PART reviews increased agencies’ attention to improving evidence of program results. Washington, DC: GAO. Available from http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-67.
22.
WhitehurstGrover J. (Russ). 2003. The Institute of Education Sciences: New wine, new bottles. Presentation at the American Education Research Association Annual Conference. Available from https://ies.ed.gov/director/speeches2003/04_22/2003_04_22.asp.
23.
WhitehurstGrover J. (Russ). 2018. The Institute of Education Sciences: A model for federal research offices. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (this volume).
24.
ZientsJeffrey. 2012. Memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies: Use of evidence and evaluation in the 2014 federal budget. Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget. Available from https://ojp.gov/docs/sabappendixlombuseofevidencememo062012.pdf.
