Since 2015, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Policies for Action (P4A) research program has been funding a growing body of work to understand how policies shape the root causes of health and survival, and, in particular, what policy solutions are needed to significantly boost population health, wellbeing, and equity in the United States. Scholars at the Urban Institute, home of the national coordinating center for P4A, have been working closely with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, providing both strategic advice and programmatic support. We developed this review as part of our planning work together, to help sharpen our thinking and oversight of P4A and its potential impact in the policymaking field. We have always understood there is a long pathway between a single policy study (however rigorous or definitive) and a policy change (variously defined). We also know policymaking is rarely based solely on evidence—if it is informed by evidence at all—and that a well-established body of evidence, as opposed to a single research study, is a much stronger base on which to craft effective public policy. But for many reasons, even when well-established bodies of consistent evidence do exist, policymakers seldom consult or act upon them. Like the P4A team, many others have been reflecting on evidence-based or evidence-informed policymaking, including how it is defined and understood; what it looks like in theory and practice; what conditions support or undermine it; and what, if anything, researchers (and funders) can do to help policymakers and others find and act on strong evidence. With these questions in mind, we conducted this high-level review of a rich and complex landscape, with the ultimate goal of understanding how evidence-based policymaking can be improved.
Copyright:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. Further use of the material is subject to CC BY-NC-DC license. (More information)