Managing for Results

11. Evaluation Resources

Does the state invest at least 1% of program funds in evaluation capacity?

The state has dedicated resources for using evaluations to improve results.

Minnesota

Leading Example

Minnesota Management and Budget’s FY23 budget includes $800,000 to conduct experimental and quasi-experimental impact evaluations for opiate epidemic response grant activities and general state-funded grant programs, along with inventorying the evidence-based practices supported by these grant programs. In addition, Minnesota Management and Budget received funding ($400,000) in FY23 to inventory evidence-based activities and conduct impact evaluations of county-based adult mental health programs. In total, more than 2% of MMB’s budget is spent on evaluation activities. In addition, Minnesota’s Statewide Health Improvement Partnership (SHIP), administered by the Department of Health, provides tens of millions of dollars in grants annually to communities for health care prevention efforts. This grant program supports grantees with technical assistance and requires grantees to report on evaluation and monitoring of outcomes.

Promising Examples

California

The California Workforce Development Board (CWDB) has funded third-party evaluation projects in amounts ranging from $350,000 to $750,000, typically representing at least two percent of program funds. CWDB’s policy to allocate resources for evaluation studies, conducted either by the CWDB Research and Evaluation Team or by third-party evaluators.

In 2021-2022, the California Tobacco Control Program in the Department of Public Health spent seven and a half percent on evaluation and surveillance efforts. They also require their local projects to direct a minimum of 10% of their local program funds toward evaluations and to designate at least one qualified evaluator as the lead, which they can find in the Local Evaluator Program Directory. They also fund the UC Tobacco Control Evaluation Center to provide technical assistance on evaluation efforts and develop resources, guidance, and training.

Colorado

The Colorado Department of Public Safety’s Juvenile Diversion Program invests 3% ($120,000) of program funds to conduct evaluations. Crime Victim Services’ competitive funding opportunities require all applicants to evaluate the effectiveness of their project. It also requires those who currently receive funding to answer questions regarding their current effectiveness at meeting their funded projects’ goals and objectives, as well as their adherence to their budget. Additionally, Colorado’s Office of State Planning and Budgeting also administers a $500,000 annual fund for program evaluation and implementation grants, which provides competitive funding to support program implementation or evaluation of outcomes.

Connecticut

Pursuant to Section 10 of HB 5506, the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) is creating an Evaluation and Evidence-Building unit, with support from American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF). The unit will be responsible for coordinating evaluation and evidence-building for investments through ARPA, working closely with state agencies, subrecipients and applied researchers and evaluators. The unit will help to develop evaluation plans and to coordinate access to state data resources and will focus on providing ‘hands-on’ support and guidance to recipients of funds and assist in collecting and synthesizing evidence for reporting and communications. In addition, OPM has published data on ARPA and CRF allocations to the open data portal and will continue to develop online resources for these in 2022.

North Carolina

The North Carolina FY 2021-23 budget set aside $1 million in nonrecurring grant funds for state agency research and evaluation needs. The North Carolina Evaluation Fund supports research partnerships that inform program and policy decisions. OSBM issued the first grant award in July 2022 and will issue a second round of awards in September. Agencies have access to technical assistance to develop their project proposal and find a research partner.

The FY 2021-23 budget also appropriated funds for three program analysts to implement evidence-based program design and management within their respective agencies and to support statewide performance management activities. The budget also allocates $100,000 for the Department of Public Instruction to contract an evaluation with an independent research organization to measure the impacts of the Schools that Lead program on student outcomes.

Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD) has several program areas that utilize at least 1% of program funds to evaluate the effectiveness of programming. For example, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Unit of PCCD’s Office of Justice Programs sponsors Penn State University’s Evidence-Based Prevention and Intervention Support Center (EPISCenter), which has provided technical assistance and training resources to PCCD grantees implementing youth prevention programming since 2008. The EPISCenter tracks program metrics to confirm that Violence and Delinquency Prevention funded projects ($4,138,000 FY22-23 Budget) and other related initiatives are implemented as researched to ensure that the best results are achieved. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Committee partners with the PA Department of Human Services and Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs to jointly support the EPISCenter ($945,000, FY22-23).

Tennessee

As part of the FY23 budget, Tennessee allocated $1.5 million in recurring state dollars for rigorous program evaluations to support evidence building. Programs ready for evaluation are identified in the program inventory process, in partnership with the Office of Evidence & Impact, and agencies are connected with external research partners who conduct the program evaluation.

Washington

The Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) is often directed by law to study the effects of specific state programs as an objective evaluator independent of state agencies. The legislature appropriates state general fund dollars to fund these evaluations. For example, in 2021, the state legislature appropriated (Section 610(4) (pp. 468-69) over $550,000 in the next biennium for WSIPP to evaluate the Department of Corrections’ Reentry Community Services program, to study the pathways from incarceration to the state’s community and technical colleges, and to evaluate the implementation of the Guided Pathways model in Washington’s community and technical colleges.

Back to all Criteria