Explaining variation in evidence-based policy making in the American states

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Dylan L. Yingling, D. Mallinson
{"title":"Explaining variation in evidence-based policy making in the American states","authors":"Dylan L. Yingling, D. Mallinson","doi":"10.1332/174426419x15752577942927","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Though evidence-based policy (EBP) has attracted considerable attention from the public, academics, and governments, prior studies have revealed little about how political parties, institutions, and policy context shape the adoption and implementation of these policies\n in the American states.Aims and objectives: Develop objective criteria for measuring these policies, as well as a hierarchy which describes the features that make some policies more advanced. This paper presents the first comprehensive study on EBP in the American states.Methods:\n Using assessments by the Pew and MacArthur foundations to measure EBP in the states for four topics: criminal justice, juvenile justice, behavioural health, and child welfare. Assess the relationship between EBP use and state political and institutional factors.Results: Democratic\n governors, Republican legislatures, state innovativeness are significant predictors of EBP engagement.Discussion and conclusions: This research makes a substantial contribution to the study of EBP and opens new avenues for future research on the political, cultural, and institutional\n factors that influence EBP adoption and implementation. In an era of extreme partisanship, our study finds that EBP is a policy niche where actors and institutions across political parties use research evidence to inform effective and efficient policies in ways that maximise the electoral\n incentives that such policies can offer.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"16 1","pages":"579-596"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426419x15752577942927","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Background: Though evidence-based policy (EBP) has attracted considerable attention from the public, academics, and governments, prior studies have revealed little about how political parties, institutions, and policy context shape the adoption and implementation of these policies in the American states.Aims and objectives: Develop objective criteria for measuring these policies, as well as a hierarchy which describes the features that make some policies more advanced. This paper presents the first comprehensive study on EBP in the American states.Methods: Using assessments by the Pew and MacArthur foundations to measure EBP in the states for four topics: criminal justice, juvenile justice, behavioural health, and child welfare. Assess the relationship between EBP use and state political and institutional factors.Results: Democratic governors, Republican legislatures, state innovativeness are significant predictors of EBP engagement.Discussion and conclusions: This research makes a substantial contribution to the study of EBP and opens new avenues for future research on the political, cultural, and institutional factors that influence EBP adoption and implementation. In an era of extreme partisanship, our study finds that EBP is a policy niche where actors and institutions across political parties use research evidence to inform effective and efficient policies in ways that maximise the electoral incentives that such policies can offer.
解释美国各州循证政策制定的差异
背景:尽管循证政策(EBP)引起了公众、学者和政府的极大关注,但先前的研究很少揭示政党、机构和政策背景如何影响美国各州这些政策的通过和实施。目的和目标:制定衡量这些政策的客观标准,以及描述使一些政策更先进的特征的层次结构。本文介绍了美国各州首次对EBP进行的全面研究。方法:使用皮尤基金会和麦克阿瑟基金会的评估来衡量各州四个主题的EBP:刑事司法、青少年司法、行为健康和儿童福利。评估EBP的使用与国家政治和制度因素之间的关系。结果:民主党州长、共和党立法机构、州创新能力是EBP参与度的重要预测因素。讨论和结论:本研究为EBP的研究做出了重大贡献,并为未来研究影响EBP采用和实施的政治、文化和制度因素开辟了新的途径。在一个极端党派偏见的时代,我们的研究发现,EBP是一个政策利基,各政党的行动者和机构利用研究证据,以最大限度地提高此类政策所能提供的选举激励的方式,为有效和高效的政策提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Evidence & Policy
Evidence & Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
53
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信