Meyers, RoyOlszewski Jr., John Anthony2019-10-112019-10-112017-01-0111770http://hdl.handle.net/11603/15826This dissertations explores issues impacting the use of evidence during the policymaking process at the state legislative level. Specifically, the role of Results First, a cost-benefit analysis program of the Pew and McArthur Foundations designed to identify optimal policy outcomes, is examined for its impact on the evidence utilization behaviors of state policymakers. Despite steady calls from the public policy discipline for a better integration of evidence into the policymaking process, research efforts that directly measure (and therefore understand) the extent to which state lawmakers engage with evidence has been limited. Thus, there is a need to expand our understanding of how these policymakers engage with evidence, including the circumstances that inhibit or facilitate evidence utilization. The research begins to address these knowledge gaps, providing an update and expansion of scope to Hird's research on non-partisan research organizations. Primary data collection includes both surveys and interviews with state legislators, as well as interviews with legislative staff. Third-party data included in the analysis are news articles and legislative records. Mixed analytical methods are deployed to review the data, including quantitative analysis of survey responses, content analysis of interview data and a case study on justice reinvestment. The research finds that Results First has mixed impacts on influencing the use of evidence in the policymaking process, marginally encouraging evidence utilization by state policymakers. It affirms the tensions between evidence and other legislative priorities, such as addressing the demands of constituents, the personal beliefs and value systems of legislators and navigating personal relationships with legislative colleagues. Specifically, the research finds that evidence-informed policymaking is possible when the following conditions exist: a policymaker believes evidence should be used; the policymaker does not feel constrained by constituent desires or legislative leadership; the policymaker's desire to use evidence outweighs the desire to meet the needs of other interests (such as colleagues and lobbyists); evidence is available and the policymaker has the time to review it as well as the ability to access and validate it. Evidence can save money and lives when effectively deployed in the state legislative context, but there remains considerable opportunity for growth in the evidence utilization space. The policy significance in the research findings relates to both producers and consumers of evidence at the state legislative level. Producers of evidence such as Results First can fuel growth of evidence use by opening their analytical processes to outside review and by more actively engaging lawmakers -- cultivating trust and credibility through stronger relationships. Producers of evidence should also change their language from evidence-based policymaking to evidence-informed policymaking to more accurately depict how evidence is used in the policy process. Consumers of evidence must recognize the value evidence can play in the policymaking process and make or continue to make significant investments into independent and bipartisan/nonpartisan research organizations.This item may be protected under Title 17 of the U.S. Copyright Law. It is made available by UMBC for non-commercial research and education. For permission to publish or reproduce, please see http://aok.lib.umbc.edu/specoll/repro.php or contact Special Collections at speccoll(at)umbc.eduEvidencePolicymakingText