Evidence-based Policymaking: Online Toolkit for Progressive Policymakers

Approaches for Getting Evidence into Policy: Approaches and Tools Used in the UK

Having highlighted the central debates surrounding the issue of EBP, we now focus on the practical means existing in the UK to integrate evidence into policy. This section puts forward some general approaches promoted in the UK. The tools section reveals some more specific tools that are used in the UK. Neither of these two sections is exhaustive; only some of the possible approaches and tools available are represented. This is very much a work in progress and feedback is therefore welcomed. These tools are targeted at progressive policymakers: this section assumes that the reader is in an amenable context and interested in implementing EBP.

What can policymakers do to increase the use of EBP? To change the status quo towards EBP within government departments, policymakers need to understand the value of evidence; become more informed as to what research is available and how to gain access to it; and be able to critically appraise it (Davies, 2004: 18). The relationship will only work if researchers and policymakers work more closely together to ensure that there is an agreement, between them and within the research community, as to what constitutes evidence (ibid).

One possible way of achieving the increased use of evidence is by getting policymakers to 'own' evidence and therefore gain commitment and buy in at appropriate levels: 'in central government this usually means getting Ministers and senior policy officials to sign up to the ownership of a project and the evidence that goes to support it' (ibid: 19). Importantly, this involves making a commitment to using findings whether or not they support the project, and therefore not continuing with the policy or programme if the evidence reveals that it is ineffective. This is most likely to occur in organisational structures that are non-hierarchical, open and democratic (ibid: 18).

Better incentives also need to be established to encourage the use of evidence. For example, at the level of central government departments in the UK, Public Service Agreements (PSAs) and Service Delivery Agreements (SDAs) coupled with the biennial Spending Reviews by HM Treasury, provide some incentive to establish evidence of effectiveness and efficiency. Davies (ibid: 21) also highlights the use of tools such as delivery and service agreements, national and local targets, and triennial spending reviews in the UK. At local level, the devolution of budgets to frontline agencies and decision-making bodies such as hospital trusts, primary care teams, local education authorities and school governors, has provided a similar incentive to summon and use sound evidence in resource allocation and service development (ibid: 18).

Clearly, the onus to improve the availability and dissemination of sound research lies not only with policymakers but also with researchers. The development of research syntheses by groups such as the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations, the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre), and the Economic and Society Research Council (ESRC) Evidence Network, has shown that there is often a lack of sound, conclusive evidence even when there has been considerable research activity on some topic or problem; therefore, what is perhaps needed is systematic reviews of what we already know and the increased use of routine assessments and audits (ibid). Hornby and Perera (2002: 171) reinforce this argument, drawing on their experiences in Sri Lanka and arguing that there is a need for the ongoing evaluation of health system and health policies. They do, however, highlight that this would necessitate substantial organisational support.

Fundamentally, there needs to be increased communication and interaction between the research and policy worlds in order to strengthen the integration of policy and evidence. This can be achieved by setting up mechanisms that will facilitate greater use of evidence by policymakers. Means by which to increase the 'pull' factor for evidence, such as requiring spending bids to be supported by an analysis of the existing base, are outlined below.

There is a need to build Institutional bridges which facilitate greater sustained interaction between researchers and research users. One suggestion has been to encourage the early involvement of in-house and 'outside' researchers in the policymaking process. More integrated teams would help researchers better to understand the sorts of questions that they need answered. An example of this is the team used at the design stage of the Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) demonstration project (Davies, 2004: 18). Another suggestion is setting up intermediary bodies. In the UK, a new set of institutions now exists to organise and create knowledge in health. These include the National Institute for Clinical Excellence; the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and the Cochrane collaboration (Mulgan, 2003: 3). Another possible response is the co-location of policymakers and internal analysts, although Nutley (2003) questions whether this is a necessary precondition for sustained interaction. A further potentially important mechanism is the use of secondments to encourage the exchange of staff between government departments and universities. Other possible means by which to increase the level of communication include: learning each others languages; more fora for discussion; and joint training and professional development opportunities for policymakers and researchers (Davies, 2004: 18).

Encouraging better use of evidence in policymaking

Increasing the pull for evidence:

Require the publication of the evidence base for policy decisions
Require departmental spending bids to provide a supporting evidence base
Submit government analysis (such as forecasting models) to external expert scrutiny
Provide open access to information - leading to more informed citizens and pressure groups

Facilitating better evidence use:

Encourage better collaboration across internal analytical services (e.g. researchers, statisticians and economists)
Co-locate policymakers and internal analysts
Integrate analytical staff at all stages of the policy development process
Link R&D strategies to departmental business plans
Cast external researchers more as partners than as contractors
Second more university staff into government
Train staff in evidence use

(Source: Abstracted from PIU 2000, Bullock et al (2001)

Sources

Davies P. (2004) 'Is Evidence-based Government Possible?' Jerry Lee Lecture, presented at the 4th Annual Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, Washington DC.
Hornby, P. and H.S.R. Perera (2002) 'A Development Framework for Promoting Evidence-based Policy Action: Drawing on Experiences in Sri Lanka', International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp165-83.
Mulgan, G. (2003) 'Government, Knowledge and the Business of Policymaking', Background Paper at National Institute of Governance Conference 'Facing the Future: Engaging stakeholders and citizens in developing public policy', Canberra, Australia 23-4 April.
Hyden, G., J. Court and K. Mease (2004) Making Sense of Governance: Empirical Evidence from Sixteen Developing Countries, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Nutley, S. (2003) 'Bridging the Policy/Research Divide: Reflections and Lessons from the UK', Keynote Paper at National Institute of Governance Conference 'Facing the Future: Engaging stakeholders and citizens in developing public policy', Canberra, Australia 23-4 April.