Abstract
Although interest in research utilization in the policy process has grown, how advocates strategically deploy different types of evidence to influence lawmakers remains not well understood. In this paper, we draw on the Advocacy Coalition Framework and the Narrative Policy Framework to show how various types of evidence—from empirical findings to personal anecdotes—were utilized by advocates during the 2 years leading to the passage of California’s historic 2010 law to extend foster care. The result was a generous and flexible entitlement policy passed with bipartisan support in the context of a recession, a state budget deficit, and an ambivalent governor. We find that leaders of a diverse advocacy coalition strategically showcased different types of evidence at specific moments in the legislative process. Each evidence type can be tied to a specific narrative element and strategy. Advocates first used research evidence to convince lawmakers of the policy’s effectiveness, then used professional expertise and benefit-cost analysis to convince them it would come at an acceptable cost, and finally used personal narratives to motivate them to act. We conclude that though benefit-cost analyses play an integral role in policymaking during a time of austerity, advocacy coalitions may still benefit from personal stories that lend emotional potency and urgency.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
As a result of the policy, California grew its foster care caseload for 18–20 year olds by 67% from 2011 to 2014; over 5000 additional 18–20 year olds were covered. Growth in foster care for other ages during this time was only 2%. By 2016, over 20,000 youth had benefitted from extended foster care in CA.
The 2010 legislation studied here extended foster care only to age 20—a late compromise to meet cost projections. Follow-up legislation in 2012 extended foster care to age 21, which was an original goal of advocates.
This policy represented a major change, both ideologically and legally. The process of changing foster care regulations—all written to be applicable only to minors—was daunting, and ideologically the idea that the state maintained some responsibility for foster “children” who were legally adults was a significant break from prior assumptions.
It should be noted that although lawmakers often complain that money is tight and advocates often face formidable challenges in this area (e.g. claims of “we can’t afford it”), some fiscal contexts are objectively worse than others. In this case, the combined effect of lower tax revenue due to the recession, the mortgage crisis, and California’s enduring budgeting constraints due to Proposition 12 and the proposition system in general the lawmakers were not exaggerating the state’s financial woes.
In alphabetical order, the cosponsors were: the California Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC); The Alliance for Children’s Rights; California Alliance of Child and Family Services; California Youth Connection (CYC); Children’s Law Center of California; County Welfare Directors Association of California (CWDA); John Burton Foundation for Children Without Homes; Service Employees International Union (SEIU); Youth Law Center.
The Administrative Office of the Courts is the staff agency for the state Judicial Council, which in California is chaired by the Chief Justice and is responsible for policymaking in the judicial branch.
See http://www.chapinhall.org/research/report/midwest-evaluation-adult-functioning-former-foster-youth to access the more than 15 reports and papers that came out of this study.
Unfortunately, soon after AB12 was introduced, the cosponsors learned that the federal guidance on Fostering Connections would allow for prospective cases only, meaning California could not collect for the approximately 15,000 children they already had enrolled in Kin-GAP. This was devastating to the cosponsors’ hopes for cost neutrality. They carried on, though, assuming that when President Obama took office early in 2009, his administration would change the guidance and allow for established cases. Although they were eventually able to get the federal guidance changed, the change did not happen as quickly as they hoped and the bill ended up stuck in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations from June 2009 to January of 2010.
Ultimately, the issue was resolved when the extension was included in the state budget passed in 2012.
Since group care settings also tend to be relatively restrictive environments, some hoped that severely limiting the use of group homes under AB12 would increase the likelihood that youth would be placed in more developmentally appropriate placements.
For some advocates, this raised the concern that youth who do not qualify for AB12, or do not want to participate for some other reason, may find it much more difficult than in recent years to gain access to quality transitional housing in California under AB12.
In hindsight, CDSS estimates were more accurate than the advocates numbers, with 75–90% of youth choosing to stay in care.
References
Asen, R., Gurke, D., Solomon, R., Conners, P., & Gumm, E. (2011). “The research says”: Definitions and uses of a key policy term in federal law and local school board deliberations. Argumentation and Advocacy, 47, 195–213.
Baekkeskov, E. (2016). Explaining science-led policy-making: Pandemic deaths, epistemic deliberation and ideational trajectories. Policy Sciences, 49, 395–419.
Blomkamp, E. (2014). Uses of evidence in local cultural policy: Performance, legitimation, problem representation, and learning in two Australian municipalities. Evidence & Policy, 10(2), 223–241.
Cairney, P. (2013). Standing on the shoulders of giants: How do we combine the insights of multiple theories in public policy studies? Policy Studies Journal, 41(1), 1–21.
Cairney, P., Oliver, K., & Wellstead, A. (2016). To bridge the divide between evidence and policy: Reduce ambiguity as much as uncertainty. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 399–402.
California Blue Ribbon Commission on Foster Care (2008). Final Recommendations to the Judicial Council. Sacramento, CA: California Judicial Council.
Campbell, J. L. (2002). Ideas, politics and public policy. Annual Review Of Sociology, 28, 21–38.
Caplan, N. (1979). The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. American Behavioral Scientist, 22(3), 459.
Courtney, M. E., Dworsky, A., Cusick, G. R., Havlicek, J., Perez, A., & Keller, T. (2007). Midwest evaluation of the adult functioning of former foster youth: Outcomes at age 21. Chicago: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.
Courtney, M., Dworsky, A., Lee, J., & Raap, M. (2010). Midwest evaluation of the adult functioning of former foster youth: Outcomes at ages 23 and 24. Chicago: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.
Dear, R. B., & Patti, R. J. (1981). Legislative advocacy: Seven effective tactics. Social Work, 26(4), 289–296.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Epstein, D., Farina, C., & Heidt, J. (2014). The value of words: Narrative as evidence in policy making. Evidence & Policy, 10(2), 243–258.
Fenger, M., & Klok, P. (2001). Interdependency, beliefs, and coalition behavior: A contribution to the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Sciences, 34(2), 157–170.
Gray, G., & Jones, M. D. (2016). A qualitative narrative policy framework? Examining the policy narratives of US campaign finance regulatory reform. Public Policy and Administration, 31(3), 193–220.
Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 3, 275.
Hall, R. L., & Deardorff, A. V. (2006). Lobbying as legislative subsidy. American Political Science Review, 100(1), 69–84.
Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. K. (2013). Building a conceptual approach to collective learning: Lessons for public policy scholars. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 484–512.
James, T. E., & Jorgensen, P. D. (2009). Policy knowledge, policy formulation, and change: Revisiting a foundational question. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 141–162.
Jones, B. D. (2003). Bounded rationality and political science: Lessons from public administration and public policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(4), 395–412.
Jones, M. D., & McBeth, M. K. (2010). A narrative policy framework: Clear enough to be wrong? Policy Studies Journal, 38(2), 329–353.
Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. New York: Harper Collins.
Lasswell, H. D. (1971). A preview of policy sciences. New York: American Elsevier.
Laws, G. (1997). Voluntary organizations and advocacy: The case of housing for older Americans. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26, 307–335.
Macomber, J. E., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Duncan, D., Kuehn, D., McDaniel, M., Vericker, T., et al. (2008). Coming of age: Employment outcomes for youth who age out of foster care through their middle twenties. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
McBeth, M. K., Shanahan, E. A., Arnell, R. J., & Hathaway, P. L. (2007). The intersection of narrative policy analysis and policy change theory. Policy Studies Journal, 35(1), 87–108.
McDonnell, L., & Weatherford, M. (2013). Evidence use and the Common Core State Standards movement: From problem definition to policy adoption. American Journal Of Education, 120(1), 1–25.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services. Bristol: Policy Press.
Parkhurst, J. O. (2016). Appeals to evidence for the resolution of wicked problems: The origins and mechanisms of evidentiary bias. Policy Sciences. doi:10.1007/s11077-016-9263-z.
Peters, C. M., Dworsky, A., Courtney, M. E., & Pollack, H. (2009). The benefits and costs of extending foster care to age 21. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall.
Riker, W. H. (1986). The art of political manipulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sabatier, P. A. (1987). Knowledge, policy-oriented learning, and policy change: An advocacy coalition framework. Science Communication, 8(4), 649–692.
Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21(2–3), 129–168.
Sabatier, P. A. (1991). Toward better theories of the policy process. PS: Political Science & Politics, 24(02), 147–156.
Schlaufer, C. (2016). The narrative uses of evidence. Policy Studies Journal. doi:10.1111/psj.12174.
Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87(02), 334–347.
Shanahan, E. A., Jones, M. D., & McBeth, M. K. (2011). Policy narratives and policy processes. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 535–561.
Shanahan, E. A., Jones, M. D., McBeth, M. K., & Lane, R. R. (2013). An angel on the wind: How heroic policy narratives shape policy realities. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 453–483.
Smith-Walter, A., Peterson, H. L., Jones, M. D., & Reynolds Marshall, A. N. (2016). Gun stories: How evidence shapes firearm policy in the United States. Politics & Policy, 44(6), 1053–1088.
Stone, D. A. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (p. 448). New York: Norton.
Tseng, V. (2012). The uses of research in policy and practice. Social Policy Report, 26(2), 3–16.
van Gestel, R., & de Poorter, J. (2016). Putting evidence-based law making to the test: Judicial review of legislative rationality. The Theory and Practice of Legislation, 4(2), 155–185.
Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2009). Coalitions, science, and belief change: Comparing adversarial and collaborative policy subsystems. Policy Studies Journal, 37(2), 195–212.
Wye, L., Brangan, E., Cameron, A., Gabbay, J., Klein, J. H., & Pope, C. (2015). Evidence based policy making and the ‘art’ of commissioning–how English healthcare commissioners access and use information and academic research in ‘real life’ decision-making: An empirical qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research, 15(1), 430.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Acknowledgements
This research was made possible by a grant from the William T. Grant Foundation. The authors would also like to thank Mark Courtney, Amy Dworsky, Genevieve Benedetti, Laura Napolitano, and LaShaun Brooks for their contributions to this project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mosley, J.E., Gibson, K. Strategic use of evidence in state-level policymaking: matching evidence type to legislative stage. Policy Sci 50, 697–719 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-017-9289-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-017-9289-x