&nbsp;
Evidence based policy has been practiced for a long time. In 1854 Dr. John Snow used a dot-map to identify clusters of cholera cases in London, England.
He found a water pump in Soho was the source of the contamination. Cholera had previously been associated with pollution or “bad air” and Snow’s finding has been called a founding event in the science of epidemiology.
In the 1990s New York’s Police Commissioner Bill Bratton introduced computer based statistics to track crime incidents and spot emerging patterns early. Comprehensive strategies were developed to deal with significant crime trends and local unit commanders were held to account for results. This practice is now commonplace in policing.
Dalton McGuinty and Tony Blair insisted on better evidence to drive student performance and the reduction of waiting times for important diagnostic tests and surgeries. It worked.
But last week’s column on curriculum reform in Ontario showed even gold-standard evidence based and consultative policy-making can come unglued in a hurry.
It’s a reminder that policy making is not always linear or even rational. It can be, when all the political and public policy tumblers line up to make it a winning proposition. But policy can also be based on flimsy evidence or formulated to meet short term political interests such as pandering to a core of supporters – a criticism often made about the Harper government’s tough-on-crime agenda.
And policy-making can be just plain messy with powerful stakeholders marshalling robust data to argue for different outcomes. The debate about subways versus surface light rail for Scarborough has been a good example.
Over the past couple of decades there has been a growing expectation inside and outside government that evidence should play a substantial role in policy development – including from service users, delivery professionals and academic researchers.
This has been driven by a number of factors including the large increase in the number of organizations trying to influence government with evidence, such as professional bodies, think tanks (such as the <a href="http://www.google.ca/">Mowat Centre</a> in Ontario) and university researchers. There has also been a proliferation of social science knowledge which is more aligned with policy priorities.
On the surface, governments have responded positively. Ontario’s Ministry of Health is promoting <a href="http://health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/ecfa/default.aspx/initiatives/funding.aspx">evidence based approaches to health care</a>. The <a href="http://www.horizons.gc.ca/eng/content/case-evidence-based-policy">federal government</a> has also endorsed the importance of evidence in policy making. Evidence also figured significantly in the UK’s “Modernizing Government” initiative which has been supported by three consecutive prime ministers.
Governments’ enthusiasm for more rigour and evidence in policy making reflects the rapidly changing and more complex character of the issues facing political leaders and the pressure they are feeling to deliver results.
Academic researchers such as <a href="http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=qjrb0uo04pqc&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=pr5&amp;dq=evidence+based+policy&amp;ots=tcysdyoab-&amp;sig=zwng5exkyx7nxplcnsqnnzmgary">Sandra Nutley</a> of the University of Edinburgh Business School note this might lead to speculation we are entering an era of a “scientifically guided society”.  A good many public policy professionals might also wish this was the case.
Nutley is part of a growing community of writers on evidence based policy. She is practical in her observation that policy making, with its multiple lenses and interests, is always more chaotic and political than “evidence” implies.
Empirical research is obviously only one of a number of inputs in the policy process: Political leaders are motivated by many factors; the availability of funding is a key variable; the knowledge of professionals in the field and the views of well-organized stakeholders play a large role too, not to mention personal relationships and party agendas.
From an evidence based perspective, taking into account where additional electrical power is needed, system reliability and costs, Mississauga and Oakville were by far the best locations for new gas-powered electricity plants. But that was outweighed by organized citizen opposition and fierce campaigning by the New Democratic Party and Progressive Conservatives in the months leading up to a provincial election. Turbulent files such as these are the most likely candidates for the politicization of evidence.
Important also is the relationship between producers and users of research. There is widespread agreement the research and policy-making communities have lots of room to work with each other more effectively. Research should be more attuned to major policy challenges and opportunities; and more thought needs to be given to how it is shared and communicated to policy makers.
At the other end, policy makers must be increasingly skilled in locating, interpreting and applying research to inform policy and practice – and in building relationships with key researchers and institutions.
Academic researchers point out that in view of the complex and non-linear nature of most policy processes, it is probably sensible for policy makers to think of the ebb and flow of evidence more as guidance to policy and practice.
“Evidence influenced” policy or political decision making that is “evidence aware” might be the best that can be hoped for.
Those who have been around policy-making long enough will understand this. They will have seen the perfect alignment of good evidence, creative policy-making and smart political leadership result in great outcomes. But they will also have seen the darker side of the policy process, which is often compared to making low-end sausages.
&nbsp;

Evidence based policy meets realpolitik

Read this for free.