Trends and Opportunities for Bridging Prevention Science and US Federal Policy
Tóm tắt
Prevention science sheds light on complex social policy problems, yet its social impact cannot reach full potential without the uptake of research evidence by policymakers. This mixed-methods study examined the US federal legislation pertaining to justice-involved youth to reveal opportunities for strengthening the use of prevention science in legislation. The results indicated that research language, particularly references to the type of study (e.g., longitudinal) or methodology (e.g., data mining), within bills predicted bill progression out of committee and enactment. Rigorous scientific methods may either lend credence to a bill during its progression in the legislative process or may be infused in language during mark-up and negotiation of bills that successfully progress in Congress. In-depth bill coding illustrated the ways that research has been used in legislation to define problems, reinforce effective practice, generate knowledge through research and evaluation, and disseminate findings. A prominent implication of these findings is that policies could be used to improve data monitoring and evaluation capacity in ways that enhance the implementation of evidence-based interventions. The comprehensive use of research in legislation increases the likelihood that policies reach their intended outcomes and benefit those they are designed to serve.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Abrams, D., Rutland, A., Ferrell, J. M., & Pelletier, J. (2008). Children’s judgments of disloyal and immoral peer behavior: Subjective group dynamics in minimal intergroup contexts. Child Development, 79, 444–461.
Arredondo, D. E. (2003). Child development, children’s mental health and the juvenile justice system: Principles for effective decision-making. Stan. l. & Pol’y Rev., 14, 13.
Boaz, A., & Davies, H. (2019). What works now?: Evidence-informed policy and practice. Policy Press.
Bogenschneider, K., & Corbett, T. (2021). Evidence-based policymaking: Envisioning a new era of theory, research, and practice. Routledge.
Bouffard, J. A., & Bergseth, K. J. (2008). The impact of reentry services on juvenile offenders’ recidivism. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 6, 295–318.
Burgess, M., Giraudy, E., Katz-Samuels, J., Walsh, J., Willis, D., Haynes, L., & Ghani, R. (2016). The legislative influence detector: Finding text reuse in state legislation. KDD, 57–66.
Butts, J. A., & Mears, D. P. (2001). Reviving juvenile justice in a get-tough era. Youth & Society, 33, 169–198.
Commission on Evidence-based Policymaking. (2017). The promise of evidence-based policymaking.
Council, N. R. (2013). Reforming juvenile justice: A developmental approach. National Academies Press.
Council of State Governments Justice Center. (2013, November). Reentry matters: Strategies and successes of Second Chance Act grantees across the United States. Council of State Governments Justice Center. Retrieved from: https://csgjusticecenter.org/publications/reentry-matters-strategies-and-successes-of-second-chance-act-grantees-across-the-united-states/
Crowley, D. M., Scott, J. T., Long, E. C., Green, L., Israel, A., Supplee, L., Jordan, E., Oliver, K., Guillot-Wright, S., Gay, B., Storace, R., Torres-Mackie, N., Murphy, Y., Donnay, S., Reardanz, J., Smith, R., McGuire, K., Baker, E., & Antonopoulos, A., … Giray, C. (2021). Lawmakers’ use of scientific evidence can be improved. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2012955118
DuMont K. (2015). Leveraging knowledge: Taking stock of the William T. Grant Foundation’s Use of Research Evidence Grants Portfolio. William T. Grant Foundation.
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62, 107–115.
Fagan, A. A., Bumbarger, B. K., Barth, R. P., Bradshaw, C. P., Cooper, B. R., Supplee, L. H., & Walker, D. K. (2019). Scaling up evidence-based interventions in US public systems to prevent behavioral health problems: Challenges and opportunities. Prevention Science, 20, 1147–1168.
Fernandes, M., Scott, T., Long, E., Pugel, J., Cruz, K., Giray, C., & Crowley, M. (2021, June). Rapport Building communications for optimizing science dissemination. Symposium award for Abstract of Distinction at the annual meeting for the Society for Prevention Research.
Finklea, K. (2016). Juvenile justice funding trends. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service.
Gramlich, J. (2018). American’s incarceration rate is at a two-decade low. Pew Research Center.
Grimmer, J., & Stewart, B. M. (2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 21, 267–297.
Haskins, R., & Margolis, G. (2014). Show me the evidence: Obama’s fight for rigor and results in social policy. Brookings Institution Press.
Haskins, R., & Margolis, G. (2015). Show me the evidence: Obama’s fight for rigor and evidence in social policy. Brookings Institution Press.
Jansa, J. M., Hansen, E. R., & Gray, V. H. (2015). Copy and paste lawmaking: The diffusion of policy language across american state legislatures. Working Paper, Department of Political Science University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Li, W. W. P. L. (2016). Language technologies for understanding law, politics, and public policy. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Long, E. C., Pugel, J., Scott, J. T., Charlot, N., Giray, C., Fernandes, M. A., & Crowley, D. M. (2021). Rapid-cycle experimentation with state and federal policymakers for optimizing the reach of racial equity research. American Journal of Public Health, 111, 1768–1771.
Markham, A. (2018). A review following systematic principles of multisystemic therapy for antisocial behavior in adolescents aged 10–17 years. Adolescent Research Review, 3, 67–93.
Meyers, D. C., Durlak, J. A., & Wandersman, A. (2012). The quality implementation framework: A synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50, 462–480.
Nutley, S. M., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services. Policy press.
OJJDP. (2017). Model Programs Guide Literature Review: Juvenile Reentry | Office of Justice Programs. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/model-programs-guide-literature-review-juvenile-reentry
Oliver, K., Innvar, S., Lorenc, T., Woodman, J., & Thomas, J. (2014a). A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Services Research, 14, 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-2
Oliver, K., Lorenc, T., & Innvær, S. (2014b). Critical analysis... Health Research Policy and Systems, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-12-34
Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Henry, G. T. (2018). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Sage publications.
Scott, J. T., Ingram, A. M., Nemer, S. M., & Crowley, D. M. (2019). Evidence-based human trafficking policy: Opportunities to invest in trauma-informed strategies. American Journal of Community Psychology, 64, 348–358.
Scott, T., Collier, K., Pugel, J., O’Neill, P., Long, E., Fernandes, M., Cruz, K., Giray, C., & Crowley, M. (under review). In the midst of misinformation: An experiment about improving policymakers’ use of research. Submitted to PNAS.
Scott, T., Giray, C., & Crowley, M. (2020). Testing science communication strategies among legislators in the era of COVID-19.
Seigle, E., Walsh, N., & Weber, J. (2014). Core principles for reducing recidivism and improving other outcomes for youth in the juvenile justice system. Council of State Governments.
Shapiro, R. (2009). Bills of the 110th Congressional Session. Sunlight Foundation. https://sunlightfoundation.com/2009/05/26/bills-110th-congressional-session/
Sparks, S. D. (2018). Teaching—And reaching—students behind bars. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/teaching-and-reaching-students-behind-bars/2018/03
Tolan, P. H. (2019). Scaling up evidence-based interventions within the US public health market. Prevention Science, 20, 1169–1172.
Wandersman, A. (2020). An organizational readiness lens for implementing the risk-need-responsivity model. Federal Probation, 84, 23–26.
Wandersman, A., Alia, K., Cook, B. S., Hsu, L. L., & Ramaswamy, R. (2016). Evidence-based interventions are necessary but not sufficient for achieving outcomes in each setting in a complex world: Empowerment evaluation, getting to outcomes, and demonstrating accountability. American Journal of Evaluation, 37, 544–561.
Weaver, C., & DeRosier, M. E. (2019). Commentary on scaling-up evidence-based interventions in public systems. Prevention Science, 20, 1178–1188.
Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39, 426–431.
Yanovitzky, I., & Weber, M. (2020). Analysing use of evidence in public policymaking processes: A theory-grounded content analysis methodology. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 16, 65–82.
Zane, S. N., & Welsh, B. C. (2018). Toward an “age of imposed use”? Evidence-based crime policy in a law and social science context. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 29, 280–300.