In 2017, I read the book Moneyball for the first time and was awestruck. My brother had got it for me as a Christmas present and I could not believe how closely the book dovetailed with the work I was doing as a graduate public policy student at the time.
If you’re not familiar with this book, Moneyball is the story about how the Oakland A’s used data analytics to turn one of the least-resourced baseball programs in the MLB into one of the most competitive on the field. Rather than scouting people based on how tall or fast they were, the A’s used insights from statistics to create algorithms to pick up athletes who were good at getting walks and on base: the fundamentals of advancing runners and winning the game of baseball.
Basically, they found a way to get the best win percentage bang for their salary buck.
As I read this book, I pondered why people hadn’t applied these insights to public policy problems. I knew there was low-hanging policy fruit–policies that are cheap but not sexy that can grow our economy, reduce poverty and inequality, and help people live better lives. Why aren’t they getting attention?
I was happy to find that I wasn’t alone. A group called Results for America publishes their own version of Moneyball going by the straightforward title of Moneyball for Government. The book is a series of essays by officials from both the Bush and Obama administrations about how to make government and its programs more evidence-based.
I was especially drawn to the Afterward, co-written by Obama Administration Office of Management and Budget Director Robert Gordon and former Senior Advisor to President Bush for Welfare Policy Ron Haskins. The chapter is called “A Bipartisan Moneyball Agenda” and includes concrete steps to making the federal government more evidence-based.
We can take some of the suggestions they make and use them to create an agenda for “moneyballing” state government. Below are some suggestions I have for state governments that want to do this.
1. Appoint a Chief Evaluation Officer
If evaluation is going to be a big part of state government, someone needs to be in charge of it, and should be close to the governor or at worst, the governor’s chief budget officer. A chief evaluation officer can provide expert advice to senior executives on how to integrate research into decision making. This can spur appointment of evaluation officers in major agencies as well. By elevating evaluation to the senior level of leadership, it will instill evaluation as an important aspect of how state government policymaking is conducted.
2. Set aside at least 1 percent of each agency’s discretionary funding for evaluation
Agencies should have authority to direct a minimum of 1 percent of their total funds to program evaluation. This authority will help agencies ensure that they do not miss important learning opportunities when they arise. It will also allow agencies to pilot programs, see if they work, and adjust them or eliminate them to free up funding for more promising programs as they arise.
3. Create a comprehensive, easy-to-use database of state program evaluation results available to the public
Putting all evaluations of state programs online can promote transparency and accountability, inform better decision making, and signal to researchers the importance of using rigorous research and evaluation designs.
4. Institute comprehensive cost-benefit analysis and equity analysis in regulatory and legislative research analyses.
Regulatory agency review and legislative research offices are the most trusted sources of information for regulators and legislators respectively in crafting policy for the state. Encouraging regulatory and legislative research analysts to quantify and monetize benefits as well as costs of regulation and legislation will give policymakers more information and help them craft policy that is more effective, efficient, and equitable.
Those are just four examples, but if instituted in state governments across the country, they could have a big impact on adoption of policy that works and provides a good return on public investment. As policy chair for the Ohio Program Evaluators’ Group, I am currently working to promote these sorts of initiatives in Ohio’s state government. I hope more people will push for similar reforms in state governments across the country.