Evidence-based policy-making: getting more from a shrinking envelope
The phrase "getting more from a shrinking envelope", whilst committing several heinous crimesagainst mixed metaphors, does at least give a sense of the need to ensure the efficiency andefficacy of our public services during a time of spending cuts sorry, 0% increases. The phrase wasquoted recently by a consultant who works closely with a number of government departments;the importance of basing public spending on a secure evidential base was reiterated yesterday in anarticle and editorial inThe Times.Professor Jonathan Shepherd of Cardiff University, called, in thisarticle published yesterday, for a greater use of scientific evidence in thedevelopment and evaluation of public service activity, to bring servicesuch as policing and teaching closer to the health service in theirapproach. He comments that public services need to develop aresearch culture similar to that in medicine, where treatments must betested for effectiveness and value before they are adopted, but that suchan approach is lacking elsewhere. For those of us who work to suppthe use of evidence in improving policy-making, it is always good to heahigh-profile supposortrrters speaking out about this issue.However, his article raises a number of issues. As theeditorialin TheTimes responds, a balance needs to be struck between basing activity onevidence of its success, and the introduction of new and genuinelyinnovative policies. Where a policy breaks new ground, it necessarily isdifficult or impossible to evidence its likely success. It's important tomake sure that innovation is not stifled by the demand for evidence-based policy-making.A second issue relates to the evidence itself; as a surgeon and criminologist, The Times interpretsProfessor Shepherd's call to be for greater use of scientific evidence. Perhaps use of the adjective'scientific' is designed to reassure the newspaper's readership of the academic rigour on whichpolicy should be based; it isn't a term which is used by Professor Shepherd himself in the quotesgiven in the article. But the issue of what constitutes evidence, particularly outside the healthsector to which he refers, is an important one. Many of the public policies which benefit fromreview in the light of evidence, rely on evidence which is not simply 'scientific', quantitative, oreasily gathered, analysed and interpreted. It is always important to ensure that public policydecisions aren't based solely on the "we can measure this, so it must be important" scale; themore complex the problem, the more important evidence of different types becomes. Regionalobservatories often provide a useful resource for regional policy-makers in this area, introducing'softer', qualitative or anecdotal evidence to provide a fuller picture whilst at the same timebearing in mind the limitations of such evidence.Professor Shepherd uses the health sector as a comparator for policing and teaching, but anotherissue arises in terms of the timescales available against which interventions can be judged. Theideological and political pressures around policing and teaching are arguably often greater thanthose around health (political parties being happy to draft policy about teaching methods, forexample, whilst steering clear of writing policy around specific health interventions, like thearticle's example of wisdom tooth removal). Policies around policing and teaching are oftendeveloped more quickly, implemented, then reviewed and changed on a much shorter timescalethan in the health sector. This limits the evidence available, and the time that politicians and civilservants are happy to let elapse before introducing a new policy. Needless to say, the
Leave a Comment