The GAO report "Evidence-Based Policymaking: Agencies Need Additional Guidance to Assess Their Capacity" presents a detailed overview of the problems and opportunities that federal agencies face when developing and applying evidence to inform policy. The paper focuses on the provisions of the 2018 Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act (Evidence Act), which requires federal agencies to evaluate their evidence-building activities and capability on a regular basis. This blog post will review the important themes of the GAO report, emphasizing the consequences for federal government contractors and providing possibilities for them to align their operations with changing federal requirements.

According to the GAO research, federal agencies are at various levels in their ability to generate and use evidence, which is crucial for decision-making and effective policy implementation. Evidence-building includes gathering data and insights through performance assessment, program evaluations, and other types of analysis to aid the federal government's decision-making processes. The GAO's findings show that, while many agencies have made progress in developing this capacity, there are major gaps and discrepancies in their approaches. Understanding these gaps allows government contractors to modify their services and products to better meet the changing needs of federal agencies.

One of the report's primary themes is the variety in how organizations structure their evidence-building activities. Some agencies have taken a centralized approach, establishing specialized offices for evaluation and analysis, whereas others have taken a more decentralized approach, with particular programs or departments managing their own evidence-building. This difference has resulted in inconsistencies in the quality and scope of the evidence presented. This emphasizes that federal contractors should provide adaptable solutions that may be tailored to various organizational structures and needs. Contractors might create specialized tools or offer consultancy services to help agencies expedite their evidence-building procedures, assuring uniformity and quality across departments.

The GAO study also addresses issues about the quality and utility of evidence generated by federal agencies. Quality concerns are frequently caused by a lack of defined techniques and inconsistent application of evidence in decision-making processes. Federal agencies identified both strengths and areas for improvement in assuring the rigor and appropriateness of their evidence-gathering techniques. For example, some agencies have strong rules and practices in place to ensure high-quality evidence, which are backed by competent people and external collaborations. Others, however, lack consistent processes or appropriate experience, resulting in diversity in the reliability and utility of the evidence they generate. This opens up a clear potential for government contractors to provide training, tools, and approaches that improve the quality of evidence-building efforts within agencies. Contractors can help federal agencies better fulfill their policy goals by establishing themselves as partners in improving evidence quality.

Another key issue raised in the GAO report is the independence of evidence-building efforts. Independence is critical for ensuring that evidence is free of prejudice and inappropriate influence, especially in program evaluations and other sensitive assessments. Some agencies have robust protocols in place to ensure independence, such as external evaluations or defined lines of authority inside the organization. Others, however, have seen chances to improve independence through improved oversight and more transparent procedures. Federal contractors can help agencies design frameworks and standards to strengthen the independence of their evidence-building efforts, or they can provide independent assessment services. This could include offering third-party reviews or audits to assist agencies in demonstrating the objectivity and impartiality of their evidence.

The paper also underlines the significance of effective evidence dissemination and application. Agencies must ensure that the evidence they provide is not only of high quality, but also effectively conveyed and incorporated into decision-making procedures. The GAO discovered that certain agencies have successfully incorporated evidence into their strategic planning and program management, allowing it to inform policy decisions and improve outcomes. Others have struggled with diffusion, owing to a lack of clear strategies for disseminating information to stakeholders or incorporating it into current decision-making frameworks. For federal contractors, this gives an opportunity to help agencies establish stronger communication and dissemination strategies. This could include providing digital data visualization tools, developing knowledge-sharing platforms, or offering evidence-based decision-making training.

Finally, the GAO study highlights the need for further guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to assist agencies in improving their capacity evaluations. Agencies expressed difficulties in comprehending OMB recommendations and the appropriate ways to perform their assessments. This lack of clarity has resulted in variances in how agencies conduct and communicate capacity assessments, making it impossible to compare results across agencies. The GAO proposes that OMB use the Evaluation Officer Council to identify new guidance requirements, as well as document and communicate assessment method lessons gained. This growing ecosystem of advice and standards provides an opportunity for federal contractors to provide compliance expertise and support, as well as best practices for evidence-building and capacity assessment.