1. Evaluation Leadership

1.1: There is a central/statewide Chief Evaluation Officer (or other staff role with similar authority)

1.2: There is a statewide evaluation team

1.3: There is a statewide evaluation governance structure (i.e., a formally established group of leaders from multiple parts of state government that contribute to decision-making on evaluation, as evidenced by a public artifact that lays out who is included and how the group plans, monitors, and enforces evaluation management policies)

Tennessee

Leading Example

Tennessee’s Office of Evidence and Impact is led by the state’s Director of Evidence and Impact. To advance Tennessee’s evidence-based budgeting efforts, the office defined five evidence steps, conducted program inventories, developed evidence reviews, and provided evidence-building technical assistance, such as guidance for prioritizing programs for evaluation funding and implementation. As part of the FY23 budget, Tennessee added a Chief Evaluation Officer position dedicated to leading the creation of agency and state learning agendas and administering new dedicated funding for program evaluations.

The Chief Evaluation Officer has overseen the development of a current state analysis of evaluation activities and capacity across Tennessee’s executive branch, the crafting of evaluation guidelines, development of a statewide learning agenda, and curriculum and materials to train agencies to develop their own learning agendas in partnership with the Office of Evidence and Impact.

Promising Examples

Alabama

A 2019 Alabama law created the Alabama Commission on the Evaluation of Services, which catalogs and evaluates public services statewide. The commission, composed of state legislators and Governor’s Office staff, determines the effectiveness of public services in order to make informed funding recommendations for state leaders.

Colorado

The Colorado Governor’s Office of State Planning and Budgeting (OSPB) and its Chief of Staff lead the use of data and evidence in the state’s budget process. The joint OSPB/Operations Office Evidence-Based Policymaking (EBP) team comprises ten members who provide guidance to state agencies and budget analysts on assessing the evidence level of programs.

Additionally, the Colorado Governor’s Office of Operations and its Director of Operations and Cabinet Affairs require agencies to develop theories of change and focus on measurable outcome metrics during annual goal setting.

In 2017, the Governor’s Office launched a government-research partnership with the Colorado Evaluation and Action Lab, housed at the University of Denver. The Lab is an entity that partners with dozens of agencies and researchers to conduct evaluations and promote evidence-based decision-making. The Lab also houses the Linked Information Network of Colorado (LINC), which integrates multiple state databases across domains.

Connecticut

Pursuant to Section 10 of PA 22-118, the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) created a Research and Evaluation unit, within the Data and Policy Analytics division, with support from American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF). The unit is responsible for coordinating evaluation and impact for investments through ARPA, working closely with state agencies, subrecipients and applied researchers and evaluators. OPM has developed an Evidence and Evaluation guide and the unit helps to develop learning agendas and evaluation plans and to coordinate access to state data resources and will focus on providing ‘hands-on’ support and guidance to recipients of funds and assist in collecting and synthesizing evidence for reporting and communications. To support future research and evaluation efforts, the unit will develop a research collaborative to improve use of data from the state longitudinal data system to inform state policy questions.

Delaware

Executive Order #4, Governor Carney’s Executive Order #4 established the Government Efficiency and Accountability Review (GEAR) to develop recommendations for increasing efficiency and effectiveness across State government, improve the strategic planning process, improve the use of metrics in resource allocation decisions and develop continuous improvement practices. The GEAR Field Team, Enterprise Services Delivery Team and P3 Task Force oversee nearly 163 projects and report project status, performance and ROI. GEAR has implemented Continuous Improvement Practitioner training for State employees (project management, LEAN and change management) with over 155 graduates. Continuous Improvement job classifications for Project Manager, Business Analyst, LEAN Analyst and Change Manager are being finalized. Through the training, projects and job classifications, GEAR is leading the building of a sustainable culture of Continuous Improvement to be more data driven with visible, repeatable, optimized processes with measurable outcomes.

Maine

The Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability (OPEGA) exists to support the Legislature in monitoring and improving the performance of State government by conducting independent, objective reviews of State programs and activities with a focus on effectiveness, efficiency, and economical use of resources. Within this context, OPEGA also evaluates compliance with laws, regulations, policies and procedures. The independence and authorities granted to OPEGA by statute provide the Legislature with a valuable supplement to policy committee oversight. 3 MRSA § 997 contains provisions that provide access to information, even confidential records, that allow a more in-depth look at government operations. This Office is run by a director and staffed by a team localized to OPEGA.

Minnesota

Minnesota Management and Budget’s Enterprise Director for Results Management serves as the state’s Chief Performance and Evaluation Officer. They partner with state agencies and lead the Results Management team to collect, analyze, share, and use data and performance measures to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of public programs and inform policy decisions affecting them. Results Management provides evaluation leadership to the state in three primary ways: coordinating data-informed interagency work; assistance to support use of evidence in practice; and conducting original impact evaluations. Results Management tracks the use of evidence in policy making over time through an annual policy maker survey and uses the findings to help inform its strategies and services. The team specializes in inventories of evidence in state programs, providing sector-specific analysis and hosting a public inventory. The team also incubates new cross-agency work to advance evaluation in the enterprise, such as the MN Story Collective.

New Mexico

The Legislative Finance Committee employs 14 evaluators who conduct program evaluations on various topics relevant to state budget and policy.

North Carolina

In 2022, the Office of State Budget and Management (OSBM) created a Chief Scientist position to provide statewide leadership and technical expertise to increase the generation and use of evidence for program and policy decision-making.

 The Chief Scientist builds capacity within the state to evaluate programs, improve performance, and achieve strategic goals using rigorous scientific methods. OSBM assists agencies in achieving operational excellence – including offering ongoing performance management training, developing strategic plans with priority questions (research agendas), conducting evidence reviews of state policies and programs, justifying budget requests with evidence, piloting innovations, planning evaluations, and facilitating research partnerships.

The state is a nationwide leader in internal audit requiring, by statute, all state agencies to have an internal audit function, including duties to “review the effectiveness and efficiency of agency and program operations and service delivery.” Additionally OSBM houses the Central Internal Audit Office as well as an independent Council of Internal Audit.

Led by a Director of Research and Evaluation, NC Department of Public Instruction’s Office of Research and Promising Practices aims to serve public schools by providing the research and support necessary to make evidence-based decisions to combat learning loss from the pandemic and accelerate learning for all students.

The NC Department of Transportation Research & Development Office performs in-house research and collaborates with external partners to better connect communities and improve transportation safety and efficiency.

The Labor & Economic Analysis Division (LEAD) within the NC Department of Commerce collects data, conducts research and analysis and publishes reports about the state’s economy and labor market.

Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Governor’s Executive Order 2023-01 established the Pennsylvania Longitudinal Data System (PALDS), headed by an Executive Director. The EO’s intent is to bring together independent data sets related to education, workforce, and human services that would allow state agencies and policy makers to: understand long-term outcomes and contribute to better informed funding and policy decisions; spend less time finding and validating disparate data sources and more time analyzing it; establish transparent, trackable goals; develop partnerships to identify key research questions, performance measures, and outcomes; align investments to effective programming; and demonstrate progress towards workforce system goals and recommendations. The EO also established a Governance Board to coordinate evaluation of policy and use of findings. The PALDS program efforts also are guided by the Director of Research for the Governor’s Office who works cross-department and cross-agency to track and identify the Administration’s impact on the Commonwealth.

Rhode Island

The Office of Management & Budget leads Rhode Island’s program evaluation function. By law, OMB conducts performance reviews and audits of executive agencies to assess whether programs achieve intended outcomes (R.I. Gen. Laws § 35-3-24.1(c)(1)) and produces analyses and recommendations to improve program performance and support evidence-based budgeting (§ 35-3-24.1(c)(4)).

According to state law, the OMB Director is charged to conduct reviews, evaluations, and assessments of program performance across state government (§ 35-1.1-3(b)(6)) and oversees the Performance Management Unit (the “performance management office” in statute) (§ 35-1.1-3(a), (b)(1)). Additionally, the Office of Internal Audit & Program Integrity (OIAPI) is established within OMB and reports to the OMB Director (§ 35-7.1-1(a)); OIAPI is responsible for providing an independent appraisal and evaluation of the effectiveness of financial and operational controls through objective analyses, evaluations, and recommendations on operations, systems, and contracted services of state government (OIA website; § 35-7.1-1(b); 35-7.1-2(a); 35-7.1-3; 35-7.1-4).

The OMB Director serves on the Rhode Island Integrated Data System (RIIDS) Governing Board (§ 42-165-5(a)(1)(iii)). Through this formal, multi-agency governance structure, with co-chairs from the Department of Administration and the Office of the Postsecondary Commissioner, Rhode Island promotes a statewide culture of program evaluation, sets policies for interagency data use, and supports evaluation services across agencies (§ 42-165-5(b)).

Utah

GOPB’s Results Management team is charged with conducting efficiency evaluations and consultations for agencies statewide. The Results Management Director oversees statewide operational excellence and evaluation efforts. GOPB works with LFA on efficiency evaluations by assessing state agency workflows, searching for opportunities to increase positive outcomes, finding and eliminating sources of waste, reducing errors, and increasing service quality. The Office of the Legislative Auditor General (OLAG) completes an independent validation by reviewing how agencies have implemented these changes. GOPB now tracks agency progress on their website, including how many agencies are implementing the suggested changes from evaluations.

In 2021, the state established the Efficiency and Performance Improvement Committee (EPIC) to guide efficiency evaluation efforts. In 2025, the Government Reform, Innovation, and Transparency (GRIT) initiative strengthened and reimagined this committee into a larger collaborative of operational excellence professionals throughout the state to build a culture that empowers employees to improve government.

Washington

Washington has the infrastructure to support program evaluation and reporting. While most states have external auditing functions, it is notable that Washington has several internal facing entities: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (legislative branch), State Auditor’s Office Performance Audit section (separately elected), and the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (nonpartisan research on behalf of the legislature) provide evaluation services. The Washington State Department of Social and Health Services’ Research and Data Analysis (RDA) division conducts evaluations for state partner agencies using a unique integrated client database. The Department of Children, Youth and Families Office of Innovation, Alignment, and Accountability, the Office of Financial Management’s Washington Data and Research Office, and the Education Research and Data Center, are other examples in addition to DSHS-RDA where executive branch agencies are staffed with substantial evaluation and analytic staff.

Wyoming

The Program Evaluation Section and the Management Audit Committee is the primary evaluative apparatus for Wyoming, evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of programs and analyzing related policy issues. The Management Audit Committee (a statutorily created committee of 11 legislators) selects programs to be evaluated. Once a topic is selected, Program Evaluation staff begin the evaluation process. The main evaluation process culminates in an evaluation report that is presented to the Committee in executive session. At that time, the Committee either releases the report to the public or requests “supplemental” research to be added or amended into the report before releasing it. Once the report is released, legislators, agencies, other officials, and the public can use the information to improve statutes, policies, and program operations.

Back to all Criteria