The one question every legislator should be asking this session

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Minnesota legislators have a mighty challenge in front of them this session: how to address a looming $5 billion gap on the horizon. Their decisions will tangibly affect every person in our state.

Legislators often base their decisions on metrics like spending levels and the number of people served. However, even when combined with promising ideas and good intentions, these measures fall short. To navigate the challenges ahead, lawmakers must prioritize one critical question in every hearing, floor session and hallway conversation: Are people better off because of this program?

This question cuts through political noise and orients the work around impact. Too often, advocates of an intervention focus on inputs and outputs. If someone were treading in the icy waters of Lake Superior, rescuers would not scatter lumber and rope around the lake, hoping it helps; they would deliver a life raft. Legislators must similarly deliver outcomes by making results an expectation, not an ambition.

How can legislators ensure that the “better off” question permeates their work this session?

To help, my organization, Results for America — a national nonpartisan nonprofit — identified five steps that budget builders across the country and the political spectrum have used to deliver better outcomes for their residents. Twelve states are implementing at least one. For example, legislative branches in New Mexico and Mississippi have developed clear definitions of what “evidence” means and have added evidence indicators to their budget documents.

Minnesota’s executive branch already does four of five steps: Define what qualifies as “evidence,” collect evidence information, and report this information before and after the legislative session. But the Legislature needs to adopt this approach to ensure that all authorized dollars have been considered for impact.

This isn’t as wonky and disconnected as it may sound. Take Reading Corps, a Minnesota-born program that pairs AmeriCorps members with students for regular, short, focused phonics sessions during the school day — elements that research says are crucial for success. For the last two decades, legislators could have funded any program that might help young readers, but they made an intentional choice to invest in a proven approach. The result? Independent studies show Reading Corps improved literacy outcomes for thousands of Minnesota kids compared with business as usual.

Once legislators have the “better off” information, they could modify statute to incentivize evidence in grant programs. A few years ago — at the Legislature’s direction — the state found only 6% of grant funds at the Department of Human Services were spent on an intervention with a proven track record of success. While policymakers have been appropriately focused on compliance and fraud recently, notably absent from these conversations is the top-line question: Are people better off because of these investments?

Legislators have the authority and responsibility to identify what works and drive state resources to these strategies. Information on “what works” is available on general and topic-specific websites (like education, aging/long-term care and tax programs).

Tennessee’s Legislature recently demonstrated how embedding evidence can improve outcomes. Lawmakers required core components of effective summer learning programs. A rigorous evaluation later found participants scored higher in reading and attended school more consistently than non-participants. Tennessee used research as a guide and the students are better off because of it. Oregon takes another approach: It requires that 75% of programming at a few agencies be evidence-based. Based on the free technical assistance we provide to states, making these kinds of changes is not difficult.

Where evidence does not yet exist, legislators should not shy away from building it. From state research teams to external academic and philanthropic experts, there is support for generating evidence where it’s missing. By demanding rigorous, comparative research, lawmakers can ensure they’re investing in solutions that work.

This session the challenge is clear, but fortunately the path forward is, too. Legislators have the authority — and the responsibility — to ask for results. So, as hearings begin on potential changes to revenue and spending efforts that will balance the budget, one question should guide every choice: Are people better off because of this program?

Patrick Carter is vice president and state practice lead at Results for America, a national nonpartisan nonprofit that helps advance evidence-based policymaking. Previously, he worked in a variety of nonpartisan roles with the state of Minnesota. He lives in St. Paul.