Sandbox

Lorem ipsum dolor, sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit. Cupiditate dolor dolorem hic iste inventore. Deserunt iusto aut ea quibusdam atque!

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Accusamus, distinctio?

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit. Dolorem, iure ratione! Laboriosam nisi nulla tempore, ut quasi optio illo consequuntur iure error doloribus a eveniet ipsam quia ex dolores accusamus.

Criteria
Promising Examples
1. Strategic Goals Did the Governor have public statewide strategic goals?
Relevant Blueprint Theme:

See the Managing for Results theme in the Blueprint to learn how states can make progress in meeting this criteria.

Launched in 2019, Colorado’s Governor’s Dashboard outlines four high-priority strategic goals: tax reform and economic development, energy and renewables, health, and education and the workforce.
2. Performance Management / Continuous Improvement Did the state or any of its agencies implement a performance management system aligned with its statewide strategic goals, with clear and prioritized outcome-focused goals, program objectives, and measures; and did it consistently collect, analyze, and use data and evidence to improve outcomes, return on investment, and other indicators of performance?
Relevant Blueprint Theme:

See the Managing for Results theme in the Blueprint to learn how states can make progress in meeting this criteria.

In response to COVID-19, the state built a comprehensive public data dashboard that tracks health and economic data, including response data on hospital capacity, critical care supplies, child care, and funding.
3. Data Leadership Did the governor’s office or any state agency have a senior staff member(s) with the authority, staff, and budget to collect, analyze, share, and use high-quality administrative and survey data—consistent with strong privacy protections— to improve (or help other entities including, but not limited to, local governments and nonprofit organizations improve) federal, state, and local programs? (Example: Chief Data Officer)
Relevant Blueprint Theme:

See the Leveraging Data theme in the Blueprint to learn how states can make progress in meeting this criteria.

A 2018 Connecticut law formalized the position of Chief Data Officer within the Office of Policy and Management and created the Connecticut Data Analysis Technology Advisory Board.
4. Data Policies / Agreements Did the state or any of its agencies have data-sharing policies and data-sharing agreements—consistent with strong privacy protections—with any nonprofit organizations, academic institutions, local government agencies, and/or federal government agencies that were designed to improve outcomes for publicly funded programs, and did it make those policies and agreements publicly available? (Example: data-sharing policy, open data policy)
Relevant Blueprint Theme:

See the Leveraging Data theme in the Blueprint to learn how states can make progress in meeting this criteria.

In April 2019, Ohio’s Governor signed an executive order consolidating state data systems into the InnovateOhio Platform, which uses data as “a shared strategic asset” whose “value is multiplied when data sets are linked across programs and organizations” through data integration and management tools.
5. Data Use Did the state or any of its agencies have data systems consistent with strong privacy protections that linked multiple administrative data sets across state agencies, and did it use those systems to improve federal, state, or local programs?
Relevant Blueprint Theme:

See the Leveraging Data theme in the Blueprint to learn how states can make progress in meeting this criteria.

The Indiana Management Performance Hub (MPH), overseen by the state’s Chief Data Officer, houses the integrated Education and Workforce Development database, which brings together data from 12 state agencies, including: the Commission for Higher Education, Department of Education, Department of Health, Department of Corrections, Department of Workforce Development, and Family and Social Services Administration.
6. Evaluation Leadership Did the governor’s office or any state agency have a senior staff member(s) with the authority, staff, and budget to evaluate its major programs and inform policy decisions affecting them? (Example: Chief Evaluation Officer)
Relevant Blueprint Theme:

See the Building and Using Evidence theme in the Blueprint to learn how states can make progress in meeting this criteria.

Founded in 2019, Tennessee’s Office of Evidence and Impact is led by the state’s Director of Evidence and Impact. To propagate Tennessee’s evidence-based budgeting efforts, the Office defined four tiers of evidence, conducted program inventories, developed evidence reviews, and provided evidence-building technical assistance.
7. Evaluation Policies Did the state or any of its agencies have an evaluation policy, evaluation plan, and research/learning agenda(s), and did it publicly release the findings of all completed evaluations?
Relevant Blueprint Theme:

See the Building and Using Evidence theme in the Blueprint to learn how states can make progress in meeting this criteria.

The Kentucky Center for Statistics (KYSTATS) has a 2020-22 Research Agenda, which details four primary research areas to identify barriers to education and workforce opportunities: (1) expand data access and data use to inform equity issues; (2) evaluate outcomes and barriers for education and workforce programs over time; (3) connect supply and demand of the state’s future workforce; and (4) measure the impact of out-of-state education and workforce migration.
8. Evaluation Resources Did the state or any of its agencies invest at least 1% of program funds in evaluations?
Relevant Blueprint Theme:

See the Building and Using Evidence theme in the Blueprint to learn how states can make progress in meeting this criteria.

A 2017 law created Minnesota’s Opiate Epidemic Response grant program. The FY 2021 budget includes $300,000 for Minnesota Management and Budget to conduct experimental and quasi-experimental design impact evaluations for opiate epidemic response grant activities, which is slightly more than 1.1% of the agency’s $27 million general fund budget.
9. Outcome Data Did the state or any of its agencies report or require outcome data for its state-funded programs during their budget process?
Relevant Blueprint Theme:

See the Building and Using Evidence theme in the Blueprint to learn how states can make progress in meeting this criteria.

The 2013 Colorado State Measurement for Accountable, Responsive and Transparent Government (SMART) Act required all Colorado state agencies to submit annual performance reports to the state legislature as part of the state’s budget process.
10. Evidence Definition and Program Inventory Did the state or any of its agencies release a common evidence framework, guidelines, or standards to inform its research and funding decisions and make publicly available an inventory of state-funded programs categorized based on at least two tiers of evidence?
Relevant Blueprint Theme:

See the Building and Using Evidence theme in the Blueprint to learn how states can make progress in meeting this criteria.

A 1999 New Mexico law required all state agencies to submit annual performance-based budget requests that include outputs, outcomes, performance, and evaluation data.
11. Cost-Benefit Analysis Did the state or any of its agencies assess and make publicly available the costs and benefits of public programs?
Relevant Blueprint Theme:

See the Investing for Results theme in the Blueprint to learn how states can make progress in meeting this criteria.

A 2013 Washington State law directed the Department of Corrections, in consultation with the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP), to: (1) compile an inventory of existing programs; (2) determine whether its programs were evidence-based; (3) assess the effectiveness of its programs, including conducting a cost-benefit analysis; and (4) phase out ineffective programs and implement evidence-based programs.
12. Use of Evidence in Grant Programs Did the state or any of its agencies (1) invest at least 50% of program funds in evidence-based solutions or (2) use evidence of effectiveness when allocating funds to eligible grantees (including local governments) from its five largest competitive and noncompetitive grant programs?
Relevant Blueprint Theme:

See the Investing for Results theme in the Blueprint to learn how states can make progress in meeting this criteria.

Since 2017, the Nevada Department of Education has allocated 100% of the state’s $9.5 million in federal Title I school improvement funds to districts and schools for interventions backed by strong, moderate, or promising evidence (using the top three tiers of evidence as defined by the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)).
13. Innovation Did the state or any of its agencies have staff, policies, and processes in place that encouraged innovation to improve outcomes?
Relevant Blueprint Theme:

See the Investing for Results theme in the Blueprint to learn how states can make progress in meeting this criteria.

In 2020, California launched the California COVID Assessment Tool to identify potential COVID-19 hotspots, predict which hospitals might reach capacity, and proactively allocate resources to such hotspots.
14. Contracting for Outcomes Did the state or any of its agencies enter into performance-based contracts and/or use active contract management (frequent use of data and regular communication with providers to monitor implementation and progress) to improve outcomes for publicly funded programs?
Relevant Blueprint Theme:

See the Investing for Results theme in the Blueprint to learn how states can make progress in meeting this criteria.

Since 2015, Rhode Island’s Department of Children, Youth, and Families has worked to reform and restructure the department’s procurement.
15. Repurpose for Results Did the state or any of its agencies shift funds away from any practice, policy, or program that consistently failed to achieve desired outcomes?
Relevant Blueprint Theme:

See the Investing for Results theme in the Blueprint to learn how states can make progress in meeting this criteria.

Since 2013, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections has set performance targets for its community corrections program through performance-based contracts.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit, amet consectetur adipisicing elit. Repudiandae cumque dicta culpa quidem facilis vero laboriosam, ex suscipit maiores magnam!

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Exercitationem minus assumenda blanditiis eius unde beatae rerum dolor. Accusantium dicta sit quae quisquam, non laudantium assumenda modi molestiae reprehenderit iste repellendus quas dolore quaerat soluta eius enim, voluptatibus nihil unde explicabo, doloremque ullam saepe? Repudiandae ad neque hic quae beatae cupiditate officiis rem, exercitationem blanditiis alias voluptatum ullam, maxime est optio error nemo repellendus id reiciendis aut unde consectetur quia illum qui omnis! Perferendis rerum nemo libero provident architecto deserunt quibusdam error tenetur, repellat repellendus minus, quia temporibus! Laboriosam at ipsam eos expedita nesciunt quos, laborum quas fugit architecto perspiciatis iste? Sequi, quam reiciendis mollitia sit, ipsa numquam veritatis, corporis beatae cumque asperiores itaque rerum impedit eos. Iure ullam perferendis nihil repellat ab porro et est suscipit odit cupiditate sunt laboriosam consequuntur, vel ipsum totam sit facilis eum ducimus harum repellendus magnam amet deserunt! Eveniet est tempore earum! Suscipit, eaque omnis quasi quam amet natus rerum recusandae fugit illum voluptates ullam modi quas dicta eum officiis, cupiditate molestias ex esse assumenda corporis asperiores, magni numquam aspernatur? Vel, blanditiis enim voluptatibus nesciunt obcaecati eligendi ea rem sapiente alias error incidunt labore officiis, laborum optio voluptas animi aut nihil praesentium. Cum, odit quod?