Discover how local government leaders move beyond ad hoc evaluations to embed research, data, and evidence into everyday budget decisions. Listen in to gain practical insights on building internal capacity, fostering cross-departmental partnerships, and creating the political will needed to make evidence-informed budgeting a lasting reality.
Featured Speakers:
Ricardo Basurto Davila, Chief Evaluation Officer, County of San Diego, CA
Ryan Flynn, Civic Design Researcher, The Lab @ DC
Jen Tolentino, Director, Local Practice, Results for America
Sam Quinney, Director, Yale for Connecticut Initiative, Tobin Center for Economic Policy
Partner with LEO
The Evidence Matters series is sponsored on ThinkND by the Wilson Sheehan Lab for Economic Opportunities (LEO). Poverty is stubborn and requires the utmost collaboration of thought and action to drive change. People of goodwill must bring their unique strengths and positions together to solve this problem. At LEO, we believe knowledge has to be combined with action. But poverty can’t be solved by just one person, or even one sector. That’s why we bring together innovative social service provider partners, top-tier academics, philanthropists, policymakers, and others to tackle poverty.
Change is possible. And with your action, we can get one step closer to reducing poverty in our country, together.
The central thesis of the “Evidence Matters” conversation is the strategic evolution of the budget from a tool of “compliance” to a “culture of learning.” In traditional settings, budgeting is often a defensive exercise focused on justifying costs and meeting rigid benchmarks. However, the panelists argue that by embedding evidence into the fiscal cycle, local governments can move away from mere oversight and toward a proactive mindset where every dollar spent serves as an opportunity to interrogate what truly works for the community.
The Problem of “Messy” Processes
Panelists Sam Quinney, Ryan Flynn, and Ricardo Basurto-Davila examine the reality of government budgeting, which is frequently described as a “black box.” In this opaque environment, decisions are often driven by historical precedent or political intuition rather than demonstrated results. The panelists seek to provide clarity by using evidence to “narrow the gap” between what officials believe will happen and the true impact on residents. By treating evidence as a tool for clarity, they transform the budget from a list of obligations into a strategic roadmap for impact.
Strategic Frameworks for Decision-Making
The discussion illustrates two distinct but complementary approaches to organizing evidence:
The District of Columbia’s Star Rating System: Utilizing “Form 2″—the District’s internal budget proposal form—the Lab at DC requires agencies to justify marginal spending through a standardized four-star rating system. While Form 2 is an internal tool, the star-rating system itself is adapted from federal standards (such as IES and Treasury). This allows budget writers to process evidence at scale across hundreds of proposals, providing a clear sense of the causal claims behind each request.
San Diego County’s “Evidence Tree”: Ricardo Basurto-Davila introduces a lifecycle-based framework. The “roots” represent the rationale (the theory of change), while the “trunk” represents implementation. Crucially, the trunk emphasizes localization—ensuring a program proven elsewhere is adapted to the specific socio-economic and policy reality of the San Diego/California context. Finally, the “branches” represent the impact (evaluative results), encouraging departments to view evidence as a growth process rather than a static checkbox.
The Human Element: Breaking Down Silos
Beyond technical forms, the panel interrogates the necessity of relationship-building. Ricardo Basurto-Davila humorously notes that there is “no romance without finance,” highlighting that evaluation offices cannot operate in isolation. In San Diego, the Office of Evaluation, Performance, and Analytics (OPA) is separate from the Chief Financial Officer (CFO). Therefore, strategic “wooing” of the budget office is essential to break down silos. This collaboration prevents evidence from being viewed as a “gotcha” tactic by auditors and instead positions data as a way to make an agency’s case stronger.
Equity as Data: Standardizing Values
A critical component of modern budgeting is the integration of racial equity. The District of Columbia illustrates a standardized approach to qualitative values by placing racial equity assessments directly alongside evidence ratings. Notably, the Office of Racial Equity uses a similar four-star score to rate proposals based on community consultation and disaggregated data. By utilizing this dual-rating system (Equity Stars and Evidence Stars), DC ensures that decision-makers consider not just “what works,” but “for whom it works,” addressing systemic inequities at the point of investment.
By adopting these frameworks, jurisdictions can begin mitigating the political and operational risks inherent in budget reform.
How can evidence help us prioritize when we are facing limited resources and high needs?Evidence provides a structured approach to tease out what actually yields results. Since governments do not have a “crystal ball,” evidence acts as the next best thing; it narrows the scope of uncertainty and ensures that limited funds are directed toward the path of highest impact.
How do we get started with this work without it becoming too burdensome for our departments?Start small and leverage existing resources, such as the Results for America (RFA) “budgeting sprint.” San Diego used this five-week structured environment to build a common language with the finance department and craft initial goals. The key is to pick one specific point in the budget cycle to begin rather than attempting to overhaul the entire process at once.
What is the role of evidence when the economy is tight and no “extra” dollars are available?Budgeting is fundamentally about trade-offs. Even when there is no new revenue, evidence helps leaders analyze the “marginal dollar” and the opportunity costs within an agency. It allows officials to interrogate whether current spending is achieving its true impact or if funds should be reallocated to more effective, proven models.
How should we handle evidence that comes from a different city or a different population?Practitioners must be “humble and circumspect” regarding generalizability. While data from other contexts is a useful starting point, it should inform rather than dictate. San Diego’s “Evidence Tree” addresses this by explicitly focusing on “implementation evidence,” asking if a program that worked elsewhere makes sense within the specific social and economic context of the local community.
How do we prevent agencies from seeing evidence as a “gotcha” moment?Make evidence “conversational.” Instead of a “thumbs up or thumbs down” from an auditor, the process should be an invitation for dialogue. If a program has a low evidence rating, it serves as an opportunity for the evaluation office to partner with that agency to build the necessary evidence base through better design and testing.
“When you incorporate more evidence into budgeting, it gives you a better chance to kind of narrow in on the scope of what may happen… and be really certain that of the things that you can do, you’re going to have the best path to impact.” — Sam Quinney
“We speak about randomized control trials, statistical significance, theory of change… but there’s no romance without finance. There’s no way that [an evaluation office] can take this on on our own if we don’t involve the budget folks.” — Ricardo Basurto-Davila
“We’ve been increasingly focused on designing processes that help build the muscle for evidence-based decision-making in the budget and beyond… creating the expectation that evidence be brought to the table.” — Ryan Flynn
“Evidence matters… it is meant to be a tool to help guide decision-making to narrow the gap between what we know and what we really want to be achieving.” — Jen Tolentino
“Evidence is like a tree; it all starts with the strong roots, the foundation of evidence is having a good rationale… then let’s look at the implementation… and then of course we have the impact.” — Ricardo Basurto-Davila
