The Power of Learning Agendas

Available on-demand

Unlock the blueprint for modern governance in this collaborative breakthrough featuring King County and Notre Dame’s Lab for Economic Opportunities (LEO). Learn how Learning Agendas transform evidence into equity-driven results. This recording is the essential toolkit for leaders seeking to accelerate organizational impact through community-centered policy evaluation.

Featured Speakers:

Diana Epstein, Evidence Team Lead, Office of Management and Budget
Keith Fudge, Senior Policy Program Manager, Urban Institute
Dr. Calvin Johnson, Deputy Assistant Secretary, HUD
Vincent Quan, Director of Strategic Partnerships and Innovation, JPAL North America
Dr. Eva Wong, Senior Maternal and Child Health Epidemiologist, Public Health—Seattle & King County

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.

Your job is to act. What will you do?

For more information, please visit LEO’s website.

Transforming Policy through Strategic Learning

The “Evidence Matters” series, a collaborative initiative between King County and the Wilson Sheehan Lab for Economic Opportunities (LEO) at Notre Dame, has established a vital community of practice for evidence-based policy. In this fourth installment, elite practitioners explore the “Learning Agenda”—a framework that has evolved from a niche bureaucratic exercise into a primary catalyst for organizational acceleration. By prioritizing research questions that align with strategic goals, these agendas move agencies away from ad hoc data collection toward a disciplined, equity-forward approach to governance.

Defining the Learning Agenda

Keith Fudge of the Urban Institute frames the learning agenda as a living process rather than a static document. It is a prioritized cycle of research questions and activities designed to identify evidence gaps and inform decision-making. The process follows a rigorous loop: internal and external engagement, a systematic review of existing knowledge, the identification of data gaps, and the prioritization of research activities.

The “So What?” Layer: Treating the agenda as a process is transformative. It shifts an organization’s internal culture from “box-checking” compliance to a learning-centered environment. This methodology encourages staff to engage with data, fostering an atmosphere where innovation is driven by evidence rather than institutional inertia.

The Federal Perspective: Framework vs. Tactics

The federal landscape has been reshaped by the Evidence Act of 2018, yet implementation varies by agency mission. Diana Epstein (OMB) details how OMB provides the overarching framework for this new paradigm, breaking down silos between data, budget, and program offices to institutionalize evidence-building as a mission-critical function. This is exemplified by the “Analytics for Equity” program—a milestone partnership between the NSF, OSTP, and OMB that directs targeted funding to external researchers to answer federal equity questions.

In contrast, Dr. Calvin Johnson (HUD) demonstrates how HUD uses its “Research Roadmap” as a tactical weapon for congressional negotiations. By identifying high-priority gaps, HUD utilizes its learning agenda to justify appropriations, ensuring that research is not just an academic exercise but a tool for securing the resources necessary to refine programs like rapid rehousing.

Local Innovation and the Infrastructure of Evidence

At the local level, the focus shifts to granular, community-centric engagement. Vincent Quan (JPAL North America) discusses the value of cross-jurisdictional agendas that identify common patterns in poverty alleviation. Dr. Eva Wong (Public Health—Seattle & King County) introduces the “Day Minus One” philosophy, emphasizing capacity building long before research begins. Notably, King County’s Best Starts for Kids initiative includes a 5% set-aside for data and evaluation, a critical investment that funds the infrastructure of evidence.

The “So What?” Layer: This local focus on qualitative data and storytelling addresses critical gaps in administrative datasets. By valuing lived experience and funding community capacity, local governments can serve populations—such as tribal communities or individuals with disabilities—who are often rendered invisible by traditional quantitative metrics.

The transition from broad federal frameworks to specific local interventions demonstrates that learning agendas are the essential link between high-level policy goals and real-world community impact.

• Learning Agendas are Iterative Cycles, Not Static Mandates: A learning agenda must evolve through a continuous cycle of engagement and application to prevent research from becoming obsolete.

◦ The “So What?” Layer: In a competitive landscape, organizations that utilize feedback loops can pivot resources more effectively, ensuring institutional longevity by remaining responsive to real-time data.

• Strategic Alignment Acts as a Political Firewall: Embedding research questions into the agency’s strategic plan ties evidence-building directly to the mission and budget.

◦ The “So What?” Layer: This alignment ensures that programs survive political or leadership transitions. By positioning data as a tool for mission success rather than optional overhead, agencies secure long-term resource stability.

• Collaborative Engagement Mitigates Extractive Research Practices: Meaningful consultation requires engaging communities early and, crucially, compensating participants for their lived experience.

◦ The “So What?” Layer: Shifting from “extractive” to “collaborative” research builds the trust necessary for high-quality data collection. This trust is a competitive advantage in achieving superior, long-term social outcomes.

• The “Day Minus One” Approach Builds Vital Infrastructure: Capacity building should start before the research begins, offering community partners the training and tools needed to participate as equals.

◦ The “So What?” Layer: Investing in the “infrastructure of evidence” among partners ensures the entire service delivery ecosystem is elevated, leading to more rigorous and reliable outcomes across all jurisdictions.

• Prioritize Operational Relevance Through “Keep You Up at Night” Questions: Agencies must focus on the most pressing challenges faced by practitioners on the ground to ensure buy-in.

◦ The “So What?” Layer: Solving immediate operational crises through evidence increases institutional buy-in from skeptical stakeholders. If research solves the practitioner’s primary pain point, it becomes an indispensable asset rather than a bureaucratic burden.

It’s a process, not just a product… the steps required to develop a learning agenda can themselves make an organization better engaged with partners and more learning centered. — Keith Fudge, Senior Policy Program Manager, Urban Institute
We do not want this to be a compliance or a reporting exercise just to check the box… that has never been the goal from the start. — Diana Epstein, Evidence Team Lead, Office of Management and Budget
[The Learning Agenda] helps us in justifying our appropriations for research… when the high priority research projects are funded and actually completed, we can then fill the research gaps in our knowledge and that translates to actual program improvement. — Dr. Calvin Johnson, Deputy Assistant Secretary, HUD
We don’t just start with [communities] thinking about data and evaluation… we start day minus one… we go out actively to share information to build capacity for groups before they’re even partners. — Dr. Eva Wong, Senior Maternal and Child Health Epidemiologist, Public Health—Seattle & King County
Collectively, if we run a lot of different evaluations at the same time and we try to advance evidence-building efforts… we can really move the field forward at a much faster pace all at once. — Vincent Quan, Co-Executive Director, JPAL North America