Factors associated with congressional staff use of evaluation research

Research utilization has been a topic of concern for some time among members of the evaluation community. Most researchers would like to see meaningful application of their efforts, but many feel that evaluation findings are too often ignored in the public policy process. This research was undertaken to investigate one aspect of this multidimensional issue. In particular, the study explored relationships between the use of evaluation research in the legislative setting and a group of factors commonly cited in the relevant literature as influences. The study focused on the health policy area, and data were collected via telephone interviews with 100 congressional staff members, both personal and committee, who were identified as consistently dealing with health or health-related issues. Information obtained in this research was based both on specific evaluation studies identified by respondents and on other studies that were pre-selected and offered to participants for consideration. The data suggest that congressional staff use evaluation studies which they perceive to be methodologically credible, relevant to their work, timely, and clearly presented. The studies they use are performed by researchers whom they consider to be reputable, and communication between the producers and users of evaluation appears to enhance utilization. The existence of an advocate--that is, a key individual or group who supports the study and helps to make it known--is another positive influence on use. A direct and positive relationship between use and the amount of conflict surrounding an evaluation is also demonstrated. An additional finding of interest from this research is that, of the 83 evaluation studies identified by respondents, 59 were products of the General Accounting Office (GAO). Although GAO studies were identified more frequently, however, respondents did not indicate they were used any more extensively than other studies.