From Describing Problems to Solving Them: Communicating a Geographic Approach to Federal Evidence-Based Policymaking

Geography articles often end with a statement asserting that "these results will be of interest to policymakers." The impact geographic research has on federal public policy remains unclear, however, even though the United States has in recent decades sought to apply empirical evidence to guide decision-making. Instead, much of the research policymakers rely on is produced by economists and other social scientists not trained in geography. The prominence of these fields in the policy process has contributed to the privileging of particular forms of evidence that often fail to account for how policies might work differently across geographic contexts; for example, the use of randomized control trials (RCTs) designed to test the efficacy of a policy in specific places or meta-analyses of RCTs that presume a single common distribution of policy effects. Although the value in bringing a geographic perspective on evidence might be obvious to geographers, the discipline has struggled to develop clear and concise messaging that resonates across the policy community. We consider how geographers might develop compelling messages aimed at the policy community and look for points of entry within the existing federal policy landscape. We focus on federal program evaluation and the need for evidence on how policy impacts vary across places. Stated simply, we believe an effective communication strategy requires shifting emphasis away from assessing "what works" to determining "what works where." To craft and convey this message, geographers must familiarize themselves with the federal policy evaluation process and cultivate new modes and channels of communication.