“Hearing from All Sides” How Legislative Testimony Influences State Level Policy-Makers in the United States

Document Type: Original Article

Authors

1 Center for Public Health Systems Science, Brown School, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA

2 Prevention Research Center, Brown School, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA

3 Division of Public Health Sciences and Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA

Abstract

Background
This paper investigates whether state legislators find testimony influential, to what extent testimony influences policy-makers’ decisions, and defines the features of testimony important in affecting policy-makers’ decisions.
 
Methods
We used a mixed method approach to analyze responses from 862 state-level legislators in the United States (U.S.). Data were collected via a phone survey from January-October, 2012. Qualitative data were analyzed using a general inductive approach and codes were designed to capture the most prevalent themes. Descriptive statistics and cross tabulations were also completed on thematic and demographic data to identify additional themes.
 
Results: Most legislators, regardless of political party and other common demographics, find testimony influential, albeit with various definitions of influence. While legislators reported that testimony influenced their awareness or encouraged them to take action like conducting additional research, only 6% reported that testimony changes their vote. Among those legislators who found testimony influential, characteristics of the presenter (e.g., credibility, knowledge of the subject) were the most important aspects of testimony. Legislators also noted several characteristics of testimony content as important, including use of credible, unbiased information and data.
 
Conclusion
Findings from this study can be used by health advocates, researchers, and individuals to fine tune the delivery of materials and messages to influence policy-makers during legislative testimony. Increasing the likelihood that information from scholars will be used by policy-makers may lead to the adoption of more health policies that are informed by scientific and practice-based evidence.

Keywords

Main Subjects


  1. Weiss C. The many meanings of research utilization. Public Adm Rev 1979; 39: 426-31. 
  2. Kingdon J. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York: Longman; 2003.
  3. Mays N, Pope C, Popay J. Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005; 10: 6-20. doi: 10.1258/1355819054308576
  4. van Kammen J, de Savigny D, Sewankambo N. Using knowledge brokering to promote evidence-based policy-making: the need for support structures. Bull World Health Org Suppl 2006; 84: 608-12. doi: 10.1590/S0042-96862006000800011
  5. Sanderson I. Evaluation, policy learning and evidence‐based policy making. Public Adm 2002; 80: 1-22. doi: 10.1111/1467-9299.00292
  6. Cohen M, March J, Olsen J. A garbage can model of organizational choice. Adm Sci Q 1972; 17: 1-25. doi: 10.2307/2392088
  7. Bundgaard U, Vrangbæk K. Reform by coincidence? explaining the policy process of structural reform in Denmark. Scan Polit Stud 2007; 30: 491-520. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00190.x   
  8. Lavis JN. A political science perspective on evidence-based decision-making. In: Lemieux-Charles L, Champagne F, editors. Using knowledge and evidence in health care: multidisciplinary perspectives. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2004. p. 70-85.
  9. Whiteman D. Communication in Congress: Members, Staff, and the Search for Information. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas; 1995.
  10. Schlozman KL, Tierney JT. Organized Interests and American Democracy: New York: Harper & Row; 1986.
  11. Baumgartner F, Leech B. Basic Interests: The Importance of Interest Groups in Political Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1998.
  12. Nownes A, Freeman P. Interest group activity in the states. J Polit 1998; 60: 86-112. doi: 10.2307/2648002
  13. Apollonio D, Bero L. Evidence and argument in policymaking: development of workplace smoking legislation. BMC Public Health 2009; 9. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-189
  14. Bero L, Montini T, Bryan-Jones K, Mangurian C. Science in regulatory policy making: case studies in the development of workplace smoking restrictions. Tob Control 2001; 10: 329-36. doi: 10.1136/tc.10.4.329  
  15. Kasniunas NT. Impact of interest group testimony on lawmaking in Congress [master's thesis].   Chicago (IL): Loyola University of Chicago; 2009. p. 247.
  16. Apollonio DE, Lopipero P, Bero LA. Participation and argument in legislative debate on smoking restrictions. Health Res Policy Syst 2007; 5: 1-36. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-5-12  
  17. Diermeier D, Feddersen T. Information and congressional hearings. Am J Pol Sci 2000; 44: 51-65. doi: 10.2307/2669292  
  18. Smith RA. Interest group influence in the US Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly 1995; 20: 89-139. 
  19. Bogenschneider K, Corbett T. Evidence-Based Policymaking. New York: Routledge; 2010.
  20. Albert M, Fretheim A, Maïga D. Factors influencing the utilization of research findings by health policy-makers in a developing country: the selection of Mali's essential medicines. Health Res Policy Syst 2007; 5. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-5-2
  21. Innvær S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A. Health policy-makers' perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy 2002; 7: 239-44. doi: 10.1258/135581902320432778
  22. Edwards H, Bryant D, Bent-Goodley T. Participation and influence in federal child welfare policymaking. J Public Child Welf 2011; 5: 145-66. doi: 10.1080/15548732.2011.566750
  23. Larsen J, Vrangbæk K, Traulsen J. Advocacy coalitions and pharmacy policy in Denmark: solid cores with fuzzy edges. Soc Sci Med 2006; 63: 212-24. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.11.045
  24. Sorian R, Baugh T. Power of information: closing the gap between research and policy. Health Aff 2002; 21: 264-73. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.21.2.264
  25. Montini T, Bero LA. Policy makers' perspectives on tobacco control advocates' roles in regulation development. Tob Control 2001; 10: 218-24. doi: 10.1136/tc.10.3.218  
  26. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). Legislator Data [Internet].  Washington DC: National Conference of State Legislatures; 2013. [cited 2014 Aug 22]. Available from: http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/legislator-data.aspx
  27. Rütten A. Evidence-based policy revisited: orientation towards the policy process and a public health policy science. Int J Public Health 2012; 57: 455-7. doi: 10.1007/s00038-011-0321-1 
  28. Van Egmond S, Bekker M, Bal R, van der Grinten T. Connecting evidence and policy: bringing researchers and policy makers together for effective evidence-based health policy in the Netherlands: a case study. Evid Policy 2011; 7: 25-39. doi: 10.1332/174426411X552981 
  29. Lupia A. Communicating science in politicized environments. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2013; 110: 14048-54. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212726110