# Presentation: 797690

## The Diffusion of Research EvidenceThe Maryland Experience Richard LarsonMaryland Department of Human Resources   

## In beginning, note 

**How research affects policy development and operations**
**Depends on the**
**Issue**
**Time available**
**Amount of research available on the topic**** **

## In Maryland 

**We have used research to design policy and operations **
**But also have researched policy options that were taken **
**on anecdotal evidence and/or the political process **
**to confirm or modify them   **

## Example #1

** ****Early 1990's**
**Welfare Policy Commission **
**in itself an idea borrowed from ****Alabama’s waiver**** evaluation **
**Consortium of three universities**
**University of Baltimore**
**Morgan State University**
**University of Maryland, School of Social Work**

## Example #1 

**Goal was to provide the Commission with research information on specific topics**
**Welfare Avoidance grants **
**based on a local problem statement**
**shaped by the results emerging from a Utah experiment**
**Emphasis on completing high school **
**based on a literature review relative effectiveness of having a GED vs. a Diploma on earnings**
**Design (and cost models) of the entire front end based on our study of first-time welfare recipients**

##  Example #2 

**Approaching the 5 year TANF limit **
**trying to decide to whom we would grant an exemption**
**We put together a study of cases approaching the limit**
**3,179 records of 3,983 approaching the limit**** **
**trying to tease out characteristics that would clearly justify an exemption **** **
**Found no “magic bullet”**
**Used her research **
**to develop a legislative change to let the Department decide on the basis of the case assessment and adherence to the service plan**
**whether or not to grant a hardship**** ****exemption **

## Example#3 -DRA changes 

**Study of the characteristics of those in our Separate State Programs who would now being going into the denominator of the WPR**
**policy and research went along side by side**
**Cathy Born’s work in progress informing **
**how we were approaching these groups  **
**what we were planning to do with these groups  **
**  **

## Example #3 -DRA changes

**At our legislative welfare reform oversight committee, we presented **
**Our policy choices with regard to these groups **
**AND **
**her report on these groups**
**As a result, the legislature released $1 million they were holding back pending a satisfactory report**

## Example #4

**Our Full Family Sanction policy was one of the most debated issues in the development of our program  **
**The most convincing case for it actually came from testimony from line staff at a public hearing of the Commission  **
**Later, UMAB/SSW did a study of it     **

## Example #4 - Found 79% - Of these

**Working - 36%**
**Back on cash assistance - 24%**
**Food Stamps - 34%**
**Medical Assistance only - 2%**
**Other (e.g. left state) - 4%**
**Confirmed to stakeholders it was doing what it was designed to do  **

## Key elements to having research inform policy 

**Have a robust research capacity that knows **
**the state's business **
**the states data **
**That the state can tap into**
**That is believed to be true by policymakers **

## THE  END

**To review the work we have done together**
**http://www.familywelfare.umaryland.edu**