Last November, Project Evident Senior Advisors Gabriel Rhoads, Tamar Bauer, and I joined more than 30 leaders from government, research, and policy organizations at the Evidence Matters convening, hosted by King County (Washington), the Wilson Sheehan Lab for Economic Opportunities at Notre Dame, and J-PAL North America. The gathering also marked a moment of appreciation for leadership that has helped bridge evidence, equity, and practice—as exemplified by Carrie Cihak’s work in King County.

After a year marked by political polarization, fiscal uncertainty, and growing skepticism about institutions — including research and data — it was powerful to be in a room full of people still asking the same fundamental question: How do we use evidence to deliver better, faster, lower cost, and more equitable outcomes for communities?

The convening made one thing clear: evidence still matters.

Embedding Evidence Into Decision-Making

A broad range of compelling sessions at the convening explored how evidence actually gets used in practice. A recurring theme raised – including by Sam Quinney, Director of the Tobin Lab at Yale University and Ricardo Basurto-Davila, Chief Evaluation Officer of San Diego County – was how distant the concept of evidence can feel to decision-makers across sectors. Many, especially local legislators, are generalists working under intense time pressure, and expecting them to navigate the nuances of detailed evidentiary findings with little support can be unrealistic. This perspective sparked conversations that emphasized the importance of setting evidence expectations early, before key decisions are already underway. Rather than asking leaders to “come around” to evidence after the fact, this builds evidence into planning and approval processes from the start. Incorporating strategic tools like Pre-Analysis Plans, which outline how a research project will be conducted before data is collected or analyzed, can help align expectations early — so evidence is ready to be used when decisions are being made.

Evidence as a Learning Tool

Another important theme explored the role of evidence, when evaluations do not produce the expected results. Rather than treating these results as failures, leaders emphasized the value of using them as diagnostic tools to understand where assumptions about implementation, targeting, or context may have fallen short.

We discussed this further in a panel on evidence essentials, alongside J-PAL North America’s Kalila Jackson-Spieker, reflecting on a randomized controlled trial that J-PAL conducted on Nurse-Family Partnership in South Carolina in a Pay for Success project that Tamar helped launch. The trial did not achieve its intended outcomes, which prompted a deeper look at why. Closer investigation by the Nurse-Family Partnership revealed a gap between the program’s intended population (higher risk) for whom this program has proven outcomes and the participants who were enrolled (far lower risk). While disappointing, these findings underscored the need for better targeting outreach in all contexts, a task successfully undertaken since then.

This is a critical distinction for organizations using evidence to improve outcomes: external evaluation may tell us whether outcomes were achieved; but internal R&D helps us understand why — and how to improve. Both are essential. Together, they make evidence actionable.

Evidence as a Connector, Not a Wedge

Several discussions brought up a simple but often overlooked point: evidence is most effective when it connects people, priorities, and decisions.

When treated as purely technical, evidence can become a wedge, separating analysis from lived experience. Instead, it should be treated as a connective tool, helping align data with outcomes — clarifying goals, understanding risks, and grounding decisions in the realities of practitioners.

Doing this well requires strong methods and leadership that can translate between evidence, policy, and practice, and that recognizes partnership as essential infrastructure for evidence use. Evidence does not speak for itself – it becomes usable when practitioners can bring it into decision-making.

We discuss this in detail in our book, Next Generation Evidence: Strategies for More Equitable Social Impact, which challenges the supposed divide between community-driven practice and evidence-based decision-making. In practice, the two are strongest when they are shaped together.

What Comes Next for Evidence?

The momentum in the field is clear, and so is the work still to come. Across the convening, leaders returned to a shared challenge: how to make evidence more useful, inclusive, and connected to real decisions.

At Project Evident, we’re deepening our commitment to advancing Next Generation Evidence to meet practitioners where they are. That means supporting practitioners to drive their own evidence agendas, building equity into how evidence is created and used, and engaging communities as partners–not just sources–in evidence building.  

With the addition of Chief Data Scientist Pete York to the Project Evident team last November, we are expanding field efforts that explore how approaches like precision causal modeling, AI, and equitable data practices can help leaders make better decisions — faster and at lower cost — without sacrificing rigor or equity.

Events like the Evidence Matters convening do more than share ideas. They strengthen relationships, sharpen how we talk about evidence, and reaffirm why this work matters-especially now. As we look ahead, I’m reflecting on how this convening felt like both a meaningful close to a challenging year and a strong signal of what’s possible when we invest in evidence that is useful, inclusive, and connected to action.

The path forward is clear: better outcomes, delivered faster, and at lower cost, without sacrificing equity. That’s the work ahead, and we’re committed to building it together.