How Do Child Welfare Policymakers Use Research in Decision-Making? a Use of Research Evidence Qualitative Study

Background and Purpose: The integration of research evidence into child welfare policymaking is increasingly recognized as essential for improving outcomes for children and families. In Florida, the complexity of the child welfare system—characterized by multiple stakeholders, privatized service delivery, and diverse local contexts—necessitates a structured approach to evidence use. The Use of Research Evidence (URE) framework offers a systematic method for understanding how policymakers acquire, interpret, and apply research findings in decision-making processes. This study aims to assess the extent and impact of research evidence use among child welfare policymakers in Florida, with a focus on how organizational and individual factors influence the adoption of evidence-informed policies and practices.

Method: The study used the Use of Research Evidence framework to conduct a content analysis of policymaking documents and meetings from the 2023 Florida Legislative Session. Bill analysis documents, committee and chamber meeting transcripts and recordings, and any other congressional documents associated with child welfare bills were coded and analyzed by the research team. The research team identified initial codes that tracked sources of research evidence, who is using the evidence, type of evidence used, context of it’s use, and the intention of the use. This was then analyzed across committees, specific bills, speakers, and policy systems to identify themes of use, trends of what evidence was used, and who the key stakeholders in the use of research evidence are in the policymaking process.

Results: Analysis of Florida’s 2023 child welfare legislation revealed research evidence was most prominent during bill analysis, with governmental reports (e.g., OPPAGA, DCF) as the primary source. Research often provided historical context (e.g., foster care trends) or supported proven solutions. Policy subsystems utilized evidence differently: fiscal committees prioritized cost-benefit analyses, while human services committees cited practice models.. However, research was frequently used retroactively to validate existing priorities, not explore new approaches. Gaps emerged in applying localized data, such as relying on generic “evidence-based” claims for new pilots. Despite uneven use, research underpinned critical debates, such as support for CSEC prevention and prioritizing appropriate licensure for child welfare organizations, highlighting its role in framing issues and aligning solutions with federal mandates.

Conclusions and Implications for Practice: Florida’s child welfare policymaking strategically leveraged research, particularly agency-generated reports, to contextualize challenges and justify solutions. While instrumental use was limited to reinforcing established priorities, contextual use dominated, shaping narratives around systemic issues like workforce turnover. Organizational incentives (e.g., federal funding rules) and accessibility barriers influenced reliance on pre-digested agency analyses over primary studies. To enhance evidence integration, policymakers could mandate independent evaluations for pilots or embed research liaisons to broaden access to diverse data. This approach would address current limitations, such as retrospective validation of policies, and foster innovation. Ultimately, structured mechanisms to bridge research and practice could strengthen Florida’s ability to design dynamic, evidence-informed policies that adapt to evolving child welfare needs.