Evidence and decision-making by executive budget analysts: case studies from four states

Abstract

This study assesses how state budget analysts engage with information. Like all decision makers, budget analysts are influenced by contextual factors, such as their organization, policy environment, legal requirements, and professional backgrounds. Budgeting has emphasized the increased use of information in decision-making in order to reduce political factors. By examining the role of executive budget analysts through an evidence-based management lens, this dissertation investigates how budget analysts gather and filter information, and how the contextual factors influence their understanding of evidence. The study involves twenty analysts in four states. Data were collected through document analysis, interviews with budget directors (8 participants), and interviews with budget analysts (20 participants). Data were analyzed using an evidence-based management framework and a theoretical framework of contexts that influence decision-making. Analysts gather primarily organizational information. They determine information relevance through the lens political information and legal requirements. When analysts use scientific evidence, it is only when the evidence conforms to the organizational context. Conclusions include how decision makers can engage information in public budgeting and how that knowledge can improve public budgeting practice and management.