Canadian Government Executive - Volume 23 - Issue 02

February 2017 // Canadian Government Executive / 15 The Interview experimentation and to strengthen the culture of measurement and evaluation. These developments should all contribute to improve the quality of policy advice in coming years. Q: Recent surveys show that public sector leaders feel pretty confident about the policy analysis capacities of their departments. Are you surprised? I have not seen these surveys, but I suspect that the questionnaire did not probe deeply. My own assessment is that capacities vary a lot from one department to another, and from one government to another. For one thing, I would make the distinction between hav- ing access to smart people for advice and having the right infra- structure in place to ensure these same smart policy advisers can get to the information they need to provide good advice. I go back to my earlier comment about the lack of momentum over the last decade in improving the policy analyst toolkit, and would men- tion that lack of new data development initiatives and the paucity of information available on what works. These two dimensions alone point to a weakened policy analysis function. I just hope that the positive developments that I noted earlier will contribute to reverse that trend. Q: If you were King, where would you invest most of your policy and program research dollars? I would do what’s needed to make evidence-based policy a serious commitment. To achieve this, I would promote experimentation, evaluation and data development. On experimentation and evalu- ation, I would simply make sure the federal government honours its commitment to “ensure that departments are devoting a fixed percentage of program funds to experimenting with new ap- proaches to existing problems and measuring the impact of their programs.” This two-pronged commitment is spelled out in the President of the Treasury Board mandate letter and I hope that TB will find ways to reward departments that are leading the way. My second edict, as King, would be to consider a serious expan- sion of our data system by investing resources in promoting and performing data linkages between provincial and federal admin- istrative data and between national surveys and program admin- istrative data. While some of this work is proceeding, more can be done to tap the potential of these existing data in informing policy and program decisions. Q: How has SRDC evolved in its 15 years? SRDC was created by Employment and Immigration in 2001 to implement and field test new program ideas before they become policy and be implemented at scale. No such capacity existed in Canada at the time, and SRDC spent several years conducting social experiments in real-life contexts on behalf of what then became HRDC, and then ESDC. In the last ten years or so, we have extended our clientele to most provinces and many non- profit organizations and philanthropic foundations. Overall, we have completed in excess of 300 projects, from literature review on best practices, to feasibility studies, program evaluations and demonstration projects, all with a focus on learning what works. We have been involved in about 20 large-scale demonstration projects using experimental designs, known as randomized con- trol trials, covering social, labour market, education and learning, and health programs. Four years ago, with financial support from the BC government, we have set up the BC Centre for Employment Excellence to meet the knowledge and development needs of the employment services sector and the employer community in British Colum- bia on issues related to employment programs and practices. The Centre is now used as a model by several other provincial govern- ments. Our current priority is to take our accumulated knowledge in the area of employment and training programs and share our knowledge on best practices with provincial governments across the country. But we are also very active in addressing problems relating to mental health in the workplace, improving access to PSE, social assistance reform, and many other policy challenges. Q: What do you think are the essential features of successful policy entrepreneurs? It is important to distinguish between policy entrepreneurs and policy advocates. To me, a policy entrepreneur is someone who is primarily concerned about developing a policy that will work to achieve the objectives set by the intended client, be it a minister, a department or the government as a whole. The policy entrepre- neur has to be well-read in its field of expertise, knowledgeable about how government make decisions, fully cognizant of the re- alities imposed by the environmental and political context, and ready to cater to the value set of the client. Pragmatism is also a condition for success. Q: A lot of hope is being invested in the idea that new insights in behaviourism can solve many policy and program dilemmas. What do you think? Behavioral economics has brought about a new perspective on how best to design programs and policy to maximize their im- pacts. We are reminded that individuals are not always acting rationally and may respond to other things that financial incen- tives. The advent of behavioral insights offices across several fed- eral government departments and some provincial government is a very positive development. That said, behavioral economics is not a panacea, just a new tool in the policy toolkit. To me, a policy entrepreneur is someone who is primarily concerned about developing a policy that will work to achieve the objectives set by the intended client, be it a Minister, a department or the government as a whole.