In the past two decades, a wave of states has developed approaches to assess fairness in policy outcomes via policy impact assessments. Policymakers, state decisionmakers, and community leaders have turned to legislative and executive processes to review policies for their harmful effects on specific populations, to redress inequities in health, economic security, and other well-being outcomes, or to promote transparency in evidence-based policymaking.

We use the methodology of the People’s Score, an initiative of the Urban Institute and PolicyLink, as a benchmark to assess different state approaches and offer considerations for states interested in pursuing similar fairness-focused assessments. This brief distills insights and reflections from state policymakers, policy analysts, and researchers on funding, staffing, and research approaches for initiating and sustaining state-level policy impact assessments.

Why This Matters

Evidence-based, responsive policymaking is a goal of many state policymakers, advocates, analysts, and community leaders. State approaches to determine which frameworks and methods most accurately help governments assess their policies for fairness outcomes now also sit against the backdrop of federal policy shifts on equity and theories of disparate impact, changes or cuts to crucial datasets across a range of policy topics, and upcoming changes to the 2030 Census that could change data completeness and representativeness for analysis.

The People’s Score offers a methodological grounding for these analyses. The framework and method can help policymakers evaluate trade-offs between different policy options based on whether outcomes improve, for whom, by how much, and over what timeframe. This approach can provide a shared foundation for policy debates and, perhaps, a way of comparing effects between bills and between states.

What We Found

• According to our review, at least ten states have developed a legislative policy assessment process or piloted other processes that analyze projected impacts of a proposed policy, program, or intervention on key outcomes, using comparisons in outputs or outcomes between historically advantaged and disadvantaged groups or across such demographics as race and ethnicity, sex or gender identity, disability, veteran status, geography, or income level.
• State approaches vary in both their scope and their implementation. Some states produce impact assessments for bills only in one policy area, most commonly criminal justice, while others broaden eligible legislation for review to any policy area, but limit the number of bills that can be assessed per legislative term.
• Most state analyses are prospective reviews of potential outcomes of proposed legislation, but recent processes in California and Oregon are retrospective, assessing bills on whether they delivered on intended benefits and outcomes for residents.
• Many state approaches align with the first four steps of the People’s Score, including projecting a policy’s effects on key outcomes for focal and comparison groups, but to different degrees.

How We Did It

We reviewed state policy assessments that either focus on a policy to address concentrated harm or estimate how impacts might vary among demographic groups or institutions, including those that have experienced disadvantage or exclusion from past policies. We reviewed policy assessment practices (primarily legislative) across states with these analysis approaches in place and interviewed 14 practitioners from 11 states. We coded different state approaches to see to what extent they align with or use elements of the People’s Score five-step methodology.