A Pathway to Hope, Part 5: Investing in Policies that Improve Lives

Episode Topic: Investing in Policies that Improve Lives

“Our mission is to help make investing in what works the new normal so that government decision makers at all levels are using data and evidence to inform the outcomes they want to see to close racial gaps and improve economic opportunity.”

Hear from Patrick Carter, vice president and state practice lead at Results for America, anhttps://go.nd.edu/55951dd Zachary Markovits, vice president and local practice lead at Results for America, about how they advise government at the local, state, and federal levels to build and deploy their budgets using evidence-based data to reach effective outcomes that uplift their constituent communities.

This discussion took place at the University of Notre Dame’s Summit on the Opioids Settlement: A Pathway to Hope which focused on how to most effectively distribute the nearly $50 billion in settlement dollars to maximize the impact on our communities and citizens.

Held in August 2024, this summit brought together attorneys general from across the country to discuss best practices to proactively evaluate the efficacy of opioid abatement programs and develop strategies to best distribute the funds. Led by the University of Notre Dame’s Poverty Initiative, the summit explores how evidence-based practices can inform decision making and ensure that the Opioids Settlement best helps those victims it is meant to serve.

Featured Speakers:

• Patrick Carter, Vice President and State Practice Lead, Results for America
• Zachary Markovits, Vice President and Local Practice Lead, Results for America

Read this episode's recap over on the University of Notre Dame's open online learning community platform, ThinkND: https://go.nd.edu/55951d

This podcast is a part of the ThinkND Series titled A Pathway to Hope.

Thanks for listening! The ThinkND Podcast is brought to you by ThinkND, the University of Notre Dame's online learning community. We connect you with videos, podcasts, articles, courses, and other resources to inspire minds and spark conversations on topics that matter to you — everything from faith and politics, to science, technology, and your career.

• Learn more about ThinkND and register for upcoming live events at think.nd.edu.
• Join our LinkedIn community for updates, episode clips, and more.

Transcript

Opening Remarks and Light Bulb Analogy

1 0:06

We are delighted to have with us, Zach Markovitz and Patrick Carter from Results for America, who are gonna lead our, session during launch. Zachary Markovitz is the Vice President and local practice lead at Results for America, where he is focused on helping all local governments use data and evidence to make real and more equitable change in the lives of residents. He joined Results for America in 2015 to help launch the What Works City initiative and now overseas and or coordinates all results for America's work with cities, counties, and regional programs. Before joining Results for America, he served at De Pew Charitable Trust and the University of California's Survey Research Center. Patrick Carter is Vice President and State Practice Lead at Results for America. Patrick's previous experience includes time at the state of Minnesota in their efforts to support the executive branch and legislative decision makers in using data and research to improve outcomes. We are excited to have Zach, and Patrick join us here today. I will invite you to the stage. Thank you.

2 1:17

Thank you so much. Oh, absolutely. Hello. Thank you. I like Zachrich. That's good. again, I'm Zach Markovitz, the local practice lead. And Patrick, thank you for having us today, and for letting us, join and speak with you at lunch right as you guys descend into the lunchtime coma. we'd like to actually like to start today's conversation. with something I think none of the speakers have talked about, or discussed yet today, buying light bulbs. my family is living at my mother's house this summer and, she, she asked me to go get light bulbs for her recently. and she knows what size she needs. She has a very specific sense of the brightness. It's in a room, not like quite like this, but it's got tall ceilings, so there's like a commitment issue to it. she wants something that works. It's really well. I mostly don't want to talk about it anymore. and so I went to the store recently. There were literally a hundred choices. this is how we are. I wrote down, made a spreadsheet, and so put, there's a hundred choices. I put it down here. I was hoping maybe you guys could help us or help me today. maybe if you could just while you're finishing lunch or eating a cookie, just pick what light bulb you think I, these all correspond to actual light bulbs, so if you could pick a light bulb that you think is important for me to buy for my mom, I would appreciate it. Actually, so I should just mention, you can just keep it in your head or write it down if you're interested. I did, I brought Patrick in to talk, um, to ask, you know, his opinion about today, and he said to, um, he said to me, well, actually, you can just tell them what you said to me.

3 2:49

So I told Zach that you should, look for this logo. This is, UL Laboratories. they establish minimum safety criteria for light bulbs, and they test them rigorously to see. Whether or not those light bulbs pass those minimum safety requirements. so if, you were to go to the store, you'd find out about half of the light bulb, meet minimum safety requirements. Half of them do not, but there's more. Zach is not the only person shopping for light bulb. It turns out, and, there's an interest, more broadly in understanding what works in the light bulb space. And so there's organizations like Wirecutter and Consumer Reports that establish criteria for what works. They systematically test dozens and dozens of light bulbs over a long period of time to see what works. we've taken, Zach's spreadsheet and, we're showing, the light bulbs that, wire cutter has recommended. how'd your pick do? Orange ones are those that are recommended to work by Wirecutter. Every year, governments at all levels in the United States spend$2 trillion to improve economic mobility outcomes for people who live in our country. And they often make decisions just like you did, without lots of information on what works they're looking at that blue table that Zach made and not the one that has, the orange indicators of what works. how do we know this? we work with governments all the time and they tell us this is how they're making decisions. but we also know from the results. We estimate that about 2% of that$2 trillion, is being invested in strategies that work.

Government Collaboration and Funding Allocation

2 4:16

And at results of America, we're in a mission to change that. we, our mission is to help make investing in what works the new normal so that, government decision makers at all levels are using data and evidence to inform the outcomes they want to see, to, close racial gaps and improve economic opportunity. We work at all levels of government, so federal, state, and local. This makes a real difference, when we're thinking about the flow of funding. and it's important today's conversation'cause we think about how local and state leaders interact with state and federal leaders and how those dollars flow down, whether it's through policy or through budgeting, work. so for example, where the federal government just recently, sent through American Rescue Plan and bipartisan infrastructure law, lots of money down through the state government, federal government, how we worked with those entities to help them use those dollars more effectively. before we continue though, I do want to make a couple things clear just about Patrick and I and adults America. We are not experts, in the opioid epidemic. we're not experts in the opioid settlements. and we are not here to tell you what your community needs. we do know a little bit about government processes, about data and evidence, and the need to put money into programs that will make lives better. So a little bit about just what we do and how it works. as I mentioned, we work with government with input, critical input from communities. To, invest budgets in what we know works, improving outcomes, delivering real results for the residents that live in communities. And we do this in a few different ways. the first is we provide benchmarks, at standards on the ability to use data and evidence, look at what great looks like for local, state and the federal government in this case. we provide direct coaching and technical assistance on investing funds in proven solutions, specifically around how do you shift budget. Procurement or even the direct service process into solutions we know will work. and then we also help to build an understanding of the impact of, evidence-informed and evidence-based investments. That will pinpoint both proven strategies and help to expand those strategies across an institution, across the government, right? Not just one department, but an entire organization, and then across governments as well. and this means putting evidence into action, by adding, and we talked about this, so a clear definitions of what it means to be evidence-based last night. The panel, there's a whole set of conversation about what does evidence mean. Defining what you mean by evidence and then either requiring or incentivizing its use in the allocation of funds towards those programs.

Addressing the Opioid Crisis with Evidence-Based Solutions

3 6:49

to give you an example of this, on this chart here, you can see the return on investments of over 300 social programs. right now, government decision makers allocate funds and then unknown proportion across, across these programs. we work with government leaders to drive their investments into those things that work, that have the highest return on investment. let's return back to the box game that we were playing, a moment ago, buying light bulbs for Zach and his household, to, and turn to social programs. now the box game is real. these are, a hundred real programs that were studied by the Washington State Institute of Public Policy. And we want all of you to pick the ones that work on the screen right here. So again, find a box and and take a look at it, figure out what works. specifically find one that has a 95% chance or higher of having a positive return on investment. So we have a pretty high bar here for what we're defining in success. Where do we go to look for this information? thankfully, in the economic mobility space, there are lots of these clearing houses. So these are repositories of rigorous research that have been distilled down, using clear definitions of evidence, as Zach was just talking about, and including implementation criteria. What are the core components that need to be included in these programs to ensure that they work? As was noted earlier, there isn't a specific clearinghouse for opioid response, and so we can talk a little bit more about that, that later. so if we were to go to one of these, wsup, as I mentioned, here's what the results would be, I. Saw someone said yes, that means they, you picked an orange box. but let's remember you did that by guessing. So we didn't have this information, at the front of the process. So how do we move from making decisions, investments when we're just guessing, trying to figure out what works to using research at the forefront of decision making, with the aim of improving outcomes for people in our communities? in order to do that, you need to follow the money. And so as Zach alluded to, in order to affect outcomes, you need to affect the dollars. And we look at statutes, in the budget development process and the distribution of funds through grant programs as three primary levers where evidence can be infused into the decision making. let's, we'll show you a couple of examples. starting with the last one there, grant making. So outta the city of Chicago, there were Family Services division. they issued an RFP recently for a reentry program. And, not only did they prioritize evidence in that RFP, they explicitly awarded up to 45 of the a hundred possible points, for, evidence backed programs. you can see some of the language highlighted here that they're explicitly giving priorities to grantees who are bringing forward, programs that are backed by evidence. Next, we'll turn to budgets. so on the left here you have a text from, a state finance agency's directive to other agencies about how to build, build their budget. and you can see it even men mentions, evidence base, but that's not good enough. if you look on the right, you'll see, an excerpt from Tennessee's, budget process where they define what they mean by evidence-based. they set a specific threshold. They have a template in there to collect that information, and they use that information throughout the entire budget building process from the onset of when those things are being formulated, all the way to final proposals being presented, to the governor and their team. one final example of how we see this working is. In statutes and rules. on the left side here, you have an excerpt from statute, that outlines kind of potential eligible uses for these funds on the right, also from Tennessee. the, in this case, the legislative branch identified core components of a summer learning program from research and embedded those into statute. they took it up a notch. They weren't just collecting it or even rewarding it. they said, here are the core components of a summer learning program. We're gonna codify that in statute and require that those be used, in, what school districts implement. And you know what, it worked in Tennessee. They implemented that evidence backed program, and then they studied it again. They found that students who participated in these summer learning programs, scored better the following fall, on math programs, and they were more likely to show up to school.

2 10:59

and so what could this look like in, the opioid space? and so as you all are aware, and as Bill mentioned earlier, today there's about 2.5 million people over 18 years. Old in the, with opioid use disorder in the last couple of years measured there was about 80,000 people who died per year for opioid related deaths. on top of this, and I think many of people talked about this earlier, nine outta 10, patients, or research has shown that at least nine outta 10 patients are, who are checked into a, substance use treatment facility, are not receiving evidence-based treatments. Nearly two thirds of those treatment facilities are not even offering, evidence-based, treatments here. And that is especially the lowest availability is in, residential facilities. So we extrapolated out the impact of, several evidence-based investments and did a thought experi, what if we took 50% of the settlement funds? the current settlement funds and they were spent on evidence-based interventions, and we estimate that, if they were, using evidence, you would have about, almost 200,000 people, who would reduce or stop the misuse of opioids, and around, 90,000 deaths that would be avoided, due to these evidence-based investments. So just to contextualize that, if you guys look behind you right over there, at the stadium, if you imagine that was filled with people, if we were to invest just about half of the settlement funds and evidence-based treatments, the equivalent of that stadium, more than that stadium would be alive.

3 12:28

So how do we do this? how do you, embed evidence, into the allocation of the opioid settlement funds? we've shown some examples already from other spaces, even reentry that came up in the conversation earlier. but there are some specific opioid grants at the state level that are already doing this. there's a handful here from Rhode Island, Carolina. Minnesota that, have defined evidence and, are prioritizing it in the allocation of those funds. this excerpt from the Minnesota one, says that you need to go out to, a list from the federal government, find a program, and you're required to pro provide evidence-based, MAT, to those who, have OUD. I'll note here that, Minnesota has a companion grant program to this that's, an innovation grant program. So they have an evidence-based one, and they also have an innovation one. this is the theme today of setting minimum thresholds and balancing, investing in those things that work while also trying to find those new strategies. importantly with the innovation fund, they have evaluation support, behind that, and so they're evaluating all of those investments going through that, that innovation grant program. we have, a handful of recommendations based off of our work, in the economic mobility space for how we could translate those lessons, into the opioid settlement dollars. and the first is to default to evidence as we talked about, having clear definitions of evidence, embedding them into the grant making, the statute, and the budget development process, to drive those dollars towards, Those things that work. And not just paying lip service to evidence as we saw in one of those examples earlier. but being very specific about, what evidence means and, what benefit through that process, an evidence back proposal will get. the second is to share the evidence. if you're operating a program or you're a researcher who is studying these programs, sharing those with the people who are making decisions, in a usable, accessible format. So not just, sending the link to your pre-print paper, but distilling down what are those core components that made that program work? And making sure that those get into the hands of people who, who are working on in these spaces. and finally, we've talked about this, this morning and last night of not doing this alone. If those people who are on the front lines are not already at your table, bring them to the table, so that you can work together to ensure that you're investing in those things that work.

Q&A Session

2 14:37

So you heard it from earlier today, from all the speakers from Bill and from, mark, from Steve. and the conversation just preceding lunch, that everybody here participated in, The import pick the impact of this opioid crisis. You know it, you live it every day. You see how it's affecting families, and individuals and communities. At large. There's$50 billion. we'll say$2 million that is here. it is not enough, but it does provide a bit of hope, hope to those individuals, to those families, and to those communities who, desperately need it. we know that evidence isn't everything. There are a ton of impediments to getting programs and policies up and running and get evidence-based programs to work. misinformation and stigma, as we just talked about before, even when put forward, is an incredible impediment to getting those mats to be adopted by individuals, by providers, et cetera. But this is also a profound opportunity and everybody here has talked about how we can't let this go to waste. This is an important place in which we need to ensure that we're driving the best outcomes for the most amount of people who have been drastically affected by this. so we're here to be a help to say, do what work. The gatherings together like this where we can talk through these critical challenges, identify where there is evidence, where it is lacking and where we need to build it, are critical to, to driving outcomes. Last night we were talking about. The panel is talking about how evidence needs to be brought from the ground up to where these decisions are made at the state level. And then I would argue it needs to be dragged back down to local, to those who are on the ground facing it so they can improve their process alongside their colleagues across, the states or the countries. We are truly honored to be here and to have this conversation with you all, and we're here to help and to answer questions. I just wanna thank you for your time today, and for inviting us to speak with you all

1 16:36

minutes for q and a. So we again have, two microphones roaming around and you all know the drill, so raise your hands and. Introduce yourself and your organization.

4 16:46

Hi, pat Brown, recovery Cafe. So super small town, like 6,000 people. the county and the city know that the opioid settlement dollars are coming in. They're gonna give it to cops. because that's what they do.'cause that's what we have in our community. How could you come into a small community like mine and help change the message and make them more receptive? Or is that, am I misunderstanding?

2 17:12

I don't know if I have an answer for how we can change the behavior of individuals who are allocating these funds directly and saying don't give it to cops. I think one of the big impediments that many people have articulated today is the fact there's. Lots of good research out there. Probably not enough, but a lot about knows what we know worked. There's not as much opportunity to take what that ER says and apply it to the people who are allocating these dollars into decisions. So it's really easy to say. I think there's a public safety aspect to it. I'm just gonna give it to police because I cannot understand how that works. It's less easy to say, what is the, what do I need to do to, help to, prevent people from dipping back in? Or what do I need to do? What does it mean to distribute Narcan or to increase the number of assisted sort of housing facilities? And that's a harder problem to solve. And how do you, so then take the research that does exist? Put it into a place that policy makers are able to say, I get that. Or a frantic policy assistant who's working for the mayor or the county exec who's been told, get me this information tomorrow. And so they're scouring the internet trying to figure this out. Where can they go to grab it? It doesn't exist right now. We are lucky enough to run this economic mobility catalog that does just that for broader economic release spaces, and many of the questions we brought earlier today, there's the WSP tool. There's what Works Clearinghouse, which is mentioned in the. that sort of take home reading that's in the folder. there's something specifically on the, on, on what works in for spending these opioid settlement dollars and there should be. And so I think that would be something that would ultimately be able to help.

5 18:42

hi Paul Ferrell. I'm a lawyer. I want to follow up on what you asked. So part of the reason that. This forum to me is important is because it helps continue sending out the message of what we're about to encounter, what's about to happen. so let me see if I can frame this a little bit better. When we started these lawsuits, we did not want the money going to the state legislatures and being lost. The loop that happens of when it goes into the treasury. So for instance, in West Virginia, and I know we keep beating the same horse on West Virginia. It's my experience that I'm trying to share. When we got the tobacco settlement, we used the tobacco money to retire our workers' comp debt. And that was an enormous expense and a stone around the neck of our government. So it was helpful, but we didn't want that to happen again. And that's what happens. When the money goes to the legislatures, you lose the power and control of what to do with that money, in large part, or it goes through its own process when it, once it gets there. So in this, in the settlements, the defendants that we sued, they wanted a complete and utter release at the state, county, and city level. And so we had to reach some compromise to get the State Attorney's general to sign the release. We had to reach some compromise with the counties, the county commissions, to sign a release, and then we had to get a compromise with the cities within the counties to sign a release. And we got that from all 50 states, more than all 3000 plus counties and some 26,000 cities across the country. It was an amazing accomplishment. Now that was the easy part, huh? The hard part came when the money got divided to the 50 states. And so there's this thing called the Denver allocation where the 50 attorney generals got together and like the old banks where you put the coins in the top of the machine and it would put'em into quarters and dimes and nickels. that's what happened with the Mon, with the settlement money between the states. It gets divided based on this artificial criteria of population. the number of pills and the number of different other metrics, but that money's gonna go to say, the state of West Virginia. Once the money goes, those state of West Virginia, for every dollar, three pennies go to the state legislature. 22 pennies go to the cities and counties to reimburse them. For past expenses, but they still have to spend that money within the guardrails of what's in the settlement. But then the bulk of the money goes to a foundation, a public private foundation made up of appointees from around the state with the idea that future private and public monies can fund it, but they're charged with doing something. So to answer your question, I don't know where you're from, Indiana. I suppose Indiana has its own scheme. It ha it has its own structure. But yes, you can go to your local city government and say, I have something that's working. Don't go buy more drug dogs or guns or police cruisers or ambulances, or reimburse yourselves for your past expenses. Do this other program. That's one path you can go through. The other path is you can go to your state legislature and try to get a grant through the state legislature for that program. But then the other thing you can do is you can look on a state by state basis for that entity that is charged with figuring out what to do next. And to me, that's where a lot of you that are here have the biggest opportunity. Because what we hope to do is we hope to gather together those decision makers and we hope to give them a plan and in order for them to come up with a plan and not guess, we need to have a methodology. And so we're not, wed, I hope, I pray that we're not wed to what we had studied in the past. What we are married to is the idea of figuring out the future. But in order to do that, we need methodology, otherwise we're guessing. So thank you for coming and I appreciate what you're doing and I hope that you can bring your methodology to this important project.

3 23:23

Thank you.

6 23:24

Hi, Emmy Robinson from Leo. we had a great conversation at our table earlier about anecdotes and evidence. and this kind of spoke to a point earlier about the need for including those with lived experiences in the conversation. My question to you is how do you balance that? how do you balance the need for evidence and rigorous research with lived experience and anecdotes?

3 23:44

That's a great question. we heard last night that I think Ohio received 1400 applicant applications for their grant funds. that feels like a good little case study of this, that, for example, Ohio could have, rewarded those proposals that had an evidence basis. They could have given them 5, 10, 15 bonus points, in order to include both. the local ideas, there's 1400 of them. That's a lot. while also bringing in the evidence basis so that both of those ideas are at the table as they're trying to wade through, how are we gonna allocate those funds? So just one way that kind of both local stories lived experience could be brought to the table with evidence.

2 24:24

I would also just add two more things to that. The first is, that. Those who, there are those who were working locally, that, they're doing the work every single day, right? Like driving on the ground, right? Understanding what the broader, evidenced ecosystem is maybe like a secondary or tertiary concern to making sure they're delivering service to people who need immediately. And so one way is how do we use these kinds of programs? A grant application, for example, to not say, not only are we interested in funding your program, we're gonna help bring you towards what we know works not to change your program, right? But to help to make sure that you can see what exactly works out there in the space and allow your program to improve. And by the way, having all this funding, we can invest that or allow you to invest that in delivering better, more high quality services there. So that's one way, that's not. Just funding what works previously, but also helping to bring this broad swath of individuals who are looking to help and help them help better. The second, the other point I just add, and this goes back to funding innovation or funding new ideas. Other people have said this, but I just, I don't think we can hit enough. It's super, it's so important that we're funding new ideas. We can't just rely on what we know in the past. Also important that we evaluate those new ideas because we need to stop doing what is shown not to work and continue to fund or double down on what we know should work. And even those that we do know work, maybe there's a broader sort of impact evaluation. We know broadly this works, we don't know how it works. Evaluating that allows others to duplicate or replicate that kind of service in a way that meets that local demand. In a way that is different. So we were talking at the table earlier about something called the high doses tutoring, right? Which is a really evidence-based invention, intervention that enables people, kids to get better, at reading and math, et cetera. There's a very specific program that you can follow that allows you. To do that effectively, it has to be in schools, it has to be done at least three days a week. It has to be at least a half an hour. So making sure you build that in is important. People can follow that evidence while still maintaining the flavor locally of what you're trying to accomplish.

7 26:31

Hi, I'm Lacey Ahern. I'm here at Notre Dame and I work in public health. I think I just wanna clarify, and maybe you guys can clarify in your work, research and evidence is not separate from lived experience, anecdotal, And the, so I think some, in some of our conversations, we're talking a lot of, I think we're thinking of evidence as. Quantitative, RCTs, which are incredibly important, not discounting that evidence at all, but the evidence, that's generated from qualitative research, community-based participatory research, which specifically involves the voices of communities. so I just, I wonder if you have any examples in some work you've done with Results America that you could just share the importance and the value of that type of evidence and make sure as we're thinking about this, that we include that when we're talking about evidence and research as well.

3 27:21

Yeah. O one example, right now we're working with a state budget office who's building those forms that we showed you earlier. And, they are prioritizing, collecting impact, evidence in that process. But. They are also, they also wanted to ensure that they're capturing the implementation considerations and stories from the ground so that it's, building a base or an expectation that there is evidence of effectiveness, but also that there are stories accompanying those and there's implementation considerations captured so that it's not just pulling a research paper off the shelf and saying, go, build. Who was studied in that paper? what were the context there? And, are those similar to the places that you're looking to apply it? So to ensure that, that it works again, like that's the ultimate goal is that we saw it work here, we want it to work here. Is there enough information there to make sure that happens? We have time for

2 28:10

one more

3 28:11

question.

8 28:12

good afternoon. Dr. Gretchen Hammond, and I'm part of the research team for Juan Ohio. So as an evaluator, it's not lost on me like how we figure this out, but when,'cause it's hard. And when Paul was speaking and we were watching the video, I was thinking that the things that will matter to the community, the people who aren't necessarily caring about like statistical significance or the power differential as I'm figuring out my sample size, are gonna look around and say, do they see people running behind dumpsters? Do they see people like laying on the railroad tracks? Those pictures were not, they were important to look at'cause they were hard to look at, right? Yeah. That's for real. And so there for us, as I'm thinking about the evaluation with the evaluation team, I'm keeping in mind that the community will know if the opioid settlement money made a difference. When they look around and those things are different They will not care as much about the nerdy stuff that I care about. Like I said, like the statistical significance and the impact that it made and those things are important, but I think that's gotta be the balance with the settlement and the big picture evaluation and all the stuff we were identifying is how will that translate to people so they'll know that we didn't have, what happened to the tobacco settlement money happen with this money? So we might need to, in our session after lunch, where we're supposed to be brainstorming, again, we might need to think more about the things that will matter to the community, the metrics that will matter to them outside of how we might be typically thinking about evidence-based and what that means. So thank you for bringing us up'cause that. And it might have been the two cookies and the cup of coffee, but that light bulb went off for me. Light bulb. You're helping to buy light bulb. Thank you. Light bulb.

2 29:51

No, I thank you. and I'll say I, I read that's a really great point and it answers to a bunch of these pieces. We need to ask that question. And this is where the data and the community are not loggerheads, right? We're not talking about this as being two separate things. We're seeing how do we make sure we're funding the things that are helping folks in our community? There's a, A center out of the, university of California that has been doing some research on corrections. And they went through this first and they went and asked the community to say, what does, what is a safe comm? What is an indicator of safe communities? and I'm gonna, I'm gonna maybe get this wrong. but one of the negative ones was that I, we hear helicopters, right? If you helicopters, it makes me feel unsafe, me feel policed. One of the indicators of a safe community is birdsong. I hear the singing of my neighborhood birds. That was a measurement of safety. Now I wouldn't have thought of that, right? But because they asked, they could then measure and then they can see what works to deliver on that. And so if we spend this time asking the community what they need, we build that into sort of the process that we're looking to evaluate and to measure. And then we follow that and prioritize incentive, define what we mean by evidence. Put that into the practices that sort of shape the dollars where they go, you're able to deliver on the outcomes that people in the community are really looking to get. Thank you all. Appreciate it. We're still fighting about this.

1 31:13

Thank you, Zach and Patrick, or from now on, Zach Trick. we are very appreciative of all the work that Results for America is doing to make sure that evidence is acted on in communities throughout this country.