Evidence use in child welfare policy tied to legislative success across states
Pat-Graphic-for-website
Penn State's Evidence-to-Impact Collaborative found that bills that became law were about 25 to 27 percent more likely to include research-based language. They analyzed 27,703 bills related to child abuse and neglect introduced between 2019 and 2024.
April 2, 2026
By Sarah Buttikofer
A Penn State study has found that including research evidence in state child abuse and neglect legislation may increase the likelihood that legislation will be passed.
"That's important," said Patrick O'Neill, doctoral candidate in Human Development and Family Studies and first author of a paper on the study published in the journal Child Abuse & Neglect, "It suggests that including research may not only strengthen the content of a bill but also increase its chances of moving through the legislative process."
In the study, a research team with Penn State's Evidence-to-Impact Collaborative found that bills that became law were about 25 to 27 percent more likely to include research-based language. They analyzed 27,703 bills introduced across all 50 states between 2019 and 2024. Each bill included language related to child abuse or neglect. Using a validated keyword approach, the research team identified whether bills contained research-oriented terms such as "evidence-based," "data-informed," "risk factors," or references to statistical validation.
About 40 percent of the bills included some form of research evidence language.
"We were really interested in understanding what factors shape whether research gets incorporated into policymaking," author Patrick O'Neill said. "Not just at the bill level, but also at the state level."
How lawmakers framed the issue made an even bigger difference. Bills that addressed child abuse and neglect alongside substance use disorder were about 12 times more likely to include research language. Bills that connected child abuse with social determinants of health were roughly six times more likely to do so.
"That was one of the most surprising findings," O'Neill said. "The magnitude of those effects was really striking. When child abuse is framed as part of a broader, interconnected set of challenges, lawmakers seem much more likely to draw on research."
O'Neill found that collaboration played a meaningful role. Bills with bipartisan sponsorship were significantly more likely to reference research.
"When you have bipartisan sponsorship or co-sponsorship, the odds of including research language increase," O'Neill said. "It suggests that working across party lines may open the door to bringing in scientific evidence."
The number of sponsors mattered as well.
"Each additional sponsor slightly increased the likelihood that research language would be included," O'Neill said. "That points to the importance of coalition building."
State context also mattered. States with higher levels of policy innovativeness were more likely to include research language in their legislation.
"In more innovative states, especially those with greater economic capacity, we saw much higher use of research evidence," O'Neill said.
States that spent more on research and development overall were slightly less likely to include research language in child abuse legislation.
"It may be that overall research and development spending isn't necessarily directed toward policy-relevant social issues," O'Neill said.
For O'Neill, the implications are practical.
"Increasing the use of research evidence by policymakers has real consequences," O'Neill said. "It affects how often evidence-based policies are adopted and whether prevention and intervention programs are available to children and families affected by adversity."
O'Neill said that this study helped him appreciate the real-world impacts that research helps.
"Ultimately, this work shows that research does make its way into legislation," O'Neill said. "And when it does, it's associated with a higher likelihood that those policies actually become law and have an impact on children and families."
The co-authors on the paper are Lauren Kerr, senior data analyst at the University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine; Jessica Pugel, associate director of insights and analytics at the Research Translation Platform at Penn State; Elizabeth C. Long, assistant research professor of health and human development at Penn State; Christian M. Connell, Ken Young Family Professor in Healthy Children and director of the Child Maltreatment Solutions Network at Penn State; Tenesha Littleton, assistant professor at the University of Alabama; Jennie G. Noll, professor of psychology and executive director of Mt. Hope Family Center at the University of Rochester; Max Crowley, professor of human development and family studies and public policy director at the Edna Bennett Pierce Prevention Research Center; and Taylor Scott, associate research professor of human development and family studies and director of the Research Translation Platform at Penn State.
This work was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the William T. Grant Foundation.
Evidence use in child welfare policy tied to legislative success across states
Pat-Graphic-for-website
Penn State's Evidence-to-Impact Collaborative found that bills that became law were about 25 to 27 percent more likely to include research-based language. They analyzed 27,703 bills related to child abuse and neglect introduced between 2019 and 2024.
April 2, 2026
By Sarah Buttikofer
A Penn State study has found that including research evidence in state child abuse and neglect legislation may increase the likelihood that legislation will be passed.
"That's important," said Patrick O'Neill, doctoral candidate in Human Development and Family Studies and first author of a paper on the study published in the journal Child Abuse & Neglect, "It suggests that including research may not only strengthen the content of a bill but also increase its chances of moving through the legislative process."
In the study, a research team with Penn State's Evidence-to-Impact Collaborative found that bills that became law were about 25 to 27 percent more likely to include research-based language. They analyzed 27,703 bills introduced across all 50 states between 2019 and 2024. Each bill included language related to child abuse or neglect. Using a validated keyword approach, the research team identified whether bills contained research-oriented terms such as "evidence-based," "data-informed," "risk factors," or references to statistical validation.
About 40 percent of the bills included some form of research evidence language.
"We were really interested in understanding what factors shape whether research gets incorporated into policymaking," author Patrick O'Neill said. "Not just at the bill level, but also at the state level."
How lawmakers framed the issue made an even bigger difference. Bills that addressed child abuse and neglect alongside substance use disorder were about 12 times more likely to include research language. Bills that connected child abuse with social determinants of health were roughly six times more likely to do so.
"That was one of the most surprising findings," O'Neill said. "The magnitude of those effects was really striking. When child abuse is framed as part of a broader, interconnected set of challenges, lawmakers seem much more likely to draw on research."
O'Neill found that collaboration played a meaningful role. Bills with bipartisan sponsorship were significantly more likely to reference research.
"When you have bipartisan sponsorship or co-sponsorship, the odds of including research language increase," O'Neill said. "It suggests that working across party lines may open the door to bringing in scientific evidence."
The number of sponsors mattered as well.
"Each additional sponsor slightly increased the likelihood that research language would be included," O'Neill said. "That points to the importance of coalition building."
State context also mattered. States with higher levels of policy innovativeness were more likely to include research language in their legislation.
"In more innovative states, especially those with greater economic capacity, we saw much higher use of research evidence," O'Neill said.
States that spent more on research and development overall were slightly less likely to include research language in child abuse legislation.
"It may be that overall research and development spending isn't necessarily directed toward policy-relevant social issues," O'Neill said.
For O'Neill, the implications are practical.
"Increasing the use of research evidence by policymakers has real consequences," O'Neill said. "It affects how often evidence-based policies are adopted and whether prevention and intervention programs are available to children and families affected by adversity."
O'Neill said that this study helped him appreciate the real-world impacts that research helps.
"Ultimately, this work shows that research does make its way into legislation," O'Neill said. "And when it does, it's associated with a higher likelihood that those policies actually become law and have an impact on children and families."
The co-authors on the paper are Lauren Kerr, senior data analyst at the University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine; Jessica Pugel, associate director of insights and analytics at the Research Translation Platform at Penn State; Elizabeth C. Long, assistant research professor of health and human development at Penn State; Christian M. Connell, Ken Young Family Professor in Healthy Children and director of the Child Maltreatment Solutions Network at Penn State; Tenesha Littleton, assistant professor at the University of Alabama; Jennie G. Noll, professor of psychology and executive director of Mt. Hope Family Center at the University of Rochester; Max Crowley, professor of human development and family studies and public policy director at the Edna Bennett Pierce Prevention Research Center; and Taylor Scott, associate research professor of human development and family studies and director of the Research Translation Platform at Penn State.
This work was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the William T. Grant Foundation.
