Readers of this newsletter know that I focus repeatedly on the reality that states, counties, and cities are the vanguard of problem solving for the foreseeable future. The federal government is mired in a level of partisan combat that has precedents in U.S. history but takes on new meaning in a world where Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s pithy maxim — “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts” — no longer holds.
The devolution of responsibility around a multitude of hard challenges raises the fundamental question of whether states, counties and cities are even equipped to manage heightened obligations.
To that end, I thought it would be informative to have a brief chat with Shepard Nevel. Shepard has had a remarkable career serving, inter alia, as Assistant Miami-Dade County Attorney, Director of Policy for Denver Mayor Wellington Webb, Vice President of the Colorado Health Foundation, co-founder of an indoor air quality company, and most recently, Director of Policy & Research for Colorado Governor Jared Polis.
In May 2024, Shepard started a new Institute of Evidence-based Policymaking. I am privileged to sit on the Board, so I’ve seen firsthand how quickly this Institute has evolved to provide relevant information to state and local policymakers, whose jobs have become exponentially more difficult in a fractured Republic.
I think what Shepard has started could be the harbinger of a new kind of state institution. We recently caught up for the following conversation.
Question 1: Your professional journey is fascinating on many levels. What have you learned about the process of problem solving given your work for mayors and governors?
The biggest lesson is that executive policymakers receive a great deal of advocacy and not nearly enough unbiased, evidence-based research. Groups engaging with a governor’s or mayor’s office often come with cherry-picked research that supports their position. Advocacy research plays an important role, but it is not sufficient.
The second thing I learned is about timing and format. Good research that arrives after the decision is made or doesn’t connect the dots to what is already being done is of diminished value. When I was in government, I watched important decisions get made with substandard information, not because better research didn’t exist somewhere, but because no one had time to find it, synthesize it, ground it in additional primary research, and get it to the right person at the right moment.
And the third thing: many policy problems aren’t as partisan as they appear in public. When you’re in the room trying to solve something, whether it’s housing or public safety or streamlining government, people across the spectrum often share similar goals. The disagreements are usually about means, not ends. But the information ecosystem makes it harder to find that common ground because so much of it comes wrapped in an ideological package.
Question 2: What drove the creation of the Institute? What gap were you trying to fill? Where is the demand coming from?
A big driver was my own experience as a policy and research director – for a big-city Mayor and a data-driven Governor and, earlier in my career, as a policy-focused attorney for a large metropolitan government. Despite the appetite in many cases for the best available evidence-based information, the pace and environment was a barrier. And the research available — whether advocacy-based or academic — was insufficient.
I was able to pilot this approach at the municipal level on initiatives that were too often mired in bureaucracy or political polarization and informed our approaches to issues like poverty reduction, workforce development, labor policy, and public safety. And what I found was that contrary to the well-known cliché, the devil was not in the details. The solutions were in the details, and we were able to put together unusually broad coalitions of community-based organizations, nonprofits, the business community, and government.
But the capacity wasn’t there to do this on a more regular basis.
The Institute was created to fill that gap, the “missing middle,” with evidence-driven, highly customized research delivered at the point of decision-making.
There’s also a trust problem. Most policy institutes in Colorado, and nationally, were established to advance liberal or conservative agendas or a specific issue. Even when their research is sound it’s often selective, driven by confirmation bias. We saw an opportunity for an institute without ideological bias, focused on giving decision makers what they need: reliable information, customized to the specific question, delivered when the decision is being made.
Question 3: What issues have you tackled in the early years of the Institute? What factors drive the selection of topics? What impact are you beginning to see?
We’ve worked on state budget analysis, public safety, access to child care, housing, AI governance, and emergency management. More recently, we’ve expanded to producing evidence-based analyses of ballot measures, designed to give voters neutral information about what’s in a measure, what the fiscal implications are, and what the research says about similar policies elsewhere.
Topic selection comes down to three things.
First, is there an active decision on the table? We’re not producing academic research. We’re trying to inform choices that decision makers are actually facing.
Second, is there genuine uncertainty about what works? Some questions have clear answers in literature; others don’t. We focus on where rigorous analysis can add value.
Third, can we deliver it in time and in a format that’s useful? We provide a comprehensive report that includes a landscape analysis to build on what that state or local government has done in this issue area with regard to legislation, policies, and programs. Too often the recommendations of even well-researched reports are disconnected from the reality on the ground, and so are not actionable.
On impact, we had an independent evaluation of our work with the Colorado Governor’s Office. The evaluators found that executive leaders used our evidence to inform policy and budget decisions, that they described our work as credible, neutral, timely, and actionable, and that trust in the Institute was reinforced by our independence from both advocacy organizations and government.
That’s the feedback loop we’re trying to build — demonstrating value so that demand grows.
Question 4: Can you select one example of a topic where you provided objective information and the results of your intervention?
Our work on violent crime reduction for the Colorado Governor’s Office is a good case study. In 2024, the Governor’s operations team was engaging on the state’s “Wildly Important Goal” to reduce aggravated assault. They had tried various approaches but weren’t seeing the needle move. The challenge wasn’t lack of commitment, it was uncertainty about which strategies would actually work and how to align efforts across multiple agencies.
They asked us to step back and provide a comprehensive evidence review: what does the research say actually reduces violent crime? What strategies could Colorado realistically implement? What would they cost and when might we expect to see results?
We produced a report that examined both law enforcement and public health approaches. We assessed what was already being done in Colorado. Crucially, we didn’t just deliver a document and walk away. We participated in working meetings with state agency staff, answered questions, and helped translate findings into actionable plans.
The results were concrete. The Governor’s operations team used our framework to restructure how they engaged state agencies on violence reduction — instead of asking agencies to self-identify their role, they could now approach them with specific, evidence-based strategies.
On the policy side, staff used our report to inform the state’s public safety budget proposal. One senior official told the independent evaluators: “After I got the report, I went in and amended parts of the public safety proposal to basically bucket and align these different evidence-based strategies.”
An independent evaluation by Mindful Metrics found that decision makers described our work as credible, neutral, timely, and actionable — and that it was actually used in policy and budget decisions. That’s the standard we’re trying to meet. Not just producing good research; but delivering analysis that changes what actually happens.
Question 5: Can an evidence-driven institute exist during a period of intense polarization and partisanship?
It’s a fair question. I’d argue that polarization increases the demand for what we do. When people assume every source has an agenda, executives need analytical resources they can rely on precisely because so much of the advocacy ecosystem has become predictable.
If you want to feel optimistic about reducing political toxicity, watch how Republican and Democratic Governors and Mayors interact when they’re together — sharing common challenges and comparing notes on solutions. Mayors and Governors are situationally inclined toward evidence-based research because they’re held accountable for results. They receive continual, unfiltered feedback — on traffic, crime, trash pickup, permitting, public spending, homelessness, and emergency response. The demand exists for this type of research; we are dedicated to filling a gap in the supply.
But it requires discipline and a sustained commitment to research quality. We’re transparent about what the evidence shows, including when it’s uncertain or when it challenges what either side wants to hear. What we’re offering is a commitment to following the evidence wherever it leads.
Moreover, the public has an appetite for this type of information, although it’s often underrecognized.
According to a nonpartisan, statewide poll of more than 2,600 Coloradans, 91 percent view political polarization and lack of compromise between political parties to be a challenge. Seventy-seven percent believe that increasing state policymaker access to nonpartisan information and analysis of issues affecting Colorado would be an effective solution. By significant majorities, Coloradans and Americans more generally want to decrease political polarization and ensure that policymakers have access to unbiased, evidence-based information.
Colorado is a hub of national civic engagement and democracy-building work. Organizations based here or with a strong local presence include Unite America, National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation, The Listen First Project, The Bridge Alliance, National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers, The Better Arguments Project, Unify America, and Courageous Colorado.
We see our research as a tool that can support their efforts with the best available information in support of their consensus building.
Finally, it’s important to recognize that politics is cyclical. Right now, the “coin of the realm” is a harsh, pugilistic style. But history shows the political terrain can change in one or two election cycles by candidates who win with a different approach, designed to inform, persuade, and engage rather than demonize and enrage.
Question 6: Paint a picture of the Institute in three to five years. Where can this head?
I see us operating in multiple states — we’ve already expanded to support four political jurisdictions across two states — and serving as a resource for governors, mayors, and county managers who want to make decisions based on evidence rather than ideology. The model we’ve built in Colorado is replicable. It’s about establishing trust with executive decision makers and delivering analysis that’s useful and timely: the right information, at the right time, in the right format.
I also see significant growth in public-facing work.
This includes increasing visibility of research findings, and serving as a neutral resource for journalists, civic leaders, and community stakeholders
We’re also beginning to partner with organizations that specialize in convening diverse groups of residents to engage in structured dialogue on public issues. In these settings, IEBP serves as a neutral evidence partner, providing accessible research on topics identified by participants, including policy options, tradeoffs, and areas of uncertainty.
Question 7: Did you look at other model institutions when you set up the Institute?
We studied several models before launching the Institute. At the federal level, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers were an early point of reference. FFRDCs were created because government recognized it sometimes needs access to independent, rigorous analysis — research capacity that sits outside normal agency structures and isn’t driven by advocacy or commercial interests. That concept resonated with us. Congress has the Congressional Research Service, which provides nonpartisan background analysis for legislators, though CRS deliberately doesn’t make recommendations. They inform but stop short of advising.
When we looked at state and local government, we found a structural gap. Governors, mayors, and city and county managers often don’t have access to the same kind of independent analytical capacity. They receive plenty of advocacy from organizations with research supporting their position. What we provide is a trusted, independent resource that can synthesize evidence, customize it to their specific question and context, deliver it when the decision is actually being made, go beyond background to recommend a path forward, and stay engaged through implementation.
Bruce Katz is Founder of New Localism Associates and a Senior Advisor to the National Housing Crisis Task Force.