On the Evidence

On the Evidence is a measured interview series for people who want public policy explained from the inside. It is not built around speed. The show gives researchers, public officials, institutional leaders, and practitioners time to trace the path from a problem to the evidence that might make action possible. Recent episodes show that range clearly. One conversation on rising health care costs follows state-level work on affordability, market oversight, quality measurement, and multi-payer value-based care. The central question is practical: which costs improve access or quality, and which ones simply strain the system. Another episode turns to African smallholder farmers, with Dr. Agnes Kalibata describing the ecosystem required for farmers to increase yields, manage crop threats, withstand flooding and drought, and treat farming as a business. The show also examines fintech through Jesse Moore and mcopa, where smartphones, credit analytics, lending relationships, and everyday earners become part of a larger conversation about access and sustainable business models. Its policy lens is broad, but its method is consistent. A topic begins with lived or professional context, then moves toward data, incentives, governance, and implementation. Episodes on the Evidence Act and GAO reporting focus on the federal government’s capacity to collect, manage, and use evidence, while also questioning how much more guidance helps if agencies need technical assistance and practical follow-through. A conversation with Cecilia Rouse links economic research, White House policy work, communication, and institutional leadership. An interview with Robert Santos brings census work, identity, technology, and the public policy research pipeline into the same frame. The climate episode with Jenny Sung is typical of the show’s best habits: it explains soil carbon, livestock methane, regenerative agriculture, and emissions calculators without turning complexity into spectacle. On the Evidence is serious, but not remote. It assumes that listeners can handle nuance when the discussion stays grounded. Its recurring concern is not only what evidence says, but how people, agencies, markets, and communities can use it responsibly.