AMCHP is excited to announce that we will be launching the Evidence-Informed Policy Track of the MCH Innovations Database during our MCH Innovations Fall 2021 Review. The goal of the Policy Track is to identify model examples of evidence-informed MCH policies that policymakers and MCH professionals can use as blueprints to inform the development, implementation, and evaluation of future policies that benefit MCH populations. Policies considered for this track include both “Big P” (e.g., public or governmental policies) and “little p” policies (e.g., private or non-governmental policies). Policies are reviewed along four dimensions – Evidence, Equity, Relevance, and Impact. Check out the videos below to learn more.

Through its online repository of MCH policies, AMCHP shares practice-based evidence and helps states, jurisdictions, and communities identify potential policy solutions to MCH issues in their area. The Policy Track identifies model examples of MCH policies that can serve as blueprints for policymakers, MCH professionals, and advocates to inform future policy work to benefit MCH populations. AMCHP stresses that evidence-informed policy should be equitable, relevant, unbiased, and should lead to improved MCH outcomes, while being informed by the best available evidence.  

AMCHP’s Evidence-informed policy definition

AMCHP defines evidence-informed MCH policy according to the following statement:  


Evidence-informed MCH policy should be equitable, relevant, unbiased, and should lead to significant outcomes that improve the health of women, children, families, and communities. Successful MCH policy is informed in its development, implementation, and evaluation by the best available evidence, including input from affected populations, data, scientific research, and rigorous on-going evaluation. MCH policymaking occurs at all levels and settings, from community-based organizations, to state governments to federal agencies.


Check out the videos below to learn more:

Overview of “Big P” and “little p” Policy

Evidence-Informed Policy Track Overview

New Mexico Evidence-Informed Policy Example

how Are policy submissions reviewed?

All submissions to the policy track are reviewed by a team of reviewers with MCH policy knowledge who assess each policy along four dimensions: Evidence, Equity, Relevance, and Impact. Check out the “Evidence-Informed Policy Track Overview” video above to learn more about these dimensions.

Using these dimensions, the track assesses policy submissions to the database to determine if they are an example of Evidence-Informed Policy Development, Policy Implementation, and/or Policy Evaluation. In reviewing policy submissions, AMCHP’s goal is to be as inclusive as possible. All examples that meet the review criteria are accepted to the database. See the designation descriptions below for more information:

To receive the policy development designation, a big or little p policy must meet the following criteria:

  • Explains how evidence was used to inform the development of the policy, including anecdotal evidence from affected populations, surveillance/evaluation data, and/or research data
  • Clearly describes the need for the policy
  • Adequately considers the ways in which different racial/ethnic and other under-resourced groups are respectively advantaged and/or disadvantaged by the policy and attempts to address a root cause of these disparities
  • Demonstrates strong partner engagement, including people and groups most impacted by the policy
  • Describes policy aims and goals that seem appropriate and feasible given the needs and context
  • Describes the positive/equitable and adverse/inequitable outcomes that could result from the policy

To receive the policy implementation designation, a big or little p policy must meet the following criteria:

  • Explains how evidence was used to inform the implementation of the policy, including anecdotal evidence from affected populations, surveillance/evaluation data, and/or research data
  • Clearly describes the need for the policy
  • Adequately considers the ways in which different racial/ethnic and other under-resourced groups are respectively advantaged and/or disadvantaged by the policy and attempts to address a root cause of these disparities
  • Demonstrates strong partner engagement, including people and groups most impacted by the policy
  • Describes policy aims and goals that seem appropriate and feasible given the needs and context
  • Describes the positive/equitable and adverse/inequitable outcomes that could result from the policy
  • Explains how policy implementation efforts were monitored to ensure they are conducted as intended
  • Describes an appropriate evaluation plan to monitor success towards the policy goals
  • Demonstrates changes being made to improve policy implementation based on results from initial efforts

To receive the policy evaluation designation, a big or little p policy must meet the following criteria:

Presents adequate evidence to demonstrate the need for the policy

  • Adequately considers the ways in which different racial/ethnic and other under-resourced groups are respectively advantaged and/or disadvantaged by the policy and attempts to address a root cause of these disparities
  • Describes how adequate input and feedback from members of the groups most affected by the policy was collected with appropriate collection methods
  • Presents an evaluation plan that adequately monitors the policy’s implementation and impact
  • Demonstrates how the policy effectively met or did not meet its goals using evaluation data
  • Describes how the evaluation assessed both positive and negative unexpected outcomes
  • Demonstrates how the policy evaluation assessed the policy’s impact on inequities/disparities experienced by the racial/ethnic and other under-resourced groups

Interested in submitting?

Visit our Submit a Policy page to access our submission forms.