This is a book that needed to be written. It is the first systematic study of U. S. nonpartisan state-legislative policy research organizations. John Hird describes these policy institutions that inform policymakers in the 50 states, probes the uses of policy research in political decisions, and examines their relationship to the political culture of which they are a part. The inquiry makes a significant contribution to what is already known about state-level policy analysis and decision making. It fills a gap in the literature for those considering the relationship between the information needs of legislators and the policy research provided to them. The focus is on knowledge utilization at the institutional level in general, rather than with specific reports on issues.

The small volume is packed with information. The first chapter explores the literature on policy analysis, particularly focusing on its development and limitations. The literature discussion is extensive and would help a novice reader quickly join the conversation. Political scientists in particular will be sensitive to the author's concerns that analysis is but one input into the political environment. The text is riddled with laments centering on the analyst's desire to inform and, indeed, change policy directions, while the effects may be small or nonexistent. A second chapter considers utilization of research findings and other reports. Hird explores the behaviors of individual legislators who both use and fail to use nonpartisan policy analysis. He observes that legislators have other sources of information, too, and that partisanship is on the rise. The text looks at these choices and delves into strategic decisions such as program delay and rationalizing preexisting preferences.

The backbone of the text is a comparative survey that probes the effects of politics and political institutions on the nature and conduct of nonpartisan policy analysis. The analysis of two surveys tests theories of policy research use. It comprises the first comprehensive review and assessment of nonpartisan policy agencies serving state legislatures. A written survey of all research organizations identified by the Council of Governments was conducted to define staffing, budgets, workflow, time allocation, and the like. The 90% response rate is impressive, and the follow-up interviews with legislators and analysts fill in useful data. We learn that agencies vary, but most were developed in the 1960s and 1970s. Most of their work is descriptive and short term, providing analysis but leaving recommendations to the decision makers. Most agencies report to the legislature as a whole, to leaders, or to a joint committee. The mean agency budget is $4.2 million for a staff of 19 and five clerical workers. A follow-up telephone survey of respondents queried directors on details of the analysis work undertaken and other policy analysis activities, both nonpartisan and partisan, within the legislature. Hird lays out the major functions: policy analysis, staff assistance, legal research, evaluation, bill drafting, and sometimes budget analysis. He discusses the issues surrounding the conduct of short-term and long-term research. While it is commonly expected that requests for studies come from individual legislators, he looks into the reasons that little analysis is self-initiated by the agency.

To explain variation in policy research organizations, the author considers distribution theory, principle agent theory, and information theory. The discussion considers arguments for the existence and persistence of these organizations. Information is power, and the uses of power have implications for policy organizations. Although legislatures are becoming increasingly more partisan, Hird tells us that they value nonpartisan research as a way to protect the legislature as a whole, to provide appearance of independent findings, and to establish credibility in reports. Another chapter reveals legislative preferences and attitudes toward information and policymaking. In his overview of 773 respondents, he considers a number of values in order to establish a matrix. States are organized by legislative professionalism (citizen, professional, hybrid) and culture (individualist, moralist, traditionalist). Legislator assessment of the importance of information sources is discussed against the backdrop of the matrix. Political leanings on economic and social issues are examined, as well as ideology. A multivariate assessment follows a look at associations between such factors as legislative assessments of performance and policy. The author controls for multiple independent economic, political, and individual characteristics to discern associations. The tables and figures clearly display the data.

In conclusion, Hird finds consistent impacts that nonpartisan research agencies have on influencing policy and on legislator assessment organizational capability. Many implications come from the findings, including the nature of policy analysis itself and teaching analysis. The text is a good reference for practitioners and academics, as well as those training for the world of analysis and those expecting to use the results of nonpartisan research. In short, Power, Knowledge, and Politics is a good read, including the footnotes. Hird does not disappoint.