Advancing the Power of Economic

Evidence to Inform Investments in

Children Youth and Families 1st Edition
And Medicine Engineering National
Academies Of Sciences
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/advancing-the-power-of-economic-evidence-to-inform
-investments-in-children-youth-and-families-1st-edition-and-medicine-engineering-nati
onal-academies-of-sciences/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Advancing Obesity Solutions Through Investments in the

Built Environment Proceedings of a Workshop 1st Edition
And Medicine Engineering National Academies Of Sciences

https://ebookmeta.com/product/advancing-obesity-solutions-
through-investments-in-the-built-environment-proceedings-of-a-
workshop-1st-edition-and-medicine-engineering-national-academies-
of-sciences/

Achieving Behavioral Health Equity for Children,

Families, and Communities 1st Edition Medicine
Engineering National Academies Of Sciences

https://ebookmeta.com/product/achieving-behavioral-health-equity-
for-children-families-and-communities-1st-edition-medicine-
engineering-national-academies-of-sciences/

How Modeling Can Inform Strategies to Improve

Population Health Workshop Summary 1st Edition And
Medicine Engineering National Academies Of Sciences

https://ebookmeta.com/product/how-modeling-can-inform-strategies-
to-improve-population-health-workshop-summary-1st-edition-and-
medicine-engineering-national-academies-of-sciences/

The Value of Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences to

National Priorities A Report for the National Science
Foundation 1st Edition And Medicine Engineering
National Academies Of Sciences
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-value-of-social-behavioral-and-
economic-sciences-to-national-priorities-a-report-for-the-
national-science-foundation-1st-edition-and-medicine-engineering-
Measuring Serious Emotional Disturbance in Children
Workshop Summary 1st Edition And Medicine Engineering
National Academies Of Sciences

https://ebookmeta.com/product/measuring-serious-emotional-
disturbance-in-children-workshop-summary-1st-edition-and-
medicine-engineering-national-academies-of-sciences/

Advancing Concepts and Models for Measuring Innovation

Proceedings of a Workshop 1st Edition And Medicine
Engineering National Academies Of Sciences

https://ebookmeta.com/product/advancing-concepts-and-models-for-
measuring-innovation-proceedings-of-a-workshop-1st-edition-and-
medicine-engineering-national-academies-of-sciences/

Training the Future Child Health Care Workforce to

Improve the Behavioral Health of Children Youth and
Families Proceedings of a workshop 1st Edition National
Academies Of Sciences
https://ebookmeta.com/product/training-the-future-child-health-
care-workforce-to-improve-the-behavioral-health-of-children-
youth-and-families-proceedings-of-a-workshop-1st-edition-
national-academies-of-sciences/

Advancing Disease Modeling in Animal Based Research in

Support of Precision Medicine Proceedings of a Workshop
1st Edition And Medicine Engineering National Academies
Of Sciences
https://ebookmeta.com/product/advancing-disease-modeling-in-
animal-based-research-in-support-of-precision-medicine-
proceedings-of-a-workshop-1st-edition-and-medicine-engineering-
national-academies-of-sciences/

Applying a Health Lens to Business Practices Policies

and Investments Workshop Summary 1st Edition And
Medicine Engineering National Academies Of Sciences

https://ebookmeta.com/product/applying-a-health-lens-to-business-
practices-policies-and-investments-workshop-summary-1st-edition-
and-medicine-engineering-national-academies-of-sciences/
 ADVANCING THE POWER OF
Economic Evidence
to Inform Investments in
Children, Youth, and Families

Committee on the Use of Economic Evidence to

Inform Investments in Children, Youth, and Families

Eugene Steuerle and Leigh Miles Jackson, Editors

Board on Children, Youth, and Families

Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, DC
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001

This activity was supported by Contract No. 10002411 from the

Jacobs Foundation, Contract No. 10002006 from the MacArthur
Foundation, and Contract No. 10002289 from the Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or
recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily
reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support
for the project.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-44059-2

International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-44059-9
Digital Object Identifier: 10.17226/23481
Epub ISBN: 978-0-309-44062-2

Additional copies of this report are available for sale from the
National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360,
Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313;
http://www.nap.edu.

Copyright 2016 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights

reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Cover credit: Jay Christian Design, LLC.

Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,

and Medicine. (2016). Advancing the Power of Economic Evidence to
Inform Investments in Children, Youth, and Families. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23481.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by
an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private,
nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to
science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is
president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964

under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected
by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C.
D. Mote, Jr., is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of

Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health
issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished
contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other
activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy
decisions. The Academies also encourage education and research,
recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and
medicine.

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,

and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.
 COMMITTEE ON THE USE OF ECONOMIC
EVIDENCE TO INFORM INVESTMENTS IN
CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES
EUGENE STEUERLE (Chair), Urban Institute, Washington, DC
RICARDO BASURTO-DAVILA, Office of Health Assessment and
Epidemiology, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health,
CA
JENNIFER BROOKS, Early Learning, U.S. Program, Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA
JEANNE BROOKS-GUNN, Teachers College and the College of
Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York City, NY
BARBARA CHOW, Education Program, William and Flora Hewlett
Foundation, Menlo Park, CA
PHAEDRA CORSO, Department of Health Policy and Management,
University of Georgia, Athens
DANIEL MAX CROWLEY, College of Health and Human
Development, Pennsylvania State University, University Park
JODY L. FITZPATRICK, School of Public Affairs (retired),
University of Colorado, Denver
LYNN A. KAROLY, Pardee RAND Graduate School, RAND
Corporation, Philadelphia, PA
MARGARET KUKLINSKI, Social Development Research Group,
School of Social Work, University of Washington, Seattle
RACHEL NUGENT, Chronic Noncommunicable Diseases Global
Initiative, RTI International, Seattle, WA
OLGA ACOSTA PRICE, Center for Health and Health Care in
Schools, George Washington University, Washington, DC
TED MILLER, Public Services Research Institute, Pacific Institute for
Research and Evaluation, Calverton, MD
ANNE SHERIDAN, Sheridan & Associates, Potomac, MD

LEIGH MILES JACKSON, Study Director

BRIDGET KELLY, Senior Program Officer
TARA MAINERO, Associate Program Officer
NOAM KEREN, Research Associate
STACEY SMIT, Senior Program Assistant
PAMELLA ATAYI, Administrative Assistant
ALIA SANI, Intern
BOARD ON CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES
ANGELA DIAZ (Chair), Departments of Pediatrics and Preventive
Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
SHARI BARKIN, Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital, Vanderbilt
University
THOMAS F. BOAT, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati
W. THOMAS BOYCE, Faculty of Medicine, University of British
Columbia
DAVID A. BRENT, Western Psychiatric Institute and University of
Pittsburgh School of Medicine
DAVID V.B. BRITT, Sesame Workshop (retired)
DEBBIE I. CHANG, Nemours Health and Prevention Services
PATRICK H. DELEON, F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine and
the Graduate School of Nursing Uniformed Services University of
the Health Sciences
ELENA FUENTES-AFFLICK, University of California, San Francisco,
and San Francisco General Hospital
EUGENE E. GARCIA, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona
State University
J. DAVID HAWKINS, School of Social Work, University of
Washington
JEFFREY W. HUTCHINSON, Uniformed Services University of the
Health Sciences
JACQUELINE JONES, Foundation for Child Development
ANN S. MASTEN, Institute of Child Development, University of
Minnesota
VELMA McBRIDE MURRY, Peabody College, Vanderbilt University
BRUCE S. McEWEN, The Rockefeller University
MARTIN J. SEPULVEDA, IBM Corporation
TAHA E. TAHA, Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of
Public Health

NATACHA BLAIN, Director(beginning December 2015)

KIMBER BOGARD, Director (through July 2015)
BRIDGET KELLY, Acting Director (July-December 2015)
 Preface

Almost nothing drives the development of society more than

investments in the nation’s children. Accordingly, public and private
policy makers, funders, and others have in recent years called for
and sponsored the production and use of economic evidence to
inform decision making on how to make such investments. The
rationale for these efforts appears straightforward: better evidence
should enable higher returns from such investments. Yet to date, the
use of such evidence has been limited. Why? Many reasons might be
ventured: politics, special interests, power of the status quo, the
limits on which evidence can be quantified, and the relative
adolescence of the field. Some of these reasons can be interesting
from an historical viewpoint, but the more compelling question for
future investments is how to improve the development of economic
evidence so it can better inform those investments.
Two answers to this latter question stand out and serve as the two
principles around which this report is organized: quality counts and
context matters. The better the quality of the research, the better it
is received, and the more likely it is to generate demand for future
economic evidence even on unrelated investments. At the same
time, if high-quality evidence is to be used well, it must be suited to
the context in which decisions are made. It must be timely and
relevant to the decisions at hand and account for many other needs
of the consumer. It was in teasing out the many ramifications of
these two principles that the committee convened to conduct this
study responded to a 2014 charge from its sponsors—the Jacobs
Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, and the Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation—to study how to improve the use of economic
evidence to inform investments in children, youth, and families.
The committee focused its attention on economic evaluation, a
type of economic analysis that is commonly performed to provide
economic information related to investments in children, youth, and
families. Economic evaluation encompasses cost analysis, cost-
effectiveness analysis, benefit-cost analysis, and related methods
used in an effort to quantify program costs and outcomes and
potentially to make comparisons among programs. These methods
are commonly employed in randomized controlled trials, but by no
means does the committee discount the value of other approaches—
ranging from theory to qualitative analysis to other forms of
statistical analysis—and indeed, it encourages researchers reporting
on economic evaluation to acknowledge what might be learned
through such other means.
Perhaps not surprising, the committee identified many instances in
which the quality of economic evidence was low, such as failure to
account for many types of costs, or was reported in ways that could
mislead by failing to acknowledge limitations of the analysis, often
forced by restricted budgets. Accordingly, a major goal of this study
was to recommend a number of ways in which current practices in
the production of economic evidence could be improved. Likewise,
this report suggests that producers and consumers of economic
evidence can gain by giving considerable attention before, during,
and after economic evaluations are performed to the context or
broader system within which investment decisions are made. Setting
and organizational capacity matter—as do politics and values, culture
and management practices, and budget. This report includes a
roadmap outlining a multipronged strategy for fostering multi-
stakeholder partnerships to address these issues and for improving
incentives for the use of economic evidence for various stakeholders,
ranging from publishers of economic research results to program
evaluators.
Needless to say, the topic of this study is of such breadth that the
committee makes no pretense of having covered every angle. In
some cases, moreover, it was necessary to apply lessons from
related literatures because the literature on the actual use of
economic evaluations was scant.
The committee members brought to this study a wide range of
experience and expertise, as well as common sense. Their energy
was unbounded; their enthusiasm strong; and their dedication to the
public good through solid, professional, and unbiased research
paramount. This report was truly a collaborative effort, with multiple
authors and mutual editors and wide acceptance of critiques. It was
my pleasure to serve with this esteemed group.
The committee’s talents would have been sorely tried without the
superlative efforts of the study staff, led by Leigh Miles Jackson,
study director; Tara Mainero, associate program officer; Noam Keren,
research associate; and Stacey Smit, senior program assistant.
Wonderful guidance and encouragement also were provided by
Natacha Blain, current director of the Board on Children, Youth, and
Families; Bridget Kelly, former acting director; and earlier, Kimber
Bogard, then serving as director. The report also benefited greatly
from the efforts of our editor, Rona Briere. They kept us on track,
organized our disparate thoughts, and made extraordinary
organizational and other tasks look ordinary. The committee extends
its profound thanks and indebtedness to them.
Of course, this study is not about us; it is about the children,
youth, and families whose lives are touched, often in crucial and
profound ways, by the investment decisions that were this study’s
focus. It is our hope that we have advanced their well-being by
describing ways to inform these decisions through better use of
economic evidence. If producers and consumers of this evidence
devote greater attention to its quality and the context in which it is
used, we believe we will have succeeded in that task.
Eugene Steuerle, Chair
Committee on the Use of Economic
Evidence to Inform Investments in
Children, Youth, and Families
 Acknowledgments

This report reflects contributions from numerous individuals and

groups. The committee takes this opportunity to recognize those
who so generously gave their time and expertise to inform its
deliberations. To begin, the committee would like to thank the
sponsors of this study. Support for the committee’s work was
provided by the Jacobs Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, and
the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. We wish to thank Valerie
Chang, Kerry Anne McGeary, and Simon Sommer for their guidance
and support.
The committee greatly benefited from the opportunity for
discussion with individuals who made presentations at and attended
its workshops and meetings (see Appendix A). The committee is
thankful for the many contributions of these individuals.
The committee could not have done its work without the support
and guidance provided by the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine project staff: Leigh Miles Jackson, Tara
Mainero, Noam Keren, and Stacey Smit. The committee is also
grateful to Lisa Alston, Pamella Atayi, and Faye Hillman for their
administrative and financial assistance on this project, and gratefully
acknowledges Kimber Bogard, Bridget Kelly, and Natacha Blain of
the Board on Children, Youth, and Families for the guidance they
provided throughout this important study.
Many other staff within the Academies provided support to this
project in various ways. The committee would like to thank the
executive office reports staff of the Division of Behavioral and Social
Sciences and Education (DBASSE), especially Kirsten Sampson-
Snyder, who managed the report review process. Thanks are due as
well to the staff in the DBASSE Office of Communication and Reports
(Patricia L. Morison, Douglas Sprunger, Eugenia Grohman, Viola
Horek, and Yvonne Wise), Janice Mehler of the Report Review
Committee, the Academies Research Center staff (Victoria Harriston,
Daniel Bearss, Rebecca Morgan, and Ellen Kimmel), and the National
Academies Press staff.
We thank Richard Cookson, Donald P. Moynihan, Spyros
Konstantopoulos, and Jeffrey Valentine for their valuable
commissioned work. We are grateful to Lauren Tobias and Steve
Olson for their work as communications consultants for this study, as
well as to Jay Christian, Francesca Moghari, and Michael Dudzik for
their creative efforts in our graphic design projects. We also wish to
thank Justin Ingels, Nathaniel Taylor, Rebecca Walcott, Laura Wiese,
and the project’s intern, Alia Sani, for the superb research assistance
they provided. Finally, Rona Briere and Alisa Decatur are to be
credited for their superb editorial assistance in preparing this report.
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen
for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance
with procedures approved by the Report Review Committee of the
Academies. The purpose of this independent review is to provide
candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making
its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the
report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and
responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft
manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the
deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for
their review of this report: Richard P. Barke, School of Public Policy,
Georgia Institute of Technology; Jere R. Behrman, Department of
Economics, University of Pennsylvania; Janet Currie, Department of
Economics and Center for Health and Wellbeing, Princeton
University; Paula M. Lantz, Research and Policy Engagement, Gerald
R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan; Henry M.
Levin, Economics and Education, Teachers College, Columbia
University and Education and Economics, (emeritus), Stanford
University; Rebecca A. Maynard, Education and Social Policy,
University of Pennsylvania; Lawrence A. Palinkas, Department of
Child, Youth and Families and Behavior, Health and Society Research
Cluster, School of Social Work, University of Southern California; Dan
T. Rosenbaum, Economic Policy Division, Office of Management and
Budget; Charles Sallee, New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee,
Santa Fe.
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive
comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the
report’s conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final
draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was
overseen by Robert A. Moffitt, Department of Economics, Johns
Hopkins University, and Greg J. Duncan, School of Education,
University of California, Irvine. Appointed by the Academies, they
were responsible for making certain that an independent
examination of this report was carried out in accordance with
institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully
considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests
entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
 Contents

SUMMARY

1 INTRODUCTION
Study Context
Study Charge
Study Approach
Study Scope and Key Definitions
Report Audiences
Guiding Principles
Report Organization
References

2 SETTING THE STAGE

Methods for Economic Evaluation
Stakeholders of the Production and Use of Economic Evidence
Current Uses of Economic Evaluation to Inform Investments in
Children, Youth, and Families
Challenges in the Use of Economic Evaluation to Inform
Investments in Children, Youth, and Families
Economic Evidence as Part of the Evidence Ecosystem
References
3 PRODUCING HIGH-QUALITY ECONOMIC EVIDENCE TO
INFORM INVESTMENTS IN CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND
FAMILIES
Determining Whether an Intervention Is Ready for Economic
Evaluation
Defining the Scope of the Economic Evaluation
Evaluating Intervention Cost
Determining Intervention Impacts
Valuing Outcomes
Getting to Results: The Development and Reporting of Summary
Measures
Handling Uncertainty in Economic Evaluation
Addressing Equity Considerations
Recommendations for Best Practices for Producing and Reporting
High-Quality Economic Evidence
References

4 CONTEXT MATTERS
Alignment of Evidence with the Decision Context
Other Factors in the Use of Evidence
Factors That Can Facilitate the Use of Economic Evidence
Examples of Efforts to Improve the Use of Evaluation Evidence
Recommendations
References

5 A ROADMAP FOR IMPROVING THE USE OF HIGH-QUALITY

ECONOMIC EVIDENCE
Overview of the Preceding Chapters
A Roadmap for Success
Recommendations
References

APPENDIXES
A Public Session Agendas
B Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff
GLOSSARY
List of Boxes, Figures, and Tables

BOXES
S-1 Methods Used to Produce Economic Evidence
S-2 What Consumers and Producers of Economic Evidence Want
Each Other to Know

1-1 Statement of Task

1-2 National Academies Efforts Relevant to the Study Charge
1-3 Information-Gathering Process
1-4 Summary of Key Definitions

2-1 Illustrative Example of Cost Analysis (CA)

2-2 Illustrative Example of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA)
2-3 Illustrative Example of Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA)
2-4 Concepts of Equity
2-5 The Role of Economic Evidence in Promoting Publicly Funded
Home Visiting Programs
2-6 Issues Affecting the Use of Economic Evidence

3-1 Assessing Approaches to Measuring Quality-of-Life Gains

4-1 Building Capacity to Seek and Use Evidence: An Example
4-2 The Importance of Implementation Fidelity: An Example
4-3 The Impetus for Economic Evaluation: Examples
4-4 Illustrative Example of Accountability: No Child Left Behind
4-5 Knowledge Translation Strategies

5-1 Recommendations from Chapter 3

5-2 Recommendations from Chapter 4
5-3 What Consumers and Producers of Economic Evidence Want
Each Other to Know

FIGURES
3-1 Different types of economic evaluation can be conducted to
answer different types of questions

4-1 Opportunities for the use of administrative data in economic

evaluations

TABLES
1-1 Types of Interventions Relevant to This Study
1-2 Outcome Domains of Interventions Relevant to This Study

2-1 Types of Economic Evaluation Methods and Associated

Information Requirements and Outputs
2-2 Examples of Evidence-Supported Legislation/Programs and
Resulting Impacts

3-1 Illustrative Valuation of Fixed and Variable Cost in Cost Analysis

3-2 Examples of Direct and Linked Economic Impacts in Three
Benefit-Cost Analysis Studies
3-3 Means and 95 Percent Confidence Intervals of Values of
Willingness to Pay to Prevent a Homicide, by Study (in millions
of 2014 dollars)
 Summary

In recent years, the U.S. federal government has invested

approximately $463 billion annually in interventions1 that affect the
overall health and well-being of children and youth, while state and
local budgets have devoted almost double that amount. The
potential returns on these investments may not only be substantial
but also have long-lasting effects for individuals and succeeding
generations of their families. Those tasked with making these
investments face a number of difficult questions, such as:

What does it cost to implement this intervention in my particular

context and what are its expected returns?
To what extent can these returns be measured in monetary or
nonmonetary terms?
Who will receive the returns and when?
Is this investment a justifiable use of scarce resources relative to
other investments?

Ideally, decision makers would have available to them the

evidence needed to answer these questions, informing their
investments and increasing the investment returns. Economic
evidence2 in particular has great potential to show not just what
works but what works within budget constraints. (Box S-1 defines
the methods used to produce economic evidence that are the focus
of this study.) As the result of a number of challenges, however, such
evidence may not be effectively produced or applied. These
shortcomings weaken society’s ability to invest wisely and also
reduce future demand for this and other types of evidence.

BOX S-1
Methods Used to Produce Economic Evidence
The methods used to produce economic evidence, collectively
termed economic evaluations, encompass the following:
Cost analysis (CA)—Can help answer the question: What does it cost to
fully implement a given intervention for a specified time period? This
evaluation can provide a complete accounting of the economic costs of all
the resources used to carry out an intervention.

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA)—Can help answer the questions:

What is the economic cost to achieve a unit change in a given outcome
from an intervention (e.g., one more high school graduate) or what is the
amount of a given outcome obtained for each dollar invested in an
intervention? When comparing two or more interventions, the one that
can produce the outcome at lowest cost or the one that can produce the
largest gain for each dollar invested would generally be selected. For CEA,
outcomes of an intervention are typically measured in nonmonetary terms.

Benefit-cost analysis (BCA)—Can help answer the question: Is the

investment a justifiable use of scarce resources? This evaluation
determines whether the economic value of the outcomes of an
intervention exceeds the economic value of the resources required to
implement the intervention. Interventions with net value, or total net
benefit, greater than zero are considered justifiable from an economic
standpoint. For BCA, both outcomes and costs of an intervention are
valued in monetary terms.
 In this context, the Institute of Medicine and the National
Research Council, in fall 2014, empaneled the Committee on the Use
of Economic Evidence to Inform Investments in Children, Youth, and
Families. In this report, the committee highlights the potential for
economic evidence to support these investments; describes
challenges to its optimal use; and offers recommendations whose
implementation can promote lasting improvement in its quality,
utility, and use.

IMPROVING THE USE OF ECONOMIC

EVIDENCE IN DECISION MAKING
While many decisions about investments in children, youth, and
families would be enhanced by stronger evidence, including
economic evidence, decision makers face budget constraints, time
limitations, and competing incentives that limit their use of such
evidence. The committee proposes that to overcome these
limitations, both producers and consumers of economic evidence
give full consideration to two simple but fundamental guiding
principles: (1) quality counts and (2) context matters.

Quality Counts
The committee identified challenges to the quality of economic
evidence that limit its utility and use. For example, high-quality
evidence can be difficult to derive because economic evaluation
methods are complex and entail many assumptions. Moreover,
methods are applied inconsistently in different studies, making
results difficult to compare and use appropriately for policy and
investment decisions. Furthermore, the evaluation results may be
communicated in ways that obscure important findings, are
unsuitable for nonresearch audiences, or are not deemed reliable or
compelling by decision makers.
 Based on its review of the landscape of economic evaluation, the
committee produced a set of research conclusions. These
conclusions determined that conducting an economic evaluation
requires careful consideration of a number of assumptions,
decisions, and practices to produce economic evidence that is of
high quality. For example, high-quality economic evaluations are
characterized by a clearly defined intervention and a well-specified
counterfactual; a previously established perspective, time horizon,
and baseline discount rate; accurate cost estimates of the resources
needed to replicate the intervention; and consideration of the
uncertainty associated with the evaluation findings. In addition, the
committee concluded that registries can increase uniformity of
practice, and that the acknowledgment of equity concerns can
enhance the quality and usefulness of economic evaluations.

Context Matters
Economic evidence, even of the highest quality, may not be used
effectively to inform investment decisions if it is deemed irrelevant,
infeasible, or difficult to interpret by its consumers. Yet, evidence is
often produced without considering the end-user’s needs, values,
and capacity to access and analyze the evidence—that is, the
context for evidence use.
From its review of the salient research, the committee drew a set
of conclusions about the utility and use of evidence to inform
investments in children, youth, and families. For example, the
infrastructure for developing, accessing, analyzing, and
disseminating research evidence often has not been developed in
public agencies and private organizations; interactive, ongoing,
collaborative relationships between decision makers and researchers
and trusted knowledge brokers are a promising strategy for
improving the use of economic evidence; and that growing interest
in performance-based financing is likely to increase the demand for
economic evidence to inform decisions on investments in children,
youth, and families. Moreover, whether evidence is used varies
significantly according to the type of investment decision being made
and the decision maker’s incentives (or lack thereof) for its use. In
short, the committee determined that economic evidence has the
potential to play an influential role in the decision-making process—if
the concerns and interests of decision makers are considered in the
development and communication of evidence.

A ROADMAP FOR MOVING FORWARD

Many of the challenges to the quality, use, and utility of economic
evidence affect its consumers, producers, and intermediaries3 alike.
Accordingly, the committee formulated a roadmap for promoting
improvements in the use and usefulness of high-quality economic
evidence. This roadmap highlights the need to foster multi-
stakeholder partnerships and build coordinated infrastructure to
support the development and use of economic evidence.
The committee concluded that long-term, multi-stakeholder
collaborations that include producers, consumers, and intermediaries
can provide vital support for the improved use of economic evidence
to inform investments in children, youth, and families. Together
these stakeholders can play a more impactful role not simply by
gathering but also by working together to build a sustainable,
coordinated infrastructure that will support the systematic use of
high-quality economic evidence. However, investments are vitally
needed to help build such an infrastructure. Funders, policy makers,
program developers, program evaluators, and publishers engaged in
science communication each have unique opportunities to help
achieve this advancement, but those opportunities, in turn, will
depend in no small part on the incentives offered by the various
stakeholders to each other.
Given the crucial need to improve communication among and
between stakeholders, sometimes even at the most basic level, the
committee identified key messages that producers and consumers of
economic evidence would like each other to know and take account
of before, during, and after the production of economic evidence
(see Box S-2).

RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on their research conclusions, the committee formulated
recommendations for producing high-quality economic evidence;
improving the utility and use of evidence; and actualizing those
improvements to better inform investments for children, youth, and
families.

Producing High-Quality Economic Evidence

The committee developed a set of best practices to help current
and would-be producers of economic evidence understand when an
intervention is sufficiently ready for an economic evaluation and
what it takes to produce and report high-quality economic evidence
so as to achieve transparency, consistency, and usefulness to
decision makers. Although these best practices are targeted largely
at the producers of evidence, they also should be helpful to
consumers of the evidence, particularly with respect to assessing its
quality and completeness. It is the committee’s hope that these best
practices will serve as the basis for long-term improvements to
support the production of clear, credible, and applicable economic
evidence for decision makers. Such practices depend upon the type
of economic evaluation being performed, and range from describing
the purpose of an intervention, the alternative with which the
intervention is compared, and the time horizon for the analysis; to
valuing all the resources needed to implement and sustain the
intervention; to determining the extent to which impacts are
included; to employing sensitivity analysis. The list is wide ranging
and fairly comprehensive and is provided in checklist form at the end
of this summary for use particularly by those preparing for and
engaging in an economic evaluation of an investment.
RECOMMENDATION 1: In support of high-quality
economic evaluations, producers of economic evidence
should follow the best practices delineated in the
checklist below for conducting cost analyses, cost-
effectiveness analyses, benefit-cost analyses, and
related methods. Producers should follow the core
practices listed and, where feasible and applicable, the
advancing practices as well. Consumers of economic
evidence should use these recommended best practices
to assess the quality of the economic evidence available
to inform the investment decisions they are seeking to
make.

BOX S-2
What Consumers and Producers of Economic Evidence
Want Each Other to Know
Five Things Consumers of Economic Evidence Want
Producers to Know

1. Many factors other than economic evidence (including

political pressures and capacity) influence the decision-
making process.
2. The time frames for research outcomes and investment
decisions can be very different and affect the value of the
evidence.
3. Seldom do all the benefits realized from investment
decisions accrue to those who make the decisions or their
community.
4. Existing evidence is not always aligned with the evidence
needed by the decision maker.
5. Real-world constraints that affect the implementation
fidelity and scale-up of an intervention need to be identified
 before further investments are made.

Five Things Producers of Economic Evidence Want

Consumers to Know

1. Better investment decisions can be made with a

foundational understanding of precisely what economic
evidence is, the ways it can be used, its limitations, and
considerations of causality and external validity.
2. Either directly or through intermediaries, consumers need
to be able to distinguish between higher- and lower-quality
economic evaluations.
3. Clearinghouses reveal only which interventions have
attained success, usually relative to some alternative and
according to certain specified criteria; accordingly, they
cannot and generally should not be considered adequate to
indicate which programs are best suited to a particular
organization, context, or goal.
4. To support sound investments in children and facilitate
high-quality program implementation, investment is
required in the infrastructure needed to collect, analyze,
and disseminate high-quality economic evidence; crucial
here are data tracking children’s well-being over time so
that future, often not-yet-specified, evaluations can be
conducted.
5. Investing in education, training, technical assistance, and
capacity building often leads to successful development,
analysis, and implementation of interventions.

RECOMMENDATION 2: In support of high-quality and

useful economic evaluations of interventions for
children, youth, and families, producers of economic
 evidence should follow the best practices delineated in
the checklist below for reporting the results of cost
analyses, cost-effectiveness analyses, benefit-cost
analyses, and related methods.

Improving the Utility and Use of Economic

Evidence
To help improve the utility and use of economic evidence to inform
investments for children, youth, and families, the committee
developed a set of recommendations addressing the opportunities
available to a diverse group of stakeholders. Public and private
funders, government agencies, and education providers each hold
an influential position with respect to the production and use of
economic evidence. It is the committee’s hope that stakeholders will
implement these recommendations to increase funding, training, and
support for the improved use of economic evidence in decisions on
investments for children, youth, and families.

RECOMMENDATION 3: If aiming to inform decisions on

interventions for children, youth, and families, public
and private funders of applied research4 should assess
the potential relevance of proposed research projects to
end-users throughout the planning of research
portfolios.

RECOMMENDATION 4: To achieve anticipated economic

benefits and optimize the likelihood of deriving the
anticipated outcomes from evidence-based
interventions, public and private funders5 should ensure
that resources are available to support effective
implementation of those interventions.
 RECOMMENDATION 5: Providers of postsecondary and
graduate education, on-the-job training, and fellowship
programs designed to develop the skills of those making
or seeking to inform decisions related to children, youth,
and families should incorporate training in the use of
evidence, including economic evidence, in decision
making.

RECOMMENDATION 6: Government agencies6 should

report the extent to which their allocation of funds—
both within and across programs—is supported by
evidence, including economic evidence.

Actualizing Improvements in the Utility and

Use of High-Quality Economic Evidence
To promote lasting improvement in the quality, utility, and use of
economic evidence to inform investments for children, youth, and
families, the committee determined that both producers and
consumers of economic evidence need to engage at several levels
beyond simply producing higher-quality and more useful evidence in
a single research endeavor. Multiple stakeholder groups—including
funders, policy makers, program developers, program evaluators,
and publishers engaged in science communication—contribute to the
production and use of economic evidence. Each of these groups can
either facilitate or impede the production and use of high-quality,
high-utility economic evidence. To initiate and sustain process
reforms, the committee recommends that efforts be made to foster
the development of multi-stakeholder collaborations and
partnerships, build and fund coordinated infrastructure, and
strengthen incentives for the production and use of better economic
evidence.
RECOMMENDATION 7: Program developers, public and
private funders, and policy makers should design,
support, and incorporate comprehensive stakeholder
partnerships (involving producers, consumers, and
intermediaries) into action plans related to the use of
economic evidence.

RECOMMENDATION 8: Multi-stakeholder groups should

seek to build infrastructure that (1) supports access to
administrative data; (2) maintains a database of
estimates of outcome values; (3) archives longitudinal
data for multiple purposes, including improved tracking
of children and families and the development of better
estimates of long-term impacts and shadow prices; (4)
educates future producers and consumers of economic
evidence; and (5) develops tools for tracking
nonbudgetary resource consumption.

RECOMMENDATION 9: To support sustainable action

toward the production and use of high-quality economic
evidence, public and private funders should invest in
infrastructure that supports (1) the regular convening of
producers, consumers, and intermediaries of economic
evidence; (2) enhanced education and training in
economic evaluation; (3) efforts to attend to
progressive data requirements and data-sharing
management needs; and (4) the integration of economic
evaluations into budget processes.

RECOMMENDATION 10: Public and private funders,

policy makers, program developers, program evaluators,
and publishers engaged in science communication
should strengthen the incentives they provide for the
production and use of high-quality economic evidence
likely to be of high utility to decision makers.
 Checklist of Best Practices for Producing High-Quality
Economic Evidence

For All Economic Evaluation Methods, Report the Following:

— Specify the intervention for the economic evaluation, including a

description of the intervention’s purpose, its intended recipients,
the intensity and duration of services provided, the approach to
implementation, the causal mechanisms, and the intended
impact(s).
— Specify the context in which the intervention was or will be
implemented, such as characteristics of the population served;
the time, place, and scale of implementation; and other relevant
contextual factors.
— Specify the counterfactual condition, including whether the
alternative is no intervention, an alternative intervention, or
business as usual. In the case of cost-effectiveness analysis
(CEA) and benefit-cost analysis (BCA), ensure that the same
counterfactual applies to the cost analysis (CA) and the impacts
used for the CEA or BCA.
— Determine the scope of the economic evaluation, including the
type of method to be used and the perspective (and any
subperspectives) for the analysis; if the societal perspective is
not adopted, discuss limitations of the evidence and/or generate
results from the societal perspective in a sensitivity analysis.
— Determine the currency and reference year for all monetary
values.
— If new taxes will be used to fund the intervention, determine the
assumed deadweight loss parameter. If a 0 percent rate is
selected (i.e., no deadweight loss), generate results in a
sensitivity analysis using loss parameters greater than 0 when
accounting for new revenue required to pay for an intervention
or for impacts on taxes paid or transfer payments.
— Determine the time horizon for the analysis, and when costs or
outcomes accrue over multiple years, the base case discount
 rate and age or point in time to which to discount (e.g., start of
the intervention or a standardized child age). If a 3 percent
discount rate is not selected, generate results using a 3 percent
discount rate in a sensitivity analysis.
— Determine the method for addressing uncertainty, and apply it to
generate standard errors and confidence intervals for all
summary measures, such as estimates of total (present-
discounted-value [PDV]) costs, total (PDV) benefits, net (PDV)
benefits, cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost ratios, and internal
rate of return.
— Employ sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of estimates
under a variety of assumptions, including alternative discount
rates, deadweight loss parameters, and estimates of the societal
perspective if not the main perspective.
— Determine whether equity issues need to be addressed.
— Follow the reporting guidelines on the checklist for best practices
for reporting economic evidence below.

For CA

Core Practices:
— Value all resources needed to implement the intervention,
including infrastructure needs.
— Use shadow prices to derive an accurate estimate of the value of
a resource when a market price is not available.
— Allocate overhead costs based on use.
— Annuitize capital investments.
— Calculate total costs and cost components: fixed, variable, and
marginal costs.
— Calculate unit costs (e.g., cost per participant) to facilitate
implementation and replication.

Advancing Practices (all core practices plus the following):

— Prospectively plan for cost analyses to be integrated into
program evaluation.
— Use micro costing procedures whenever possible to improve the
quality of intervention cost estimates and facilitate
implementation and replication.
— Define major intervention activities and identify costs associated
with each, including who bears those costs.
— Estimate costs for intervention planning, development, and
adoption separately from those for intervention implementation.
— Use Monte Carlo methods to evaluate simultaneously the
implications of multiple sources of uncertainty.
— Develop or modify budgetary and other management information
systems to include relevant cost categories.

For CEA and Related Methods (in addition to best practices

for CA)

Core Practices:
— Determine an explicit rationale for including intervention impacts
in the CEA and selecting the focal impact that will not be valued
in the monetary unit. All included impacts should be attributable
to the intervention’s theory of change. When available and
relevant to the evaluation question(s), use information from well-
conducted systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses to inform
intervention impact estimates.
— Determine whether the CEA will use a quality-of-life measure
(e.g., quality-adjusted life years, disability-adjusted life years) as
the focal impact and what method will be used for scoring that
measure.
— Determine whether the CEA will be limited to direct, observable
economic impacts, or linked or projected impacts also will be
included.
— For impacts valued in the monetary unit (if any), use willingness-
to-pay methods to calculate their prices. This may mean using a
combination of market prices and shadow prices.
— Calculate the average cost-effectiveness ratio and, where
feasible, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.
Advancing Practices (all core practices plus the following):
— Conduct CEA only when an intervention has been evaluated
using research designs that can produce unbiased causal
estimates of impact.
— Conduct CEA from a societal perspective to produce the most
comprehensive economic estimates.
— Link or project observed outcomes only when strong causal
evidence of the assumed relationship exists.
— Estimate costs and benefits separately by perspective (e.g.,
participant, agency, government, other beneficiary) and by
category (e.g., income, crime, health care).
— Use Monte Carlo methods to evaluate simultaneously the
implications of multiple sources of uncertainty.

For BCA and Related Methods (in addition to best practices

for CA)

Core Practices:
— Determine an explicit rationale for including intervention impacts
in the BCA. All included impacts should be attributable to the
intervention’s theory of change. When available and relevant to
the evaluation question(s), use information from well-conducted
systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses to inform intervention
impact estimates.
— Determine whether the BCA will be limited to direct, observable
economic impacts, or linked or projected impacts also will be
included.
— Determine whether the BCA will include intangible as well as
tangible economic impacts.
— Use willingness-to-pay methods to calculate prices for impacts.
This may mean using a combination of market and shadow
prices.
— Estimate linked or projected economic impacts using the
strongest available theoretical and empirical literature. When
available, use information from well-conducted systematic
 reviews and/or meta-analyses to inform estimates used for
linking and projections.
— Calculate PDV costs, benefits, and net benefits (total and unit).
Where relevant, also calculate benefit-cost ratio, return on
investment, and internal rate of return.
— When there is concern that impact estimates may be biased
(e.g., nonexperimental design, quasi-experimental design), test
the robustness of findings to variation in effect size.

Advancing Practices (all core practices plus the following):

— Conduct BCA only when an intervention has been evaluated
using research designs that can produce unbiased causal
estimates of impact.
— Conduct BCA from a societal perspective to produce the most
comprehensive economic estimates.
— Link or project observed outcomes only when strong causal
evidence of the assumed relationship exists.
— Generate tangible and intangible values separately.
— Estimate costs and benefits separately by perspective (e.g.,
participant, agency, government, other beneficiary) and by
category (e.g., income, crime, health care).
— Use Monte Carlo methods to evaluate simultaneously the
implications of multiple sources of uncertainty.
Checklist of Best Practices for Reporting Economic Evidence

For All Economic Evaluation Methods, Report the Following:

— The features of the intervention analyzed (e.g., logic model,

intended recipients, intensity and duration of services,
implementation, and other intervention features)
— The context in which the intervention was or will be implemented
(e.g., population served; time, place, and scale of operation)
— The counterfactual (baseline or status quo) with which the
intervention is compared
— The perspective for the analysis and any subperspectives
examined, with associated results
— The currency and reference year for all monetary values
— The assumed deadweight loss parameter, if one was used
— The horizon for measuring economic values and, when
discounting is used, the discount rate and time (or age) to which
discounted
— Summary measures of the economic evaluation results (see
below for each specific method)
— When relevant, results disaggregated by stakeholder
— The approach for addressing uncertainty, details on how the
method was implemented, and the associated standard errors or
confidence intervals for all summary measures
— Sensitivity analyses performed and associated results*
— When relevant, any equity considerations

For cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), benefit-cost analysis

(BCA), and Related Methods That Employ Impact Estimates
Also Report:

— The evaluation method, the intervention impacts* and their

statistical significance,* potential biases in estimates of causal
effects, and any adjustments to estimated intervention impacts
— All limitations resulting from the strength of the evidence of
causal intervention impacts

In Addition to the Elements for All Methods, for Cost

Analysis (CA) and the CA Component of a CEA or BCA Also
Report:

— The costing method (e.g., micro costing)

— The inventory of resources used and those that are valued
versus not valued in the CA
— The method for obtaining information on how much of each
resource is used, any related assumptions made, and how much
of each resource is used
— The method for obtaining unit costs, prices, or shadow prices for
each type of resource; any related assumptions made; and the
resulting values*

CA Results
— Total costs and unit cost (e.g., cost per participant)
— Fixed, variable, and marginal costs
— The implications of methods (e.g., omission of resources, prices
applied) for under- or overestimating intervention costs

In Addition to the Elements for All Methods and for CA, for a
CEA Also Report:

— Which impacts measured in the evaluation are valued in the CEA

and which are not*
— Which impacts are observed versus linked or projected, for
whom they are linked or projected, and the linking or projection
method — For the impacts valued in the monetary unit (if any),
the prices used,* their derivation, and the geographic or
jurisdictional boundary to which the valuations apply*
— If the focal impact is a quality-of-life measure (e.g., quality-
adjusted life years, disability-adjusted life years), how that
measure was scored
 CEA Results
— The average cost-effectiveness ratio and, where feasible, the
incremental cost-effectiveness ratio
— The implications of methods (e.g., omission of resources in CA,
prices applied in CA, causal evidence on outcomes, linkages or
projections of outcomes, valuation for outcomes) for under- or
overestimating cost-effectiveness

In Addition to the Elements for All Methods and for CA, for a
BCA Also Report:

— Which impacts measured in the evaluation are valued in the BCA

and which are not*
— Which impacts are observed versus linked or projected, for
whom they are linked or projected, and the linking or projection
method
— For each impact valued, the price or shadow price used,* its
derivation, and the geographic or jurisdictional boundary to
which the valuation applies*

BCA Results
— PDV societal costs, benefits, and net benefits
— Benefit-cost ratio, return on investment, and/or internal rate of
return
— The PDV benefits (or costs) of each outcome valued,* with
disaggregation by outcomes observed versus projected and,
where possible and relevant, by tangible versus intangible
benefits (e.g., for crime or child abuse and neglect)
— The implications of methods (e.g., omission of resources in CA,
prices applied in CA, causal evidence on outcomes, exclusion of
outcomes, linkages or projections of outcomes, valuation for
outcomes) for under- or overestimating intervention net benefits

NOTE: An asterisk denotes reporting that may be suitable for a

table.
__________________
1 The term intervention is used to represent the broad scope of programs,
practices, and policies that are relevant to children, youth, and families.
2 In this context, economic evidence refers to the information produced from
cost and cost-outcome evaluations, including cost analysis, cost-effectiveness
analysis, and benefit-cost analysis.
3 Intermediaries are defined as stakeholders who use economic evidence to
enhance practice and policy through advocacy, technical assistance, or other
avenues.
4 “Funders” here might include staff in public agencies (e.g., the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, the Institute for Education Sciences, and the
National Institutes of Health), as well as staff in private, philanthropic, or other
organizations.
5 “Funders” here might include elected officials at the local, state, or federal
level; leadership of public grant-making agencies or regulatory bodies; and private
funders of programs for children, youth, and families.
6 The key actors in “government agencies” here would include agency
leadership, budget offices, and others with management and budget functions in
executive and legislative branches at the federal, state, and local levels.
 1

Introduction

Societies, both domestic and international, invest substantially in

interventions1 designed to support the well-being of children, youth,
and families in such areas as education, health, and social welfare.
Often, the success of these interventions varies widely, leading to
calls for evidence on how to make more informed investment
decisions. Economic evidence—information derived from economic
principles and methods—can help meet this need.2 Economic
evidence can be used to determine not just what works, but what
works within budget constraints.
Economic evaluation is a particular means of producing economic
evidence that can be used to calculate and compare the costs and
outcomes of an intervention. Unfortunately, economic evaluation is
not always executed or applied effectively. These shortcomings may
not only weaken society’s ability to invest wisely but also reduce the
demand for this and other types of evidence. On the other hand,
economic evaluation that is of both high quality and high utility—
timely, accessible, and relevant within the context or environment in
which it can best be used—can significantly improve and increase
the returns on investments targeted to children, youth, and families.
This report examines many of the factors that both weaken and
strengthen the effective use of economic evidence. It proposes best
practices and makes recommendations to both producers and
consumers of economic evidence, as well as those who mediate
between the two, for improving the use of such evidence to inform
investments for children, youth, and families.

STUDY CONTEXT
In recent years, significant efforts have been devoted to
strengthening the use of evidence, as well as performance
measurement, for decision making in both the public and private
sectors. Building on various efforts to “reinvent government,” a
movement given momentum by Osborne and Gaebler (1992),
Congress passed the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) of 1993 to strengthen measures of government performance
and use them to guide future actions. The Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART), a 2002 initiative of the George W. Bush
administration, was introduced as a diagnostic tool designed to help
assess and improve the performance of federal programs. The GPRA
of 2010 continued the momentum of these efforts by building on
lessons learned and providing examples of agencies that had made
use of evidence in planning and assessing their programs and
policies. A more recent legislative effort advocating the use of
evidence in general in investment decisions is the Evidence-Based
Policymaking Commission Act of 2015, first introduced in 2014 by
U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) and Representative Paul Ryan (R-
WI), which would establish a commission to determine how best to
expand the use of data for evaluating the effectiveness of federal
investments. One of the hopes for this bill is to increase the
availability and use of data in support of program evaluation.3
 Additional efforts are evident in a growing number of publicly and
privately funded initiatives designed to help implement evidence-
based programs and policies, support new and continuous
evaluation, and target investments toward what works. Examples
include the Bloomberg Foundation’s What Works Cities Initiative; the
Results First Initiative of the Pew Charitable Trusts and the John D.
and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; the U.S. Department of
Education’s Investing in Innovation Fund (i3); Making Results-Based
State Government Work, a joint project of the National Conference
of State Legislatures and the Urban Institute; Results for America;
Pay for Success initiatives; the International Initiative for Impact
Evaluation (3iE); and Health Systems Evidence. Additional initiatives
to support the use of evidence include the recent efforts of the
William T. Grant Foundation, which recently introduced a new
research focus to support studies aimed at identifying and testing
actionable strategies for improving the production and use of
“useful” research evidence, and the Laura and John Arnold
Foundation, whose new Evidence-Based Policy and Innovation
Division will develop and support initiatives that encourage policy
makers to use evidence in their decision making.
Although these initiatives have made substantial progress in
bringing the use of economic evidence in decision-making to the
forefront of investment conversations, not all are not concerned
specifically with economic evidence, but are focused on evidence
more generally. For example, outcomes (e.g., graduation from high
school) may be measured with little regard for intervention costs.
Policy makers are seeking more information (e.g., from economic
evaluations) to determine what works in the most cost-effective
manner so that resources can be allocated wisely.
Not surprisingly, evidence is not the only factor influencing
decisions. Weiss (1983) notes that ideology, interests, and
information are the three major influences on government decisions.
A 2012 report of the National Research Council (NRC) titled Using
Science as Evidence in Public Policy similarly notes that scientific
evidence is only one of the many influences on policy decisions, and
that in a democracy, the views and interests of citizens and
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 VIDA
DO
DR. GREGORIO DE MATTOS GUERRA

Abreviarei a vida de um poeta pouco cuidadoso de estende-la nos

espaços da eternidade, que lhe franqueou as portas, escrevendo
costumes do doutor Gregorio de Mattos Guerra, mestre de toda a
poesia lyrica por especial decreto da natureza, cujo enthusiastico
furor poderá só retratar-se dignamente, porque de fórma menos viva
desconfia a equidade tão excellente materia.
Cousas direi menos decorosas ao sujeito de minha empreza; e
por seguir os dictames da verdade historica, quero perder os louros
de piedoso advogado contra exemplares famosos, que
commentando ou redimindo as obras de benemeritos talentos,
affectam justificar-lhe as vidas no resumo d’ellas, de modo que
pareça impeccavel aquelle de quem o céu confiou os erarios da sua
profluencia. E si a geral opinião reprovar ésta maxima por
desabrida, o mesmo sujeito que descrevo me apologisa, cujas
doutrinas persuadem sempre a verdade nua.
Nasceu na Bahia de Todos os Sanctos, capital cidade do Estado
do Brazil, ao Cruzeiro de S. Francisco, da parte do norte, em casas
cuja figurada cornija de medalhas imperiaes ainda hoje as distingue
caprichosamente nobres. Os paes que o deram á luz em 7 de abril
de 1623 foram Pedro Gonçalves de Mattos, fidalgo da serie dos
Escudeiros em Ponte de Lima, natural dos Arcos de Valdevez; e
Maria da Guerra, matrona geralmente conhecida de respeito em
toda a cidade, cujas prendas intellectuaes amassaram uma trindade
capaz de resplandecer no coração da mesma Roma. A 15 do dicto
mez recebeu a graça baptismal com o nome de João, na cathedral
que depois o venerando prelado d. Pedro da Silva e Sampaio, pela
sua occurrencia e milagroso auspicio de S. Gregorio Magno
collocado em Nossa Senhora da Ajuda, lhe mudou em Gregorio,
mysterioso agouro de que seria Gregorio doutamente grande o tenro
afilhado: mas dirigida aquella mudança de algum modo a favorecer
a distincção de seus paes.
Eram estes de tal maneira ricos que possuiam com outras
fazendas um soberbo cannavial na Patatyba fabricado com perto de
cento e trinta escravos de serviço, que repartia a safra por dous
engenhos, cujo rendimento suppria largamente os gastos de um
liberal tractamento e caridade com os pobres; mas nada d’isto basta
para que um poeta sendo grande se escuse de morrer nos braços
da maior miseria.
Foi o doutor Gregorio de Mattos o ultimo filho de tres varões que
nasceram d’este matrimonio, dotados pela natureza com os maiores
thesouros; mas a fortuna sempre opposta aos morgados da
natureza veiu a consumir-lhe aquelles nomes, que ambiciosa a fama
pedia; e não sem apparencias de virtude, increpando o desalinho e
pouca estimação, &, achaques que sempre toma de anniquilar os
benemeritos, e desgraça repetidas vezes chorada de sua mãe, que
com agudeza natural dizia: «Deu-me Deus tres filhos como tres
sovélas sem cabo.» Farei particular menção dos dous primeiros no
segundo tomo, para que o ultimo se não queixe do desaire que a
minha penna poderia occasionar-lhe, que é menos honra ser um
accidentalmente grande, que o ter vinculada sua grandeza na
especie generativa.
Gregorio, que d’este triumvirato sapiente é o nosso particular
assumpto, criou-se com a boa estimação que inculcavam os seus
haveres e as suas honras. Soube mais que seus brazileiros
contemporaneos fatalmente agudos com o temperamento do clima,
sendo lastima carecerem de mestres para toda a Faculdade: porque
Athenas perdêra de uma vez aquella suberba, com que se reproduz
em desprezo do mundo.
Passou a Coimbra, onde não teremos por novidade que
aprendesse, ou que admirasse quem tanto de casa levava as
potencias dispostas. Direi somente que assombrou na poesia:
porque Belchior da Cunha Brochado, depois desembargador da
Relação d’este Estado, escreveu a certo cavalheiro da côrte em um
periodo succinto o maior elogio do seu enthusiasmo: «Anda aqui
(dizia elle) um estudante brazileiro tão refinado na satyra, que com
suas imagens e seus tropos parece que baila Momo ás cançonetas
de Apollo.» Não devia de haver-lhe visto as valentias amorosas para
enviar outra cedula aos apaixonados de João Baptista Marini pelo
postilhão de Italia: mas como o maior d’esta materia se destina a
perpetuo silencio pela impunidade dos termos que a modestia
portugueza não permitte, triumphem os Italianos embora, que lá
deve de haver necessidade d’aquillo mesmo que cá se despreza.
Doutorou-se na Faculdade de Leis, e passando á côrte a praticar
os termos da judicatura com um dos melhores lettrados d’ella, lhe
conciliou grandes creditos o caso seguinte:
Defendia este lettrado um pleito a certo titular, tão volumoso que o
conduziam mariólas quando era preciso. Era a causa civel sôbre a
possessão de uns morgados, e expirava contra aquelle cavalheiro,
que somente queria empatar-lhe a execução; e nesse empenho
nenhuma esperança lhe dava o seu advogado com os melhores da
côrte. Mas por animar o affligido pleiteante, resolveu manda-lo ao
doutor Gregorio de Mattos, dizendo que só d’aquella viveza confiava
o remedio palliativo a Sua Excellencia, dado que o houvesse.
Conduzido aquelle volumoso labyrintho para casa do nosso
praticante, com os maiores encarecimentos lhe supplicou o fidalgo
que puzesse os olhos naquelle instrumento de sua perdição,
examinando-lhe os menores incidentes para embargos, cuja
extensão dirigia a concertar-se com a parte vencedora por meio de
algum respeito.
Era meio dia, foi-se o fidalgo, e não lhe soffrendo descanso o seu
alvoroço antes de vesperas, partiu a examinar si se desvelava ou
não com os autos o novo lettrado; mas achando-o na janella que
palitava sôbre o jantar, grandemente affligido rompeu em queixas do
pouco cuidado que lhe dava cousa de tanta importancia. «Socegue
V Ex. (lhe disse o bom Gregorio), que os autos estão vistos, e nelles
o remedio que desejamos muito avantajado. Neste termo de
autuação temos embargos de nullidade a todo o processo, porque
no anno aqui mencionado antes e depois corria um decreto de
Felippe IV que condemnava nullos aquelles processos começados
em papel que não tivesse o sello das armas de Castella; e como
alcançou o decreto este, de que tractamos, e lhe falta o sello,
segue-se que está nullo.» Com esta destreza se trocaram as
fortunas dos pleiteantes, e o novato se acreditou por aguia de
melhor vista.
É tradição constante que serviu na côrte o logar de Juiz do Crime;
e que tambem serviu o de Orphãos se mostra de uma douta
sentença sua proferida em 2 de novembro de 1671, que traz Pegas
no tomo 7.ᵒ das Orden., Liv. i. tit. 87 § 24. Chegou a merecer a
attenção do senhor rei d. Pedro II, então principe regente da
monarchia, pelo bom e particular conceito que fez da sua grande
litteratura e rectissimo proceder, e d’aqui se foi engolphando em
merecimentos. Com promessa de logar na Supplicação o mandava
sua alteza ao Rio de Janeiro devassar dos crimes de Salvador
Corrêa de Sá e Benavides, mercê que fatalmente rejeitou. Uns
dizem que por temer as violencias de tão poderoso quão resoluto
réu, quando no firme proposito de observar justiça: outros, que com
algum atrevimento indecoroso capitulára com o Soberano a mercê
antecipada do serviço, dando a entender que se fiava pouco em
promessas ainda que Reaes.
Isto é o que se conta, e sempre o ouvi dizer a pessoas de melhor
noticia; mas como se faz merecedor do engano (diz Camões) quem
acredita mais o que lhe dizem, que o que vê, affirmarei que o doutor
Gregorio de Mattos cahiu da graça do Soberano á persuasão de
alguem prejudicado em suas satyras, sem que atrevida ou
temerosamente recusasse mercês. Thomaz Pinto Brandão, em um
resumo que faz da sua mesma vida, diz que viera ao Brazil na
companhia d’elle, que se retirava descontente de lhe negarem
aquillo mesmo com que rogavam a outros, e isto por ser poeta e
jurista famoso:

Procurei ir-me chegando

A um bacharel mazombo,
 Que estava para a Bahia
Despachado, e desgostoso
De lhe não darem aquillo
Com que rogavam a outros,
Pelo crime de poeta,
Sôbre jurista, famoso.

D’aqui infiro que invejas indignas occasionaram que o doutor

Gregorio de Mattos se retirasse desgostoso para a patria d’aquellas
injustiças, que de ordinario padecem na côrte os benemeritos. E
com elle mesmo provarei o que digo, que é auctor sem suspeita,
escrevendo umas decimas a d. João de Alencastre:

Mas inda que desterrado

Me tem o fado e a sorte
Por um juiz de má morte, &.

Esta queda do conceito de el-rei devia occasionar-lhe certo

semivalido, contra quem indignado soltou o meu poeta os diques á
sua musa, mostrando desde Lisboa ao mundo a mais venenosa
satyra que podéra excogitar o mesmo Apollo. Sempre que leio este
ramalhete de viboras me recordo do miseravel Bupalo, que
desesperado de honra se enforcou por haver sido assumpto de
outra menos viva talvez do que esta: cujo heroe devia de amar
menos a honra, do que a vida. Foi tal esta obra, que o mesmo
Soberano a decorou, fazendo glorioso apreço das suas figuradas
consonancias.
Despachado e desgostoso, que são termos encontrados, diz
Thomaz Pinto que viera para a patria o doutor Gregorio de Mattos: e
veiu desgostoso por lhe negar el-rei o adiantamento que merecia,
mas despachado, porque sendo provido na dignidade de
thesoureiro-mór da Sé da Bahia, d. Gaspar Barata de Mendonça,
primeiro arcebispo d’esta, lhe commetteu o cargo de vigario geral,
que acceitou, e com estes empregos se embarcou para a patria,
desenganado de poder lograr o fructo de suas virtuosas lettras em
uma côrte que o reconheceu agudo, para teme-lo ousado. O
desembargador Christovão de Burgos de Contreiras, natural da
Bahia, que depois o foi na Relação de Lisboa, lhe facilitou a
passagem na sua conducta, e em julho de 1681 entrou a exercer de
ordens menores aquelles cargos que trouxera, trajando porém o
habito secular todo aquelle tempo que lhe ficava livre das
obrigações ecclesiasticas: capricho que principiou a arrufa-lo com os
governadores do arcebispado: porém os erros do habito eram nelle
menores que os de costume naquelles, cuja parcialidade se
augmentára por horas em contraposição da luz: e o padecente que
conhecia o seu damno com vista clara, queria reparar a inimizade
de todos com a sua. Elle o pinta magistralmente nestes versos:

Querem-me aqui todos mal,

Mas eu quero mal a todos,
Elles e eu por varios modos
Nos pagamos tal por qual:
E querendo eu mal a quantos
Me têm odio tão vehemente,
O meu odio é mais valente,
Pois sou só, e elles são tantos.
Algum amigo que tenho,
Si é que tenho algum amigo,
Me aconselha que o que digo
O cale com todo o empenho, &.

Era o doutor Gregorio de Mattos acerrimo inimigo de toda a

hypocrisia, virtude que, se podéra, devia moderar, attendendo ao
costume dos presentes seculos, em que o mais retirado anacoreta
se enfastia da verdade crua. Mas seguindo os dictames da sua
natural impertinencia, habitava os extremos da verdade com
escandalosa virtude, como si nunca houveram de acabar-se as
singelezas da primeira edade; e bem que se communicava com os
doudos, d’aquella prodigiosa chuva nunca se resolveu a molhar a
cabeça, como admiravelmente o diz na obra em que redargue a
doutrina ou maxima de bem viver, que seguem muitos politicos, de
involver-se na confusão de homens perdidos e nescios, a qual o
leitor veja, por me fazer mercê, e d’esta contumacia lhe nasciam os
quebradouros d’ella. Nem havia lisonja que desmentisse as durezas
d’aquelle engano, o que se prova com esta decima:

A nossa Sé da Bahia,
Com ser um mappa de festas,
É um presepe de bestas,
Si não fôr estrebaria:
Varias bestas cada dia
Vejo que o sino congrega:
Caveira mula gallega,
Deão burrinha bastarda,
Pereira mula de albarda,
Que tudo da Sé carrega.

Pareceu a certo conego que não ia incluido nesta decima, onde o

seu nome se não mostrava, e promptamente lhe veiu agradecer
com palavras humildes; mas o bravo lhe respondeu: «Não, senhor
padre, lá vai nas bestas.» É verdade que naquelle tempo eram
poucos ou nenhuns os formados que vestiam murça, e tanto que
para acceitarem aquelles logares capitulavam conveniencias os
benemeritos, pelo contrario do que agora passa.
Com ésta singular opinião passou o doutor Gregorio de Mattos de
uma côrte de sabios, que o representavam grande, a uma colonia
de presumidos, que o aborreciam critico, experimentando por peior
condição d’esta troca desegual o entregar-se nos braços da propria
patria, onde o mais purificado sempre tem o desar de o haverem
visto menino. E como aquelle que olhou para o sol, que qualquer
sombra depois lhe parece abysmo, a elle, com a vista proxima de
Lisboa, se representavam infernos as confusões da Bahia.
O genio satyrico e orgulho intrepido, não ha duvida que de justiça
providencial se devia ao desgoverno d’estas conquistas, onde cada
um tracta de fazer a sua conveniencia, gema quem gemer, e se
notou que de algum modo moderaram os viciosos seus depravados
costumes: de que veiu a dizer o grande padre Antonio Vieira que
maior fructo faziam as satyras de Mattos, que as missões de Vieira;
mas bem podéra deixar de dizer muitas cousas, sem inteira
informação, do que ao depois como christão se arrependeu, dizendo
ao vigario da Muribeca em Pernambuco, Antonio Gomes Baracho,
que lhe doia na alma o que dissera de fr. Basilio.
Com este genio pois e com esta valentia se fez Gregorio de
Mattos aborrecido de uns e temido de outros. Estes lhe fingiam
amizade, pelo que já sentiam: sendo o primeiro golpe da commum
vingança fazerem-lhe despir a murça capitular com desprezo, por
sentença do arcebispo d. fr. João da Madre de Deus, successor
d’aquelle em cujo tempo a vestira; si não é que elle de motu proprio
abandonou o beneficio por se não accommodar ás pensões da sua
residencia.
Poucos dias antes pretendeu este prelado com piedosas mostras
persuadir ao poeta que tomasse ordens sacras, para conservar-lhe
os cargos; mas elle respondeu com inteira resolução que não podia
votar a Deus aquillo que era impossivel cumprir pela fragilidade de
sua natureza; e que a troco de não mentir a quem devia inteira
verdade, perderia todos os thesouros e dignidades do mundo: que o
ser mau secular não era tão culpavel e escandaloso, como ser mau
sacerdote. E esta resposta esperava sem duvida o arcebispo,
conhecida a inteireza de Gregorio de Mattos. Sendo certo que si o
quizera conservar nos cargos não eram as ordens condição
necessaria, valentia foi sem duvida offender a um homem que para
despicar-se não respeitava caracter, nem potestade, trajando por
espada a mesma foice de Saturno amolada nas esquinas da
eternidade.
D’esta segunda declinação da fortuna, que com os bens
patrimoniaes muito antes havia vacillado, nasceu o precipicio
terceiro, que se encadeam os males, casando com Maria de Povos,
viuva honestissima, quanto formosa; mas tão pobre que seu mesmo
tio Vicente da Costa Cordeiro, lastimado do seu abatimento,
entendeu despersuadi-lo. Mas vendo ser impossivel, fez da sua
fazenda um donativo, para que a sobrinha não fosse totalmente
destituida. Era o gosto de Gregorio de Mattos, e não se trocava
pelos maiores interesses, que nunca o dinheiro foi capaz de lhe
apaixonar o animo. Vendeu já necessitado por tres mil cruzados
uma sorte de terras, e recebendo em um sacco aquelle dinheiro, o
mandou vasar no canto da casa, d’onde se distribuia para os gastos
sem regra, nem vigilancia.
Posto já na obrigação de sustentar encargos de matrimonio, e
aberto as portas o escriptorio da vocacia, poucos eram os
defendidos, porque a inteireza do seu animo patrocinava sómente a
mesma razão em materias civeis, sendo inimigo voraz d’aquelles
advogados, que por junctarem cabedal enredam as partes no
labyrintho de incertas opiniões. Si algumas vezes defendeu contra o
que entendia, eram as causas crimes, onde a summa justiça se
reputa por summa iniquidade. Ninguem se acorda que lhe
rejeitassem embargos, e toda a materia d’elles se corporisava em
quatro palavras d’aquelle espirito laconico, que sem offender
gigantes fórmas conseguia a diminuição plausivel das materias,
logrando na curta esphera de qualquer laconismo alma substancial,
visivel graça, e intelligencia commum, como ninguem. Por exemplo
contarei com brevidade alguns casos.
Pleiteava Pedro o cabedal que havia dado com sua filha em dote
a Paulo, o qual depois de adornar a defuncta esposa com palma e
capella, publicava que havia fallecido intacta. Defendia por parte do
auctor o nosso jurista, e provada legalmente razoou o feito com ésta
vulgaridade:

Gaita de folles não quiz tanger,

Olhe o diabo o que foi fazer.

Banhou-se em aguas de flor o patrono adverso accusando de

ridicularia indecente este razoado na extensa formalidade do seu:
mas um e outro Senado confirmando aquella sentença, veiu a
conhecer o que realmente passava; e foi que o doutor Mattos
fallando pouco para merecer o menos, dizia muito para conseguir o
mais.
 Outro laconismo se nos envolve na historia de um religioso, para
cuja intelligencia já dissemos o grande aborrecimento que tinha a
todo o fingido. Venerava os religiosos verdadeiros tanto quanto
abominava os que com este sancto titulo apenas merecem o nome
de frades. Elle o diz com graça nestes versos:

Se virdes um dom abbade

Sôbre o pulpito cioso,
Não lhe chameis religioso,
Chamae-lhe embora de frade.

Um d’estes frades pois se valeu do doutor Mattos, pedindo

embargos para seu sobrinho, sentenciado á morte natural por haver
furtado a naveta da sua sacristia. Mas elle absolutamente o
desenganou que não estava em hora de o servir. Instava o religioso
por saber ao menos a razão da difficuldade, e comtudo não poderei
eu doirar a pilula da resposta. «É (dizia elle) que neste instante se
foi d’aqui Maria de S. Bento muito agastada, e fez aquella cruz na
minha porta em juramento de não entrar mais por ella.» «Ila-hei
buscar (tornou o religioso), si nisso está o valer-me V Mᶜᵉ.» E logo
foi representar á mulata quanta necessidade tinha de leva-la a
quebrar o seu juramento. Caprichosa era ella, mas em tal caso
caritativa accompanhou o triste pretendente, e posta já na presença
d’esse singular e exquisito genio, ouviu que lhe dizia assim: «Não
eras tu, ridicula, quem fez aquella cruz de aqui não tornar? Bem se
vê que morrias por esta introducção. Ora vae, que agora te mando
eu.» Foi-se a mulata exhalando veneno pelos olhos; e á vista dos
autos fez elle a seguinte trova por embargos:

A naveta, de que se trata,

Era de latão, e não de prata.

Á vista dos autos digo, porque o processo nelles estava em

termos de lhe valerem, como valeram, ganhando sempre applausos
pela attenção com que examinava os menores incidentes.
Com a folhinha do anno livrou a outro condemnado, contra quem
as testemunhas com verdade haviam jurado de vista sôbre um furto
de noite escura, a peditorio de seu amigo João dos Reis, mordomo
então da Misericordia.
Um homem de baixa esphera, que por aquella iniquidade a que
no Brazil chamam fortuna, subiu a desconhecer seu amo,
comprando a vara de Juiz Ordinario na villa de Igaraçú em
Pernambuco, fez um auto criminal contra este, por lhe haver
chamado por Vós, como antes de o ver Juiz costumava. Defendia o
nosso jurista ao réu, e confessando a culpa, mostrou que o não era,
começando as razões com este argumento:

Si tractam a Deus por tu,

E chamam a El-Rei por vós,
Como chamaremos nós
Ao Juiz de Igaraçú?
Tu e vós e vós e tu.

Estas e outras obras de mais agigantado peso no seu officio

canonizaram o doutor Gregorio de Mattos pelo melhor jurista; de
sorte que no dia de sua morte disse o Ouvidor de Pernambuco, que
lhe não era affeiçoado: «Já morreu quem entendia o direito.» Mas si
o dinheiro é inimigo declarado da virtude, mal poderia Gregorio de
Mattos adquiri-lo, defendendo o justo, e aconselhando o verdadeiro,
arrebatado maiormente pelo furor das Musas, cuja condição
totalmente se encontra com os labyrinthos de Bardo e Bartolo.
Conta-se que muitas vezes aconteceu entrarem-lhe as partes com
dinheiro consideravel, e os amigos com assumptos menos dignos, e
que elle despresava aquellas, por attender a estes, passando
lastimosas necessidades.
Era a esposa um pouco impaciente, talvez pelo pouco pão que via
em casa, e tal pelo distrahimento de seu marido, cujas
desenvolturas claro se patenteam d’estas obras: como veremos
pelas rubricas de cada uma, posto que nem a todas se deva dar
inteiro credito; e enfadada de uma e outra desesperação sahiu de
casa, e entrou pela de seu tio, que depois de a reprehender
asperamente, veiu rogar ao poeta com razões de amigo que a fosse
buscar, ou consentisse ao menos que elle lh’a trouxesse: e foi-lhe
respondido que de nenhum modo admittiria sua mulher em casa
sem vir atada em cordas por um capitão do matto, como escrava
fugitiva. Assim se fez pelo mais decoroso modo, e elle a recebeu,
paga a tomadia do regimento; protestando chamar Gonçalos
áquelles filhos que nascessem de tal matrimonio; porque a sua casa
se pudesse dizer de Gonçalo, com mulher tão resoluta.
Acossado da pobreza, e sem esperança alguma de remedio em
uma terra, onde sómente o tem para triumphar da fortuna quem por
estradas de iniquidade caminha, se entregou o poeta a todo o furor
da sua Musa, ferindo a uma e outra parte como raio com edificios
altos a materia mais debilitada. E não achando a resistencia, que
talvez desesperado pretendia (negação fatal em tempos bellicosos),
elegeu peregrinar pelas casas dos amigos, e sahiu ao reconcavo
povoado de pessoas generosas pela multidão florentissima de
engenhos d’assucar, preciosa droga, que perdendo com o valor a
estimação, levou comsigo a dos Magnates Brazilienses.
Por este Paraiso de deleites estragava a cithara de Apollo suas
harmoniosas consonancias com assumptos menos dignos de tão
relevante estrondo. Lascivas mulatas e torpes negras se ufanizaram
dos tropos e figuras de tão delicada poesia. Mas que muito, si
quando naufraga o baixel quaesquer barbaros galeam a mais
preciosa mercadoria! Não quero persuadir que a desesperação lhe
occasionou desenvolturas; mas direi que do genio, que já tinha, tirou
a mascara para manuzear obscenas e petulantes obras em tanta
quantidade, que das que tenho em meu poder tão indignas do prélo,
como merecedoras da melhor estimação, se póde constituir um
grande volume.
Mas a prodiga diffusão de mal applicados conceituosos
dispendios nascia das enchentes prodigiosas d’aquella Musa, que
sem esperança de que seus descuidos correriam na futura
estimação, barateava versos á conjuncção dos acasos, facilitando
linguagem ao genio dos sujeitos. Da mesma sorte que o celebrado
pintor Raphael de Urbino, que disfarçado em sua criminosa
peregrinação pintava aos oleiros louça, e taboletas de mezão aos
estalajadeiros, sem prevenir que em sua posteridade seriam
resgatados por alto preço aquelles borrões milagrosos da sua
malograda idéa.
Assistia-lhe nestas desenvolturas com outros do mesmo genero
aquelle celebrado trovador de chistes, a quem uma titular lisonja
proporcionou Thalia por ama sêcca, que se prezava muito de
ministrar-lhe assumptos, apezar dos melhores amigos, que d’estas
companhias lhe prognosticavam sempre a fatal ruina.
Governava então d. João de Alencastre, secreto estimador das
valentias d’esta Musa, que a toda a diligencia lhe enthesourava as
obras desparcidas, fazendo-as copiar por elegantes lettras; quando
de uma náu de guerra desembarcou o filho de certa personagem da
côrte com animo vingativo contra o poeta, por dizer-se que havia
satyrisado toda a honra de seu pae: e bem que disfarçava sua
maligna intenção, toda a intenção maligna percebeu d. João dos
mesmos disfarces d’ella. Era este cavalheiro generosamente
compadecido, e excogitando meios de livrar uma vida em que a
natureza depositára tão singulares prendas, achou traças de
segurar-lhe o perigo nos fingimentos de rigoroso justiceiro.
Ordenou aos officiaes de milicia que saindo fóra da cidade a toda
a cautela lhe trouxessem preso o dr. Gregorio de Mattos. Mas não
pôde effeituar a diligencia, porque suspeitoso d’ella o vigario da
Madre de Deus, Manuel Rodrigues, homem virtuoso que o
hospedava, soube consumir naquella ilha as mesmas presumpções
de ser achado. Mas o governador impaciente com ésta tyranna
piedade, que lhe frustrava os meios da sua piedosa tyrannia,
communicou a intenção ao secretario d’Estado Gonçalo Ravasco
Cavalcanti de Albuquerque, pessoa de bom entendimento, e como
tal estimador do poeta, e accordaram que o mesmo secretario
fingisse que o chamava para dar-lhe importantes avisos, que não
poderiam ser menos de pessoaes; e com carta de sua lettra se
enviou portador interessado nas melhoras do perseguido.
 Conhecida a lettra pelo dr. Gregorio de Mattos, e confiado na
muita honra de Gonçalo Ravasco, promptamente veiu a fallar-lhe no
logar determinado, que era a casa de Antonio de Moura Rolim,
tambem amigo, para que se veja que quando os amigos grandes se
junctam empenhados a favorecer um desditado poeta, será para o
prenderem e desterrarem por modo de fineza. Sempre tenho que
d’estas tres amizades, a primeira arrastou com sagacidade as duas
por temer em seu govêrno os atrevidos córtes d’esta penna.
Alli pois o prenderam sem poder dar um desafôgo ao discursivo; e
mettido na casa que chamam Leoneira, na mesma portada de
Palacio, mandou que alli não deixassem chegar pessoa de
qualidade nenhuma: e por mãos de um confidente criado lhe
remettia para sustentar-se os manjares de sua meza particular: e
d’esta particular prisão o trasladaram depois á cadêa, mal seguros
de seu perigo.
Trabalhou o infeliz Gregorio por justificar-se, lisongeando a um
tempo aquelle magistrado, cujas entranhas dominava pias; mas d.
João o desenganou, intimando-lhe que por sua conhecida culpa e
necessario remedio havia de embarcar-se para Angola em uma nau,
que promptamente carregava a tropa de cavallos de El-Rei para
Benguella. Era o dr. Gregorio de Mattos consummado solfista, e
modulando as melhores lettras d’aquelle tempo, em que a solfa
portugueza se avantajava a todas as de Europa, tangia
graciosamente. A proposito do que me pareceu escrever aqui esta
decima, que por isso lhe fez Gonçalo Soares da Franca, nobre
engenho da Bahia:

Com tanto primor cantais,

Com tanta graça tangeis,
Que as potencias suspendeis,
E os sentidos elevais:
De ambas sortes admirais
Suspendido o bravo Eolo,
Mas eu vos digo sem dolo,
Que de mui pouco se admira
 Pois tocais de Orpheu a lyra,
E a pluma tendes de Apollo.

Com estas prendas fazia apreço particular de uma viola, que por
suas curiosas mãos fizera de cabaço, frequentado divertimento de
seus trabalhos, e nunca sem ella foi visto nas funcções a que seus
amigos o convidavam, recreando-se muito com a brandura suave de
suas vozes. Por esta viola, que havia deixado na Madre de Deus,
fazia extremos taes, receiando que sem ella o embarcassem, que o
vigario Manuel Rodrigues, a quem feriam na alma suas desgraças,
promptamente lh’a mandou com um liberal donativo para as cordas
d’ella.
D. João, chegada a hora de embarcar, o mandou vir á sua
presença, e tractando-o com humanidade de principe lhe pediu que
evitasse as occasiões de sua perdição ultima; porque era lastima
que uma pessoa, a quem o céu enriquecêra de talento para melhor
fama, comprasse o seu discredito com o discredito irremediavel de
tantos. Decorosamente o fez embarcar, não se olvidando de
recommenda-lo ao governador de Angola Pedro Jacques de
Magalhães, a quem com a causa d’aquelle degredo insinuava os
perigos que em qualquer parte corria sua pessoa.
Chovendo maldições e praguejando satyras peregrinou os mares
aquelle que por instantes naufragava nas tempestades da terra.
Dizia elle que com razão sobrada podia articular o non possidebis
ossa mea de Scipião; e fallou com rigoroso acêrto: porque se
houveram patrias no mundo que desterraram seus benemeritos
filhos, não consistiu talvez essa desgraça tanto na malicia d’ellas,
como no destino d’estes. Porém a Bahia dos muitos habitos de
desprezar seus naturaes fez natureza para aborrece-los e persegui-
los. A melhor pintura d’esta verdade se póde ver nas vozes que
sôbre ella declama o mesmo poeta, onde sem hyperbole de Musas
resplandece a propriedade tal, que eu com ser extrangeiro
acreditava a poesia com o juramento dos Sanctos Evangelhos.
As personagens de quem o poeta justamente se queixa em suas
satyras são comparadas a uma herva natural de Guiné, chamada
aquelle terreno Nhesiquè, e transplantada neste com o nome de
Melão de S. Caetano, por virem as primeiras a um sitio d’este nome;
a qual de sorte se apoderou do Brazil em toda parte, que não ha
logar sem ella, nem planta que prevaleça com sua inutil visinhança.
As casas de religião enriquecidas e illustradas pelos curiosos e
liberaes mazombos, e sempre nellas laborando petulantes
opposições a parcialidade dos Reinóes admittidos alli por com
miseração. Ingratos hospedes! Mas si algum tivesse desejos de
padecer martyrio, fallar nesta materia queixoso causaria ao menos
um degredo similhante ao do doutor Gregorio de Mattos.
Não poderá negar-me a razão, que choro, quem sabe que no
anno de 1740 mandou o provincial de S. Francisco conduzir do
Porto uma chusma de pobretões, em desprezo dos pacientissimos
naturaes da terra, para adorno da sua religião, e nunca o demonio
acertou com esta destreza para combater o animo de Job. Chegam
finalmente a aborrecer os mesmos filhos sem maior causa que
haverem nascido no Brazil, onde receberam cabedal, e inundando
por toda a parte em que os brazileiros os honram e estimam, em
nenhuma d’ellas querem soffrer que haja honra nem estimação nos
brazileiros.
Fazendo porém verdadeira distincção nos nossos naturaes que
são comprehendidos nesta miseria, culparei sómente os das
fecundissimas provincias da Beira e Minho (salvando os nobres), e é
de reparar que sendo estes os que com maior necessidade se
lançam a buscar dinheiro, são estes mesmos aquelles cuja suberba
é tão formidavel a quem os remedeia. Vejamos ésta queixa
allegorisada pela nossa aguia sôbre o gato de um meirinho:

Não posso comer ratinhos,

Porque cuido, e não me engano,
Que de meu amo são todos
Ou parentes, ou paisanos:
Porque os ratinhos do Douro
São grandissimos velhacos;
Em Portugal são ratinhos,
 E cá no Brazil são gatos.

Mas deixando esta materia por irremediavel, e não por temer as

unhas d’estes gatos, irei seguindo o meu infeliz poeta em sua fatal
navegação.
Chegado ao reino de Angola, miseravel paradeiro de infelizes, a
quem com a propriedade costumada chamou armazem de pena e
dor, e exercendo na cidade de Loanda o officio de advogado,
aconteceu que amotinada a infantaria da guarnição d’aquella praça,
e posta em armas fóra da cidade, entrou uma chusma de soldados
pela casa de Gregorio de Mattos, forçando-o a que os fosse
aconselhar sôbre as capitulações que tinham com o governador seu
general; e posto com effeito entre os amotinados no campo, clamou
que o levassem á casa para trazer certa cousa que lhe esquecêra,
sem a qual não podia obrar á medida de suas satisfações.
Entenderam os soldados que seria livro de direito, e não duvidaram
de romper segunda vez o perigo de entrar na praça; mas aquelle
que imaginavam instrumento de solido conselho, outra cousa não
era mais que a sonora cabaça do poeta; do que se infere o como
chasqueou este Democrito das alterações da fortuna.
Muito pago ficou o governador d’esta galantaria geralmente
celebrada. Serviu-se d’elle para adjuncto na condemnação dos
cabeças d’aquelle motim, que foram arcabuzados pelos ouvidos; e
desempenhando a recommendação de d. João de Alencastre deu-
lhe liberdade para embarcar-se a Pernambuco. Posto naquella
capitania, governada então por Caetano de Mello de Castro, com o
semblante perturbado pela indecencia do habito demandou a
presença d’este fidalgo, que lastimando de ver o miseravel estado a
que chegára um homem tão mimoso da natureza, lhe fez donativo
de uma bolsa bem provida, e com palavras um pouco severas lhe
mandou que naquella capitania cuidasse muito em cortar os bicos á
penna, si o quizesse ter por amigo. Não sei si era zelo publico, si
particular temor. Gregorio de Mattos o prometteu fazer assim, e em
algumas occasiões mostrou quão violentado estava com aquelle
preceito: seja uma d’ellas o caso que refiro.
 Picadas de ciumes se encontraram duas mulatas meretrizes
juncto á porta do poeta, e renovando suas paixões de uma e outra
parte se descompunham em vozes petulantes. Passaram de lingua
a braços, e atracadas tenazmente cahiram por terra em ridicula
visão, a tempo que avisado da grita sahiu a vê-las o poeta, e dando
naquelle espectaculo deshonesto começou a gritar: ai que de El-Rei
contra o senhor Caetano de Mello! Perguntaram-lhe os
circumstantes que queixa tinha do governador: «Que maior queixa
(respondeu) que a de prohibir-me fazer versos quando se me
offerecem similhantes assumptos?» Notavel argumento do respeito
d’este fidalgo, si Gregorio de Mattos não tomára depois algumas
licenças de satyrisar.
Os nobres de Pernambuco contendiam ambiciosas
demonstrações de urbanidade com elle, venerando em sua pessoa
prendas de que já os havia a fama informado por escriptos. De uma
em outra fazenda passava Gregorio de Mattos uma regalada vida, e
sem offender a nobreza d’este paiz, me presuado a crer que o
adoravam á maneira que os antigos idolatras com politica religião
faziam sacrificios ao gorgulho para não destruir-lhe as sementeiras,
e á peste para perdoar-lhe as vidas. Mas sempre é digno de louvor
quem sabe lisongear o damno porque o teme. Na Bahia perdeu
muitos amigos pelo meio de os ganhar; e em Pernambuco os
ganhava pelo meio de perde-los. Referirei dous casos, que sirvam
de exemplo a este ultimo reparo.
Certa pessoa muito principal em Pernambuco, de quem o poeta
era hospede, ouvia d’elle os encarecimentos com que relatava a
desgraça em que nascêra, e sua desterrada peregrinação com
todos os acontecimentos tristes, e como attribuia seus infortunios á
rigorosa força de estrella; e mal persuadido d’esta rhetorica triste lhe
respondeu atalhando nesta fórma: «Sñr. doutor, nós mesmos somos
os auctores da nossa fortuna, e cada um colhe o que
semêa.»—«Não ha duvida (respondeu o poeta), mas é desgraçado
aquelle contra quem se conjurou a malicia, que das mesmas
virtudes lhe fazem dilictos: verbi gratia, alli vem aquelle boi (e
mostrou um da fazenda do mesmo sujeito); elle tem um só corno,
como estamos vendo, mas si eu lhe chamar boi de um corno, Deus
me livre da indignação de seu dono.» E sendo esta materia por
toque ou remoque muito melindrosa em Pernambuco, disfarçou este
homem o proposito, sendo certo que foi o maior amigo que teve
naquella terra o doutor Gregorio de Mattos.
O vigario da Muribeca Antonio Gomes Baracho, atravessado com
o seu coadjutor, não lhe podia soffrer as presumpções de solfista.
Ordenou ao seu trombeta que tocasse desesperadamente em
ouvindo cantar como sempre o coadjutor. Mas este que percebeu a
burla, tambem se armou de um caracol marinho, com que apupava
a trombeta de seu inimigo. O vigario, a quem o grande odio
descompunha o entendimento, se foi querelar do caso perante o
vigario geral, com quem privava. Recebida a queréla, e seguro o
coadjutor, chegou o caso á noticia de Gregorio de Mattos, e posto a
caminho sobre a besta de um farinheiro entrou com seis leguas de
jornada por casa do criminoso, a quem pediu procuração para
defender-lhe a causa, asseverando que o não trouxera alli outro
algum negocio, e que de graça o queria servir. Ia o padre a
agradecer-lhe tanta fineza, mas o doutor lhe atalhou, dizendo: «Não,
sñr. padre, não m’o agradeça, que o meu interesse é saber d’este
juiz qual é a lei que condemna a quem toca um buzio.» Avisado o
vigario do excesso que fizera aquelle homem, a quem conhecia
douto e respeitava poeta, logo o foi buscar á casa do mesmo
coadjutor, concedendo a este pazes, e ficando em particular
amizade com elle.
Honravam-no todos seriamente; mas arrebatado de seu fresco e
esparcido genio fugia dos homens circumspectos, e se inclinava
(como na Bahia) a musicos e folgazões. E sendo naturalmente
aceiado e gentil, descompunha a sua auctoridade vivendo entre
estes ao philosopho: de sorte que invejava aos barbaros gentios do
Brazil a liberdade de andarem nus pelo arvoredo, lastimando-se
d’aquellas pensões a que nos obriga a policia. Como outros
costumam adornar seus escriptorios de odoriferos pomos, que
regalam a vista e olfacto, adornava elle o seu de bananas que
chamam do Maranhão, que mais servem ao sustento que ao gosto:
e isto em demasiada quantidade, que provocando riso a quem as
via, dava em razão:—adornemo-nos de proveito, que em quanto as
tenho, riu-me da fome.
Uma rigorosa febre lhe attenuou os dias, de sorte que
desenganados os piedosos pernambucanos de remir-lhe a vida,
chamaram o vigario do Corpo Sancto Francisco da Fonseca Rego,
pessoa que suppunham de mais auctoridade, para que o
dispuzesse a morrer como catholico. Mas como este parocho era na
opinião do poeta mal recebido, sem poder disfarçar nesta hora o
genio livre, soltou algumas palavras, que puzeram as chimeras do
vulgo em suspeitas, de que nasceu um rumor menos decoroso á
sua consciencia; o qual chegando aos ouvidos do illustrissimo
prelado d. fr. Francisco de Lima, logo desde uma legua de caminho
se arrojou como bom pastor a tomar em seus hombros a ovelha que
suppunha desgarrada; e não foi assim, porque não só o achou
disposto a morrer como verdadeiro christão, mas em signal de que
lhe servira o entendimento no maior conflicto, viu em uma folha de
papel escripto com caracteres tremulos o grande soneto que
offerecemos:

Pequei, senhor: mas não, porque hei peccado,

Da vossa alta piedade me despido:
Antes quanto mais tenho delinquido,
Vos tenho a perdoar mais empenhado.
Si basta a vos irar tanto peccado,
A abrandar-vos sobeja um só gemido:
Que a mesma culpa, que vos ha offendido,
Vos tem para o perdão lisongeado.
Si uma ovelha perdida, já cobrada,
Gloria tal e prazer tão repentino
Vos deu, como affirmais na Sacra Historia:
Eu sou, senhor, ovelha desgarrada;
Cobrae-a; e não queirais, Pastor Divino,
Perder na vossa ovelha a vossa gloria.