The Romer Institute provides rigorous, nonpartisan policy research to state and local executive decision-makers - governors, mayors, and county and city managers. Since its founding in 2023, the Institute has provided Colorado's governor and local executive policymakers with independent, nonpartisan policy analysis designed to be accessible, timely, credible, and actionable. An independent evaluation by Mindful Metrics found early signals that the Institute's model is working, specifically that executive decision-makers in Colorado's governor's office used Institute research to inform the state's public safety policy and budget agenda.

Most Governor, Mayor and City and County Manager offices move at a rapid pace, responding to issues and managing heavy demands on their time. They have limited internal research capacity, and the research they can access is often produced for academic audiences, advocacy organizations, or legislative bodies, not for the people responsible for implementing policy and managing public institutions on a daily basis. The Romer Institute fills that gap. Its work is designed specifically for executive decision-makers who need analysis they can act on.

Think tanks and advocacy organizations generally produce research to influence public opinion or legislative debate. The Romer Institute's audience is the executive branch of state and local government, supporting the decisions they are focusing on currently with research that includes national scans of best practices, extensive primary research (such as extensive interviews with practitioners), landscape analyses of current policies and practices, and a deep understanding of public spending and budgeting. The Institute does not take policy positions, does not have a legislative agenda, and does not work for interest groups.

Research consistently shows that decisions informed by rigorous, independent analysis produce better policy outcomes and more efficient and effective governance, which is a primary motivation of the Institute’s work.

Evidence-based research also is an important tool in building common ground in a starkly partisan era. It is driven by evidence not ideology, often attracting broad support precisely because it’s anchored in evidence, not ideology. Readers of our reports who view them from an ideological lens have found elements that affirm their opinions and beliefs and other elements that might conflict with them. Evidence-based research that is unbiased - rather than presented selectively (e.g., known as confirmation bias) - sidesteps the visceral support or opposition that more partisan or advocacy-based reports typically generate.

Coloradans have expressed their preference for a different approach. The Colorado Health Foundation's 2025 Pulse Poll, a bipartisan survey of 2,333 Coloradans conducted in spring 2025, found that for the first time in the poll's six-year history, Coloradans identified political dysfunction and polarization as their greatest worry, cited by 32 percent of respondents in an open-ended question. This is nearly triple the number from the prior year and ranked above cost of living for the first time. In a poll conducted in March 2026 by the nonpartisan Colorado Polling Institute, 88% of Coloradans said they were “extremely concerned” or “very concerned” by political divisions within the country.

Coloradans also have solutions in mind: In a previous Pulse Poll, 77 percent of Coloradans surveyed expressed the opinion that increasing state policymaker access to nonpartisan information and analysis would be an effective solution. And according to a November 2025 survey by the Colorado Polling Institute, 74 percent of Coloradans believe that “we have more in common than what divides us.”

Yes. An independent evaluation by Mindful Metrics found early signals that the Institute's model is working. Using the Institute's August 2024 report Evidence-based Strategies to Reduce Violent Crime as a test case, evaluators found that executive decision-makers in Colorado's governor's office used the research in two concrete ways: it supported the Governor's Operations Team in developing new strategies to reduce aggravated assault, and it informed the state's public safety policy and budget agenda. Interviewees described the research as accessible, timely, credible, and actionable, and all five executive decision-makers interviewed expressed a strong intention to continue working with the Institute. The evaluation characterized these as early signals rather than definitive proof of impact, consistent with the Institute's own view of where it is in building its track record.

The Institute is explicit about what the evidence shows and what it does not. When research findings are strong and consistent, we say so. When the evidence is mixed, contested, or thin, we says that too. Policymakers are not well served by research that overstates its conclusions or conceals its limitations. The Institute's credibility depends on honesty about uncertainty, which means it will sometimes report that the evidence does not support a clear recommendation.