A modified proposal from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science" misses key opportunities to improve open data and evidence-building activities at the agency. The proposal, if implemented as drafted, could place restrictions on what studies and data the agency can consider when making decisions.
While EPA officials suggest the proposed rule promotes science and data transparency, experts outside EPA are concerned this new rule could limit the agency’s use of evidence when setting policy. Data Coalition CEO Nick Hart submitted comments on this proposed rule, outlining shortcomings in the proposal while also offering options that further the agency’s open data and open science capabilities.
As a longstanding leader in advancing transparency and evidence-based policymaking among federal agencies, EPA’s proposal omits opportunities to take advantage of new legal authorities established in the bipartisan Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act.
In order to build transparency and improve data access, government agencies, including EPA, must undertake a multi-pronged approach that builds a culture of openness, with appropriate privacy protections. In the near-term, EPA should focus on its obligations under the Evidence Act, such as strengthening EPA’s learning culture, improve its data governance, enhance EPA’s policy analysis and evaluation function, and bolster public trust.
More specifically, EPA should consider advancing bipartisan solutions that support meaningful transparency, including to
Further details about each of these options, and other ideas, are offered in Nick Hart’s detailed written comments to EPA.
The Data Coalition strongly supports EPA’s efforts to promote open data and open science, when such efforts ensure the agency can promote meaningful transparency and continue to use the best scientific information available. The Data Coalition will be monitoring EPA’s progress on implementing the Evidence Act and realizing the promise of using high-quality data to support agency decision-making.
The Census Bureau is now collecting new data to measure how the coronavirus pandemic is impacting U.S. households. Two new surveys, one aimed at households and the other at business, will begin to measure how the pandemic is affecting individuals and businesses during the pandemic.
The Household Pulse Survey will be sent to approximately 14 million people via email compiled from commercial sources. The questionnaire is a collaboration of multiple federal statistical agencies. The survey covers a range of questions that may directly inform future policy debates, such as food security, housing security, and economic anxiety. The Small Business Pulse Survey will sample approximately one million small businesses across the country to provide additional insights from establishments about economic effects.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is also expanding its data collections, with support from the National Center for Health Statistics and the Census Bureau, by adding five COVID-related questions to the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS) through October 2020. These data will be tied to the key measures produced by the CPS, including the national unemployment and the labor force participation rate.
The efforts underway in the federal statistical system are encouraging steps forward for producing the valid, reliable data needed to address many current challenges. Prioritizing high-quality data and a robust data infrastructure will bolster decision-makers’ capabilities to understand and address the current pandemic with sound policies.
The Data Coalition first encouraged Congress to support and fund the development of a large-scale, household survey on COVID-19 impacts in March. Rapidly launching new data collection endeavors is a colossal undertaking, particularly in the midst of an active emergency response. In fact, in order to get both the household and establishment surveys into the field as quickly as possible, the Census Bureau will be relying on email outreach, with email addresses purchased from commercial sources. This is a new outreach strategy for the Census Bureau, but shows how the agency is innovating and adapting while balancing the need for rigorous and careful statistical techniques. The results will be published under the Census Bureau’s experimental statistics program.
While government survey efforts are essential, philanthropic approaches like the COVID Impact Survey are also vital. The COVID Impact Survey, aims to answer important questions with timely national and regional statistics on physical health, mental health, economic security, and social dynamics in the United States. The large-scale effort using random sample survey techniques will complement and even supplement government data collections at a time when it’s critical for policymakers to have good information for determining future actions for stay-at-home orders, social distancing policies, and other actions to combat the effects of the virus.
Multiple projects like the COVID Impact Survey and the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse survey will work together to meet information needs, but responsible data collection will require significant and meaningful investment. The Data Coalition will continue to advocate for efforts to promote valid and reliable data about the challenges facing the country.
The largest economic stimulus package in U.S. history was enacted on March 27. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economy Security Act (CARES Act) provides economic relief for individuals, businesses, and industries affected by the pandemic. The $2 trillion package contains some key provisions for public data and evidence-building activities.
In addition to its other core funding, the CDC will receive $500 million for public health surveillance and analytics infrastructure, providing more timely and accurate health data. In its open letter to Congress, the Data Coalition highlighted ways that the system for compiling national COVID-19 test data and relevant health data could be improved. Using existing data infrastructure, an improved reporting system with basic data standards could be implemented to ensure timely reporting of test results and relevant vital records.
In addition to health surveillance, the National Center for Health Statistics, housed within the CDC, can improve capabilities in the Electronic Death Reporting System and work with states to improve their reporting capacity.
The bill includes multiple bodies to provide oversight on the large sums of money spent in the bill. These oversight bodies will provide accountability and will help connect federal spending to outcomes.
The CARES Act also provides $340 billion in emergency funding, the bulk of which will go directly to state and local governments. There are additional research funds for the National Institutes of Health ($945.5 million), the National Science Foundation ($76 million), Department of Energy ($99.5 million) and the Environmental Protection Agency ($7.2 million). The Data Coalition continues to push for funding to be used to implement key provisions of the Evidence Act. Statistical activities, data governance, and program evaluation are vital functions that must be successful across the government to understand the impacts of the policy decisions being made today.
Our country will continue to need valid and reliable data not only about the challenges facing our workers, economy, and health but the effectiveness and efficiencies of our policy interventions. These oversight provisions and appropriations will help ensure that we have the best evidence possible for our policy decisions.
In a recent open letter to Congress, the Data Coalition outlined several actions that Congress could take to respond to the pandemic with data. One recommendation would direct agencies to track supplemental spending through USAspending.gov as the federal government is expected to inject unprecedented sums of money into the American economy. With such an influx of spending, accurate and reliable spending data are vital to ensure accountability, transparency, and meaningful evaluation.
In 2009, in the aftermath of the financial crisis the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (Recovery Act, PL 111–5), was passed, it included several oversight mechanisms, including oversight boards and a budget accounting framework that enabled tracking of federal funds that were allocated in supplemental appropriations. This was done in the spirit of transparency and accountability.
Since then, there have been new bipartisan data laws passed to give the American public access to information on their tax dollars are being used, including the DATA Act (PL 113-101), and the recently passed GREAT Act (PL 116-103)
The DATA Act established government-wide data standards for financial data, simplified reporting, and holds agencies accountable for submitted data to USAspending.gov. Expanding on the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, the DATA Act:
The recent GREAT Act accomplishes similar goals for reporting by grant recipients and those who have cooperative agreements. The law:
As with the Recovery Act of 2009, it will be important to know how effective interventions are in times of economic crisis. Thankfully, the groundwork laid by the implementation of the DATA Act and on-going implementation of the GREAT Act means that there are already mechanisms in place to help make government spending data open, reliable, accurate, and accessible. That is why the Data Coalition urges Congress to incorporate the existing frameworks of the DATA Act and GREAT Act into the stimulus packages to ensure American tax dollars are being used for the desired outcomes of society.
The following is a letter written by Data Coalition CEO Nick Hart to Members of Congress regarding COVID-19. The letter recommends the passage of high-priority federal data policies that would help address the ongoing pandemic and facilitate future innovation. A PDF version of the letter is available for download.
Members of Congress –
During this unprecedented time in our country, the need for valid, reliable data about the challenges facing Americans is clear. The Data Coalition members strongly encourage our country’s elected leaders to ensure we are collecting the data and developing the evidence necessary to understand these challenges, while also planning for our country’s future policy needs. Enabling data access while protecting privacy is essential for accomplishing data-driven decision-making; fortunately, a set of bipartisan and well-vetted policy proposals can help address these challenges immediately.
In late-2017 a bipartisan commission created by Congress and the President offered 22 clear recommendations about how to improve the country’s data infrastructure to support evidence-based policymaking. While the comprehensive Evidence Commission strategy was designed to work as an entire ecosystem, to date, Congress has only taken action on half of those recommendations. The coronavirus pandemic necessitates action on the remaining unanimous recommendations from the U.S. Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking to ensure elected leaders have critical information to understand not just the full impacts of the virus long-term on our economy and population, but also to study and learn from the policies being implemented today to attempt to mitigate the pandemic’s effects. In addition to those suggestions, there are several common-sense, bipartisan policy ideas that can immediately improve our ability to measure long-term impacts.
The Data Coalition is America’s premier voice on data policy, specifically advocating for data to be high-quality, accessible, and usable to improve our society. On behalf of the members of the Data Coalition – which include technology innovators, data analytics organizations, management consultancies, data vendors, and non-profit research organizations – we ask that Congress prioritize collection and management of high-quality data for addressing the pandemic. Prioritizing high-quality data and a robust data infrastructure will bolster our country’s capabilities to understand and address the current pandemic with sound policies, while also preparing for future crises in the years ahead.
The Data Coalition’s suggestions include ideas that explicitly align with or are complimentary to the Evidence Commission’s unanimous recommendations. Each could also be considered to temporarily address major data issues. Legislative specifications for each are included as an attachment:
Thank you for your consideration of these critical data priorities as our country and partners around the world work to collectively address the coronavirus pandemic. We recognize the magnitude of the challenge before you and hope these suggestions will support your need for reliable information in the months and years ahead. For immediate assistance, please contact me or the Data Coalition’s policy manager, Corinna Turbes (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Nick Hart, Ph.D.
CEO, Data Coalition
The release of the President’s annual budget proposal offers insights into upcoming priorities and initiatives across the federal government. The Trump Administration’s fiscal year 2021 budget proposal offers some perspectives about plans for implementing new data and evidence projects across government. This is the first full budget since enactment of the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act (Evidence Act), including the OPEN Government Data Act, and the final Federal Data Strategy, so it is the first opportunity for agencies to appeal to Congress for support through new authority and resources.
Here are six key take-aways from the data and evidence priorities in the 2021 budget proposal:
More than one year after enactment of the Evidence Act and with the first annual action plan issued by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), agencies are now expected to begin rapid implementation of core data and evidence obligations. The budget signals a new focus on tangible projects happening across agencies covering issues as wide-ranging as new program evaluations to open data planning and development of agency data inventories.
While OMB is expected to issue additional guidance in 2020 and develop a second-year action plan as part of the Federal Data Strategy, the budget proposal highlights that planned improvements are no longer just plans, but that real actions are underway. For example, the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Office of Evaluation Sciences recognized its role in supporting new agency evaluation officers in developing learning agendas, and is restructuring some of its activities to plan accordingly.
The Evidence Act requires agencies to undertake a wide range of activities, further elaborated on in the Federal Data Strategy. Even before complete guidance is available from OMB, multiple agencies demonstrate rapid progress implementing the Evidence Act with explanations in budget justifications. For example, the Treasury Department included descriptions of available evidence and analytical projects for every bureau in the congressional justification, some with insightful projects. Other agencies describe new organizational processes and structures for ensuring data leaders receive sufficient support and empowerment. The Departments of Commerce and Education provide extensive details about the roles and organization of new chief data officers in supporting data governance boards and management activities.
Some agencies appear to be forward-leaning with requests for additional resources, reallocations of existing resources, or flexible funding mechanisms to support data and evidence priorities. The Environmental Protection Agency requests funds for a new centralized evaluation unit, GSA requested additional resources to support the Chief Data Officer Council, and the Department of Labor requested flexibility in using funds for evaluation activities, to name a few. By identifying funding flexibilities and reallocations, agencies ease the burden on appropriators to identify new financial streams within top-line budget levels to support these initiatives, also suggesting increased likelihood of receiving the funding.
Buried in the details of agency budget requests are several proposals that suggest continued progress in implementing the unanimous, bipartisan recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking. The Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis and Census Bureau propose to create a federal data service, similar to the National Secure Data Service, initially proposed by the Evidence Commission.
The Department of Health and Human Services proposes increasing access to wage and earnings data maintained in the National Directory of New Hires for targeted purposes, including to support improved government decision-making. Another proposal that is revived in the budget request is the idea to combine agencies that disseminate federal economic statistics. Collectively these proposals, among others, suggest a clear focus on maintaining bipartisan momentum for responsible data sharing across government.
The administration proposes to increase spending on artificial intelligence (AI) research and development activities in 2021, doubling current investments in preparation for building “industries of the future.” In practice, major investments that support AI also offer benefits to core data infrastructure and management across government agencies. New resources at the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, and Energy, could further promote rapid development of AI capabilities in government with benefits to policymakers, the economy, and the American public.
The budget proposal recognizes a detail often lost in dialogues about data capabilities in government: the federal workforce. Government workers need constant training and re-skilling to support emerging needs in data science, analytics, even privacy protections as technologies and methods evolve. To support the training and reskilling efforts, the budget includes a request for new funding to support diversity and highly-skilled workers for AI, data analysis, and other emerging needs.
There is always room for critique of the budget, and not all agencies provide clarity about the role of chief data officers, the value of evaluation, or even signal the prioritization of Evidence Act implementation. There are also challenges for the top-line messaging from the administration, including overall funding levels and removal of long-standing data, statistical, and performance chapters summarizing activities in the Analytical Perspectives Volume.
Importantly, the Trump budget proposal is a starting point for 2021 appropriations and Congress will still make numerous changes before final funding levels are established. Even for those that may disagree with the top-line spending levels or macro-policy choices, when it comes to the data and evidence priorities, there is much to applaud and support as the proposal is considered by Congress in coming months.
One year ago today, the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act (Evidence Act) became law. Building on the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking, the Evidence Act, and complementary guidance from the White House Office of Management and Budget on federal data policy, work is well underway to create a growing appetite for research evidence within the federal government’s Executive Branch agencies. These efforts also aim to reduce some of the hurdles to the use of government data across agencies, between government agencies, and with the external research community, where much of the relevant evidence is generated.
I am Dean of a school populated by faculty who conduct policy research using such government data and teach students who will graduate and staff many federal agencies. How should our role, as external researchers and educators, be affected by implementation of the Evidence Act? One way that we can help with implementation is to focus on… implementation.
Executive agencies spend most of their time implementing policies legislated by Congress. This implementation process is wide-ranging – from decisions as visible and charged as changing fuel economy requirements for automobiles to nearly invisibly and apparently innocuous choices like how to arrange the paragraphs in an informational letter to welfare program recipients to promote effective use of benefits. Researchers outside government, however, often have access to information about decision-making and relevant data only at the legislative policy level. Their research, therefore, tends to evaluate the impact of an overall policy decision, rather than the nuances of its implementation.
One promising outgrowth of the Evidence Act is to narrow this mismatch. Agency learning agendas, mandated by the new law, can inform researchers of potentially compelling implementation choices at the agency level. Improved access to administrative data can give researchers the granularity of information needed to assess such decisions. As a corollary benefit, if external researchers focus attention in areas where agencies really need their insight, they can build partnerships with agency staff that enable them to use agency data to better inform analyses at the policy level as well.
The potential for this kind of synergy – simultaneously informing agency micro-implementation decisions and generating broad new knowledge – struck me in reading a recent study in my own area of health policy research. In 2015, some 6.1 million U.S. tax returns were subject to individual mandate penalties because some people on the return had failed to obtain health insurance. The Treasury Department was interested in learning about the best ways to design outreach letters encouraging those in this group to buy coverage in 2017 – a typical agency micro-implementation decision. In this case, though, there wasn’t enough funding available to conduct outreach to all eligible returns. Ithai Lurie and Janet McCubbin of the Treasury Department, together with Jacob Goldin, a Stanford Law Professor, designed an experiment in which they randomly assigned returns to one of several outreach letter formats or to a control group that did not receive an outreach letter at all. Then they used Treasury Department data on 2017 returns to see which of their outreach strategies worked best to encourage health insurance take-up in 2017.
But the team didn’t stop there. They merged the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data with the Social Security death file, to see whether changes in the take-up of health insurance induced by their experiment affected mortality outcomes. That is, they built on their implementation research to evaluate the effects of the underlying program itself. Goldin, Lurie, and McCubbin found that the additional coverage induced by their more effective intervention letters actually reduced mortality among middle-aged adults over a two-year follow-up period.
The Goldin, Lurie, and McCubbin study is a great illustration of rigorous evidence development on implementation effectiveness. It’s also the first large-scale experimental study to show that health insurance reduces mortality. And it couldn’t have happened without collaboration between external researchers and agency staff, and without access to large-scale administrative data.
There are lessons in that collaboration for us as educators as well. We need to encourage our faculty to examine agency learning agendas, to put our insights to work where they are most needed. We need to educate our students — future agency staffers — about the value of data and about the array of approaches and perspectives available in the external research community, so that they actively welcome and seek out research partners.
Finally, as external researchers, we should take the same approach to the Evidence Act as we would to other important federal legislation – evaluate it! At this stage, the right focus is on evaluating the implementation choices made at the agency level, so that we develop an evidence base to make better use of evidence in policymaking.
As agencies proceed in implementing the Evidence Act during its second year, there is much promise for changing the relationship between the government and research community for the better. Success will require strong collaborations and partnerships, promising tremendous gains for producing and using meaningful evidence in coming years.
About the Author:
In 2013, Sherry Glied was named Dean of New York University’s Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service. From 1989-2013, she was Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. She was Chair of the Department of Health Policy and Management from 1998-2009. On June 22, 2010, Glied was confirmed by the U.S. Senate as Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services, and served in that capacity from July 2010 through August 2012. She had previously served as Senior Economist for health care and labor market policy on the President’s Council of Economic Advisers in 1992-1993, under Presidents Bush and Clinton, and participated in the Clinton Health Care Task Force. She has been elected to the National Academy of Medicine, the National Academy of Social Insurance, and served as a member of the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking.
Glied’s principal areas of research are in health policy reform and mental health care policy. Her book on health care reform, Chronic Condition, was published by Harvard University Press in January 1998. Her book with Richard Frank, Better But Not Well: Mental Health Policy in the U.S. since 1950, was published by The Johns Hopkins University Press in 2006. She is co-editor, with Peter C. Smith, of The Oxford Handbook of Health Economics, which was published by the Oxford University Press in 2011.
Glied holds a B.A. in economics from Yale University, an M.A. in economics from the University of Toronto, and a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University.
In the final weeks of 2019, Congress passed a significant piece of legislation, and the president signed the bipartisan bill into law Dec. 30, 2019: the Grant Reporting Efficiency and Agreements Transparency Act of 2019, or the GREAT Act, which will modernize federal grant reporting.
If your organization is one of the recipients or grantees of the more than $700 billion in annual financial assistance from the federal government, this will impact you. Chances are the GREAT Act will affect you and how your agency, institution, or research lab reports information back to the federal government.
We’ve been following the GREAT Act closely and are here to help answer your questions surrounding the legislation. Check out the Q&A of what you need to know now—and also what’s next for the GREAT Act, when the president signs it into law as expected.
Federal grants touch nearly every American through grant programs that provide free or reduced school lunches, equip our police and fire departments, build and maintain our highways and transportation infrastructure, support small businesses, and much, much more.
The GREAT Act is intended to:
“We named it the GREAT Act for a reason,” Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) said when she introduced the bill in 2017. “The results of the passage will be great for stakeholders, government agencies, job creators, grantees, and grantors.”
It is designed to standardize a data structure for the information that recipients must report to federal agencies and to streamline the federal grant reporting process.
“Without updating the way we process grant reports, in many ways we might as well be still operating with a typewriter and a fax machine and Wite-Out,” Foxx said.
Based on my experience in implementing the DATA Act—the GREAT Act’s predecessor that requires financial data to be standardized, machine-readable, and transparent—here are three initial steps you can take to be proactive:
When taking these first steps, be sure to take an incremental approach. Let’s face it: change is hard. Do the easiest and smallest things first to make meaningful progress. Also, truly look at this as an opportunity to modernize and leverage the GREAT Act as a catalyst to push forward data and efficiency initiatives that may have stalled out in the past.
You probably won’t experience a great deal of change right away, as the act requires the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the designated “standard-setting agency”—likely the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—to develop data standards over the course of the next two years. Once the standards are set, federal grant-making agencies have one year to adopt the standards and issue guidance to recipients for all future information collection requests.
As mentioned above, you can take this time to implement new best practices that improve processes across the board, so you can not only be fully prepared for when the effective date arrives, but also take advantage of the new efficiencies in advance.
The law’s provisions require the new data standards be nonproprietary, machine-readable, and be in line with existing machine-readable data standards, including standards set under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 used for USAspending.gov reporting.
If you are a grant recipient, what you report will likely not change substantially, but how you report will change in ways you might not have expected. More on those in the next section.
Some of the benefits to reporting organizations include a reduction in redundant reporting, potential for automated validation of a report’s completeness, automated delivery, and if you’re a high-performing organization, faster recognition of your excellent performance.
First benefit: Grant recipients may need to report less data. Recipients will be required to submit data in a machine-readable format, meaning that just sending PDFs will no longer be acceptable. Federal agencies will leverage technology to automate and streamline reporting processes, so recipients would report data only once, and federal agencies would use it multiple times.
Second benefit: Federal agencies can make more informed decisions when awarding grants. That’s a huge advantage if you are a recipient that consistently receives a clean audit opinion—chances are you will have greater access to federal grant dollars. The GREAT Act simplifies the current single audit reporting by requiring the gold mine of single audit data to be reported in an electronic format consistent with the data standards established under the act.
But if your single audit reports identify material weaknesses and repeat findings year after year, right now is a good time to get your house in order if you want to keep receiving federal funds.
Keep in mind this general timeline:
Our team at Workiva is committed to keeping you informed on the significant news related to the GREAT Act, whether you are a recipient, auditor, or federal grant-making agency. The Data Coalition, America’s premier voice on data policy, is another great resource for staying up-to-date. Check out the Data Coalition website, and subscribe to their newsletter.
Editor’s note: This blog has been updated and was originally published on December 20, 2019, at workiva.com.
In 2019, tremendous bipartisan efforts led to new federal data laws, progress on legislation that may become law in 2020, and gains inside the Executive Branch for implementing strategies to make government data more accessible and useable. Amidst a backdrop of hyper-partisanship and political turmoil in Washington, DC, the bipartisan approach for improving the federal government’s data policies cannot be understated.
Here are a few highlights from the past 12 months on areas of success for Data Coalition priorities:
Other Data Coalition priorities are also advancing as work proceeds to establish a federal data service, Congress considers the Taxpayer Right to Know Act developing program inventories, the National Security Commission on AI produces its final recommendations, the Advisory Committee on Data for Evidence Building is established and begins to deliberate, and as our country’s lawmakers consider reforms through the Select Committee on Modernization of Congress.
In short, the Data Coalition’s advocacy efforts paid off tremendously this year – and are continuing to accrue benefits – for the American people and our society. Through nearly 100 briefings on key policy priorities, the GovDATAx Summit, and countless other activities this year that bring together the corners of the data community, the Data Coalition’s members and expertise achieved real and lasting headway for the country.
In 2020 and beyond, as agencies work to implement the Evidence Act, the GREAT Act, and more, the Data Coalition members and staff will continue to serve as a resource to hold government accountable for effective implementation while also devising strategies for continuous improvement. The moment for more meaningfully transforming government data into a strategic asset is upon us and we hope the continued enthusiasm and support for the Data Coalition’s efforts will sustain this momentum in the coming years. More importantly, have confidence that in 2020 conversations about better using government data as an asset will continue to bring together Republicans and Democrats as we work to achieve common goals for improving society and meeting the needs of the American people.
The United States government is rapidly progressing in implementing new laws and guidance on evidence-based policymaking, data-driven government, and open data. During the Data Coalition’s GovDATAx Summit in 2019, Department of Commerce Deputy Secretary Karen Dunn Kelley suggested a metaphorical book on evidence-based policymaking for the U.S. is being written, with new chapters every year. In chapter 1 in 2017, the U.S. Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking wrote a seminal report on better using government data. In Chapter 2 in 2018, Congress passed the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act (Evidence Act), and in Chapter 3 the Executive Branch published its Federal Data Strategy.
What’s the next chapter?
Data Coalition members met with senior leadership at the Department of Commerce to discuss Chapter 4 leading into 2020 and beyond. In addition, groups like Project Evident, the Brookings Institution, and the University of Chicago’s Center for Impact Sciences are all developing plans for the next generation of evidence-based policymaking.
Key aspects and inputs for the next chapter will include:
Needless to say, there is much work to do to ensure our government increasingly adopts evidence-based and data-driven approaches.
What can those outside government do to support evidence-based policymaking?
As the next chapter of the evidence and data movement is written, stakeholders in non-profits, academia, and the private sector can all contribute. Action items could include:
As the federal government continues to improve data quality, access, and ease of use, the Data Coalition will continue to support its members in engaging in each of the action items as the next chapter is written, and beyond.
1100 13TH STREET NORTHWEST SUITE 800WASHINGTON, DC, 20005, UNITED STATESINFO@DATAFOUNDATION.ORG
RETURN TO DATA FOUNDATION