[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STRENGTHENING THE LAWMAKING PROCESS:
HOW DATA CAN INFORM AND IMPROVE POLICY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE
MODERNIZATION OF CONGRESS
OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 27, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-12
__________
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on the Modernization of
Congress
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via http://govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
48-602 WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE MODERNIZATION OF CONGRESS
DEREK KILMER, Washington, Chair
ZOE LOFGREN, California WILLIAM TIMMONS, South Carolina,
EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri Vice Chair
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado BOB LATTA, Ohio
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia DAVE JOYCE, Ohio
GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
COMMITTEE STAFF
Yuri Beckelman, Staff Director
Derek Harley, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Opening Statements
Page
Chairman Derek Kilmer
Oral Statement............................................... 1
Vice Chairman William Timmons
Oral Statement............................................... 2
WITNESSES
Ms. Poppy MacDonald, President, USAFacts
Oral Statement............................................... 4
Written Statement............................................ 6
Dr. Nick Hart, President, Data Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 15
Ms. Tara McGuinness, Fellow and Senior Adviser, New Practice Lab,
New America
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Written Statement............................................ 23
Discussion....................................................... 29
APPENDIX I: ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Ms. Tara McGuinness, Fellow and Senior Adviser, New Practice Lab,
New America.................................................... 46
STRENGTHENING THE LAWMAKING PROCESS: HOW DATA CAN INFORM AND IMPROVE
POLICY
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2021
House of Representatives,
Select Committee on the
Modernization of Congress,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 12:29 p.m., in Room
2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Derek Kilmer
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kilmer, Phillips, Williams,
Timmons, Latta, and Joyce.
The Chairman. All right. The committee will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any time.
And I recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
So, last week, this committee held a hearing on modernizing
the congressional support agencies so they can better meet the
needs of an evolving Congress. And one of the most important
issues raised at that hearing was the need for better and more
timely access to data.
In order for CRS and CBO and GAO and the entire alphabet
soup to provide Congress with accurate and impartial
information about Federal policies and programs, they need open
access to data that is collected by the Federal agencies. They
also need for that data to be provided in user-friendly
formats.
A few years back, I sponsored the OPEN Government Data Act,
which became part of the Evidence-Based Policymaking Act, for
that very reason. Government data should be available to the
American people because it belongs to them.
Access to data helps Americans invent new technologies and
start new businesses and create jobs. It also helps improve
decisionmaking. For example, the Department of Education
maintains a college scorecard so consumers can compare schools
and see which institutions provide the best value.
Imagine collecting and making sense of all that data on
your own. You would need an advanced degree in data science,
which sort of defeats the whole purpose of researching where to
go to college.
By requiring Federal agencies to establish data inventories
and make data more available to the public, the Evidence Act
also builds efficiencies into the policymaking process.
Legislation that incorporates objective evidence and data is
more likely to withstand scrutiny. Data can also shed light on
which government programs are succeeding and which are failing.
Data also helps lawmakers see program success and failure
through a variety of lenses.
For example, decisionmakers can use data to explore why a
particular program is underutilized rather than just cutting
the program altogether. They might discover that consumers
simply lack knowledge about the program, a program that can be
fixed through a public education campaign or more targeted
marketing.
Lawmakers can also use diverse sets of data to weigh
whether a government program is worth the cost. The amount of
money spent on a program is an important data point, but so are
the returns on investment. A more holistic understanding of how
Federal programs impact the American people can help
legislators legislate smarter.
So today's hearing is about what Congress can do to better
encourage the collection and use of evidence and data. The
Federal agencies are doing their part to make data available,
but it is up to Congress to incorporate data into the
policymaking and evaluation processes. So I am looking forward
to hearing what ideas the experts joining us today have for
moving Congress toward the goal of routine evidence-based
policymaking.
The committee will once again use--make use of the
committee rules we adopted earlier this year that give us the
flexibility to experiment with how we structure our hearings.
Our goal is to encourage thoughtful discussion and the civil
exchange of ideas and opinion. So--now the wonky part--in
accordance with clause 2(j) of House rule XI, we will allow up
to 30 minutes of extended questioning per witness. And, without
objection, time will not be strictly segregated between the
witnesses, which will allow for extended back and forth
exchanges between members and the witnesses.
Vice Chair Timmons and I will manage the time to ensure
that every member has equal opportunity to participate. Any
member who wishes to speak should just signal their request to
me or Vice Chair Timmons. Additionally, members who wish to
claim their individual 5 minutes to question each witness
pursuant to clause 2(j)(2) of rule XI will be permitted to do
so following the period of extended questioning.
I feel like I really stuck that this time.
I would like now to invite Vice Chair Timmons to share some
opening remarks.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon. Thank you for being here today. We are
really looking forward to your testimony.
I am going to share a quick story. So I am a captain in the
South Carolina Air National Guard. I am a JAG officer, and I
was invited yesterday to speak to 50 company grade officers at
the National Guard Association over next to Union Station. And
we were having this long conversation about all these different
things, and I started talking about how Congress has gotten
away--and it is funny. I didn't use evidence-based. I said--the
way I framed it was collaborative fact-based policymaking from
a basis of mutual respect.
So we have got immigration. We have got healthcare. We have
got debt. We have all these huge challenges that are facing
this country, and we are not doing that. We are not--it is not
collaborative, it is not fact based, evidence based, and it is
definitely not from a basis of mutual respect often.
So the question is, what can we do to fix that? And just
when I said that, it was interesting. I guess she was a captain
from somewhere in the Midwest. She said, Well, where do you get
your facts?
That was--and we had like a 15-minute conversation about
news and about data. And the first thing that came to mind was
that, when I was getting my master's degree, the statistics
class, the first thing the professor said was, If you learn
nothing from this class, know that if you tell me what you want
the statistic to say, I will create that for you and give you
evidence to support it.
So this is a very important issue, because everybody has
their own facts, and I think maybe the most important thing is
the lack of exchange of ideas and the lack of defense of ideas.
The chairman and I often talk about our time in the State
senate, and you were forced to defend your ideas. Everyone sat
in the chamber in South House 46. And if you put up an
amendment, you had to go up there and defend it. And it was
very quick to tell who had any idea what was going on and who
didn't. So you got to the bottom of it.
So, evidence-based policymaking is the only way out of the
situation we are in. The biggest challenges facing us will only
be overcome if we can find a way to reform the manner in which
we are conducting ourselves in this institution.
So I just really appreciate you all taking the time to come
and be a part of this hearing, and I look forward to it.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thanks so much.
The committee is honored to welcome three experts who are
here to share with us their recommendation for how Congress can
improve its access to and use of data and evidence in
policymaking and evaluation processes.
Witnesses are reminded that your written statements will be
made part of the record.
And our first witness is Poppy MacDonald. Ms. MacDonald is
the president of USAFacts, a nonpartisan, nonprofit
organization that collects and visualizes publicly available
data with the goal of helping ground democratic debate in
facts.
Prior to joining USAFacts, she served as the president and
chief operating officer of Politico USA. She was also a partner
at Gallup, Inc., and helped launch their World Poll. Ms.
MacDonald began her career working for several Members of
Congress in both the House and the Senate.
Ms. MacDonald, thank you for being with us. You are now
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MS. POPPY MACDONALD, PRESIDENT, USAFACTS; DR. NICK
HART, PRESIDENT, DATA FOUNDATION; AND MS. TARA MCGUINNESS,
FELLOW AND SENIOR ADVISER, NEW PRACTICE LAB, NEW AMERICA
STATEMENT OF POPPY MACDONALD
Ms. MacDonald. Turn this on. Okay? It is not lighting--oh,
there we go. Perfect. All right. Thank you for that technical
assist this afternoon.
Good afternoon to you all, and thank you for the
opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Poppy
MacDonald, and I am the president of USAFacts. I have submitted
testimony for the record, but I will summarize some key points
for you today.
USAFacts is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization
dedicated to providing the American public comprehensible and
understandable government data. USAFacts empowers American
citizens and you and your fellow elected leaders to make data-
driven decisions about the issues facing the country. We do
this by providing unbiased facts, by standardizing data from
Federal, State, and local government sources, and presenting it
in a clear and simple manner at usafacts.org.
The data we use is consolidated from 78 Federal agencies
with sources from every State and region nationwide. We don't
attempt to influence public opinion in any way. We consolidate
government data to support serious, reasoned, and informed
debate. We exist to help all decisionmakers, as well as the
public, access reliable information and empower them to make
policy from a strong foundation of trusted facts.
USAFacts was created out of a clear societal need for
accurate and acceptable data from the Federal, State, and local
governments.
In 2015, our founder and former CEO of Microsoft, Steve
Ballmer, wanted to use his personal charitable efforts to lift
children out of poverty. He tasked a team of financial analysts
with researching impartial data from the government about--the
government's own efforts to determine where current programs
are targeted and where there are additional needs.
The analysts thought it would take them a matter of weeks
to compile. It actually took 6 months. The information these
experts were able to compile from the government was disparate,
difficult to access, and outdated.
Steve asked an important question: Why isn't the same
standards for metrics and data that businesses are required to
report to shareholders apply to the impact and progress of
government programs and initiatives? Aren't we all shareholders
in this country who deserve the same access to transparent,
publicly reported data?
This knowledge gap forces citizens and policymakers at all
levels into a difficult position where they are called upon to
make major decisions with incomplete or dated information. In
light of this challenge, usafacts.org was created as a free
resource for all Americans to have access to trusted facts.
To give you the sense of the complexity of our work, there
are over 90,000 State and local government agencies, and few
have standardized means of reporting information or of
consolidating their data. Agency data is often siloed in the
process of collection, analysis, and presentation, resulting in
confusion and duplication of data. Administrative and
statistical data is often collected and analyzed for the sole
purpose of implementing programs at a single agency rather than
use across agencies.
To give a recent example, at the start of COVID-19
pandemic, Federal and State leaders lacked standardized data to
inform crucial decisionmaking. USAFacts combed through State
and county reports, all of which use different methods, to
create a standardized view of daily virus cases and deaths.
As a result, usafacts.org became a go-to source for many
local governments as well as publicly traded companies, not-
for-profits, and millions of citizens to provide comprehensive,
real-time COVID data.
We filled a key need in the public awareness effort, but
COVID-19 will not be the last challenge this country faces. One
of the principal reasons for USAFacts' founding was to allow
Americans to use data to make decisions about the future of the
country in the same way that executives use data to make
decisions for their companies. Modern successful businesses
rely on robust, timely data to make strategic decisions, and a
modern Congress should be empowered to do the same.
To support the information needs of a modernized Congress,
USAFacts advocates for more open, timely, and detailed data
from our government. We continue to promote recommendations
that individual agencies can implement to mitigate access
issues, including ensure that data is timely, complete, and
accurate; create reliable and certain ways to access and
understand data; ensure data sets are contextual and relevant;
establish formal cross-agency and cross-government
collaboration and standards; and make the data and collection
processes more transparent.
The enactment of the strongly bipartisan OPEN Government
Data Act in 2019, originally introduced by Chairman Kilmer, was
a key initial step forward in making some data from the Federal
Government accessible for Americans' personal and commercial
use. It created an initial pathway for agencies to organize and
distribute data to other agencies and to the general public in
ways that are easy to access and understand. This has been a
good start, but much more needs to be done.
In 2019, Congress appropriated $8.9 billion for the
collection of government statistics. So we have tremendous
stores of data, but it is not compiled in readily accessed--to
be readily accessed or understood. It is the American peoples'
data, and they as well as those they elect to represent them
should have timely and easy access to it.
The opportunities for improvement are vast, but the
solutions are within our reach, and USAFacts remains a strong
partner to help achieve them.
Thank you for your time.
[The statement of Ms. MacDonald follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. MacDonald.
Our next witness is Nick Hart. Dr. Hart is the president of
the Data Foundation, previously served as director of the
Bipartisan Policy Center's Evidence Project. This built on his
work as policy and research director for the U.S. Commission on
Evidence-Based Policymaking, where he led the development of
the Commission's final report and recommendations for Congress
and the President. He has also served as a senior analyst for
the Office of Management and Budget.
Dr. Hart, thanks for being with us. You are now recognized
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF NICK HART
Mr. Hart. Thank you. And thank you all for the invitation
to join today.
So the Data Foundation is an organization that is a
national nonprofit and works to improve government, business,
and society through open data and evidence-informed public
policy. So, needless to say, I am really excited to be part of
the discussion today.
The term ``evidence-based policymaking'' is one that has
garnered a lot of attention around the world, including here in
the U.S. in recent years, and part of that is based on our U.S.
Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking. It is actually a
model of this in practice.
It was a group of politically appointed experts who built a
body of evidence that was valid, reliable, and credible, and
directly in response to a congressional inquiry or question. So
they based their findings and recommendations on the evidence.
Congress then relied on that evidence in developing the
Evidence Act, which included the OPEN Government Data Act. Some
of their recommendations were taken literally, some were
conceptual, and some are yet to still see action. But the
evidence informed the creation of the Evidence Act, and this is
exactly the goal of evidence-based policymaking.
Agencies are now in the midst of implementing this law,
including expectations for open data, data sharing, data
inventories, and new leadership roles of chief data officers
and evaluation officers.
So we hope it is also leading the change in government's
culture to have evidence be the norm and have this also be a
pervasive expectation. It is also an incredibly important law
for Congress, and I think it will be increasingly useful for
congressional decisionmaking in coming years as agencies are
developing more evidence. But, right now, it can also be
leverage.
For example, agencies are currently developing what we are
calling evidence-building plans, or learning agendas. Those
will be published next year. And the goal of those documents is
to identify gaps in knowledge so that we can build the evidence
and have it available before decisions are made rather than
after. So as Members of Congress or staff, can provide input to
agencies at this moment on those plans.
Second, Congress can provide targeted oversight of key data
laws where this body relies on the executive branch for
information. In fact, there are notable gaps in implementation
of the Evidence Act today. More than 2 years after
implementation or enactment of the Evidence Act, key guidance
and regulatory actions for titles II, the OPEN Government Data
Act, and title III are not yet available from OMB. And this
includes important privacy and open data provisions that are
relevant to Congress, the American people, and researchers.
Over the last decade, Congress has also passed numerous
data laws, including a DATA Act, the GREAT Act, Taxpayers
Right-To-Know Act, GPRA Modernization, and many others.
Effective implementation of these laws can directly support
congressional decisionmaking by making data available for your
use, including on spending, awards, contracts and grants,
performance, and program outcomes.
The majority of these recent data laws were largely
authorized without new appropriations, and I think we need to
also realistically say that we should be doing careful
consideration of unintentional resource constraints that limit
implementation.
And, finally, there are a great many enhancements to
current law that might still require further action by
Congress. Researchers need access to data to answer policy
questions, yet access is often a major limiting factor.
Earlier this year, the House passed the bipartisan National
Secure Data Service Act as part of the NSF reauthorization, and
that was based on work from the Evidence Commission and our
work at the Data Foundation.
And a data service substantially could improve researcher
and evaluation secure access to survey data, administrative
records, or linked information, and then potentially has major
applications for understanding inequities or disparities in
government policies or evaluations of important programs for
education and workforce.
Congress should also consider how to bolster its own access
to evidence and evidence-building capabilities independent of
what is happening in the executive branch. Back in 2018, the
Bipartisan Policy Center released a set of suggestions right
here on Capitol Hill to do just this, and I want to highlight a
few of those suggestions.
One, Congress could create a chief data officer, just like
what we are seeing in the executive branch. It is a designated
leader to promote training and data fluency for staff, as well
as ensuring that thinking about data is somebody's day-to-day
job here on Capitol Hill.
You could also establish an ombudsman, someone who can help
align the evidence needs across committees and Members with
expertise that exists in the research and evaluation community.
Perhaps CRS could be tasked with thinking about how to
compile robust systematic reviews, bringing together a body of
evidence when addressing major policy questions in an unbiased
manner, especially for politically sensitive areas.
GAO could expand its focus on building capacity for modern
evaluation techniques, extending beyond traditional program
audits when it comes to processes.
Committees and staff could choose to develop their own
learning agendas like we are seeing in the executive branch.
Planning reauthorization schedules to align the timeframe
that it requires to actually build the evidence that is useful
for reauthorization or changes in the policy design would also
be important to plan for.
That said, reauthorizations and new programs can be
designed to think about evidence and data needs, including the
evaluation of important goals and scaling pilot projects. There
may be needs for authorizing new data collections, even
expanding access to certain data assets to get answers to your
questions of interest.
Now, these last several items are also things that could be
written directly into new legislation. And to do that, maybe
there needs to be a capacity here on Capitol Hill for someone
guiding that process.
So, in closing, I am really encouraged that this committee
is taking such a thoughtful, deliberative approach in
strengthening the institution that we are in, while recognizing
the important role evidence plays in your decisionmaking. I am
confident evidence-informed policymaking is one approach to
establish greater trust between the American people and their
government. It is also important for good government.
So thank you for your leadership on these issues, and I
look forward to the questions.
[The statement of Mr. Hart follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thanks, Dr. Hart.
And our final witness is Tara McGuinness. Ms. McGuinness is
a fellow and senior adviser at New America, where she founded
their New Practice Lab, which seeks to improve the design and
delivery of policies focused on family economic security and
well-being. She is an adjunct professor of public policy at
Georgetown University and, appropriate for our committee and
our attempt to boost book sales, is the coauthor of ``Power to
the Public: The Promise of Public Interest Technology.''
Prior to her current position, she served in the Obama
administration as the director of the White House Task Force on
Community Solutions.
Ms. McGuinness, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Thanks for being with us.
STATEMENT OF TARA MCGUINNESS
Ms. McGuinness. Thank you so much, Chairman Kilmer and Vice
Chair Timmons, members of the committee. I am so grateful to be
here today to talk about the task of equipping Congress to
really work for the public in the digital age, in particular
how you can use data to make better policy and really deliver
outcomes.
While the millennium has brought a ruthless focus in the
private sector to data for delivery, customers have been tested
with messages and imagery tweaking even the timing of emails to
increase how we purchase things. This modern toolkit is not
accessible to congressional leaders who are trying to bring
basic benefits to citizens.
Before I speak to you about the steps--and I have more
detail in my written testimony--that you could take to
effectively use data, I do just want to stop and pause and talk
about coffee, Starbucks coffee. Starbucks uses an immense
combination of user research and data to drive decisionmaking.
They test what works for menu offerings to demands on a sunny
day versus a rainy day.
There are far more resources available today to Starbucks
than to assist the U.S. Congress in using data to make
decisions, and that has to change, and your work has been an
incredible part of that. Coffee isn't nearly as important as a
single thing that any committee does here, from providing, you
know, safety for Americans, to keeping our water clean, to
providing effective vaccines.
And I share this--you know, this became pronounced in the
COVID-19 pandemic, the unprecedented urgency--you heard this
from Poppy--about understanding everything from tracking the
spread of the virus to delivering economic assistance in real
time.
At the core of each of these challenges was a data problem,
and modern tools are required not only to build these data
sets, but also, as you heard from Nick, to interpret these data
sets and what they mean and how you can take action on them.
I am going to focus on four key recommendations for this
transformation to drive outcomes. And I have greater details in
my written testimony.
First, we need real-time, machine-readable data on
government priority programs to see what is working and what
isn't. I am happy to talk about my experience with this on
healthcare.gov.
Second, we need Congress to be a place where the best and
brightest technologists, data scientists, designers, and
engineers go to work, because the policies that you make are
essentially delivery, and delivery is policies.
Third, Congress needs to do what you ordered the Federal
Government to do, to bring practices of plain language and user
testing to your communications.
I want to say a final word about data and evidence. It
really doesn't matter if you build data and evidence capacity
if you don't have a willingness to learn and change what works
and what doesn't. And I know that is the ultimate goal of this
committee, but I do think, as we think about building on the
Evidence Act, that is really the number one thing we need to
focus on. Data is step one.
In this book, ``Power to the Public,'' I went around the
globe and I interviewed governments that were doing things that
were profoundly different and more impactful, and there were
three things that governments were doing who were having a real
impact for their citizens.
One, they didn't just have data that they collected in real
time. They had meaningful feedback groups to understand what
their constituents need. Pairing this massive data with the
human experience allows you to see what you can miss in big
data sets.
Finally, they had cultures of learning, where they could
learn from their constituents and change their decisionmaking.
Plenty of organizations have dashboards. Far fewer of them use
them to tackle root causes.
I am so grateful for the attention you all are paying to
this issue. Congress' capacity to collect data and use evidence
may seem like a small, technical thing, but in the digital age,
it is the difference between accessing lifesaving vaccines and
receiving a rental check before eviction. The ability to see
what works and what doesn't work and make decisions and laws
upon it can mean nothing but short of lifesaving.
I am really grateful, and I am happy to answer your
questions.
[The statement of Ms. McGuinness follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. McGuinness.
I now recognize myself and Vice Chair Timmons to begin a
period of extended questioning of the witnesses. Any member who
wishes to speak should just signal their request either to me
or to Vice Chair Timmons.
So I guess this is what I want to get a better
understanding of. It seems like we have got a few things we
have got to work on here, right? In Congress, we have--and I
think you just touched on it, Ms. McGuinness. There is both a
skill problem, where we haven't built the muscle here either in
the individual offices, at the committee level, or as an
institution on how to use data. And there is also a bit of a
will problem, right? You have got to want to do it, right?
Oftentimes, the debates here are about what we think, not what
we know, and what we think is not always based on fact, right?
So I guess what I would like to get a better understanding
of--and each of you kind of touched on specific ideas in
different ways. I want to just get operational for a second.
If we define an end goal of individual Member offices,
committees, and the institution both wanting to and having the
capacity to use evidence to make decisions, let's get
operational. Like, what are two or three things that you think
this--I airdrop you on to this committee, you know, what
recommendation would you pursue if you were us to help get us
there? And if you have suggestions of whether it be coffee
companies, State legislatures, or foreign governments that you
think we ought to look at, we are game. How is that?
You can just go down the list if--or whoever wants to go
first, shoot.
Mr. Hart. So I will jump in. Well, I think it is important
to recognize, first of all, that Congress does evidence-based
policymaking today. This is not something as a critique to say
that this doesn't happen at all. There are definitely areas
where committee staff are incredibly savvy, and information
from CRS, GAO, CBO is all relevant.
I think my main points would be about strengthening that
capacity. So certainly there are gaps in knowledge, and this is
not a critique of any individual or person, but, rather, the
world is constantly changing as we are thinking about how to
use data better in our society. So having a process for
facilitating education and training of the workforce, whether
it is committee staff or individual Members, is, I think,
really important as this goes forward.
Understanding complex concepts, like multiparty computation
and homomorphic encryption, that most people will--their eyes
will gloss over as you hear those terms, we are going to be
talking about those for years to come. So figuring out the
staff capacity is really important.
The second thing, if you are talking about staff capacity,
there also has to be somebody clearly in charge as a leader.
Who do you recognize in the congressional institution to guide
this process? And this is part of why I would suggest something
like a CDO. We are seeing this happening----
The Chairman. Would you set that at CRS? Is that the right
place for it?
Mr. Hart. CRS could be the right place for it. I think
there are probably arguments that it could be more
independent----
The Chairman. Uh-huh.
Mr. Hart[continuing]. And not aligned with existing support
agencies based on the role that they would need.
The Chairman. Okay.
Mr. Hart. So I guess those are a couple of my quick
suggestions.
The Chairman. Go ahead.
Ms. McGuinness. I would underscore the role of CDO. It made
a big difference when we brought this to the executive branch.
It changed our culture and even allowed us to do some
translation on what it is a data scientist does and what kind
of questions they ask in a policy briefing.
I think you--you know, this is testimony that has been put
before this committee before that--of kind of 3,500 legislative
assistants here and staff on the Hill. Fewer than 20 have deep
expertise in technology. That comes from the testimony of
Travis Moore, the CEO of TechCongress.
And so I think really you have an asymmetrical balance
between the best talent leaving for other things that are not
as important. And so signaling this as something that is
important for the Federal Government to bring a wide range of
skill sets to the Hill will end up producing things that you
haven't even thought of about why you might need an engineer.
It changes the questions you might ask someone who is coming
before this committee or others.
Second, I do think the ability in the interim to draw on
expertise from the Federal Government, the creation of the U.S.
Digital Services, of 18F, you know, there is already existing
Federal authority that will allow rotations to committees, or
even brief review. Wouldn't it be helpful to have someone who
worked on the last failed delivery of a policy review the
legislative text for the next one? That is the sort of thing
you can call on today by creating a rotating fellowship or even
building your own permanent staff on this.
I think on the question of where you locate a CDO, it is
certainly worth deeper exploration. The clerk and chief
administrative officers will really--what is the data that you
are aiming on? I think it could be very different depending on
where you locate this particular role.
And, finally, I do think the ability to translate, you
know, bring trainings to staff, and be not too prescriptive in
how you write this into legislation. The dynamism in what the
modern tool set is is different from when we were at OMB. It is
very quick, and you don't want to prescribe--what makes sense
today won't make sense 6 weeks from now in terms of what is the
most useful set of data tools, but having evolving skills that
you can bring to the staff here is critically important.
The Chairman. Great.
Ms. MacDonald. Chairman Kilmer, you mentioned the skill and
the will, which are two really important things. I would also
say the time, right? So I do think congressional staff are
really interested in understanding, by the numbers, where does
this country stand.
We worked with Senator Romney and Senator Schumer's policy
staff to put together a picture of our country by the numbers.
And we did that for the President's State of the Union Address.
And we felt--we analyzed State of the Union Addresses and felt
like the President, no matter from what party they are, always
described the state of the country as strong, stronger, you
know, even better. And we thought it was a little more complex
than that and that it could be described in data.
To pull together, though, a picture of our country by the
numbers, which Republican and Democratic staff were, you know,
very inclined and excited to do and helped devise this on, we
had to pull 56 data sources across 19 Federal agencies. So to
think that an individual staff member in one congressional
office, even if they had the skill and the will, could go about
pulling together a portrait of that on their own, it took
USAFacts about 3 months by the time we pulled that data
together, we created visualizations that were understandable by
the public, and we built that functionality in a publicly
accessible way at usafacts.org.
So I would just think about, is there somewhere within
Congress that can be built with those kind of capabilities that
can support staff who do have the will? And I am not sure that
putting that skill in every single congressional office--I know
how small those offices are and how hard they work to support
constituents' needs. But I would just think about how do you
create that capacity.
USAFacts certainly stands ready and willing to help, but I
also think that Members of Congress deserve to have that
capability right here in your own four walls.
The Chairman. Great. Thank you.
Go ahead.
Mr. Timmons. Thanks, Chairman.
So the chairman talked about skill and will. I am going to
put it in a little bit different perspective. I see three
components of this conversation: resources, process, and will.
So still got will. But resources, we need impartial, unbiased,
digestible, scholarly literature that addresses the relevant
topic.
We have some of that with CRS. Some of that is not
digestible. And then there is obviously a think tank for every
position on the political spectrum that has digestible,
scholarly, but partial or biased. But, at the same time,
reasonable minds can differ on a lot of the solutions to these
big problems. So that is not bad. It is just we have got to be
able to put all that stuff into the process and try to figure
out the answer.
Then we have process. So, I have been in Congress for 3
years now, and--well, I will be fair. This is the same before
and now. So Financial Services, we haven't had a legitimate
exchange of ideas in subcommittee or full committee in my
entire time in Congress. We have not had a single--well, maybe
one amendment adopted by the minority party. I am going to go
ahead and couch that. Four years ago, the previous Congress, I
guarantee you it was the same way. So, I mean, I am not playing
politics here, because everybody does it when they are in the
majority.
So there is a process issue there. We have the
subcommittees, we have the full committees. We have the process
there; we just don't have the will to use it.
Now, when you get to will, you have two problems. One, it
is easier--well, everybody is playing gotcha all the time, and
it is easier to put things together at the last minute and wait
till Christmas Eve and say, All right, we are voting on this.
Do you want to go home? Stick around.
I.am going to ask your thoughts on my version of this in a second.
So you said Congress does engage in fact-based policymaking
earlier, and I actually was trying to think of the worst
example of not that, and it was COVID round two. So we did the
initial--again, this is emergency, so it is not super fair. But
COVID round two had a couple of programs in it to try to help
small businesses not lay off their employees. It was just
awful. It was poorly thought out. It didn't have any basis in
reality, ultimately wasn't used. But we got the PPP loans.
After that, that was--it actually worked fairly well. I would
say it was a resounding success.
But, again, I am on the floor talking to a bunch of people
that I love and respect, and I am just like, this is how this
would work for my business. Like, you literally are going to
cause me to be a felon because I can't do what you are making
me do. And they are like, oh, okay, I get that now. I am like,
how is this possible that we are voting on this and we haven't
thought about these things?
Anyways, so, given all of that, I mean, is it--it is all
three. It is resources, process, and will. Where do you all
believe we are most efficient, and where do you think we can
most improve?
Mr. Hart. So I think it is a very powerful example that you
just offered of a place where emergency action was necessary in
the national interest, and there are cases where Congress may
make decisions about policies where the evidence is entirely
missing.
I think my response would be: How are we addressing the
evidence needs going forward? So we have designed a new
program. What did the program design have for the Small
Business Administration, Department of Treasury, to
specifically build evidence, evaluate the questions at hand so
the next disaster or national emergency, where somebody says,
``this is a great idea,'' we can actually calibrate with what
happened in the past, learn, maybe make improvements, changes
to the policy.
So evidence-based policymaking isn't about always having
precise, perfect evidence at the beginning of a process,
because we rarely do. It is about building this and
continuously learning over time.
I think, in that spirit, some of the areas that we have the
greatest need involve basic capacity of workforce that can do
this, but also being truly transparent about what evidence we
have.
So, in Congress, why can't we have something like an
evidence register just like a CBO score shows up for every
bill? This is the evidence we used to document the need of this
particular piece of legislation. It wouldn't be that hard to
add, and it would go a very long ways in being completely
transparent about what evidence exists and what doesn't.
Financial Services just passed or approved a bill called
the Financial Transparency Act. It was voted out of the House
earlier this week, and that is about open data. And certainly
there are plenty of areas where the openness of information
also enables us to have honest debates about the credibility of
the data, the meaning of it, but also applying it for drafting
legislation, understanding the context of a problem. So,
frankly, we need to do that more.
Ms. MacDonald. Yeah. I might just add on to what Nick said
about--you said resources, process, and will, how do we create
the will, and maybe it is thinking about the process. I know
there was a Republican effort before to say, for every piece of
legislation, we need to talk about the fiscal impact. How much
is this going to cost? How are we going to pay for it?
What about a requirement--a bipartisan requirement to say,
Let's talk about the impact that this legislation is supposed
to have? We may disagree on what the right policy solution is,
but let's talk about whichever policy position moves forward.
What are the numbers it is supposed to drive? This is the
population it is intended to serve. This is how big that
population is. This is what we hope will change over time, and
this is how we are going to measure it.
And then we can judge the effectiveness of that policy,
policymakers, and citizens by, did it move that number, did we
go in the right direction? It is very similar to how
businesses, right, make decisions.
I do think, as you move toward that, though, you are going
to find there are challenges with government data. It is dated.
It is old.
Just going to the fiscal example, when we do a 10-K for the
government, which is required by the SEC for corporations who
are publicly traded to provide that information to their
shareholders, for our 2021 10-K for the government, we were
using 2018 data. You can imagine--you talked about running a
business or Steve running Microsoft and trying to use data that
is 3 years dated to see are the decisions I am making today
having an impact. And, certainly, the SEC wouldn't settle for a
publicly traded corporation using 3-year-old data to report to
shareholders in an open and transparent way.
So I do think there is a real opportunity to think about
how to make that data and that transparent, real-time data part
of the process, and then that will hopefully get agencies in
gear to start providing that in a more public way.
But I would say it is not just at the Federal level. The
reason we use dated fiscal information when we are rolling up
local, State, and Federal fiscal data is because we know what
the Federal Government gave to States. But by the time then
counties report to States to report back to the Federal
Government, that is where you get that 3-year lag.
So it really is looking at the pipeline problem. We saw it
with COVID, but we see it with fiscal and other issues as well.
The Chairman. I saw Mr. Phillips gesture first, so that I
will get to him, and then I will get to you.
Mr. Phillips. Ah, the fast gesture.
The Chairman. Yeah. I won't say what gesture, but, you
know----
Mr. Phillips. I see. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, I wanted to say, Ms. McGuinness, that the urban
studies degree holders caucus in Congress is a very small one.
I think it is just me, so I wanted to salute that connection we
have.
And I want to thank all of you. This is my favorite
committee in Congress for reasons you can surely understand.
As we talk about this issue, I happen to be one that
believes that the data is there. We can certainly do better at
aggregating it, consolidating it, and sharing it. But I would
argue to my colleagues that, unless we digest it together, we
perceive it differently. And I think we have to find better
mechanisms by which Members of Congress are in the same room in
front of the same people together.
You know, hearings don't do it, because, as you all know,
witnesses typically are Republican witnesses or Democratic
witnesses. There is a baked-in bias, at least we perceive. So I
am glad we are having this hearing.
One of my questions is actually relative to my State. The
Pew Trust, as you all know, had a results-first initiative, I
believe you are aware. They named Minnesota one of the States
at the forefront of evidence-based policymaking.
Are there other States or other initiatives of which you
are aware, any of you, that we might look at and consider
bringing to Washington that are working?
Ms. McGuinness. [Inaudible] I am happy to jump in on the
State example----
Mr. Phillips. Please.
Ms. McGuinness[continuing]. And to take as a----
Mr. Hart. Is she on?
Ms. McGuinness. When you are --
The Chairman. Can you unmute your microphone?
Mr. Phillips. Oh, your microphone.
Ms. McGuinness. When you are urban planning and subway
planning, it is one of these cut-and-dry things.
Mr. Phillips. Yeah.
Ms. McGuinness. If your math is wrong, the subway doesn't
stop in the right location, is the basis of evidence.
On the States and cities, kind of outside of Federal
example, I think it is remarkably uneven, and even you can find
in a place like Minnesota excellence across the board. But if
you add a layer of--as you see, I am working right now on early
education.
Mr. Phillips. Uh-huh.
Ms. McGuinness. Without collecting data on demography, you
don't see that it is both at the top of the class across the
country unless you disaggregate for race. So I think both
making sure how we collect--and I think it is a really
important point on data. You know, our ability to create it and
create data sets and use them and use them by the communities
they are serving is mission critical, or you have enormous
blind spots in what the data tells you.
On other States and localities, I think--you know, Michigan
has an incredible body of work out of the Michigan Department
of Health and Human Services, where they have brought a
combination of evidence and user testing. And this is where you
can see real impact in the delivery.
My focus is a lot on not data for data sake, but how does
it change our ability to improve schools----
Mr. Phillips. Uh-huh.
Ms. McGuinness[continuing]. You know, get vaccines in
people's arms.
In Michigan, they had the longest application for public
benefits in the country. It was 1,200 words long. It was--there
was--once they applied evidence to it, they could see there was
no difference between the people who got through the system and
had their benefits approved and the people who were stuck
somewhere.
It was only through a combination of looking at real-time
data from the system about where people were stuck and
interviewing both frontline Michigan State workers and
residents that they were able to cut this in half, make it 20
minutes, increase government efficiency. It is a project that
was done under Democratic and Republican Governors in Michigan.
That is one statewide race.
I am happy to work with other colleagues to make sure we
can lift up a few other examples. But there is both State level
and I think city level to some extent. The evidence regime has
come quite early to a number of the country's municipalities
where you have better instrumentation on city level data in a
number of places than you see even at the State level. I think
State is a place where those capacity needs also need to be
built up.
Mr. Phillips. Okay. Any municipalities that we should take
a look at?
Ms. McGuinness. Yeah. And, frankly, it is like often you
will have one agency in a city.
Mr. Phillips. Okay.
Ms. McGuinness. Like I was just yesterday in the city of
New York where some agencies are excellent and other agencies,
it is like no man's land.
Mr. Phillips. Right.
Ms. McGuinness. And, really, the ability to have a
constituent in a city feel the difference is about having their
experience across, you know, agencies work.
So there is actually a nationwide competition to rank
cities' open dataness--data run by What Works Cities. It is a
Bloomberg Philanthropies program that basically does very
vigorous ranking of cities' use of data and evidence. And I am
happy to provide further materials on it.
Mr. Phillips. Interesting. Thank you.
Mr. Hart--or Dr. Hart, I mean.
Mr. Hart. So I think there are actually a great number of
examples from States that I would be happy to follow up on, but
I want to just maybe highlight a couple that are relevant here.
Ohio has recently, under the lieutenant governor's
leadership, launched Innovate Ohio, which is essentially a data
infrastructure for compiling administrative records for the
State, but also----
Mr. Phillips. Okay.
Mr. Hart[continuing]. Includes open data. So they have done
a sort of soup-to-nuts capability that enables their citizens,
as well as researchers, to access information better----
Mr. Phillips. Uh-huh.
Mr. Hart [continuing]. And they can actually apply it for
the budget process and for other activities of decisionmaking.
The State of Mississippi, for a number of years, has run
something called LifeTracks, which is built out of their State
longitudinal data system. It is a way of linking education and
workforce data to look at long-term outcomes. And Mississippi
is maybe a surprising example for that system, but they have
built it by being incredibly transparent about what they were
doing, have a good oversight and accountability procedures. And
they have made it available to the research community.
Mr. Phillips. Wonderful.
Mr. Hart. Missouri, interesting example of sharing
workforce data, UI data, in partnership with an organization
called the Coleridge Initiative----
Mr. Phillips. The Cory--I'm sorry?
Mr. Hart. The Coleridge Initiative.
Mr. Phillips. The Coleridge. Okay.
Mr. Hart [continuing] Where data can be linked to other
States. Where our Federal infrastructure is somewhat lacking,
States are starting to innovate and figure out ways to solve
these problems. So I think it is really incredible work
happening in States.
Mr. Phillips. Terrific. Thank you.
Ms. MacDonald.
Ms. MacDonald. I will just give quick one example.
Mr. Phillips. Yeah.
Ms. MacDonald. I will say the fed, which is the St. Louis
Federal Reserve, if you go to their website, we look at it as a
fantastic example of making government data publicly accessible
and visualizing it in a way that is understandable to the
public.
Mr. Phillips. Great. Thank you all very much.
The Chairman. Mr. Latta, go ahead.
Mr. Latta. Well, thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to
the witnesses for being here. Glad to hear focus on something
from Ohio. I am glad to hear--that is good. That is good news.
Well, you know, one of the things that, you know, that we
deal with sometimes, you know, with facility, is Ms. MacDonald
said we--with so many different Federal agencies out there, the
amount of data that--and reports that are being generated, one
of the things I have always commented on, we want to make sure
that they are not just generating something just to generate.
Because, you know, I don't want people to be getting paid by
the word down the road, because then, again, what are you going
to do with it? And if you can't use it, it is worthless.
So, you know, one of the things--I think one of the things
I always start off with a question as to is: How much is being
generated out there--just maybe can you give me a short
answer--do you think that we really don't have to have on the
Federal side that is being generated right now?
Mr. Hart. The question was how much----
Ms. MacDonald. That we don't use.
Mr. Latta. From these agencies and departments that we
have. Because, again, you know, there is a lot of things that
are generated, but why? You know, is it being gen--because,
again, if we are going to get it out there, is it to be used?
You know, it is useless, and a lot of times, it is just being
generated, and it is not useful for our intended purpose.
Mr. Hart. So I think this is an important reason laws like
the Paperwork Reduction Act exists, where Federal agencies are
tasked with submitting what is called an information collection
request to OMB for review. But that is about information they
are collecting from the American people where we assess the
burden and even the quality of the information they will get
back and whether it aligns with a particular purpose.
But we also know there are plenty of places where data are
submitted to government not as data, as faxed forms, for
example, which we learned about early in the COVID pandemic. It
makes it challenging to use data when it sits in a file drawer.
And so there is an important message here as we are building
new open data capabilities and infrastructure. The data have to
be machine readable and high quality.
There is a process also happening under the Evidence Act
that I will mention directly in response to your question, that
agencies are being tasked with developing data inventories, so
a way of documenting publicly what data they collect and have.
They are not yet accessible from many agencies, but, in coming
years, we will have much better insights, taking the ICRs that
happened under the Paperwork Reduction Act and linking to the
data inventories to able to answer your question hopefully much
better.
Mr. Latta. Well, let me ask you all this, because, again,
what do most people do now? You know, I was on a--the other
day, I was at the Library of Congress on the reading floor, and
I am sure there are people out there who have--a lot of younger
people wouldn't even know how to use a card file anywhere to
find anything.
And when you think about the research that is going on, for
some people, it is just like they just go to a search engine
and punch it in. And I always tell folks, everything that is
out there on the internet is not actually all factual.
But, you know, how do we--because, again, since so many
people are relying on that, how do we look at that then?
Because, again, if it is being put out there by departments or
agencies, how do people--you know, is it being able to be
accessed? Because I think it is--you just mentioned on that
point that there could be some issues.
But what about that? Could I just ask everybody real quick,
just on search engines and what people are looking at. Because,
again, that is what people are relying on now, because you can
find--you know, how many times have we heard this: You can find
anything on the web?
Ms. MacDonald. That is a really good point. I would say,
for USAFacts, we are thinking about optimizing for Google, for
Bing, right? We know that Americans, when they have a question,
they are going to a search engine. And then how do we ensure
that that government data pops up, right, first in the response
and that they have a--Americans have a trusted source for that
information?
I would say too, to your point about are there agencies
that are collecting maybe data that is not usable or not
helpful, I do think that where USAFacts sees a challenge is we
look at not only the 78 Federal agencies, but the 90,000 local
government entities. They are all collecting data. But if there
are no standards about what data is collected, when it is
reported, how it is reported, is that actually useful or
helpful if none of that data matches up, in terms of
understanding school districts and comparing them across the
country, or understanding the efficiency or the effectiveness
of government?
So I think standardization about what should be collected
and Congress saying, This will be helpful for us in judging the
effectiveness of this policy. This is what needs to be
collected and really making those requirements clear would be
really helpful in moving us forward.
Ms. McGuinness. I am happy to jump in next. Is that
working?
Mr. Latta. Yep.
Ms. McGuinness. I think this line of questioning raises
three important points, and I want to underscore what Poppy
just said on common data standards. It would be really
different--we are collecting a huge amount of data in a way
that doesn't allow you, because many laws have defined a family
or a child or even a young person at a different level, but
allowing various agency data sets which originate by legal
requirements from different bills. To give you a full picture,
I think there is real work to do on standardizing data in the
next generation of laws, being thoughtful about whether the
definition of a child across agency may be useful to get a full
picture of what is happening for the public.
Second, I do think there is a real difference between what
you are using data for, and we are going to need it for many
things--longitudinal studies, you know, more intensive
evidence-based work. But, also, it was a striking lack to me in
the Federal Government the data that is available to program
administrators for making programs better for the public, yet
you have reams of back-end data that could in no way tell you
today how many people are applying for SSDI, and where did they
get stuck, and how long did it take.
And so I think I would put special emphasis on
prioritization across the government data that we are
collecting to have outcomes for your constituents, and I think,
right now, that prioritization doesn't exist. And, also, back
to the tool of the ability to see it in real time. The ability
for it to be machine readable, or, frankly, where you can to
take the humans out of the process, so that when someone is
sick in said State and they are the data agent who sends the
PDF to HHS with how many people got COVID today, when they have
COVID, you can still get data numbers if you are doing this in
a profoundly less manual way. So I think real prioritization
for what matters in serving the public is an important line of
questioning.
And to the extent to which, you know, the next generation
of laws, many challenges I faced in creating consumer-friendly
products were often that, two decades ago, something was
mandated by collection in a piece of legislation. So where you
can be prescriptive about the outcome for data that you want in
your next law rather than how you collect it so that it doesn't
become outdated. I think that is a really important role for
this committee. How obsolete something becomes really quickly
on this data side is real important, and so much of this is
prescribed by law, and then you are wasting money collecting it
in a kind of manual fashion.
Mr. Latta. If you would indulge me for just one last
question, because, again, this--you know, as we look at what is
being collected and how it is being presented, you know, Ms.
MacDonald, in your testimony, you stated that, ``Why isn't the
same standard for metrics and data that businesses are required
to report to shareholders applied to the impact and progress of
government reports and initiatives?''
And, again, I think this goes back to, you know, the--I can
remember back when I was in the Ohio Legislature, and our
Legislative Service Commission prepare the--everything--a bill
came out, and you go through and with the analysis. For one of
my bills--I chaired a very complicated committee, and so our
bills were like sometimes a thousand pages long, so just the
analysis was a hundred pages long. And I know, going to the
floor, I said, We can't give everybody a hundred-page analysis.
So we had another agency cut that down to 10 pages. So, you
know--but when you think about that, how do we, you know,
change the mind set on the--again, this is a whole thing that
we are talking about. How do you change the mind set to get
something usable so it is just not--you know, just like a bunch
of verbiage out there? It is just like you read 100 pages to
try to figure out, okay, I only needed this.
So how do we get to that point? Because, again, if
companies are required by their shareholders or anybody else to
have to hit a standard and we are not doing it, so, you know,
again, I think it is--that is one of the issues that we are
going to have out there.
Ms. MacDonald. I will say we do--we find it ironic, and as
Steve Ballmer having--had to sign a 10-K form on behalf of
Microsoft attesting that the data was accurate and current, did
find it ironic when he was searching for the government's 10-K
that there are standards and they are not followed by the
government, but they are set by the government.
And then in terms of usability and accessibility, I would
just say your observation is correct that people don't like to
read, right? So how do we make data really visual, use as few
words as possible so that the point gets across? And I think
data visualization, like quick, short summaries is a really
important way to think about how to present that information.
We do--a Form 10-K is not accessible or usable, just to be
clear, but we do our annual report on government, and, if you
look through it, you will just notice it is, you know,
primarily visual with, not only there is a few words there, but
I would say it is not a lot of words; it is a lot of visuals to
help paint a really quick, clear picture in data, visualized.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
Ms. MacDonald. Uh-huh.
Mr. Latta. Thank you for your indulgence, and I yield back.
The Chairman. A few of you touched on the Evidence Act.
And, Dr. Hart, you talked about some of the other policies that
Congress has passed trying to drive the use of data.
So let me ask two things on this front. You said some of
these things have been authorized but not appropriated to. Can
you get a little more specific for us in terms of things--
again, I airdrop you on to this committee. If you there are
things you think we should recommend get appropriated to, that
is something in our--you know, that is something we can do.
The other thing I want to ask--and I kind of tee this up
just so folks can think about it. What would Evidence Act 2.0
look like? I mean, you have said that there are some gaps. You
know, if you have got some perspectives on things that are--you
know, our committee or working in tandem with other committees
ought to be thinking about in that regard, I would value your
direction.
Mr. Hart. So a couple of reactions both on the
appropriations and the Evidence Act 2.0.
So my organization conducts a survey of the Federal CDOs
each year, and gaps in resources is a very common response
across the Federal CDO community. Some of these offices are one
person in large Cabinet-level departments. Many are staffed
through loan, fellows across agency apparatuses.
So if we are serious about data governance for the
executive branch, we have to be able to invest in it.
The Chairman. Yeah.
Mr. Hart. Evaluation, similarly, as a field, as a function
of government is often underinvested in. Some agencies have
what are called set-aside authorities, so they can take a
portion of an appropriation and allocate it for evaluation.
Some have direct funding. Many have no explicit funding.
So even though program evaluation is now designated by OMB
as a core function of government, which the Evidence Act
contributed to, many agencies are still dramatically
underinvesting in the field.
As for Evidence Act 2.0, there are a number of
recommendations from the Evidence Commission that offer an easy
starting point for ideas to explore. Those recommendations were
unanimous across the politically appointed Members, Republicans
and Democrats. And the Evidence Act included, frankly, some of
the recommendations that were easier to do, particularly in
short order.
But the vision of the Evidence Commission was always that
some future legislation would step in to address the remaining
11 recommendations. And that includes the National Secure Data
Service to deal with some of the data access and linkage issues
that are really at the heart of evidence building.
So I think that is a pretty safe place to begin exploring.
We have talked about data standards just in the last couple of
minutes, and I would also really highlight the need for
processes--very clear processes to identify when we need data
standards.
The Chairman. That is great.
Anyone else want to swing at that pitch or----
Ms. McGuinness. I think, on the 2.0, I would strongly
[inaudible] 2.0 recommendations, but also this recognition that
to carry out those recommendations involves talent and time and
resources, so that twinning of the tech talent----
Mr. Timmons. Could you turn your mike on.
Ms. McGuinness [continuing]. The twinning of the tech
talent proposition for both Congress but also the Federal
Government, the resourcing of the CDOs. But, also, frankly,
leading policymakers need to be better data translators so that
it doesn't sit entirely on the CDO to be answering these
questions. So I think really making sure that Evidence 2.0
contemplates the how to do what was prescripted, not just the
what.
Ms. MacDonald. I think Nick--Dr. Hart already shared this
in his testimony, but I will say that, shouldn't Congress have
its own chief data officer and its own capability? I would say
not for--definitely not for duplicating data that already
exists in the Federal Government, but for accessing that data
and making it available to Members of Congress and their staff
for decisionmaking.
The Chairman. Is USAFacts' information entirely based on
government data?
Ms. MacDonald. We use only government data. We think that
is the best way to ensure that, first of all, we are making the
people's data accessible, but also to ensure that there is not
any kind of partisanship introduced into the site. So it is
just government data. We don't use opinion polling. We don't
use predictive analysis. We use just the data as reported.
The Chairman. And is your sense--and I ask this because,
one, some of you have spoken to some of the deficiencies with
regard to Federal data, and, two, not everybody trusts the
Federal Government right now.
So is your sense that there is legitimacy to those numbers
or have you seen gaps that--I think it is important if our
committee--just to zoom out for a second. I think one of the
things that is broken in Congress is oftentimes when we engage
on issues, the first questions that people ask are who is for
it and who is against it, not what is the problem you are
trying to solve and how does this solve it, right?
And that is, I think, something that needs to change, and I
think evidence is very important in that regard, particularly
if people trust the evidence.
So can you assuage our concerns on that and----
Ms. MacDonald. Well, there has been an erosion of trust in
every major institution in America, right--academia, banking,
and Congress--but we do think that--and government, right? But
we do think that the people who are public servants, working
inside of Federal agencies, who are tasked with collecting data
and reporting it across party lines, they are there as public
servants to make this data available.
And so we think it is a good source for the facts. And so,
are there ways to improve it, to standardize it? Absolutely,
but we think that people fund this data--I mentioned the $8.9
billion that was appropriated in 2019, and it should be
accessible to lawmakers and to citizens for decisionmaking.
The Chairman. Okay.
Mr. Hart. So I would just add--I mean, to the question of
public trust, this is an incredibly important point for our
government data collections. And if you have ever met someone
that works in the Federal statistical system, I think they will
assure you that we have a great deal of protections by design
in the system on core data collections--the Census, the work of
the National Center for Health Statistics, education
statistics. So I trust the data that the Federal statistical
system is producing, and I can say that emphatically.
When we talk about evaluation and the work of
administrative records, the same is true. The workforce
producing this data, producing the evaluation and the insights,
is incredibly talented and skilled. So, hopefully, that
translates for the American people that they could also trust
the information is coming out of this very objective system.
The Chairman. We are good? All right.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you so much.
Ms. McGuinness. Thank you.
The Chairman. I actually do have one other thing. Hold on.
Let me just--yep. Go ahead.
Ms. McGuinness. One thing on data and trust. Can you hear
me?
The Chairman. Yep.
Ms. McGuinness. Which is--I think this--the importance of
having large-scale data sets, which, collected by the Federal
Government, meet a higher standard of protection than data
collected by any other source--and there is profoundly more
data collected, you know, in the private sector--I do think
that pairing of qualitative and quantitative data can't be
underestimated for people's ability to catch the blind spots.
The diversity of data analysts in the government is really
important. There are plenty of cases in my research where a
data set came from a single source, like 311, that
overrepresents certain voices. And it wasn't until you had a
group of data scientists that came from all the communities
that were served by this that allowed you to see--or do a set
of interviews. So I really think pairing back to people's
ability to trust kind of numbers and statistics, pairing in 2.0
qualitative and quantitative data so people can hear their own
voices and for things that the experts didn't know to ask show
up is really important.
The Chairman. Is there anything we didn't touch on in terms
of just building capacity within the institution, building this
muscle? I have heard your message loud and clear on having a
chief data officer for the Congress. You know, I think in your
testimony, at least one or two of you spoke to the importance
of kind of staff trainings.
Anything we didn't cover on that front? I just want to make
sure we have----
Ms. McGuinness. One piece that really gets to
Representative Latta's question about----
The Chairman. I don't think it is on.
Ms. McGuinness. One piece that gets to Representative
Latta's question about the gobbledygook, the ability to
translate some of these materials, I do think very
straightforward, you know, the 2010 Plain Language Act, which
has kind of made these mandates of the Federal Government on
usability could very easily be done back to lightweight, like a
CDO. You know, leg counsel reviews every bill. You could have a
plain language expert. This is what you have. I am sure leg
counsel in Capital One reviews every--you know, every
disclaimer that goes to the public, but having someone who has
the skills of translating this back into English, I think,
could make an enormous difference in a short period of time for
someone to read a bill and know what it says.
So I think that is one recommendation. A plain language
expert here alongside leg counsel could go a long way.
The Chairman. That is great.
Mr. Hart. I think we touched on this idea that there could
be some support capacity for--similarly in drafting
legislation, who is thinking about the data collection, and
this is actually necessary to make sure you can evaluate the
program. Currently, that is probably committee by committee,
and there is no consistent resource. So building that resource,
I think, would be really important.
The Chairman. That is good.
Go ahead.
Ms. MacDonald. Well, I may be ending on a Pollyanna note,
but I just want to go back to something Vice Chair Timmons
brought up in his introductory marks, where he said, I haven't
been part of a conversation since I joined Congress that was a
bipartisan group of Members starting from agreement on the
facts, right?
And I do--I have been a part of one of those conversations.
It was on the Senate side where there was a bipartisan group of
Members, and we sat down and rocked through the government data
by the numbers. And you had somebody on the far right and the
far left starting to talk about the obesity epidemic based on
the numbers. And we had staff in the room and Senators say, We
haven't had one of these conversations in Congress.
But I think there is a real opportunity if you make this
data available and accessible to bring Members together from
both sides of the aisle. They may not agree on what is the
right solution or what is the right path forward, but they can
start from agreement on the facts, and I think that could
rebuild trust from the American public as well.
The Chairman. Good. Good note on which to end.
I want to thank all three of our witnesses for their
testimonies today and thank our committee members for their
participation. I also want to thank the House Armed Services
Committee for letting us commandeer their room once again, and
thank the staff of this committee for putting together another
great hearing with some terrific witnesses. So thank you for
that.
Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days
within which to submit additional written questions for the
witnesses to the chair which will be forwarded to the witnesses
for their response. I ask our witnesses to please respond as
promptly as you are able.
Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days
within which to submit extraneous materials to the chair for
inclusion in the record. Phew.
And, with that, this hearing is adjourned. Thanks. Thanks,
everybody.
[Whereupon, at 1:35 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX I
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]