[Senate Report 114-151]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 244
114th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 114-151
______________________________________________________________________
EVIDENCE-BASED POLICYMAKING COMMISSION ACT
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
WITH SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS
to accompany
S. 991
TO ESTABLISH THE COMMISSION ON EVIDENCE-BASED POLICYMAKING, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
October 1, 2015.--Ordered to be printed
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
59-010 WASHINGTON : 2015
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
RAND PAUL, Kentucky JON TESTER, Montana
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
JONI ERNST, Iowa GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
BEN SASSE, Nebraska
Keith B. Ashdown, Staff Director
Christopher R. Hixon, Chief Counsel
Patrick J. Bailey, Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs
Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Deputy Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs
Joshua P. McLeod, Professional Staff Member
Gabrielle A. Batkin, Minority Staff Director
John P. Kilvington, Minority Deputy Staff Director
Mary Beth Schultz, Minority Chief Counsel
Troy H. Cribb, Minority Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs
Brian F. Papp, Minority Professional Staff Member
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Calendar No. 244
114th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 114-151
======================================================================
EVIDENCE-BASED POLICYMAKING COMMISSION ACT
_______
October 1, 2015.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Johnson, from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 991]
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 991) to establish
the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking, and for other
purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and recommends
that the bill, as amended, do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose and Summary..............................................1
II. Background and Need for the Legislation..........................2
III. Legislative History..............................................4
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................4
V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact..................................6
VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................7
VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............9
I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
The purpose of S. 991, the Evidence-Based Policymaking
Commission Act of 2015, is to establish a commission to study
the inventory and infrastructure of data related to federal
programs, tax expenditures, and statistical protocols across
the federal government. The bill would establish a fifteen-
member Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking (Commission)
to determine the best structure for information that is
collected and maintained by federal agencies to effectively
analyze and evaluate federal programs and tax expenditures. The
Commission would also make recommendations on how to
incorporate outcomes measurements, randomized controlled
trials, and rigorous impact analyses into program design. The
Commission will consider whether to establish a clearinghouse
for information collected by federal agencies and who should
have access to that data. The Commission will report to the
President and the Congress with its findings along with
recommendations for legislation or administrative action it
considers appropriate. The Commission's authority would
terminate eighteen months after enactment of the bill.
II. BACKGROUND AND THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The federal government is expected to spend more than four
trillion dollars annually by 2017\1\ and it administers at
least 1,500 discrete programs.\2\ In addition, the
Congressional Budget Office expects that tax expenditures--
financial assistance provided to particular activities,
entities, or groups of individuals separately through the
federal tax code--will total almost one and a half trillion
dollars in fiscal year 2015.\3\ One of Congress's chief
concerns should be ensuring such amounts are spent wisely and
on public programs and tax expenditures that are effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Cong. Budget Office, An Update to the Budget and Economic
Outlook: 2014 to 2024 (2014), available at https://www.cbo.gov/sites/
default/files/45653-OutlookUpdate_2014_Aug
.pdf.
\2\While estimates of the total number of federal programs are
inaccurate due to the lack of centralized reporting of programs, the
Government Accountability Office estimates there are at least 1,500
programs. See, U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-15-83, Government
Efficiency and Effectiveness: Inconsistent Definitions and Information
Limit the Usefulness of Federal Program Inventories (2014), available
at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-83.
\3\Cong. Budget Office, the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2015 to
2025, 92 (2015), available at http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/
cbofiles/attachments/49892-Outlook
2015.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One way to do so is through rigorous oversight by
Congressional Committees, and reviews conducted by the
Government Accountability Office and the agencies' inspectors
general. Additionally, through the Government Performance and
Results Act\4\ and the Government Performance and Results
Modernization Act,\5\ Congress established a framework for
developing and integrating information about agencies'
strategic priorities, the results-oriented performance goals
that flow from those priorities, and performance data showing
the level of achievement of those goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Pub. L. No. 103-62.
\5\Pub. L. No. 111-352.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, some former administration officials, including
individuals who served under President Barack Obama and
President George W. Bush, note that there is a lack of a
consistent, data-driven approach to federal program evaluation
as an inherent function embedded in federal programs.\6\ One
estimate concluded that ``less than $1 out of every $100 of
government spending is backed by even the most basic evidence
that the money is being spent wisely.''\7\ Furthermore, in
scientific studies looking at policy-making, such as randomized
controlled trials of eleven large social programs that account
for over ten billion dollars in annual spending, experts found
that ``[t]en out of the 11 including Upward Bound and Job Corps
showed weak or no positive effects' on their participants.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\John Bridgeland and Peter Orszag, Can Government Play
Moneyball?, The Atlantic Magazine, July/August 2013, available at
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/07/can-government-
play-moneyball/309389/.
\7\Id.
\8\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many government officials and scholars advocate for
consistent, data-driven evidence-based policymaking to assist
lawmakers in determining where federal dollars ought to be
spent and tax expenditures authorized. Evidence-based policy
making requires empirically assessing the effectiveness of
public programs and tax expenditures and then factoring that
assessment into the budget and policy decisions related to the
program. This type of analysis, if implemented, enhances the
continued oversight, measurement, and evaluation of a program
to ensure it is achieving the desired results and warrants
continued funding.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Pew Trusts, Evidence-Based Policymaking: A Guide for Effective
Government (Nov. 2014), available at http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/media/
Assets/2014/11/EvidenceBased
PolicymakingA GuideforEffectiveGovernment.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence-based policymaking is not a new idea; it has been
utilized by governments around the world, including in the
United Kingdom, particularly during the Blair Government, and
in Australia.\10\ In the United States, evidence-based
policymaking has been employed at the state budget level for
years; researchers supporting a report on evidence-based
policymaking for the Pew Charitable Trusts identified over one
hundred state laws across forty-two states passed between 2004
and 2014 that support the use of evidence-based programs and
practices.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Gary Banks, Chairman, Australian Government Productivity
Commission, Address at the Australian and New Zealand School of
Government, Evidence-based policy-making: What is it? How do we get
it?, 3-4 (Feb. 4, 2009), available at http://www.pc.gov.au/news-media/
speeches/cs20090204.
\11\Pew Trusts, Evidence-Based Policymaking: A Guide for Effective
Government (Nov. 2014), available at http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/media/
Assets/2014/11/ EvidenceBased
PolicymakingA GuideforEffectiveGovernment.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More recently, this evaluation methodology has been
incorporated at various times at the federal level. For
example, President Bush's Fiscal Year 2008 budget request
included ten million dollars to support new competitive grants
to encourage states to use existing funding streams to support
proven and effective nurse home visitation programs known as
Evidence Based Home Visiting (EBHV).\12\ The EBVH program
sought to fund models ``shown, in well-designed randomized
controlled trials, to produce sizeable, sustained effects on
important child outcomes such as abuse and neglect.''\13\
Additionally, President Obama's Fiscal Year 2016 budget request
includes a demonstration project that would test whether
encouraging states to increase access to evidence-based
alternatives to treat behavioral and mental health conditions
will reduce over-prescription of psychotropic medications and
improve outcomes for children in foster care.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\President's FY 2008 Budget Appropriations for the
Administration for Children and Families: Hearing Before the Committee
on Appropriations, Subcomm. On Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education and Related Agencies, 110th Cong. (2007) (statement of Daniel
Schneider), available at http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/2007/03/
t20070308n.html.
\13\Edward Rodrigue and Richard V. Reeves, Home Visiting Programs:
An Early Test for the 114th Congress, The Brookings Institution (Feb.
5, 2011), available at http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-
memos/posts/2015/02/05-home-visiting-funding-reeves.
\14\The President's Budget Fiscal Year 2016, Middle Class
Economics: Building and Using Evidence to Improve Results 4, https://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/
fact_sheets/ building-and-using-evidence-to-improve-results.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Evidence-Based Policymaking Commission Act of 2015 is
an effort to build on bipartisan support for a better-
functioning government. The legislation mandates the study of
the inventory and infrastructure of administrative data related
to federal programs, and tax expenditures, survey data, and
related statistical data series to determine how evidence-based
policymaking can be incorporated into the legislating process.
The Commission created under this legislation is a step to
ensure that federal tax dollars are spent wisely. Promoting
impact evaluations allows Congress and policymakers the ability
to determine the effectiveness of federal programs and tax
expenditures prior to their authorization and assists them in
determining whether funding should continue.
III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Senator Patty Murray introduced S. 991 on April 17, 2015.
The bill was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs. Senator Tammy Baldwin joined as cosponsor
on June 24, 2015.
The Committee considered S. 991 at a business meeting on
June 24, 2015. During the business meeting, Senator Ron Johnson
offered a substitute amendment as modified, that made technical
corrections to the bill and prohibited new funding from being
appropriated to implement the bill. The substitute amendment
was adopted by voice vote with Senators Johnson, McCain,
Lankford, Ayotte, Ernst, Sasse, Carper, Tester, Baldwin, and
Heitkamp present.
The Committee ordered the bill, as amended, reported
favorably by voice vote on June 24, 2015. Senators present for
the vote on the bill were Senators Johnson, McCain, Lankford,
Ayotte, Ernst, Sasse, Carper, Tester, Baldwin, and Heitkamp.
IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE BILL, AS REPORTED
Section 1. Short title
This section provides the bill's short title, the
``Evidence-Based Policymaking Commission of 2015.''
Section 2. Establishment
This section establishes an executive branch ``Commission
on Evidence-Based Policymaking'' (referred to as the
``Commission'').
Section 3. Members of the Commission
Section 3 sets the requirements and composition of the
commission. Appointments to the Commission must be made within
forty-five days of the date of the bill's enactment. The
Commission will be comprised of fifteen members. Three of the
members shall be appointed by the President, including one each
of: an academic researcher, data expert, or individual with
experience in administering programs; an individual with
expertise in database management, confidentiality, and privacy
matters; and the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget (or the Director's designee).
Additionally, the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, the
Majority Leader of the Senate and the Minority Leader of the
Senate shall each appoint three nominees that meet the
following qualifications: two academic researchers, data
experts, or individuals with experience in administering
programs; and an individual with expertise in database
management, confidentiality, and privacy matters.
In making the appointments, appointing parties should
consider individuals with expertise in economics, statistics,
program evaluation, data security, confidentiality, or database
management. Of those members selected for the Commission, the
President is to select one to be the chairperson and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives is to select the co-
chairperson. Each member shall be appointed for the duration of
the Commission, and any vacancy shall be filled in the manner
in which the original appointment was made. Commission members
shall serve without pay, but shall be permitted travel
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates
authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of
chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from
their homes or regular places of business in the performance of
services for the Commission.
Section 4. Duties of the Commission
This section explains the duties of the Commission. The
duties are: (1) to perform a comprehensive study of the
inventory and infrastructure of data and statistical protocols
related to federal policymaking and the agencies responsible
for maintaining that data to determine the optimal arrangement
for which administrative data may be integrated and made
available to facilitate program evaluation, continuous
improvement, policy-relevant research, and cost-benefit
analyses; (2) make recommendations on how to best incorporate
such information into program design; (3) determine whether and
how to establish a clearinghouse for program and survey data,
what data should be included, which survey data may be linked
to, and any legal and administrative barriers to including or
linking these data series; (4) evaluate what data-sharing
infrastructure should be used to facilitate data merging and
access for research purposes; (5) determine how a clearinghouse
could be self-funded; (6) determine who should have access to
data and what qualifications those individuals and entities
should have; (7) evaluate what limitations should be placed on
the use of provided data and how to ensure individual privacy
and confidentiality is protected; (8) evaluate how data and
research results can be used to improve program design; and (9)
evaluate what incentives may facilitate interagency sharing of
information to improve programmatic effectiveness and enhance
data accuracy and comprehensiveness.
Upon the affirmative vote of at least three-quarters of the
Commission, the Commission will report to the President and
Congress on its findings and conclusions, including
recommendations for legislation or administrative actions, no
later than fifteen months after a majority of members are
appointed.
Section 5. Operation and powers of the Commission
Section 5 requires certain relevant Executive Branch
agencies to offer their respective expertise in advising and
consulting the Commission. This section also sets forth the
Commission's operating procedure, including: requiring it to
meet not later than thirty days after the date upon which a
majority of its members have been appointed, and at such times
thereafter as the chairperson or co-chairperson shall
determine; providing that the chairperson and co-chairperson
shall, with the approval of a majority of the members of the
Commission, establish written rules of procedure, including a
quorum requirement; permitting the Commission to hold hearings,
take testimony, receive evidence, contract with and compensate
government and private agencies, use the United States mail
system in the same way that a federal agency can, and accept,
use, and dispose of gifts or donations of services or property.
Section 6. Funding
This section provides that no funds are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out S. 991, and, subject to that
limitation and at the request of the Director of the Census,
agencies identified as ``Principal Statistical Agencies'' in
the report, published by the Office of Management and Budget,
entitled ``Statistical Programs of the United States
Government, Fiscal Year 2015'' shall provide funds, in a total
amount not to exceed three million dollars, to the Director for
purposes of carrying out the activities of the Commission.
Further, this section provides that the Bureau of the Census
shall provide administrative support to the Commission, which
may include providing physical space at, and access to, the
headquarters of the Bureau of the Census, located in Suitland,
Maryland.
Section 7. Personnel
This section creates a role of Director on the Commission.
The Director shall be appointed by the chairperson with the
concurrence of the co-chairperson and shall be paid at a rate
of pay established by the chairperson and co-chairperson, not
to exceed the annual rate of basic pay payable for level V of
the Executive Schedule (section 5316 of title 5, United States
Code). The Director, at his or her discretion, may appoint and
fix the pay of additional staff. The Commission may also
procure temporary and intermittent services under section
3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, at rates for
individuals which do not exceed the daily equivalent of the
annual rate of basic pay for a comparable position paid under
the General Schedule.
Section 8. Termination
This section provides a termination date for the Commission
not later than eighteen months after the date of enactment of
this Act.
V. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT
Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has
considered the regulatory impact of this bill and determined
that the bill will have no regulatory impact within the meaning
of the rules. The Committee agrees with the Congressional
Budget Office's statement that the bill contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs
on state, local, or tribal governments.
VI. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE
July 6, 2015.
Hon. Ron Johnson,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 991, the Evidence-
Based Policymaking Commission Act of 2015.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susan Willie.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall.
Enclosure.
S. 991--Evidence-Based Policymaking Commission Act of 2015
S. 991 would establish the Commission on Evidence-Based
Policymaking (commission) to study the inventory and
infrastructure of data related to federal programs. The 15-
member commission would be directed to determine the best
structure for information that is collected and maintained by
federal agencies to effectively analyze and evaluate federal
programs. In addition, the commission would consider whether to
establish a clearinghouse for information collected by federal
agencies. Finally, the bill would require the commission to
report to the President and the Congress, no later than 15
months after a majority of members have been appointed, a
statement of its findings along with recommendations for
legislation or administrative actions it considers appropriate.
The commission's authority would terminate 18 months after
enactment of the bill.
CBO estimates that implementing S. 991 would cost $3
million over the 2016-2020 period, assuming appropriation of
the necessary amounts. The bill would authorize several federal
agencies to contribute up to $3 million from appropriated funds
to carry out the duties of the commission. Enacting S. 991
would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-
as-you-go procedures do not apply.
S. 991 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal
governments.
On May 28, 2015, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R.
1831, the Evidence-Based Policymaking Commission Act of 2015,
as ordered reported by the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform on April 16, 2015. The bills are similar, and
CBO's estimates of the budgetary effects are the same.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Susan Willie.
The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF RANKING MEMBER CARPER
I support greater use of evidence in policymaking and
believe that the Commission created by this bill will allow
Congress to take a significant leap forward in using data-based
evidence to assess programs. Data-driven approaches to federal
policymaking can improve outcomes and save money in the long
term, and the Administrations of both Presidents George W. Bush
and Barack Obama have taken innovative approaches to using
data-based evidence that Congress can build upon.
I want to emphasize again, however, that Congress has
multiple tools and resources it can use to assess the
performance of government programs, including committee
oversight, the Government Accountability Office, and Inspectors
General. On a daily basis, Congress also gets extremely useful
information on government programs from the good work of
journalists. And, of course, Members hear about the good and
bad of government programs from their constituents--feedback
that puts those programs in a perspective that perhaps no
statistics on paper ever can.
So while I support and applaud the goals of this bill, I
take some exception to the suggestion that government programs
are not currently supported by ``basic evidence,'' in the
common sense. We can improve the quality of evidence we do
have, and we should always strive to do that. But we should
also assure the American taxpayers that there are already a lot
of eyes on federal spending, which leads to a vigorous and
healthy debate on which programs deserve taxpayer dollars, and
which ones do not.
Thomas R. Carper.
VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
Because this legislation would not repeal or amend any
provision of current law, it would make no changes in existing
law within the meaning of clauses (a) and (b) of paragraph 12
of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate.
[all]