The emerging need to securely share, link, and use information collected by different government agencies and entities is challenged today based on administrative, legal, and operational hurdles. The National Secure Data Service Act (H.R. 3133), sponsored by Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA), seeks to implement a demonstration project for a data service that could rapidly address policy questions and reduce unintended burdens for data sharing, while aligning with design principles and concepts presented in recommendations from data and privacy experts. The proposal specifically cites an effort to support full implementation of recommendations made by the bipartisan U.S. Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking for data linkage and access infrastructure. 

Why is the National Secure Data Service Act necessary? 

The federal government’s data infrastructure is largely decentralized. Individual agencies and programs may collect data without sharing or using information already collected by other parts of government. This imposes undue burdens on the American public and businesses through repeated reporting of information the government already has. Creating a capacity to securely share information while protecting confidentiality and deploying other privacy safeguards offers tremendous potential for developing new insights and knowledge to support statistical analysis and summary-level information relevant for evidence-based policymaking and practice. 

The National Secure Data Service Act builds on the bipartisan and unanimous recommendations from the U.S. Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking from 2017, a consensus proposal from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine in 2017, and a suggested roadmap published by the Data Foundation in 2020. The proposed legislation creates an expectation for the National Science Foundation to make rapid progress in launching a data service and transparently supporting government-wide evidence-building activities. 

How will a National Secure Data Service protect privacy?

Under the proposed legislation, the data service at NSF must adhere to federal privacy laws, including the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2018 (CIPSEA). This law was reauthorized by Congress with bipartisan approval in 2018, establishing one of the strongest government privacy laws in the world, including strong criminal and civil penalties for misuse. The proposed data service can only operate using the CIPSEA authority and in compliance with the Privacy Act of 1974. The data service will also provide information to Congress about specific policies and practices deployed for protecting data. 

Will the American public have knowledge about projects conducted at the National Secure Data Service?

Yes. Consistent with principles about transparency specified by experts from the Evidence Commission, National Academies panel, and the Data Foundation, the proposed legislation specifically directs NSF to publish information about activities that are underway. In addition, Congress will receive a report on all projects, expected to include information about the costs and benefits of each. 

How does the proposed legislation relate to the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (Evidence Act)?

The National Secure Data Service builds on existing capabilities and authorities established in the Evidence Act, while also providing a resource for federal agencies, researchers, and data analysts to responsibly produce insights that can address questions in agency evidence-building plans (learning agendas). When Congress approved the Evidence Act, the creation of an advisory committee was intended to signal Congress’ continued interest in establishing a data service and provide relevant information to support implementation of next steps within two years of enactment. Now, more than two years after enactment of the Evidence Act the advisory committee continues to meet and consider technical implementation details. The proposed legislation sets up the formal authorization of a data service to continue this momentum. 

Does the National Secure Data Service Act supersede advice expected in 2021 and 2022 from the Federal Advisory Committee on Data for Evidence Building?

No. The Federal Advisory Committee on Data for Evidence Building is a collection of nearly 30 experts considering a range of topics related to data linkage and use. Nothing in the proposed legislation restricts the ability of the advisory committee to offer OMB recommendations, as required by its charge in the Evidence Act. Instead the legislation specifically encourages NSF to consider practices and recommendations from the advisory committee as part of its administrative implementation efforts. The role of the advisory committee is also likely increasingly influential in supporting tangible implementation of activities at NSF under the proposed legislation. 

Will a National Secure Data Service displace existing data linkage activities in the Federal Statistical System?

No. The data service is designed to supplement rather than displace any existing, successful, and sufficiently secure data linkage arrangements. Statistical agencies engaged in production-level data collection, sharing, and publication for the development of federal statistical indicators will receive additional capabilities from the National Secure Data Service but could retain existing practices. 

Is the National Science Foundation the right agency to operate a data service?

In 2020, the Data Foundation published a white paper establishing a framework for considering where to operate a data service in government that can meet broad needs government-wide and from across the research and evaluation communities. After exploring the range of potential options, the authors recommended the National Science Foundation given its ability to deploy the strong privacy authorities under CIPSEA, existing expertise in social sciences and computer science, the presence of one of the existing federal statistical agencies with expertise in confidentiality protections and data linkage, and NSF’s close connections and existing relationships with the research community.  

The text of the National Secure Data Service Act provides NSF flexibility to determine how to implement a data service, including the possibility of issuing a contract through a Federally-Funded Research and Development Center, as recommended in the Data Foundation white paper. This recommendation was presented to the Federal Advisory Committee on Data for Evidence Building in April 2021 and to the NSF Social, Behavioral and Economics Sciences Advisory Committee in May 2021, receiving favorable perspectives and comments from respective committee members. 

How much will implementation of a National Secure Data Service cost?

Precise implementation costs will vary based on the level of services and activities applied at a data service. In 2021, the Data Coalition recommended that a National Secure Data Service receive an initial annual appropriation of $50 million to support development and launch of core linkage capabilities, privacy protective features, and necessary disclosure avoidance protocols, among other features. 

Has the Data Coalition taken a position on the National Secure Data Service Act?

In 2020, the Data Coalition called on Congress to authorize a data service to support pandemic response activities, then later reiterated support following publication of the Data Foundation white paper. supporting the recommendations from the Data Foundation’s white paper. 

Representing the broad membership and interests from the data community, the Data Coalition endorsed the National Secure Data Service Act filed on May 13, 2021. The Data Coalition has also encouraged administrative actions to make progress on the establishment and launch of a data service, including NSF’s recent activities on America’s DataHub. 

Does NSF support the legislative proposal? 

The Administration has not formally weighed in on the proposal with a Statement of Administration Policy, however, NSF did provide technical feedback on a draft of the legislative text. 

Last edited May 13, 2021

This month our RegTech 2021 series, continued by examining government uses of artificial intelligence (AI). Just last year, Congress passed legislation encouraging the government to move from pilots and demonstration projects to scaled up, applied solutions. The discussion featured two fireside chats with government leaders: Henry Kautz, Division Director, Information & Intelligent Systems, National Science Foundation (NSF) and Mike Willis, Associate Director in the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 

First Director Kautz discussed the work in  AI at NSF, as the agency seeks to fund larger, more interdisciplinary projects. Lately, the agency has been focused on establishing AI Institutes, virtual centers organized around themes, connecting colleges and universities to partners in the private and public sector. Themes include AI-Augmented Learning, AI-Driven Innovation in Agriculture and the Food System, and Advanced Cyberinfrastructure. Director Kautz emphasized the importance of NSF’s role in supporting foundational, pre-competitive research and development in these private-public partnerships. 

When thinking about what challenges the government is facing, he recommends that agencies consider improving coordination among themselves on how to best make use of AI internally. He pointed out the success of coordinating bodies like the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center at the Department of Defense, but encourages the government to think more broadly about  the big questions facing the government.  Additional suggestions to scale up AI include building up AI expertise within the government, especially at the managerial level, being sensitive to and aware of AI skepticism, and rethinking traditional procurement practices. He also emphasized the need for explainability and transparency in ensuring ethical uses of AI and conceptualizing data as infrastructure. 

In the next fireside chat, Preethy Prakash, Vice President of Business Development at eBrevia, spoke with Mike Willis from the SEC. Willis, speaking for himself, spoke of the SEC’s steps to make registrant disclosures more accessible and usable, after noticing well over 90% of EDGAR visitors are machines. 

Even though these data sets are highly desired by the public and outside uses of AI, the role of AI within the SEC today is largely focused on the enhancement of the effectiveness of staff analytical procedures, including those related to risk assessments, identifying potential areas for further investigations for activities like insider trading, comment letter analysis, and entity mappings.  

When asked how to think about creating quality data that is interoperable, Willis pointed directly to the Evidence Act which defines the term “open government data asset” based upon an underlying open standard. “Leveraging industry and market standards, I think, are a very useful way to drive down compliance costs, while streamlining the validation and analysis of the data, including for AI and ML purposes,” Willis stated. He went on to note how these open standards are a great example of public-private partnerships discussed previously.

As the SEC continues to implement AI, Willis outlined some change management considerations. His recommendations were to ensure that you have talented, qualified professionals, help people understand the problems and processes that AI can help supplement, provide use cases and examples, ensure that your AI solution stays within its scope, and finally, echoes Director Krautz’s call to consider data as infrastructure, meaning it be standardized and structured. 

The whole conversation is available here. To learn more about our RegTech Series, sponsored by Donnelley Financial Solutions (DFIN), visit our webpage.

Adopting data standards are especially important in the United States where the regulatory structure consists of separate regulatory agencies that have different missions and mandates. Each of these agencies has its own data and collection systems designed around distinct supervisory responsibilities. A significant step to rationalizing data needs and establishing standards across financial regulatory agencies is the Financial Transparency Act (FTA) H.R. 2989.  The FTA, introduced by Representatives Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Patrick McHenry (R-NC), would require Financial Regulatory Authorities [1] to adopt standards that: allow search ability, establish consistent formats and protocols; and provide transparency into data definitions and requirements.  The overarching goal of the Act is to:

“…to further enable the development of RegTech and Artificial Intelligence applications, to put the United States on a path towards building a comprehensive Standard Business Reporting program to ultimately harmonize and reduce the private sector’s regulatory compliance burden, while enhancing transparency and accountability…”

To accomplish this goal the FTA would require the use of common identifiers for transactions, legal entities, and products. While efforts have begun on legal entity and unique product identifiers, implementation and adoption has been a long process. Requiring the use of identifiers through the FTA should hasten adoption. To make these identifiers available throughout the private sector, the FTA would require that these identifiers be non-proprietary and available through open sources. The FTA requirement that data be searchable will make data more useful for the public and private sector by making data discovery easier and simplifying the capabilities to integrate these data into analytical tools through the use of industry and technology best practices. Data transparency will further be enhanced by the FTA by requiring metadata to be available, helping data providers and data users to have a clear understanding of the data definitions and context.  

Regulated entities in the financial service industry have long made clear the need for consistent data definitions and protocols within and between agencies.  Just as important has been the need to have standard cross jurisdictional definitions. By requiring data standardization, including the use of common identifiers, the FTA has the potential to significantly reduce the compliance costs for regulated entities, improve data accuracy, and improve the private sector’s access to regulatory data. All of which furthers the transparency of financial markets.  

High quality regulatory data, especially at large financial institutions is a continuing challenge.  An underlying cause of these data quality issues is the lack of uniform data standards across data sets and agencies requiring institutions to transform data to meet different regulators’ needs. This creates risk of misstatement, often from misinterpretations of the requirements and the use of manually intensive processes. This creates the need for intensive quality assurance processes and enhanced internal controls to insure the proper level of data quality, adding significant effort and risk at financial firms and regulatory bodies.  

Change management is another area where regulators and firms can benefit from the FTA.  Inefficient communication channel for reporting requirements of data requirements creates the risk of misinterpretation reporting requirements. For the most part, these requirements are communicated in regulations, reporting instructions, and statistical standards using plain English. The current model makes it difficult for firms, especially large complex firms,  to communicate requirements throughout the organization (from report preparers to data owners).  This increases the misinterpretation of reporting requirements that could ultimately result in non-compliance with regulations or formal supervisory actions. As regulatory requirements continue to grow and increase in complexity, the FTA requirement to provide machine readable metadata is the automation requirement elaboration is a critical step to improving data quality and improving change management processes. 

Data comparability is needed for financial regulators to fulfill their missions. Without data standards, obtaining comparable data to gain insights and apply advanced analytics is a difficult task.  While conceptually there is agreement for the need of adopting data standards. The number of financial regulatory agencies and their differing missions can be a significant obstacle to the goal.  This need was recognized when the Office of Financial Research within the Department of the Treasury was established and given a mandate to establish standards. While many regulators understand the need and benefit of data standardization, adoption has been slow. These efforts are often slowed by shifting data needs, the need to maintain legacy data sets, and the need to modernize technology capabilities. For example, it is only now the Legal Entity Identifier is being a requirement across financial regulators. This is why the FTA would be important steps forward. By requiring compliance with data standardization through legislation, will not only hasten the pace to standard data definitions, it should result in greater collaboration between regulators and between regulators and the private sector.

Now, more than ever there is a need for the FTA. The complexity and interconnectedness of financial firms has made data core to financial supervision. The need for standardization grows more crucial as the volume and velocity of data requirements increases. These data are crucial to understanding the activities and risk at financial institutions and markets. This has proven to be even more so in recent market stresses. Increasingly regulatory data are needed in near real time. Without standardization the effectiveness of processes and data quality will not meet regulatory expectations or needs. The FTA will be an important step in helping regulators and the private sector improve overall data capabilities of the financial services industry and its regulators.

 

[1] Department of the Treasury, Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Deposit Insurance Company, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, Federal Reserve System, Commodity Future Exchange Commission, National Credit Union Administration, and Federal Housing Finance Agency.

Kenneth Lamar is the Principal Partner of Lamar Associates LLC.  He is an Independent Senior Advisor Advisor AxiomSL.  Previously, Mr. Lamar was a senior official at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York acting as an Advisor to the Director of Research and Leading the Data and Statistics Function.

On April 28th, Data Foundation President Nick Hart sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen strongly encouraging the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) to advance uniform data standards for the information currently collected by regulatory entities, as a means to promote data sharing and high-quality information for regulators and investors alike.

The need for better standards in financial markets has been a long-standing priority of the Data Coalition and its members. The letter is available here as a pdf.

THE HONORABLE JANET YELLEN

Department of the Treasury

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington DC, 20220

Delivered by Electronic Mail

RE: Advancing Data Quality and Transparency in FSOC Agencies

 

Secretary Yellen –

Congratulations on your confirmation as the Secretary of the Treasury. Your role as Chair of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) established by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is critical. On behalf of the members of the Data Coalition, I write to encourage that in 2021 FSOC prioritize actions that drastically improve the quality of data available for regulatory oversight while also reducing reporting burdens on regulated entities. 

The Data Coalition is an initiative that aligns interests across organizations in the national data community, advocating for responsible policies to make government data high-quality, accessible, and useful. As part of the non-profit Data Foundation, the Data Coalition specifically works to unite communities that focus on data science, management, evaluation, statistics, and technology, in industry, non-profits, and universities.

In 2017, a Treasury Department report identified opportunities to make the current reporting regime for regulated entities less complicated and more consistent.^[1] The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Investor Advocate has stressed the need for standards to make access to information easier and less costly for investors.^[2]The Data Coalition strongly encourages FSOC to advance uniform data standards for the information currently collected from regulated entities as a means to promote data sharing and higher-quality information for regulators and investors alike. We know that data standards can enable better information processing and data reconciliation. The country needs machine-readable data as well as machine-readable data standards.

One aspect of the standards that the Data Coalition specifically encourages is the adoption of a common legal entity identifier. Across 36 federal agencies there are more than 50 distinct entity identifiers in use.^[3] The Federal Reserve, among others, already recognizes   the benefits of applying such an identifier in the U.S. regulatory context.^[4] One possible standard to fill this gap is the G-20-backed Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) which is non-proprietary, verified, and part of a globally-managed system that the U.S. has already contributed to developing.^[5]

Applying common-sense and much-needed data standards for the United States financial regulatory ecosystem can be promoted and achieved administratively under the leadership of FSOC. The Data Coalition recommends that FSOC take rapid action to improve the quality of data reported in our financial system.

The Data Coalition members look forward to supporting FSOC member-agencies in continuing to ensure the American people have access to information they need to make good financial decisions. We welcome the opportunity to provide technical assistance to any FSOC member-agencies in order to advance coherent, sound data policy.

 

Respectfully,

Nick Hart, Ph.D.

President, Data Foundation

 

[1] U.S. Department of the Treasury. A Financial System That Creates Economic Opportunities: Banks and Credit Unions. Washington, D.C., 2017. Available at: https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documents/A%20Financial%20System.pdf

[2] Referenced in: R.A. Fleming and A.M. Ledbetter. “More Data, More Problems.” The Regulatory Review, 2021. Available at: https://www.theregreview.org/2021/04/26/fleming-ledbetter-more-data-more-problems/

[3] M. Rumsey. Envisioning Comprehensive Entity Identification for the U.S. Federal Government. Washington, D.C.: Data Foundation, 2018. Available at: https://www.datafoundation.org/envisioning-comprehensive-entity-identification

[4] J.A. Bottega and L.F. Powell. Creating a Linchpin for Financial Data: Toward a Universal Legal Entity Identifier. Finance and Economics Discussion Series. Washington, D.C.: Federal Reserve Board Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs, 2011. Available at: https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2011/201107/201107pap.pdf.

[5] Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation, 2021. Available at: https://www.gleif.org/.

When the United States government issued its Federal Data Strategy in 2019, it recognized the role of data as a component of infrastructure. This point must not be lost as the country proceeds in considering the President’s American Jobs Plan, the infrastructure proposal presented by the White House in March 2021. 

The reason data is infrastructure is simple – no aspect of traditional or social infrastructure, spending, or implementation of any government service or activity can be designed, implemented, and monitored without a coherent, sustained data capacity. Data infrastructure involves the people, processes, systems, and resources that enable the entire ecosystem for data-driven decision-making from the collection of information through the analysis and presentation. It involves the systems on which information is stored, but also much more to ensure the information stored is high-quality and usable. 

Data infrastructure requires investment, just like building and repairing roads or creating a greener economy. For too long, our country has underinvested in its national data infrastructure and we have an opportunity to correct this problem. Congress and the White House can leverage the American Jobs Plan to ensure the country has critical information and capabilities for using data to support accountability, learning, and transparency for the American public. 

Here are three suggestions of data infrastructure components that meet longstanding needs and support national priorities:

1. Build a National Secure Data Service. The federal government lacks a comprehensive, secure capability to share and link sensitive information for analytics. A data service can bring together information from federal, state, local, and private collections to support answering priority questions about employment, earnings, and equity. Establishing a data service as a new resource for infrastructure in government promotes the use of data, while addressing longstanding barriers to sharing information that can unnecessarily impede our ability to learn about what strategies and policies work best. This could be included in the $180 billion investment for R&D.  
2. Prioritize Needed Workforce Development Information. As part of the effort to build capacity for the national workforce development capabilities, the country needs to ensure appropriate data are collected through the relevant programs and activities. This includes the ability to connect information about education with information about earnings and occupations. Setting aside up to 1 percent of the planned investment to ensure data collection, management, and evaluation activities can support effective implementation would be prudent to make investments in state longitudinal data systems. This could be adopted as part of the $100 billion workforce investment.  
3. Promote R&D on Data-Privacy Technologies. Emerging privacy-preserving technologies offer opportunities for the country to rapidly expand analytical and research capabilities, yet many of these technologies will need additional R&D prior to widespread deployment. With a major planned investment in R&D capabilities at the National Science Foundation, a portion of the $50 billion technology investment should include a focus on data protection.  

If the country is serious about building an infrastructure for the challenges of the 21st century, we must also have the data to ensure the policies and investments achieve intended goals.

On March 30th, the Data Coalition sent the following letter to Office of Management and Budget Deputy Director Shalanda Young. This letter outlines ways to improve the use of data in decision-making. The suggestions fall into six key areas: leadership, statutory compliance, information sharing, administrative processes, and workforce capacity and resources.  A .pdf version is available here.

March 30, 2021

THE HONORABLE SHALANDA YOUNG

Eisenhower Executive Office Building

1650 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington DC, 20502

Delivered by Electronic Mail

RE: Strategies for Encouraging Use of Data to Support Biden-Harris Administration Priorities 

Deputy Director Young –

Recognizing the enormity of the challenges the Biden-Harris Administration is responding to in 2021 and the many issues your team at OMB is working diligently to address, the Data Coalition members encourage OMB to put data at the center of decision-making and planning activities. As the country looks toward the better days ahead for our country, we must know what works and in what contexts, and enable more evidence-based policymaking. This requires investing in the data and evidence infrastructure.

The Data Coalition members applaud the leadership expressed in President Biden’s memorandum to agency heads about scientific integrity and evidence that elevates the role of data in decision-making activities. Building on President Biden’s memorandum and other recent executive actions, this letter provides actionable suggestions for the Administration and OMB to consider, including several apolitical efforts underway in recent years that we hope can continue or be reinvigorated this year. We encourage that these activities be integrated into the Fiscal Year 2022 President’s Budget, the President’s Management Agenda, revisions to OMB Circular A-11, regulatory review requirements, implementation of the American Rescue Plan, and any forthcoming national infrastructure plan to the extent possible.

The Data Coalition is an initiative that aligns interests across organizations in the national data community, advocating for responsible policies to make government data high-quality, accessible, and useful. As part of the non-profit Data Foundation, the Data Coalition specifically works to unite communities that focus on data science, management, evaluation, statistics, and technology, in industry, non-profits, and universities.

Recent legislation like the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act (Evidence Act) – including the OPEN Government Data Act and the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act (CIPSEA) – are broad in focus, implicating a whole-of-government approach to better using data. Similarly, because of the Data Coalition’s broad membership and interests, our expertise and suggestions are not isolated to a single policy domain. Our suggestions fall along six key areas: leadership, statutory compliance, information sharing, administrative processes, and workforce capacity and resources. Each is discussed in greater detail below.

Leadership and Transparency

The Data Coalition appreciates the efforts from the Biden-Harris Administration to date in elevating and encouraging the central role of data and evidence in decision-making. Following through on promises and bold statements will require sustained engagement and leadership from all levels of the Administration. Specifically, we hope the Biden-Harris Administration and OMB will consider the following:

• Issue a National Data Strategy Focused on Presidential Priorities. The Executive Branch developed a reasonable Federal Data Strategy  with extensive input from federal agencies, industry, non-profits, and academia. The strategy, with its annual action plan, provided a clear sense of direction and organization for the vast number of needed improvements for data infrastructure in government. OMB should re-issue and re-enforce a coherent national data strategy and corresponding action plan as part of the President’s Management Agenda, organized around the key priorities of the administration.

• Improve Coordination Within OMB. The division of labor on data and information management activities at OMB is understandably segregated. However, this approach has recognized limitations for effectively coordinating data matters government-wide. Improving collaboration across the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Economic Policy, Performance and Personnel Management, the Office of Electronic Government, and other divisions of OMB should be prioritized by OMB leadership. The Data Coalition members encourage a deliberate focus on sustained, coordinated leadership within OMB for delivering on data priorities and commitments. Additional legal authority is not likely needed to accomplish this coordination, but rather support from the Director, Deputy Director, and other senior leaders in the agency is instrumental for encouraging divisions to effectively and routinely coordinate information management activities. We hope that OMB will also leverage improved internal coordination to support agency leaders in collaborating with each other to support data and evidence priorities, including through the President’s Management Council, Chief Data Officers Council, Evaluation Officers Council, Interagency Council on Statistical Policy, Chief Information Officers Council, and other interagency bodies.

• Task the Advisory Committee on Data for Evidence Building (ACDEB) with Priority Questions. The ACDEB, or Evidence Act Advisory Committee, can be a resource for OMB and the White House in studying and addressing core data issues across government with expertise from across government, industry, and academia. Despite the recent delegation of the chair role from OMB to the National Science Foundation, Congress intended for OMB to play a central role in steering the direction of the committee and intended the Federal Chief Statistician to chair the committee. ACDEB has not yet issued recommendations publicly to date. OMB leadership should provide clear direction and suggestions to the advisory committee about areas of focus and need to support response to Biden-Harris Administration priorities, which may include the role of data linkage and sharing for addressing economic mobility, social inequities, climate change, or pandemic response.

• Direct Agencies to Make Evidence Act Planning Documents Publicly Accessible. Agencies have made some progress in developing evidence-building plans, evidence assessments, and evaluation plans as required by the Evidence Act, yet much of this progress has not been shared publicly or conducted with meaningful stakeholder engagement. The Data Coalition encourages that when issuing updated guidance to agencies, consistent with Section 5 of President Biden’s scientific integrity memo, that OMB prioritize transparency in process and final publication of learning agendas and other data and evidence planning documents. Specifically, the Data Coalition strongly encourages OMB to direct agencies to publish machine-readable plans and for OMB to provide a central portal for the data and evidence community to access such information. This requirement need not wait for publication of quadrennial strategic plans and should be implemented as soon as possible.

Statutory Compliance with New Data Laws

The advent of new laws like the Evidence Act, the Digital Accountability and Transparency (DATA) Act, and others suggest a clear intent from Congress to prioritize open data and the organization of information for accountability and decision-making purposes. Passage of these laws must be matched with effective, timely implementation efforts within the Executive Branch to achieve their purpose. The Data Coalition encourages OMB to prioritize implementation in several key areas from recent data laws, such as:

• Issue Required CIPSEA Regulations. Title III of the Evidence Act (Sec. 303) placed responsibilities with OMB to issue regulations related to Statistical Policy Directive #1 and public trust in data, the designation of CIPSEA units, and to authorize the use of the presumption of accessibility authority under CIPSEA. This third provision and new authority, based on a recommendation from the U.S. Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking, allows the statistical system to request access to and use of administrative records for statistical purposes, generating relevant insights for decision-makers within a strong privacy framework. The unanimity of the Evidence Commission’s recommendations and the near-unanimous movement of the legislation through Congress suggests widespread support for this provision being quickly instituted by OMB. The Data Coalition encourages OMB to advance all of the delayed CIPSEA regulatory actions, including publishing the presumption of accessibility as an Interim Final Rule. Such an approach, permissible under the Administrative Procedure Act, allows for rapid action while not precluding further revisions based on valuable public comment and input.

• Provide Guidance on Making Data Open by Default. Title II of the Evidence Act – the OPEN Government Data Act – outlines expectations for federal agencies to publish machine-readable open data as a default, subject to guidance issued by the OMB Director. More than two years after enactment of this law, OMB has not issued open data guidance that addresses risks of re-identification, security considerations, costs and benefits of converting data assets, and procedures for developing prioritized open data plans. The Data Coalition calls on OMB, in collaboration with the Chief Data Officers Council and other relevant interagency bodies, to publish this long-overdue guidance on open data.

• Prioritize GREAT Act Implementation. Now in the second year of implementation of the Grant Reform Efficiency and Agreements Transparency (GREAT) Act, OMB is tasked with partnering with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to issue data standards within 2 years of the law’s enactment. Ensuring these standards are developed with a collaborative and consultative process must be a priority to achieve this law’s intent, higher-quality data and lower burden on grantees for reporting. The Data Coalition members encourage OMB to consider the use of non-proprietary identifiers in developing standards and for the report required by Section 7 of the GREAT Act.

• Accelerate Implementation of New AI Laws. In 2020, Congress approved the bipartisan Artificial Intelligence (AI) Initiative Act and the AI in Government Act. These new laws provide an opportunity for the White House and government to lean-in on long-overdue activities to accelerate government adoption and use of AI. The Data Coalition members look forward to collaborating with OMB and agencies in implementing these important authorities as the Executive Branch shifts from researching AI to ethically using AI at a production level to improve our society.

 

Responsible, Secure Data Sharing

As the Biden-Harris Administration and OMB continue to respond to the global pandemic, address economic uncertainties, and design policies aimed at reducing social inequities, our country must ensure the necessary data can be shared and used across agencies and in collaboration with experts in the data and research community. The Data Coalition encourages OMB to fund strategies that enable responsible, secure data sharing as part of the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Request and any forthcoming supplementation appropriations requests.

• Establish a National Secure Data Service. In 2017 the U.S. Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking recommended a National Secure Data Service to help address the challenges created by the decentralized nature of federal government data collection. In 2020, building on the Evidence Commission’s proposal, a suggestion to immediately launch a data service as a Federally-Funded Research and Development Center at the National Science Foundation emerged to rapidly accelerate progress on this deficit in government’s infrastructure. The Data Coalition members encourage OMB to include start-up funding for a data service in the FY 2022 Budget Request, and to proceed rapidly with other administrative and operational steps to launch a data service. Of note, a data service could substantially improve existing capabilities for analyzing disparities and inequities by race, ethnicity, and gender in program implementation without introducing new risks or potential harms from adding sensitive data elements to existing data collections for government services and benefits. The Evidence Commission’s unanimous recommendations offered a compelling case for the data service; hopefully the Biden-Harris Administration will advance this much-needed resource for the data community to address policymakers’ priority questions.

• Expand Access to Income and Earnings Information. Multiple administrations have proposed expanding access to certain data assets with income and earnings information to support research and evaluation activities. The Data Coalition members encourage the Biden-Harris Administration to use the FY 2022 President’s Budget to acknowledge support for such proposals and to transmit proposed legislative language to Congress — such as limited expansions to access the National Directory of New Hires and certain tax information — that can enable improved analysis about eligibility for benefit programs and impacts on employment and training programs at the national, state, and local levels.

• Pilot Test Innovative Approaches for Secure Data Sharing. As the country and world explore strategies for more efficiently using existing data assets while deploying privacy and confidentiality protections, the US has an opportunity to provide global leadership in the deployment and use of privacy-preserving technologies. The Data Coalition encourages OMB and federal agencies to consider applications and tests of multi-party computation and other approaches over the next year, focusing on high-value data assets where there are currently disincentives for sharing information across jurisdictions or entities. OMB should allocate resources from existing appropriate funds and identify new resources needs to support pilot tests and demonstration projects of privacy-preserving technologies in domestic, non-security agencies.

Data Standards and Administrative Processes

There are longstanding needs for improved data standards and technical specifications as well as simple improvements to administrative processes that could benefit evidence-building and data use in our society. The broad existing authority in the Paperwork Reduction Act for the Chief Statistician to issue standards and the ability of OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to align certain processes have long been under-recognized for their role in making data use more efficient. The Data Coalition appeals to OMB to not lose sight of the small changes that can have major implications and efficiencies for reducing burden and increasing value with data in our society, including: 

• Review and Modify Inefficiencies in the Paperwork Reduction Act Implementation. The Paperwork Reduction Act has long been described as both a support and an impediment to government data collection and use. Government must do more to remove the inefficient, unnecessary barriers that inhibit generating high-quality insights needed for addressing and monitoring public policy matters. The Paperwork Reduction Act should not be about just burden reduction, but a means to improve and enhance the value of government data to benefit society. Reimagining how this law is implemented was a focus of a Data Coalition working group in 2020, which offered a series of small process modifications that could drastically improve the usefulness of this law while reducing a well-recognized pain point in government that distracts from real data management and analysis activities. The Data Coalition encourages OMB to accelerate the implementation of automated tools for information collection requests and clarifying its guidance on pain points for agencies’ PRA implementation.

• Apply Long-Overdue Data Standards for National Collections in Public Health and Economic Response. Setting data standards is a basic process by which stakeholders and the data community agree on a common meaning for particular data elements. Having agreed-upon and applied data standards supports innovation, sharing, and identifying meaning in data analysis. Existing authority could be used to deploy better standards for public health, to support addressing the coronavirus pandemic, and for economic response and recovery, with improved entity identification in financial regulations and other entity reporting. Data standards will by no means solve all data issues facing government and society today, but data standards offer a common starting point to build upon. The Data Coalition strongly encourages OMB and relevant federal agencies to pursue improved standards in public health reporting and in financial reporting that can strengthen the quality of information used in our country’s response to current crises.

• Update OMB Data Standard on Race and Ethnicity. OMB Statistical Policy Directive No. 15 provides for a common standard for race and ethnicity, which is widely recognized to be outdated and in need of revision. Over the past four years, despite an effort to consider revisions, OMB failed to propose and finalize an updated standard that could be used to improve analysis about inequities in government services and policies. The Data Coalition encourages OMB to update the federal race and ethnicity data standard as soon as possible based on public consultation and expert judgment about necessary revisions.

• Refocus on DATA Act Implementation and Budget Transparency. The federal budget formulation and execution processes are among the most routine in government, notwithstanding challenges in timely appropriations actions. As the federal government implements budgetary obligations, prioritizing transparency and clarity for the American public can support efforts to build and restore public trust in government operations and activities. While many agencies made tremendous progress in implementing the DATA Act, too many agencies are struggling to achieve implementation requirements and expectations that support OMB’s use of the data, just as much as the American people, industry, and researchers. OMB can support improvements in data quality by demonstrating to federal agencies how the data can be useful, such as adopting DATA Act standards and approaches for producing federal budget crosscuts (e.g., climate change, disaster), monitoring forthcoming earmarks, and even publishing connections to agency budget justifications. The Data Coalition encourages OMB to approach transparency in government spending data in a more holistic manner and to lead among agencies in using the available data assets in published OMB analyses and databases.

Workforce Capacity and Resources

None of the goals for Executive Branch agencies can be reasonably attained without dedicated attention to workforce capacity and resources. When it comes to data policy and implementing the suggestions of this letter or other aspects of cohesive data management in agencies, the Data Coalition encourages OMB to work in collaboration with agencies and Congress to enable dedicated attention to capacity and resources. 

• Strengthen and Diversify the Federal Data Workforce. OMB today can use existing survey mechanisms and data collections facilitated by the Office of Personnel Management (e.g., Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey) to analyze a broad range of expertise, diversity and inclusion attributes across every unit of government. But identifying gaps rapidly using real data, OPM and OMB can also determine where the workforce needs are greatest. In conjunction with agency assessments for evidence-building capacity, required by the Evidence Act and submitted to OMB in September 2020, OMB should use every available means to prioritize ensuring agencies have the people to meet emerging data, evidence, and innovation needs. OMB should encourage agencies to use existing authorities – such as the Intergovernmental Personnel Act – and prioritize hiring to fill critical gaps in data science, statistics, and evaluation.

• Provide Adequate Resources for Chief Data Officers. Federal agencies need the capacity to pursue open data, data transparency, data governance, and data analysis activities; every agency needs adequate resources to truly recognize data as a strategic asset. Providing at least $50 million in implementation funding for FY 2022 for Chief Data Officers will directly support efforts to improve accountability and transparency of government policies and programs by better managing and using data.

• Establish Practices for Flexible Data and Evidence Funding. While many agencies need additional resources to support evidence-building and data management activities, some agencies will also benefit from recognize funding flexibilities such as Evidence Incentive Funds, set-asides of discretionary appropriations, and waiver authorities in mandatory programs. The Data Coalition encourages OMB to include funding flexibilities in the FY 2022 Budget Request for every agency to support Evidence Act implementation.

Our country needs good data to support useful evidence for decision-makers. OMB has a central role in fostering a cohesive data and evidence ecosystem. If this is successful, and data are a forethought in our government’s operations, our society will benefit from realistic solutions, accelerated policy coordination, and real innovation. The Data Coalition members look forward to supporting OMB and federal agencies in continuing to build a stronger national data infrastructure and welcome the opportunity to provide further expertise and perspective on the suggestions in this letter. We welcome the opportunity to provide technical assistance to any OMB officials or career staff in order to advance coherent, sound data policy in the United States.

 

Respectfully,

Nick Hart, Ph.D.

President, Data Foundation

RegTech data consists of information collected and used in the financial regulatory system. But the system for reporting this information in the U.S. is reliant on document-based reports. Having information in static documents limits the ability of regulators and private sector entities to deploy and benefit from emerging technologies, like machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI). 

AI is already in use across the commercial, healthcare, and defense industries, but it has not yet been widely applied in the U.S. federal government. But we’re starting to see that change.  Federal lawmakers are considering promising strategies to deploy technologies to effectively leverage the government’s data assets in order to support technologies like AI. Congress is taking steps towards encouraging more government adoption of AI solutions. Executive Branch agencies are considering how to apply AI to achieve their missions, but there are still foundational policy issues that must be addressed to ensure the platform for applying innovative technologies exists within government, including improvements to the data quality and the adoption of open data standards, that AI  relies heavily on to function properly.

Proposals such as the Financial Transparency Act that would require the adoption of a non-proprietary, legal entity identifier and other laws, like the OPEN Government Data Act that require standardized, machine-readable data are helping to set the stage for modernizing federal data and the financial regulatory reporting system. This, in turn, fosters an environment for technologies like AI to improve the efficiency of the financial sector and regulatory reporting. Requiring U.S. financial regulators to adopt consistent data fields and formats for information collected from the industry can help bring the full benefits of AI to the RegTech sector.  

Better standardization of regulatory reporting requirements across the agencies would significantly improve the ability of the U.S. public sector to understand and identify the buildup of risk across financial products, institutions, and processes. Having good quality, standardized data is an important steppingstone to reaping the benefits of the ongoing digitization of financial assets, digitization of markets, and growing use of new, cutting-edge technologies, such as artificial intelligence.

Panelists in last week’s webinar, which marked the kicked off RegTech 2021 Series, presented by Donnelley Financial Solutions, provided advice to the government from private sector experts, emphasizing the value of AI for everyday uses and a wide variety of uses. These experts set expectations for what AI can be used for, discussed challenges in scaling up pilot projects, as well as the government’s unique place to push for standardized, structured content. 

RegTech 2021 Series: Move.AI - Advancing Regulatory Technology with AI

Learn more about the RegTech Series here and join us for the remainder of the series by registering for our next event, where we will hear from government experts. 

It’s been said and written about many times, but 2020 presented new and staggering challenges across the world and in this country.  Data policy was no exception. 

At the beginning of the year, the President’s 2021 budget included positive signals for data and evidence priorities. Many agencies made progress in prioritizing Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (Evidence Act) implementation and offered considered assessments of resource needs. Additionally, secure data sharing and access became a substantial part of agency planning, and artificial intelligence funding offered the potential to benefit core data infrastructure. 

As the pandemic hit, it became increasingly clear that high quality, accessible and useable data would be necessary for an informed, evidence-based response. Here are just a few of the examples of what has been accomplished in the past 12 months: 

Data Priorities in COVID Response

The Data Coalition provided an open letter to Congress that outlined key recommendations for the pandemic response that aligned with our policy priorities, including improving data standards, expanding access to essential data, and implementing transparency and oversight for relief and stimulus funding. 

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act 

Oversight on Government Spending

The  CARES Act created vital transparency and reporting requirements that mean intense coordination across the federal enterprise in order to manage the high volume of information required for effective oversight. The Data Coalition’s Budget Transparency Taskforce strongly urged the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee to use existing infrastructure and data analysis standards in order to quickly establish meaningful transparency for emergency spending associated with the country’s response to the pandemic.

Public Health Data

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) received $500 million as a part of the CARES Act for improving our existing public health surveillance and analytics infrastructure, in order to provide more timely and accurate health data to inform pandemic response.

Pulse Surveys

The Data Coalition first encouraged Congress to support and fund the development of a large-scale, household survey on COVID-19 impacts in March. The Census Bureau is now collecting new data on households and small businesses through their new pulse surveys. These government collections are done on a large scale and provide official data for researchers, policymakers, and others. These government efforts are essential and work together with private philanthropic efforts like the COVID Impact Survey. The Data Coalition will continue to advocate for efforts to promote this type of valuable data collection, including a pulse survey for assessing the impacts of COVID-19 on the nation's education infrastructure. 

Progress on National Secure Data Service 

Three years ago, the experts on the U.S. Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking unanimously recommended a national secure data service be established. Throughout this year, the Data Coalition has been meeting with Congressional offices highlighting a data service as one reasonable, low-cost strategy for support the use of government-collected data to respond to the pandemic. Recognizing recent changes to federal law and the contemporaneous environment, the recommendation to establish a new Federally Funded Research and Development Center at the National Science Foundation.

Legislative Victories and Priorities

The Taxpayers Right to Know Act in the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 6395)

The Taxpayers Right-to-Know Act (TPRTK) was a part of the Data Coalition’s legislative agenda and was included in the final version of this year’s NDAA, which passed both chambers with a veto-proof majority. TPRTK uses existing government-wide financial data standards to make information about federal expenditures more readily available and transparent to American taxpayers. This will increase the understanding of how to improve the productivity and impact of federal programs delivering valuable services to the American public. 

Open the Courts Act of 2020

This bill passed the House of Representatives this year, with provisions that will require the electronic court records system to comply with data accessibility standards. Though this bill will need more work in the upcoming Congress, we were glad to see this part of our legislative agenda progress as well. 

Health STATISTICS Act

The Data Coalition provided technical assistance to Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA), who along with Reps. Lucy McBath (D-GA), Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA), and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) introduced the bipartisan Health Standards to Advance Transparency, Integrity, Science, Technology Infrastructure, and Confidential Statistics Act of 2020 (Health STATISTICS) Act. This legislation builds on the Evidence Act by addressing the weaknesses of our public health surveillance system by ensuring the  CDC and the public have access to timely accurate and actionable data critical to pandemic response

AI Advancements

The Data Coalition endorsed the principles for a national AI strategy outlined in a House Resolution, sponsored by Reps Will Hurd (R-TX) and Robin Kelly (D-IL). With existing laws, such as the Foundations for Evidence Act and the OPEN Government Data Act, the adoption of AI envisioned in the Hurd-Kelly resolution can be achieved by transparently and equitably promoting the use of high-quality data across government. 

Federal Data Strategy Forum: Year 2

The Data Coalition and the Data Foundation co-hosted an open forum on the Federal Data Strategy, which is entering its second year. Speakers reinforced the need for a federal data strategy to meet social needs and expressed interest and enthusiasm for helping policymakers implement new legal and regulatory framework. 

Looking forward to 2021

In 2021, as we work to control the pandemic and towards economic recovery, data will play an important role. Prioritizing data and evidence-building priorities will help inform effective and efficient policies to address existing and emerging challenges. In addition to our recommendations for the incoming Administration, we will continue to support the Chief Data Officer Council and other advisory bodies, advocate for the continued implementation of the Evidence  Act, and support the continuation of a Federal Data Strategy. The Data Coalition is looking forward to continuing our advocacy and building a strong stakeholder community.

What is Version Control?

Every writer has files somewhere named something like “GrantProposalDraft1-finaledited-reallyfinal,” which implies a whole sequence of versions that may or may not be saved elsewhere. Version control systems automate this process when working with computer code and keep a history of all work. 

Version control is invaluable for any complex software project involving team collaboration. Consider the development of a large program like macOS. Hundreds of Apple employees in different departments, different buildings, and even different time zones simultaneously make updates, rewrite segments of code, and fix bugs. Without version control there is no way to tell who changed what and when. Changes slip through the cracks and inconsistencies compound in the code.

To a great extent, the private sector has solved this problem. If you work anywhere near software development you have likely heard of git, a free and open-source distributed version control system, and GitHub, the hosting service that lets you manage repositories.

Git was developed in 2005, and other automated version control systems pre-date it by a number of decades. But governments and legal systems have maintained their own ‘version control’ with labor-intensive processes to amendment and update law.

GitHub for Government?

When it comes to version control for legislative documents, the main questions to address are relatively straightforward. What was the law? What is the law? But it might surprise you to know that for many laws, particularly those that were recently changed, there is no current official version and no way to see a precise history of amendments over time. 

This is a big problem. In the Canadian House of Commons a lack of version control has led to embarrassing headlines: Senate debates wrong version of government bill for the second time in less than three months.

Even apart from such snafus, all legislative bodies struggle with the need to quickly understand how a proposed bill would impact existing laws, or how an amendment would change a proposed bill. Even for experienced legislators, their staff, and policy lawyers, comparing versions of bills and laws is an arduous, manual, expensive, time-consuming process.

So, why can’t the U.S. Congress, and other legislatures, just use git? Unfortunately, there are a number of processes that make standard version control for computer code not applicable to legal documents. 

• Amendments, not versions. Amendments to laws are not made as versions. Instead, you often get a single sentence with textual language like “strike,” “insert,” “remove,” or “repeal” that must be interpreted. Amendments typically explain how they would change existing laws using prose, not redlines.
• Acts, not repositories. Each law Congress passes is a new Act. New Acts are changed at many hierarchical levels by subsequent Acts. Congress does try to codify all Acts into the United States Code by passing “codification bills,” but this project is decades behind, which means many Acts have not been incorporated into the Code yet, and there is no comprehensive repository of U.S. federal law. To a programmer, that would be as if each new commit that you have changes a whole bunch of repositories in an unlimited way.
• Standard Diff doesn’t work. Unlike showing the changes between two versions of the same file, matching “the same” section of an amended law requires semantic judgement, creating difficulty grouping changes.

The difficulty of applying version control systems to law is compounded when you consider the different types of changes and materials attached to legislative documents, including amendments, hearings, floor speeches, testimony, votes, conference committees, effective dates, regulatory implications, and countless other details that need to be tracked.

To bridge the divide between modern version control, git, and coding and the esoteric traditions and processes of law in the United States, experts with broad and deep competence in both distinct fields are necessary. Those experts — who could be referenced in shorthand as “lawyers with GitHub accounts” — are part of a small but growing community.

Modernization in the House

In June 2020, the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives issued an initial report on a rule change enacted at the start of the 115th Congress, commonly called the Comparative Print Project. Despite the unfortunate use of “print” in its working title, the report states that “the project will result in a robust, scalable, and secure web application.”

The scope of the Comparative Print Project calls for two distinct types of comparison at various points in the legislative process.

Clause 12(a) calls for a document that illustrates changes and differences made by a legislative proposal to current law. How does H.R. 123 change the Social Security Act (non-codified law) and 38 USC 321 (positive or codified law)?

Clause 12(b) calls for a document-to-document comparison between different versions of bill language. How does the Rules Committee Print differ from the bill reported by the committee?

Legal and Tech Experts with Proven Solutions

In August 2018, a contract was awarded to Xcential Legislative Technologies to build document comparison software for the U.S. House that can track changes in law and will ultimately be able to show what the law was at any point in time.

Xcential got its start by building the system that the California Legislature now uses to write, update, and amend laws. Today, Xcential’s largest project is in the U.S. Congress, working on the House Modernization Project which is involved in many different aspects of the legislative workflow. Xcential designed an open standard XML for legislation called United States Legislative Markup (USLM) and converted the entire U.S. Code into USLM, paving the way for version control for law.

Solving Version Control for Law

Xcential addressed the challenges of version control for the law with three central solutions: machine-readable amendments, machine-readable legal citations, and the creation of a legally-relevant diff. 

The House Clerk’s report explains that Xcential’s team “compiled a current law dataset stored in a custom repository solution and developed natural language processors [NLP] to do the work of recognizing, interpreting, retrieving, and executing the amendatory language contained in the legislative proposal.”

In order to do this, Sela Mador-Haim, an NLP expert at Xcential, took hundreds of thousands of amendatory phrases, deciphered the grammar and semantics of those phrases, and put them into a machine-readable format. That effort enables the translation of legal documents produced by the U.S. Congress into a format that is machine-readable.

The same machine-readable translation process was then completed for legal citations. When citations can be machine-processed a query language is provided. Xcential is then able to go into the database and specify precise addresses in the law for references within legislative documents. Combining machine-readable amendatory phrases and legal citations gives us an address where the change is to be made and a language that describes the change, resulting in machine-executable instructions. 

The goal is to create a legally-relevant diff. The challenge inherent in doing so is not simply identifying revised portions of legislative text, but understanding what is legally relevant to the drafter. 

In particular, the goal of version control for the law, set forth in the Comparative Print Project by the House Clerk and Legislative Counsel, is the illustrate changes between the following: 

• Two versions of a bill, resolution, or amendment (document to document comparisons).
• Current law and current law as proposed to be changed by amendments contained in a bill, resolution, or amendment to current law (codified and non-codified law).
• A bill or resolution and the bill or resolution as proposed to be modified by amendments (amendment impact).

According to the House Clerk’s report, Xcential’s NLP tool is currently “performing very well and with a high degree of accuracy.” The report offered the following figure indicating the solution’s success.

Conclusion

Version control for law is neither as simple as coders imagine, nor as complex as lawyers would make it. While the focus of the project described above was on federal law in the United States it contains lessons that can be applied in your local city council up to national jurisdictions around the world.

This article was originally published by HData and Xcential Legislative Technologies in Data First, a monthly newsletter covering the modernization of legislation and regulation. Subscribe to Data First.

On November 18th, the Data Coalition sent the following letter to Congress urging them to establish a school pulse survey for assessing the impacts of COVID-19 on the Nation’s education infrastructure.

The .pdf version is available here.

November 18, 2020

RE: An Open Letter on Establishing a School Pulse Survey for COVID-19 Mitigation Behaviors

Delivered by Electronic Mail

 

Members of Congress – 

As COVID-19 caseloads surge around the United States to alarming levels, the effects on schools, parents, students, and educators will certainly be profound. Unfortunately, today there is little systematically-collected data available for research and analysis that can help policymakers and administrators understand real-time mitigation activities in schools across the country, and importantly, the impacts on students and educators. 

The COVID-19 pandemic is highlighting many gaps in our country’s data infrastructure, including for our entire educational system. The Data Coalition recently highlighted the challenges for our federal data collection and data management efforts that should be addressed to effectively respond to the global pandemic. Admittedly, we failed to identify one important issue: as our country’s educational institutions respond to the pandemic with varied approaches there is no comprehensive, timely mechanism for assessing the public health and other impacts of these efforts.  

When it comes to educating our nation’s children – our government institutions and educational community have an obligation to ensure relevant information is collected and analyzed to effectively and equitably enable learning for those who will be responsible for our country’s future.  

The U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES) is one of the most qualified and respected institutions for presenting information about the state of education in the United States. But IES is unable to capture and present real-time information about schools across the country in responding to the pandemic, assessing learning losses, and gauging the adequacy of mitigation policies and behaviors. 

Despite the gaps at the Education Department in collecting information, we know anecdotally schools across the country are innovating, adjusting, and piloting new approaches that could improve learning for the next generation of students. How will our country, our parents, our school administrators, and our policymakers know what works best for responding to the pandemic?

In short, our country needs better evidence about the impacts of the pandemic on our educational institutions. The United States needs a School Pulse Survey, conducted monthly over the next year.

There are some existing and admirable efforts to gauge the impacts of COVID-19 on schools, students, and teachers around the country. For example, the Census Bureau’s weekly Household Pulse Survey, which provides some weekly insights at the household level, including based on questions about learning. The insights are unfortunately not useful at gauging school- or district-level impacts. Philanthropic and academic institutions have also stepped in to fill some gaps, though the scope of scale of existing projects continues to present challenges for developing comprehensive insights in real-time. 

Additionally, IES’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) provides a wealth of information about educational quality and learning across the U.S. The current data collection and analytical activities of NCES, however, take years to implement. The country cannot wait five years – over even one – to better understand the impacts of COVID-19 on our students. 

A School Pulse Survey can do both: gauge school and district level impacts in real time. This will rapidly fill in existing gaps in knowledge about activities in the country while existing data collection mechanisms continue unimpeded. We encourage Congress to appropriate or direct the Department of Education to allocate up to $5 million and at least 1 FTE to develop, manage, execute, and report an Education Pulse Survey with monthly waves during the coming school year.

A School Pulse Survey for school administrators should specifically gauge behavioral and mitigation behaviors applied for responding to the global COVID-19 pandemic, and also capture information relevant for assessing learning loss and other key outcomes or indicators of educational quality in the coming year. Such a survey could be designed to minimize burden on school administrators while also ensuring policymakers and key decision-makers have the information they need to ensure our educational institutions provide the quality of learning that our children deserve. 

Everyone in our country has suffered or been adversely impacted during the global pandemic. We need to build a rapid-cycle evidence capable of ensuring our children – and our future – benefit from innovations that are happening in the county. A national Education Pulse Survey must be part of the solution. 

It is one thing to say our children are our future. It is another to ensure we have the evidence to make that future both a possibility and a reality.  Our country’s students need us to make evidence-based policy choices informed by timely, accurate and relevant data.  The Data Coalition strongly urges the Congress and the Department of Education to act to rapidly build this evidence base. 

Thank you for your consideration of how to meaningfully deploy data in our country for effectively responding to the pandemic. We know you have many critical choices in coming weeks but hope prioritization of a new School Pulse Survey will be among those priorities. For immediate assistance, please contact me or the Data Coalition’s policy manager, Corinna Turbes (corinna.turbes@datacoalition.org). 

 

Respectfully,

–Nick Hart, Ph.D.

CEO, Data Coalition