The Bipartisan Evidence Revolution

With the federal government seemingly more divided and dysfunctional by the day, bipartisanship may appear dead in the water. But believe it or not, an important issue has moved forward this year with strong support from both Republicans and Democrats—although few outside of D.C. policy wonk circles are aware of it.

What is this unifying unicorn? It’s known as the “evidence-based policy” movement—an effort to ground government programs and policies in data-backed and evidence-driven research. It seems crazy, but in most areas of policy, government programs are often implemented and administered with little attention to evidence. More rigorous use of data-driven analysis and evaluation could help the government achieve better results and fund initiatives more strategically.

The push for evidence-based policy isn’t new, but it recently gained momentum with the establishment of the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking in 2016. Jointly sponsored by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) and then-House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), the Commission delivered its final report in 2017, and the findings were used to develop the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act (the “Evidence Act”), signed into law in January of this year.

The Evidence Act lays the groundwork for some of the Commission’s broader recommendations: It requires program evaluation at federal agencies, directing them to develop evidence plans, identify key policy questions, and detail steps to address those questions with analysis and evidence. In July, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued the Federal Data Strategy, which is expected to implement many of the Evidence Act’s provisions—beginning with having agencies identify chief data officers, evaluation officers, and statistics officials. These developments mark a potential sea change in how the government thinks about—and uses—data.

The initiative makes use of data the government already has to improve policies and programs; the Evidence Act doesn’t authorize collection of new data. Still, any discussion of putting data to new uses needs to put privacy considerations at the forefront—and the Commission did prioritize privacy in its work. Protecting privacy and confidentiality was in its mission statement, and a third of the commissioners had a data privacy background. The Commission recommended moving away from a traditional centralized data warehouse approach, instead advising that approved, distinct statistical projects be implemented through temporary linkages of existing data—while employing data minimization principles and the latest privacy and security protections. The report also pointed to emerging privacy-enhancing approaches, such as secure multiparty computation, differential privacy, and synthetic data.

Importantly, the Evidence Act also reauthorized the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act—one of the most robust federal data protection laws—to protect privacy in evidence-building efforts. The law currently applies to agencies that have statistical work as their principal mission, such as the Census Bureau and National Center for Education Statistics, as well as to groups within other agencies that conduct statistical activities. It requires them to adhere to strong rules around maintaining strict confidentiality and using data for statistical purposes only. Breaking them carries criminal penalties and/or jail time.

Achieving the aims of the Evidence Act will be a gradual, challenging process—one that will require agencies to embed rigorous evaluation of evidence into their process for developing and implementing policies. Building evidence will take time, beginning with identifying key questions and the data needed to answer them. Furthermore, in framing those research questions, agencies will need to pay attention to biases and ethics. The Federal Data Strategy instructs the GSA, in consultation with both government and external stakeholders from academia and the policy community, to create a Data Ethics Framework that would define considerations for agencies in evaluating ethical data management and use—considerations that would extend beyond legal requirements.

And, since the Evidence Act only addresses part of the Commission’s recommendations and suggestions, more legislative developments will be required. Future legislation should provide agencies with necessary resources for evidence-building, as well as means to ensure development and use of the latest privacy-enhancing and cryptographic technologies.

In short, the road toward evidence-based policy will require thoughtful, deliberate navigation—but the ultimate benefits could make it well worth the effort. We don’t know nearly enough about whether government programs are making effective progress and whether other approaches might work better. Social issues are complex and context-dependent, and achieving consensus and replicability is often difficult.

Skeptics may doubt that Republicans and Democrats can agree on sets of facts, but—in cases ranging from Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) Program reform to improvement of the EPA’s Underground Storage Tanks Program—the availability of evidence has been shown to meaningfully inform policy for the better. Of course, there will always be irreducible uncertainties data can’t answer—but along the way, we can gain valuable knowledge about performance and results, and acquire crucial insights into how programs operate. So, with some luck, the evidence-based policy movement will continue to see both parties working together to achieve improved decisions and outcomes—and provide hope that sound policymaking can still overcome zero-sum politics.