American Idea Foundation

Measuring Results, Expanding Opportunity, Improving Lives.

Mike

Government Matters Interview: Ryan to policymakers: Follow the data and tie funding to outcomes

by

By: AIF Staff

Washington, DC – This weekend, American Idea Foundation President and former Speaker Paul Ryan talked with Government Matters‘ Mimi Geerges about his work in Congress to fight poverty and expand economic opportunities. In the interview, Speaker Ryan discussed how the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act is currently being utilized by federal agencies to modernize data collection, analysis, security, and dissemination practices.

The implementation of this legislation, which Speaker Ryan sponsored with Senator Patty Murray of Washington, was the subject of Speaker Ryan’s remarks at the 2021 GovDATAx conference. At its core, the legislation is designed to improve the federal government’s use of data, evidence, and analytics so it can allocate funds more effectively and achieve meaningful results through social safety net programs.

Ryan’s interview with Government Matters is available here or by clicking the icon below. Some notable excerpts, edited slightly for clarity, follow.

How Ryan got involved and why he stayed involved in policy discussions about fighting poverty:

“I’ve always had just a big desire to focus on [fighting poverty]. I spent a lot of my time in Congress on these issues and I was just raised with this gorgeous notion of the American Idea, or what I call the American Idea, which is the condition of your birth should not determine the outcome of your life in a free society such as ours. Everybody has the right to rise, but also we should nurture people’s ability to rise and make the most of their life.”

**

“When I left Congress, I wanted to still work on some of the ideas that I’m passionate about. I was a policymaker for 20 years in Congress. I left Congress but I didn’t leave my love of public policy, so I decided to start the American Idea Foundation so I could continue to focus on these issues – in particular, fighting poverty, that are very important to me…. I spent years on this first when I was Chairman of the Budget Committee and then when I was Ways and Means Chair. We were coming up on the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty. We had spent $15 trillion yet we hadn’t moved the needle nearly as much as we should have. And so, I spent a lot of my time figuring out what went wrong, what are the lessons, what are the takeaways, and one of the things, using my economic-thinking hat, that I took away was we weren’t measuring things the right way. We measured government’s success in fighting poverty based on effort and inputs. [We measured success by] how much money are we spending, how many programs are we creating versus measuring success on a set of results and outcomes. Where are we really getting people out of poverty? Where are people breaking the cycle of poverty where we deal with the tough issue of multi-generational poverty?

“That is where I got very interested in this issue which spawned me to create the Evidence Commission and then to write the Evidence-Based Policymaking Act to try to move the War on Poverty from an input-based and effort-based measurement system to an outcomes-based system where we actually measure our efforts based on results.”

The Nurse-Family Partnership program is a prime example of using evidence to improve outcomes:

“I was in South Carolina with Senator Tim Scott and Congressmen Joe Wilson and Ralph Norman in June and we went into rural South Carolina and looked at something called the Nurse-Family Partnership Program, which is authorized by a federal program called MIECHV, the Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visitation program.

“It is one of the few evidence-based federal programs. What it does is it pairs a nurse with a low-income expectant mother and [the nurse] helps that mother through the prenatal stage up until her child is two years old. They use very rigorous data and reporting for these programs. This program was started by President George W. Bush. It was continued by President Barack Obama and recently reauthorized by President Donald Trump. So, [it expanded during] three different presidential administrations, all because of good data and because it had proven results to show it was working.

“It was not controversial, it was non-partisan. I was involved in each of these Administrations and the results are really clear. A study from 2019 shows that money invested yielded a 6 to 1 benefit to cost ratio. It provides $27,000 in savings per family in the form of reduced public assistance. It improves health outcomes of the mother and of the child. Participants have a higher likelihood of graduating high school and lower incidences of domestic violence.

“In other words, rigorous data is showing that this particular program of intervening and helping young, expectant mothers at the prenatal stage until their child is two years old really makes a difference. And doing these programs with rigorous data makes sure that the programs are done well and done effectively. This is one example of something that I think has worked really well because of data collection and because of evidence and this is the kind of thing that we’re promoting with the American Idea Foundation.”

Why the Evidence Based Policymaking Act was needed:

“It was basically needed because Congress was not evaluating whether what we were doing was working or not. There really wasn’t any process in place to measure the effectiveness and the outcome of our poverty-fighting efforts. The Evidence-Based Policymaking Act was based upon the Evidence Commission that said: “Here’s how you do this, here’s how you can collect data, here’s how you secure data with privacy and cyber protections, and then here’s how you disseminate that so that we can use that and measure whether or not something works or not.” [This way] policymakers can be better informed so that we can tie evidence to funding, so we can go with what works versus what doesn’t work.”

Adopting Best Practices to collect better, more impactful data and evidence:

“I’m a huge believer in what we call Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). I teach at Notre Dame and I work with Notre Dame’s Laboratory for Economic Opportunity. We run randomized controlled trials, about 75 per year, on poverty programs so you can really measure what works. Using RCTs, using evidence, and then showing policymakers what works and what doesn’t work is, I think, going to really move us so we can be more effective as a federal government, more effective as charities, and more effective as nonprofits.

“And then the other thing I’d say is removing the silos so that data can cross over, so you can cross-connect data so you can learn from it. That’s one of the problems that the federal government has is that we collect data in silos, so break down those silos, allow data-sharing across different data sets, and you can really get some rich, robust research to find out what works and what doesn’t.”

To read the legislative text of the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018, click here. 

###

Panel: The COVID-19 Economic Recovery, Inequities, and helping Working Americans

by

By: AIF Staff

Earlier this week, American Idea Foundation President Paul Ryan took part in a bipartisan panel discussion hosted by the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project. The conversation, entitled Resilience After Recession: The Emerging Landscape for American workers and families, centered on how the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated economic disparities and how policymakers can ensure that workers, families, and children have the support necessary to thrive and prosper.

Along with experts and thought-leaders from across the ideological spectrum, Speaker Ryan shared his thoughts on the Democrats’ proposed reconciliation package and discussed provisions of the legislation that will, and in some cases, will not, assist lower-income Americans in successfully navigating the post-COVID economy. He also touched on how evidence and data provide opportunities to cut through partisan gridlock that is leaving too many Americans struggling economically.

The panel discussion is accessible below. Excerpts of Speaker Ryan’s remarks, edited slightly for clarity, follow.

Concerns with the Democrats’ reconciliation bill and its potential economic impact:

“It should come as no surprise that I think this reconciliation bill would be a big mistake for a couple of reasons, but I’ll try to say something positive about it at the end.

“Number one, I think it’s going to do a lot of harm to our economy. Just with these tax provisions alone, you’re going to reignite inversions. You’re going to bring the business tax rate for corporations and pass-throughs back to the highest in the industrialized world when you add state taxes on top of it. As a result, you’re going to make American workers and companies much, much less competitive.

“New inversions are going to start. You’re going to slow down job growth and slow down economic growth and at a very basic level, where we should start with is [agreeing] that we want economic growth. You cannot have upward mobility without economic growth. I like the fact that our labor markets are tight, but I want to make sure that we have jobs that can pull people into the workforce at higher-paying jobs and that depends on economic growth. If you make it harder for the job-producers and smaller businesses to expand and grow, as this bill does, then I think you’re going to be self-defeating in that area. Then the fiscal effects from this, you take a look at this bill, and I spent my career doing reconciliation, it’s kind of a fiscal train wreck.

“The Democrats are disguising the true cost of the bill and they’re disguising how much money you’re going to actually raise in revenue from the pay-fors, so I don’t think it is paid for and it’s going to give us a huge fiscal headache. Our debt and deficits are going to get out of control. This will put pressure on our dollar as a world reserve currency and our economy is going to slow down with bad tax policies.

“If we lose sight of the debt and deficits and the cost of financing our social contract, it becomes really difficult to finance and think of the social chaos and the political chaos that would occur with a debt crisis. First, let’s focus on getting this economy growing and, like I said, before COVID, the bottom two quintiles of income earners were getting the biggest wage increases they’ve ever had, so we had real standard of living increases.

“In addition to this, I think this [reconciliation bill] is going to increase inflation in the economy.  I think a lot of these spending programs will convert inflation from what was hopefully temporary to more structural, so I think this bill is going to give us the wrong kind of pressure on inflation. I think that the reconciliation bill would be a big mistake.

Finding specific policies within reconciliation that both parties can embrace:

“Let me try and find something positive to say about it: I think the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) reforms are good reforms and that is something I’d like to see both parties embracing. I tried doing an EITC expansion for childless adults and I think that’s just a no-brainer. The data is really clear on this….

“We also need to have it embedded in the first paycheck on a monthly basis. There’s a systems problem at Treasury that we need to overcome but the Childcare Tax Credit and the EITC should not be a lump sum at the end of the year, it should be embedded in the paycheck. I think that’s something that everybody should come together on because the data is really clear that that really works.

“There are some discrete points I think that could be passed and that people on both sides could embrace, but I just think the reconciliation bill, particularly because the tax policy and the fiscal time-bomb and nature of these entitlement programs will actually give us a worse situation and slow down economic growth.”

What policymakers can do to ensure a more robust and equitable economic recovery:

“One thing I think we should focus on is data. My foundation is focused on making sure that the Evidence Act is well executed. The Office of Management and Budget is leading on this and I think there’s a lot of room to improve data collection, especially since COVID, because blue collar workers were harmed so much more than white collar workers.

“And so, I think there’s a lot of room for data collection and room to improve the evidence around these policies around workforce training. There are a lot of workforce training programs out there, but the problem is we haven’t really tracked the evidence of success. There are some that have been done using randomized control trials (RCTs) that show where success can be had, so my argument at this moment is: Let’s use data to find out what works and to find out what doesn’t work. I think there’s an opportunity to follow the data.”

Rethinking and customizing our social insurance system:

“I think in the 21st century with data and digital advances and with the economics field that we have currently, we can re-think how we design our social insurance system. I mean, look at my own experience with EITC and just trying to make it monthly. I didn’t have any problems with my side of the aisle. I didn’t have any problems with Democrats. I couldn’t do it because the federal government just couldn’t do it. This stuff is just ridiculous.

“And so, I really believe we need to rethink the way our systems work and the way we design our benefits. We just paint everyone with the same brush. We treat everybody the same and as a result of this bad macroeconomic policy, we have bad micro-economic policies with benefit offsets and with benefit cliffs and that really sets people back.”

The need to modernize the social safety net:

“We have a 20th century social insurance system that we need to turn into a 21st century social insurance system… I really do think our entire social insurance safety net is due for an overhaul. It should be based on data, based on evidence, based on what is proven to work, and yes, we should do some experimentation. We should run some RCTs across the board but I think adding new programs on top of old failed programs and hoping that it’s going to be done differently or produce new results is just not going to work and is the same mistake that we’ve been making.

“Frankly, given what we have in technology, in data and analytics, and in digital technology, I really believe we can streamline our social insurance system with an eye toward proven methods of upward mobility to help those people who historically have not gotten ahead. I think the pandemic hurt the least among us the most and I think Michelle was right about the post-2008 recession, it was the wealth effect by the Federal Reserve which helped people at the top do extremely well and we had stagnation below that because of bad fiscal and regulatory policy.

“I think there are better policies to get us faster economic growth, faster wage growth, better living standards, but throwing on top of it brand new ideas that are untested and putting them on top of a creaky social insurance infrastructure from the 20th century that is not meeting its potential, I just don’t think it is a smart move and I think it’s going to give us a huge debt hangover. I think it’s going to be bad for our economy.

“I would take today’s technology, overhaul the social insurance system, focus on getting the incentives right, the benefit mixes right, and the thing that always bothered me when I studied all of this stuff is the benefit offsets….

“I think there’s a way of dealing with the benefit cliffs so you can customize benefits on a per person basis using technology and using good economics so that it always pays to move ahead. You’re always making sure that the benefit mix – whether it’s job training, childcare, transportation, I’m in Wisconsin so heating, is designed properly so that a person is always on the curve on the way up and you don’t have all these benefit cliffs knocking them back. That’s what I would be focusing on right now to try and build a 21st century social insurance system that is durable, effective, and by the way, affordable, and that doesn’t bankrupt the country.”

At GovDATAx Conference, Speaker Ryan extols the progress of the Evidence Act & details next steps for government to improve data-collection practices

by

AIF Staff

Washington, DC – Earlier this week, former Speaker of the House and American Idea Foundation President Paul Ryan served as one of the featured speakers at the 2021 GovDATAx Virtual Conference. The annual conference, held virtually in 2021, brings together leaders from across the country who share a commitment to developing data systems and analytics that improve people’s lives. The focus of this year’s conference was on how the federal government can lead data modernization efforts and align data and delivery needs to achieve better outcomes for Americans.

In a conversation with Mimi Geerges of Government Matters, Speaker Ryan discussed his efforts to move the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act into law. The legislation, which Ryan authored with Democratic Senator Patty Murray, modernized how the federal government collects data, analyzes information, uses, and safeguards it. As Ryan noted, a real-world example of evidence-based policymaking improving outcomes is the Nurse-Family Partnership. This June, Ryan met with administrators, nurses, mothers and children who were participating in the program, which has been validated by dozens of randomized controlled trials. 

The importance of this topic was succinctly captured by Ryan, who said:

“As a person who practiced in government and who practiced politics and who worked in Congress, using data as an argument is far better than partisanship. It is far better at breaking the loggerheads and the many political impasses between conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, because when it comes to data, it usually can cut through all of that and really get government working.

“At the end of the day, I really believe that if you’re concerned about polarization in politics, as I’m sure most Americans are, I think data is a really good way out of that. If you’re concerned about making sure your taxpayer dollars go to their intended uses, data is a way to make sure of this. If you want to get people up and out of poverty in a meaningful, lasting way by going at the root causes of poverty, data is a great way to do that. I think data is the real linchpin to making all of this work.”

To watch Speaker Ryan’s remarks at the GovDatax 2021 Conference, please click here. Excerpts of his comments, edited lightly for clarity, follow.

Q. How is the Federal Government doing in using data to promote better public policies?

“Well, we’ve got a long way to go but we’ve seen a few good steps in the right direction. Back when I started this, I was looking for a partner to make this bipartisan. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) is a good friend of mine and we partnered up to create the Evidence Commission, and the Evidence Commission put together a very good report on how best to have evidence-based policymaking in government and on how to open data for researchers so we can be better-informed policymakers focusing on results and outcomes, not just inputs.

“The Commission gave us its report, we put it into the Evidence Act, and passed it into law. So, I would say we’re on to a good track but now it’s all about executing in the federal government… We still have a ways to go to execute and implement the Evidence Act, but it’s a very good step in the right direction and I’m very excited about it.

“I think data, frankly, is becoming cool again. I think, in this day of COVID-19 and all the hospitalizations statistics and unemployment rates, people are beginning to realize that data can make an enormous difference in affecting public policy and make a difference. Frankly, as a recovering politician, what data does is it helps depolarize and take the partisanship out of these public policy debates and that was one of my main reasons for wanting to do this.”

Q. What more can Congress do to advance evidence-based policymaking?

“Congress recently reauthorized the National Science Foundation in what is called the National Science Foundation Act and it has the National Secure Data System (NSDS) pilot project in it. That’s a very important step in the right direction, but a National Secure Data System should be made permanent so that researchers can get good access to data, so data can be made secure and government agencies can really improve their muscle memory for how to not just how collect data and to secure data, but how to use data.

“We still have got a way to go there but I think we’re on the right path. I think fully authorizing the National Secure Data Service would be a really good step in the right direction but we have a pilot that is being launched, which is typically what you do on your way toward making something permanent.”

Q: What is the role of federal agencies in advancing this type of policy-making? What comes next?

“It is really OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, that is the [agency] that leads this. The last administration released what we call Phase 1, which is basically setting the learning agendas and putting them in place for all the government agencies. Phase 2 involves open data and access management. Phase 3 is utilizing that data and access for statistical purposes, paying for program evaluations, and so going through those phases, that has to be done by OMB and it’s on the Biden Administration to make sure that not only is data collected but the silos are reduced so data and agencies can speak to each other.

“Security is paramount, especially with all the cyber-attacks these days, but the learning that comes from the data and the breaking down of the silos and the takeaways are really important so that policymakers are informed about what works and what doesn’t work.

“Let’s find what works and what doesn’t work. Let’s follow the evidence and let’s follow the data so that we can make sure that the things we’re trying to do in government, namely getting people out of poverty for example, are actually successful and working. And what that means is we can build and scale and replicate [successful programs] across the country.

“Look at MIECHV and its Nurse-Family Partnership Program. It’s one of those programs that was done with data…. President George Bush started it, President Barack Obama continued it, and President Donald Trump reauthorized it. These were three very different presidents, three very different administrations, but the data showed that Nurse-Family Partnerships, through the MIECHV program, work. Young, expectant mothers were learning how to raise their infant children and the ratio of success shown in the data was really clear. There is a good example that if you do something like that, the federal government and its poverty-fighting strategies can really move the needle.

“This is not partisan. This is not political. It is just what works and what doesn’t work. That, to me, is what can be the promise of this and it really comes down to the Office of Management and Budget executing on these things.

Q. What are the benefits of the National Secure Data System?

“What the National Secure Data System is right now is a pilot project that Congress authorized when they did the National Science Foundation reauthorization bill. It basically sets up a system whereby government not only collects data but also secures that data.

“In this day of cyber-attacks, you have to have good security for your data. You need to have privacy protections and data security, but also data dissemination so that statistical researchers at universities and nonprofits can get this data and find out what works and what doesn’t work and break down the silos, because right now, in the 21st century, you still have siloed data that doesn’t all doesn’t cross reference and doesn’t talk with each other.

“Getting researchers, not only in government but also outside of government, to have a system like this NSDS is really the step in the process you need to execute correctly so we truly are collecting and using data, making sure that people’s privacy rights are secure, making sure that data security is up to snuff, but then researchers can make sure we can evaluate what works and what doesn’t work, so that our taxpayer dollars are going to effective programs.”