Promoting Evidence-Based Public Policies

By: AIF Staff

Earlier this week, Paul Ryan, the President of the American Idea Foundation and former Speaker of the House, joined the Ronald Reagan Foundation’s “Reaganism Podcast” to discuss how applying the enduring lessons from Reagan’s presidency can help policymakers reinvigorate the American Idea and meet the current challenges facing our nation.

Ryan explained how the American Idea Foundation is championing timeless principles like free-markets, shared prosperity, and limited government that were the hallmark of Reagan’s legacy and still resonate today. Ryan elaborated on how America must renew its commitment to freedom and individual liberty in the face of socialism’s rising popularity and detailed how his Foundation is helping in that fight.

The entire podcast with Speaker Ryan and Roger Zakheim, the Director of the Ronald Reagan Institute, is available here and some highlights follow.

Rethinking our approach to fighting poverty and revitalizing communities:

“I spent four years, before I was Speaker, running around the country with Bob Woodson from the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, just learning and listening from advocates in the poor communities about the struggles and the problems they had and then getting extremely inspired by people who were doing incredible things, and that sort of inspired this agenda that we put in place and actually passed into the law in Congress in the last session.

“This agenda that described is basically to re-leverage the private sector and private charity and private individuals to get back into the game of fighting poverty more successfully. The War on Poverty was obviously a huge effort. Well-intended as it was, it barely moved the needle on poverty and it reinforced this notion in society that this is government’s responsibility and that you, as a private citizen, don’t need to worry about it. You pay your taxes. Government will take care of it and we’ll measure success based on how much money we’re spending, how many programs we have created, and how many people are on those programs.

“Our whole argument here with this with this approach, this Reagan-Kemp type approach that we champion at the American Idea Foundation is let’s measure success based on results and outcomes, on getting people fully out of poverty, and let’s stop segregating the poor and making this just government’s responsibility. Let’s make it our own individual personal responsibilities in each of our communities, and let’s embrace ideas and policies that can that can breathe life into that.”

Highlighting Senator Todd Young’s Social Impact Bond legislation incentivizing investment in distressed communities:

“I just launched the American Idea Foundation this last year. Our first field outing is going to be in Indianapolis with Todd Young, a great Senator who used to be a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, and he authored this Social Impact Bonds legislation, so there’s some center-right poverty policies that we put in place that we will be exploring.

“Social Impact Bonds are a private sector solution where if you see a problem you want to solve, let’s just say: Homelessness in Indianapolis. You will float a bond to pay for this innovative, private sector designed solution that is pre-measured as to what success will look like. and if those metrics of success are met, then the bond pays off in a tax-free way. So, you get private sector investments into a private mission to solve a public good. And if it works, then it pays off. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t. There’s a risk of that, but that’s the whole idea.

“This was a Todd Young initiative, and he got the idea actually from the Brits, from a great Tory named Ian Duncan Smith who put this in place in the Tory government and it was pretty successful. So, what we’re trying to do is say the War on Poverty is not just a government function that says: spend more money, get people hooked up on government programs.

“We’re saying: Let’s do things that are innovative, that integrates the poor, that brings the private sector into bear to solve these problems, and to get some real solutions. So, we’re going to be doing some field visits with the Indiana delegation and things like that are what we’re going to be doing.”

Recent legislative progress provides reasons for continued optimism:

“We ended up with the most productive session of Congress in the last session, which was the 2017- 2018 sessions. It was the most productive session of Congress since Reagan’s first term. We passed over 1000 bills in the House and more than half of those made in the law. It’s about 1178 if I’m thinking correctly off the top my head, so we doubled the production of Congress from its average and the things that you just described: opioids, criminal justice reform, and we had a very good poverty-fighting strategy that we put in place, which I call a center-right solution, and this is what I do work on at the American Idea Foundation.

“We passed Opportunity Zones. We passed Social Impact Bonds. We passed this thing called the Evidence Act, which allows us to use data, analytics, and evidence to prove the principles of upward mobility actually are effective so you can change the way we approach poverty. This is a center-right, uplifting, Reagan-type poverty agenda which we all passed into law this last session of Congress and now we’re deploying these policies.”

Tracing a legacy from Reagan-Era entrepreneurial policies to the American Idea Foundation’s work:

“I spent a lot of time with Jack Kemp, who became a mentor of mine, running around the country in poor communities and watching him proselytize the benefits of capitalism and entrepreneurship and upward mobility in the least of all places, in places that had no Republican whatsoever. We would go to all these places, and just watch Jack Kemp with his infectious enthusiasm, preach about the power of free-market economics and entrepreneurship. It was extremely inspiring….

“So, that’s what my Foundation is going to work on. It is going to take and champion center-right poverty economics, poverty programs like Opportunity Zones, Social Impact Bonds, and this new Evidence Act, which will be a vindication of our principles like work and personal responsibility. And it will work with Members of Congress to make sure that we can take these ideas and these lessons and champion them in the least of all places, in the poorest of the poor communities in America. It’s a non-profit, but it will work with Members of Congress and public officials to go and talk about these principles and these values and these policies so we can build an inclusive society.”

The importance of educating the next generation about the perils of socialism:

“Well, I think, first of all, with the end of the Reagan Presidency – and I came out of college in 1992 – but in 1989 when the Berlin Wall came down, you did not have to convince young people in those days of the benefits of free market economics, which we called supply-side economics at time, or the pitfalls of socialism. There just wasn’t a debate because millions of young people, the same age as me, were teeming out of Eastern Europe decrying the horrible things that socialism brought about for them. So, the case between capitalism and socialism was not a hard one to make in those days.

“It is now. There’s this new, historically ignorant, romantic attachment to socialism among young people these days, which means we have to go back to the basics and relitigate these lessons. Unfortunately, you know, there are a lot of people who aren’t paying attention to history. It kind of seems to me that it’s the product of our success where we are right now. We rested on our laurels for too long.

“But then there’s also the case that like Reagan, after Carter, he brought in Morning in America, a Shining City on the Hill. He brought a great, sunny disposition of optimism toward freedom. And I think the free world is facing new stress tests: I think democracy itself is being stress-tested internally, but also externally by illiberal governments that have just digitized totalitarian regimes. And I think these are new stresses on democracy that present such challenges that you need a Reagan-like attack to this problem. You need a Reagan-like comprehensive plan of action to champion democracy in the 21st century…”

Recent reforms, economic growth provides hope for shared prosperity:

“Well, Trump came in and we put in place our Better Way Agenda, which was this economic plan that we had put together. We ran on it in the 2016 election and put those in place: regulatory relief, tax reform, all these things that we discussed, and it worked. And now you’re having massive wage growth, particularly from poor and lower-middle income workers exceeding inflation. It is the fastest wage growth rates that we’ve had in over a decade. And so, we’re beginning to see it have an impact on kitchen tables. Now it’s been just a couple of years. So, I think we’re going to have to have sort of sustainable economic growth in society. Wage growth, upward mobility to really sort of deny the oxygen from the populism that we see and build upon a Reagan-like kind of momentum….

“We have great economic policies in place. It’s making a huge difference. It’s reigniting upward mobility, but more importantly, it’s reigniting people’s belief and faith in their selves, their future, their economy that the system can work.”

Promoting inclusivity rather than the divisiveness of identity politics: 

“The concern that I used to always have was that identity politics would one day be practiced successfully by the left and would be proven successful, because not since Saul Alinsky wrote about it had it really been successfully deployed. I think Obama play identity politics pretty successfully with 21st century technology, and that was concern number one. Number two, and even more concerning in my mind as a conservative, is the right plays identity politics now, and identity politics typically is dystopian-type politics. It is populism based upon darker emotions: envy, fear, anxiety, that is not Ronald Reagan optimism, inclusion, inspiration. And so, the kind of politics that have been proven successful and that have an incentive to play in this digital age we’re in is identity politics from both the right and the left. And those are by definition politics of division. Identity politics is not the Reagan, optimistic, inclusive kind of politics that I was raised on and that drew me to politics my first place. It’s not the politics that I learned from Jack Kemp, who drew inspiration as a protege of Ronald Reagan, and that’s our challenge these days.”

Being inspired by President Ronald Reagan and his pro-growth economic philosophy:

“We lived on the Rock River in Janesville, Wisconsin and just downstream from us on the river was Dickson, Illinois, and so to my dad, having this guy who grew up in Dickson, a town like Janesville, make it to the presidency of the United States, and an Irish Catholic nonetheless! It was a big deal to my dad. He identified with that and more importantly, it was his philosophy, you know. My parents were not big fans of Jimmy Carter to say the least and my dad was excited about Reagan and excited about his rise. And so, I just could see the enthusiasm my dad had. He wasn’t particularly political really, but the Packers were losing a lot those days so there wasn’t much else to be enthusiastic about.

“I just remember seeing my dad really upset about the Packers’ poor performance in those days and it was just neat to see him get excited about it. I had never seen my Dad put a bumper sticker on a car ever – we were never a very political family – but he had a Reagan bumper sticker on the family car. It was an Oldsmobile ‘98 Regency sedan. I had never seen that before. I really just fell in love with watching Ronald Reagan right at the get go and it made me a fan to begin with…. There are all these Reagan moments that I remember vividly as a kid and it was basically because of my dad’s enthusiasm and excitement about Ronald Reagan that spilled over.” 

Last week, American Idea Foundation President and former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan facilitated a conversation on how the federal government can promote public policies supported by results, data, and evidence.

The discussion centered around some key questions: Why does evidence matter for policy makers? How can we ensure data and analytics are collected and compiled by the federal government and academic organizations and then fed back to practitioners so they can improve their programs? What is the best way to eliminate bias and work to include a diverse array of data sources? How is the federal government utilizing data to meet the challenges facing our communities?

As Speaker Ryan made clear, the American Idea Foundation believes that if evidence and data shape our thinking and if policymakers learn lessons from programs that have demonstrated records of achievement, we can deliver better results in tackling problems and ultimately, improve people’s lives.

Joining Speaker Ryan on stage were Jim Sullivan of the University of Notre Dame’s Lab of Economic Opportunity, Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution, and Nick Hart of the Data Coalition. The three are widely regarded as leaders in pushing organizations and federal agencies to let data and evidence drive programmatic approaches and policy solutions.

The discussion, hosted by the American Enterprise Institute, was covered by C-SPAN and can be viewed in its entirety here. A few excerpts follow.

The Role of the American Idea Foundation in Promoting Evidence-Based Policy:

“The reason why I founded the American Idea Foundation, which focused on fighting poverty, is to try and make that connection with the grassroots level where you have poverty-fighting entrepreneurs who have great ideas and great theories on how to move the needle. They have incredible credibility in their communities, but they don’t quite have the resources they need or the academically rigorous randomized-controlled trials and what not to build programs that can be scaled and replicated. That, to me, is the next wave and that’s what we’re doing at the American Idea Foundation.

“We are trying to make sure that everybody knows each other. You’ve got really sincere, authentic, effective grassroot poverty-fighters who fill a great need and have policy entrepreneurship that you want to encourage. You don’t want to sterilize that entrepreneurship, but you also have this great academic, rigorous new field that can show you have to really make a difference. It can say: Don’t waste time going down rabbit holes that have already been proven not to work. You also have all this private-sector philanthropy out there looking to make a difference but not knowing where to spend the money, so the connections they need to be made here are with the grassroot poverty entrepreneurs and the academics who have spent a lot of time testing theories and evaluating data….

“I really think that what the Evidence Act does is make those connections stick and combine the forces so it is not just a government responsibility but a societal responsibility to really get at the root causes of poverty, to really make a difference so we move the needle on poverty.”

Speaker Ryan on Why Evidence Matters in Polarized Political Environments:

“There are a whole host of influences on public policy. I spent 20 years in Congress working on such things and I think one of the most important influences, if not the most important influence on policy matters, is evidence: Evidence both for and against a proposition…

“People see these massive, partisan, polarizing ideological fights, and they basically get the sense that nothing can happen, nothing can move, nothing can get done. Now, ideology is not a bad thing. It works to order the world into a coherent philosophy. I consider myself an ideologue. But when you take your gaze away from the larger political fights of the day, you end up working up very discreet, very important policy issues that affect a huge number of people. Even in ideological polarizing times, so many good things that can make a huge difference in people’s lives, actually can get done. And I think that this is very, very important.

“There are massive areas of policy that were changed because there was almost overwhelming evidence around a policy change. One of my favorite pieces of this evidence is welfare reform in 1996. Welfare reform in 1996 didn’t happen because Bill Clinton was a moderate and Newt Gingrich forced him to act. Welfare reform in 1996 happened because there was an overwhelming amount of evidence that a work-first approach was the most effective way for improving the lives of those on the old AFDC program…

“So, what does this mean for current policy? Well, when I was Speaker, I can discuss a number of reforms that we passed in law, in large part because of the evidence that was at the core of the legislation on the policies we were considering.

“We got so many things done because we had overwhelming evidence, and we did these things in yes – polarizing times on big, bipartisan votes.”

Ryan on Utilizing Evidence to Promote Effective Public Policies:

“Criminal Justice Reform is a perfect example. Huge momentum for criminal justice reform existed because state-based reforms provided an incredible evidence base that one could reform our justice system while ensuring the safety of our citizens.

“Family First. A massive rewrite of our federal foster care program happened entirely because of state waiver authority showing that prevention was a huge benefit to at-risk youths.

“Pay for Success: With the passage of Social Impact Partnership and the Pay for Success Act, we provided funding for states to partner with the federal government, to identify key metrics for social programs and make payments when results are delivered. What a novel concept!

“One of my favorite programs is MICH-V, Maternal Infant and Childhood Visitation Program. This program was created under the Bush Administration. It was codified under the Obama Administration in the Affordable Care Act, and then it was reauthorized under President Trump.

“Finally, the passage of the Evidence Act, which is what we’re here to talk about today, has been key pushing the federal government into a more proactive stance and developing evaluation capabilities, improving data capabilities, and ensuring that data collected by the government remains secure. I could go on and on, but from areas as varied as education to healthcare, from criminal justice to child welfare, evidence has played a key role in policy development and enactment.

“While the media concentrates on the political day to day, policymakers will continue to pursue policy reforms – based on evidence, that will improve the lives of millions of people in the future.”

Propelled by Evidence, Attitudes Evolve on Criminal Justice Reform:

“I remember in the late 90’s, both parties were interested in cracking down on crime: Three strikes and you’re out. Bill Clinton campaigned on these things, so you basically had a bipartisan movement on criminalizing a lot of these things and frankly, we overreached. But the politics of changing that stance were very, very difficult and it wasn’t until a decade had passed and we started seeing actual evidence – mostly from states, that were showing that we were missing the mark.

“We saw that drug courts were better tools than throwing somebody in jail for 10 years for some kind of non-violent crime. Can you imagine the politics of voting against being tough on crime, whether you are a Republican or a Democrat? I changed my own position from watching this and reading about this, but to be able to not just change your position because you were intellectually convinced but because this was the wrong course and reform was the right course, was really no small feat!

“We passed criminal justice reform this last session and it took us a couple of years to make the effort work, but it was hugely bipartisan when we got it done. I saw that as an amazing example, in a very polarizing political time, where we actually saw that what we had done wasn’t working. We realized there was a better way. The better way was politically precarious but we ended up moving the politics in such a way that it became kind of a no-brainer. So, I guess the question is, what is the next lift like that? Where is data and evidence going to take us?

Ryan on Why Lawmakers should care about Evidence:

“A policymaker sometimes has preconceived notions of what’s right and what’s not, and sometimes they are not correct. I believe you have to have an open mind to look at real evidence and change your opinion as to what makes a difference and what can work. Criminal Justice Reform is an example of that.

“I think you have to have policymakers that have an open mind to looking at evidence and responding to it, but more importantly, I think we are going into the 21^st century where data is going to be all-consuming. Data is going to be everywhere and we are going to be a data-based society. The question is: Are we getting ahead of it? Are we, as policymakers, going to make sure we take proactive measures to guarantee our privacy and to make sure that data goes where we want it to go, to whom we want it to go, and that’s what this is all about.

The data will help you better hone your measurements to make sure that the taxpayer dollars are actually going towards their intended benefit. This is what I would to people: Government is going to do this. Government will be involved in this space. Government will be fighting the War on Poverty forever. We will always be doing these programs, so why don’t we make sure it is effective and let’s try and shrink the size as best we can. I think those practical arguments are buttressed with good data and will help us make sure we get ahead of these things. I just think data and evidence helps you leapfrog what are stubborn, ideological, polarized expositions and gets you through them to make a good difference at the end of the day. We have done this episodically, now I think we have a chance to do it wholesale.”

By: Ted McCann

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and with Senator Elizabeth Warren’s new plan for individuals with disabilities, she has decided to take a page from House Republicans. Even though it is 5 years after the fact, it is encouraging that Senator Warren has decided to publicly support a program design – a benefit offset – that House Republicans insisted be tested when negotiating the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA15). While we continue to wait for the evaluation of the demonstration project created under BBA15, it is a positive step that leading Democrats are finding common ground with Republicans around the idea of ensuring that individuals on the Disability Insurance (DI) program are able to work to their full ability.

Currently, if an individual is on DI, they enter into a confusing morass of well-intentioned programs designed to help them return to work as soon as they reach the “Trial Work Period” level, or receive earnings above $880 per month in 2020. As the chart below makes clear, trying to understand this morass would be trying for anyone. And, the consequences for an individual on DI making a mistake are dire. If the Agency makes a mistake and provides an overpayment, the individual will have to pay back that overpayment. And, worse, if an individual ends up earning more than what is called the ‘Substantial Gainful Activity’ (SGA) limit, or $1260 per month in 2020, then an individual could no longer be eligible for the DI program, which generally includes health care.

Because of these complex rules and benefit cliffs, individuals on DI are understandably hesitant to return to work. In fact, individuals on the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program are more likely to work (though at a lower earnings level) than individuals on the DI program. You would expect that individuals who had a work history, that is, individuals on the DI program, would have a higher work likelihood than individuals without a work history, that is, individuals on the SSI program. One key reason for this lies in how these programs are designed: SSI, rather than having a confusing array of work incentive programs, has a ‘benefit offset’ design. For every dollar above a set-aside threshold an individual earns, they lose $.50 in benefits.

What Senator Warren is proposing is to take the SSI program design and port it into the DI program. Fortunately, there is strong agreement across the aisle to do this. In the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act, then Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee Paul Ryan ensured that the Promoting Opportunity Demonstration project was included, and this demonstration would test how strong a work incentive this program design would be in the DI program. Over 10,000 people have enrolled thus far, and the expectation is that we will see results by June 2021.

It is encouraging that Senator Warren has joined her Republicans colleagues in supporting this program design. While there remain differences between the two – namely, where does one set the threshold to begin the ‘benefit offset’ – disability policy remains an area of great possibility. Individuals with disabilities are ill-served by the current system, which locks them into a life where they all too often have to choose between maintaining access to the DI program, or integrating more broadly into the workforce. Allowing individuals on DI to continue to pursue their American dream should remain an important policy goal for the future.