State Data Sharing Initiative Promoting Evidence-Based Policymaking: Expanding Access to Administrative Data Haden Springer Senior Program Manager Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness Forum on New Jersey’s P20W Longitudinal Data System New Brunswick, New Jersey December 2, 2016 Thank you for having me. I am thrilled to be here to share some very exciting work that our organization, the Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness, is engaged in that I think is key to reaping the long-term benefits of longitudinal data systems throughout the nation.

Some Context: CREC Mission Workforce Development Economic Development Policy Analysis Program Evaluation State Data Sharing Initiative Since its founding in 2000, CREC has sought to provide policy makers with the information and technical assistance they need to formulate and execute innovative, regional economic and workforce development strategies. We do this by providing data-driven policy analysis and program evaluation support. Our recent experiences conducting studies on state employment and wage data sharing, and evaluating business incentive programs across the country has convinced us that using third-party validated data—such as those represented by administrative records created from payroll and corporate tax transactions—for appropriate policy analysis and program evaluation is key to ensuring that public economic and workforce development programs produce the returns promised. To do this requires access to micro-data contained in UI and corporate tax records through intra-state data sharing agreements. So, with support from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, we’ve launched the two-year State Data Sharing Initiative, SDS for short.

5B’s: Making the Case for Data Sharing 1. Better Data 2. Better Access 3. Better Analysis 4. Better Decisions 5. Better Outcomes Data Sharing The SDS Initiative is based on a simple 5-step logic. Better Data First, there is growing recognition that administrative records contain valuable information that could support policy analysis and program evaluation.   Better Access Second, if we can increase understanding of the laws that protect administrative records and govern access to them, we can help leaders create secure pathways to appropriate and efficient data access. Better Analysis Third, with access to microdata, agencies and researchers can conduct more rigorous policy analysis and program evaluations. Better Decisions Fourth, leaders provided with more rigorous impact assessments can make more informed decisions about public investments. Better Outcomes And fifth, leaders able to make more evidence-based, data-driven decisions can result in better outcomes for public program participants and communities. Data Sharing In order to achieve these gains, state agencies must collaborate through data sharing.

State Data Sharing Initiative (SDS) Mission: Improve public program outcomes by enabling evidence-based policy-making through greater sharing of administrative records for rigorous analysis and evaluation purposes. Goals: Raise awareness of the value of administrative records. Deepen understanding of laws that protect administrative data. Build upon existing data governance and management process models. Foster collaboration between state leaders and agencies to improve access to microdata. Mission: The SDS Initiative seeks to improve public policy program outcomes by enabling evidence-based policymaking through greater sharing of state administrative records in support of rigorous policy analysis and program evaluation. While our efforts are focused on economic and workforce development, they could also inform broader policy areas, including education, health, and criminal justice policy. SDS has four primary goals that emphasize: Broad-based education on the value of administrative records and importance of data sharing, Deepening understanding of the legal infrastructure around data sharing, Leveraging model data governance and management systems already in place in some states, and Creating collaborative environments in sates that will support expanded access to microdata.

SDS Strategy Research – Laws, regulations, policies, & practices: Studies Presentations Technical Assistance – Case examples and resources: 5 state-specific efforts Data sharing tools/website Better Data. Better Access. Better Analysis. Our strategy is two-fold, involving a broad research effort and more targeted technical assistance, which includes state-specific projects and development of nationally applicable data sharing tools and resources. Today, I would like to share some of the key findings of our research phase with you. Better Decisions. Better Outcomes.

SDS Research Objectives Better Data. Assess the value of administrative microdata for policy analysis and program evaluation. What data is available? What questions can the data help answer? What are the benefits and limitations of using this data? Better Access. Analyze legal and policy approaches states use to protect and govern access to administrative data. What do state confidentiality laws and regulations say? What data sharing policies/ practices do states follow? To start, we had to investigate the policy analysis and evaluation “potential” of administrative data. Some key questions we sought to answer included: What data actually exists? In other words, what pieces of data are contained in administrative records, and which ones could support more rigorous evaluation. What questions can the data help answer? Regardless of the data set, whether confidential or not, we stress the importance of recognizing what different data sets can and cannot tell us. What are the benefits and limitations of using this data? Versus another data source, such as sample surveys. Once we had a better understanding of the value of the data, we needed to better understand how different states address data confidentiality and disclosure in law and policy. Some key questions here included understanding: What state confidentiality laws and regulations say about data confidentiality, appropriate disclosures, and data sharing? And Which data sharing policies and practices do states follow? And which ones lend themselves to secure and efficient access to data for policy analysis and program evaluation.

Using Microdata: Benefits & Challenges Better Analysis. Benefits Relatively comprehensive Longitudinal analysis capability Reduced burden on companies Significant cost savings for government Challenges Legal and regulatory restrictions/interpretations Process management limitations Technical difficulties Data sharing climate/ cultural differences We find that the microdata contained in both UI and corporate tax records can answer many key questions about regional labor market and economic conditions, and public program performance. Our research also highlights a number of benefits and challenges associated with utilizing microdata. We find that UI and Corporate Tax data are most valuable to program evaluators and analysts because they: Are relatively complete (because companies are required to respond), and Regularly collected, making longitudinal data analysis possible. Expanding access to this data for appropriate program evaluation and policy analysis purposes could: Reduce the burden on companies that are frequently asked to complete surveys by state workforce and economic development agencies to collect information already reported, and Lower administrative costs to government associated with managing those surveys. Some of the major challenges our research revealed include: Legal and regulatory restrictions/interpretations There is a lot of variation in federal and state data confidentiality laws and regulations, some of which may seem to be in conflict with one another, As well as inconsistent interpretations of laws and regulations across and within different agencies.   In addition, there are a number of process management limitations, such as Bureaucratic approval processes and poorly documented administrative policies, and Limited staff capacity to respond to an increasing number of data sharing requests Technical difficulties, such as Finding common identifiers to protect personally identifiable information and linking different data sets are also challenges. And there are also significant data sharing climate/cultural differences in many cases, including: Insufficient awareness about the potential direct and indirect benefit of engaging in data sharing. Concerns over the potential risks, whether real or perceived, and the consequences of an unauthorized disclosure or data breach. Reservations about the capabilities of data requestors to analyze and protect confidential data. So now, I would like to focus in on our analysis of state UI and Corporate Tax Data Confidential Laws and Regulations.

Analyzing Laws & Regulations Objective Compare legal approaches applied by states to protect data and permit access. Methodology Apply Data Confidentiality Framework Extract Relevant Language Assign Specificity Rating Data Confidentiality Framework Definition Authority Purposes Parties Elements Content Requirements Safeguards Payment Provisions Penalties UI: 20 C.F.R. § 603 CT: 26 U.S.C. § 6103 Better Access. As I mentioned, one of our primary research objectives was to analyze and compare different state UI and Corporate Tax Data Confidentiality Laws and Regulations. The goal of the exercise was to get a better sense of the potential impacts of these laws on data sharing for policy analysis and program evaluation, with emphasis on workforce and economic development programs. To do this, we developed an analytical framework comprised of nine data confidentiality questions that agencies that collect administrative data must ask themselves before disclosing that data to other groups. And these questions are derived from the basic tenants of the guiding federal regulations on UI and CT data confidentiality. All laws and regulations we collected were analyzed along these nine lines of questioning. For each question, we assigned one of three potential “specificity ratings” based on how generally or specifically the law addressed the question. Options included: Detailed Explanation – Meaning, the law includes specific language on the issue. Broad Mention—For cases where the law includes only a general reference to the issue. Or Not Addressed—If the law contains no information about the issue. Using this framework, we were able make state-to-state comparisons of the different legal approaches that states are applying to protect and permit access to confidential microdata.

Key Findings: Laws & Regulations Analysis For our analysis, we contacted departments of revenue and labor market information offices in all 50 states to request citations for any state laws and regulations that address UI and CT data confidentiality, and we were successful in collecting 39 UI laws and 35 CT laws from a total of 46 states. The tables here present key findings from our analysis of all UI and Corporate Tax Laws and Regulations collected. When we compared how states’ UI and CT laws lined up with one another, we found some interesting trends: First, the purposes and parties categories are the only 2 categories where some level of detail is provided across all state UI and CT laws. Second, penalties are almost always addressed on both sides, and with a high degree of specificity. Third, you will notice that in both UI and CT laws and regulations, instances of “not addressed” are most frequent in the categories related to disclosure process management. Study results for all laws collected and analyzed, including “relevant language” from each law, will be available in an interactive database on the project website, which will launch in the coming weeks. 2013 New Jersey Revised Statutes Title 43 - PENSIONS AND RETIREMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION Section 43:21-11 - Administration. (g) All records, reports and other information obtained from employers and employees under this chapter, except to the extent necessary for the proper administration of this chapter, shall be confidential and shall not be published or open to public inspection other than to public employees in the performance of their public duties, and shall not be subject to subpoena or admissible in evidence in any civil action or proceeding other than one arising under this chapter, but any claimant at a hearing before an appeal tribunal, the division or the board of review shall be supplied with information from such records to the extent necessary for the proper presentation of his claim. Any officer or employee of the department who violates any provision of this section shall be liable to a fine of $ 200.00, to be recovered in a civil action in the name of the division, said fine when recovered to be paid to the unemployment compensation auxiliary fund for the use of said fund. Also, whenever a decision is made to grant access to UI data/records, the Department will execute a data sharing agreement with the requestor to outline what will be made available and for how long.  We have a general template used for these agreements that I can send if you feel that will be helpful also. 39 Laws & Regulations 35 Laws & Regulations

Advancing Data Sharing Educate state leaders on the value of administrative records and data sharing. Revisit antiquated sate data confidentiality laws and regulations. Deepen agency-level understanding that protecting and sharing data are not mutually exclusive. Help streamline data sharing policies and processes across state agencies. Better Decisions. Finally, we have some thoughts about actions that need to be taken in many states to advance data sharing and ensure that longitudinal data systems can be sustained and improved over time. There is an enormous amount of education about the value of administrative data and data sharing needed. Many state laws, written in the 80’s and early 90’s, need to be revisited to ensure that they are relevant in the information age. There is also a need for extensive agency-level education to help decision-makers and staff understand that disclosing data for appropriate purposes, while upholding the highest standards of data confidentiality, is not impossible. And finally, providing support to agencies to help streamline data sharing policies and processes is critical.

Next Steps Technical Assistance 5 multi-agency state initiatives IA Case example dissemination Data Sharing Tools Tax Data Comparison Tool Confidentiality Laws & Regulations Database Data Sharing Toolkit IA SC MN UT WI Better Outcomes. So where is the SDS Initiative headed now? Over the next 11 months, we will be working with five competitively selected, multi-agency teams from Iowa, Minnesota, South Carolina, Utah, and Wisconsin to help them implement efforts to move the needle on data sharing in their own states, and to hopefully provide case examples to support changes in other states around the country. We are also building out a suite of online tools that will help data sharing stakeholder quickly learn What “evaluation-relevant” data is out there, How different states are addressing data sharing in law, And to provide data sharing resources, such as model language for data sharing agreements and legislation. So, this is what CREC is doing to support data sharing, and we would be delighted to learn more about other states’ data sharing challenges and opportunities.

State Data Sharing Initiative Thank You Haden Springer Sr. Program Manager hspringer@crec.net Incase audience asks about NJ UI Data Confidentiality Laws 2013 New Jersey Revised Statutes Title 43 - PENSIONS AND RETIREMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION Section 43:21-11 - Administration. (g) All records, reports and other information obtained from employers and employees under this chapter, except to the extent necessary for the proper administration of this chapter, shall be confidential and shall not be published or open to public inspection other than to public employees in the performance of their public duties, and shall not be subject to subpoena or admissible in evidence in any civil action or proceeding other than one arising under this chapter, but any claimant at a hearing before an appeal tribunal, the division or the board of review shall be supplied with information from such records to the extent necessary for the proper presentation of his claim. Any officer or employee of the department who violates any provision of this section shall be liable to a fine of $ 200.00, to be recovered in a civil action in the name of the division, said fine when recovered to be paid to the unemployment compensation auxiliary fund for the use of said fund. Also, whenever a decision is made to grant access to UI data/records, the Department will execute a data sharing agreement with the requestor to outline what will be made available and for how long.  We have a general template used for these agreements that I can send if you feel that will be helpful also.