1

Frequently Asked Questions Related to the Commission on Evidence-Based 

Policymaking’s Report

General

What is the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking and what was it charged to do?

The U.S. Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking was established by the bipartisan 

Evidence-Based Policymaking Commission Act of 2016 (P.L. 114-140), jointly sponsored by 

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and Senator Patty Murray and signed by President Barack 

Obama on March 30, 2016. The Act directed the Commission to consider how to strengthen 

government’s evidence-building and policymaking efforts. Specifically, the Act directed the 

Commission to study how the data that government already collects can be used to improve 

government programs and policies. The Commission was directed to submit to the Congress 

and the President a detailed statement of its findings and recommendations. The Commission 

submitted its final report, The Promise of Evidence-Based Policymaking, on September 7, 2017.

How did the Commission develop its findings and recommendations?

The Commission held its first public meeting in July 2016. Over the course of the following 

eight months, the Commission studied issues about the current state of evidence production and 

use in the Federal government as well as the Federal government’s policies and practices to 

protect data confidentiality. The Commission’s fact-finding process included:

 7 public meetings with a total of 49 invited witnesses

 3 public hearings with a total of 39 members of the public presenting information to 

the Commission

 Additional meetings and input from more than 40 organizations

 Over 350 responses to a Request for Comments in the Federal Register, and 

 A survey of 209 Federal offices that generate or use evidence. 

Following the formal stakeholder input processes, the Commission compiled and reviewed the 

body of information collected, developing findings and recommendations. 

Did all Commissioners agree with the recommendations?

Yes. All 15 Commissioners cast votes in the affirmative, approving the findings and 

recommendations in the final report.

What is the Commission hoping to achieve with these recommendations?

The Commission’s recommendations in the Promise of Evidence-Based Policymaking represent a 

comprehensive strategy for tackling the greatest problems facing evidence building today: 

unintentional limits on data access, inadequate privacy practices, and insufficient capacity to 

generate the amount of quality evidence needed to support policy decisions. The Commission 

envisions a future in which rigorous evidence is created efficiently, as a routine part of 

government operations, and used to construct effective public policy. With its 
2

recommendations, the Commission hopes to make this vision a reality. The Commission 

believes that advances in technology and statistical methodology, coupled with a modern legal 

framework and a commitment to transparency, make it possible to do this while simultaneously 

providing stronger protections for privacy and confidentiality of the people, businesses, and 

organizations from which the government collects information. 

How will the American people benefit from implementation of these recommendations?

The American people are best served by a government that functions efficiently and responsibly 

to address the problems that face this country. Today, too little evidence is generated to support 

policy decisions in government. Fully implementing the Commission’s recommendations will 

lead to substantial progress in addressing the greatest challenges for generating more and better 

evidence for our society: unintentional limits on data access, inadequate privacy practices, and 

insufficient capacity to generate the amount of quality evidence needed to support policy 

decisions. 

What is the difference between statistical, administrative, and nonstatistical data?

The Commission recognizes that different types of data merit different types of protections and 

involve different types of uses. Administrative data are generally those collected by programs for 

the purpose of operating the programs for nonstatistical purposes. These types of nonstatistical 

data are useful for evidence building but are primarily collected for activities such as 

administering a program, determining benefits, or enforcing laws. In contrast, statistical data are 

those collected and used for statistical purposes, specifically generating statistics and conducting 

analyses without identifying individuals or organizations that comprise groups. Administrative 

and nonstatistical data can be used for statistical purposes, but statistical data can never be used 

for nonstatistical purposes due to a concept called “functional separation.” 

Source: Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking

Did the Commission propose principles for evidence-based policymaking?

Yes. In developing its recommendations, the Commission developed five guiding principles that 

helped shape the strategy proposed in The Promise of Evidence-Based Policymaking. The principles 

include the following:
3

 Privacy. Individual privacy and confidentiality must be respected in the generation and 

use of data and evidence. 

 Rigor. Evidence should be developed using well-designed and well-implemented 

methods tailored to the questions being asked. 

 Transparency. Those engaged in generating and using data and evidence should 

operate transparently, providing meaningful channels for public input and comment 

and ensuring that evidence produced is made publicly available. 

 Humility. Care should be taken not to over-generalize from findings that may be 

specific to a particular study or context. 

 Capacity. The capacity to generate and use data and evidence should be integrated 

within government institutions and adequately funded and staffed.

National Secure Data Service

What is the National Secure Data Service (NSDS)?

The National Secure Data Service (NSDS) is a solution proposed by the Commission to address

existing gaps in the Federal government’s capacity to enable consistent, transparent, and 

accountable secure access to data. It is an entity that should (1) support secure access to 

confidential datasets in a setting that meets stringent protection standards, (2) be responsible for 

developing and implementing state-of-the-art methods to safely combine data for evidence 

building, and (3) develop and apply cutting-edge technologies for creating privacy-protective 

versions of combined datasets. The Commission recommends that the NSDS be designated as a 

Principal Statistical Agency and be provided with the powers and exemptions necessary to use, 

for statistical purposes, data collected by other agencies. 

Is the National Secure Data Service a data clearinghouse or warehouse? 

No, the NSDS is not recommended as a data clearinghouse or a data warehouse. The EvidenceBased Policymaking Commission Act of 2016 charged the Commission with considering 

whether the country needed a data “clearinghouse.” While not defined in the statute, the term 

“clearinghouse” evokes images of past proposals, including the Kaysen Committee’s Data Bank 

proposal in the 1960s, and connotes a data storage facility that permanently stores records from 

multiple databases from multiple agencies and, therefore grows with each new data linkage. The 

Commission rejects the clearinghouse model in favor of the NSDS model. The NSDS should be 

designed to link data on an individual project basis only. In contrast to a clearinghouse, it should 

not lead to the establishment of a store of data that grows with every research project 

conducted. The data linked for a project through the NSDS should be kept structurally separate 

from other data linked through the NSDS for other projects. Also, the proposed 1960s Data 

Bank could have been used for diverse purposes; the NSDS would be limited to exclusively 

statistical purposes. By strictly enforcing this design, the NSDS will further the goal of increased 

access to and use of data for specific research and evaluation efforts, while protecting against 

privacy harm.
4

Can the National Secure Data Service be used for nonstatistical activities? 

No. According to the Commission’s vision, the NSDS will temporarily link and provide secure 

access to data for projects conducted for exclusively statistical purposes. Further, the NSDS 

would be limited to approved projects by approved researchers.

How will the National Secure Data Service promote transparency?

The National Secure Data Service (NSDS) is intended to be a center for unparalleled 

transparency about government uses of confidential data for exclusively statistical purposes. The 

NSDS will make information about data sensitivity, risk assessments for public release of deidentified confidential data, and individual evidence-building projects available in ways that 

exceed previous transparency and accountability for evidence building in the United States. 

Specifically, the NSDS will achieve this by developing and maintaining a transparency portal that 

gives the public details about each project using integrated confidential data for evidence 

building and each external researcher accessing confidential data for evidence building. The 

transparency portal will also feature a public inventory of data available for evidence building, 

including an analysis of the sensitivity of the data, and publicly available risk assessments for the 

public release of de-identified confidential data. The portal will also include a mechanism for 

public feedback. Once established, the transparency portal will provide a valuable resource for 

the public to understand how data are being used for evidence building. 

Privacy

How do your recommendations improve privacy?

The Commission believes the existing Fair Information Practice Principles that guide the Federal 

government’s privacy policy should similarly guide the use of data for evidence-based 

policymaking, in accordance with the Commission’s guiding principles. By considering each of 

the Fair Information Practice Principles in the context of evidence building, the Commission has 

taken an ethical approach to data use that addresses both privacy and the need to generate 

accurate and reliable evidence. Taken as a whole, the Commission’s recommendations address 

transparency, individual participation, purpose specification, data minimization, use limitation, 

data quality and integrity, security, and accountability and auditing. 

How is it possible to both increase the use of data and improve privacy? 

Throughout its deliberations, the Commission prioritized consideration of privacy on behalf of 

the American public. Based on the information gathered during the fact-finding process, the 

Commission determined that greater use of existing data is now possible in conjunction with 

stronger privacy and legal protections, as well as increased transparency and accountability. 

Advances in technology and statistical methodology offer new opportunities to improve 

protections for the privacy and confidentiality of the people, businesses, and organizations from 

which the government collects data while simultaneously increasing access to confidential data 

for evidence building. Improved access to data under more privacy-protective conditions can 

enable an increase in both the quantity and the quality of evidence that can be securely generated 

to inform important program and policy decisions. This expanded access can be achieved 
5

through a modernized legal framework designed to improve the government’s capacity to use 

data already collected through standardizing access to data for statistical purposes in a secure 

environment and the facilitation of temporary data linkages.

Access

How do your recommendations improve secure access to confidential data?

The Commission makes a number of recommendations to address barriers to the effective use 

of government data to generate evidence. Reducing these barriers will improve secure access to 

confidential data. First, the Commission recommends establishing a National Secure Data 

Service (NSDS) to facilitate access to confidential data for evidence building and ensuring that 

the NSDS has the appropriate authority to acquire data for evidence building while adhering to 

stringent privacy qualifications. Second, the Commission recommends Congress review laws 

authorizing Federal data collection and use to ensure limited access to administrative and survey 

data is possible under strict privacy controls. The Commission also makes recommendations 

about ensuring that state-collected administrative data are available for statistical purposes. 

Finally, the Commission recommends that the Office of Management and Budget reduce the 

unnecessary or unintended administrative hurdles related to data access by developing a uniform 

process for external researchers to apply and qualify for secure access to confidential 

government data for evidence-building purposes. 

Capacity

How do your recommendations improve government’s capacity to build evidence?

Today, Federal government infrastructure to generate more high quality evidence is insufficient. 

The Commission’s recommendations seek to improve capacity within the Federal evidencebuilding community. The recommendations also seek to encourage individuals outside of the 

Federal government, including non-governmental researchers, philanthropic organizations, 

universities, and other partners, to work with Federal agencies to expand capacity. The 

Commission’s recommendations for Federal departments seek to ensure the capacity of all 

departments to carry out and coordinate the development of statistics, program evaluation, and 

policy research for the purposes of evidence building. The Commission also recommends the 

establishment of a Chief Evaluation Officer within each department to focus on strengthening 

the program evaluation capacity of departments and to spearhead the development of a 

“learning agenda” for the purposes of short- and long-term evidence-building priorities for each 

department. Furthermore, the Commission recommends that the Office of Management and 

Budget strengthen its internal capacity to coordinate the Federal government’s evidence-building 

activities across government, and that administrative processes be better aligned to support 

evidence building.