2020

With the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, governors and state leaders have increasingly turned to data to guide their decision-making. All state governments publicly shared data on their COVID-19 emergency response dashboards, but states with a comprehensive data infrastructure (Criteria 3 Data Leadership; Criteria 4 Data Policies/Agreements; and Criteria 5 Data Use) had an enhanced ability to leverage a data-driven response.

COVID-19 Data Dashboards

The 2019 State Standard of Excellence identified 12 states with significant public-facing performance management systems. However, in 2020, all 50 states launched COVID-19 dashboards to monitor public health data and emergency response services. This alone constitutes a significant step forward for state governments’ use of data-driven policymaking.

Moreover, as of July 2020, 18 governors (nearly all of them from states highlighted in the 2020 State Standard of Excellence) had publicly committed to taking a data-driven and/or evidence-based approach in their COVID-19 response. Through daily press briefings, governors reaffirmed their state’s commitment to a response grounded in facts, science, and data. In regional plans, governors agreed to coordinate re-opening efforts and frequently share data as hotspots emerged. These actions respond to the public demand for data transparency, as well as the public’s desire that their governors and state leaders rely on data to make decisions. A recent national poll commissioned by Results for America and conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago found that 92% of Americans believe policymakers should seek the best evidence and data available when making decisions.

Beyond these efforts, several states took a comprehensive approach by outfitting their data dashboards with highly detailed information on economic, health, and demographic indicators. For example, Colorado’s COVID-19 dashboard features extensive data on hospitals, outbreaks, surveillance efforts, and the incidence and epidemic curve (see Colorado example in Criteria 5). Minnesota’s COVID Response Capacity Tracker monitors hospital surge capacity, child care capacity, and COVID-19 response funding in addition to economic and food security metrics, critical care supplies, dial back indicators, and demographic details (see Minnesota example in Criteria 2). In both states, these data informed governors’ actions and are leveraged to drive everyday decisions during the pandemic.

Minnesota’s race/ethnicity data dashboard publishes demographic COVID-19 data by age, gender, and race/ethnicity; this approach was mirrored in 45 other states that also released demographic data about COVID-19 cases. The use of these disaggregated data allows states to identify disproportionately impacted communities, in particular, communities of color. For example, Virginia’s COVID-19’s Health Equity Work Group (see Virginia example in Criteria 13) leveraged geospatial data to provide testing and personal protective equipment in communities typically underserved by government programs. These data enable states to tailor their response activities in equity-informed ways. States are also encouraging community engagement and civic innovation by publicly posting open data daily on state websites in Massachusetts, Washington, Connecticut, and more.

States Leverage Data to Support Pandemic Response Efforts

All 50 states publicly posted coronavirus data, but states with the ability to link, share, and integrate data were well-positioned to incorporate data insights into their response efforts. For example, InnovateOhio’s statewide data-sharing and integration platform (see Ohio example in Criteria 4), gave Ohio a head start by providing rapid, actionable COVID-19 data to decision-makers. By using an existing infrastructure, the state obtained vital information, such as hospital capacity, more quickly by turning quarterly data deadlines into daily data reports.

Connecticut’s statewide data infrastructure helped the state leverage existing data-sharing agreements to match student and SNAP data, enabling students to directly receive SNAP Pandemic EBT food benefits with no application necessary (see Connecticut example in Criteria 5). Similarly, in administering the federal COVID-19 Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program, Rhode Island’s Department of Labor and Training launched an improved cloud-based system to manage the surge in unemployment claims. This system enabled Rhode Island, a model for other states, to be among the first states in the country to allocate Pandemic Unemployment Assistance benefits in the face of record-high unemployment claims (see Rhode Island example in Criteria 4). Prior to the pandemic, Virginia’s Chief Data Officer spearheaded the creation of a roadmap for enhanced data integration and use that allowed an existing cross-agency data platform, initially launched to coordinate the opioid crisis , to be enhanced for the COVID-19 response (see Virginia examples in Criteria 3, 4, and 5). These efforts demonstrate how states were able to use existing data infrastructure to rapidly provide or expand services and benefits during the COVID-19 crisis.

States have also positioned themselves to leverage evidence and data infrastructure as part of the budget process. This approach to using evidence in fiscal decisions can foster innovation, build evidence of program effectiveness, and fund evidence-based programs that improve services for residents. With many states facing unprecedented budgetary decisions as a result of the COVID-19-induced recession, some states featured in the State Standard of Excellence have developed the capacity to invest in evidence-based programs to deliver better outcomes for residents.

For example, Colorado’s FY 2020-2021 budget development instructions (pp. 10-12) required agencies to describe the evidence and body of research supporting any new program (see Colorado example in Criteria 9). Minnesota also issued guidance on identifying evidence in budget proposals, which led to $87 million invested in new or expanded evidence-based programs in the FY 2020-2021 budget (see Minnesota example in Criteria 9). In 2019, the New Mexico legislature defined four tiers of evidence and required select agencies to identify their investments in evidence-based programs. As a result, the state legislature recommended more than $13.6 million in additional spending for evidence-based human services programs (see New Mexico example in Criteria 9).

Tennessee, North Carolina, and Rhode Island demonstrated progress in leveraging evidence in their budget processes. North Carolina’s budget process encouraged departments to identify and develop evidence-focused budget proposals (see North Carolina example in Criteria 9). Tennessee’s Office of Evidence and Impact, founded in 2019, spearheaded an increased use of evidence and research in the state budget process (see Tennessee examples in Criteria 6 and Criteria 9). In Rhode Island, the FY 2021 budget instructions required agencies to describe program effectiveness and improvement of outcomes, rather than simply reporting activities and outputs (see Rhode Island example in Criteria 9). Collectively, these examples signaled a growing commitment across the country to leverage evidence in budget decisions in order to achieve improved results.