Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Data Integration Governance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

House committee hears plan for 'Data RI' integrated state data system, oversight and staff

2322260 · February 11, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Committee members reviewed a budget article that would codify an integrated state data system, require agency participation under a single oversight board, add several staff positions and formalize coordination between the state longitudinal data system and the EOHHS data ecosystem.

The House Committee on Finance reviewed a governor's budget article that would codify an integrated statewide data system — described in testimony as "Data RI" — to link the state longitudinal education‑workforce data and the Executive Office of Health and Human Services' data ecosystem under shared governance and common policies.

Sharon (staff member) told the committee the proposal codifies an earlier executive order, creates a central repository for interagency longitudinal linked and individual data, and envisions a single board co‑chaired by the commissioner of post‑secondary education and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. "The board would be co chaired by the commissioner of post secondary education and the Secretary of Health and Human Services," Sharon said, adding that the article would require statewide agency participation "to the extent that's practical and permissible under law."

Bridal Daniels, director of the Office of Management and Budget, said budget items accompanying the article include requests to transfer some restricted receipts and to align certain operating transfers with targeted programs. Jonathan Wilmer, director of the Department of Administration, said the state has created a chief data officer and that the proposal would put a single governance board in place for overlapping long‑running data efforts. "We really thought it was important to codify the fact to have 1 overarching policy board," Wilmer said.

Rebecca Labeaux, director of data and analytics at the Executive Office of Health and Human Services, described the analyst roles the article would support. "The analysts are doing high level analytics that allow us to create reports and dashboards for the state to help us with, you know, policies and anything that's high level priority at the state level," Labeaux said.

The budget proposal asks for six new full‑time equivalent positions spread among the Office of the Postsecondary Commissioner, the state's Enterprise Technology Strategy and Services (ETSS) unit, and EOHHS; staff testified the plan envisions repurposing some existing contractor roles into state positions to retain institutional knowledge. Funding sources listed in testimony include internal service billings at ETSS, partial federal match for some EOHHS positions, general revenue for software at the Office of the Postsecondary Commissioner, and some carryforward funds from the earlier longitudinal data system.

Committee members raised questions about data access and security. Jonathan Wilmer said the plan's technical and governance goals include reducing redundant copies of data across agencies and using a federated infrastructure so each program can keep control of its data while allowing secure sharing. On outside access, Wilmer and Rebecca Labeaux said most work would remain internal to state agencies; external researchers could sometimes be permitted after a vetting and anonymization process tied to federal grant requirements. "There is a scenario in the long run where, you know, we could work with outside researchers, but that would have to be highly vetted," Wilmer said.

Why this matters: testimony framed Data RI as a step to improve policy analysis, transparency and program evaluation across education, workforce and health programs, and to support state evaluations such as assessments of higher‑education affordability and scholarship effectiveness. Proponents described potential program‑efficiency and fraud‑analytics savings but did not present a formal cost‑benefit analysis during the hearing.

Ending: Committee members indicated interest in follow‑up on governance, security and procurement details. The transcript shows questions and answers but no formal vote on the article in the provided segment.