The U.S. has the highest rate of maternal mortality among developed nations. Since 1987, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has administered the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System to better understand when, where and why maternal deaths occur.
In April, President Donald Trump’s administration put the department in charge of collecting and tracking this data on leave.
It’s just one example of how the administration is deleting and disrupting American data of all kinds.
The White House is also collecting less information about everything from how many Americans have health insurance to the number of students enrolled in public schools, and making government-curated data of all kinds off-limits to the public. Trump is also trying to get rid of entire agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Education, that are responsible for collecting important data tied to poverty and inequality.
His administration has also begun deleting websites and repositories that share government data with the public.
I study the role that data plays in political decision-making, including when and how government officials decide to collect it. Through years of research, I’ve found that good data is essential – not just for politicians but for journalists, advocates and voters. Without it, it’s much harder to figure out when a policy is failing, and even more difficult to help people who aren’t politically well connected.
Since Trump was sworn in for a second time, I have been keeping an eye on the disruption, removal and defunding of data on safety net programs such as food assistance and services for people with disabilities.
I believe that disrupting data collection will make it harder to figure out who qualifies for these programs, or what happens when people lose their benefits. I also think that all this missing data will make it harder for supporters of safety net programs to rebuild them in the future.
There’s no way to find out whether policies and programs are working without credible data collected over a long period of time.
Many institutions and organizations, such as universities, news organizations, think tanks and nonprofits focused on particular issues such as poverty and inequality or housing, collect data on the impact of safety net policies on low-income Americans.
No doubt these nongovernmental data collection efforts will continue, and maybe even increase. However, it’s highly unlikely that these independent efforts can replace any of the government’s data collection programs.
The government, because it takes the lead in implementing official policies, is in a unique position to collect and store sensitive data collected over long periods of time. That’s why the disappearance of thousands of official websites can have very long-term consequences.
As early as the 1930s, U.S. social scientists and local policymakers realized the potential for data to show which policies were working and which were a waste of money. Since then, policymakers across the political spectrum have grown increasingly interested in using data to make government work better.
This focus on data grew starting in 2001, when President George W. Bush made holding government accountable to measurable outcomes a top priority.
He saw data as a powerful tool for reducing waste and assessing policy outcomes. His signature education reform, the No Child Left Behind Act, radically expanded the collection and reporting of student achievement data at K-12 public schools.
Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden emphasized the importance of data for evaluating the impact of their policies on low-income people, who have historically had little political clout.
Blocking data collection may also make restoring government funding after a program gets cut or shut down even more challenging. That’s because it will be more challenging for people who in the past benefited from these programs to persuade their fellow taxpayers that there is a need for investing in an expanding program or creating a new one.
Without enough data, even well-intended policies in the future may worsen the very problems they’re meant to fix, long after the Trump administration has concluded.
Sarah James is an assistant professor in the Political Science Department at Gonzaga University. Distributed by The Conversation and the Associated Press.
