The tool is a 17-question data assessment that encourages agencies to respond to the assessment as a team and support their answers with relevant documentation. Rather than producing a single score, potentially shaming agencies, it produces an overview of their maturity level and highlights areas for growth.
“You’ll know what's happening, where the weak spots are,” said Milda Aksamitauskas, a fellow of the State Chief Data Officers Network, the group that led the direction of the tool. “You can take it to the governor or to the budget director and say, ‘Look, we assessed our state. These are the weakest areas that I propose investing money in or hiring additional people.”
Although this model of the tool was designed to capture statewide data maturity, other agencies are welcome to use the tool. According to the Beeck Center, since its launch less than a month ago they’ve already received four assessments: a statewide assessment from Oregon, and three from sub-agencies in South Dakota and Arizona.
WHY DATA MATURITY MATTERS
The rationale behind this tool is rooted in the significant disparity between the private sector's capacity to invest in high-priced data assessments and the budgetary limitations typically faced by government agencies. As artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning become increasingly woven into the fabric of government operations, a mature data governance program has transformed from a desirable advantage to an essential prerequisite.
The hope is that the free tool can serve as a bargaining piece that will help convince state leaders who aren’t as familiar with data management what is required to develop a mature data governance. It provides a common language for conversations with decision-makers who may not fully grasp the complexities of data management, helping to bridge the knowledge gap and secure vital support.
The assessment framework has five key components:
- Commitment: Evaluating budgetary support for a chief data officer (CDO) office and dedicated data resources
- Data talent pipeline: Assessing the state's efforts to cultivate data skills through job descriptions and training programs
- Data action plan: Examining the existence and effectiveness of statewide data strategies, inventories and individual agency plans
- Data sharing: Investigating the presence of advanced data-sharing agreements or data trusts to facilitate collaboration and innovation
- Data analysis: Assessing investments in data tools, integration efforts and the ability to derive actionable insights
“I think it might surprise them if states really pull up a team to answer questions, and they hold each other accountable and don’t paint too rosy a picture,” said Aksamitauskas. “I think they may find that certain aspects aren’t so black or white and they could actually find some creative ways to really invest in certain areas to achieve all the goals in protecting and using data, but also knowing what they have.”
HOW THE ASSESSMENT WORKS
The tool was designed to be detailed, but not too extensive. It’s meant to be completed as a team effort, rather than individual. Users are prompted to provide evidence to support their responses, such as budget screenshots or links to training programs. This evidence is then evaluated by the Beeck Center, contributing to a deeper understanding of each state's unique context and challenges.
While the tool doesn't produce a ranking, the Beeck Center hopes it fosters a healthy sense of competition and knowledge sharing among states.
“We don’t want states to be ranked, but I want them to be a little bit competitive and see, ‘OK, that’s possible.’ So if some states share what their budgets are, then others can ask for more,” Aksamitauskas said.
Although the tool is tailored for state governments, its framework is flexible enough to be adapted by cities, counties and other agencies with some creative adjustments.
A CATALYST FOR CHANGE?
Data from the Beeck Center reveals a wide range of data maturity levels across state governments. While three-quarters of states have established a formal CDO role, only a third have a deputy CDO, highlighting potential gaps in leadership and capacity. Additionally, significant disparities exist in funding, with some states allocating more than $6 million annually for their CDO offices, while others lag behind.
The assessment tool aims to shed light on these disparities, encouraging states to learn from each other and recognize the value of investing in robust data governance. By highlighting the successes and challenges of different states, the tool can spark conversations among policymakers and data leaders, potentially leading to increased funding, strategic hiring and improved data practices across the board.
