IDTC Final Report

Interagency Data Transparency Commission Report
Report presented by the Interagency Data Transparency Commission
September 1, 2016

1
Contents
Letter from the Interagency Data Transparency Commission Chair ............................................................2
Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................3
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................4
Accomplishments..........................................................................................................................................5
IDTC Community Bulletin Board...........................................................................................................5
Executive Data Survey ..........................................................................................................................6
Subcommittees.....................................................................................................................................6
Survey Findings .............................................................................................................................................8
Enterprise Information Management (EIM).........................................................................................8
Open Data Sharing ...............................................................................................................................8
Interagency Data Sharing....................................................................................................................10
Recommendations......................................................................................................................................12
Enterprise Information Management (EIM).......................................................................................12
Open Data Sharing and Public Information Requests ........................................................................13
Interagency Data Sharing....................................................................................................................14
Transparency…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………15
General………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….16
Appendices..................................................................................................................................................17
Appendix A: SB 1844...........................................................................................................................17
Appendix B: Executive Data Survey . ..................................................................................................22
Appendix C: Executive Data Survey Results…………………………………………………………………………………….25
Appendix D: Statewide Data Program................................................................................................27
Appendix E: Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………………………………....32

2
Letter from the Interagency Data Transparency Commission Chair
The 84th
Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 1844 in 2015, establishing the Interagency Data Transparency
Commission (Commission or IDTC). This law directs the IDTC to review and study the data reporting
practices of Texas state agencies. The members of the Commission include representatives from several
state entities: the Office of the Governor; the Office of the Lieutenant Governor; the Office of the Speaker
of the House of Representatives; the House Committee on Government Transparency & Operation; the
Senate Committee on Business & Commerce; the Texas Legislative Council; the Comptroller of Public
Accounts; the Legislative Budget Board; the State Agency Coordinating Committee; and the Department
of Information Resources.
During the course of the IDTC’s work, it held five open meetings, in addition to numerous smaller work
sessions. The Commission initiated its work by developing and implementing an online community
bulletin board for Commission members to communicate and collaborate in an open and transparent
forum outside of its open meetings. Thereafter, the IDTC divided into three subcommittees, which focused
on studying Public Information Requests (PIRs), open data, and high-value data sets. In order to engage
with agencies and receive input on data reporting practices, the Commission administered a data survey
to the executive directors of all 101 Texas state agencies, of which 63 agency leaders ultimately
responded. This helped the IDTC gain valuable information regarding the challenges and barriers
associated with interagency and open data sharing, the identification and use of high value datasets, and
the management of the large volume of PIRs. The analysis of the survey’s results provides key insights as
to how state agencies are currently collecting, managing, reporting and sharing their data, and drives the
formulation of recommendations for improvement.
As presiding officer of the Interagency Data Transparency Commission, I am pleased to present the
findings and recommendations of the Commission’s study in the following report. Any related questions
may be directed to my attention.
Sincerely,
Jordan Hale
Interagency Data Transparency Commission, Presiding Officer
Director of Administration
Office of Governor Greg Abbott

3
Executive Summary
Data is one of the most important strategic assets that a governmental entity oversees. In 2015, the State
of Texas officially decreed the importance of this resource through the passage of Senate Bill 1844 (84(R)).
This bill established the Interagency Data Transparency Commission (IDTC), which was directed to conduct
a study of current data structure, classification, sharing, and reporting protocols for the state, and the
possible collection and posting of public data in an open source format. The IDTC was asked to present
the findings of its study and proposals for legislation with the goal of increasing the effectiveness,
efficiency, and transparency of current data practices in Texas.
The Commission utilized several methods to undertake its study: an IDTC Community Bulletin Board, in
which Commission members could post questions, ideas, and communicate in a transparent manner
accessible by the public; an Executive Data Survey, which surveyed state agency leadership to assess
current data sharing practices and barriers; and the formation of three subcommittees to study open data
sharing practices, Public Information Requests (PIRs), and high-value data sets. The findings of the study
fall into three groups: Enterprise Information Management (EIM); Open Data Sharing; and Interagency
Data Sharing.
Based on the study’s findings, the Commission presents a host of recommendations, listed in detail
starting on page 12. In summary, these recommendations propose: establishing a focus within larger
agencies that oversees EIM functions; establishing EIM best practices and training program; designating
the Texas Open Data Portal as the preferred location for all public data; amending Texas Local Government
Code Section 552.221 (b-1) and (b-2) to use the term “governmental body” instead of “political
subdivision”; and establishing Open Data best practices and training program. The Commission also
recommends: creating a centralized data-sharing portal for interagency data sharing; establishing
interagency data sharing best practices and an aligned training program; establishing the practice of
utilizing an online community bulletin board for all state agencies to increase transparency; and delegating
the IDTC’s functions to the Department of Information Resources’ (DIR) Customer Advisory Council (CAC)
for the further study of these issues. It should be noted that the implementation of these
recommendations should be a collaborative effort among all state agencies, rather than directives
mandated by the Commission or DIR. With this collaborative and inclusive approach, the IDTC believes
that these recommendations will fulfill Senate Bill 1844’s directive of promoting a more efficient,
effective, and transparent government in Texas.

4
Introduction
Senate Bill 1844 (84(R)) took effect on September 1, 2015. This bill established the Interagency Data
Transparency Commission (IDTC), which was charged with the study and review of current public data
structure, classification, sharing, and reporting protocols for state agencies, as well as the possible
collection and posting of agency data in an open source format. Additionally, House Bill 1912 (84(R))
mandated the creation of the Statewide Data Coordinator (SWDC), who initiated the Statewide Data
Program (SWDP), which aims to enable a data sharing culture throughout all levels of Texas government
and education, through shared governance and secure infrastructure.
SB 1844 required the Commission to conduct a study to consider methods of improving the facilitation of
the collection and maintenance of data, as well as data sharing among agencies and with constituents.
Moreover, the bill tasked the IDTC with developing and presenting recommendations for effectively and
efficiently solving these issues in a report to the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Speaker of the House
of Representatives by September 1, 2016. To accomplish these tasks, the Commission’s members met
over the course of seven months to conduct its business. The study was carried out by the IDTC and the
SWDC as a joint effort, and provided valuable insights allowing for the identification of key findings and
recommendations for possible legislative policy considerations and actions surrounding state information
technology and security, as well as data management, sharing and use.
The IDTC’s study evaluated ways to: structure, classify, and share data among state agencies; more
efficiently gather and process data; standardize data across agencies; improve the coordination of
interagency data sharing; reduce data collection costs and duplicative data; and increase agency
accountability in sharing and reporting data. The study also examined methods to increase information
security through data management and analysis, reduce agency costs, verify compliance with applicable
laws, and improve overall agency efficiency and effectiveness. Finally, the IDTC’s study also considered
ways to post agency data online in an open source format easily accessible to the public, incorporate
agency reporting practices into the open data system, and determine any other data and transparency
issues encountered by Texas state agencies.

5
Accomplishments
The following section describes the accomplishments of the Interagency Data Transparency Commission
(IDTC). The Commission’s work is driven by its vision of collaboration, transparency, and the promotion of
efficient and effective solutions for data structure, classification, sharing, and reporting issues in the State
of Texas.
In addition, the initiatives of the Statewide Data Program (SWDP), which worked in cooperation with the
IDTC, are presented in Appendix C. Though separate from the IDTC, the SWDP shares the Commission’s
belief in the importance of interagency and open data sharing, as well as the development of a unified
statewide structure to govern these practices.
IDTC Community Bulletin Board
In order to facilitate communication in an open and transparent fashion, the IDTC, with support from the
Department of Information Resources (DIR), created an online community bulletin board for open
dialogue and information sharing among Commission members. The bulletin board, accessible at
https://dircommunity.force.com/IDTC/s/, uses a secure and unique user ID and password for each IDTC
member to post and reply to discussions related to general interagency data transparency issues, as well
as topics surrounding open data, high value datasets, and PIRs. The website also provides links to the SB
1844 language, which authorized the creation of the IDTC, and to the Texas Open Data Portal, an online
platform in which state agencies are encouraged to post data sets of citizen interest. The online bulletin
board is open for public viewing, as a measure of fostering an open and transparent government.

6
The bulletin board serves as an indispensable platform through which Commission members can discuss
key issues and provide each other with feedback without scheduling a formal in-person IDTC meeting.
The concept of an online open community bulletin board, where the public can view the Commission’s
work in action, also demonstrates one of the fundamental theories behind the IDTC’s creation – the need
for enhanced open, transparent and efficient state government operations.
Executive Data Survey
The IDTC Executive Data Survey (Appendix B), administered in the spring of 2016, established a baseline
measure of current data use and sharing practices among state agencies to inform policy formation.
Agencies were asked to identify how they use and share data, what they perceive data sharing barriers to
be, and general suggestions for successful implementation of a statewide interagency and open data
sharing program. Of 101 agencies surveyed, 63 agencies completed the survey, resulting in an overall
response rate of 62.4%.
The participating agencies provided the IDTC with invaluable information regarding current data sharing
practices in state government, barriers to successfully executing these practices, and numerous
suggestions for program improvement. The survey responses also reflected a wide range of perspectives,
as some responding agencies employ as few as 10 full time employees (FTEs), while others employ over
35,000 FTEs. These agencies’ work also covers a wide range of areas, including business, health and human
services, public safety, judiciary, general government, and regulatory functions. Agency representatives
who responded to the survey also brought a diverse variety of experiences and opinions, reflected through
their various roles and department areas.
Subcommittees
In order to facilitate a focused study and review of the current data uses and practices in Texas, the IDTC
established subcommittees to research and report on their respectively assigned areas. The
accomplishments of the three subcommittees – Open Data Sharing, Public Information Requests and High
Value Data Sets – are discussed below.
Open Data Sharing Subcommittee
The Open Data Sharing Subcommittee, in cooperation with DIR, primarily focused on developing the IDTC
community bulletin board, which allowed Committee members to ask questions and provide input for the
development of the Executive Data Survey and this report. This online tool enabled virtual communication
among IDTC members without having to address open meeting quorum rules, while simultaneously
promoting an open and transparent government.
Public Information Requests Subcommittee
The Public Information Requests (PIRs) Subcommittee was formed to discuss trends related to PIRs in
Texas, and to generate solutions for handling the large volume of requests and associated administrative
costs. The subcommittee examined the benefits that political subdivisions (counties and municipalities)
have under Section 552.221 (b-1) of Texas local government code, which allows the subdivisions to refer

7
PIRs to an Internet location or URL address. The Subcommittee contacted several political subdivisions to
assess the code’s effectiveness, as well as the possibility of applying this law to state agencies. All
contacted agencies expressed that their ability to refer PIRs to online sources made the process more
efficient and effective than individually fulfilling PIRs through traditional means. For example, one
subdivision estimated that only 5 out of over 2000 PIRs were requested to be mailed. Through a review
of survey responses, the Subcommittee also found that several state agencies have made significant
efforts to refer PIRs to information posted on their websites, with some opportunities of referring
requestors to the Open Data Portal.
High-Value Data Sets Subcommittee
The High-Value Data Sets Subcommittee was formed to discuss potential methods and resources for
identifying high-value data sets, so that agencies can better understand what types of data are most useful
for interagency and public sharing. Senate Bill 701 (84(R)) defines “high-value data sets” as information
that can be used to increase state agency accountability and responsiveness, improve public knowledge
of the agency and its operations, further the core mission of the agency, create economic opportunity, or
respond to need and demand as identified through public consultation. However, as agency missions and
operations vary widely, the Subcommittee made efforts to begin considering how high-value data sets
may be defined by different agencies. One resource identified is the Texas Legislative Council’s Inventory
of State Data Resources, and the Subcommittee was granted access to this information to better
understand how data sets are classified and used.

8
Survey Findings
The following section outlines the findings of the IDTC Executive Data Survey. Findings are categorized
into three areas: Enterprise Information Management (EIM); Open Data Sharing; and Interagency Data
Sharing. The survey’s results suggest that overall, agencies have most interest or concerns in regard to
data security and privacy, data structure and governance, and lack of data-related training.
Enterprise Information Management (EIM)
The concept of data governance, or Enterprise Information Management (EIM), serves as the foundation
for any good information management plan. It provides an organization with the framework to create,
manage, secure, ensure accuracy, drive consistency, determine access, and analyze data at an enterprise-
wide level. EIM helps to establish a data-driven culture at an organization, which in turn allows for more
informed and intelligent business decision-making support for leadership. Over 40% of Texas state
agencies agree that a lack of data standards and infrastructure are barriers to both interagency and open
data sharing, indicating that adequate EIM standards do not exist. For example, the Commission on State
Emergency Communications expressed through the survey the need for standardization, and to “increase
awareness of the availability and types of data sources…Consider clarifying that agencies are expected to
share data.”
In order to facilitate an EIM program at the individual agency level, a governing function or council of
representatives with appropriate representation of both data owners (business) and data custodians
(information technology) is needed. This group would work in partnership with executive agency
leadership to implement policies and standards that support data management practices. Such policies
and standards allow for the creation of procedures that channel EIM activities throughout the
organization. In collaboration with the Statewide Data Coordinator (SWDC), agency and higher education
representatives can provide input on policies and standards that will help shape such a program, which
will in turn guide them in the development of their individual EIM programs.
Open Data Sharing
Providing the public with access to government information has long been the responsibility and duty of
a transparent government. Since the inception of the Freedom of Information Act of 1966, which clarified
and protected the public right to government records, all levels of government have been providing
citizens with responses to Public Information Requests (PIRs). In addition, the Texas Public Information
Act of 1973 gave citizens the right to access records not confidential by law of all governmental bodies,
boards, commissions and committees, as well as bodies supported by public funds.

9
These requests take on many forms and generate reports that provide programmatic, operational, and
financial data, among others. However, the process in which agencies share data with the public or with
other governmental entities through PIRs is an intensive, resource-heavy effort. The table below highlights
estimated costs of fulfilling PIRs for all Texas state agencies, based on the Executive Data Survey responses
and 2016 salary information from the State Auditor’s Office. Based on this information, state agencies
spent an estimated $4.8 million responding to PIRs in 2016. The table below highlights the various
estimated costs associated with PIRs for Texas state agencies.
These figures represent the 63 agencies that responded to the Executive Data Survey. However, the PIR
expenses of the 38 agencies that did not respond are not reflected here, making this annual estimate of
$4.8 million a conservative estimate. In addition to the large costs associated with fulfilling PIRs, the survey
was able to glean other valuable information regarding open data and public information. Of the agencies
surveyed, 80% agree that privacy and security concerns are a perceived barrier to sharing data through
an open data portal, with 79% of agencies also agreeing that duties of confidentiality present a barrier to
this type of data sharing.
The majority of agencies also feel that time and cost are potential barriers to open data sharing. Most
agencies agree that competing priorities, cost, and having insufficient time to make data sets available to
the public are barriers to participating in open data sharing. When asked what benefits might be
associated with referring PIRs to an Open Data Portal, the Texas State Board of Plumbing Examiners
expressed that “an open data portal would benefit agencies by reducing the amount of time spent
compiling and sending responsive information for each individual request for the most frequently
State of Texas Public Information Requests (PIRs)
Public Information Request (PIR) Cost Estimates, FY16
Avg. FTE Salary (2016) $ 45,303
Avg. Hourly Rate $ 22
Total PIRs per Month 55,513
Total Hours Spent on PIRs per Month 18,396
Estimated Monthly Cost of PIR Processing $ 400,665
Estimated Annual Cost of PIR Processing $ 4,807,979
Source: Texas State Auditor’s Office, EClass System (2016)

10
requested data sets…it would also train the public to first reference the public database before making a
request.”
Despite these obstacles, most agencies do not feel that lack of technical expertise, poor data quality, or
lack of interest are significant hurdles to participating in open data sharing. Instead, the reoccurring
themes voiced by agencies are overwhelmingly related to issues of security, confidentiality, standards,
infrastructure, and understanding.
Interagency Data Sharing
Interagency data sharing allows agencies to share knowledge and practices, reduce duplicative data
gathering, and conduct business in a more efficient manner. Based on survey responses, 81% of Texas
state agencies already engage in some sort of interagency data sharing. Agencies reporting that they do
not currently share information are mostly small agencies, with fewer than 50 FTEs.
The type of data shared by agencies varies greatly. Agencies currently share financial and budgetary data,
environmental data, licensing data (in the case of health-related agencies), licensee background check
information (within banking and credit agencies), student loan default data, data on students with
disabilities (visual impairments and deaf/blindness), juvenile justice data, animal and plant health
inspection services data, and public pension data, among others. It is important to note that agencies not
only share raw data with each other, but also reports and studies utilizing clean datasets.
While many agencies currently share data with each other, most agencies agree that concerns around
security, privacy, and confidentiality are barriers to interagency data sharing. Other major concerns are
lack of standards, infrastructure, and technical expertise. Approximately 53% of agencies perceive
statutory concerns as limiting interagency data sharing abilities. When asked how the State of Texas might
improve interagency data sharing methods, the Department of Public Safety expressed the need to
“standardize data sharing agreements across the State, encapsulating data protection, loss prevention,
and notification standards.”
In terms of the cost of sharing data, 92% of agencies report not charging fees to other agencies for data
access. The agencies that do charge fees explain that this practice is due to contract stipulations and/or
statutory requirements. For example, major Health and Human Services contractors are allowed to charge
for data preparation or programming activities when costs or effort levels are high. Texas Workforce
Commission (TWC) Federal partners also require cost recovery practices, unless there is a mutual benefit
to the program for sharing data, and some DSHS data sets have statutory requirements that require
charging for data. The chart on the following page provides a visual representation of issues perceived to
be barriers among state agencies to both interagency and open data sharing in the current environment,
based on the Executive Data Survey results.

12
Recommendations
Through its study of Texas’ current public and private data structure, the Interagency Data Transparency
Commission (IDTC) identified several opportunities for improving the methods and processes by which
state agencies share data amongst themselves and with the public. The results from the Executive Data
Survey suggest that most agencies have privacy and security concerns surrounding data sharing.
Moreover, many agencies express a need for training and a more structured data governance program to
increase agency efficiency, effectiveness, and transparency.
Based on these results, the Commission presents the following recommendations for efficient and
effective solutions to data sharing issues in Texas, aimed at improving structures, processes, and
transparency. The recommendations also identify necessary administrative changes and technologies for
their successful implementation. However, it is important to note that these recommendations serve as
guidelines for best practices of open and interagency data sharing, and are not IDTC or DIR mandates to
be imposed on agencies. Essential to the Commission’s approach is a collaboration between all state
agencies, and it is only through this team effort that these recommendations will be realized.
The recommendations are divided into five categories: Enterprise Information Management (EIM); Open
Data Sharing and Public Information Requests; Interagency Data Sharing; Transparency; and General
recommendations.
1. Enterprise Information Management (EIM)
Recommendation 1.1: Establish a focus within each state agency with more than 50 Full Time Employees
(FTEs) that oversees EIM, and works in collaboration with the Statewide Data Program (SWDP).
The purpose behind this recommendation is to ensure that each agency with over 50 FTEs establishes a
focus on Enterprise Information Management (EIM) to standardize data use within the organization
through the use of existing resources. Working collaboratively with the SWDC, each of these agencies will
establish the structures, classifications, and processes needed to make data sharing a more efficient
process. Furthermore, these agencies will be able to establish data sharing standards which will ensure
that public data posted online and private data shared with other agencies are in an open source format
that is machine-readable, exportable, and easily accessible.
Recommendation 1.2: Establish EIM baseline principles to standardize data across state agencies to
increase information security and improve coordination of interagency data.
EIM standards will homogenize processes such as the classification and processing of data across agencies
using open source formats, reduce duplicative data, and more efficiently update agency data. These
standards must consider how to determine data sharing cost structures, data updating timelines, and
privacy/security. It is important to note that while it is essential to establish EIM standards, these
standards must be flexible enough to be modified based on digital advances as well as changing agency
needs.

13
Recommendation 1.3: Establish an EIM training program on data sharing practices and protocols for
state agencies.
This education and training program will include but is not limited to the following topics:
• Types of data available for sharing;
• Benefits of data sharing;
• Data identification and cleansing standards;
• Data-sharing protocols that mitigate security concerns; and
• Current best data-sharing practices.
The Statewide Data Coordinator (SWDC) established the Texas Enterprise Information Management
(TEIM) group, which serves as a collaborative community of state agencies and higher education
representatives. The Training and Education Subcommittee has already begun discussing the formation
of a training program that aims to assist state agencies in multiple aspects of data management, including
interagency and open data sharing. Such a training program does not currently exist in Texas.
2. Open Data Sharing and Public Information Requests
Recommendation 2.1: Designate the Texas Open Data Portal (ODP) to be the preferred location for all
statewide public data.
The purpose of this recommendation is to more efficiently collect and post data online in an open source
format that is machine-readable, exportable, and easily accessible by the public. By establishing the Texas
Open Data Portal as the unified public data repository for Texas, agencies will benefit from the existing
digital infrastructure that the ODP provides, rather creating their own online repositories or posting on
their individual websites. Moreover, constituents will benefit from having a one-stop website for all open
data inquiries.
Agencies that are not currently sharing open data and have relevant data to share with the public can
collaborate with the SWDP to use existing ODP infrastructure and post their data online. Agencies that
currently share data with the public will also receive support and assistance from the SWDP to allow for
the migration of their existing open data to the ODP. The amount of data shared by each agency with the
public via the Open Data Portal will be determined at the agency’s discretion.
Recommendation 2.2: Amend Texas Local Government Code, Section 552.221 (b-1) and (b-2) to replace
the term “political subdivision” with “governmental body”.
Under current law, political subdivisions have the authority to refer Public Information Requests (PIRs) to
an Internet location or URL address. This allows subdivisions to streamline PIRs, creating a more efficient
process than the fulfillment of individual PIRs through traditional means. This recommendation would
allow state agencies to also utilize this method of fulfilling PIRs, overall reducing the number of PIRs they
must individually assemble. By allowing state agencies to refer PIRs to the Texas Open Data Portal,
agencies would experience significant cost savings.

14
Recommendation 2.3: Establish Open Data best practices to gather, process, structure, classify, and
share public data, as well as relevant policies that establish security and ethical best practices.
Open Data best practices will increase efficiency for posting public data on the ODP. Through a
collaborative process, agencies will identify the practices that will best serve their needs as well as the
needs of their constituents. Some of the best practices to be determined center around the following
areas:
• Establishing what “open data” means to Texas agencies;
• Defining “high-value data sets”, by using the Office of Management and Budget’s Open
Government Directive definition of data that “increases agency accountability and
responsiveness, improves public knowledge of the agency and its operations, furthers the core
mission of the agency, creates economic opportunity, and responds to needs and demands
identified through public consultation”1
as a starting point, but also taking into account the supply
and demand of requested data;
• Forming security best practices to ensure that open data is public and not private information;
and
• Establishing data updating protocols.
It is important to note that although these Open Data best practices are necessary, they must also be
flexible enough to be updated and modified based on digital advances and changing agency needs.
Recommendation 2.4: Establish a formal training and education program for Open Data practices.
The Open Data training and education program will be a component of the overall Enterprise Information
Management (EIM) training program. For more information about the components of this program, refer
to Recommendation 1.3. It is important to note that this program does not currently exist.
3. Interagency Data Sharing
Recommendation 3.1: Streamline interagency data sharing through the creation of a secure,
centralized, data sharing portal.
Much like the centralized Open Data Portal for public data, an interagency data sharing portal will provide
agencies with the digital infrastructure needed to more efficiently and securely share data with each
other. This portal can be an extension of the existing ODP with enhanced security features or a separate
type of infrastructure. This portal will ensure that Personal Identifying Information (PII) is transferred
securely and allows agencies to continuously update shared data securely. The portal will also reduce
agency costs, as the number of data transfers will be reduced through automation.
1 OMB M-10-06, “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Open Government Directive,” as cited by
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, http://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1332/ML13326A503.pdf, page 6.

15
Recommendation 3.2: Establish interagency data sharing standards to improve the coordination of
interagency data sharing and address security and ethical concerns.
Similar to the Open Data Sharing standards, the purpose of this recommendation is to standardize the
format and classification of data shared between agencies, as well as the gathering and sharing processes.
The following recommendations are related to specific standards that have already been identified.
Recommendation 3.2.A: Establish common shared file structure and naming conventions.
In order to improve data sharing between agencies, it is important that all data have common file
structures as well as naming conventions. Some examples of these standardizations include
ensuring that all agencies catalogue data entries by official county names instead of county
abbreviations, establishing an official method of recording dates, and utilizing official business
names instead of abbreviations when referencing them in datasets.
Recommendation 3.2.B: Establish a standard Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
To improve the coordination of interagency data sharing, a standard Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) must be established and utilized when agencies are sharing data with each
other for the first time. The Comptroller’s Office has created such documents, which could serve
as a guide for the design of the interagency data sharing MOUs.
Recommendation 3.2.C: Define cost structures to determine how agencies can charge fees to other
agencies for data access.
Currently, a small number of agencies charge fees to other agencies for access to their data. The
charging rules that currently exist should be analyzed in order to standardize cost structures and
remove barriers for interagency data sharing.
Recommendation 3.3: Establish a formal training and education program for interagency data sharing
practices.
The interagency data sharing practices training and education program should be a component of the
overall EIM training program. For more information about the components of the program, please refer
to Recommendation 1.3. Similar to the EIM and ODP training programs, an interagency data sharing
training program does not currently exist.
4. Transparency
Recommendation 4.1: Establish the practice of utilizing online community bulletin boards for state
agencies to increase transparency.
This recommendation stems from the IDTC’s use of an online community bulletin board to facilitate
communication. The Commission found that the online community bulletin board increased transparency
by providing constituents with access to its internal communications. By adopting this practice throughout
Texas, state agencies will have the opportunity to increase transparency and communicate more
efficiently.

16
5. General
Recommendation 5.1: Delegate the IDTC’s purpose of studying current government data sharing and
transparency issues to the Department of Information Resources’ (DIR) Customer Advisory Council
(CAC).
The IDTC’s study of data sharing practices and transparency in Texas has been extremely valuable and
benefits all types of agencies. This important work should be continued through the DIR Customer
Advisory Council (CAC) to continue the discovery process of what the data and transparency needs of
Texas are. The continued review of EIM, along with interagency and open data sharing practices, will allow
for the fulfillment of the IDTC’s mission of increasing government efficiency, effectiveness, and
transparency.

22
Appendix B: Executive Data Survey
Contact Information
1. Please enter your contact information:
Agency
Name
Title
Email Address
2. To what extent do you agree that the following are barriers to interagency data sharing?
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Cost
Lack of technical expertise
Competing priorities
Lack of infrastructure
Lack of perceived interest
Privacy concerns
Security concerns
Lack of standards
Insufficient time to make available
Resistance from data owners
Poor data quality/integrity
Legal barriers/hurdles
Duties of confidentiality
3. Are there statutory or rule conflicts preventing your agency from sharing data?
4. Please provide a brief description of the conflicts, and the specific rules or statutes involved.
5. Is your agency currently sharing data with another governmental entity?
6. Please briefly list the agencies or governmental entities with whom your agency shares data, and
for what purpose the data is shared.
7. Does your agency charge other agencies for access to your data?
8. Please briefly explain the rationale for charging agencies.

23
9. Mark the following categories of data according to the selection that best represents your agency.
Currently Using Interested in Using Not Interested in Using
Business Data
Crime and Justice Data
Education and Skills Data
Environment and Weather Data
Health and Disability Data
Housing Data
Government Income and Spending Data
Labor Market Data
Population Data
Transportation Data
Web Analytics Data
Legal and Administrative Data
Economy and Trade Data
Geographic Data
Political Data
None of the Above
10. What recommendations or suggestions do you have regarding the improvement of interagency
data sharing in the State of Texas?
Open and Public Data
11. To what extent do you agree that the following are barriers to opening your data for public use
and consumption?
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Cost
Privacy concerns
Security concerns
Lack of standards

24
12. Which of the following categories of data does your agency currently provide to the public?
Choose all that apply
Business Data Population Data
Crime and Justice Data Transportation Data
Education and Skills Data Web Analytics Data
Environment and Weather Data Legal and Administrative Data
Health and Disability Data Economy and Trade Data
Housing Data Geographic Data
Government Income and Spending Data Political Data
Labor Market Data None of the Above
13. Approximately, how many public information requests does your agency receive in a given
month?
14. Approximately, how many staff hours are dedicated to public information request responses in a
given month?
15. Would the ability to refer public information requests to your agency’s website or the Texas Open
Data Portal benefit your agency and the requestors?
16. Please briefly explain the benefits of referring information requests to public datasets.
17. Approximately, how many high-value datasets has your agency made available to the public?
18. Do you track the usage of your high-value datasets?
19. Does your agency provide public access to any agency data?
20. If some or all of your data are available to others, these data are available:
None Some Most All
On my agency’s website
On the Texas Open Data Portal
Through a regional network
Through a national network
21. Please briefly explain the agency’s rationale for abstaining from open data contribution.
22. What recommendations or suggestions do you have regarding the improvement of open and
public data in the State of Texas?

25
Appendix C: Executive Data Survey Results
Perceived Barriers to Interagency Data Sharing
Inter-Agency Data Sharing
Barriers
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Security concerns 0% 13% 18% 32% 38%
Privacy concerns 2% 13% 8% 41% 37%
Duties of confidentiality 2% 8% 14% 40% 37%
Legal barriers/hurdles 2% 13% 18% 48% 21%
Competing priorities 5% 13% 13% 52% 18%
Insufficient time to make
available 5% 16% 24% 40% 15%
Lack of infrastructure 3% 27% 23% 34% 13%
Lack of standards 3% 8% 32% 45% 11%
Lack of technical expertise 13% 40% 16% 21% 10%
Resistance from data owners 5% 29% 26% 31% 10%
Cost 7% 23% 27% 36% 8%
Lack of perceived interest 18% 26% 29% 21% 7%
Poor data quality/integrity 7% 26% 44% 23% 2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Security concerns
Privacy concerns
Lack of standards
Cost
Percent Responding Agree/Strongly Agree
PerceivedBarrier
Greatest Perceived Barriers to Interagency Data Sharing

26
Perceived Barriers to Open Data Sharing
Open Data Sharing Barriers
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Privacy concerns 3% 9% 8% 34% 45%
Duties of confidentiality 2% 3% 19% 37% 39%
Security concerns 5% 8% 11% 39% 38%
Legal barriers/hurdles 2% 6% 27% 35% 30%
Competing priorities 2% 14% 16% 40% 29%
Insufficient time to make
available 5% 13% 23% 34% 26%
Cost 3% 18% 24% 35% 21%
Lack of infrastructure 5% 27% 26% 26% 16%
Lack of standards 2% 21% 35% 29% 14%
Lack of technical expertise 13% 40% 19% 19% 8%
Lack of perceived interest 13% 34% 38% 10% 5%
Resistance from data owners 5% 25% 34% 31% 5%
Poor data quality/integrity 7% 40% 36% 16% 2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Privacy concerns
Security concerns
Cost
Lack of standards
Percent Responding Agree/Strongly Agree
PerceivedBarrier
Greatest Perceived Barriers to Open Data Sharing

27
Appendix D: Statewide Data Program
In 2015, the Texas Legislature passed HB 1912, which created the position of Statewide Data Coordinator
(SWDC) under the Department of Information Resources (DIR). The role of the SWDC is to collaborate with
Texas state agencies and institutions of higher education to determine best practices; develop data
policies and standards surrounding data collection, use, storage, and analysis; and to improve data
governance and integrity statewide. Other responsibilities of the SWDC include seeking opportunities for
data sharing across government agencies, reducing duplicative datasets, increasing agency accountability
for open data sharing, and identifying future cost-saving opportunities.
The position was filled in September 2015, and the Statewide Data Program (SWDP) was established. The
mission of the program is to enable a data sharing culture throughout all levels of Texas government and
educational institutions, allowing for increased transparency, efficiency and information security at a
reduced cost, while simultaneously providing the citizen with the most positive and user-friendly services
possible. The vision and accomplishments of the Statewide Data Program, in cooperation with DIR and
other state agencies, are described below.
SWDP Vision
Imagine a digital portal in which citizens can access a wide array of public information and independently
make changes to personal records in one central location, meanwhile interacting with individual state
agencies by updating information in their back office systems. This vision, dubbed “My Government, My
Way”, is founded in the belief of the importance of fostering excellence in interagency and open data
sharing and management across all state agencies, increasing government efficiency and transparency,
and overall improving the citizen-government interactive experience. This vision hopes to be realized
through the creation of an environment that promotes mutual trust and collaboration among all
stakeholders in state government, and has worked in cooperation with the Department of Information
Resources (DIR) Statewide Data Program (SWDP) to develop these goals.
This vision supports the development of new data sharing partnerships among state agencies, the
exchange of innovative practices and emerging opportunities, and the improvement of constituent
services – the ultimate goal of effective government. The State of Texas should be able to deliver
information and services to its constituents at any time, from anywhere, and from any type of online
platform, in a way that is controlled and managed by the citizen.
“My Government, My Way” is a strategic vision that transforms Texas into a truly digital state, unifying all
agencies to provide a centralized online portal where citizens can access all government services in a
seamless, user-friendly process. The program’s core goal is to enhance the technology and communication
systems of all state entities in a unified manner, rather than having agencies make individual
improvements on their own. In order to carry out this vision, the State of Texas should shift its service
delivery paradigm to focus on how its services are consumed, rather than delivered. The citizen’s
perspective should be the focal consideration for how agencies carry out their respective missions and
provide services. As agencies are both providers and consumers of these services, the government can
tap into the knowledge and resources of its own employees in order to construct and implement this

28
model. In effect, the end product of citizen services would be delivered through one unified and
streamlined digital portal.
Texas has always been a leader when it comes to government initiatives. The collaboration and sharing of
data across state agencies and with the public can be the next great opportunity for our state government
and the constituents that it serves.
SWDP Accomplishments
Texas Enterprise Information Management Community Group
In January of 2016, the Statewide Data Coordinator created the Texas Enterprise Information
Management (TEIM) Community Group. The TEIM group represents a diverse assembly of talented
professionals in Texas state government and higher education who use or are interested in using some
aspect of data governance, data sharing, open data, business intelligence, or business analytics in their
respective agencies. The TEIM group provides an excellent opportunity for sharing innovative
methodologies to describe, contextualize, and manage data, as well as develop data governance and
management policies that each organization can adopt.
The TEIM Community Group facilitates building and growing relationships among state government and
higher education agencies, expanding their knowledge base of data use and governance best practices,
and assisting each organization reach its core mission. Since its inception eight months ago, TEIM’s
monthly meetings have seen consistent participation. Currently, 27 state agencies and institutions of
higher education are represented in TEIM’s membership.
It is TEIM Community Group’s goal—through discussion and sharing between agency representatives,
particularly those from agencies with more mature data management experience—that all members can
benefit from the collective knowledge experiences and practices.
Open Data Portal
The State of Texas Open Data Portal, located at https://data.texas.gov/, was launched by DIR in 2014 to
provide state agencies with a common platform to present agency public data for citizen consumption.
Today, the portal has over 100 datasets from six different agencies that are available for public search,
download, and manipulation. This initiative is driven by the SWDP’s focus of increasing both agency
participation and dataset submission to the portal.
The Statewide Data Program is actively working with several agencies—including the Office of the
Governor, Department of Agriculture, Veterans Commission, Comptroller of Public Accounts, and the
Health and Human Commission—to add to existing datasets by loading new data into the portal. By
utilizing this free alternative, state agencies can provide their constituency with access to information that
will keep them informed, and lessen administrative burdens by reducing the number of Public Information
Requests (PIRs).

29
In addition to increasing agency collaboration, an effort is underway to redesign the Open Data Portal.
The new portal, as shown in the above image, will provide a cleaner, more intuitive design with greater
search and filter capabilities, more advanced analytic functions, and specific site areas that highlight high-
value Texas data-related stories to public and private site visitors. Through its redesigned format and
continued discussion with state agencies, the Texas Open Data Portal could gradually evolve to become
the source for all state government public data.
In the area of interagency data sharing, the SWDP program continues to look for use case opportunities
to broker discussions that will help solve real business challenges. These use cases are just the beginning;
there are many untapped opportunities for data sharing across Texas government that can provide new
insight and assist agencies in support of their core missions.

30
TexVet is also made possible through the coordination and communication of various organizations,
including the Texas Coordinating Council for Veterans Services and the Meadows Foundation’s Texas State
of Mind initiative. Additionally, TexVet serves as a resource for many of the 2,000+ organizations that
support Texas veterans statewide. Access and use of the 2-1-1 HHSC data comes at no cost to TexVet, and
the real time access will greatly improve the downstream coordination process and the overall response
time in addressing Texas veteran needs.
This ongoing effort provides the TDI Fraud Unit with access to valuable information and a new tool to
assist with managing the state’s insurance business. Access and use of the TNRIS application data is free
to TDI, and the GIS information will help the agency to better support its constituents and improve
reporting.
Geographic Information Systems Solutions Group
As the geographic data needs of the state become more complex, the establishment of a governing entity
of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is needed in order to address related issues and help make
decisions that are in the best interest of the state. In January of 2015, the Texas Natural Resources
Information System (TNRIS) and the Department of Information Resources (DIR) established the GIS
Closer Look: Interagency Data Sharing Example #1
Who: HHSC 2-1-1 and Texas A&M Health Science Center TexVet Program
What: 2-1-1 call veteran-related data
Details: Through an agreement between the Health and Human Services
Commission (HHSC) and Texas A&M Health Science Center, the TexVet
Program can now access the reporting features of the HHSC 2-1-1 call
tracking site for veteran-related data in a real time basis. This data helps
the TexVet respond more efficiently to Texas veterans’ requests for
services.
Closer Look: Interagency Data Sharing Example #2
Who: Texas Natural Resources Information System (TNRIS) and the Texas
Department of Insurance (TDI)
What: TNRIS Geospatial Emergency Management Support System (GEMSS) data
Details: This data system provides TDI with detailed Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) storm tracking and potential damage locations, which allows TDI
fraud inspectors to respond more quickly and accurately to post-storm fraud
related issues, often involving unscrupulous contractors that descend upon Texas
citizens at their greatest time of need to commit insurance based fraud activity.

31
Solutions Group to provide an environment for sharing vital GIS data and making unified decisions that
will allow state agencies to more effectively utilize GIS services and data. The group is co-chaired by the
TNRIS Geographic Information Officer (GIO) and the DIR Statewide Data Coordinator (SWDC). Similar to
the TEIM community group, the GIS Solutions Group provides a forum for state agencies to share
innovative practices and assess new GIS technologies and current services provided by vendor partners.
An example of data sharing for GIS was the Texas Imagery Service initiative which was a collaboration
between the State of Texas and Google to provide high quality, continuous 6-inch natural color imagery
resolution for the entire state. The pilot project was led by TNRIS and DIR leadership in partnership with
nine other state agencies. The on-demand mapping service is available to all public organizations (i.e.
state, regional, and local governments) and provides a current and consistent data source while offering
the highest resolution imagery available for any statewide program. A significant benefit beyond the
quality of the resolution is the cost of storage, which is hosted by the vendor resulting in no need to pay
large storage costs for serving terabytes of data. By using a distributive cost model, public organizations
can recognize the benefits of the latest imagery technology at an affordable cost to all participants.

32
Appendix E: Acknowledgements
The Interagency Data Transparency Commission (IDTC) appreciates the valuable input provided by agency
executives and their management team in the development of this report. The IDTC also thanks the DIR
and Governor’s office program staff for their support, expertise and contribution.
Interagency Data Transparency Commission
The IDTC report was approved by the Commission on August 5, 2016. Thank you to the Commission
members for their leadership, time and commitment to this effort.
Jordan Hale, Chair
Director of Administration, Office of the Governor
Allen Ambuhl
Supervisor, Computing Services, Network Services, Legislative Budget Board
Rob Coleman
Director, Fiscal Management Division, Comptroller of Public Accounts
John Gibbs
Advisor, Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Jon Heining
General Counsel, Texas Legislative Council
John Hoffman
Chief Technology Officer, Department of Information Resources
Jarrel Jimmerson
Chief Data Officer, Health and Human Services Commission, State Agency Coordinating Committee
Ed Kelly
Statewide Data Coordinator, Department of Information Resources
Representative Armando Walle
Vice Chair, GT&O Committee, House Committee on Government Transparency & Operation
Senator Kirk Watson
Member, Senate Business & Commerce Committee, Senate Committee on Business & Commerce
Allison Winney
Senior Policy Analyst, Office of the Speaker of the House of Representatives

IDTC Final Report

More Related Content

Similar to IDTC Final Report

IDTC Final Report