House Bill 917 would reestablish the North Carolina General Assembly’s Data Analytics, Transparency, and Accountability Division, often referred to as the DATA Division. The bill reenacts prior statutory provisions that had been repealed and updates multiple laws to restore the division’s role in legislative oversight, data analysis, and performance review. It also directs the Revisor of Statutes to replace references to the former “Program Evaluation Division” with the new DATA Division name throughout the General Statutes.
The bill gives the DATA Division access to information from state agencies and institutions, including databases and electronic records, subject to existing legal limits, and allows the division to request aggregated analyses from the Health Information Exchange Network with personal identifiers removed under HIPAA standards. It also adds the division to reporting and whistleblower-related statutes so that state employees may report certain misconduct to the division and receive protections. In addition, the bill appropriates $2 million in recurring General Fund support for fiscal year 2025-26 to operate the reestablished division, and it becomes effective July 1, 2025.
Impact
H917 would change state law by restoring a legislative support division that had previously existed under a different name and by conforming multiple statutes to recognize the DATA Division as an authorized recipient of reports, information, and analyses. It expands or clarifies the General Assembly’s access to state agency records, payroll and health data in limited circumstances, and reporting obligations for certain agencies such as the Department of Administration and the Global TransPark Authority. The bill also creates an ongoing recurring appropriation from the General Fund to fund the division’s operations.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the overall sentiment appears neutral to favorable toward strengthening legislative oversight, transparency, and data-driven analysis. The measure is framed as an administrative and accountability initiative rather than a controversial policy change, and its sponsors present it as a restoration of legislative capacity. No formal opposition, amendments, or recorded vote history is provided in the materials.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are the bill’s cost and its expansion of legislative access to executive-branch records and databases. Agencies may view the broader information-sharing requirements, especially access to electronic systems and health-related aggregate data, as burdensome or sensitive, even though the bill includes privacy protections and limits on access to certain systems. Another possible issue is the recurring $2 million appropriation, which could draw scrutiny in budget discussions despite the bill’s focus on oversight and transparency.