Modernizing Enforcement of the Civil Rights Act to Mitigate Algorithmic Harm in Determining Federal Benefits

The Department of Justice should modernize the enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to guide effective corrective action for algorithmic systems that produce discriminatory outcomes with regard to federal benefits. To do so, the Department of Justice should clarify the definition of “algorithmic discrimination” in the context of federal benefits, establish systems to identify which federally funded public benefits offices use machine-learning algorithms, and secure the necessary human resources to properly address algorithmic discrimination. This crucial action would leverage a demonstrable, growing interest in regulating algorithms that has bloomed over the past year via policy actions in both the White House and Congress but has yet to concretely establish an appropriate enforcement mechanism for acting on instances of demonstrated algorithmic harm. 

Challenge and Opportunity

Algorithmic systems are inescapable in modern life. They have become core elements of everyday activities, like surfing the web, driving to work, and applying for a job. It is virtually impossible to go through life without encountering an algorithmic system multiple times per day.

As machine-learning technologies have become more pervasive, they have also become gatekeepers for crucial resources, like accessing credit, receiving healthcare, securing housing, and getting a mortgage. Both local and federal governments have embraced algorithmic decision-making to determine which constituents are able to access key services, often with little transparency, if any, for those who are subject to such decision-making.

When it comes to federal benefits, imperfections in these systems scale significantly. For example, the deployment of flawed algorithmic tools led to the wrongful termination of Medicaid for 19% of beneficiaries in Arkansas, the wrongful termination of Social Security income for thousands in New York, wrongful termination of $78 million worth of Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits in Indiana, and erroneous unemployment fraud charges for 40,000 people in Michigan. These errors are particularly harmful to low-income Americans for whom access to credit, housing, job opportunities, and healthcare are especially important.

Over the past year, momentum for regulating algorithmic systems has grown, resulting in several key policy actions. In February 2022, Senators Ron Wyden and Cory Booker and Representative Yvette Clarke introduced the Algorithmic Accountability Act. Endorsed by AI experts, this bill would have required deployers of algorithmic systems to conduct and publicly share impact assessments of their systems. In October 2022, the White House released its Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights. Although not legally enforceable, this robust rights-based framework for algorithmic systems was developed with a broad coalition of support through an intensive, yearlong public consultation process with community members, private sector representatives, tech workers, and policymakers. Also in October 2022, the AI Training Act was passed into law. The legislation requires the development of a training curriculum covering core concepts in artificial intelligence for federal employees in a limited range of roles, primarily those involved in procurement. Finally, January 2023 saw the introduction of the NIST AI Risk Management Framework to guide how organizations and individuals design, develop, deploy, or use artificial intelligence to manage risk and promote responsible use.

Collectively, these actions demonstrate clear interest in preventing harm caused by algorithmic systems, but none of them provide clear enforcement mechanisms for federal agencies to pursue corrective action in the wake of demonstrated algorithmic harm.

However, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act offers a viable and legally enforceable mechanism to aid anti-discrimination efforts in the algorithmic age. At its core, Title VI bans the use of federal funding to support programs (including state and local governments, educational institutions, and private companies) that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Modernizing the enforcement of Title VI, specifically in the context of federal benefits, offers a clear opportunity for developing and refining a modern enforcement approach to civil rights law that can respond appropriately and effectively to algorithmic discrimination. 

Plan of Action

Fundamentally, this plan of action seeks to:

Clarify the Framework for Algorithmic Bias in Federal Benefits

Recommendation 1. Fund the Department of Justice (DOJ) to develop a new working group focused specifically on civil rights concerns around artificial intelligence.

The DOJ has already requested funding for and justified the existence of this unit in its FY2023 Performance Budget. In that budget, the DOJ requested $4.45 million to support 24 staff. 

Clear precedents for this type of cross-sectional working group already exist within the Department of Justice (e.g., the Indian Working Group and LGBTQI+ Working Group). Both of these groups contain members of the 11 sections of the Civil Rights Division to ensure a comprehensive strategy for protecting the civil rights of Indigenous peoples and the LGBTQ+ community, respectively. The pervasiveness of algorithmic systems in modern life suggests a similarly broad scope is appropriate for this issue.

Recommendation 2. Direct the working group to develop a framework that defines algorithmic discrimination and appropriate corrective action specifically in the context of public benefits.

A clear framework or rubric for assessing when algorithmic discrimination has occurred is a prerequisite for appropriate corrective action. Despite having a specific technical definition, the term “algorithmic bias” can vary widely in its interpretation depending on the specific context in which an automated decision is being made. Even if algorithmic bias does exist, researchers and legal scholars have made the case that biased algorithms may be preferable to biased human decision-makers on the basis of consistency and the relative ease of behavior change. Consequently, the DOJ should develop a context-specific framework for determining when algorithmic bias leads to harmful discriminatory outcomes in federal benefits systems, starting with major federal systems like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. 

As an example, the Brookings Institution has produced a helpful report that illustrates what it means to define algorithmic bias in a specific context. Cross-walking this blueprint with existing Title VI procedures can yield guidelines for how the Department of Justice can notify relevant offices of algorithmic discrimination and steer corrective action.

Identify Federal Benefits Systems that Use Algorithmic Tools

Recommendation 3. Establish a federal register or database for offices that administer federally funded public benefits to document when they use machine-learning algorithms.

This system should specifically detail the developer of the algorithmic system and the office using said system. If possible, descriptions of relevant training data should be included as well, especially if these data are federal property. Consider working with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs to secure this information from current and future government contractors within the federal benefits domain.

In terms of cost, previous budget requests for databases of this type have ranged from $2 million to $5 million.

Recommendation 4. Provide public access to the federal register.

Making the federal register public would provide baseline transparency regarding the federal funding of algorithmic systems. This would facilitate external investigative efforts to identify possible instances of algorithmic discrimination in public benefits, which would complement internal efforts by directing limited federal staff bandwidth towards cases that have already been identified. The public-facing portion of this registry should be structured to respecting appropriate privacy and trade secrecy restrictions

Recommendation 5. Link the public-facing register to a public-facing form for submitting claims of algorithmic discrimination in the context of federal benefits.

This step would help channel public feedback regarding claims of algorithmic discrimination with a sufficiently high threshold to minimize frivolous claims. A well-designed system will ask for evidence and data to justify any claim of algorithmic discrimination, allowing federal employees to prioritize which claims to pursue.

Equip Agencies with Necessary Resources for Addressing Algorithmic Discrimination

Recommendation 6. Authorize funding for technical hires in enforcement arms of federal regulatory agencies, including but not limited to the Department of Justice.

Effective enforcement of anti-discrimination statutes today requires technical fluency in machine-learning techniques. In addition to the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division (see Recommendation 1), consider directing funds to hire or train technical experts within the enforcement arms of other federal agencies with explicit anti-discrimination enforcement authority, including the Federal Trade Commission, Federal Communications Commission, and Department of Education.

Recommendation 7. Pass the Stopping Unlawful Negative Machine Impacts through National Evaluation Act.

This act was introduced with bipartisan support in the Senate at the very end of the 2021–2022 legislative session by Senator Rob Portman. The short bill seeks to clarify that civil rights legislation applies to artificial intelligence systems and decisions made by these systems will be liable to claims of discrimination under said legislation, including the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, among others. Passing the bill is a simple but effective way to indicate to federal regulatory agencies (and those they regulate) that artificial intelligence systems must comply with civil rights law and affirms the federal government’s authority to ensure they do so.

Conclusion

On his first day in office, President Biden signed an executive order to address the entrenched denial of equal opportunities for underserved communities in the United States. Ensuring that federal benefits are not systematically denied via algorithmic discrimination to low-income Americans and Americans of color is crucial to successfully meeting the goals of that order and the rising chorus of voices who want meaningful regulation for algorithmic systems. The authority for such regulation in the context of federal benefits already exists. To ensure that authority can be effectively enforced in the modern age, the federal government needs to clearly define algorithmic discrimination in the context of federal benefits, identify where federal funding is supporting algorithmic determination of federal benefits, and recruit the necessary talent to verify instances of algorithmic discrimination.

Frequently Asked Questions
What is an algorithm? How is it different from machine learning or artificial intelligence?

An algorithm is a structured set of steps for doing something. In the context of this memo, an algorithm usually means computer code that is written to do something in a structured, repeatable way, such as determining if someone is eligible for Medicare, identifying someone’s face using a facial recognition tool, or matching someone’s demographic profile to a certain kind of advertisement.


Machine-learning techniques are a specific set of algorithms that train a computer to do different tasks by taking in a massive amount of data and looking for patterns. Artificial intelligence generally refers to technical systems that have been trained to perform tasks with minimal human oversight. Machine learning and artificial intelligence are similar and often used as interchangeable terms.

How can we determine if an algorithm is biased?

We can identify algorithmic bias by comparing the expected outputs of an algorithm to the actual outputs for an algorithm. For example, if we find that an algorithm uses race as a decisive factor in determining whether someone is eligible for federal benefits that should be race-neutral, that would be an example of algorithmic bias. In practice, these assessments often take the form of statistical tests that are run over multiple outputs of the same algorithmic system.

Is algorithmic bias inherently bad?

Although many algorithms are biased, not all biases are equally harmful. This is due to the highly contextual nature in which an algorithm is used. For example, a false positive in a criminal-sentencing algorithm arguably causes more harm than a false positive in a federal benefits determination. Algorithmic bias is not inherently a bad thing and, in some cases, can actually advance equity and inclusion efforts depending on the specific contexts (consider a hiring algorithm for higher-level management that weights non-male gender or non-white race more heavily for selection).

Using a Digital Justice Framework To Improve Disaster Preparation and Response

Social justice, environmental justice, and climate justice are all digital justice. Digital injustice arises from the fact that 21 million Americans are not connected to the internet, and seven percent of Americans do not use it, even if they have access to it. This lack of connectivity can lead to the loss of life, disrupted communities, and frayed social cohesion during natural disasters, as people are unable to access life-saving information and preventive tools found online.

Digital injustice primarily affects poor rural communities and African American, Indigenous, and other communities of color. These communities are also overexposed to climate risk, economic fragility, and negative public health outcomes. Digital access is a pathway out of this overexposure. It is a crucial aspect of the digital justice conversation, alongside racial equity and climate resilience. 

Addressing this issue requires a long-term commitment to reimagining frameworks, but we can start by helping communities and policymakers understand the problem. Congress and the Biden-Harris Administration should embrace and support the creation of a Digital Justice Policy Framework that includes:

Challenges and Opportunities 

The internet has become a crucial tool in preparing for and recovering from ecological emergencies, building wealth, and promoting community connections. However, the digital divide has created barriers to accessing these resources for millions of people, particularly low-income individuals and people of color. The lack of access to the internet and technology during emergencies deepens existing vulnerabilities and creates preventable losses of life, displacement, and disrupted lives.

The map above shows the intersection between flood or sea level risk and lack of access to the internet. Credit: ArcGIS Online, Living Atlas, Monica Sanders. Click through for full interactive map.

Digital divestment, disasters, and poverty overlap in dangerous ways that reveal “inequities and deepen existing vulnerability… In the United States, roughly 21% of children live in poverty and without consistent access to food. Cascading onto poverty and vulnerability to large-scale events like pandemics and other disasters is the lack of access to the Internet and the education and opportunity that comes with it.”

A recent report about digital divestment in rural communities shows that access to internet infrastructure, devices, and information is critical to economic development. Yet rural communities are more likely to have no device in the home—26.4% versus 20% of the broader United States. Access to broadband is even lower, as most rural counties have just one or no provider. Geography often challenges access to public services. 

To tackle this issue, we must reimagine the use of data to ensure that all communities have access to information that reduces vulnerability and strengthens resilience. One pathway to reimagining data in a meaningful way is laid out in a National Academies of Science consensus study report, “Communities need information that they can effectively use in making decisions and investments that reduce the vulnerability and strengthen the resilience of their residents, economy, and environment. Assembling and using that information requires three things. First, data, while often abundantly available to communities, can be challenging for local communities and users to navigate, access, understand, and evaluate relative to local needs and questions. Second, climate data needs to be vetted and translated into information that is useful at a local level. Finally, information that communities receive from other sources needs to reflect the challenges and opportunities of those communities to not just be useful but also used.” Once communities are effectively connected and skilled up, they can use the information to make effective decisions.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) looked into the intersection of information and justice, releasing a study on the fragmented and overlapping broadband plan and funding. It recommended a national strategy to help scale these efforts across communities and focus agency efforts on communities in need that includes recommendations for education, workforce training, and evidence-based policymaking.

Communities can be empowered to take a data-driven journey from lack of access to resources to using innovative concepts like regenerative finance to build resiliency. With the right help, divested communities can co-create sustainable solutions and work toward digital justice. The federal government should leverage initiatives like the Justice 40 initiative, aimed at undoing past injustices and divestment, to create opportunities for communities to gain access to the tools they need and understand how to use them.

Plan of Action

Executive branch agencies and Congress should initiate a series of actions to establish a digital justice framework. The first step is to provide education and training for divested communities as a pathway to participate in digital and green economies. 

  1. Funding from recent legislation and agency earmarks should be leveraged to initiate education and training targeted at addressing historical inequities in the localization, quality, and information provided by digital infrastructure:
    • The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) allocates $65 billion to expand the availability of broadband Internet access. The bulk of that funding is dedicated to access and infrastructure. Under the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program, there is both funding and broad program language that allows for upskilling and training. Community leaders and organizations need support to advocate for funding at the state and local levels.  
  2. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)1 environmental education fund, which traditionally has $2 million to $3.5 million in grant support to communities, is being shaped right now. Its offerings and parameters can be leveraged and extended without significant structural change. The fund’s parameters should include elements of the framework, including digital justice concepts like climate, digital, and other kinds of literacy programs in the notices of funding opportunities. This would enable community organizations that are already doing outreach and education to include more offerings in their portfolios. 

To further advance a digital justice framework, agencies receiving funding from IIJA and other recent legislative actions should look to embed education initiatives within technical assistance requests for proposals and funding announcements. Communities often lack access to and support in how to identify and use public resources and information related to digital and climate change challenges. One way to overcome this challenge is to include education initiatives as key components of technical assistance programs. In its role of ensuring the execution of budget proposals and legislation, the Office of Budget and Management (OMB) can issue guidance or memoranda to agencies directing them to include education elements in notices of funding, requests for proposals, and other public resources related to IIJA, IRA and Justice 40. 

One example can be found in the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program. In addition to helping communities navigate the federal funding landscape, OMB could require that new rounds of the program include climate or resilience education and digital literacy. The BRIC program can also increase its technical assistance offerings from 20% of applicants to 40%, for example. This would empower recipients to navigate the fuller landscape of using science to develop solutions and then successfully navigate the funding process. 

Another program that is being designed at the time of this writing is the Environmental and Climate Justice Grant Program, which contains $3 billion in funding from the IRA. There is a unique opportunity to draft requests for information, collaboration, or proposals to include ideas for education and access programs to democratize critical information by teaching communities how to access and use it.

An accompanying public education campaign can make these ideas sustainable. Agencies should engage with the Ad Council on a public education campaign about digital justice or digital citizenship, social mobility, and climate resilience. As an example, in 2022 FEMA funded a preparation initiative directed at Black Americans and disasters with the Ad Council that discussed protecting people and property from disasters across multiple topics and media. The campaign was successful because the information was accessible and demonstrated its value. 

Climate literacy and digital citizenship training are as necessary for those designing programs as they are for communities. The federal agencies that disburse this funding should be tasked with creating programs to offer climate literacy and digital citizenship training for their workforce. Program leaders and policy staff should also be briefed and trained in understanding and detecting data collection, aggregation, and use biases. Federal program officers can be stymied by the lack of baseline standards for federal workforce training and curricula development. For example, FEMA has a goal to create a “climate literate” workforce and to “embed equity” into all of its work—yet there is no evidence-based definition nor standard upon which to build training that will yield consistent outcomes. Similar challenges surface in discussions about digital literacy and understanding how to leverage data for results.2 Within the EPA, the challenge is helping the workforce understand how to manage the data it generates, use it to inform programs, and provide it to communities in meaningful ways. Those charged with delivering justice-driven programs must be provided with the necessary education and tools to do so. 

FEMA, like the EPA and other agencies, will need help from Congress. Congress should do more to support scientific research and development for the purpose of upskilling the federal workforce. Where necessary, Congress must allocate funding, or adjust current funding mechanisms, to provide necessary resources. There is $369 billion for “Energy Security and Climate Change” in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 that broadly covers the aforementioned ideas. Adjusting language to reference programs that address education and access to information would make it clear that agencies can use some of that funding. In the House, this could take the form of a suspension bill or addition as technical correction language in a report. In the Senate, these additions could be added as amendments during “vote-o-rama.”

For legislative changes involving the workforce or communities, it is possible to justify language changes by looking at the legal intent of complementary initiatives in the Biden-Harris Administration. In addition to IIJA provisions, policy writers can use parts of the Inflation Reduction Act and the Justice 40 initiative, as well as the climate change and environmental justice executive orders, to justify changes that will provide agencies with direction and resources. Because this project is at the intersection of climate and digital justice, the jurisdictional alignments would mainly be with the United States Department of Commerce, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the United States Department of Agriculture, EPA and FEMA.

Recommendations for federal agencies:

Recommendations for Congress:

Conclusion

Digital justice is about a deeper understanding of the generational challenges we must confront in the next few years: the digital divide, climate risk, racial injustice, and rural poverty. Each of these connects back to our increasingly digital world and efforts to make sure all communities can access its benefits. A new policy framework for digital justice should be our ultimate goal. However, there are present opportunities to leverage existing programs and policy concepts to create tangible outcomes for communities now. Those include digital and climate literacy training, public education, and better education of government program leaders as well as providing communities and organizations with more transparent access to capital and information.

Frequently Asked Questions
What is digital divestment?

Digital divestment refers to the intentional  exclusion of certain communities and groups from the social, intellectual, and economic benefits of the internet, as well as technologies that leverage the internet.

What is climate resilience?

Climate resilience is about successfully coping with and managing the impacts of climate change while preventing those impacts from growing worse. This does not mean only thinking about severe weather. It also includes economic shocks and public health emergencies that come with climate change. During the COVID-19 pandemic, women disproportionately passed away and in one Maryland city, survivors’ social mobility decreased by 1%. However, the introduction of community WIFI began to change these outcomes.

What does digital justice have to do with climate change?

Communities (municipalities, states) that are left out of access to internet infrastructure not only miss out on educational, economic, and social mobility opportunities; they also miss out on critical information about severe weather and climate change. Scientists and researchers depend on an internet connection to conduct research to target solutions. No high-quality internet means no access to information about cascading risk.

How does this impact rural areas?

While the IIJA broadband infrastructure funding is a once-in-a-generation effort, the reality is that in many rural areas broadband is either not cost-effective nor a feasible solution due to geography or other contexts.

How can technology policy help create solutions?

By opening funding to different kinds of internet infrastructures (community Wi-Fi, satellite, fixed access), communities can increase their risk awareness and make their own solutions.

Why should the federal government take action on this issue vs. a state or local government or the private sector?

The federal government is already creating executive orders and legislation in this space. What is needed is a more cohesive plan. In some cases that may entail partnering with the private sector or finding creative ways to partner with communities.

What is the first step?

The first step is briefings and socializing this policy work because looking at equity, tech, and climate change from this perspective is still new and unfamiliar to many.

Assessing Agency-Reported Progress on the Justice40 Initiative

Question: What do family game nights and federal government initiatives have in common?

Answer: They’re both much easier to successfully start than to successfully finish.

Coordinating multiple stakeholders—each with their unique interests and perspectives—around a common goal is simply difficult. At FAS, we have yet to figure out how to best tackle family game nights. But we have found that for complex federal initiatives involving many agencies, taking the time to step back and assess progress to date often paves the way for continued future success. We also recognize that unless specifically tasked and resourced, Executive Branch agencies and offices generally lack capacity to do this on their own.

That’s why today, FAS is releasing an independent assessment of agency-reported progress on the Administration’s Justice40 Initiative—a landmark whole-of-government effort to ensure that 40% of the overall benefits of certain federal investments flow to disadvantaged communities that are marginalized, underserved, and overburdened by pollution.

The complete assessment is freely available here. A supplemental spreadsheet to the assessment is available here.

The assessment focuses on the 175 Justice40 recommendations issued by the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC) in May 2021. Key takeaways include:

Additional background and insights from the assessment are provided below. 

The WHEJAC and the Justice40 Initiative

President Biden launched the Justice40 Initiative within days of taking office in January 2021. Executive Order (E.O.) 14008, which created the Initiative, also established the first-ever White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC). The WHEJAC comprises two dozen experts in environmental justice, climate change, disaster preparedness, racial inequity, and related fields. 

The WHEJAC’s mission is to provide advice and recommendations to the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council (IAC) “on how to increase the Federal Government’s efforts to address current and historic environmental injustice.” The WHEJAC’s first suite of recommendations, released in May 2021, included 175 specifically focused on the Justice40 Initiative. In May 2022, CEQ delivered a required report to Congress that included responses from the federal agencies named in each of these.

Assessing agency-reported progress on Justice40

To inform the WHEJAC’s future efforts, and to support ongoing implementation of the Justice40 Initiative, we at FAS conducted an independent assessment of the WHEJAC’s Justice40 recommendations and CEQ’s corresponding report. We emphasize that this assessment was scoped to elucidate key insights and trends from agency-reported progress on Justice40, and did not include independent verification of agency responses. The assessment includes five sections:

Read the full assessment:

Creating a National Infrastructure for Digital Mental Health Services

Summary

The COVID-19 pandemic is exacerbating an existing mental health crisis to such a degree that many fear it will overwhelm the fragmented mental health delivery system in the United States. Rates of mental health problems—including depression, trauma- and stressor-related disorders, substance abuse, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts—have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Scarce access to mental health services compounds the problem. Nearly 25 million Americans with mental health needs go untreated each year, and half of U.S. counties have no access to mental health care whatsoever. However, the current moment presents an opportunity. Even as the pandemic increased needs for mental health services, so too did pandemic-related shifts reveal the broad utility of and interest in digital solutions such as mobile apps, digital therapeutics, and digital therapy.

In the absence of regulation, however, ineffective and potentially harmful digital mental health products may make their way into consumer hands. Estimates suggest that over 20,000 digital mental health products exist, yet only five have received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance. The FDA temporarily reduced their enforcement and review of these products due to COVID-19. But moving forward, addressing the largely unregulated space of digital mental health products is critical to mitigate harm of unverified digital mental health solutions. As examples of potential harms, companies have used digital products to offer services but from unlicensed providers, withheld client information from providers, or made data available to various third parties without following stated terms of services. Developing an infrastructure to regulate these products while also helping provide and reimburse effective and safe digital mental health solutions is essential to meet the overwhelming need for mental health services and ensure quality and equity in mental health care.

Demystifing Tech Careers: Industry-Driven Transparency for Expanding Access to the New Economy

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and/or the National Economic Council and Department of Labor should convene a Transparent Tech Training Alliance, a coalition of public and private sector leaders called to expand access to early tech careers by codifying and communicating industry hiring standards. To meet the economy’s urgent and growing demand for tech workers, innovative educators have developed tens of thousands of short courses and bootcamps to rapidly upskill workers. But this landscape is complicated to navigate, especially for low-wage workers and small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) who are training and hiring in tech at increasing numbers. Without intervention, this nascent system will exacerbate the divide between the “haves and have nots” of our economy, further endangering the health of our workforce, communities, and businesses.

In response, the Alliance should:

  1. make a highly publicized commitment to unprecedented transparency in hiring practices and the annual publication of hiring data;
  2. generate a clear, industry-driven guide of certified credentials, career pathways, and funding sources;
  3. utilize this guide and more for a prize competition that modernizes CareerOneStop; and
  4. reconvene annually to publicize their progress and update resources.

Challenge and Opportunity

America’s pool of tech talent will grow too slowly and homogeneously to meet the economy’s needs. An estimated 400,000 STEM college students graduate every year, but by 2030 there will still be a shortage of 6 million tech workers in the United States. The accelerated demand for tech workers has driven educators to create innovative training methods, like short-courses and bootcamps. Now, the tech-training space has become crowded and governed by an opaque universe of unwritten rules: Which bootcamps and credentials are reputable? What projects make a compelling portfolio? What types of questions will be asked in an interview?

Those with personal or professional networks in the technology industry have access to information that helps them navigate to the “right” programs and credentials for upskilling. However, those without access to this information risk investing time and financial resources into low-quality training programs with limited guarantees of joining the new economy.

This unnecessarily blocks a new pipeline of workers ready to fill high-demand vacancies, while also cementing the industry’s homogeneous hiring practices and exacerbating racial and gender inequality. Considering their total workforce participation, women and Black and Latinx workers are severely underrepresented along the career spectrum. Given the anticipated rapid expansion of jobs in technology, and the compression of jobs in other fields, there is an urgent need to address these gaps and provide access to upskilling for all workers, especially in the technology industry.

The “alphabet soup” of tech training programs and failures of existing federal tools to guide workers bear large responsibility for the system’s failure.

Alphabet Soup

The tech credential and training space is often referred to as “alphabet soup” to denote the myriad of available options: workers must decide between more than 12,000 cybersecurity, 4,000 IT Helpdesk and 17,000 web programming credential options, and there are many more categories of tech professions.

On one hand, the saturation of credentialing services indicates educators are innovatively upskilling and reskilling workers to fill in-demand jobs. On the other, it creates a significant challenge of reliability for workers looking for a program or credential that will enable their gainful employment. It also creates a barrier for SMEs, who are rapidly hiring tech talent but may not have the technical expertise to assess highly qualified workers among the universe of credential options. Without clear metrics for quality, both candidates and businesses waste precious time and financial resources navigating this nontransparent process.

Black and Latinx individuals are disproportionately in a position of reliance on short-term tech training such as bootcamps to enter the industry due to lack of equitable access to traditional four-year degree programs. Compared to their representation in the tech industry, Black and Latinx workers are 29% and 38% more likely to use bootcamps, respectively. Therefore, these already vulnerable workers incur the disproportionate risk created by such a vast, unregulated landscape, exasperating the existing disparities in access to tech careers.

Failures in Existing Federal Tools

The existing federal tool, CareerOneStop, is ill-equipped to support the needs of the growing tech workforce. Outdated and difficult to use, CareerOneStop provides an incomplete picture of the breadth of career and program options available. CareerOneStop also does not provide comparative tools for workers deciding between different careers or educational pathways. For example, it includes over 70 certifications in cybersecurity without information on cost, results, or anticipated wages after their completion. Information on training, jobs and local support are not integrated by industry verticals, making it tedious to compare one’s options. Lastly, the site is entirely literacy intensive, failing to incorporate video footage or other media to reach workers at lower reading levels or different means of accessibility.

These features disadvantage both workers and counselors, who rely on CareerOneStop to make high-stakes financial investments in reskilling.

A Call for Transparency to Increase Access and Accountability

To maintain its global competitiveness and support the growing tech needs in businesses across all industries, the United States must rapidly upskill workers into programming, cybersecurity and IT jobs. Clear pathways, quality benchmarks, and program options will not only make these careers more accessible, but also less risky to marginalized populations. There is a crucial opportunity to bring transparency to careers in the new economy while the industry is still nascent and developing.

Plan of Action

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and/or the National Economic Council, in close partnership with the Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA), should assemble a Transparent Tech Training Alliance, a cross-sector coalition of leaders with a mandate to increase transparency and therefore access and accountability in tech hiring. They should meet in a highly publicized convening in order to make two public commitments: 

  1. Unprecedented transparency in hiring standards: sharing the “unwritten rules” via accessible documentation that codifies standards and norms in tech recruiting to guide Americans into these careers.
  2. Accountability through public data: committing to a method and timeline for publishing their hiring demographics (e.g. race, gender, educational background and training), no more than one year from the convening.

Spearheaded by the ETA, but including representatives from the broader Departments of Labor and Education, a coalition of federal leaders can accomplish these outcomes through the following three steps:

Step I. Preparation

Assemble a Roster

First, the ETA should propose a cross-sector Alliance, including representatives from major tech companies, large national or regional employers across multiple industries, academia, local government, tech investment and nonprofit organizations that are committed to increasing diversity and inclusion in tech hiring. This will require the ETA to gather research regarding the relevant stakeholders and experts who would have the greatest impact on the group with their attendance whose hiring footprint is either large and growing or most representative of the country’s employers.

Outreach should be conducted by a highly visible member of the Department of Labor such as Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh or Chief Innovation Officer Chike Aguh in order to elevate the importance and urgency of the Alliance.

Publicize a Call to Action for the Alliance

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and/or the National Economic Council must make a Call for Action to the Alliance, drawing an explicit connection between transparency, economic mobility, and equity. This will empower consumers to hold industry accountable for their role in rebuilding the economy justly. In other words, not participating should be equivalent to denouncing equity initiatives in tech. Federal government leaders should apply pressure to companies not only to participate, but to follow through on their commitment to transparent data sharing.

Step II. Convene the Alliance

Host a Formal and Public Initial Convening

A representative from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and/or the National Economic Council or the Department of Labor should open the event with a call to action – clearly connecting access to good jobs with our economic recovery, equity, and global competitiveness. Then, the Alliance members would make the two aforementioned commitments: unprecedented transparency in hiring standards and accountability through public data. These should be documented and signed in a highly public fashion, including a social media campaign and press reporting on the event. Awards should be given to the firms that have made the most progress in hiring diversity and inclusivity in the last decade through data and storytelling spotlights. The convening is also an opportunity to announce the prize competition to modernize CareerOneStop (i.e. Step III). 

Appoint Representatives to a Task Force

The Alliance must recommend representatives for a Task Force to accomplish the following goals:

Reconvene the Alliance Annually to Review Data and Recommit to Transparency

The Alliance should meet annually to:

Step III. Use a Prize Competition to Update Federal Resources

Driven by the ETA, the Department of Labor should launch a prize competition to modernize CareerOneStop, the existing federal career exploration platform. The new platform should spotlight the Alliance Task Force’s information on transparency on high-demand tech jobs, and the educational levels needed to attain them. It should also clarify pathways between skills, credentials, and jobs on a platform that is user friendly for workers, counselors and small- and medium- business leaders who are hiring in fields like programming, IT and cybersecurity. The best platforms will include resources for integrating the content into other sites such as LinkedIn, a corresponding smart phone application, and multi-language access.

The Prize Competition will also bring attention to the broader initiative, driving both employer and worker traffic to the site upon publication. There should be a monetary prize of approximately $100,000 for the winner and runners up, and a multi-year contract for the winner to manage the platform. It should be publicized in the coder community, via tech investors, and publicly on federal sites such as www.challenge.gov.

Conclusion 

The potential of the Transparent Tech Training Alliance lies in government leaders’ “power of the podium” to motivate industry leaders to increase transparency about their hiring practices and data. Equipped with relevant knowledge about the credentials and training experiences industry most values, delivered via a modernized, user-friendly tool, workers can invest their time and financial resources in upskilling and reskilling in tech. By making “insider information” about industry preferences public, the White House and ETA will create opportunities for all Americans to access gainful employment in the technology industry.

Establishing the White House Council on Disabilities

Every American deserves to engage with the world on their own terms. But for the 61 million adults in the United States living with a disability, challenges—including social isolation, the need for advanced assistive technologies, access to care, and economic security—abound. These challenges require a coordinated National Strategy on Disabilities.

To empower people with disabilities to engage with the world on their own terms, President Biden should establish a White House Council on Disabilities tasked with the mission of providing a federally coordinated approach to aligning federal policy, medical reimbursement, and research funding to address issues critical to people those living with disabilities. The goal of this Council would be to provide much-needed leadership and coordination among federal agencies and with external stakeholders, that enable the development of (and access to) the new knowledge and technologies necessary to better support Americans with disabilities of all types and further enrich connections to one another and our economy.

Challenge and Opportunity

July 26, 2020 marked the 30th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This landmark piece of legislation aimed to “provide equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency” for people with disabilities. The ADA also drove positive change in Americans’ attitudes about disabilities by asserting that people with disabilities “should participate fully in all aspects of our communities and have opportunities to take risks, to succeed, and—yes—to fail.” While the ADA has addressed many of the major civil-rights challenges faced by those living with disabilities, more must be done to modernize the government’s approach to meeting the needs of people living with disabilities.

Over a quarter (61 million) of adult Americans live with a disability. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that out of this group:

We the authors write from the perspective of people living with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), which creates physical and cognitive limitations for thousands of Americans each year and serves as a powerful example of many obstacles Americans with disabilities often face. ALS is just one of the countless conditions that make it challenging for Americans to engage with the world in the way that they want. Many of these challenges could be addressed through coordinated federal activities, investment, and programs for people with disabilities.

For example, those living with conditions such as muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s, and spina bifida, need new and improved technologies that provide better mobility, independence, and self-care—technologies such as lighter, nimbler wheelchairs. Today’s power wheelchairs are heavy, bulky, and hard to transport on buses and planes. In fact, one airline recently proposed a policy that would preclude people who use heavy wheelchairs from flying on small regional jets. While the policy was reversed after activist involvement, the fact that it was proposed in the first place demonstrates some of the limitations of existing equipment and policy. Public and private investment in innovation that would make power wheelchairs lighter and more mobile would make it easier for people with certain mobility limitations to leave their homes and more fully engage with the world.

Directly related to the need for innovation is the need for modern payment and reimbursement policies that create affordable access to such technologies for people living with disabilities. New medical technologies are useless if people aren’t able to access them. For example, Medicare only covers equipment primarily intended for in-home use. That means that Medicare will not reimburse for essential exterior home modifications such as wheelchair ramps. People with disabilities have the right to be outside. It is time for a commonsense approach to coverage for services and technology that empower Americans with disabilities to experience life on their terms. Another example is that Medicare will only cover equipment for a direct medical reason. This constraint precludes coverage for multi-use devices that can ease access challenges for people with disabilities, including tablet computers that can convert eye gaze to speech and other assistive technology devices.

It is time for a commonsense, open-minded approach to coverage for services and technologies that empower Americans with disabilities. Today’s medical-reimbursement policies are outdated and problematically narrow in scope. These policies must be updated to recognize the broad potential of consumer technology and value of connectedness to wellness. Removing constraints on innovation and function in reimbursement policies will also encourage development of new and creative solutions to the diverse challenges facing those with disabilities.

Modern and coordinated research, development, and reimbursement policies are critical for tapping the enormous value that society would gain from enabling people with disabilities to engage the world more fluidly and consistently—including through employment. Just 36% of adults living with disabilities are employed. Addressing the challenges faced by people living with disabilities would help more of those people join the workforce, boosting the economy and productivity while enabling those with disabilities to live lives that are fuller and more financially secure.

Finally, there is a need to develop a data-centric approach to the evolution of policy over time to ensure that guidances, rules, and regulations are regularly updated to meet the needs of people living with disabilities based on data and the best information available. Are our policies having the impacts we need to help people with engage the world on their terms?

Plan of Action

Establishing the White House Council on Disabilities

The Biden campaign’s Plan for Full Participation and Equality for People with Disabilities provides solid groundwork for ensuring that people with disabilities are included in policy and decision-making. Realizing the promise of this plan requires a coordinating executive body to ensure that government agencies are implementing synergistic policies and avoiding bureaucratic silos. The Biden-Harris Administration should establish a White House Council on Disabilities (WHCD), run through the Domestic Policy Council, as an action-oriented entity that complements—rather than replicates—the largely advisory work of the National Council on Disability. The WHCD’s responsibilities would include:

  1. Coordinating federal activities and programs for people with disabilities.
  2. Examining everyday challenges facing those living with disabilities, identify opportunities for addressing those challenges, and set goals and timelines designed to increase engagement and stimulate innovation around disabilities.
  3. Revisiting the ADA to see where improvements and updates need to be made.

The WHCD should be tasked with developing a National Strategy on Disabilities that lays out specific actions and forward-leaning public policies related to each of these workstreams that should be implemented over the next four years in order to improve quality of life for all people living with disabilities in the United States. As part of developing the strategy, the WHCD should aunch a robust public-engagement effort. For instance, the WHCD should organize forums that bring together private and public stakeholders to discuss common issues, and should host listening sessions to hear directly from people living with disabilities and their care partners.

The Biden campaign’s Plan for Full Participation and Equality for People with Disabilities provides solid groundwork for ensuring that people with disabilities are included in policy and decision-making. However, a coordinating executive body is needed to ensure that government agencies are implementing complementary policies and avoiding bureaucratic silos, so that the promise of the President’s campaign plan can be realized. This action-oriented effort would be complementary to the National Council on Disability, which is “an independent federal agency charged with advising the President, Congress, and other federal agencies regarding policies, programs, practices, and procedures that affect people with disabilities”. The Administration should build on this work and existing structures to ensure that the Biden plan can be implemented by appointing a Director of the WHCD to drive and oversee this effort.

The WHCD should also be tasked with establishing a comprehensive research agenda focused on addressing challenges faced by those living with disabilities that goes beyond the development of new technologies, and also improves social engagement and isolation common among people living with disabilities. The agenda should include research on:

  1. Meeting technology needs, including those related to assistive technology and durable medical equipment (DME), communications technology and broadband access, transportation, and education.
  2. Ensuring affordable access to and reimbursement for care, including by implementing new financing mechanisms, working with existing providers, and funding innovation.
  3. Promoting economic security of those living with disabilities, including by expanding employment opportunities, implementing tax reforms, and changing social policies.

Priority areas and opportunities for action

Herein, we expand on three priority areas—and associated opportunities for action—that the WHCD could pursue. Each of these areas demonstrates the clear positive impacts that a WHCD could have on the lives of the millions living with disabilities across the United States.

Priority Area 1. Research and technology: innovation that empowers

People with disabilities use a variety of technologies to improve their lives. For mobility-challenged persons, for instance, key technologies include powered wheelchairs, special beds, and stair-lifts. But these products can be expensive and unwieldy, and no federal agency is specifically charged with driving innovation for the disabled community. In cases where innovation has occurred, such as more compact ventilators or high mobility wheelchairs, Medicare’s focus on in-home use does not adequately consider the benefits of equipment that better supports travel and social engagement. 

As part of the National Strategy on Disabilities, the WHCD should identify ways to improve and expand access to advanced technologies for people living with disabilities, such as:

The federal government could also establish clear and straightforward reimbursement pathways for advanced technologies. Better reimbursement policies create incentives for innovations and accelerate uptake of new technologies, thereby improving quality of life improvement for people living with disabilities. Durable Medical Equipment (DME) is a class of technologies that would especially benefit from modernized reimbursement policies. DME refers to non-disposable devices used at home to assist someone with a function. Examples of DME include wheelchairs, ventilators, crutches, and CPAP machines. As discussed previously existing reimbursement policies like in home use requirements tend to be rigid in the types of DME they cover, leading to disincentives to innovate in this space. The WHCD could coordinate a strategy for enhancing innovation in DME.

The first step is to ensure that research and development funding, as well as federal insurance coverages for DME, enable innovation that maximize engagement and equipment function. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services could sponsor an Innovation Pilot testing novel DME devices. The WHCD could ensure that federal initiatives such as this are coordinated and complementary. The second step is to encourage DME manufacturers to enhance collaborations with manufacturers of consumer technology (e.g., speech-to-text capabilities and auto-driving assistance) as well as with manufacturers of cutting-edge technology (e.g., brain-computer interfaces and exoskeletons). Innovation to support enhanced mobility, computer control, and other important functions for people with disabilities can in turn cross over to applications in broader consumer markets. The end result of these cycles of improvement will be better DME for people with disabilities as well as new products that benefit even those outside of the disabled community.

Priority Area 2. Communication and social engagement

The WHCD could establish an interagency agenda to develop and deliver science and technology that can reduce the isolation of Americans living with disabilities, and empower those Americans to engage with the world as they wish. Developing and implementing the science for this subset of Americans can not only result in fast improvements, but can also help develop strategies to address isolation and disengagement across America as a whole.

The impacts of social isolation have come into sharp focus during the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet people with disabilities face challenges of isolation every single day. Disabilities can make it difficult to communicate online, to speak on the phone, and/or to meet people in person. Investments need to be made to identify and deploy effective mechanisms for all people with disabilities to maintain social engagement and emotional wellness. The Biden campaign’s call for a new Assistive Technology Innovation Fund, administered by the Department of Commerce, to sponsor public-private partnerships focused on increasing the independence of people living with disabilities is a great starting point. As with DME, innovations targeted at the disabled community will ultimately cross over into the broader consumer market to help address isolation and disengagement across America as a whole.

Improving access to broadband is fundamental to ensuring that people with disabilities have the means for social and economic engagement. Broadband also fulfills a medical need, providing better access to healthcare through avenues such as remote monitoring and telehealth. However, according to a Pew Research Center survey, “[d]isabled Americans are about three times as likely as those without a disability to say they never go online.” Adults with disabilities are also less likely to have broadband at home. President Biden’s commitment to invest $20 billion in rural broadband infrastructure, direct the federal government to support cities and towns that want to build municipally owned broadband networks, and increase funding for states to expand broadband will help communities tackle the digital divide. Broadband access alone is not sufficient to create social engagement, but ensuring equitable access is an important first step.

A next step is supporting research into how today’s technologies and tools can be leveraged to better include and engage people living with disabilities. How can we best use broadband and internet-enabled platforms to promote social engagement? How can instrumental enablers of engagement like broadband and social media, accessible transportation, DME, and others be combined with behavioral and educational interventions, volunteer activities, and online communities to reduce social isolation? These are empirical questions that need study and demonstration, coupled with evidence-based policymaking, to drive a new era of inclusiveness for all people with disabilities. And if we as a nation can develop the science to address isolation for Americans with physical and communication challenges, we can use that same science to help reduce isolation for all Americans. This will lead to the more connected and inclusive nation President Biden has been calling for and that we all wish to see.

Finally, reducing social isolation and promoting engagement—as well as simply making it easier to get around one’s community —for those with disabilities demands a concerted effort to address transportation challenges. While investing in better, nimbler DME is a start, new strategies and investments are also needed to improve the transportation infrastructure for the disabled community. Making it easier for people with disabilities to go out in the world makes it easier for them to take advantage of broader opportunities for employment, volunteering, and social engagement, leading to an increase in well-being for individuals and strengthening the overall fabric of our society.

Priority Area 3. Affordable access to care

People with disabilities often have more complex medical needs as well as greater difficulty obtaining quality care. The WHCD should draft forward-leaning access to care policies that agencies can implement, including policies related to telehealth, transportation to medical appointments, and others. Additionally, many forms of disabilities typically require specialized care, including care that sometimes cannot be provided within the person’s home state. Accessing out-of-state care can be challenging, especially for people covered by Medicaid or CHIP. Even after a state Medicaid program or Medicaid Managed Care Organization (MCO) has already authorized out-of-state care, delays in accessing that care may follow. This is an area that the WHCD should examine and propose policy solutions or pilots to address.

People with disabilities often have more complex medical needs as well as greater difficulty obtaining quality care. Additionally, many forms of disabilities typically require specialized care, including care that sometimes cannot be provided within the person’s home state. The WHCD should draft forward-leaning access to care policies that agencies can implement, including policies related to telehealth, transportation to medical appointments, and access to distant specialty services.

Conclusion

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a laudable piece of civil-rights legislation. But this 30-year-old law certainly does not solve the many challenges encountered by Americans with disabilities today. ADA current rules are insufficient – three decades ago it was about getting people into places and securing legal protections, but we’re facing a different set of problems now like access to Broadband, self-driving cars, and telemedicine.

Now is the time to put into motion a coordinated federal effort to empower people with disabilities to engage with the world on their own terms. The problems are complex and require coordination of federal agencies and leadership from and within the White House. The Establishment of the WHCD could ensure that legislative policy fixes and agency implementation go hand in glove.

The Biden campaign’s Plan for Full Participation and Equality for People with Disabilities provides a solid foundation for ensuring that people with disabilities are well served by federal policy and decision-making. A coordinating body can bring the President’s vision to life and ensure that government agencies are implementing complementary policies and avoiding bureaucratic silos. A new White House Council on Disabilities (WHCD) can serve these functions.

Within 6 months of formation, the WHCD should develop and release a detailed National Strategy on Disabilities that covers topics such as innovation in technologies that enable those living with disabilities to engage with the world as they choose, ensuring affordable access to those technologies, and promoting economic security by expanding employment opportunities for those living with disabilities. These actions can and must be informed by the communities they affect. The WHCD should prioritize listening sessions with those living with disabilities and their care partners. It will also be important to bring together other key stakeholders from the disabilities community, including nonprofits, advocates, medical providers, payers, technologists, and others. By working together, we can do much to empower people with disabilities to live independently and to the fullest.

An Inclusion, Diversity & Equity in American Life (IDEAL) Commission

Summary

Collaboration among federal, state, local, and other stakeholders is essential if real progress is to be made in healing racial divisions in our country. The federal government invests billions in programs aimed at improving equality and diminishing substantial barriers to progress by racial and ethnic minorities. There is scant evidence, however, about which programs are most effective at achieving diversity, equity, and inclusion goals. Creating a temporary commission consisting of officials from relevant agencies can fill this gap. It can begin the process of building a body of evidence about what works and reinvesting in more effective practices. The commission would be responsible for inventorying programs designed to improve diversity, equity, or inclusion; assessing the body of evidence about them; and clarifying common goals. The Inclusion, Diversity & Equity in American Life (IDEAL) Commission would make an important contribution to finding more effective remedies to some of our country’s most lasting, difficult wounds. In fact, it would reinforce the Biden-Harris Administration’s recent executive order, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” which stated unequivocally that “[a]ffirmatively advancing equity, civil rights, racial justice, and equal opportunity is the responsibility of the whole of our Government.” A close working relationship between the commission proposed here and the Equitable Data Working Group established by the executive order would be essential.

Banning Noncompete Agreements to Create Competitive Job Markets

(To see full list of citations, download the PDF version)

Competitive job markets are critical to the success of the national economy, spurring innovation while boosting wages and labor equality. The moment is ripe for the new administration to foster competitive job markets by banning noncompete agreements (noncompetes). New empirical evidence shows that noncompetes have harmful effects on job mobility, wages, competition, entrepreneurship, and equality. Yet noncompetes are widely included in employment contracts. And inconsistent state rules on noncompetes (and their enforcement) have led to employee confusion and disputes among state courts.

A tough, consistent federal strategy to eliminate noncompetes is needed. Several recent federal and state initiatives addressing noncompetes have created momentum that the new administration can build on to rapidly address this issue. The Biden-Harris administration should (1) adopt a federal ban on noncompetes, (2) actively educate the public about their labor-mobility rights (and actively support those rights), and (3) take proactive steps to ensure compliance with labor-mobility policy. Specific steps the new administration could consider include:

Challenge and Opportunity

Noncompetes Hurt Workers and the Economy

Noncompete agreements are contracts that prohibit employees from working for or becoming a competitor for a certain period of time. By restricting employees from switching employers or starting their own competing businesses, noncompetes have harmful economic effects. They depress wages, reduce entrepreneurship, and impede efforts to correct inequities in labor markets. In the past decade, a wealth of research—including diverse empirical, experimental, and theoretical studies—have revealed the adverse effects of noncompete contracts and similar restrictions on the free movement of human capital. As a 2018 article states, “policymakers, economists, and legal scholars…overwhelmingly conclude that the harms of noncompetes far outweigh their potential benefits.” The research shows that lifting noncompete restrictions—thereby increasing job mobility—is good for entrepreneurship, wages, industry and regional economic growth, and equality.

Entrepreneurship

Increased enforcement of noncompetes favors large, incumbent firms. Studies find that markets become more concentrated when noncompetes are adopted and enforced. When employees sign noncompetes with established firms, start-up companies have difficulty recruiting talent. Indeed, a ban on noncompetes in California generated greater and faster innovation because employees with good ideas that their employer did not want to use were able to take those ideas elsewhere.

Wages

Noncompetes decrease wages. Employers calibrate compensation largely based on competing external offers. When external offers are reduced, employers face less pressure to increase wages. In 2015, Hawaii passed a law banning noncompete and non-solicitation clauses from employment contracts in the high-tech industry. A recent study found that Hawaii ban increased employee mobility in the high-tech sector by 11% and increased new-hire salaries by 4%. Noncompetes even decrease wages for employees who have not signed them. In a market that enforces noncompetes, wages and mobility are lower for everyone, including those not directly bound by noncompetes. These impacts can last a long time. A 2017 study found that post-employment restrictions have persistent wage-suppressing effects that last throughout a worker’s job and employment history. 

Equality

Restrictions on job mobility have a disproportionate negative effect on certain demographics. In job markets, discovering one is competitive depends on the frequency with which one is exposed to information about one’s comparative options in the market. In job markets where workers don’t often move from job to job, the “price” of labor (i.e., the terms and conditions of an employee’s contract) will lag behind an employee’s true market value. If an employee discovers their undervalued labor compensation by receiving an external (better) offer from a competitor employer, the employee can use that information to negotiate a higher salary with their current employer. If the current employer offers to match the higher salary, the competitor employer can come back with an even higher offer. This process continues until one employer backs down, leaving the employee better and more fairly compensated as a result.

The existence of noncompetes cause this process to break down by taking away employee bargaining power. Noncompetes harm equality in several ways as a result. First, noncompetes exacerbate the gender pay gap. Women are more likely to have geographic constraints based on family and spousal obligations. Noncompetes that restricts employee capacity to compete within a region therefore disproportionately hurt woman. Second, taking away employee capacity to entertain outside offers can cause historical pay gaps to persist or widen. Employees cannot discover their true value without external offers. The more external offers are available, the more equity norms and competitive pressures from mobility drive employers to raise wages as retention efforts. Third, white women and people of color are more likely to have non-monetary preferences for a workplace that is free of discrimination and hostility and that values diversity. For example, if a woman discovers that her employer systematically allows harassment of its female employees, she will have a strong interest in examining other opportunities in the market. A noncompete restricting her mobility will prevent her from escaping the discriminatory workplace.

Noncompetes are on the Rise

The use of noncompetes is on the rise in the United States. Employment agreements routinely prohibit workers from accepting a competitor’s job offer, and/or from working in a competing business for a specified period in a certain geographic area. The Treasury Department recently estimated that nearly 30 million workers are bound by noncompete provisions. A study of executive employment contracts found that 70% of the firms investigated imposed noncompetes on their top employees. A forthcoming 2021 study found that noncompetes are also common for non-executive employees with base salaries below $100,000 per year. A 2019 report noted that “the use of noncompetes is so pervasive that even volunteers in non-profit organizations, in states that do not even enforce them, are asked to sign away their post-employment freedom.”

Workers currently have limited recourse when it comes to contesting noncompetes. Court decisions in cases involving noncompetes are highly unpredictable, and litigation can be prohibitively expensive and burdensome for individual employees. Some states—recently including Massachusetts, Washington, Maryland, and New Hampshire—have passed laws voiding most noncompetes, but this state-specific legislative patchwork can be difficult for workers to understand. Many employees, especially those outside the professional class, end up complying with noncompetes even if they aren’t enforceable in the state in which they work (or are planning to move for a new job). Moreover, more and more people are employed at companies with a national presence. Such companies often demand adherence to a noncompete nationwide, even for employees in a state that won’t enforce noncompetes. Inconsistent state rules have also led to conflicts across state lines when an employee bound by a noncompete moves to a state that doesn’t enforce them. This has resulted in a “race to the courthouse” when employees change jobs, as each side tries to get its own state law to apply. It has even led to the unseemly spectacle of courts in different states attempting to prohibit each other from enforcing their respective state policies. Finally, the complex legal landscape surrounding noncompetes further entrenches established companies. Companies with substantial legal and financial resources can be more aggressive in using noncompetes to drive out competition even when their legal claims are on weak grounds. Incumbents may even use a reputation for suing employees who leave as a strategy to deter other employees from leaving.

National Leadership is Needed

Noncompetes aren’t just bad for workers, but for our economy and society as a whole. We do better when workers can easily move between jobs. Increased mobility makes it easier for employees to find employers that most value their skills, and for employers to find employees who are good fits. But without guaranteed labor mobility, the anti-competitive impulses of individual firms create a collective-action problem. Smart policy is needed to ensure everyone benefits from a continuous, high-quality, and flexible labor pool over time. The problem of noncompetes is not a problem that can be solved by states on their own. National leadership is needed. Several federal bills limiting the use of noncompetes (either entirely or just for low-wage workers) have already been drafted. The White House issued a Call for Action in 2016 urging states to limit the use of post-employment restrictions. Also in 2016, the U.S. Treasury Department issued a report on noncompetes warning that when noncompetes are enforced, “innovations spread more slowly, possibly inhibiting the development of industrial clusters like Silicon Valley.” In 2020, the Federal Trade Commission convened a meeting to consider a rule prohibiting noncompete clauses. But so far the FTC has taken no action.

The Biden-Harris Administration can build on this momentum to eliminate noncompetes in the United States once and for all.

Plan of Action

To support talent mobility and enhance human capital, the Biden-Harris Administration should (1) adopt a federal ban on noncompetes, (2) actively educate the public about their labormobility rights (and actively support those rights), and (3) take proactive steps to ensure compliance with labor-mobility policy. Below, we recommend specific steps that the new administration could take towards these goals.

Adopt a Federal Ban on Noncompetes

A federal ban on noncompetes could potentially be achieved by a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) rule barring noncompetes, action through the Department of Justice (DOJ), an executive order, and/or legislation. If barring all noncompetes is not yet politically feasible, targeting noncompetes imposed on low-wage and unskilled workers would be a good first step. 

FTC rule/DOJ action

The FTC and the DOJ’s Antitrust Division have only recently started to consider anti-competitive practices in the labor market to be within their scope of regulating competition and unfair trade practices. The FTC could use its regulatory power under Section 5 of the FTC Act’s prohibition on “unfair methods of competition” to issue a federal rule to ban noncompetes nationwide in appropriate circumstances, such as concentrated markets. The FTC could enforce this rule by bringing action against employers who use, or seek to use, noncompetes to restrict employee mobility in ways that interferes with competition. 

Moreover, California’s Section 16600 and Section 1 of the federal Sherman Act share the language of prohibiting contracts “in restraint of trade.” The California law has been consistently interpreted to ban employment noncompetes. Using this interpretation as precedent, the DOJ could leverage the language in Section 1 of the Sherman Act to ban employment noncompetes nationwide in appropriate circumstances, such as in concentrated markets.

Executive Order

The Biden-Harris administration can also issue executive orders that (1) restrict or eliminate government contracting with companies that employ noncompetes; (2) require employers in states that restrict noncompetes not to sign them with employees in those states, and/or to give prominent notice of the unenforceability of noncompetes in those states.

Legislation

Two recently proposed federal bills propose legislative solutions to the problem of noncompetes. The Workforce Mobility Act proposed in 2018 would prohibit and prevent enforcement of noncompetes for employees who “engage in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.” Under the proposed bill, employers would be fined for each employee subject to a violation of this law, or for each week the employer was in violation. The House version of the bill goes further, specifically stating that noncompetes may violate antitrust laws.

The Mobility and Opportunity for Vulnerable Employees (MOVE) Act of 2015—proposes a full or partial ban on noncompetes, in addition to barring noncompete agreements entirely for low-wage workers. The bill would also require companies to notify job applicants ahead of time if they would be asked to sign a noncompete if hired.

The new administration could work with Congress to revive and pass one or both of these bills. Any federal bill governing noncompetes should also grant employees a private right of action for damages if they are asked to sign an overly broad noncompete agreement.

Actively Support and Publicize Labor-Mobility Rights

Even in states that ban noncompetes, a significant number of employers still require employees to sign them. For example, employers in California—a state that bans noncompetes—insert noncompetes into their employment contracts at rates similar to non-California employers. Because employees in these states may not be aware that noncompetes are illegal, unlawful noncompetes can have a significant deterrent effect on employee mobility. The administration should act to educate the public about their labor-mobility rights, and to crack down on employers unlawfully promulgating noncompetes. The Biden-Harris administration should issue an executive order directing the Department of Labor, FTC, and the DOJ Antitrust Division to collaborate to actively enforce existing labor-mobility laws, and to pursue some or all of the actions below.

Require “right-to-leave” notice in employment contracts

The Biden-Harris Administration should require employment contracts to include a notice about employees’ right to leave their employer. The Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), enacted by Congress in 2016, provides a model for this type of mandatory notice. The DTSA gives employees immunity from criminal or civil liability for reporting illegalities at a company even if reporting reveals trade secrets. The DTSA requires employers to include notice of this immunity in “in any contract or agreement with an employee that governs the use of a trade secret or other confidential information.” Similarly, the Federal Government should require employment contracts to include a clause about the rights of an employee to compete with their previous employer after leaving a job. This clause should be required for all contracts in states that ban noncompetes post-employment. If a federal noncompete ban is enacted, it should apply nationwide. The Federal Government could further promote market competition by amending the DTSA to include a notice on the limits of trade secrets explaining that general know-how and information that is readily ascertainable from public searches cannot be deemed secret and proprietary.

Enforce mobility rights beyond formal noncompetes

In employment contracts, restrictive covenants do not simply appear as a formally labeled “noncompete clause”. Employment contracts regularly include other restrictive provisions such as requirements for non-solicitation of customers and coworkers, pre-innovation assignment agreements, nondisclosure agreements, and non-disparagement clauses. Restrictions like these impose harms similar to noncompete clauses: preventing employee mobility, slowing innovation, stifling start-ups, and concentrating industries. Customer non-solicitation requirements in particular effectively function as noncompetes “because a business without clients is like a pool without water.” Coworker non-solicitation clauses essentially reduce the job opportunities of every former co-worker that the employee in question knows, regardless of whether those coworkers agreed to be part of a restrictive regime. Nondisclosure agreements, theoretically designed to protect trade secrets, are often structured to include not just proprietary knowledge, but also readily ascertainable knowledge about customers and coworkers. The knowledge that a departed employee would use to solicit a former coworker—knowledge pertaining to a person’s skills, talent, personality, experience, and salary—is not an employer’s trade secret and should not be restricted by contract. California courts have recently recognized that employee non-solicitation clauses comprise unlawful restraints on trade under Section 16600. The new administration can build on precedent set in California to control proliferation of overly restrictive provisions in employment contracts nationwide.

Ban salary secrecy

The ability to reveal one’s salary to co-workers and others in the industry is protected by both federal and state law. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) holds that prohibiting any employee—unionized or not—from discussing salaries violates their rights under the National Labor Relations Act to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid. The NLRB has specifically ruled that confidentiality agreements are invalid when they contain provisions that “prohibit employees from disclosing certain personnel information unless authorized by the Company.” Many state laws also make it illegal for any employer to prohibit pay discussions among employees. Digital platforms such as LinkedIn, Glassdoor, Salary.com, and SalaryExpert make compensation information easily searchable. Yet employers have attempted to claim that use of salary knowledge in recruitment efforts by a former employee of a co-worker can amount to a breach of a nondisclosure agreement. The administration should extend the NLRB rule beyond the context of labor unions, banning salary secrecy.

Ensure Compliance with Labor-Mobility Policy

As discussed above, litigation alone cannot address the widespread use of noncompete clauses. Employees often lack the money, time, expertise, or will needed to challenge a noncompete in court. The Federal Government must instead be proactive in understanding the effects that common employer practices and provisions have on labor mobility. Several state attorneys general have taken such a proactive stance. Illinois and New York in particular have recently investigated employers who required their employees to sign unenforceable contracts. These states used consumer laws worded similarly to the federal FTC Act as bases for prosecution. For example, Illinois’s Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” The state attorney general’s office explains that: “An ‘unfair practice’ is one that (1) offends public policy as established by statute, common law or otherwise, (2) is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous, or (3) causes substantial injury to consumers. A non-compete that violates existing common law or statutory restrictions could satisfy each prong of this test, creating a cause of action in states with similar consumer protection statutes or strong unfair competition laws.”80 The Department of Labor and the FTC should collaborate on investigating employers who require their employees to sign unjustifiable noncompetes, using the FTC Act as grounds for investigation.

Conclusion 

The modern economy depends on employee mobility. Our workforce needs to be able to respond to sudden disruptions like COVID-19, which radically shifted demand for workers, and to longer-term geographic and economic trends. Employees should have the freedom to take the jobs that are best for them, or to start new companies if they have innovative ideas that otherwise will never see the light of day. 

Unfortunately, companies are too often able to prevent employees from leaving, either because the law permits it in many states or because employees don’t know their rights. This control depresses wages and employee initiative. It reduces innovation and the adoption of new technologies. And it keeps people stuck in dead-end jobs when they have better alternatives available to them. The current hodgepodge of state laws and the threat of enforcement of a noncompete means that even states that ban noncompetes can’t get the full benefit of the protections they provide to their workers and innovators. It is time for the Federal Government to step in.

Frequently Asked Questions
What agencies would be involved in a federal crackdown on noncompetes?
The approach described herein would be a White House-led, multi-agency effort. Supporting a competitive job market is a goal shared by several government agencies. The Department of Labor oversees employee rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) collects data and enforces federal anti-discrimination laws. The Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice Antitrust Division regulate competition policy. The General Services Administration and individual departments have their own contracts with private suppliers. Because no one agency has clear authority over all the effects of non-competes, the White House should take the lead in developing and implementing a multi-agency approach to eliminating or minimizing noncompetes nationwide. Harnessing the regulatory and enforcement powers of multiple agencies under White House leadership will have significant national impact on wages, innovation, and economic growth.
Didn’t President Obama already take action on noncompetes in 2016?
In 2016, President Obama convened a White House working group that resulted in a Presidential Call for Action to curtail the expansion of noncompetes. The Call for Action asked states that do enforce noncompetes to reject reformation and blue penciling and to take strong action against misleading contracts. That Call for Action was an important step. But it has not resulted in uniform state action to restrict noncompetes. Noncompetes remain pervasive, even in states that do not enforce them. Additional federal leadership is needed.
Is legislation required to curb noncompetes?
Legislation is not required to implement most of the proposals described herein. Executive orders can accomplish things like making notice of labor-mobility rights a mandatory component of employment contracts and giving preference for government contracts to companies that do not use noncompetes. Even a federal ban on noncompetes may not require legislation. Such a ban could be achieved by an FTC rule barring noncompetes under Section 5 of the FTC Act’s prohibition on “unfair methods of competition”. The FTC could enforce this rule by bringing action against employers who use, or seek to use, noncompetes with their employees. Section 1 of the federal Sherman Act prohibiting contracts “in restraint of trade” could similarly be used to prohibit noncompetes that restrain competition in the talent market, particularly in concentrated industries.
Won’t eliminating noncompetes interfere with trade secrets?
In 2016, the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) created a federal civil cause of action for tradesecret misappropriation. The DTSA complements state trade-secrecy laws, which follow the Uniform Trade Secrecy Act. In states like California that ban noncompetes, trade-secrecy laws continue to project employers against the misappropriation of proprietary information. Trade secrecy laws give employers potent protections. Even without noncompetes, employers can continue to protect their confidential information through trade-secrecy law and (reasonable) non-disclosure agreements. Indeed, the effectiveness of trade-secrecy laws highlights the problematic nature of noncompetes. Companies already have strong tools to prevent departing employees from taking their trade secrets. If there’s little risk of a departing employee taking their former employer’s trade secrets with them, the employer’s justification for banning them from taking a new job is much weaker.
Isn’t banning noncompetes at odds with antitrust law’s distinction between horizontal and vertical agreements?
Horizontal collusions among companies agreeing not to hire each other’s employees have only recently drawn the attention of the Department of Justice, which now concludes that these practices are violations of American antitrust law. Similar vertical agreements—i.e., between an employer and their employees—are not normally treated as illegal. But they are still subject to antitrust scrutiny under the rule of reason, and certain categories of vertical restriction are illegal per se. Noncompetes seek to accomplish the same goal that no-poach agreements do: preventing an employee from moving from one competitor to another. In fact, noncompetes are often broader than do-not-hire agreements as they seek to prevent competition within an entire industry, not merely among several firms. Noncompete clauses can hence be interpreted under the Sherman Act as unreasonable non-price vertical restraints.
Wouldn’t federal action on noncompetes interfere with states’ rights?
Competitive labor markets, like competitive consumer markets, are a national issue. Federal law regulates numerous aspects of the labor market, including wage and hour laws, health and safety, discrimination, and family and medical leave. Federal law supplements state law in protecting trade secrets in a global market as well. It makes sense for the Federal Government to also support workers’ ability to leave their employers and to remain active in the national talent pool. Noncompetes contribute to national wage stagnation, continuous racial and gender pay gaps, and market concentration. When they are enforced, employees are either forced to stay with the same company or take an unpaid leave from their industry, risking unemployment and overall reduction in innovation and economic growth. These are issues of key national importance. Moreover, misinformation about noncompete laws is rampant in part because of the great uncertainty created by interstate differences in these laws. Federal leadership will help replace this patchwork with consistency. Finally, employers regularly attempt to include a “choice of law” clause in employment contracts. These contracts allow the employers to adopt the law of the jurisdiction most likely to enforce noncompete clauses. As a result, employees regularly sign noncompetes even in states where they are unenforceable. A national policy is needed to address these linked issues of widespread misinformation and “forum shopping”.

Disrupting Vulnerability Traps and Catalyzing Community Resilience

Summary

The United States needs to radically enhance its efforts to build community disaster resilience. The frequency and cost of billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have increased significantly over the past decade. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency’s estimates, the direct costs of disasters between 2018 and 2019 amounted to over $136 billion. And 2017 Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria resulted in over $265 billion in damage and displaced many communities. Moreover, accelerated urbanization and climate change continue to exacerbate communities’ vulnerability to climate disasters, rendering the current disaster mitigation, recovery, and emergency response policies untenable in the near future.

Resilience has served as an organizing principle for policymakers, first responders, and businesses in marshalling resources to reduce community vulnerability, stimulate recovery, and ensure reliable access to critical services (e.g., energy, water, shelter, food, health, ecosystems services and mobility) in the aftermath of climate disasters. However, the current set of reactive disaster recovery efforts and resilience policies have proven to be inefficient and costly, contributing to the widening of the `climate gap’ and entrenching vulnerability traps, particularly among marginalized and disadvantaged communities.

The Biden-Harris Administration should invest in information technology, data transparency and convergence research to build data-enabled predictive capabilities that anticipate shifts in communities’ demand for critical services under compound climate disasters, and inform effective resource allocation to equitably mitigate the impacts of climate change. These investments will not only enhance stewardship of taxpayer dollars, create jobs and bolster the economy, but will also shrink the rapidly widening climate gap and save lives.

Recruiting and Retaining Highly Effective Teachers of Color

The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to providing the best possible education to all students. Research has established that students of color experience benefits to social and emotional development and learning outcomes when taught by educators of color. Diverse educators and administrators are particularly important for schools with many students of color. Accordingly, schools across the country should prioritize hiring highly-effective teachers of color. This policy proposal identifies opportunities to recruit—and retain—highly effective K-12 educators of color.

As a first step, the Biden-Harris Administration should create an Under Secretary of Diversity at the Department of Education (ED), charged with organizing a White House Summit to establish the value of a diverse teacher workforce and convene leaders to identify best practices and a strategy for Federal Government support of state, local, and private programs. Following the summit, ED, led by the Under Secretary of Diversity, should revisit current programs that identify high need areas, such as math, science and special education to include the pressing need for diverse educators. Simultaneously, the administration must work with Congress to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, incorporating the previously introduced College Transparency Act to ensure robust data reporting and evaluate the effectiveness of financial incentives.

Challenge and Opportunity

A sense of belonging is widely accepted to be a basic human desire. Academic success can be heavily impacted by a sense of belonging in one’s academic environment. For students who do not feel that they belong, it can affect their mental and physical health, and future criminal activity. Schools have at least four racialized areas potentially affected by teacher composition: content, teaching methods, feedback type, and disciplinary practices. Teachers of color are one piece of the solution. Recognizing similarities between shared attributes and/or social identities of themselves and their teachers, connecting with people they can trust and be open with can help support a sense of belonging, which is critical to academic success.

Even as the demographics of the United States continue to shift, the teacher workforce remains overwhelmingly white, leading to a demand for teachers of color that far outweighs the supply. While certain states have had some success recruiting more teachers of color, individuals pursuing teaching careers face significant obstacles, causing many to leave the profession earlier than their white colleagues. For many first-generation students and students of color, the path to a profession in teaching can be perilous, with unsustainable wages and work conditions. Some federal programs designed to help teachers manage student debt and continue teaching have failed the very people who our students need to stay in the profession. The COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated current inequalities in educational outcomes, presenting additional challenges to all teachers, and particularly teachers of color.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that college students are very interested in teaching but lack supported pathways and incentives to pursue a career in the field. Many passionate and talented state, local, and private leaders are working to support highly effective teachers of color, and a strong evidence base shows the potential for successful small-scale programs. However, programs and successes are inconsistent and piecemeal across the country. The Biden-Harris Administration should build on these opportunities to create a strong federal infrastructure that establishes teaching career pathways and supports teachers of color in the classroom.

The success of our country in meeting the needs of the future STEM workforce and productive labor market will depend on our ability to effectively educate a diverse population. Technology is the future—and the present. In STEM and other core workforce areas, the United States is trailing behind other industrialized nations. As the workforce of the future continues to evolve, we need to prepare our students. In our memo, we involve the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), as they, along with the Department of Education (ED), will want to prioritize the workforce of the future—ensuring that the United States is once again leading the world in breakthroughs in science and technology.

Plan of Action

On Day One, the incoming Secretary of Education should: 

Appoint an Under Secretary of Diversity, ED

On Day One, the Biden-Harris Administration should create a new leadership position at ED, an Under Secretary of Diversity. This individual will serve the role of a Chief Diversity Officer, tasked with examining the role of race at the agency, in curricula, teacher preparation and development, and in school and district leadership nationwide, and with ensuring that national education initiatives are inclusive and actively anti-racist. Once in place, the Under Secretary will launch a White House summit, revisit existing programs and practices at ED to increase support for highly effective teachers of color, and support passage of critical legislation.

Launch a White House Summit on how to recruit and retain a highly effective, diverse teacher workforce.

The Biden-Harris Administration should develop an interagency working group to coordinate efforts between ED, NSF, NIH, and the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), as well as education funders and business leaders who have named teacher diversity as a clear priority, to convene leaders who have been successful in finding, developing, and retaining educators of color. This effort would be led by the Under Secretary of Diversity at ED and the Assistant Director for the Education and Human Resources Directorate at NSF.

A White House convening would establish that delivering the best education to students of color is a national priority. The broad goal would be to quickly generate new ideas and learn from best practices toward the goal of establishing a teacher workforce that mirrors the diversity of the American student population. The more specific goals would be:

The Department of Education should prioritize supporting highly effective teachers of color.

ED should revisit current programs to include diverse educators in the requirements for high-need areas. The department currently provides incentives for states and school districts to hire and for individuals to pursue teaching. A comprehensive plan to substantially increase the diversity of educators must also consider retention and the professional experience after training. ED should promote retention by providing incentives for school districts to hire cohorts of diverse educators in order to reduce isolation and provide support. A “best-practices” grant program to ensure deep investment in programming also warrants renewed attention.

ED should:

Urge Congress to Reauthorize the Higher Education Act (HEA), incorporating the previously proposed College Transparency Act (CTA).

Sustained federal investment in achieving diversity of K-12 educators that align with the diversity of our students will lead to improved social and emotional development and learning outcomes of our diverse population. CTA legislation is needed to enable the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to develop and maintain a secure, privacy-protected postsecondary student-level data system in order to accurately evaluate student enrollment patterns, progression, completion, and post collegiate outcomes, as well as higher education costs and financial aid. The Higher Education Act should be reauthorized to expand access, improve affordability, and promote completion for all students, including prospective teachers of color. Reauthorization should include critical protections for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.

Building Thriving Local Economies by Leveraging the Maker Movement to Close the Skills Gap

Summary

The Federal Government should further invest in, support and scale four existing approaches to building local skills and vibrant, self-sufficient local economies by coupling localities’ needs with workforce development and small-scale manufacturing. This is achieved by scaling local programs and initiatives which harness the Maker Movement, a community-driven, grassroots effort to enable people to design, prototype and manufacture projects, solutions and products.

Specifically, the Federal Government should:

By harnessing early successes from across the country, these policy solutions can rapidly stand up localized programs to immediately support more American communities grappling with skills shortages. This need is exponentially more critical in the face of COVID-19, as 80% of U.S. manufacturers have articulated that their business will be financially affected by the pandemic and 53% require a change of operations, including the increased use of automation technologies.

Advancing Economic, Health, and Racial Equity by Increasing the Use of Evidence and Data

Summary

As the United States continues to grapple with unprecedented economic, health, and social justice crises that have had a devastating and disproportionate effect on the very communities that have long struggled most, the next administration must act quickly to ensure equitable recovery. Improving economic mobility and increasing equity in communities furthest from opportunity is more urgent than ever.

The next administration must work with Congress to quickly enact a new round of recovery or stimulus legislation. State and local governments, school systems, and small businesses continue to struggle to respond to COVID-19 and the economic and learning losses that have accompanied the resulting closures. But federal resources are not unlimited and there is little time to spare – communities need positive results quickly. It is imperative, furthermore that the administration ensures that the dollars it distributes are used effectively and equitably. The best way to do so is to use existing evidence and data — about what works, for whom. and under what circumstances — to drive recovery investments.

Fortunately, the federal government has access to unprecedented evidence and data tools that can increase the speed and effectiveness of these urgent recovery and equity-building efforts. And where evidence or data do not exist, this unique moment affords an opportunity to build evidence about what does work to help communities recover and rebuild.

Thus, one of the first priorities of the next administration’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should be helping agencies develop their capacity to use existing evidence and data and to build evidence where it is lacking in order to advance economic mobility across the country. OMB should also support federal agency efforts to assist state and local governments to build and use local evidence that can accelerate economic growth and help communities recover from the current crises.

Specifically, OMB should issue guidance directing federal agencies to: 1) define and prioritize evidence of effectiveness in their grant programs to help identify what works, for whom, and under what circumstances to advance economic mobility post-COVID; 2) set aside 1% of discretionary funding for evidence building, including evaluations, technical assistance and capacity building; 3) support state and local governments in using recovery funding to build their own data, evidence-building and evaluation capacity to help their communities rebuild; and 4) require that findings from 2021 evidence-building activities be incorporated into strategic plans due in 2022.