Millions of workers are subjected to the dangers of extreme heat that increase their risk of heat-related illnesses and fatalities. Due to personal, social, and workplace vulnerabilities, workers are at even greater risk, particularly women, people who are Black or Brown, those who facing low-income challenges, and those employed by small businesses. With no mandated federal heat stress standard, there is no federal mechanism to ensure the adoption of appropriate heat stress prevention strategies and emergency procedures to protect vulnerable workers. 

Now is an opportune time to introduce a federal program to champion climate equity and justice in the workplace by assisting employers’ implementation of evidence-based heat stress management strategies and heat illness emergency procedures, particularly targeting underserved working populations who labor in the heat. This program should be supported by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), along with university and nonprofit partners, and funded through a private or public partnership. This effort will act on the principles of employer social responsibility, best practice recognition, increased resource allocation to vulnerable working groups, third-party auditing, and a non-retaliation reporting mechanism. This policy action, across multiple stakeholders, will proactively address the challenges posed by extreme heat and work toward creating safer, more equitable working environments for all.

Challenge and Opportunity

The average global surface temperature in 2023 was 2.12ºF above the 20^th century average, resulting in Earth’s warmest year on record. Extreme temperatures will continue to rise as the frequency, intensity, and duration of heat waves increase due to climate change. Climate change is a major public health priority that places workers who perform physical labor in the heat at higher risk, due to frequent prolonged, heavy physical exertion, layers of personal protective clothing, and exposure to environmental heat stress. This combination of factors exacerbates the level of heat stress placed on the body, leading to heat-related injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. While the Biden Administration has initiated federal action to establish a mandated heat standard, the bureaucratic process is slow, averaging around eight years. Congress is also working on addressing this issue through the consideration of a bill for the adoption of an emergency temporary standard. Although it offers a quicker solution, it has a limited life span of approximately six months. Moreover, in anticipation of mandating a federal heat stress standard, there is limited infrastructure to support the adoption of evidence-based heat stress management strategies to protect workers in high-temperature environments. The current enforcement solution, OSHA’s National Emphasis Program on outdoor and indoor heat hazards, has several limitations, include such as a vague definition of noncompliant following heat hazard inspection, and uses assessment tools such as Heat Index, which is not considered “best practice.” 

To address these limitations, key stakeholders from academic settings, large research institutes, and nonprofit organizations have developed evidence-based best practices to protect vulnerable workers from extreme heat. Unfortunately, there is no system in place to determine how well companies are prepared for extreme heat. The urgency of adopting evidence-based heat stress management strategies across industries cannot be overstated, as heat-related injuries and fatalities are entirely preventable with the implementation of appropriate prevention strategies and emergency procedures.

There is a critical opportunity to champion climate equity and justice to safeguard laborers from the dangers of extreme heat. Laborers from vulnerable demographics who engage in physical work in the heat are disproportionately affected and are often not protected under evidence-based heat stress management practices by their employers. Workers with personal (e.g., age, race/ethnicity, disease status) and social (e.g., employment type, income status) vulnerabilities are exploited by working in hot environments with limited heat stress prevention strategies available to them. This form of labor exploitation during periods of high heat exposure leaves millions of U.S. workers more vulnerable to preventable heat-related injuries and fatalities. 

Small businesses and other companies with limited resources are also less equipped to protect their workforce or have the means to ensure their employees are working in safe environments in the heat. To fortify workplace resilience against extreme heat and climate change, it is imperative to equitably distribute resources for enforcing evidence-based heat policies in workplaces. Organizations with employees exposed to high temperatures must be held accountable for the effective implementation of these policies. Additionally, vulnerable workers frequently refrain from reporting unsafe conditions due to the fear of employer retaliation. Advocacy efforts become even more challenging as language barriers, food insecurity, and poverty exacerbate already dire working conditions.

The present moment presents an opportune time to introduce a program supported by occupational health and safety federal agencies. As evidence-based best practices have been developed to protect workers from extreme heat, there is no system in place to protect vulnerable working populations, allocate resources, and keep companies accountable by assessing their current heat stress management practices. OSHA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) are key stakeholder organizations to initiate a federal response to address the lack of adoption of heat stress management policies. However, these entities often prioritize multiple projects simultaneously, are understaffed, and benefit from partnerships with universities and nonprofits. Therefore, a cooperative approach with governing like OSHA and universities/nonprofit organizations is the appropriate strategy to create a program that promotes the enforcement of evidence-based heat protection strategies (i.e., education, hydration, heat acclimatization, environmental monitoring, physiological monitoring) at the organizational level. This approach also provides under-resourced businesses with access to basic heat protection equipment and establishes a mechanism for employees to report unsafe working conditions without fear of retaliation. This program draws inspiration from the success of the Fair Food Program, a Corporate Social Responsibility model that promotes accountability among growers, buyers, and retailers. 

This comprehensive program will support all organizations that employ workers who perform physical work in the heat, such as construction, utilities, agriculture, oil, and gas. This program will facilitate employer accountability, social responsibility, increased resource allocation, third-party auditing, and a non-retaliation reporting system. 

Plan of Action

The development and implementation of this federal program, the Occupational Heat Resiliency Program (OHRP), will require a public-private partnership between OSHA, universities, and nonprofit partners. This partnership model draws inspiration from the successful collaborative partnerships between OSHA and other partners to protect the workforce against other occupational hazards. The OHRP will promote the adoption of evidence-based heat stress management practices by targeting employers with workplaces that experience high heat exposure and/or have a large population of laborers working in the heat who are classified as vulnerable workers. The establishment of OHRP will require funding through cooperative agreements, such as the OSHA Strategic Partnership Program (OSPP). To achieve the program’s objectives, both OSHA and its partners will commit their knowledge and resources to support the program.

The program will rely on the following principles to achieve this objective:

1. Employer accountability and best practice recognition:

• Employers engaging with the proposed federal program will formalize their commitment to safeguarding workers from extreme heat through evidence-based practices derived from original research from research institutes and academic organizations. These original research sources have informed governing body recommendations from institutes such as NIOSH. 
• These commitments can be publicized, creating transparency and ensuring that products are manufactured by adequately protected workers.
• The program aims to promote the adoption of evidence-based heat practices that enhance safety, health, and productivity for the U.S. workforce.
• Recognition of best practices will facilitate widespread adoption, empowering employers, safety professionals, and workers to implement strategies and emergency procedures that effectively mitigate the risk of heat-related illnesses and injuries.

2. Climate equity through increased resource allocation:

• Recognizing the disproportionate impact of climate change on vulnerable populations, the program will allocate resources to workplaces with high percentages (>50%) of at-risk workers. This includes small businesses and workplaces with a high percentage of women, people of Color, and low-income workers. Workplace needs will be performed through existing efforts related to other occupational hazards or community projects and by targeting industries associated with increased employment of vulnerable workers. 
• Support may include assistance in creating heat stress management educational materials and emergency action plans/procedures, implementing written heat stress management plans, and providing essential resources such as hydration, shade, and cooling products.

3. Safer work environments through third-party auditing and a non-retaliation reporting system:

• Third-party audits, led by university or non-profit partners, will determine feasible evidence-based practices and resource allocations.
• Audits will employ a tier system (I, II, II) to show the level of protection that the workplace has implemented based on the presented recommendations. To ensure compliance, a non-retaliation reporting system will allow workers to report incidences where their work environment was unsafe due to extreme heat. 
• A non-retaliation reporting system will be implemented to empower workers to report unsafe conditions due to extreme heat, ensuring employer compliance and accountability. This information within the report will not be shared with employers directly, but rather through the third-party auditing entity. 

The program will be led by teams composed of OSHA representatives and university/nonprofit partners that will meet virtually regularly to ensure the goals of each principle are being met and to address any partnership issues that may arise.

Conclusion

The escalating challenges to the U.S. workforce posed by extreme heat demand proactive measures, necessitating collaboration among key government entities like OSHA alongside universities and nonprofit organizations. Currently, there is a glaring absence of mechanisms to safeguard workers who engage in physical work in the heat, particularly those from vulnerable demographics. 

To tackle this issue head-on, the establishment of OHRP funded through a private or public partnership is imperative. This initiative would champion climate equity in the workplace by expediting the adoption of evidence-based heat stress management strategies and emergency procedures. The program’s framework includes commitments from employers, recognition of best practices, increased resource allocation to vulnerable working groups, third-party auditing, and a non-retaliation mechanism. OHRP will have an immediate impact at both the federal and state level. Without the implementation of such a program, a significant portion of the U.S. workforce remains at risk of entirely preventable heat-related injuries, illnesses, and fatalities.

This idea of merit originated from our Extreme Heat Ideas Challenge. Scientific and technical experts across disciplines worked with FAS to develop potential solutions in various realms: infrastructure and the built environment, workforce safety and development, public health, food security and resilience, emergency planning and response, and data indices. Review ideas to combat extreme heat here.

Emerging technologies and creative innovation are pivotal economic pillars for the future of the United States. These sectors not only promise economic growth but also offer avenues for social inclusion and environmental sustainability. However, the federal government lacks reliable and comprehensive data on these sectors, which hampers its ability to design and implement effective policies and programs. A key reason for this data gap is the outdated and inadequate job categories and classifications used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

The BLS is the main source of official statistics on employment, wages, and occupations in the U.S. Part of the agency’s role is to categorize different industries, which helps states, researchers and other outside parties measure and understand the size of certain industries or segments of the economy. Another BLS purpose is to use the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system to categorize and define jobs based on their duties, skills, and education requirements. This is how all federal workers and contracted federal workers are classified. For an agency to create and fill a role, it needs a classification or SOC. State and private employers also use the classifications and data to allocate funding and determine benefits related to different kinds of positions. 

Where no classification (SOC) or job exists, it is unclear whether hiring and contracting happen according to programmatic intent and in a timely manner. This is particularly concerning to some employers and federal agencies that need  to align numerous jobs with the provisions of Justice 40, the Inflation Reduction Act and the newly created American Climate Corps. Many of the roles imagined by the American Climate Corps do not have classifications. This poses a significant barrier for effective program and policy design related to green and tech jobs.

The SOC system is updated roughly once every 10 years. There is not a set comprehensive review schedule for that or the industry categories. Updates are topical, with the last broad revision taking place in 2018. Unemployment reports and data related to wages are updated annually, and other topics less predictably. Updates and work on the SOC systems and categories for what are broadly defined as “green jobs” stopped in 2013 due to sequestration. This means that the BLS data may not capture the current and future trends and dynamics of the green and innovation economies, which are constantly evolving and growing.Because the BLS does not have a separate category for green jobs, it identifies them based on a variety of  industry and occupation codes. The range spans restaurant industry SOCs to construction. Classifying positions this way cannot reflect the cross-cutting and interdisciplinary nature of green jobs. Moreover, the process may not account for the variations and nuances of green jobs, such as their environmental impact, social value, and skill level. For example, if you want to work with solar panels, there is a construction classification, but nothing for community design, specialized finance, nor any complementary typographies needed for projects at scale.

Similarly, the BLS does not have a separate category for tech jobs. It identifies them based on the “Information and Communication Technologies” occupational groups of the SOC system. Again, this approach may not adequately reflect the diversity and complexity of tech jobs, which may involve new and emerging skills and technologies that are not yet recognized by the BLS. There are no classifications for roles associated with machine learning or artificial intelligence. Where the private sector has a much-discussed large language model trainer role, the federal system has no such classification. Appropriate skills matching, resource allocation, and the ability to measure the numbers and impacts of these jobs on the economy will be difficult if not impossible to fully understand. Classifying tech jobs in this manner may not account for the interplay and integration of tech jobs with other sectors, such as health care, education, and manufacturing.

These data limitations have serious implications for policy design and evaluation. Without accurate and timely data on green and tech jobs, the federal government may not be able to assess the demand and supply of these jobs, identify skill gaps and training needs, allocate resources, and measure the outcomes and impacts of its policies and programs. This will  result in missed opportunities, wasted resources, and suboptimal outcomes.

There is a need to update the BLS job categories and classifications to better reflect the realities and potentials of the green and innovation economies. This can be achieved by implementing the following strategic policy measures:

• Inter-Agency Collaboration: Establish an inter-agency task force, including representatives from the BLS, Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Education (ED), and the Department of Commerce (DOC), to review and update the current job categories and classifications. This task force would be responsible for ensuring that the classifications accurately reflect the evolving nature of jobs in the green and innovation economies.
• Public-Private Partnerships: Engage in public-private partnerships with industry leaders, academic institutions, and non-profit organizations. These partnerships can provide valuable insights into the changing job landscape and help inform the update of job categories and classifications. They can also facilitate the dissemination and adoption of the updated classifications among employers and workers, as well as the development and delivery of training and education programs related to green and tech jobs.
• Stakeholder Engagement: Conduct regular consultations with stakeholders, including educational institutions, employers, workers, and unions in the green and innovation economies. Their input can ensure that the updated classifications accurately represent the realities and challenges of the job market. They can also provide feedback and suggestions on how to improve the quality and accessibility of the BLS data.
• Regular Updates: Implement a policy for regular reviews and updates of job categories and classifications. The policy should also specify the frequency and criteria for the updates, as well as the roles and responsibilities of the involved agencies and partners.

By updating the BLS job categories and classifications, the federal government can ensure that its data and statistics accurately reflect the current and future job market, thereby supporting effective policy design and evaluation related to green and tech jobs. Accurate and current data that mirrors the ever-evolving job market will also lay the foundation for effective policy design and evaluation in the realms of green and tech jobs. This commitment can contribute to the development of a workforce that not only meets economic needs but also aligns with the nation’s environmental aspirations.

The CHIPS and Science Act ushered in unprecedented opportunities for American manufacturing, science, and innovation – and yet, current underfunding leaves the outcomes at risk.

The legislation directs the federal government to invest $280 billion to bolster U.S. semiconductor capacity, catalyze R&D, create regional high-tech hubs, and develop a larger, more inclusive STEM workforce. The federal investment of $50 billion in semiconductor manufacturing is estimated to add $24.6 billion annually to the American economy and create 185,000 jobs from 2021 to 2026. However, at the current rate of STEM degree completion, the U.S. may not be able to produce enough qualified workers to fill these jobs. Left unaddressed, this labor market gap will have cascading effects on the U.S. economy and compromise the nation’s global competitiveness.

Supporting STEM Workforce Development by Expanding Fellowship and Mentorship Programs

Despite the progress that has been made in recent years to grow the STEM pipeline, STEM graduates continue to lack the opportunity to contribute to the research enterprise and are not equipped to translate their scientific knowledge into actionable policy solutions. The CHIPS and Science Act attempts to address the shortfall in the U.S. STEM workforce and create more career pathways for graduates by authorizing federal agencies to expand their fellowship programs. 

For example, the legislation directs the National Science Foundation (NSF) to expand the number of new graduate research fellows supported annually over the next 5 years to no fewer than 3,000 fellows. This provision echoes the recommendations from a 2021 Federation of American Scientists (FAS) policy memo calling for the expansion of the Graduate Research Fellowship Program in order to catalyze and train a new workforce that would maintain America’s leading edge in the industries of the future. Another important provision has led to the launch of NSF’s Entrepreneurial Fellowships in September 2022, with the goal of supporting STEM entrepreneurs from diverse backgrounds in turning breakthroughs from the laboratory into products and services that benefit society. 

In addition to fellowships, the legislation also includes federal funding for graduate student and postdoctoral research mentorship and professional development, which are critical elements to developing our nation’s research enterprise. Supportive mentors and advisors can guide career planning for future scientists and help them develop the necessary critical thinking and problem solving skills. This is also the case for students from underrepresented minority backgrounds (URMs), where positive research and mentorship experiences contribute to persistence in intention to pursue a STEM career following graduation.

While these provisions are promising, more can be done to ensure better oversight and support of mentorship programs within federal funded research programs. The GRAD Coalition, which was established to support the Congressional Graduate Research and Development Caucus, has called on Congress to expand mentorship oversight and support, specifically to: 

• Provide systematic oversight of graduate student mentorship. For example, survey mentorship experiences at the national level or mandate institutional data collection and reporting on graduate student advising;
• Develop incentive structures that support effective mentorship practices. For example, mentorship training programs that grant meaningful certification;
• Expand the mentorship plan mandate for funding proposals to include all federal agencies that fund graduate student research. The CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 provisions concerning graduate student advising only apply to grants administered under the National Science Foundation (NSF). However, graduate students and their advisors rely on funding from many federal agencies outside the NIH and NSF, which do not currently mandate mentorship plans.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has long recognized the need for mentorship at the post-doctoral level. In 2023,the NIH Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD) Working Group on Re-envisioning NIH-Supported Postdoctoral Training held listening sessions resulting in a report detailing many aspects of the postdoctoral experience in biomedical fields: lack of adequate compensation, concerns about postdoctoral quality of life and challenges with diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. Many of these postdoctoral issues have been known for some time but continue to be insufficiently addressed. The report calls for increasing oversight and accountability of faculty for mentoring, specifically for NIH to: 

• Provide more detailed mentorship requirements in requests for applications, expand the Individual Development Plan (IDP), and require that the IDP be regularly updated as part of the project progress report;
• Weigh principal investigator (PI) performance in postdoc mentoring and career development equally with research progress as criteria for continued funding, and require/encourage mentoring contracts and support acquiring and transferring mentoring tools from PI to postdoc;
• Increase transparency of PIs’ postdoc mentorship track records. Institutions should be required to record and report clearly on department websites the names of each postdoc and their next position;
• Require mentoring committees to ensure that postdocs receive all types of mentoring needed.

While boosts for science and education provisions in the legislation have been authorized, funding for the “and science” portion of the act has fallen short in several areas. FAS analysis shows that the FY 2024 appropriations for NSF are approximately $6 billion-short or 39% below the CHIPS and Science authorization levels, which has the potential to set the U.S. back in several areas of science and technology.

Maintaining the U.S. scientific and research enterprise requires a whole-of-government approach. Expanding fellowship programs and better incorporating mentorship in federal-funded programs can have far-reaching consequences for the STEM pipeline and maintaining our nation’s edge in scientific research and innovation. The CHIPS and Science Act provides specific opportunities for federal agencies, Congress, and the executive branch to grow the U.S. STEM workforce pipeline by expanding fellowships and mentorship support for graduate students and postdoctoral researchers. Our nation’s global leadership in science and technology is dependent upon the research and innovation driven by graduate students and postdoctoral researchers, and fully funding the authorized programs and new initiatives in the CHIPS and Science Act will help ensure that this trend continues. 

Summary

With the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the United States has outlined a de facto industrial policy to facilitate and accelerate the energy transition while seeking energy security and supply chain resilience. The rapid pace of industrial transformation driven by the energy transition will manifest as a human capital challenge, and the workforce will be realigned to the industrial policy that is rapidly transforming the labor market. The energy transition, combined with nearshoring, will rapidly retool the global economy and, with it, the skills and expertise necessary for workers to succeed in the labor market. A rapid, massive, and ongoing overhaul of workforce development systems will allow today’s and tomorrow’s workers to power the transition to energy security, resilient supply chains, and the new energy economy—but they require the right training opportunities scaled to match the needs of industry to do so.

Policymakers and legislators recognize this challenge, yet strategies and programs often sit in disparate parts of government agencies in labor, trade, commerce, and education. A single strategy that coordinates a diverse range of government policies and programs dedicated to training this emerging workforce can transform how young people prepare for and access the labor market and equip them with the tools to have a chance at economic security and well-being.

Modeled after the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training (TAACCCT) program, we propose the Energy Security Workforce Training (ESWT) Initiative to align existing U.S. government support for education and training focused on the jobs powering the energy transition. The Biden-Harris Administration should name an ESWT Coordinator to manage and align domestic investments in training and workforce across the federal government. The coordinator will spearhead efforts to identify skills gaps with industry, host a ESWT White House Summit to galvanize private and social sector commitments, encourage data normalization and sharing between training programs to identify what works, and ensure funds from existing programs scale evidence-based sector-specific training programs. ESWT should also encompass an international component for nearshored supply chains to perform a similar function to the domestic coordinator in target countries like Mexico and promote two-way learning between domestic and international agencies on successful workforce training investments in clean energy and advanced manufacturing.

Challenge and Opportunity

With the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, the United States has a de facto industrial policy to facilitate and accelerate the energy transition while seeking energy security and supply chain resilience. However, our current workforce investments are not focused on the growing green skills gap. We require workforce investment aligned to the industrial policy that is rapidly transforming the labor market, to support both domestic jobs and the foreign supply chains that domestic jobs depend on. 

Preparing Americans to Power the Energy Transition

The rapid pace of industrial transformation driven by the energy transition will manifest as a human capital challenge. The energy transition will transform and create new jobs—requiring a massive investment to skill up the workers who will power the energy transition. Driving this rapid transition are billions of dollars slated for incentives and tax credits for renewable energy and infrastructure, advanced manufacturing, and supply chain creation for goods like electric vehicle batteries over the coming years. The vast upheaval caused by the energy transition combined with nearshoring is transforming both current jobs as well as the labor market young people will enter over the coming decade. The jobs created by the energy transition have the potential to shift a whole generation into the middle class while providing meaningful, engaging work. 

Moving low-income students into the middle class over the next 10 years will require that education and training institutions meet the rapid pace of industrial transformation required by the energy transition. Education and training providers struggle to keep up with the rapid pace of industrial transformation, resulting in skills gaps. Skills gaps are the distance between the skills graduates leave education and training with and the skills required by industry. Skills gaps rob young people of opportunities and firms of productivity. And according to LinkedIn’s latest Green Economy report, we are facing a green skills gap—with the demand for green skills outpacing the supply in the labor force. Firms have cited skills gaps in diverse sectors related to the energy transition, including infrastructure, direct air capture, electromobility, and geothermal power. 

Graduates with market-relevant skills earn between two and six times what their peers earn, based on evaluations of International Youth Foundation’s (IYF) programming. In addition, effective workforce development lowers recruitment, selection, and training costs for firms—thereby lowering the transaction costs to scale moving people into the positions needed to power the energy transition. Industrial transformation for the energy transition involves automation, remote sensing, and networked processes changing the role of the technician—who is no longer required to execute tasks but instead to manage automated processes and robots that now execute tasks. This changes the fundamental skills required of technicians to include higher-order skills for managing processes and robots. 

We will not be able to transform industry or seize the opportunities of the new energy future without overhauling education and training systems to build the skills required by this transformation and the industries that will power it. Developing higher-order thinking skills means changing not only what is taught but how teaching happens. For example, students may be asked to evaluate and make actionable recommendations to improve energy efficiency at their school. Because many of these new jobs require higher-order thinking skills, policy investment can play a crucial role in supporting workers and those entering the workforce to be competitive for these jobs. 

Creating Resilient Supply Chains, Facilitating Energy Security, and Promoting Global Stability in Strategic Markets

Moving young people into good jobs during this dramatic economic transformation will be critical not only in the United States but also to promote our interests abroad by (1) creating resilient supply chains, 2) securing critical minerals, and (3) avoiding extreme labor market disruptions in the face of a global youth bulge. 

Supply chain resilience concerns are nearshoring industrial production—shifting the demand for industrial workers across geographies at a shocking scale and speed—as more manufacturing and heavy industries move back into the United States’ sphere of influence. The energy transition combined with nearshoring will rapidly retool the global economy. We need a rapid, massive, and ongoing overhaul of workforce development systems at home and abroad. The scale of this transition is massive and includes complex, multinational supply chains. Supply chains are being reworked before our eyes as we nearshore production. For example, the port of entry in Santa Teresa, New Mexico, is undergoing rapid expansion in anticipation of explosive growth of imports of spare parts for electric vehicles manufactured in Mexico. These shifting supply chains will require the strategic development of a new workforce.

The United States requires compelling models to increase its soft power to secure critical minerals for the energy transition. Securing crucial minerals for the energy transition will again reshape energy supply chains, as the mineral deposits needed for the energy transition are not necessarily located in the same countries with large oil, gas, or coal deposits. The minerals required for the energy transition are concentrated in China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Australia, Chile, Russia, and South Africa. We require additional levers to establish productive relationships to secure the minerals required for the energy transition. Workforce investments can be an important source of soft power. 

Today’s 1.2 billion young people today make up the largest and most educated generation the world has ever seen, or will ever see, yet they face unemployment rates at nearly triple that of adults. Globally the youth unemployment rate is 17.93% vs. 6.18% for adults. The youth unemployment rate refers to young people aged 15–24 who are available for or seeking employment but who are unemployed. While rich countries have already passed through their own baby booms, with accompanying “youth bulges,” and collected their demographic dividends to power economic growth and wealth, much of the developing world is going through its own demographic transition. While South Korea experienced sustained prosperity once its baby boomers entered the labor force in the early 2000s, Latin America’s youth bulge is just entering the labor force. In regions like Central America, this demographic change is fueling a wave of outmigration. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the youth bulge is making its way through compulsory education with increasing demands for government policy to meet high rates of youth unemployment. It is an open question whether today’s youth bulges globally will drive prosperity as they enter the labor market. Policymakers are faced with shaping labor force training, and government policy rooted in demonstrable industry needs to meet this challenge. At the same time, green jobs is already one of the most rapidly growing occupations. The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects that adopting clean energy technologies will generate 14 million jobs by 2030, with 16 million more to retrofit and construct energy-efficient buildings and manufacture new energy vehicles. At the same time, the World Economic Forum’s 2023 future of jobs report cites the green transition as the key driver of job growth. However, the developing world is not making the corresponding investments in training programs for the green jobs that are driving growth. 

Alignment with Existing Initiatives

The Biden-Harris Administration’s approach to the energy transition, supply chain resilience, and energy security must address this human capital challenge. Systemic approaches to building the skills for the energy transition through education and training complement the IRA’s incentivized apprenticeships, and focus investments from the IIJA, by building out a complete technical, vocational, education and training system oriented toward building the skills required for the energy transition. We propose a whole-of-government approach that integrates public investment in workforce training to focus on the energy transition and nearshoring with effective approaches to workforce development to address the growing green skills gap that endangers youth employment, the energy transition, energy security and supply chain resilience. 

The Biden-⁠Harris Administration Roadmap to Support Good Jobs demonstrates a commitment to building employment and job training into the Investing in America Agenda. The Roadmap catalogs programs throughout the federal government that address employment and workforce training authorized in recent legislation and meant to enable more opportunities for workers to engage with new technology, advanced manufacturing, and clean energy. Some programs had cross-sector reach, like the Good Jobs Challenge that reached 32 states and territories authorized in the American Rescue Plan to invest in workforce partnerships, while others are more targeted to specific industries, like the Battery Workforce Initiative that engages industry in developing a battery manufacturing workforce. The Roadmap’s clearinghouse of related workforce activities across the federal ecosystem presents a meaningful opportunity to advance this commitment by coordinating and strategically implementing these programs under a single series of objectives and metrics. 

Identifying evidence-driven training programs can also help fill the gap between practicums and market-based job needs by allowing more students access to practical training than can be reached solely by apprenticeships, which can have high individual transaction costs for grantees to coordinate. Additionally, programs like the Good Jobs Challenge required grantees to complete a skills-gap analysis to ensure their programs fit market needs. The Administration should seek to embed capabilities to conduct skills-gap analyses first before competitive grants are requested and issued to better inform program and grant design from the beginning and to share that learning with the broader workforce training community. By using a coordinated initiative to engage across these programs and legislative mandates, the Administration can create a more catalytic, scalable whole-of-government approach to workforce training.

Collaborating on metrics can also help identify which programs are most effective at meeting the core metrics of workforce training—increased income and job placements—which often are not met in workforce programs. This initiative could be measured across programs and agencies by (1) the successful hiring of workers into quality green jobs, (2) the reduction of employer recruitment and training costs for green jobs, and (3) demonstrable decreases in identified skills gaps—as opposed to a diversity of measures without clear comparability that correspond to the myriad agencies and congressional committees that oversee current workforce investments. Better transferable data measured against comparable metrics can empower agencies and Congress to direct continued funds toward what works to ensure workforce programs are effective.

The DOL’s TAACCCT program provides a model of how the United States has successfully invested in workforce development to respond to labor market shocks in the past. Building on TAACCCT’s legacy and its lessons learned, we propose focusing investment in workforce training to address identified skills gaps in partnership with industry, engaging employers from day one, rather than primarily targeting investment based on participant eligibility. When investing in bridging critical skills gaps in the labor market, strategy and programs must be designed to work with the most marginalized communities (including rural, tribal, and Justice40 communities) to ensure equitable access and participation. 

Increased interagency collaboration is required to meet the labor market demands of the energy transition, both in terms of domestic production in the United States and the greening of international supply chains from Mexico to South Africa. Our proposed youth workforce global strategy, the Energy Security Workforce Training Initiative outlined below provides a timely opportunity for the Administration to make progress on its economic development, workforce and climate goals. 

Plan of Action

We propose a new Energy Security Workforce Training Initiative to coordinate youth workforce development training investments across the federal government, focused on critical and nearshored supply chains that will power energy security. ESWT will be charged with coordinating U.S. government workforce strategies to build the pipeline for young people to the jobs powering the energy transition. ESWT will rework existing education and training institutions to build critical skills and to transform how young people are oriented to, prepared for, and connected to jobs powering the energy transition. ESWT will play a critical role in cross-sector and intergovernmental learning to invest in what works and to ensure federal workforce investments in collaboration with industry address identified skills gaps in the labor market for the energy transition and resilient supply chains. Research and industry confirmation would inform investments by the Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Education (ED), Department of Commerce (DOC), and Department of Labor (DOL) toward building identified critical skills through scalable means with marginalized communities in mind. A key facet of ESWT will be to normalize and align the metrics by which federal, state, and local partners measure program effectiveness to allow for better comparability and long-term potential for scaling the most evidence-driven programs.

The ESWT should be coordinated by the National Economic Council(NEC) and DOC, particularly the Economic Development Administration. Once established, ESWT should also involve an international component focused on workforce investments to build resilience in nearshore supply chains on which U.S. manufacturing and energy security rely. Mexico should serve as an initial pilot of this global initiative because of its intertwined relationship with U.S. supply chains for products like EV batteries. Piloting a novel international workforce training program through private sector collaboration and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), DOL, and U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) investments could help bolster resilience for domestic jobs and manufacturing. Based on these results, ESWT could expand into other geographies of critical supply chains, such as Chile and Brazil. To launch ESWT, the Biden Administration should pursue the following steps.

Recommendation 1. The NEC should name an ESWT Initiative Coordinator in conjunction with a DOC or DOL lead who will spearhead coordination between different agency workforce training activities.

With limited growth in government funding over the coming years, a key challenge will be more effectively coordinating existing programs and funds in service of training young people for demonstrated skills gaps in the marketplace. As these new programs are implemented through existing legislation, a central entity in charge of coordinating implementation, learning, and investments can best ensure that funds are directed equitably and effectively. Additionally, this initial declaration can lay the groundwork to build capacity within the federal government to conduct market analyses and consult with industries to better inform program design and grant giving across the country. The DOC and the Economic Development Administration seem best positioned to lead this effort with an existing track record through the Good Jobs Challenge and capacity to engage fully with industry to build trust that curricula and training are conducted by people that employers verify as experts. However, the DOL could also take a co-lead role due to authorities established under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). In selecting lead agencies for ESWT, these criteria should be followed:

1. Access to emerging business intelligence regarding industry-critical skills—DOC, DOE
2. Combined international and domestic remit—DOE/DOL, DOC (ITA)
3. Remit that allows department to focus investment on demonstrated skills gaps, indicated by higher wages and churn—DOC
4. Permitted to convene advisory committees from the private sector under the Federal Advisory Committee Act—DOC

Recommendation 2. The DOC and NEC, working with partner agencies, should collaborate to identify and analyze skills gaps and establish private-sector feedback councils to consult on real-time industry needs.

As a first step, DOC should commission or conduct research to identify quantitative and qualitative skills gaps related to the energy transition in critical supply chains both domestically and in key international markets — energy efficiency in advanced manufacturing, electric vehicle production, steel, batteries, rare earth minerals, construction, infrastructure and clean energy. DOC should budget for 20 skills gap assessments for critical occupational groups (high volume of jobs and uncertainty related to required, relevant skills) in the above-mentioned sectors. Each skills gap assessment should cost roughly $100,000, bringing the total investment to $2 million over a six-to-twelve-month period.  Each skills gap assessment will determine the critical and scarce skills in a labor market for a given occupation and the degree to which existing education and training providers meet the demand for skills.

This research is central to forming effective programs to ensure investments align with industry skills needs and to lower direct costs on education providers, who often lack direct expertise in this form of analysis. Commissioning these studies can help build a robust ecosystem of labor market skills gap analysts and build capacity within the federal government to conduct these studies. By completing analysis in advance of competitive grant processes, federal grants can be better directed to training based on high-need industry skill sets to ensure participating students have market-driven employment opportunities on completion. The initial research phase would occur over a six-month timeline, including staffing and procurement. The ESWT coordinator would work with DOC, ED, and DOL to procure curricula, enrollment, and foreign labor market data. Partner agencies in this effort should also include the Departments of Education, Labor, and Energy. The research would draw upon existing research on the topic conducted by Jobs for the Future, IYF, the Project on Workforce at Harvard, and LinkedIn’s Economic Graph.

Recommendation 3. Host the Energy Security Workforce Development White House Summit to galvanize public, private, and social sector partners to address identified skills gaps.

The ESWT coordinator would present the identified quantitative and qualitative skills gaps at an action-oriented White House Summit with industry, state and local government partners, education providers, and philanthropic institutions. The Summit could serve as a youth-led gathering focused on workforce and upskilling for critical new industries and galvanize a call to action across sectors and localities. Participants will be asked to prioritize among potential choices based on research findings, available funding mechanisms, and imperatives to transform education and training systems at scale and at pace with industrial transformation. Addressing the identified skills gaps will require partnering with and securing the buy-in of both educational institutions as well as industry groups to identify what skills unlock opportunities in given labor markets, develop demand-driven training, and expanded capacity of education and training providers in order to align interests as well as curricula so that key players have the incentives and capacity to continually update curricula—creating lasting change at scale. This summit would also serve as a call to action for private sector partnerships to invest in helping reskill workers and establish buy-in from the public and civil society actors. 

Recommendation 4. Establish standards and data sharing processes for linking existing training funds and programs with industry needs by convening state and local grantees, state agencies, and federal government partners.

ESWT should lay out a common series of metrics by which the federal government will assess workforce training programs to better equip efforts to scale successful programs with comparable evidence and empower policymakers to invest in what works. We recommend using the following metrics: 

1. Successful hiring of workers into quality green jobs
2. The reduction of employer recruitment and training costs for green jobs
3. Demonstrable decreases in identified skills gaps

Metrics 2 and 3 will rely on ongoing industry consultations—as well as data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Because of the diffuse nature of existing skills gap analyses across federal grantees and workforce training programs, ESWT should serve as a convenor for learning between jurisdictions. Models for federal government data clearinghouses could be effective as well as direct sharing of evidence and results between education providers across a series of common metrics.

Recommendation 5. Ensure grants and investments in workforce training are tied to addressing specific identified skills gaps, not just by regional employment rates.

A key function of ESWT would be to determine feasible and impactful strategies to address skills gaps in critical supply chains, given the identified gaps, existing funding mechanisms, the buy-in of critical actors in key labor markets (both domestic and international), agency priorities, and the imperative to make transformative change at scale. The coordinator could help spur agencies to pursue flexible procurement and grant-making focused on outcomes and tied to clear skills gap criteria to ensure training demonstrably develops skills required by market needs for the energy transition and growing domestic supply chains. While the Good Jobs Challenge required skills gap analysis of grantees, advanced analyses by the ESWT Initiative could inform grant requirements to ensure federal funds are directed to high-need programs. As many of these fields are new, innovative funding mechanisms could be used to meet identified skills gaps and experiment with new training programs through tiered evidence models. Establishing criteria for successful workforce training programs could also serve as a market demand-pull signal that the federal government is willing and able to invest in certain types of training, crowding-in potential new players and private sector resources to create programs tailored for the skills industry needs.

Depending on the local context, the key players, and the nature of the strategy to bridge the skills gap for each supply chain, the coordinating department will determine what financing mechanism and issuing agency is most appropriate: compacts, grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts. For example, to develop skills related to worker safety in rare-earth mineral mines in South Africa or South America, the DOL could issue a grant under the Bureau of International Labor Affairs. To develop the data science skills critical for industrial and residential energy efficiency, the ED could issue a grants program to replicate Los Angeles Unified School District’s Common Core-aligned data science curriculum.

Recommendation 6. Congress should authorize flexible workforce training grants to disperse—based on identified industry needs—toward evidence-driven, scalable training models and funding for ESWT within the DOC to facilitate continued industry skills need assessments.

Congress should establish dedicated staff and infrastructure for ESWT to oversee workforce training investments and actively analyze industry needs to inform federal workforce investment strategies. Congress and the Administration should also explore how to incentivize public-private partnerships and requirements for energy, manufacturing, and supply chain companies to engage in curriculum development efforts or provide technical expertise to access tax credits included in the IRA or CHIPS.

Recommendation 7. ESWT could also incorporate an international perspective for nearshored supply chains critical to energy security and advanced manufacturing. 

To pilot this model, we recommend:

1. Bilateral coordination of federal workforce and training investments across agencies like State, USAID, and DFC: Mexico could serve as an ideal pilot country due to its close ties with U.S. supply chains and growth in the manufacturing sector. This coordination effort should direct USAID and other government funding toward workforce training for industries critical to domestic supply chains for energy security and green jobs.
2. Two-way learning between domestic and international workforce programs: As ESWT develops effective strategies to address the skills gap for the energy transition, the interagency initiative will identify opportunities for two-way learning. For example, as curricula for eclectic vehicle assembly is developed and piloted in Mexico with support from USAID, it could inform U.S.-based community colleges’ work with the DOL and DOE.
3. If successful, expand to additional aligned countries including Brazil, India, and South Africa and nations throughout the Americas that source energy and manufacturing inputs for the green economy: ESWT could facilitate scalable public-private partnership vehicles for partner country governments, private corporations, philanthropy, and nongovernmental organizations to collaborate and fund country-dedicated programs to train their energy and climate workforce. This step could be done in conjunction with naming a Special Envoy at the State Department to coordinate diplomatic engagement with partner countries. The Envoy and Coordinator should have expertise and experience in North and South America economic relations and diplomacy, and labor markets economics. Congress could incorporate dedicated funds for ESWT into annual appropriations at State.

Conclusion

The transition from an economy fueled by human and animal labor to fossil fuels took roughly 200 years (1760–1960) and was associated with massive labor market disruptions as society and workers reacted to a retooled economy. Avoiding similar labor market disruptions as we seek to transition off fossil fuels over decades, not centuries, will require concentrated coordinated action. The Energy Security Workforce Training Initiative will overhaul education and training systems to develop the skills needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the labor markets central to long-term U.S. energy security and ensure that supply chains are resilient to shocks. Such a coordinated investment in training will lower recruitment, selection, and training costs for firms while increasing productivity and move people into the middle class with the jobs fueling the energy transition. 

By focusing federal workforce funding on addressing the green skills gap, we will be able to address the human capital challenges implicit in scaling the infrastructure, manufacturing overhaul, and supply chain reconfiguration necessary to secure a just transition, both at home and abroad. By building in critical international supply chains both for manufacturing and energy security from day one, the ESWT Initiative incorporates two-way learning as a means to knit together strategic supply chains through bilateral investments in equitable workforce initiatives. 

The past few years have seen a surge of climate and clean energy legislation at the federal level. The bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) have changed what’s possible for the US when it comes to fighting climate change, deploying innovative clean energy technologies, and moving towards a net-zero world. 

Of course, passing the legislation is only the first step. Since the passage of the above packages, federal agencies have been working around the clock to carry out the mandates within. Agencies like Commerce, EPA, DOE, Agriculture, Transportation, and more have been releasing funding opportunities, holding prize competitions, setting up grants and rulemaking processes, developing guidance, and trying to distribute resources as quickly and as equitably as possible. 

The federal government has been hugely successful in many ways in implementing these massive bills. But there have also been – and will continue to be – bumps along the way. As quickly as agencies have been moving, they are still bound by regulations and other constraints, and just can’t move as quickly as other sectors are able to – in many cases, for good reason. 

And time is of the essence – many of the provisions in the legislation have deadlines. Even if they’re a decade away, it still lends urgency to the situation. In addition to strict deadlines, there are also political deadlines. Congress is already moving to claw back items from the past few years, and faces a major election only just over a year away. Although the bills are law, there are multiple ways critics could continue to undermine their original intent and funding.

So implementation is critical – in order to take advantage of the current moment, resources, and crossroads, we need the federal government to act. If they’re not able to, we’ll lose out on key benefits and growth of the coming years. 

Major Implementation Barriers 

But federal, state, and local governments face hurdles when it comes to putting these laws into action. These hurdles are not unique to the IIJA and IRA, although many agencies were not organizationally prepared for the sheer amount of funding from the bills and now struggle to catch up. Some barriers, like long rulemaking or stakeholder engagement processes, ensure that agencies stay accountable and thoroughly research program impacts. But others are more bureaucratic or technical, and need institutional streamlining, innovation, or cross-sector support. 

For example, the IRA tasked the Department of the Treasury and the IRS with rolling out a number of energy-focused tax credits. Private firms, state governments, and other targets of the credits are eager to take advantage of the benefits, as the credits have the potential to supercharge clean energy industries. However, many of the guidelines are still unclear; feedback loops are slow and cumbersome, and companies and consumers are confused about what qualifies when. 

Another example is permitting. Permitting reform is not a new issue, but the demand for new clean energy projects and the potential strain on an outdated electric grid mean that the need for better processes is dire. Long timelines, major application backlogs, and struggles to get community buy-in could prevent us from seeing the full benefits of the IRA. 

While there are many possible solutions to these bottlenecks – involving cross-sector support from companies, community-based organizations, state and local governments, and more – one of the major issues underpinning the barriers to successful implementation is simply talent. 

Why Talent?

Large injections of funding like with the IIJA and IRA without the people power to deliver on legislation can result in slow implementation, undermining the intentions of the bills. It’s not just numbers – but getting high-quality employees with technical skill sets in the door quickly. It’s true for the above examples as well. Developing guidance for tax credits requires a large number of niche experts: tax attorneys with a keen understanding of a range of clean energy technologies. Similarly with permitting, regulations change across municipalities and states, and agencies don’t have enough staff to adjudicate applications at the rate the private sector is developing projects. 

FAS has focused on talent for a number of years – our Impact Fellowship helps place that type of high-quality technical expertise where it’s needed most in government. Our forthcoming in-depth report on hiring barriers within the Department of Energy details a number of strategies DOE and other agencies can use to hire more effectively. 

DOE has been a leader in hiring specifically to support the IIJA and IRA. Its Clean Energy Corps has hired over 600 people in the past year and a half, and the agency has stood up entire new offices like the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations. In the report we use the agency as an example of how these flexible hiring strategies can strengthen federal talent acquisition further and take advantage of the current momentum around climate and clean energy. 

Some of these strategies ask Congress to act – like increasing human capital budgets and expanding specific hiring authorities. But others are within the agency’s control, like using remote work flexibilities as a recruitment tool and using other authorities like the Intergovernmental Personnel Act more widely. Partnerships with outside entities, like clean energy workforce organizations, private recruitment firms, and higher education institutions can all provide talent support to agencies as well. 

These strategies are directly linked to helping DOE implement legislation more efficiently and effectively–and should be used by other agencies as well. A focus on talent and strengthening the federal workforce is necessary to take full advantage of the current moment.

Black, Indigenous, and other people of color (BIPOC) are underrepresented in labor unions. Further, people working in the gig economy, tech supply chain, and other automation-adjacent roles face a huge barrier to unionizing their workplaces. These roles, which are among the fastest-growing segments of the U.S. economy, are overwhelmingly filled by BIPOC workers. In the absence of safety nets for these workers, the racial wealth gap will continue to grow. The Biden-Harris Administration can promote racial equity and support low-wage BIPOC workers’ unionization efforts by creating a National Bargaining in Good Faith Fund.

As a whole, unions lift up workers to a better standard of living, but historically they have failed to protect workers of color. The emergence of labor unions in the early 20th century was propelled by the passing of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), also known as the Wagner Act of 1935. Although the NLRA was a beacon of light for many working Americans, affording them the benefits of union membership such as higher wages, job security, and better working conditions, which allowed many to transition into the middle class, the protections of the law were not applied to all working people equally. Labor unions in the 20th century were often segregated, and BIPOC workers were often excluded from the benefits of unionization. For example, the Wagner Act excluded domestic and agricultural workers and permitted labor unions to discriminate against workers of color in other industries, such as manufacturing. 

Today, in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and amid a renewed interest in a racial reckoning in the United States, BIPOC workers—notably young and women BIPOC workers—are leading efforts to organize their workplaces. In addition to demanding wage equity and fair treatment, they are also fighting for health and safety on the job. Unionized workers earn on average 11.2% more in wages than their nonunionized peers. Unionized Black workers earn 13.7% more and unionized Hispanic workers 20.1% more than their nonunionized peers. But every step of the way, tech giants and multinational corporations are opposing workers’ efforts and their legal right to organize, making organizing a risky undertaking.

A National Bargaining in Good Faith Fund would provide immediate and direct financial assistance to workers who have been retaliated against for attempting to unionize, especially those from historically disadvantaged groups in the United States. This fund offers a simple and effective solution to alleviate financial hardships, allowing affected workers to use the funds for pressing needs such as rent, food, or job training. It is crucial that we advance racial equity, and this fund is one step toward achieving that goal by providing temporary financial support to workers during their time of need. Policymakers should support this initiative as it offers direct payments to workers who have faced illegal retaliation, providing a lifeline for historically disadvantaged workers and promoting greater economic justice in our society.

Challenges and Opportunities

The United States faces several triangulating challenges. First is our rapidly evolving economy, which threatens to displace millions of already vulnerable low-wage workers due to technological advances and automation. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated automation, which is a long-term strategy for the tech companies that underpin the gig economy. According to a report by an independent research group, self-driving taxis are likely to dominate the ride-hailing market by 2030, potentially displacing 8 million human drivers in the United States alone.

Second, we have a generation of workers who have not reaped the benefits associated with good-paying union jobs due to decades of anti-union activities. As of 2022, union membership has dropped from more than 30% of wage and salary workers in the private sector in the 1950s to just 6.3%. The declining percentage of workers represented by unions is associated with widespread and deep economic inequality, stagnant wages, and a shrinking middle class. Lower union membership rates have contributed to the widening of the pay gap for women and workers of color.

Third, historically disadvantaged groups are overrepresented in nonunionized, low-wage, app-based, and automation-adjacent work. This is due in large part to systemic racism. These structures adversely affect BIPOC workers’ ability to obtain quality education and training, create and pass on generational wealth, or follow through on the steps required to obtain union representation.

Workers face tremendous opposition to unionization efforts from companies that spend hundreds of millions of dollars and use retaliatory actions, disinformation, and other intimidating tactics to stop them from organizing a union. For example, in New York, Black organizer Chris Smalls led the first successful union drive in a U.S. Amazon facility after the company fired him for his activities and made him a target of a smear campaign against the union drive. Smalls’s story is just one illustration of how BIPOC workers are in the middle of the collision between automation and anti-unionization efforts. 

The recent surge of support for workers’ rights is a promising development, but BIPOC workers face challenges that extend beyond anti-union tactics. Employer retaliation is also a concern. Workers targeted for retaliation suffer from reduced hours or even job loss. For instance, a survey conducted at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic revealed that one in eight workers perceived possible retaliatory actions by their employers against colleagues who raised health and safety concerns. Furthermore, Black workers were more than twice as likely as white workers to experience such possible retaliation. This sobering statistic is a stark reminder of the added layers of discrimination and economic insecurity that BIPOC workers have to navigate when advocating for better working conditions and wages. 

The time to enact strong policy supporting historically disadvantaged workers is now. Advancing racial equity and racial justice is a focus for the Biden-Harris Administration, and the political and social will is evident. The day one Biden-Harris Administration Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government seeks to develop policies designed to advance equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underinvested in, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality. Additionally, the establishment of the White House  is a significant development. Led by Vice-President Kamala Harris and Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh, the Task Force aims to empower workers to organize and negotiate with their employers through federal government policies, programs, and practices. 

A key focus for the Task Force is to increase worker power in underserved communities by examining and addressing the challenges faced by workers in jurisdictions with restrictive labor laws, marginalized workers, and workers in certain industries. The Task Force is well-timed, given the increased support for workers’ rights demonstrated through the record-high number of petitions filed with the National Labor Relations Board and the rise in strikes over the past two years. The Task Force’s approach to empowering workers and supporting their ability to organize and negotiate through federal government policies and programs offers a promising opportunity to address the unique challenges faced by BIPOC workers in unionization efforts.

The National Bargaining in Good Faith Fund is a critical initiative that can help level the playing field by providing financial assistance to workers facing opposition from employers who refuse to engage in good-faith bargaining, thereby expanding access to unions for Black, Indigenous, and other people of color. In addition, the proposed initiative would reinforce Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) policies regarding employer discrimination and retaliation. The Bargaining in Good Faith Fund will provide direct payments to workers whose employers have retaliated against them for engaging in union organizing activities. The initiative also includes monitoring cases where a violation has occurred against workers involved in union organization and connecting their bargaining unit with relevant resources to support their efforts. With the backing of the Task Force, the fund could make a significant difference in the lives of workers facing barriers to organizing.

Plan of Action

While the adoption of a policy like the Bargaining in Good Faith Fund is unprecedented at the federal level, we draw inspiration from successful state-level initiatives aimed at improving worker well-being. Two notable examples are initiatives enacted in California and New York, where state lawmakers provided temporary monetary assistance to workers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Taking a cue from these successful programs, we can develop federal policies that better support workers, especially those belonging to historically disadvantaged groups.

The successful implementation of worker-led, union-organized, and community-led strike assistance funds, as well as similar initiatives for low-wage, app-based, and automation-adjacent workers, indicates that the Bargaining in Good Faith Fund has strong potential for success. For example, the Coworker Solidarity Fund provides legal, financial, and strategic support for worker-activists organizing to improve their companies, while the fund invests in ecosystems that increase worker power and improve economic livelihoods and social conditions across the U.S. South.

New York state lawmakers have also set a precedent with their transformative Excluded Workers Fund, which provided direct financial support to workers left out of pandemic relief programs. The $2.1 billion Excluded Workers Fund, passed by the New York state legislature and governor in April 2021, was the first large-scale program of its kind in the country. By examining and building on these successes, we can develop federal policies that better support workers across the country.

A national program requires multiple funding methods, and several mechanisms have been identified to establish the National Bargaining in Good Faith Fund. First, existing policy needs to be strengthened, and companies violating labor laws should face financial consequences. The labor law violation tax, which could be a percentage of a company’s profits or revenue, would be directed to the Bargaining in Good Faith Fund. Additionally, penalties could be imposed on companies that engage in retaliatory behavior, and the funds generated could also be directed to the Bargaining in Good Faith Fund. New legislation from Congress is required to enforce existing federal policy.

Second, as natural allies in the fight to safeguard workers’ rights, labor unions should allocate a portion of their dues toward the fund. By pooling their resources, a portion of union dues could be directed to the federal fund.

Third, a portion of the fees paid into the federal unemployment insurance program should be redirected to Bargaining in Good Faith Fund. 

Fourth, existing funding for worker protections, currently siloed in agencies, should be reallocated to support the Bargaining in Good Faith Fund more effectively. To qualify for the fund, workers receiving food assistance and/or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits should be automatically eligible once the NLRB and the EEOC recognize the instance of retaliation. Workers who are not eligible could apply directly to the Fund through a state-appointed agency. This targeted approach aims to support those who face significant barriers to accessing resources and protections that safeguard their rights and well-being due to historical labor exploitation and discrimination.

Several federal agencies could collaborate to oversee the Bargaining in Good Faith Fund, including the Department of Labor, the EEOC, the Department of Justice, and the NLRB. These agencies have the authority to safeguard workers’ welfare, enforce federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, prosecute corporations that engage in criminal retaliation, and enforce workers’ rights to engage in concerted activities for protection, such as organizing a union.

Conclusion

The federal government has had a policy of supporting worker organizing and collective bargaining since the passage of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935. However, the federal government has not fully implemented its policy over the past 86 years, resulting in negative impacts on BIPOC workers, who face systemic racism in the unionization process and on the job. Additionally, rapid technological advances have resulted in the automation of tasks and changes in the labor market that disproportionately affect workers of color. Consequently, the United States is likely to see an increase in wealth inequality over the next two decades.

The Biden-Harris Administration can act now to promote racial equity by establishing a National Bargaining in Good Faith Fund to support historically disadvantaged workers in unionization efforts. Because this is a pressing issue, a feasible short-term solution is to initiate a pilot program over the next 18 months. It is imperative to establish a policy that acknowledges and addresses the historical disadvantage experienced by these workers and supports their efforts to attain economic equity.

Amid growing global competition in emerging technologies, increasing adoption of automation and artificial intelligence, and economic and national security trends upended by the pandemic, the United States is facing a generational challenge. In the labor market, major shifts that were once the product of future-casting are now squarely upon us, demanding a strategic approach to help the modern workforce adapt, and ensure the education system fosters the next generation of innovators.

Individuals in the STEM workforce have made substantial contributions to the nation’s innovation, growth and technological competitiveness, and will continue to be at the core of the economy. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, STEM employment is projected to increase by 11 percent from 2020 to 2030. The Department of Defense and leading experts agree that the future of national security relies on advanced technologies such as artificial Intelligence (AI), cybersecurity, quantum computing and robotics, all of which require a strong STEM education pipeline. Unfortunately, STEM education trends in the United States have not kept up. According to the World Economic Forum, China had 4.7 million STEM graduates in 2016, India had 2.6 million STEM graduates, but the US had 568,000. The most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results reported that the average score for 9-year-old students fell 7 percentage points between 2020 and 2022, representing a 2 decade backslide in performance. And a 2021 National Academies review finds that only 22 percent of American high school graduates are proficient in science, with the average elementary classroom devoting less than 20 minutes per day to science, and 69% of elementary teachers say they are not well prepared to teach science.

The 118th Congress must act in this historic convergence of economic and educational demands. Much as the nation once rallied around its SPUTNIK moment and the Space Race, we now have an opportunity to reverse current education and workforce trends through a series of strategic investments.

Fostering a competitive job market and a strong economy. The United States built the 20th century in part through investments in education and training pathways to quality, economically-sound jobs. But today, according to a recent McKinsey Global Institute survey of 750 executives, almost 30 percent of respondents perceived the skills gap to be the biggest challenge their companies are confronting.

To help American workers adapt and upskill, Congress and federal agencies should implement training and transition strategies for high-tech sector-specific workforces, such as in the fields of quantum computing, clean energy transition, or semiconductors, as was the intent of the CHIPS for America Workforce and Education Fund included in the CHIPS and Science Act. Congress should also leverage existing programs for work-based learning and retraining by reauthorizing and modernizing federally-registered apprenticeships. Similarly, effective government programs such as the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program should be revisited and reformed to promote worker upskilling and assistance. Congress should also ensure robust appropriations for the Workforce Innovation Fund authorized by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA).

Further, the modern labor market calls for still bolder reimagining of workforce training opportunities. Just as the nation recognizes the value to national security, energy, and health presented by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) model, so too should we adapt this model to prioritize worker training at scale through an ARPA for Labor.

Amid a backdrop of historic and controversial layoffs from giants within the tech industry, Congress should take steps to ensure competitive labor markets for all Americans, through increased oversight of overly restrictive non-disclosure agreements and suffocating non-compete agreements that diminish labor mobility and competition.

Strengthen STEM Education & Training Pipelines to Compete Globally. The ability of employers and workers to compete on the global stage is inextricably linked to the education and training students receive today. But as mentioned above, the system is slipping. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports that our education system is failing to produce enough graduates with critical STEM and technical skills, while results from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) indicate that US students continue to lag behind their peers in East Asia and Europe in reading, math, and science. This stunts employers’ ability to hire and workers’ ability to secure higher-paying jobs. 

Fortunately, Congress put STEM education reform at the core of the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act, which authorizes new and expanded investments in STEM education and training at all schooling levels. One of the major priorities of the new Congress should be to follow through with full funding for CHIPS and Science education programs at NSF and other science agencies at authorized levels. This includes $2.5 billion in FY 2024, and $13 billion total over five years, for the NSF STEM Education directorate (see more details below). These programs scale up research and innovations in preK-12 instruction, in addition to bolstering support for R&D to improve STEM education at undergraduate and community colleges, and other scholarship & fellowship programs.

The Act also tasks the NSF to update the Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) by increasing the number of science and engineering graduate fellows supported annually, by increasing the cost education allowance, and by recruiting a more diverse pool of applicants. As was recommended by the Trump Administration’s President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), expanding the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program is a logical and easy way to expand and retain the critical American innovation pipeline. 

To ensure today’s students catch up to their international peers (and that we are already looking ahead to the challenges of the next decade) the US must prioritize R&D in education in a manner similar to fields like medicine and commerce. This requires a strategic investment in the research capacity at the Department of Education, as well as in the basic data infrastructure that will allow parents and districts to understand how their students are faring in comparison to their domestic and global peers.

Appropriations Recommendations

Full Funding for CHIPS and Science STEM Education. As mentioned above, Congress has the critical opportunity to invest in STEM education programs at the National Science Foundation (NSF) authorized in the CHIPS and Science Act. These programs support vital teacher training and collaboration with the scientific workforce, improved STEM education in afterschool programs, and a dedicated focus to diversify STEM fields through higher education programs. The full authorization for NSF Stem Education is $2.5 billion in FY 2024, which includes the following top-level programmatic investments: 

• $80.4 million for the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program to support STEM educators;
• $64.9 million for the NSF Research Traineeship program for STEM students and future scholars;
• $454.1 million for the Graduate Research Fellowship program for students earning advanced STEM degrees;
• $8 billion for Fellowships, Traineeships and Scholarships;
• And robust funding for Education and Human Resources Directorate operations and award management to support established STEM programs in K-12, informal, and other education setting

Other Strategic Investments in Economic Security. In addition to the initiatives laid out in CHIPS and Science, there are several other high-leverage investments Congress can make. Note: the top four recommendations are from the Alliance for Learning Innovation, a coalition advocating for research-based innovations in education, of which FAS is a member.

• $900 million for the Institute of Education Sciences. Funding for IES research and development will help identify promising evidence-based practices to counteract pandemic induced drop in NAEP scores especially in mathematics and reading. IES appropriations should rise to $900 million in FY 2024, representing an 11% increase above FY 2023.
• $514 million for the Education Innovation and Research program. The EIR program is a critical resource in supporting the development and scaling of education research in areas like STEM, social and academic learning, teacher development, and other areas. Within the $514 million allocation, funding would support projects to identify and scale use of evidence-based strategies and practices that emphasize the innovative implementation of education research, existing and new, at the school level that can lead to increased student outcomes.

• $100 million for Centers for Transformative Education Research and Translation (CTERT). The CHIPS and Science Act establishes the NSF Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP), which will prioritize new programs that support technology commercialization, regional innovation and workforce development. Congress should allocate an additional $100 million for the Centers for Transformative Education Research and Translation that will ensure support for emerging technology areas crucial for United States leadership.
• $100 million for Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems. Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) hold the promise of identifying promising programs and gaps where intervention may be needed. The funds will support competitive grant awards to states to focus on modernizing systems and support efforts to align investments that have been made in States with Department of Labor Workforce Data Quality Initiative (WDQI) investments.
• $122.5 million for the Department of Labor’s budget for Evaluation & Research. The Evaluation & Research programs authorized by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) are required to use “appropriate and rigorous methodology and research designs” that address the general effectiveness and impact of WIOA-authorized programs. Congress should be equipping DOL to understand which workforce interventions will actually provide Americans with the training they need to attain quality jobs with 21st century skills, and leading to smarter investments for our workers.
• $5 million to support the creation of a new STEM office at the Department of Education. Following the announcement of the Department of Education about newly dedicated staff and resources to guide the future of STEM education for the US’ approximately 50 million students, Congress should properly invest in the success of this endeavor as a down payment on America’s future economic security.
• An additional $750 million for 21st Century Community Learning Centers. A longstanding bipartisan priority, the afterschool and summer learning programs supported by the 21st Century Community Learning Centers provide students with safe environments that often provide authentic STEM learning opportunities not otherwise available to them, while simultaneously allowing their parents to remain at work. Additional investment in this program will continue to bolster both STEM education for K12 students and the current workforce.

With the goal of jump-starting American innovation post-pandemic, and building a foundation for the challenges of the future, including in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and semiconductor manufacturing, the CHIPS and Science Act was signed into law. The multi-year legislative effort  started as an attempt to build upon Vannevar Bush’s legacy, with a bill titled the “Endless Frontier Act” named after Bush’s famous report, “Science, The Endless Frontier.” But as Congress looked at creating a vision for science in America, almost everyone was focused on how much money the bill authorizes for scientific research. But there are many often-overlooked sections of Bush’s original report that are just as important to today’s scientific enterprise as the overall budget. In particular, what has been missing from the public discussion is his focus on the development of scientific talent.

There is no question that our science-funding institutions need significant investment and reform, but funding is only part of the puzzle. As Bush noted in the Endless Frontier, “the most important ways in which the Government can promote industrial research are to increase the flow of new scientific knowledge through support of basic research and to aid in the development of scientific talent.”

Authors of the CHIPS and Science Act clearly took note. After months of negotiations between the House and the Senate, the hard work of the staff who recognized this imperative was thus reflected in the final text of this legislation. Let’s look at some of these provisions.

Expanded GRFPs

The legislation increases the number of Graduate Research Fellowships from 2,000 to 3,000 per year. The GRFP is the National Science Foundation’s premier fellowship for graduate students in science and engineering, and it provides three years of support for exceptional students to pursue their research. The GRFP has an impressive track record: over forty Nobel Laureates and over four hundred and fifty members of the National Academy of Science started their graduate research with the help of GRFP. Aside from all the good company the award puts you in, the GRFP provides students the flexibility to work with an advisor that aligns with their interests rather than settling for whoever has money available to fund them, potentially stifling their potential. That is a big deal for these graduate students who’re still early in their career and whose interests may evolve over the years. A recent report looking at the success of GRFP recipients found that GRFP participation increased students’ likelihood of PhD completion. Fellows also published more peer reviewed papers, gave more presentations at national or international meetings, and were awarded more grants and contracts as a PI after graduate school. It also found that women who were awarded a GRFP filed more patents in graduate school than non-GRFP recipients.

Combatting Sexual Harassment in Science

In 2018, the National Academies released a report which looked at the factors that contribute to an environment tolerant of sexual harassment and its impact on women’s careers. The negative outcomes students experience when they are sexually harassed include: declining motivation to attend class, greater truancy, dropping classes, paying less attention in class, receiving lower grades, changing advisors, changing majors and transferring to another educational institution or dropping out. Additionally, Gender harassment that is severe or occurs frequently over a period of time can result in the same level of negative professional and psychological outcomes as isolated instances of sexual coercion. Therefore, Gender harassment, which is often considered a “lesser,” more inconsequential form of sexual harassment, cannot be dismissed when present in an organization. This further showed up in a recent survey conducted by the Association of American Universities to study the campus climate across 33 research universities. The survey found that 41.8 percent of all students have experienced sexual harassment since enrolling, and 18.9 percent of students have experienced sexual harassment that interfered with their academic or professional performance, limited their ability to participate in an academic program, or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive social, academic, or work environment. Among women graduate and professional students who were sexually harassed, nearly one in four reported that the perpetrator was a faculty member or instructor. The Combating Sexual Harassment in Science Act included in the CHIPS and Science Act addresses key recommendations from the report and builds on steps that have already been taken to address this issue. The legislation will establish a grant program for research into the causes and consequences of sexual harassment, issue policy guidelines for agencies making extramural research awards, convene an interagency working group to coordinate efforts, and assess the progress of these efforts over time. The bill authorizes over $32 million in spending to enact this provision, making it one of the most aggressive commitments by the federal government to combat sexual harassment in science.

A Focus on Good Mentoring and Good Mental Health

The CHIPS and Science Act also increases NSF’s focus on mentorship as a workforce development tool by establishing new programs to promote mentoring relationships between graduate students and PIs, including an expansion of Individual Development Plans for graduate researchers. These programs will help ensure that all scientists have access to quality mentors who can guide them through their careers—a critically important component to ensuring success in science as laid out by a 2019 report by the National Academies. The legislation also directs NSF to support research on graduate education system and outcomes of various interventions including the effects of traineeships, fellowships, internships, the effects of graduate education and mentoring policies and procedures on degree completion, development and assessment of approaches to improve mentorship, and to research, collect and assess data around graduate student mental health crisis and developing strategies to support graduate student mental health. 

These provisions only scratch the surface. The bill includes many more provisions that would ensure we develop a scientific workforce that will be ready to tackle the challenges of the future. If we want to keep America at the forefront of scientific discovery, we need to make sure that we are constantly replenishing our pool of scientists with the best and brightest minds. The investment in future scientists contained in the CHIPS and Science Act will pay dividends not just for those individuals but for our country as a whole. By nurturing the next generation of scientific talent, we can ensure that America remains a world leader in science and technology for generations to come.

Summary

The U.S. university research enterprise is plagued by an odd bug: it encourages experts in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) to leave it at the very moment they become recognized as experts. People who pursue advanced degrees in STEM are often compelled by deep interest in research. But upon graduation from master’s, Ph.D., or postdoctoral programs, these research-oriented individuals face a difficult choice: largely cede hands-on involvement in research to pursue faculty positions (which increasingly demand that a majority of time be spent on managerial responsibilities, such as applying for grants), give up the higher pay and prestige of the tenure track in order to continue “doing the science” via lower-status staff positions (e.g., lab manager, research software engineer), or leave the academic sector altogether. 

Many choose the latter. And when that happens at scale, it harms the broader U.S. scientific enterprise by (i) decreasing federal returns on investment in training STEM researchers, and (ii) slowing scientific progress by creating a dearth of experienced personnel conducting basic research in university labs and mentoring the next generation of researchers. The solution is to strengthen and elevate the role of the career research scientist¹ in academia—the highly trained senior research-group member who is hands-on and in the lab every day—in the university ecosystem. This is, fundamentally, a fairly straightforward workforce-pipeline issue that federal STEM-funding agencies have the power to address. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) — two of the largest sources of academic research funding — could begin by hosting high-level discussions around the problem: specifically, through an NSF-led workshop and an NIH-led task force. In parallel, the two agencies can launch immediately tractable efforts to begin making headway in addressing the problem. NSF, for instance, could increase visibility and funding for research software engineers, while NSF and/or NIH could consider providing grants to support “co-founded” research labs jointly led by an established professor or principal investigator (PI) working alongside an experienced career research scientist.

The collective goal of these activities is to infuse technical expertise into the day-to-day ideation and execution of science (especially basic research), thereby accelerating scientific progress and helping the United States retain world scientific leadership.

Challenge and Opportunity

The scientific status quo in the United States is increasingly diverting STEM experts away from direct research opportunities at universities. STEM graduate students interested in hands-on research have few attractive career opportunities in academia: those working as staff scientists, lab managers, research software engineers, and similar forego the higher pay and status of the tenure track, while those working as faculty members find themselves encumbered by tasks that are largely unrelated to research. 

Making it difficult for STEM experts to pursue hands-on research in university settings harms the broader U.S. scientific enterprise in two ways. First, the federal government disburses huge amounts of money every year—via fellowship funding, research grants, tuition support, and other avenues—to help train early-career STEM researchers. This expenditure is warranted because, as the Association of American Universities explains, “There is broad consensus that university research is a long-term national investment in the future.” This investment hinges on university contributions to basic research; universities and colleges account for just 13% of overall U.S. research and development (R&D) activity, but nearly half (48%) of basic research. Limited career opportunities for talented STEM researchers to continue “doing the science” in academic settings therefore limits our national returns on investment in these researchers.

Second, attrition of STEM talent from academia slows the pace of U.S. scientific progress because most hands-on research activities are conducted by graduate students rather than more experienced personnel. Yet, senior researchers are far more scientifically productive. With years of experience under their belt, senior researchers possess tacit knowledge of how to effectively get research done in a field, can help a team avoid repeating mistakes, and can provide the technical mentorship needed for graduate students to acquire research skills quickly and well. And with graduate students and postdocs typically remaining with a research group for only a few years, career research scientists also provide important continuity across projects. The productivity boosts that senior researchers can deliver are especially well established for software-driven fields (see box).

The absence of attractive job opportunities for career research scientists at most academic institutions is an anomaly. Such opportunities are prevalent in the private sector, at national labs (e.g., those run by the NIH and the Department of Energy) and other government institutions, and in select well-endowed university labs that enjoy more discretionary spending ability. As the dominant funder of university research in the United States, the federal government has massive leverage over the structure of research labs. With some small changes in grant-funding incentives, federal agencies can address this anomaly and bring more senior research scientists into the academic research system. 

Plan of Action

Federal STEM-funding agencies — led by NSF and NIH, as the two largest sources of federal funding for academic research — should explore and pursue strategies for changing grant-funding incentives in ways that strengthen and elevate the role of the career research scientist in academia. We split our recommendations into two parts. 

The first part focuses on encouraging discussion. The problem of limited career options for trained STEM professionals who want to engage in hands-on research in the academic sector currently flies beneath the radar of many extremely knowledgeable stakeholders inside and outside of the federal government. Bringing these stakeholders together might result in excellent actionable suggestions on how to retain talented research scientists in academia. Second, we suggest two specific projects to make headway on the problem: (i) further support for research software engineers and (ii) a pilot program supporting co-founded research labs. While the recommendations below are targeted to NSF and NIH, other federal STEM-funding agencies (e.g., the Departments of Energy and Defense) can and should consider similar actions. 

Part 1. Identify needs, opportunities, and options for federal actions to support and incentivize career research scientists.²

Shifting academic employment towards a model more welcoming to career research scientists will require a mix of specific new programs and small and large changes to existing funding structures. However, it is not yet clear which reforms should be prioritized. Our first set of suggestions is designed to start the necessary discussion.

Specifically, NSF should start by convening key community members at a workshop (modeled on previous NSF-sponsored workshops, such as the workshop on a National Network of Research Institutes [NNRI]) focused on how the agency can encourage creation of additional career research scientist positions at universities. The workshop should also (i) discuss strategies for publicizing and encouraging outstanding STEM talent to pursue such positions, (ii) identify barriers that discourage universities from posting for career research scientists, and (iii) brainstorm solutions to these barriers. Workshop participants should include representatives from federal agencies that sponsor national labs as well as industry sectors (software, biotech, etc.) that conduct extensive R&D, as these entities are more experienced employers of career research scientists. The workshop should address the following questions:

• How can NSF minimize the effects of the “research scientist tax”?³

• What are the specific problems that a research scientist-centered workforce could address?

• What tools does NSF have to affect academic-employment structures? Are there ways to incentivize the employment of research scientists within a project-based funding framework?

• Are there ways to relax grant-funding constraints such that PIs could hire contract research scientists when appropriate?

• In what areas of research and education does the faculty-as-manager paradigm dominate and in what areas are senior research scientists critical but currently unavailable? To what extent do these areas (problematically) overlap?

• How could career research scientists support NSF’s core mission of “advancing research and education” (including by training graduate students)? 

• In an industry-employment landscape that provides highly paid opportunities for career research scientists, how can NSF support universities in talent retention?

• What best practices for hiring and retaining career research scientists can be gleaned from existing employment models in national labs and industry?

• Are there tools that would increase the prestige and attractiveness of non-faculty but research-oriented positions within academia?

The primary audience for the workshop will be NSF leadership and policymakers. The output of the workshop should be a report suggesting a clear, actionable path forward for those stakeholders to pursue.

NIH should pursue an analogous fact-finding effort, possibly structured as a working group of the Advisory Committee to the Directorate. This working group would identify strategies for incentivizing labs to hire professional staff members, including expert lab technicians, professional biostatisticians, and RSEs. This working group will ultimately recommend to the NIH Director actions that the agency can take to expand the roles of career research scientists in the academic sector. The working group would address questions similar to those explored in the NSF workshop.

Part 2. Launch two pilot projects to begin expanding opportunities for career research scientists.

Pilot 1. Create a new NSF initiative to solicit and fund requests for research software engineer (RSE) support. 

Research software engineers (RSEs) build and maintain research software, and train scientists to use that software. Incentivizing the creation of long-term RSE positions at universities will increase scientific productivity and build the infrastructure for sustained scientific progress in the academic sector. Though a wide range of STEM disciplines could benefit from RSE involvement, NSF’s Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) Directorate is a good place to start expanding support for RSEs in academic projects. 

CISE has previously invested in nascent support structures for professional staff in software and computing fields. The CISE Research Initiation Initiative (CRII) was created to build research independence among early-career researchers working in CISE-related fields by funding graduate-student appointments. Much CRII-funded work involves producing — and in turn, depends on — shared community software. Similarly, the Campus Research Computing Consortium (CaRCC) and RCD Nexus are NSF-supported programs focused on creating guidelines and resources for campus research computing operations and infrastructure. Through these two programs, NSF is helping universities build a foundation of (i) software production and (ii) computing hardware and infrastructure needed to support that software. 

However, effective RSEs are crucial for progress in scientific fields outside of CISE’s domain. For example, one of this memo’s authors has personal experience with NSF-funded geosciences research. PIs working in this field are desperate for funding to hire RSEs, but do not have access to funding for that purpose. Instead, they depend almost entirely on graduate students.

As a component of the workshop recommended above, NSF should highlight other research areas hamstrung by an acute need for RSEs. In addition, CISE should create a follow-on CISE Software Infrastructure Initiative (CSII) that solicits and funds requests from pre-tenure academic researchers in a variety of fields for RSE support. Requests should explain how the requested RSE would (i) catalyze cutting-edge research, and (ii) maintain critical community open-source scientific software. Moreover, academia severely lacks strong mentorship in software engineering. A specific goal of CSII funding should be to support at least a 1:3 ratio of RSEs to graduate students in funded labs. Creative evaluation mechanisms will be needed to assess the success of CSII. The goal of this initiative will be a community of university researchers productively using software created and supported by RSEs hired through CSII funding. 

Pilot 2. Provide grants to support “co-founded” research labs jointly led by an established professor or principal investigator (PI) working alongside an experienced career research scientist.

Academic PIs (typically faculty) normally lead their labs and research groups alone. This state of affairs leads to high rates of burnout, possibly leading to poor research success. In some cases, starting an ambitious new project or company with a co-founder makes the endeavor more likely to succeed while being less stressful and isolating. A co-founder can provide a complementary set of skills. For example, the startup incubator Y Combinator is well known for wanting teams to include a CEO visionary and manager working alongside a CTO builder and designer. By contrast, academic PIs are expected to be talented at all aspects of running a modern scientific lab. Developing mechanisms to help scientists come together and benefit from complementary skill sets should be a high priority for science-funding agencies.

We recommend that NSF and/or NIH create a pilot grant program to fund co-founded research labs at universities. Formally co-founded research groups have been successful across scientific domains (e.g., the AbuGoot Lab at MIT and the Carpenter-Singh Lab at the Broad Institute), but remain quite rare. Federal grants for co-founded research labs would build on this proof of concept by competitively awarding 5–7 years of salary and equipment funding to support a lab jointly run by an early-career PI and a career research scientist. A key anticipated benefit of this grant program is increased retention of outstanding researchers in positions that enable them to keep “doing the science.” Currently, the most talented STEM researchers become faculty members or leave academia altogether. Career research scientist positions simply cannot offer competitive levels of compensation and prestige. Creating a new, high-profile, grant-funded opportunity for STEM talent to remain in hands-on university lab positions could help shift the status quo. Creating a pathway for co-founded and co-led research labs would also help PIs avoid isolation and burnout while building more robust, healthy, and successful research teams.

Conclusion

Many breakthroughs in scientific progress have required massive funding and national coordination. This is not one of them. All that needs to be done is allow expert research scientists to do the hands-on work that they’ve been trained to do. The scientific status quo prevents our nation’s basic research enterprise from achieving its full potential, and from harnessing that potential for the common good. Strengthening and elevating the role of career research scientists in the academic sector will empower existing STEM talent to drive scientific progress forward.

Summary

Overuse of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) is a pervasive problem in the United States. Companies apply these silencing tools to prevent their workers from sharing critical information with one another and the public. This in turn threatens economic growth, limits competition, and inhibits workplace equity. Workers need reliable information about corporate practices to assess job quality, ensure personal safety, and obtain pay commensurate with their worth. The public needs information about corporate practices to decide how to use their investment and purchasing power. Yet existing laws give companies enormous latitude to designate information as confidential, allowing them to impose NDAs and other contract clauses and internal policies that prevent workers from sharing information with those who need to know.

It is time for government to rein in corporate secrecy. The #MeToo movement revealed how NDAs enable and perpetuate misconduct at work, prompting public outrage and support for legislative action. New empirical evidence has exposed just how widely NDAs are being used in the corporate world: researchers estimate that between 33% and 57% of U.S. workers are constrained by an NDA or similar mechanism.^{1 2} At recent hearings and public events, regulators have signaled their concern about the anti-competitive effects of restrictive employment agreements.³ Policymakers should seize this moment of support to pursue a comprehensive legislative and multi-agency agenda limiting inappropriate use of NDAs. A strong action plan should include proactive enforcement of existing laws governing NDAs; new legislation prohibiting the most harmful uses of NDAs; and interagency collaboration to educate the public, collect data, and support research on impacts of corporate secrecy practices. Together, these efforts to limit NDA abuse will promote market accountability, workplace equity, and fair competition.

Challenge and Opportunity

NDAs are contracts in which parties agree not to disclose any information designated confidential by the agreement. In some cases, NDAs may be used appropriately to protect valuable trade secrets or other intellectual property. But employers often draft these agreements broadly to conceal many other types of information, sometimes in ways that overstep existing legal bounds. For instance, the Weinstein Company required employees to sign NDAs that prohibit disclosure of “any confidential, private, and/or non-public information obtained by Employee during Employee’s employment with the Company concerning the personal, social, or business activities of the Company, the Co-Chairmen, or the executives, principals, officers, directors, agents, employees of, or contracting parties (including, but not limited to artists) with, the Company.”⁴ Some companies require employees to sign non-disparagement agreements. These particularly broad NDAs prohibit employees from disclosing any information that might, as a non-disparagement agreement for employees of Task Rabbit reads, “disparage the Company, and the Company’s officers, directors, employees, investors and agents, in any manner likely to be harmful to them or their business, business reputation or personal reputation.”⁵  NDAs and non-disparagement agreements often purport to apply indefinitely, preventing workers from sharing information long after they have left employment.

NDAs are imposed on workers at various points during the employment relationship. They are regularly included as part of a bundle of mandatory HR forms that new hires must sign as a condition of employment. They can also be imposed and enforced through confidentiality policies contained⁶ in personnel manuals or codes of conduct that prevent employees from sharing information about the company with outsiders and sometimes even with co-workers. They are also routinely included in standardized as well as negotiated severance agreements that workers sign when ending their employment. Lastly, they are also often included in settlement agreements that resolve workplace disputes and in agreements that force employees to arbitrate disputes in secret. By preventing workers from disclosing information on everything from workplace harassment and abuse to compensation practices and safety conditions, NDAs stifle competition, limit the free flow of ideas,⁷ and allow toxic workplace conditions to fester.^{8 9 10}

Prevalence of NDAs

Researchers estimate that between 33% and 57% of U.S. workers are constrained by an NDA or similar mechanism.^{11 12} Yet it is difficult to precisely determine how many employees are silenced by NDAs because NDAs are designed to conceal information. In fact, NDAs often provide that the mere existence of the agreement is itself a secret. Lawyers regularly encourage firms¹³ to use broad NDAs as a condition of employment—not only to protect trade secrets, but also to discourage employees from revealing bad employment experiences.¹⁴ NDA prevalence also varies by sectors.

For instance, 73% of workers in “computer or mathematical jobs” report having an NDA with their employer.^{15 16}

How NDAs Hurt Workers, the Public, and the Economy

The overuse of broad NDAs can have harmful economic and social effects. Depending on how they are drafted and enforced, NDAs may undermine law enforcement and regulatory compliance, distort labor and investment markets, constrain fair competition, allow toxic workplace conditions such as harassment and discrimination to persist, and undercut efforts to make workplaces more diverse and equitable.

Interference with Law Enforcement and Regulatory Compliance

Social, psychological, and economic disincentives already discourage employees from blowing the whistle on harmful and illegal corporate behavior.¹⁷ NDAs add another barrier preventing this critical information from reaching regulators and the public. NDAs have been used by companies to cover up illegal behavior. They have been used to silence whistleblowers who disclose information about products that threaten public health and safety.¹⁸ They have even been used to prevent employees from disclosing illegal conduct to government regulators despite countervailing law. A complaint filed by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) against gaming company Activision Blizzard alleges that, contrary to law, the company pressured employees to sign contracts waiving their right to speak to investigators and requiring them to notify the company before disclosing information to DFEH.¹⁹ Some companies have required employees to agree to secrecy about corporate pay practices and diversity statistics, thereby depriving regulators of vital information about companies’ compliance with pay equity and anti-discrimination laws.²⁰ The dangers of overly aggressive NDAs have become especially clear during the COVID-19 pandemic, when it is vital for the public to know if companies are disregarding essential health and safety guidelines designed to reduce virus spread.

Market Distortion

NDAs deprive individuals of information they need to assess competing job offers and make informed decisions about where to work. They also degrade the reliability of employer reviews that workers post to online job platforms. This is because workers subject to broad NDAs are more likely to censor themselves and withhold negative information. New research shows that on Glassdoor, workers in states with more stringent limits on NDAs are 16% more likely to give a one-star review, write 8% more about the “cons” of working at the firm, and discuss harassment at work 22% more often.²¹ That same research also shows that states with more stringent limits on NDAs increase reporting of sexual harassment and safety violations to federal agencies. NDAs hence remove an important check on corporate behavior, since companies have been shown to improve their practices in response to negative job reviews and investigations into their practices.²² NDAs thus enable bad employers to hide their flaws and make it difficult for good employers to distinguish themselves in the market.

Accurate information about workplace conditions is also valuable to investors, who have increasingly come to recognize that the ways companies treat their workers impact corporate financial performance.²³ A nonprofit investment group recently called on the Securities and Exchange Commission to develop a standardized set of workplace-practice metrics as part of a comprehensive framework for evaluating socially responsible corporate governance.²⁴ NDAs can hide information about workplace conditions that investors value.

Constraints on Fair Competition

Broad NDAs can impede fair competition. Research has demonstrated that non- compete agreements—which prohibit departing workers from joining competitors— impede worker mobility, economic growth, and new firm entry. Broad NDAs pose some of the same competitive risks as non-competes because they limit workers’ ability to share and apply knowledge gained through on-the-job experience. This in turn diminishes workers’ human capital and makes them less competitive in the labor market.²⁵ Indeed, employers in states that ban non-competes have illegally attempted to use broad NDAs as an alternative mechanism to impede employee mobility.²⁶

Harassment and Discrimination

NDAs conceal harassment, discrimination, and abuse in the workplace. As the #MeToo movement showed, perpetrators of harassment and discrimination are often repeat offenders.^{27 28} NDAs may prevent victims of harassment and discrimination from warning co-workers and prospective employees about a company’s toxic workplace environment, leaving others at risk. NDAs may also prohibit or inhibit employees from disclosing information to government agencies, shielding offenders from outside investigation. By limiting what employees can share, NDAs allow harmful and abusive behavior to persist.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Restrictions on employee disclosure of harassment and discrimination undermine the goal of achieving diverse and equitable workplaces. Workers of color, women, and LGBTQ+ workers are disproportionately likely to suffer harassment and discrimination in the workplace. Such adverse experiences can have significant psychological and professional consequences, including driving workers out of certain jobs and even out of certain industries.^{29 30} NDAs exacerbate these harms by suppressing information about systemic workplace inequities and by denying workers a forum to expose and discuss harassment and discrimination.

Corporate-secrecy practices shrouding employee compensation similarly undermine efforts of diverse employees to achieve pay equity. Contrary to law, some NDAs and confidentiality policies prohibit employees from discussing their compensation, which makes it challenging for those employees to negotiate fair salary terms commensurate with their value.³¹ Studies have found that states that adopted anti-secrecy pay laws increased gender wage equality relative to states that did not.^{32 33}

National Leadership Is Needed

As described above, overly broad NDAs and the organizational secrecy practices they support pose serious risks to our economy and our society. Yet absent government intervention, these challenges will persist. Individual firms have incentives to maintain their reputations using corporate-secrecy tactics despite the social costs of such behavior. Many of those who value the information concealed by NDAs lack the capacity and power to pressure companies to change. Policymakers have an imperative to use the levers of government to curb NDA abuse.

A minority of states, including California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Washington, passed legislation in the wake of #MeToo regulating some uses of NDAs. But these laws comprise an inconsistent and incomplete regulatory patchwork. State laws differ in scope of coverage and impose different compliance standards, making it difficult for employees and companies to determine what employee disclosures are legally protected where. Moreover, the harms caused by NDAs do not stop at state lines. In fact, uneven regulation of NDAs further distorts markets by making it easier for companies to conceal information and restrict competition in some states than in others. Multi-state firms can use choice of law and choice of forum provisions to exploit inter-state legislative discrepancies, i.e., to apply the most lenient state-level secrecy laws to the entirety of a multi-state workforce.

The upshot is clear. National leadership is the only way to support market accountability, workplace equity, and fair competition by reining in non-disclosure agreements.

Plan of Action

Multiple policy interventions could curtail NDA misuse. Select options are presented below.

Better Enforce Existing Laws

Existing laws restrict some of the harmful uses of NDAs. But laws must be enforced to be effective. Research shows that some employers include unlawful non-compete clauses in their employment contracts, capitalizing on workers’ ignorance of the law and fears of being sued. Employers may similarly use NDAs in ways that violate existing law.^{34 35} Ensuring that employers are following laws that protect certain disclosures and forms of communication is a common-sense place to start when it comes to curbing NDA abuse.³⁶

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has an important role to play in enforcement. The FTC has broad authority to punish companies engaging in unfair or deceptive practices that harm consumers or competitors, as NDA misuse often does.³⁷ Unfair practices include practices that offend public policy as established by state statutes and common law,³⁸ which already restrict use of overly broad NDAs as well as NDA misuse to silence disclosures of employer wrongdoing. Stronger enforcement by the FTC would give these laws some needed teeth and would help establish norms governing responsible NDA use. The FTC could also work with companies to develop standards and best practices around NDA use and to encourage companies to engage in robust self-regulation and police one another.³⁹

Stronger enforcement of existing laws could also come from the various federal agencies that help oversee labor and employment in the United States. For example, the National Labor Relations Act protects workers who make common cause in seeking to discuss the terms and conditions of their employment. Regional offices of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have the authority to investigate employers’ use of policies that discourage this type of communication, and to file unfair labor practice charges against employers acting unlawfully. The NLRB can and should exercise this authority more forcefully. Similarly, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) could better use its power to enforce whistleblower laws protecting employees who report unlawful behavior. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Labor (DOL) also receive complaints about unlawful employment practices, including retaliation against employees who report or object to discriminatory behavior, wage theft, and other violations. The EEOC and DOL should actively seek information about NDAs and related practices in the course of their investigations and should make pursuit of retaliation claims a top priority.

In addition to redoubling enforcement efforts in their respective spheres of jurisdiction, the aforementioned agencies should collaboratively develop and implement strategies for amplifying the collective impact of their oversight.

Prohibit the Most Pernicious Uses of NDAs

New federal laws should be enacted to ban employer-imposed secrecy regarding key categories of essential information, including firm diversity, harassment and discrimination, compensation practices, and workplace health and safety. The recently proposed Ending the Monopoly of Power Over Workplace Harassment through Education and Reporting Act (EMPOWER Act) would make it illegal for an employer to require or enforce an NDA or nondisparagement clause related to workplace harassment based on a range of protected characteristics, including sex, race, national origin, disability, age, or religion. The proposed law, which enjoys bipartisan support, would also establish a confidential tip line for reporting systematic workplace harassment.

The EMPOWER Act is a step in the right direction, but federal legislation should go even further. New laws are needed to protect a wider range of disclosures and to ensure that employees know their rights. A section of California’s Silenced No More Act provides one example. It prohibits companies from using NDAs to silence employees not only about harassment, but also about discrimination and other illegal conduct. To ensure that employees know their rights, the act requires employers who use NDAs for lawful purposes to include in these contracts language clarifying that “[n]othing in this agreement prevents you from discussing or disclosing information about unlawful acts in the workplace, such as harassment or discrimination or any other conduct that you have reason to believe is unlawful.”

The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) provides another example of a provision that could be incorporated into new legislation aimed at reining in NDAs.⁴⁰ Signed into law by President Obama in 2016, the DTSA requires employers to include language in all employment contracts notifying employees that they are immune from liability when blowing the whistle on unlawful employer behavior, even if doing so involves revealing trade secrets. This notice requirement could be expanded to cover any discussions about workplace conditions. It could also clarify that the NDAs may cover only technical information that is truly secret and not general skills, know- how, and job-related experience. This would give workers more freedom to leverage their knowledge in competing for quality jobs and market-based terms of employment.

Enacting a reform agenda that impacts the widest possible swath of employers requires Congressional action. However, President Biden could act immediately to limit NDA use by federal contractors. The president has the power to issue an executive order restricting or prohibiting the federal government from entering into contracts with companies that fail to adhere to certain rules. President Biden could issue an executive order requiring that federal contractors adhere to new rules prohibiting use of NDAs to conceal essential information, including information on firm diversity, harassment and discrimination, compensation practices, workplace health and safety, and other areas of regulatory compliance. In addition to the benefits discussed above, such rules could help prevent concealment of fraud by government contractors.

Collect Data and Require Disclosure

Research tells us that NDAs are common in American workplaces. Recent events have shown that some employers use NDAs to cover up unlawful behavior. Yet information on the prevalence and content of NDAs is still relatively scarce. Employers are not currently required to disclose their NDAs to any outside party or government regulator. Employers are also free to prohibit employees who sign NDAs from even revealing that the agreement exists. Without adequate information on the scope and nature of the NDA problem, it is difficult for lawmakers to craft well-tailored policy solutions that account for a variety of stakeholder concerns. Any law limiting NDAs must balance the damage that concealing information from the public imposes against the value of NDAs for employers when used appropriately. Legislation must also consider the personal interests of victims of misconduct who may prefer to keep their experiences secret.

Policymakers should therefore require organizations to disclose their NDAs and related clauses in employment agreements. The FTC should use its investigative authority under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act⁴¹ to gather and study these documents. The SEC should also consider requiring disclosure of companies’ use of NDAs as part of its broader response to investor demand for credible information about human- capital management^{42 43}and environmental, social, and governance performance.⁴⁴

In addition, the various agencies that investigate violations of employment laws should collaborate to conduct more research on the scope and effects of NDAs (as well as other corporate-secrecy practices) across states and industries. For instance, the EEOC already receives annual reports from employers about worker demographics, salary breakdowns by gender and race, and other employment information. A coordinated agency effort could provide insight into how NDAs affect diversity and equity in employment. Developing this type of data will help lawmakers assess the anti-competitive effects of corporate secrecy, balance competing policy interests, and draft effective legislation.

Summary

Graduate students are more likely to persist in their academic decisions if engaged in positive mentoring experiences. Graduate students also cite positive mentoring experiences as the most important factor in completing a Science, Technology, Engineering, Math, or Medicine (STEMM) degree. In the United States, though, these benefits are often undermined by a research ecosystem that ties mentorship and training of graduate students by Principal Investigators (PIs) to funding in the form of research assistantships. Such arrangements often lead to unreasonable work expectations, toxic work environments, and poor mentor-mentee relationships.

To improve research productivity, empower predoctoral researchers to achieve their career goals, and increase the intellectual freedom that young scientists need to pursue productively disruptive scholarship, we recommend that federal science funding agencies:

1. Establish traineeship grant programs at all federal science funding agencies.

2. Require every PI receiving a federal research grant to implement an Individual Development Plan (IDP) for each student funded by that grant.

3. Require every university receiving federal training grants to create a plan for how it will provide mentorship training to faculty, and to actively consider student mentorship as part of faculty promotion, reappointment, and tenure processes.

4. Direct and fund federal science agencies to build professional development networks and create other training opportunities to help more PIs learn best practices for mentorship.

Summary

The Biden-Harris Administration should create a program that incentivizes unique prison-tech innovations by providing resources to help startups working in this space, specifically those that create solutions for individuals during and after their period of incarceration and beyond. The program would be structured as a partnership among several key government agencies, federal and state prison systems, and the private sector. For participating startups, the program would foster technical innovation, provide de-risking measures, connect viable product-market solutions, and establish equity-free funding opportunities. For individuals serving state and federal sentences, the program would improve rehabilitative efforts while in the corrections system, create potential job opportunities, and reduce recidivism rates. For the broader social good, the program would spur economic growth, create stronger communities, and contribute to more equitable outcomes.

Challenge and Opportunity

The United States has the highest number of incarcerated individuals worldwide: the U.S. prison population numbers nearly 1.9 million. Recidivism rates are equally astonishing. Of the over 600,000 individuals released from state and federal prisons each year, more than two-thirds are rearrested within three years of release. Half of those rearrested are subsequently reincarcerated.

The cost of recidivism is extraordinarily high. Recidivism costs taxpayers at least $366 million per year, with a single recidivism incident estimated to impose as much as $150,000 in taxpayer burden. Recidivism also has massive social costs. Continuous reincarceration harms communities, breaks families, and contributes to generational systemic poverty. To break this cycle, we as a nation need to rethink how we approach incarceration and assign more importance to reintegration efforts.

A major contributor to the recidivism cycle is prioritization of punitive measures over rehabilitative ones in U.S. prison systems. Such punitive measures can isolate inmates from friends, family, and even children for years or decades. Moreover, instead of providing access to educational tools that could set them up for meaningful work once released, prisons often shunt incarcerated individuals into low-level menial tasks that pay mere pennies per day. Incarcerated individuals often lack the skills needed to navigate life on the outside as a result. They are left without financial means or dependable job prospects. They are saddled with broken relationships and a lack of coping mechanisms. Coupled with the stigma of being labeled ex-offenders, they are often forced into unproductive behaviors and familiar but societally unacceptable actions. And inevitably, many fall into the same patterns and reoffend.

It is also worth considering the economic benefits our nation is failing to capture from formerly incarcerated individuals. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, an estimated $78–87 billion in GDP annually is lost due to exclusion of formerly incarcerated job seekers from the workforce simply because of their ex-offender status, exclusion based on these individuals being “unskilled and unemployed” as a result of poor training and job opportunities while in prison. 

We can do better. Research shows that when incarcerated individuals are given access to tools that allow them to connect to people and resources who can help them, those individuals are better equipped to reenter society. Such tools include regular video and voice calls plus texts and emails with friends and loved ones. They include the ability to participate in physical, mental, and spiritual programs and community-led activities, including programs and activities offered through digital services. And importantly, they include access to online educational programs and learning platforms administered through hardware designed to make learning easier, more robust, and aligned with modern approaches to digital upskilling.

Indeed, there is a growing market for hardware, software, and other digital innovations designed to work within U.S. carceral systems. Startups focused on the prison-tech space have the knowledge and will to replace archaic, ineffective approaches to rehabilitation with more meaningful products and services. Unfortunately, prison-tech startups also face challenges not encountered by startups in other tech subsectors. 

First, many prison-tech startups are creating products and solutions that are extremely targeted towards smaller markets. For these players, finding customers means aligning with state and federal prison systems — something that is unfamiliar to a budding tech company.

Second, prison-tech startups, like all startups, often struggle to find funding. But while other startups can woo private funders with promises of equity, board seats, and concrete financial returns, success for these startups often includes bettering lives and fostering meaningful experiences, measures that cannot be quantified through revenue alone. Many investment firms have little interest in funding such “tech for social good” enterprises.
Third, prison-tech startups invest substantial time and money into including equality, accessibility and safety in their offerings. As such, access to this type of beneficial technology should not be limited to only carceral institutions with larger budgets to purchase them. At the same time, too many existing goods and services purport to serve incarcerated individuals equally and justly but are actually designed to maximize revenue generation. For example, systems like TRULINCS and JPay are pay-per-use services (for communication, money transfer, and other purposes) provided at extraordinarily high costs to incarcerated individuals and their networks on the outside — often at costs so high that the critical opportunities for connection they provide are simply unaffordable for those who need them most. Prison-tech products and services must be designed and used in ways that do not exploit, harm, or otherwise jeopardize the health and safety of incarcerated individuals and their families nor unduly burden individuals and their families with exorbitant costs per use.

Plan of Action

The Biden-Harris Administration should launch a cross-agency initiative to support prison-tech startups. The initiative would offer federal grants to fund private companies and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) providing beneficial prison-tech goods and services: e.g., carceral learning platforms and tools that can prepare incarcerated individuals to reenter society. The initiative should also provide incentives for prison-tech startups to hire formerly incarcerated individuals. Such incentives will create self-sustaining ecosystems that provide meaningful, long-term employment to former inmates, drive bottom-line success for prison-tech startups, and better communities in which startups are based.

Relevant agencies

Key agencies to include in initiative design, management, and administration include the following:

• Given its close ties to the current administration and track record of policy and initiative management, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) would be well-suited to administer the initiative. OSTP helps lead science and technology (S&T) efforts as they relate to budget alignment and policy implementation across the federal government. OSTP also works with the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to ensure that S&T efforts are being actively measured and evaluated. Finally, OSTP has experience working with state and local governments as well as with the private sector. For this initiative, OSTP would be specifically tasked with:
  • Coordination across partner agencies.
  • Collecting and reporting data evaluating initiative effectiveness.
  • Outreach, including hosting business roundtables and other events to encourage private-sector and state participation.
  • Crafting guidance for participating states and startups, including participation requirements, sample frameworks, and best practices.
  • General program management, oversight, and monitoring.

• Grant-funding agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Education (ED). Both NSF and ED have previously provided seed funding for several carceralinitiatives. As recently as 2020, NSF supported a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant aimed at providing digital learning for incarcerated individuals. NSF also has the technical background and expertise needed to support tech development in a specific area, experience coupling S&T with social science and welfare issues, and a large research and development (R&D) budget that could be tapped for this initiative. ED has conducted research into effective reentry practices — most recently in 2015 through its Promoting Reentry Success Through Continuity of Educational Opportunities (PRSCEO) study. Experience and insight from studies like this position ED to serve as a high-level partner to NSF in both advising on and co-creating learning materials, particularly materials that help incarcerated individuals earn their GEDs and acquire in-demand skills that will increase post-release employment opportunities. 

• The Small Business Administration (SBA) helps NSF and ED implement the SBIR program by reviewing agency progress and assisting with grants and solicitation announcements. Grant solicitations for this initiative could be issued through SBIR. In addition, the SBA’s 7(j) Management and Technical Assistance Program helps small businesses win local, state, and federal contracts. The 7(j) Program guides small businesses through the complexities of government-contracting guidelines. This program could be leveraged to support new businesses in winning federal support for their prison-tech products and services. 

• The Department of Labor (DOL), through its Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) and Federal Bonding Program, can provide later-stage financial incentives for prison-tech startups. The 2014 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) also set DOL up well to support formerly incarcerated job seekers by helping with resume writing, interview skills, job placement, and ongoing skill development post-release.

• The Department of Justice (DOJ) should be involved in setting guidelines relating to how prison-tech services handle inmate privacy, accessibility, and other issues related to civil rights. DOJ’s Civil Rights Team (CRT), in particular, can ensure that products and services funded through this initiative do not exploit vulnerable prison populations. DOJ is also well suited to provide input on current trends and needs within the American prison ecosystem. DOJ should closely advise OSTP on initiative management and should assist in shaping calls for grant proposals. 

Program structure

As explained above, the proposed initiative comprises two pillars. The first pillar focuses on federal grant funding to help prison-tech startups launch. The second pillar focuses on later-stage financial incentives and market support that help prison-tech startups scale and achieve long-term financial sustainability, and that encourage prison-tech startups to provide good jobs to previously incarcerated individuals. 

Pillar 1: Federal grant funding

Making federal grant funding (i.e., non-equity funding) available will encourage innovative startups to explore needed prison-tech solutions while minimizing risk associated with investing in such a specific market segment. The best option for funding the grant portion of the initiative is a combined approach that makes use of multiple existing federal funding vehicles.

The primary vehicle would be the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. Under SBIR, companies are generally awarded up to $150,000 for a Phase I (P1) grant that runs for up to six months. Companies who successfully complete P1 and show favorable outcomes and market opportunities can become eligible for Phase II (P2) funding, which has a cap of $1 million for a two-year period of performance. This staggered approach requires companies to measure and demonstrate positive outcomes in order to be eligible for follow-on investments. We propose creating a specific prison-tech topic code for SBIR, which would allow NSF and ED to use this program to allocate prison-tech startup grants. Though SBIR funding generally does not go beyond P2, the federal government could consider adding Phase III (P3) funding opportunities for particularly promising prison-tech startups. In P3, companies would be eligible for awards of $5–10 million to scale up products and services to meet the needs of prisons nationwide. A summary of proposed SBIR award numbers and funding levels for this initiative is proposed below.

Award numbers

Estimated funding levels (first five years)

Additionally, the Digital Equity Act — part of the recently passed bipartisan infrastructure bill—includes a total of $2.75 billion over five years to provide digital training and skill-development opportunities to low-income and disadvantaged populations, which includes those formerly incarcerated. Through this act (and specifically through its “Spurring Targeted Action through Competitive Grants” arm) the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) will create an annual $125 million competitive grant program to support digital-inclusion projects undertaken by individual groups, coalitions, and/or communities of interest. The Biden-Harris administration should explore options for including the NTIA grants in the prison-tech startup initiative. 

Pillar 2: Later-stage financial incentives and market support

The goal of this pillar is to support prison-tech startups through the crucial period in between business launch and long-term fiscal sustainability — the period when many startups fail. Providing funding, markets and overall business support during this crucial time period ensures continuity of offering for the institution as well as ensuring small business thrives. 

The SBA and DOL should partner to provide continued financial incentives — e.g., extended tax credits and bonding programs — for prison-tech startups, particularly startups that hire previously incarcerated individuals. As part of this pillar, the DOL’s WOTC should be doubled to $19,600 per individual per year for employees making at least $65,000 per year.¹ DOL’s Federal Bonding program should also be extended to cover the first 12 months or more of employment. Finally, the Biden-Harris administration should explore opportunities for retention bonuses or additional tax credits that encourage prison-tech startups to retain formerly incarcerated individuals beyond the first 12 months of employment.

The SBA and DOL should also help craft a business-to-prison product-matching service. This service will (1) allow prison-tech startups to focus on building the right solutions without worrying about customer acquisition, and (2) give prison management confidence that the prison-tech products and services they are purchasing are credible and tested. As part of this service, the SBA and DOL should assist businesses with understanding institutional needs and with understanding how to navigate federal and state contracting processes. The SBA and DOL could also try to help prison-tech startups identify supplementary customer bases among institutions such as city and county jails, juvenile-detention facilities, and state-sponsored healthcare facilities and hospitals in an effort to provide additional market opportunities for participating startups beyond the prison system. This ensures continued financial support for business and expanded product support through larger customer bases, something all startups need.