Summary

The COVID-19 pandemic has devastated the world. In the same year, record fires, hurricanes, and weather wreaked havoc on the United States. These disasters have had devastating economic effects on American lives. To combat COVID-19, foster economic recovery, and address climate change, the United States should implement a National Bioeconomy Manufacturing and Innovation Initiative. The U.S. bioeconomy is composed of healthcare, agriculture, and life-science companies and contributes an estimated 2% of the U.S. GDP. This figure is expected to rise in the coming decade. The bioeconomy also contributes to addressing climate change by reducing U.S. dependence on petroleum-based products and creates American jobs through a growing biomanufacturing sector. Biomanufacturing is the production of products via biological and biosynthetic mechanisms, such as fermentation-based production of industrial ethanol. To fully realize the potential of the bioeconomy, the United States must invest in cross-cutting research and development (R&D) across the areas of healthcare, food & agriculture, energy, environment, and industrial applications. The pillars of this “National Bioeconomy Manufacturing and Innovation Initiative” should focus on (1) cutting-edge R&D, (2) development of fundamental and publicly available tools, and (3) biomanufacturing. The initiative should be coordinated out of the Executive Office of the President via a National Bioeconomy Coordination Office. The initiative should be supported by senior leadership positions at each federal agency with equities in the U.S. bioeconomy, as well as by appropriated funding.

The next administration should create a “Digital Corps” — a two-year early-career fellowship designed for the country’s top young technology talent to serve in the Federal Government. Such a program could compete for college graduates in technical fields and for other early- career technical professionals, potentially recruiting thousands per year. In an increasingly digital age, a transition accelerated by the COVID pandemic, a Digital Corps would improve government service delivery in critical areas, rebuilding trust in government, and create a broad talent funnel for the Federal Government to build the diverse, inclusive, and digital native workforce it needs in the 21st century.

Challenge and Opportunity

The Federal Government faces a massive talent problem, especially in technology. Approximately one-fifth of the federal IT workforce is under 40 years old, and in the Department of Veterans Affairs, in particular, less than 1% of the 8,000 IT workers are under 30 years old, while almost 17% are over 60 years old.¹ As in other industries, software and technology are changing government for the better—if we can keep up. If a new generation of IT professionals is offered a chance to serve in meaningful roles, they can help us refashion a simpler and better government.

Technology talent is core to ensuring that government can better meet the needs of its constituents. Whether it has involved modernizing Medicare, improving access to VA services, or responding to the pandemic, the U.S. Digital Service, the General Services Administration’s 18F, and the Presidential Innovation Fellows have already demonstrated that design and technology are key to delivering better services to the American people.

There are approximately 65,000 computer science and 331,000 STEM college graduates each year.² However, there is a gap in existing programs to hire early-career technologists. The Federal Government has created well-regarded programs for technology talent to serve, but none have focused on young technologists.

Generation Z wants to serve. Successful service programs—Teach For America, AmeriCorps, and others—demonstrate that college graduates are eager to contribute to public service. Technically-skilled college graduates, with many career options, are similarly interested in public service. The non-profit Coding it Forward runs the Civic Digital Fellowship, a cohort-based internship in federal agencies for college-aged technologists; in less than five years, they have placed over 200 young technologists from across the United States at eleven federal agencies, selected from over 3,000 applicants (with an acceptance rate under 10%). Recruiting even a small subset of computer science and STEM graduates for the Digital Corps could be extremely important for the Federal Government’s long-term IT workforce; in Coding it Forward’s summer 2020 cohort, over 34% of students stayed on with their agencies at the end of their fellowship, in either a full-time or part-time capacity, demonstrating the value of early-career opportunities. Federal agencies’ experiences with the Civic Digital Fellowship have shown that junior-level technology talent, when paired with mentors and staffed on high-potential projects, is capable of making a substantial, immediate impact in government.

Plan of Action

A Digital Corps would generate a diverse talent infusion of highly-skilled college graduates and other early-career technologists in the Federal Government, matching them with high-stakes work impacting government service delivery—including in information technology, cybersecurity, product management, design, program management, and acquisition. The fellowship would be designed to give Digital Corps Fellows a cross-agency cohort experience, senior federal mentorship, modern skills development, and the ability to rotate at least once in their fellowship. Digital Corps Fellows would also qualify for substantial federal loan forgiveness. Fellows would be placed across several agencies, rotating among placements and agencies to gain experience and broaden their skill set. After two years of high-intensity service, fellows would be able to compete for accelerated entry into conventional federal service and would be well-prepared for professional jobs or graduate school. Whether remaining in government or pursuing other opportunities, Digital Corps alumni will build the brand for federal service among early-career technologists and will serve as critical allies and advocates for the work of the Federal Government.

A small group of White House senior staff members—for example, Office of Management and Budget’s Deputy Director of Management, U.S. Chief Information Officer, U.S. Digital Service Administrator, and U.S. Chief Technology Officer—would serve as executive sponsors and champions.

The next administration should begin exploring the formation of a program office with dedicated staff, at the General Services Administration (GSA), where the Presidential Innovation Fellows program is housed, or the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), where the Presidential Management Fellows program is housed. Over the next 12 months, the goals of the program office would be three-fold:

1. Develop the core components of the fellowship. This would include:

• Recruiting a core set of agency partners focused on critical Presidential priorities;
• Developing a centralized onboarding and training program;

• Designing high-impact project placements, with mentorship and a focus on cross- cutting skillsets that Fellows would work to gain (e.g., information technology, cybersecurity, product management, design, etc.);
• Ensuring the opportunity to rotate amongst agencies and across types of work at least once during the fellowship;
• Building a strong recruiting, selection, and corps experience program; and
• Working with OPM to ensure the ability of the Fellows afterward to stay in government if they wish.

2. Launch a recruiting funnel for the first cohort of Fellows to start in Fall 2021. Focus on building a pipeline of exceptional candidates by:

• Identifying referral partners that can recommend strong candidates; and
• Developing a marketing strategy that showcases the high expectations and selectivity of the program, brand and community, mission-orientation and live examples of high- potential projects, commitment to diversity and inclusion, access to modern tools,and ongoing professional development.

3. Build a path for the program to grow. If the first set of placements (e.g., 20-50 fellows) show strong reviews, design a scaling strategy that includes:

• Incorporating the program’s core budget into 2022 budget planning, and
• Identifying core agency customers for the program who are willing to set asidededicated funds for Fellows.

Top students have many options, but many want to serve. Important criteria to attract the next generation of technology talent to government include:

• Prestige: Attract high-quality early career talent with a selective program with high expectations and with White House affiliation.
• Cohort model: Build community (dedicated meet-ups, regular co-working, speaker series, etc.), which would provide a strong two-year experience and build a brand for the Digital Corps.
• Mission-orientation: Promote strong messaging around contributing to the public good, showcasing both accessible and exciting missions, demonstrating to candidates that they can have a chance to make a real impact on that mission.
• Diversity and inclusion: Show candidates that government cares about attracting, retaining, and promoting a diverse workforce.
• Modern environment and tools: Ensure that employees have a modern physical work environment and provide modern computers and modern technology tools.
• Professional development: Provide coordinated mentorship with senior officials and continuous personalized skills-based training.
• Visible alumni: Demonstrate to fellows that they can be successful in their career after leaving government and create a vibrant alumni network.

Conclusion

Given the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, the economy, systemic racism, and climate change, we need the most talented young people to serve in government. Talented law school graduates’ clerk for federal judges for a year or two before embarking on the rest of their careers; we should provide a pathway for talented technologists to similarly serve in the Federal Government.

A Digital Corps will also help taxpayers. Digital Corps Fellows would be less expensive, comparatively, than retiring federal IT employees. Moreover, as other federal digital programs like U.S. Digital Service and Presidential Innovation Fellows have shown, high-impact technologists help the government to be more effective and efficient, ultimately generating a strong return on investment.

Summary

Over 23 million homes in America have significant lead paint hazards and more than 200,000 children have unsafe levels of lead in their blood. Lead poisoning causes significant decreases in math and reading scores and a host of other health problems, all of which are preventable.

The urgent need for homes that support good health has never been clearer: the COVID-19 pandemic has meant more time in our residences, bringing healthy housing to the fore as a national priority. Inadequate housing conditions—such as exposure to lead paint, radon, mold and moisture, pest infestations, structural instability, and fire hazards—cause or exacerbate asthma, allergies, poisonings, falls and injuries, cancer, cardiovascular problems and other preventable illnesses. They needlessly burden our hospitals, schools, communities, and housing finance institutions, exacerbating the housing affordability crisis. Sustainable healthy housing is essential to economic vitality, climate change mitigation, and children’s futures.

This Executive Order establishes a cabinet-level Presidential Task Force on Lead Poisoning Prevention and Healthy Housing to coordinate the nation’s response to lead paint and other housing-related diseases and injuries under the Biden administration. Led by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, this Task Force will recommend new strategies, regulations, incentives and other actions that promise to conquer these avoidable problems. With strategic leadership and concerted action, the Task Force can eliminate childhood lead poisoning as a major public health problem and ensure that all American families have healthy homes.

Summary

Young people today face surveillance unlike any previous generation, at home, at school, and everywhere in between. Constant use of technology while their brains are still developing makes them uniquely vulnerable to privacy harms, including identity theft, cyberbullying, physical risks, algorithmic labeling, and hyper-commercialism. A lack of privacy can ultimately lead children to self-censor and can limit their opportunities. Already-vulnerable populations—who have fewer resources, less digital literacy, or are non-native English speakers—are most at risk.

Congress and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have repeatedly considered efforts to better protect children’s privacy, but the next administration must ensure that this is a priority that is actually acted upon by supporting strong privacy laws and providing additional resources and authority to the FTC and support to the Department of Education (ED). The Biden-Harris administration should also establish a task force to explore how to best support and protect students. And the FTC should use its current authority to increase its understanding of the children’s technology market and robustly enforce a strong Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) rule.

Summary

Convergence is a compelling novel paradigm and a potent force for advancing scientific discovery via transdisciplinary collaboration. It is also a useful framework for multi-sector partnerships. The Biden-Harris Administration should form a Convergence Directorate at the National Science Foundation (NSF) to accelerate research and innovation and help ensure U.S. leadership in the industries of the future.

In forming the Directorate, NSF should:

• Commit resources that are commensurate with the importance of the Directorate’s mission.
• Provide the sustained focus needed to realize the tremendous potential of convergence.
• Ensure that the Directorate is organized to reflect the principles of convergence in its structure and operations.

Summary

The next administration should create a U.S. Entrepreneurial Corps (“E-Corps”), a program to train, invest in, and build networks for the next generation of small business leaders. E-Corps should include three components: 1) a national network of 1,000 small business incubators co-located at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and at Land-Grant Universities, 2) a competitively selected cohort of 2,000 small business connectors to staff the incubators, and 3) underrepresented entrepreneurs to participate in the program. E-Corps reimagines the Federal Government’s approach to building an inclusive small business ecosystem by providing support to community anchor institutions while connecting underrepresented entrepreneurs to capital and historically inaccessible networks of financiers and advisors. E-Corps will become the connective tissue for entrepreneurial communities across our country, spanning both urban and rural communities.

Summary

Beneficial investment organizations (BIOs)—such as public pension funds, endowments, and the investment arms of charitable organizations—are a cornerstone of American welfare and the foundation of our modern capitalist system. American BIOs manage tens of trillions of dollars in pursuit of their goals, and this financial capital serves to power the American economy. But hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted by BIOs every year due to insufficient portfolio transparency, which contributes to BIOs paying excessive fees, assuming unnecessary and uncompensated risks, and chronically underperforming. Insufficient BIO transparency thus harms not only their direct beneficiaries (e.g., retirees, universities and charities), but it also harms America. Due to this opacity, billions of investment dollars are artificially diverted away from long-term projects that could have widespread social and economic benefits. In short, poor transparency on portfolio attributes, such as costs and sustainability, prevents beneficial investment organizations from actually benefiting their stakeholders and America.

Increasing BIO transparency through enhanced reporting and disclosure could unlock hundreds of billions of dollars in beneficial capital for long-term projects that would aid large segments of American society. Improved transparency would allow stakeholders to better understand BIOs’ investment decisions and their long-term consequences, which could then underpin design changes (e.g., better governance and regulatory structures). Transparency is thus a catalyst to make BIOs more willing to change and improve how they invest, which will unlock capital for long-term, large-scale projects that America desperately needs and drive high risk-adjusted returns. Launching a Presidential Advisory Commission is the best first step for the Biden-Harris Administration to take to improve transparency among BIOs and unlock substantial volumes of long-term beneficial capital.

Summary

The next administration should launch a task force within the Office of Space Commerce to promote and achieve U.S. private space exploration on the Moon and on asteroids. This task force would encourage space civilianization on the Moon’s surface and foster international collaboration around orbital debris removal.

A dedicated task force to assist private companies moving into the nascent lunar exploration and mining sector—similar to NASA’s current Space Act Agreements and launch contracts—would help establish U.S. presence on the lunar surface and stimulate a U.S. space economy. State actors have been working on lunar technology, and it is imperative that we respond to their imminent presence on the Moon. The Federal Government, led by the White House and executed by the Office of Space Commerce, should undertake a comprehensive agenda and allocate federal funding for a new Lunar and Asteroid Task Force.

Summary

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the challenges faced by millions of Americans in accessing healthy, prosperous, and resilient neighborhoods. However, the ability for all Americans to afford to live, work, play in, and benefit from these neighborhoods, also known as Communities of Opportunity, has been in crisis for decades. Whether in urban, suburban or rural markets, demand for walkable and resilient communities with affordable housing and transportation options, great amenities, and a sense of place continues to outstrip supply. Despite broad recognition of the enormous economic and environmental benefits of walkable communities, particularly transit-oriented development (TOD), communities face many federal, state, and local barriers to meeting this demand. 

To help communities meet the pent-up demand for affordable housing and businesses in walkable, resilient communities, and to accelerate an equitable economic recovery, the Administration should establish a national equitable transit-oriented development policy. The policy should promote and coordinate federal investments and action to support equitable transit-oriented development and community revitalization projects that lead to more mixed-income housing, new revenue streams for budget-constrained public transportation agencies, climate change mitigation and a stronger and sustainable post-COVID-19 economic recovery.

Summary

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) tackles some of the toughest challenges in some of the toughest places on earth, including fighting global pandemics, growing economic prosperity, strengthening democratic institutions, and providing humanitarian relief. USAID plays an important role in addressing global development problems that initially lack effective, scalable, and sustainable solutions. Yet USAID’s activities allow little room for the risk taking or iteration needed to drive significant improvements and encourage disruptive new ideas, with most programs implemented through detailed plans with rigid designs.

Imagine if the pace of progress for global development could match the breakneck pace of advances in the tech sector. The next administration should assess where current USAID interventions are inadequately meeting global need, applying best practices from innovation to improve programs accordingly. This will include shifting to outcomes-based performance metrics, dedicating budget for experimentation, establishing incentives that encourage risk-taking, linking payments with outcomes, and conducting ex-post evaluations of scale and sustainability.

Summary

The Biden-Harris Administration should adopt a federal strategy for science engagement that enables all Americans to learn from, use, and participate in the process and outputs of science.

Investments in science and technology have the greatest impact when paired with increased public access to, and participation in, the scientific enterprise. Emerging areas of basic and applied research, such as synthetic biology and artificial intelligence, have important implications for society. Science engagement is essential for improving public scientific literacy, raising and discussing ethical considerations, and aligning research with public priorities and values. Broadening participation in the scientific enterprise is more than a question of who “does” the science. Rather, it requires looking beyond traditional science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education for creative ways to increase public exposure to, understanding of, and meaningful contributions to science.

The first steps in a federal strategy for science engagement should focus on establishing and cultivating federal expertise in science engagement and improving coordination among federal science agencies. These efforts will emphasize knowledge sharing and ultimately allow for a greater understanding of the impact of science engagement on community and scientific outcomes.

This memo was drafted by contributors from the Day One Project, Advancing Research Impact in Society, and LISTEN Network, with generous support from the Kavli Foundation in consultation with participants from a Day One Project workshop focused on science engagement.

Summary

Every year, Americans lose billions of dollars to natural hazards. Hurricanes, wildfires, floods, heat waves, and droughts affect millions of Americans and are particularly devastating for low-income communities and communities of color. The number of ‘billion-dollar disasters’—those that cause over a billion dollars in damage—is rising as a result of climate change, urbanization, high risk developments, communities in vulnerable areas, aging infrastructure, and federal policy that rewards risk-prone behavior rather than incentivizing risk reduction. An overhaul of U.S. federal disaster policy will reverse the trend and eliminate billion-dollar disasters. This goal requires action at all levels of government, coordination across agencies, and leadership from the highest levels.

The Biden-Harris Administration should implement a multi-phase plan beginning with an executive order instructing federal agencies to define federal roles in disaster response, coordinate agency efforts, and integrate social justice and climate change into decision-making. Agency-level mandates will develop and implement best practices, incentivize state and local measures, and create an evidentiary basis for funding allocations. Finally, legislative reform of disaster laws will enable flexible responses to the continuing effects of climate change. A coordinated overhaul of federal laws and policies will inspire change at state and local levels, leading to a U.S. disaster policy that is climate-ready, addresses social inequities, reduces taxpayer liability and disaster damage, and saves lives.

Challenge and Opportunity

Disaster effects continue to worsen. Climate change is exacerbating hurricanes, floods, heat waves, and wildfires. Development and population growth in at-risk areas have placed more people, infrastructure, and economic activity in harm’s way. Serious disasters are more frequent and more costly (Figure 1). In 2019 alone, the U.S. experienced fourteen different billion-dollar disasters. In a five-month period that year, flooding affected eleven states: Oklahoma, Nebraska, Missouri, Illinois, Kansas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana.

Federal aid is designed to be a last resort in disasters: the backstop when local and state resources have been overwhelmed. Current disaster policy and practice, however, results in disincentives for local governments to engage in proactive risk reduction. The more damage a county experiences, for example, the more money the county receives from the Federal Government, providing little incentive to adopt better building codes or limit development in risk-prone areas. The National Institute of Building Sciences estimates that updating and refining building codes alone could save $4 for every $1 spent—as well as save 600 lives, avoid 4,000 cases of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and create 87,000 new jobs (NIBS 2019). Despite this alternative approach, U.S. disaster policy emphasizes recovery rather than prevention. Only a fraction of disaster funding—just 15%—is spent on reducing future losses.

Relief decisions use wealth and assets as measures of need, rather than people. The result is that disaster funding increases wealth inequality. There is also little evidence that the billions in disaster recovery paid by U.S. taxpayers each year has increased community resilience. According to the Government Accountability Office, nearly 45,000 new homes experienced repeat flood losses over the last decade, while less than half that number had their flood risk reduced through elevation, acquisition, or floodproofing.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is a key organizer for federal response in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. In the long tail of recovery, though, other agencies— including the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Federal Transit Authority (FTA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and Small Business Administration (SBA)— become involved. These agencies have significant and increasing spending authority and autonomy, but the risk reduction projects they prioritize and the reasons for their selection are often unclear or unavailable to researchers or the public. Projects are also not required to complement or support one another; each agency has its own mission, and there is little overarching coordination. At times, their actions may even work at cross-purposes.

Overhauling U.S. disaster policy will require a major effort across multiple levels and branches of government. This effort will not only limit but also potentially reverse the trend of increasing disaster costs. Disaster policy can create incentives for risk-smart development, promote climateproof investments in infrastructure, and protect society’s most vulnerable populations.

Plan of Action

A complete overhaul of U.S. disaster policy will require many actions across government branches. The following roadmap is a starting point: an initial set of steps to establish leadership, coordination, and a structure within which numerous actors can engage in a collaborative effort to build a disaster-resilient nation.

The plan is guided by the following principles:

• Equity must be at the center; disaster policy must focus on enabling communities.
• High-level leadership is required to coordinate multiple mutually supporting actions throughout the Federal Government.
• Aligning state and local government incentives will encourage these institutions to assume responsibility for building resilient communities.
• Transparent, evidence-based decision-making and implementation are most effective.

Executive Branch

An executive order from the President or memorandum from the Office of Science and Technology Policy should direct agencies to address climate change and social equity in all federal actions. The order should provide a new mandate for inter-agency task forces such as the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG) to take, at minimum, the following actions:

• Define leadership and roles for each federal agency and establish coordination mechanisms to align actions during pre-disaster risk mitigation and long-term recovery.
• Provide a roadmap for federal agencies to create incentives for local governments to take risk reduction measures.
• Direct all agencies to review disaster expenditures and decision-making processes, make the results public, and review consistency among agencies.
• Pursue place-based pilot programs that are participatory and community-based to establish participatory processes and evaluation methods.
• Develop a long-term plan for disaster recovery that (1) addresses inequities in access to housing, infrastructure, and social services, (2) promotes quality of life, (3) and ensures a just transition process for communities as they build resilience.

Legislative Branch

Following the executive action, Congress should legislate reform both the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (NFIP) and the Stafford Act of 1988. Congress should adopt the guidelines made by inter-agency task forces and recommendations made by the hazard science community. Congress must deliberate on:

• Increased spending flexibility to support community resilience and functioning.
• Raising the disaster threshold given the increasing frequency and severity of events and the need to incentivize local and state governments to prepare for and limit the damage caused by common hazards.
• Adjusting the federal cost-share to incentivize action without burdening communities.
• Creating incentives that protect vulnerable populations.

University and Government Research

New science is needed to create a more robust foundation of evidentiary knowledge. Through National Science Foundation calls and inter-agency task force member agencies commissioning National Academies Studies, funding should be allocated toward:

• Defining and developing a public insurance program that covers a wide range of disasters.
• Evaluating the adequacy of the disaster directive for achieving national goals.
• Undertaking research to inform thresholds for federal action at state and local levels