The Inequitable Planning & Execution of Equity in the Federal Government: An Open Letter to the President & Congressional Leaders

July 11, 2023

The Inequitable Planning & Execution of Equity in the Federal Government

My name is Odie Martez Gray; I am a military veteran who honorably served in the United States Army and I now serve our nation as President of the Diversity Cyber Council, a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit that serves underrepresented demographics in the technology industry via our workforce readiness programs to establish a diverse talent pipeline to the workforce.

I write this open letter with the purpose of highlighting and initiating the resolution of a number of social and financial inequities that continue to detrimentally affect communities of color and are indirectly reinforced by bureaucratic federal and state level policy.?There is an immediate call to action that I hope you will answer.?The call requires the swift amendment of current federal and state policies pertaining to government programs and financial awards so that they are more equitable to our nation’s diversified citizenship.?It is imperative that this call to action include a concerted effort to recompense the American Black population for past historic exclusions.?To clarify, this is separate from a call for reparations; rather, this is a call for equity. I propose that black indigenous people and persons of color be appropriately represented among key decision makers as it relates to the creation and revisions of federal law, state law, and affiliated policymaking with the added responsibility of ensuring financial awards, contracts, and like opportunities are proportionately distributed to these under-represented demographics based on criteria commensurate to equity.

Whether intentionally or unintentionally, the federal and state policy system has consistently produced results that are inherently biased and unfavorable to people of color. It is past due for government officials and leadership to invest in a viable strategic plan to remedy this disparity as it is less than sincere to expect taxation of a people without ensuring equitable outcomes are guaranteed and verifiable.

Although sweeping changes are broadly necessary to reinforce and ensure the nation’s enhanced state of equity, there are prioritized areas that require immediate action within a year’s time which include:

·????????The Inequities of the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act (WIOA)

·????????The Inequities of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

·????????The Inequities of Federal & State Financial Awards (Grants & Contracts)

As these areas are explored, it is critical to understand and align on the true nature of equity—the recognition that we as a people do not all start from the same place and actions must be proactively taken to rectify social and financial imbalances. Even when the barriers to equity are unintentional, it unfortunately does not diminish the detrimental affect it has on those marginalized. As leaders, we have a collective and ongoing responsibility to identity and alter the systemic barriers that hinder or prevent social and financial equity. In order to meet this goal, we must plan to include requirements for law and policy from the perspective of the most afflicted not the least affected with urgency and effectiveness.

A. The Inequities of the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act (WIOA)

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act is a federal law enacted in the United States in 2014 that aims to improve and modernize the nation's workforce development system.[1]?The primary goal of WIOA is to enhance the employability and skills of American workers, align workforce development programs with the needs of employers, and promote economic growth.[2]?The Act emphasizes the importance of collaboration among various stakeholders, including federal, state, and local governments, workforce development boards, businesses, educational institutions, and community organizations.[3]

Unfortunately, at scale, the theory and impact of WIOA has not matched the execution and delivery of results due to improper strategic planning and execution with noted deficiencies including, but not limited to: 1) a system of overly administrative policy and processes that lack crucial client side, employer, and training provider perspective/requirements; 2) a decentralized and non-standardized model for each local workforce development board causing inconsistent quality of service; 3) continuous missing of crucial goals and targets; 4) mismanagement of WIOA funds contributing to the lowering of state budgets causing staff reductions and poor quality of service; 5) lack of employer buy-in and commitment within critical workforce industries like technology; 6) lack of federal oversight and accountability for employers to hire clients that complete WIOA funded programming; and 7) lack of equitable support and funding opportunities directed towards organizations owned and/or led by people of color.

The empirical evidence published by the Department of Labor is astonishing. Between July 2021 and June 2022, $403,848,091 was spent on career services and $273,158,348 was spent on training services to help over 285,500 participants.[4] 92,063 participants were identified as Black.?Of that number, the data shows that the employment rate was only 69.7%. While not applicable to every state and local workforce development board, these deficiencies are applicable to the majority of WIOA related activities due to policy constraints. It is important to note that high performance and great leadership fail in broken systems.?Accordingly, this is not an indictment on individual personnel but an analysis-based assessment of an inequitable system that requires immediate repair to reduce the economic and workforce risks associated with the current status quo of our global economy and the impending rise of Artificial Intelligence & Workforce Automation.

Artificial Intelligence & Workforce Automation will enable the world to experience its greatest technological and societal advancements to date yet there are dire economic consequences without the formulation of a viable plan to reinforce a smooth workforce transition.?It is estimated by 2030, approximately 50% of low skill positions can be and will be automated by technology resulting in the displacement of an already struggling lower financial wealth class.[5]

Investing in the enhancement and expansion of WIOA activities inclusive of technology workforce development programs and technology apprenticeship programs is the proper form to address the looming risks related to workforce automation.?Technology is now industry agnostic; a concerted effort to remediate the above-identified discrepancies will ready workers for what is ahead as well as bridge the digital literacy gap at the same time.?Conversely, a failure to act is near certain to have severe consequences to the American workforce and economy.

Additionally, four-year degree granting institutions are unable to keep pace with the speed of tech innovation that require more agile skills development programs.?These programs can be scaled through WIOA in order to meet the new tech demands of the workforce.?For example, Chat GPT was released in November 2022; in less than a year’s time, it has disrupted industries and caused markets to shift.?As Web3 becomes more prevalent the future of work will set a new bar for workforce modernization.

B. The Inequities of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOV)

The initial glance of EEOC Charge Statistics depicts a dangerously flawed representation regarding the experiences of presumed protected classes in the workforce. Based on the compiled data, there is an ostensible portrayal that workplace discrimination is near nonexistent with a national average of less than 100k cases filed per year since 2013 which based on the estimated total population coverts to less than 1% of protected class citizens reporting workplace discrimination. Further the EEOC only pursues and represents 6% of intake claims per year totaling about 5,000 cases nationally in a workforce over 150 million.

This is a prototypical case of successfully legitimizing a false narrative based on misleading data produced by a faulty system designed without incorporating equitable requirements from the people the system is obligated by law to serve.?Upon further analysis and data contextualization, it can be objectively assessed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may be one of the most ineffective independent federal agencies that exist within the United States Government. The EEOC has been exposed by watch groups, but continues to remain funded. For example, Paychex, Inc., a Rochester, New York – based revealed that the EEOC “failed to find discrimination in 87 percent of the almost 1.9 million cases filed by discrimination victims over the 21-year-period.”[6] Additionally, Vox and the Center for Public Integrity published an article that exposed the fact that “[the EEOC] closes most cases without concluding whether discrimination occurred.”[7]

The execution of this federal agency operates from the perspective of the least affected while disregarding the experiences of the most afflicted in respect to its mandate. The concern is how blatant the lack of impact has been evident for so long and how minor intervention has been applied to resume a semblance of equity for protected classes. Furthermore, based on the number of documented discrimination cases reported per year, less than 5% result in a successful outcome for the charging party alleging discrimination. These results objectively demonstrate a concerted effort to protect businesses from discrimination cases versus prohibiting discrimination of protected classes in the workplace. Considering the time investment, financial investment, emotional investment, and extremely low likelihood for success, continuing without the refinement of this system to be more equitable towards protected classes would be an impropriety of the law and blatant dishonoring to those who have sacrificed to establish it. ?

The noted deficiencies of this failed agency include but are not limited to 1) resource constraints and lack of appropriate budget; 2) inequitable EEOC policies and processes pertaining to protected classes; 3) corporate lobbying influencing law and policy making; 4) lack of appropriate representation and protected class requirements influencing law and policy decision making; 5) lack of advocacy and support for claimants; 6) negative residual impact of filing a claim against employers, i.e. fear of being blackballed or further retaliation; ?7) lack of diverse judicial representation presiding over discrimination lawsuits; and 8) the inequitable and restrictive nature of legal frameworks that determine the validity of discrimination.

The path to remediation needs to consist of allowing community and social advocates to work alongside law makers and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to collaborate on a more equitable path towards creating and revising laws and policies to serve protected classes. Additionally, innovative approaches need to be explored such as partnering with historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and law schools that have a commitment to public service and history of advocating for protected classes.?This would supplement the agency’s administrative and legal capacity to handle the true volume of discrimination cases and events with quality to ensure successful outcomes. All lobbying activity pertaining to influencing the rights and liberty of protected classes must be prohibited expeditiously as the conflict of interest that should have been apparent has been undermined.?This has undoubtedly contributed to the hamstringing of powers and oversight by the EEOC.

It is telling about the state of our nation that the federal agency established to reinforce equal opportunity systematically provides the minimum and laws established to drive accountability towards equity are reversed with no input from who they were meant to serve. ?Failing to acknowledge firsthand experiences triumph bystander observation in contextualizing, deducing the validity, and assessing the impact of equity is a byproduct of arrogance and bias, both traits more detrimental than effective in meeting the objective of making sound judgments achieve justice.?

C.?????The Inequities of Federal & State Financial Awards (Grants & Contracts)

According to Government Spending Open Data,[8] the Federal Government has distributed over 3 trillion dollars in federal financial awards over the last seven months to nearly 17 million recipients. Based on auxiliary data it is estimated that between 5-8% of the spending is directed towards black owned companies and organizations. To ensure the validity of this statement, it is requested that race demographics by awardee be made available as an additional filter to add contextual value to the data repository. Until this feature can be added in fairness the presumed statement is an estimate based on best data available, although for the black and brown community to represent over 35% of the national population yet have our businesses and organizations receive less than 8% of total government spending indicates an inherent issue with the system that is contributing to the economic stagnation of black and brown businesses. By contrast, predominately white led organizations and companies are estimated to make up for nearly 75% of federal financial award spending although national representation of non-hispanic white citizens is forecasted to dip below 60% by 2025.?This signifies a stark disparity, that not only do those that require the most equity from an economic perspective being systematically relegated but there is a continuous effort to reinforce the commerce of predominately white business entities through state and federal funding. The downstream impact of disproportionately infusing predominately white led companies and organizations with near trillions of federal and state dollars must be evaluated and appropriately addressed then met with the action to mend the disparity to be more equitable towards brown and black led businesses. At present, despite the campaigns to drive diversity, equity, and inclusion as a state of culture within predominantly white companies, there has been either little to no progress or the investments made by these corporations have had limiting returns. With that said, the data illuminates the fact that the majority allocation of federal and state dollars has directly supported white economic autonomy and whether intentionally or unintentionally subjugated underfunded classes into a state of economic slavery and dependence within this system.

In order to alter the course from current and historic economic marginalization to black and brown autonomy, it is proposed the federal government mandate set asides of federal and state dollars to be spent directly with black and brown owned businesses. The goal, once awardee demographic information is validated and available, is to spend no less than 25% year after year in accordance with this mandate to achieve equity and a semblance of economic parity. ??Failing to rectify the imbalance of spending power is to vote in favor of systematic discrimination within our government disguised as capitalism.

Additionally there are a number of deficiencies within the federal and state level financial award systems that require prioritized attention for resolution to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of this mandate which include but are not limited to: 1) biased federal/state policies; 2) federal award eligibility criteria; 3) lack of visibility and participation during public rule making; 4) lack of impactful representation and advocacy at the decision maker level for federal awards, contracts, public policy rule making and 5) lack of a federal and state level financial audit equity team with mandated powers to ensure awards are equitably distributed based on national priorities and demographics; and 6) modernizing and automating processes by leveraging technology.

Diversity Cyber Council’s recent experience as an Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) grant recipient through the Federal Communications Commission demonstrates how these deficiencies result in inequity though the goal in itself is to achieve equity. First, the heart and intent of ACP is to provide affordable and reliable access to broadband internet services to underserved and unserved communities. There is no doubt that access to internet is now a basic human right and should be classified as such although due to the lack of capturing the requirements from the people the initiative aims to serve, the strategy is lacking and now at risks of budget cuts starting in FY2024 or being defunded altogether. ?With that said, there has been no attempt to centralize efforts to market the opportunity in a structured and streamlined way that leverages all available resources to meet the target. Instead of working with state agencies, academic institutions, and community organizations that already have a repository of eligible candidates that can benefit from the program, the effort consists of silos with limited support offered to the organizations tasked with increasing the volume of enrollments. The FCC Grant Administrative Team consists of 4 personnel overseeing 66 million dollars while managing over 140+ organizations nationally with a second round of funding adding to the scope to be released this year. The lack of resources paired with an inefficient strategy is leading to the mistaken perception that under-served communities are not taking to the opportunity which is an outright misconception. Further as an awardee, gaining access to capital as a black led nonprofit is challenging because many, if not most, federal agency awards are reimbursable only. This policy is exclusionary by default as many smaller organizations do not have the capital funds to later be reimbursed .?Further, many of our financial institutions (Chase, Wells Fargo, Truist, etc.) do not recognize a notice of award and an “intent” to reimburse by the federal government as appropriate collateral for a loan or business line of credit. Due to the consistent reinforcement of white economic autonomy by our federal and state government, the majority of smaller organizations that are indirectly excluded by such policies to receive financial award opportunities are mostly black and brown led. This then creates an environment where black and brown under-served communities are being “served” by federal and/or state funded white led organizations that respectfully lack the direct experience related to these communities to offer a viable solution. Additionally, on average 50% of most grant awards are allocated to staff, so in sum, the system itself is affording economic stability to white households better than meeting the purpose of the award when the focus is improving the economic progress of black and brown communities. If the inverse of this approach were executed and our federal government deliberately funded black led nonprofits to service predominately white rural communities across the nation, not only would it cause frustration within those communities, but the optics would ignite indignation within the state of white culture both in and out of the served community. We as a people are not requesting the inverse of the current system; rather, we are requiring equity to build our own autonomy as we claim the right to be free in body, in, mind, and in spirit. Any withholding of this requirement comes with the implications that the results of this current system of inequity and imbalance is by design to subjugate people of color which then would warrant corrective action from the people to ensure the requirement is met with timeliness and effectiveness.

We will no longer be steered by fear and fractured by trauma, this is a declaration of sovereignty from any entity with the purpose and intent of subjugation as well as the reclamation of our universal rights.

This open letter is dedicated in honor to the heroes of humanity, past and present. Thank you for your sacrifices that affords all the liberty to exercise being free to serve a greater good.?

Respectfully,

Odie Martez Gray

[1] See Pub. L. No. 113-128, 128 Stat. 1425 (2014).

[2] See 29 U.S.C. § 3101 (“To increase, for individuals in the United States, particularly those individuals with barriers to employment, access to and opportunities for the employment, education, training, and support services they need to succeed in the labor market.”) (emphasis added).

[3] Among other things, the act itself dictates that a state's governor establishes a state workforce development board (SWDB), composed of the governor, a member of each chamber of the state legislature, business leaders, and officials from labor organizations. See 29 USC § 3111(a)-(b).

[4] WIO Adult Performance Report for PY 2021, available at https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/Performance/pdfs/PY%202021%20WIOA%20National%20Performance%20Summary.pdf

[5] See A Study Finds Nearly Half of Jobs are Vulnerable to Automation, The Economist (Apr. 24, 2018), available at https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/04/24/a-study-finds-nearly-half-of-jobs-are-vulnerable-to-automation. See also Arianna Johnson, Which Jobs Will AI Replace?, Forbes (Mar. 30, 2023), available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/ariannajohnson/2023/03/30/which-jobs-will-ai-replace-these-4-industries-will-be-heavily-impacted/?sh=3a22c5085957

[6] See Patricia Barnes, Is the EEOC Protecting Workers or Discriminatory Employers, Forbes (Sept. 4, 2019), available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/patriciagbarnes/2019/09/04/is-the-eeoc-protecting-workers-or-discriminatory-employers/?sh=6137c2ca5407

[7] See https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/28/18241973/workplace-discrimination-cpi-investigation-eeoc (“Black workers are 13 percent of the US workforce, but racial discrimination against this group accounts for 26 percent of all claims filed with the EEOC and its partner agencies.”

[8] https://www.usaspending.gov/