Category: Center of Innovation

Bipartisan Support Drives Interstate Compact Growth, Success

Fifty-seven pieces of licensure compact legislation enacted in 2023; 290 enacted since 2016.

By Jessica Thomas and Kaitlyn Bison

A recent uptick in the number of newly enacted licensure compacts has come as result of support from both sides of the aisle. The rise in these compacts, which establish mutual agreement between member states for professional licensure, offer state legislatures an opportunity to safeguard state sovereignty while also ensuring the quality and safety of services.

Since 2016, 290 pieces of licensure compact legislation have been enacted and, to date, 46 states, Washington, D.C., and three territories have enacted licensure compact legislation. A total of 15 professions currently have a compact available to states for enactment. In 2023, 57 pieces of compact legislation were enacted, with six new compacts becoming available for states to enact.

The National Center for Interstate Compacts, housed within The Council of State Governments, played a role in the development of all active licensure compacts. Through the work of NCIC, as well as policymakers sponsoring compact-related legislation, licensees in compact member states can more quickly obtain authorization to practice and get to work in other member states.

BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR WORKFORCE ADVANCEMENT

Compact legislation has experienced success in states with majorities from both sides of the aisle, while also having been sponsored by legislators from both parties. Support for state workforces proved to be a unifying theme among sponsors of 2023 compact legislation.

Rep. Michelle Caldier, a Washington Republican elected into the House in 2014, was grateful for the bipartisan support she received when sponsoring the Dentist and Dental Hygienist Compact, which is recognized in Washington as HB 1576. Resolving workforce issues in the state, especially within health care, has been a priority.

“I think trying to resolve Washington’s workforce issues is one of those things — across the board — that we acknowledge as one of the state’s goals,” Caldier said. “Breaking down the borders and allowing people from other states to come in and practice easily was one we could get a win on, so that was one of my focuses.”

Bipartisan support led to the enactment of the Cosmetology Compact bill in Arizona, where the successful HB 2049 was sponsored by Republican Rep. Tim Dunn.

“This is a bipartisan bill that promotes the flexibility for stylists to move between states,” Dunn said. “Arizona has a lot of winter visitors, and this could provide work for them when they visit.”

In Indiana, Democratic Sen. J.D. Ford coauthored both SB 251 ‚ the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, and SB 160, the Counseling Compact. In addition to highlighting the bipartisan sponsorship of these bills, he explained ways in which he collaborated with his counterparts in the Indiana General Assembly to learn about and address community health needs.

“Access to care isn’t a partisan issue, it impacts all communities,” Ford said. “I think we were able to really come together well in that common goal with these compact bills.”

MILITARY FAMILY BENEFITS

Legislators often mention how compacts break down barriers for military families who move frequently and face challenges working in a licensed profession. Without a licensure compact, both military members and their spouses must navigate each state’s process for licensure.

Nebraska Sen. Carol Blood, a Democrat motivated to sponsor several compacts, believes they offer many benefits and opportunities to military families.

“Interstate compacts benefit others in specific licensure areas, but the reason I started working with these compacts is because of our military families,” Blood said. “Military families tend to move every two to three years, which means new schools, new doctors, new homes and more. This is one less headache for these families to deal with.”

Due to the increased military support, the Department of Defense facilitated the development of interstate compacts as a mechanism for ensuring the portability of professional licenses for military spouses. In September 2020, the Department of Defense entered into a cooperative agreement with CSG to fund the creation of new interstate compacts designed to strengthen licensure portability.

“[Compacts] are very positive for military partners who move to our state and people who are moving out of active service but want to continue working in a field where they are already licensed in another compact state,” said Colorado Rep. Mary Young.

PROFESSIONAL PERSPECTIVES

Many sponsors of compact legislation were licensed professionals themselves. The sponsors of Colorado HB 23-1064, the Interstate Teacher Mobility Compact, worked in the field of education and understand the barriers teachers face.

Young, a Democrat and former special education teacher and school psychologist, noted having her own experience with barriers to licensure as a teacher upon moving to Colorado. She admired efficiency and ease that compacts brought to licensure and wanted teachers moving to Colorado to remain in the profession.

“With the Interstate Teacher Mobility Compact, we can ensure that teachers who want to come to Colorado can do so,” said Colorado Rep. Meghan Lukens, a Democrat and former social studies teacher. “Giving teachers

the flexibility to live and work in any state in the compact benefits everyone. This compact will help incentivize teachers to stay teachers because of the flexibility that is provided to move to other states.”

As a former dentist, Caldier, like Lukens and Young, was also familiar with the compact profession she sponsored. She also recognized the need for license mobility and the need to address the shortage of dental hygienists in Washington. Although she continues to support the field of dentistry, Caldier’s support of compacts extends to other professions as a cosponsor on the Counseling Compact, the Nurse Licensure Compact and the Occupational Therapy Compact.

Licensure Compact Enactments by State and Territory

TELEHEALTH

Licensure compacts for health care professions can bring an added benefit to states: access to telehealth services. Ford said that compacts can “provide us with the opportunity to have more providers move to Indiana, but also greatly expand telehealth opportunities when you can meet with specialists in other states.”

Much of the general population can benefit from the increase in telehealth that compacts present. Communities that do not have access to health care providers, as well as people with low mobility due to a lack of public transportation or low accessibility, can all benefit from a rise in telehealth.

Of the 15 available licensure compacts, Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology, Psychology Interjurisdictional Compact, Counseling, Occupational Therapy and Social Work include provisions specific to telehealth.

Blood offered the example of Nebraska LB 1034, the Psychology Compact, as psychology is a licensed profession. If a patient moves or travels to a different state than where their psychologist is licensed, their care can be stalled or halted.

“Prior to that compact, Nebraska psychologists could not legally counsel someone over the phone if they were to have a mental health crisis in another state because that psychologist would not be licensed in that state,” Blood said. “With the compact, if the psychologist belongs [to the compact] as well as the state the patient is calling from, that psychologist can provide care for their patient.”

With the rise of telehealth and telemedicine, compacts are an important tool to meet the needs of patients. As more states join compacts, the pool of providers grows, and patients access to care expands.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR INCREASED STATE INVOLVEMENT

Legislators developed key takeaways throughout the process of introducing and enacting compact legislation. Attending informative events, involving key stakeholders, and working with colleagues from all parties enabled success.

Several legislators noted how collaborative convenings, such as the CSG National Conference, are useful for learning from other leaders who have sponsored compact legislation. At the 2022 CSG National Conference, Caldier learned about the Dentist and Dental Hygienist Compact while Kansas Sen. Pat Pettey was impressed by discussion on the Teacher Compact.

Pettey, a Democrat, and Washington Republican Sen. Ron Muzzall both suggest involving others, including other legislators and members of boards and professional associations.

“Engage stakeholders on an individual basis and engage with Department of Defense and organizations dedicated to supporting military spouses,” said Muzzall, who introduced Washington SB 5219, the Counseling Compact.

As the sponsor for Kansas SB 66, the Interstate Teacher Mobility Compact, Pettey recommended looking at compacts with an open mind.

“Take note of compacts your state may already be involved in,” Pettey said. “Make sure that you talk to other legislators on either side of the aisle about the legislation that you are considering introducing, as well as talking to your state board of education and your teachers’ associations. Doing early work to make contact with other parties will be helpful for when they actually introduce [legislation].”

More information on compacts can be found at the following website: compacts.csg.org. Policymakers interested in sponsoring a licensure compact can reach the National Center for Interstate Compacts via email at [email protected].

CSG Travels Abroad to Expand Apprenticeship Education

By Trey Delida

Last week, CSG staff and members attended the 2023 Transatlantic Apprenticeship Study Trip in Germany. From Stuttgart to Munich, Bayreuth to Berlin, attendees saw firsthand how well-developed apprenticeship programs impact communities.

Hosted by DIAG USA, a nonprofit that gathers stakeholders based on the example of German apprenticeship programming, the goal was to show how one country successfully implements apprenticeships.

Other organizations from the United States included the Urban Institute, the Colorado Office of Apprenticeship, the Workforce Development Board system in California, members of the Pennsylvania Senate and more.

As states face workforce shortages across sectors, apprenticeships could be a viable solution in expanding work-based learning and upskilling workers.

“As rapidly changing technology is revolutionizing the way we work, we are on the forefront of preparing our partners for this transformation,” DAIG USA posted on its LinkedIn. “Many companies are looking for a sustainable pipeline of talent that more effectively supports their goals for growth and profitability. We believe that Apprenticeship programs offer an innovative and win/win solution.”

The trip included visits to German businesses, government offices, schools and the German Chamber of Commerce, all of which utilize apprenticeships as a career pathway.

CSG has partnered with DIAG USA for several years. Center of Innovation Deputy Director of National Programs Sydney Blodgett shared that the trip allowed attendees to learn about the established German apprenticeship system firsthand.

“We visited the different stakeholders involved in workforce development and learned how they encourage folks to get into different career pathways and all the different entry and exit points,” Blodgett said. “We’ve worked with them for a couple of years now, and as apprenticeships are growing in the US, people are looking at alternative pathways to careers as the student debt crisis grows in the U.S., people are really looking at other ways to get into careers.”

CSG works extensively with several organizations and stakeholders on the expansion of apprenticeships in the United States.

For more information on CSG’s work to improve access to apprenticeships, click here.

Kansas Supreme Court Staffer, CSG Toll Fellow Jurgensen Named to CSG Chief, Director Roles

Shawn Jurgensen, a 2022 Toll Fellow and former CSG National Executive Committee member, officially joined CSG as its new chief public policy officer and director of the CSG Center of Innovation.

“I was pleased that the search for this position generated a pool of exceptional candidates,” said David Adkins, CSG executive director and CEO. “Shawn rose to the top of the list because of his demonstrated expertise in strategically crafting three branch solutions to public policy challenges, his considerable interpersonal skills, his passion for public service and a management style that will help advance the best qualities of our workplace culture.”

Since 2016, Jurgensen has served in the judicial branch. In 2017, he started his role as special counsel to Kansas Chief Justice Marla Luckert. His work allowed him to serve as a liaison for the chief justice, the Kansas Supreme Court and the judicial branch. Before serving as special counsel, Jurgensen served as a staff attorney in the Kansas Office of Judicial Administration and in the private sector as partner at a Kansas law firm.

“I’m thankful for the partnerships I helped build, but there are many others including Chief Justice Luckert and the Supreme Court, our Court of Appeals and district courts, legislative leadership, innumerable legislators and staff colleagues, and the governor’s office who helped with these historic achievements. Serving in this position has been the privilege of a lifetime. I hold our judges and employees in the highest regard for their commitment to delivering justice fairly and impartially.”
— Shawn Jurgensen,
CSG Chief Public Policy Officer/Center of Innovation Director

In a press release, Luckert said Jurgensen played a critical role in the work of the Kansas judicial branch during his tenure.

“Shawn has been a highly valued member of the judicial branch team, and he’s done exceptional work representing the interests of our judges and employees before the Legislature,” Luckert said. “Personally, I’m thankful for and proud of Shawn’s work to build stronger partnerships with our sister branches of government. He has played a critical role in positioning the judicial branch so it can better serve the people of Kansas.”

In his role as special counsel, Jurgensen diverted the state court system funding source to provide more stability as well as raising pay for judicial employees equivalent to market rates and increasing judicial staffing to meet department needs.

Jurgensen is a graduate of Washburn University School of Law in Topeka, Kansas, where he was the recipient of the John K. Kleinheksel Prize in Oral Advocacy. He was awarded the Pro Bono Legal Services Award in 2010 by the Topeka Bar Association.

Latest ‘Guideposts for Success’ Offer State Leaders Tools to Educate, Support Employers

By Trey Delida

Since 2005, the “Guideposts for Success” have equipped state leaders with up-to-date, innovative practices that increase the opportunities for youth and young adults with disabilities to transition into the workforce.

The latest brief, “Guideposts for Success: States Engaging Employers through Policy,” serves as a model for policymakers by providing them with the tools necessary to educate and support employers in their states in hiring or providing learning opportunities for youth and young adults with disabilities.

According to Andrew Karhan, project director at San Diego State University’s Interwork Institute, the brief draws on state examples and actual conversations with employers who have experience in this process. As part of the project, Karhan collaborated with the Center for Advancing Policy on Employment for Youth (CAPE-Youth).

“The brief was compiled through a deep dive into research, the current best practices related to employer engagement and the comparable employer practices towards enhanced inclusion,” Karhan said. “Some previous policies in this space have not had the intended impact. Therefore, this brief was approached through a lens of improvement science, where we asked how we can introduce change ideas leading to improvement? The ideas presented here were born out of this research and conversations with employers and experts in the field to ultimately lead to these improvement ideas.”

The “Guideposts for Success: States Engaging Employers through Policy” is founded on six policy considerations, including:

Developing structures for states to become model employers of youth and young adults with disabilities.
Simplifying current incentives and introducing new incentives to encourage employers to develop inclusive workplace practices.
Facilitating telework to adapt to changes in the world of work.
Educating employers about the business case for their participation and support of youth and young adults with disabilities in work preparation programs.
Assembling tools guided and developed in partnership with national centers and employer organizations and disseminating them at the state and local levels.
Enhancing existing state workforce systems to foster equitable access.

The policy framework provides lawmakers and state leaders with evidence-based practices to aid youth and young adults with disabilities when obtaining employment through improved education.

“As youth transition into postsecondary environments or employment, it is critical for us to lay the necessary groundwork for them to move into employment in their field of interest and skill,” Karhan said. “The low employment outcomes of youth and young with disabilities have been well documented and, as a result, this brief offers new approaches and policy levers to help change this narrative.”

The development of “Guideposts for Success: States Engaging Employers through Policy” was led by CAPE-Youth, and is a collaborative effort of the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Disability Employment Policy, The Council of State Governments, the K. Lisa Yang and Hock E. Tan Institute on Employment and Disability at Cornell University, and the Interwork Institute at San Diego State University.

States Promote Apprenticeships to Expand Career Pathways during 2023 Legislative Session

By Mary Wurtz and Jackson Beauregard

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, there are approximately 9.5 million job openings in the U.S., but only 5.6 million unemployed workers to potentially fill those roles. Considering these workforce shortages, many states pursue opportunities to expand work-based learning and to invest in upskilling existing workers through registered apprenticeship.

A registered apprenticeship is a high-quality, industry-driven career pathway that combines paid on-the-job training with classroom instruction to prepare workers for skilled careers in a variety of occupations. Historically, apprenticeships have been associated with trade professions, but now more than 1,000 occupations have been approved for registered apprenticeship by the U.S. Department of Labor, including roles in nursing, information technology, cybersecurity, human resources and more.

Registered apprenticeship programs can help states to address workforce shortages by empowering employers to grow their own talent pipelines. Through apprenticeship, employers invest directly in employees by providing training both on the job and in the classroom and mentorship by pairing apprentices with skilled mentors who support them throughout the program. Because apprentices learn while they work, programs typically have few to no minimum experience requirements. This makes apprenticeship programs a great tool for recruiting individuals who have traditionally faced barriers to employment and postsecondary training, like formerly incarcerated individuals or individuals with disabilities.

Throughout the 2023 legislative session, several states adopted strategies to expand registered apprenticeships, such as establishing apprenticeship grant programs, promoting the use of apprenticeships in previously non-apprenticeable occupations and providing additional benefits to individuals in apprenticeship programs.

Texas introduced HB 3723 (2023), which would establish a Rural Workforce Training Grant Program providing targeted funding for job-specific training, including apprenticeship programs, in counties with a population of less than 200,000. Grant money may be used to cover “costs associated with training materials, instructors’ fees, participant wraparound expenses, facility fees, administrative costs, and outreach, mentoring, and recruiting costs” for apprenticeships and other training programs.

Kansas enacted HB 2292 (2023), which establishes multiple grant funds and tax credits for employers offering apprenticeships in a variety of fields, including:

A tax credit of up to $2,500 per apprentice for employers of apprentices in registered apprenticeship programs, up to 20 apprentices per employer. An additional tax credit of $500 is available per apprentice enrolled in a secondary or postsecondary career and technical education program.
The Kansas Nonprofit Apprenticeship Grant Program Fund, offering $2,750 per apprentice to “eligible nonprofit employers and nonprofit healthcare employers,” with up to 20 apprentices per employer.
The Kansas Educator Registered Apprenticeship Grant Program, established to fund tuition, fees, books and materials for education apprentices pursuing postsecondary education degrees. Education apprentices in Kansas can receive up to $2,750 per year for the purpose of increasing the number of qualified, credentialed teachers in the state of Kansas.

Idaho enacted SB 1069 (2023), which amends existing law to enable the State Board of Education to issue a certificate to a teacher who completed an approved registered apprenticeship program. These amendments create the possibility of state developed apprenticeship programs that meet the same standards as traditional teacher preparation programs and will be targeted toward individuals who have not earned bachelor’s degrees. Education degrees are often costly, and requirements of traditional programs, like unpaid student teaching, dissuade many individuals from pursuing their teaching certifications. Idaho is now one of more than a dozen states utilizing paid teacher apprenticeships to address these challenges.

Additionally, Idaho passed HB 16 (2023), which removes barriers for state agencies when hiring apprentices to fill public workforce shortages. Under new legislation, state agencies will be able to hire apprentices to fill shortages without counting them toward their annual budgeted full-time equivalent caps.

Washington enacted HB 1525 (2023), which expands the state’s existing child care subsidies to include individuals participating in a state registered apprenticeship program. Previous bill language included those in a registered apprenticeship, but the individual also needed to be a full-time student. Now, those who are in an apprenticeship program but are not students may receive the child care benefit. Apprentices are eligible to receive child care benefits for the care of one or more eligible children for the first 12 months of their enrollment in a registered apprenticeship program, if the individual’s annual adjusted household income does not exceed 75% of the state median income.

Minnesota enacted HF 1937 (2023), which increases the reimbursement amount that eligible service members and their family members are entitled to receive for costs associated with apprenticeship programs and other on-the-job training programs. The new law increases the aggregate amount of reimbursement from $10,000 to $15,000 over the eligible person’s lifetime, or a total of $3,000 per fiscal year. This reimbursement is in addition to benefits provided under the federal G.I. Bill, which provides funding for books, supplies and housing to veterans in approved apprenticeship programs.

These pieces of legislation build on the work accomplished by states in previous years to expand their apprenticeship systems. For example, in 2019, Alabama passed HB 570, which eliminated barriers to obtaining an occupational license by completing an apprenticeship program. Under the 2019 legislation, individuals who complete an apprenticeship may be granted an occupational license in that trade if the individual also completes all necessary examinations and meets other statutory requirements. The law also states that individuals who complete apprenticeship programs may not be required to complete additional testing requirements, affirming apprenticeships as high-quality preparatory programs for occupational licensure examinations.

Additionally, in 2022, Alaska passed HB 114, which directs the Department of Education and Early Development to “provide educational opportunities in the areas of vocational education and training and basic education to individuals over 16 years of age who are no longer attending school.” This includes encouraging engagement with “businesses and labor unions to develop a program to prepare students for apprenticeships or internships that will lead to employment opportunities.”

As states continue to expand their apprenticeship systems to build new career pathways, The Council of State Governments education and workforce team is available as a resource for policymakers. CSG provides states with no-cost technical assistance on registered apprenticeship, work-based learning and other topics related to workforce development. CSG can also help states to develop registered apprenticeship programs in state and local government to address their own public sector workforce needs.

For more information, contact CSG Policy Analyst Mary Wurtz via email at [email protected].

Interstate Teaching Mobility Compact Enacted Allowing Streamlined Licensing Pathways for Educators in 10 States

Licensing for the roughly 3.7 million teachers in the country has historically been a system with unclear barriers between states, making it difficult for educators to relocate and attain a teaching license in another state. Military spouses are particularly impacted by these limitations — they move residences between states frequently as their spouses are relocated to various posts and are often met with licensing barriers.

Recognizing these obstacles, in 2020 the Department of Defense entered into a cooperative agreement with The National Center for Interstate Compacts at The Council of State Governments. Authorized by Congress in the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, the cooperative agreement provides funding for the development of up to ten new occupational licensure compacts. A compact for teachers was a priority for the Department of Defense.

Model legislation to join the Interstate Teacher Mobility Compact was released to states in November 2022 after more than a year of development, public comment and stakeholder review. In June, Oregon joined nine other states — Colorado, Utah, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Kansas, Florida, Alabama, Nebraska and Nevada — in fully enacting the compact legislation. With the addition of this tenth state, the compact became active — the fastest occupational licensure compact to do so.

“A military spouse shouldn’t have to choose between supporting their family and pursuing their profession. Thankfully, states are working together to ensure they won’t have to,” said David Adkins, executive director/CEO of The Council of State Governments.

“The ten states that have already enacted the Interstate Teacher Mobility Compact are reducing barriers to mobility for licensed teachers, and that’s good news to the many teachers in military families who will move to those states. CSG is proud to work with state officials and honored to partner with the U.S. Department of Defense to help create new tools to support military families. We look forward to continuing to be a resource for the ITMC Commission and its member states.”

Maintaining state sovereignty is one of the cornerstones of the Interstate Teacher Mobility Compact. The compact does not alter member states’ ability to regulate the teaching profession or teacher licensure. Member states take on some responsibility to grant licenses to out-of-state teachers, but any standing pathways to teacher licensure within the state will remain in place.

Addressing Teacher Shortages

While districts across the country are facing widespread teacher shortages, the Teacher Mobility Compact streamlines the systems of licensure mobility in member states.

“Teachers who relocated can find it difficult to navigate the waters of license issuance in a new state,” said Jimmy Adams, executive director of the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification. “Many of these are professionals with years of experience who decide to leave the profession because of the barriers they confront.”

The teaching compact utilizes a different model than other interstate occupational licensure compacts. Compact member states submit licenses that are eligible for the compact and meet a set of criteria outlined in the legislation. To be eligible, a license must require a bachelor’s degree and completion of a state-approved program for teacher licensure like a teacher preparation program at a college or university. Teachers holding a compact-eligible license can apply for licensure in another member state and receive the closest equivalent license without submitting additional materials, taking state-specific exams or completing additional coursework.

This compact maintains each member state’s standards while recognizing the professional who holds this high-level license,” Adams said. “This compact will keep many teachers in the profession who may otherwise leave.”

Next Steps

Later this year, the compact member states will nominate their commissioners and the first meeting of the Interstate Teacher Mobility Compact Commission will be held to draft the bylaws and rules of the compact.

Currently, several states are still considering legislation to join the teaching compact. Those who join will also be included in this meeting if the legislation is passed before the first convening.

For more information about the Interstate Teacher Mobility Compact or to view the model legislation, visit teachercompact.org. To learn more about the National Center for Interstate Compacts and other occupational licensure compacts, visit compacts.csg.org.

About Occupational Licensure Interstate Compacts

Occupational licensure compacts create reciprocity between states while maintaining the quality and safety of services and protecting state sovereignty. Compacts result in a more efficient distribution of licensed workers by supporting practitioner mobility.

In addition to its work with the Department of Defense, the CSG National Center for Interstate Compacts led the development of interstate compacts for physicians, nurses, emergency medical services personnel, physical therapists, psychologists, occupational therapists, licensed professional counselors and audiologists/speech-language pathologists. More than 40 states and territories have adopted at least one of the compacts and over half have adopted three or more.

About CSG and the National Center for Interstate Compacts

Founded in 1933, The Council of State Governments is the nation’s only organization serving all three branches of state government. CSG is a region-based forum that fosters the exchange of insights and ideas to help state officials shape public policy. This offers unparalleled regional, national and international opportunities to network, develop leaders, collaborate and create problem-solving partnerships. Learn more at csg.org.

CSG has more than 75 years of experience promoting multi-state problem solving and advocating the role of the states in determining their respective futures. The National Center for Interstate Compacts is a policy program developed by CSG to assist states in developing interstate compacts, which have proved to be an effective mechanism for states to jointly problem solve. Learn more at compacts.csg.org.

Protecting Disabled Veterans in the Workforce

By Joe Paul

As long as there has been war, veterans have been coming home. Many have injuries that make work difficult or make some careers impossible. Questions surround veterans who have sustained physical or mental injury in service of their country. Will I be able to work? How can I provide for my family? Will someone hire a veteran with injuries? Given the prevalence of these concerns, there is a federal support system in place to assist veterans.

The two laws integral to protecting veterans in the workplace are the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. USERRA provides requirements for reemploying veterans both with and without service-related injuries, while Title I of the ADA outlines what qualifies as disabilities and accommodations. USERRA is enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Department of Justice.

USERRA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees or applicants for employment based on their military status, including military obligations resulting from duties as part of the National Guard or Reserves. Reemployment protection for persons with or without service-related disabilities is also included.

All veterans are covered under USERRA regardless of disability status. The veteran is also protected by ADA if their disability falls under the ADA. Employers must make “reasonable efforts” to help a veteran returning to employment become qualified to perform the position they would have had if employment had not been interrupted by military service or if they sustained a disability during their military service.

Title I of the ADA, enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and applying to all workers, prohibits private, state and local government employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating against individuals based on disability. Having a disability or having a history of disability cannot factor into any aspect of employment, such as hiring, promotions, assignments, training, termination, or any other terms, conditions or privileges of employment, including questions of access to training or social events that are employer sponsored.

If a veteran is diagnosed with PTSD, or if the employer believes that the veteran may have PTSD, it is illegal for the employer to refuse to hire the veteran if they are otherwise qualified for the job. The ADA also limits the types of medical information employers can obtain and strictly prohibits disability related harassment and retaliation. Section 501 applies those standards to the federal executive branch and U.S. Postal Service, among others.

If an employer can prove that employment of a person with disabilities would cause an undue hardship, employers can propose reasonable alternatives. Generally, undue hardships come at significant difficulty or expense to the employer. The ADA National Network defines “undue hardship” as an “action requiring significant difficulty or expense” given any number of circumstances. The size, resources, nature and structure of the employer’s operation must be considered. Many, if not all, of these provisions do not apply to employers of less than 15 employees. For example: if a chair lift is requested, an employer could propose a ramp as a reasonable alternative.

Many veterans self-eliminate themselves from viable career opportunities by thinking their injuries either disqualify them for a job or that performing the job would not be possible given their injuries. The reality is that veterans are protected if they meet the ADA’s definition, and the veteran is otherwise qualified for the job. An “individual with a disability“ is a person who (1) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; (2) has a record of such an impairment, such as a substantial limitation prior to undergoing rehabilitation; and (3) is regarded or treated by an employer as having such an impairment, even if no substantial limitation exists.

If the veteran is qualified for the job by meeting the employer’s requirements for education, training, experience, skills, licensure or other requirements, and would be successful in the position with or without accommodations, they must be considered. There are additional requirements if the employer is the recipient of federal funds.

Disabled veterans should be aware of the 2008 ADA Amendments Act which added the term “major life activities,” and defined them to include not only activities such as walking, seeing, hearing and concentrating, but also the operation of major functions of the brain and neurological system. A list of reasonable accommodations for veterans with any of these disabilities can be found on the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s website.

An impairment should not prevent or severely or significantly restrict a veteran’s performance of a major life activity to be considered substantially limiting. The determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity must be made without regard to any mitigating measures, including medications or assistive devices such as prosthetic limbs, that you may use to lessen your impairment’s effects. Impairments that are episodic or in remission, such as epilepsy or PTSD, are considered disabilities if they would be substantially limiting when active.

Ranked Choice Voting: What, Where, Why & Why Not

By Jennifer Horton and Dr. Dakota Thomas

In 2022, Nevada voters approved a ballot measure to change its elections to ranked choice voting. Since this ballot measure is a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment, the measure will again require approval in 2024 to take effect. If the state votes to reapprove ranked voting, it joins a growing number of U.S. cities, counties and states in using a ranked choice voting system for elections.

What is Ranked Choice Voting?
Ranked choice voting is any system for counting votes that gives voters the option to rank their choices in order of preference. If a voter likes candidate A, but would prefer candidate B over candidate C if their favorite (candidate A) did not win, they could rank the three candidates accordingly on their ballot (A > B > C).

How do votes get counted in such a system? There are multiple methods, but the most common one is the alternative vote. During the alternative voting process, the candidate receiving a majority of first choice votes wins and the election is over. If no one wins a majority of votes, the ranked choices come into play. In the most common form of ranked voting, the last-place candidate gets eliminated (i.e., the candidate with the fewest first choice votes), and the voters who chose that candidate as their first choice have their votes reallocated to their second choice. For example, if candidate A came in last place, the vote would go to candidate B. This process continues until a candidate achieves a majority of votes.

Ranked choice voting can play out in different ways depending on the exact version of ranked voting a locality adopts. Most places utilizing ranked voting elect a single winner in a given election, while other locations use a multi-winner format of ranked voting where multiple officials are elected in a single contest, such as for a city council. Most forms of ranked voting are considered majoritarian (i.e., they try to ensure majority rule), while others are considered proportional (they focus instead on maximizing representation for different parties). Some common forms of ranked voting are explained in the table below.

Comparison of Ranked Choice Voting Systems

Ballot Counting System	Outcome	Seats Elected at Once	Counting Method	Notable Examples
Alternative Vote (AV)	Majoritarian	1	Candidates with fewest first preference votes are eliminated successively and their voters go to their next choices until one candidate has a majority.	Alaska and Maine, Australia and Fiji, the Oscar for “Best Picture” and the Hugo Awards for Science Fiction
Two Round – Majority Runoff	Majoritarian	1	Candidates who are not in first or second place in total votes are eliminated in the first round. The second round includes only the top two candidates.	Georgia and Louisiana, France presidential elections
Two Round – Majority Plurality	Majoritarian	2+	Candidates who do not reach a certain threshold of votes are eliminated in the first round. The second round includes all candidates that met the threshold.	France legislative elections
Preferential Block Vote or Multiple Transferable Vote (MTV)	Majoritarian	2+	Candidates with the fewest first preference votes are eliminated successively and their voters go to their next choices until one candidate has a majority. The count is then repeated with the elected candidates removed until all seats are filled.	Some local elections in Utah
Single Transferable Vote (STV)	Proportional	2+	Candidates with fewest first preference votes are eliminated successively and their voters go to their next choices until all seats are filled.	Some local elections in Massachusetts, Michigan, and California, Ireland and Malta legislative elections
Borda Count	Varies with number of seats awarded at once	1+	Candidates with the highest rankings are elected successively until all seats are filled.	Kiribati presidential nominations and Nauru legislative elections, the Major League Baseball’s Most Valuable Player (MVP), the Heisman Trophy for college football

Source: Table adapted from “Principles of Comparative Politics” by
William Roberts Clark, Matt Golder and Sona Nadenichek Golder.

What States Use Ranked Choice Voting?
As of January 2023, ranked choice voting is used in Alaska and Maine, in addition to 53 cities and counties representing roughly 11 million voters. Military and overseas voters cast ranked voting ballots during federal runoff elections in Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina. The map below shows states where ranked voting is used for at least some elections.

Note: This map only includes uses of ranked voting that result in a candidate being elected to office. Party primaries, conventions and other nominating processes are not included in this data, but some states do use ranked voting for those processes.

When and how jurisdictions utilize ranked voting varies widely. Some areas use it only for primary elections but not general elections, while others use it in general elections but not primaries. There are also other areas that use it for both. Jurisdictions can also elect to use ranked voting for electing some offices but not others. Alaska, for example, uses ranked voting only for its general elections, while its primaries use a top four system in which voters choose their top candidate. The top four candidates then go to the general election. Other locations continue to use ranked voting as a way to replace primaries entirely, consolidating primaries and general elections into a single contest. Many cities in the U.S., including Salt Lake City and other Utah cities, have implemented ranked voting as a way to consolidate nonpartisan primaries and general elections into one election.

States with ranked choice voting
Maine first adopted ranked voting in 2016 for state and federal primary elections. It was then adopted in 2018 for all general congressional elections. The state later expanded its use to presidential general elections beginning in 2020. Use of ranked voting will begin in 2024 for presidential primaries.

Alaska enacted ranked choice voting by ballot measure in 2020. Its first use came during a special election in August 2022 that resulted in Rep. Mary Peltola defeating former Alaska Gov. Sara Palin for an open U.S. congressional seat. The state uses ranked voting for all state and general elections.

In Nevada, voters recently approved a ballot measure changing the state’s elections to a system with nonpartisan primaries that allow voters to choose candidates from any party. After the primary, ranked voting occurs for general election, at which time voters can rank their top five candidates in order of preference. Implementation requires a vote of approval again in November 2024. The state will use ranked voting for state and federal elections but not presidential.

Cities with ranked choice voting
The same story is also present in the 53-plus cities utilizing ranked voting. For example, since 2009 Minneapolis has used it for 22 city offices and some park board and board of taxation seats. New York City employs its use for city primary, as well as special elections for mayor and other citywide offices. Since 2021, ranked voting has also been used in New York City to elect borough presidents and city council. In Santa Fe, New Mexico, it has been used to determine mayor, city council, and municipal judge elections since 2018.

More to come
Nine cities and the state of Nevada had ballot measures concerning ranked voting in 2022. Of these, all but two passed:

Nevada – approved in 2022; reapproval required in 2024 to go into effect.
Portland, Oregon – adopted; will begin in 2024.
Seattle – adopted for primary elections.
Evanston, Illinois – adopted; will begin in 2025.
Fort Collins, Colorado – adopted.
Ojai, California – adopted.
Multnomah County, Oregon – adopted.
Portland, Maine – adopted.
Clark County, Washington – failed.
San Juan County, Washington – failed.

Why Use Ranked Choice Voting?
Those who advocate for the adoption of ranked choice voting cite a number of possible benefits, including those detailed below:

Ensuring majority rule
Elections with more than two candidates can often result in a candidate winning with less than 50% of the vote, leading to a winner who doesn’t have a majority of support from the public. Maine voters were driven to adopt ranked voting after nine of its 11 gubernatorial elections were won with less than 50% of the vote during a 20-year period, including three governors’ races with winners who had less than 40% of votes. With ranked choice voting, if no candidate receives a majority of voters’ first choices, a process is used to reallocate voters to their next preferences until a winner gets a majority, upholding majority rule.

More choices and more influence for voters
Ranked choice voting can also give voters more choices, allowing them to vote for a viable candidate without having their vote placed used on a preferred candidate who is unlikely to win. If their first choice doesn’t win, they know their vote will count for their next most preferred choice(s). Ranked voting can enable two similar candidates to compete without fear of possibly splitting the vote. This may help reduce the spoiler effect, which is the phenomena of two similar candidates or parties losing to a very different candidate or party because voters couldn’t effectively coordinate on one choice. Currently, some candidates and parties — usually those from underrepresented groups in elected office — are pressured to stay out of races for fear of acting as a spoiler.

Ranked voting also helps ensure that voters’ preferences actually influence the outcome of an election. For example, in 2020, more than 3 million Democratic primary voters voted for a candidate who had already withdrawn from the race. In 2016, more than 5% of votes were cast for Republican candidates that had withdrawn from the primaries. These specific kinds of “wasted votes” often occur with early voting when voters fill out ballots a week or more ahead of election day. Ranked voting enables these voters to have backup candidates if their top choice drops out.

Ranked voting is an especially valuable tool for military and overseas voters who encounter a number of barriers to voting. Federal law requires states to provide these voters with ballots at least 45 days prior to elections, but runoffs require sending a new set of ballots, delaying the runoff and reducing turnout. By the time military and overseas voters receive their ballots, candidates may no longer be in the race, leading to the possibility of more “wasted votes.” Since voters can rank candidates on a single ballot with ranked voting, their vote still counts if a runoff occurs or a candidate drops out. Currently, six states use ranked voting for its overseas voters: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina.

More civility in campaigns
In ranked voting elections, candidates have an incentive to court as many voters as possible in hopes of winning. If they are not the first choice of voters, they can succeed by acquiring enough votes as the second or third choices. This can lessen the tendency to run negative campaigns involving attacks on opponents and instead encourage efforts to positively interact with as many voters as possible, even those who may not view them as a first choice. According to a survey of Republican primary voters in Virginia, the use of ranked voting resulted in a more positive congressional primary in 2022. A 2013-14 survey of voters in ranked voting and non- ranked voting cities revealed that voters in ranked voting cities were more satisfied with the tone of campaigns, and noticed less criticism and negative campaigning, than non-ranked voting city voters.

Lower cost for elections and improved turnout
By replacing primaries and runoffs with ranked voting, jurisdictions can save money and improve voter turnout. In non-ranked voting elections, when no candidate meets a necessary threshold, jurisdictions must hold a second election that costs taxpayer money. New York City saves $20 Million every time ranked voting avoids a runoff. When the two rounds of voting are consolidated into a single election, there also tends to be higher and more representative turnout. Throughout the past twenty years, federal primary runoff elections have seen a median turnout decline of 37% between the first and final rounds, whereas a 2016 study found ranked voting general elections are associated with a 10-point increase in voter turnout compared to the primary and runoff elections they replace.

Broader representation
In elections with multiple winners, proportional ranked voting enables diverse groups of voters to elect their candidates of choice. In single winner races, ranked voting promotes the representation of historically underrepresented groups, including women and people of color. In one study, researchers found that women’s representation increased in cities using proportional ranked voting during the early 1900s. It was also revealed that single-winner ranked voting has increased women’s representation in the 21^st century. Another study found that cities utilizing ranked voting also have better electoral outcomes for women and people of color.

Voter support for ranked choice voting
For all the discussion from party leaders and others about whether ranked choice voting is a good idea, voters themselves express broad support for the practice and find it easy to use. After using ranked voting for the first time in 2022, 85% of Alaska voters described it as “simple.” In New York City, 95% of voters across all ethnic groups who participated in the city’s 2021 primary elections described the ranked voting ballot as “simple to complete”; nearly 80% said they understood it extremely or very well; and 77% supported using it for future elections. After using ranked voting for the first time in 2018, 94% of Santa Fe voters reported feeling either very or somewhat satisfied with the format and more than 70% supported its use in future city elections.

Why Not Use Ranked Choice Voting?
Some opponents of ranked choice voting dislike it for one of the same reasons its supporters promote it: it can weaken the far right or left wings of the two main political parties. These critics worry it could weaken the influence of the two main parties and allow more centrist candidates an easier path, thus diluting the power of very progressive or very conservative politicians and policies.

Others worry the changes to filling out a ballot could confuse or deter voters, possibly disenfranchising groups of people who aren’t aware of how to use the ranking mechanism. Another concern is the time it takes to count ranked choice ballots, which could lead to a lack of confidence in the results.

Still others take issue with specific forms of ranked choice voting, arguing that in some cases it can lead to a person winning who doesn’t have majority support. This can happen if a candidate starts off with fewer first-choice votes, and thus gets eliminated, but may perhaps have a greater number of second choice votes.

There’s also the issue of voters not using all of their ranking slots or having all of their ranked picks eliminated, which can lead to “ballot exhaustion” — a drop off in the total number of votes being counted in the later rounds of counting.

The Future of Ranked Choice Voting in the U.S.
As state and local governments continue to reconsider how best to run their elections with an eye toward issues like election security, trust in democracy, and voter access, ranked choice voting is one tool they are considering and often adopting. There are certainly many things to consider when evaluating whether to use ranked voting. Given its popularity with many voters and advantages over other systems of voting, ranked choice voting is worth a closer look.

School Psychologist Compacts: What You Should Know

By Grant Minix

Last spring, The Council of State Governments announced the selection of the National Association of School Psychologists for technical assistance on the development of an interstate compact for licensed school psychologists. The opportunity is a result of a cooperative agreement between CSG and the Department of Defense to develop interstate licensure mobility compacts.

The introduction of the Interstate Compact for School Psychologists will facilitate licensure mobility for the profession, which can improve access to services and care for school-age children. Schools are facing a national shortage of school psychologists. According to NASP, the recommended ratio of school psychologists to students is 1:500. However, the national ratio currently stands at 1:1,211. Some states are approaching ratios of 1:5,000. These shortages are especially evident in rural schools and historically underserved school districts.

The development of the Interstate Compact for School Psychologists also offers substantial benefits to military families by allowing for increased licensure portability for military spouse. Additionally, it increases portability for school psychologists providing care for military children which will increase continuity of care.

As part of the project kickoff, CSG and NASP hosted a compact kickoff meeting in August 2022. The meeting featured CSG, NASP and DOD officials outlining the need for increased licensure mobility for licensed school psychologists and the process to develop the compact. During this meeting, and as part of a larger stakeholder review and public comment process, participants were invited to ask questions regarding the project.

Following the kickoff meeting, CSG and NASP worked to identify individuals and organizations throughout the country to serve on the compact technical assistance group, including school psychologists, regulators, state legislators and individuals representing key organizations in education. The technical assistance group is tasked with providing recommendations on numerous aspects of the compact, such as state and licensee requirements to join the compact, the makeup of the compact commission and how to integrate telepractice into the compact, which all will be considered by the document writing team.

As of December 2022, CSG and NASP are in the process of assembling the document writing team and working with the technical assistance group to develop recommendations. In early 2023, the document writing team will meet write the model language for the school psychologist interstate compact. After an initial draft of the language is developed it will be shared with the technical assistance group and then released for public stakeholder review.

CSG, NASP and the working group will continue to work on the language until it is properly vetted and fully capable of meeting the needs of the profession and the public. Once the model compact language is finalized it will be released for state enactment. CSG anticipates the model language will be released for 2024 state legislative sessions. For more information on the Interstate Compact for School Psychologists, visit the compact web page or send an email to [email protected].

Physician Assistant Compacts: What You Should Know

In June 2019, a joint initiative by The Council of State Governments, Federation of State Medical Boards, American Academy of Physician Associates and the National Commission on Certification of Physician Assistants, was created to develop an interstate compact for the interstate practice of physician assistants (PAs). Funding support for this initiative came from the Department of Health and Human Services.

The Physician Assistant Licensure Compact (PA Compact) will facilitate the ability of licensed PAs to practice in multiple states without having to obtain an individual state professional license in each state of practice. The compact will provide for greater in-person and telehealth access to care and will significantly enhance practitioner mobility, including in times of public health emergencies. The PA Compact will also strengthen public protection by establishing a data system that facilitates information sharing and coordination on disciplinary action between participating states.

In the PA Compact licensure mobility is facilitated through a “privilege to practice” model, which allows individual licensees to seek a compact privilege in any compact member state they choose. The licensee’s application for a privilege to practice in a specific state is expedited by utilizing the compact data system to ensure the individual is eligible for that privilege by meeting the requirements in the compact.

The PA Compact includes various requirements for states to adhere to prior to enacting the model legislation. These requirements ensure there are baseline standards to be met for states to start issuing compact privileges. Some of these requirements include requiring a national exam and continuing education for all PA licensees. To obtain privileges to practice in compact member states individual licensees must also meet specific requirements laid out in the compact, such as obtaining NCCPA certification and graduating from a nationally accredited PA program.

The partner organizations met as a working group throughout the compact development process to develop the compact language. As part of the development process, the working group engaged stakeholders within the PA profession and the healthcare industry to solicit input and feedback. The working group utilized stakeholder feedback to revise the compact and respond to received concerns and suggestions.

One of the major motivations behind the desire to develop an interstate compact for physician assistants is the success of other compacts for health care professions, such as the Nurse Licensure Compact and the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact for physicians. Both compacts have been enacted in nearly 40 states. The development of interstate compacts for health care professions have been extremely popular amongst states because of their ability to strengthen state’s health care workforce and provide additional pathways to care for patients. The PA Compact working group considered and incorporated many aspects of other compacts for health care professions. While the PA Compact is similar to other compacts in how it facilitates multistate practice, each compact is unique and responds to the specific needs of the profession.

The working group approved the final version of the PA Compact in October 2022, which is being made available to states for 2023 legislative sessions. CSG and the project partners will provide educational and technical assistance for stakeholders and states interested in the compact. Supporting resources and information about the compact may be found at www.pacompact.org.

Policy Areas