Election 2020 in Review: Ballot Duplication Technology Implementation in Orange County, California

The Council of State Governments (CSG) Overseas Voting Initiative (OVI) has been examining the November 3, 2020 election in relation to all things “ballot duplication” and sharing insights in our latest article series. We recently highlighted ballot duplication in the news followed by a look at poll watchers, observers and the ballot duplication process. In this third series installment, we’re providing an overview on the rollout of new ballot duplication technology by the office of the Orange County, California Registrar of Voters (ROV)  following their research efforts to advance this process in one of the largest U.S. voting jurisdictions.

Background

For several years, Orange County ROV Neal Kelley and his team researched technology-aided solutions to help streamline the process for duplicating ballots marked outside of a polling place that may have become damaged or are otherwise unable to be read by vote tabulation scanners. Potential tools to partially automate the transcription of these ballots – including military and overseas ballots – were part of the overall election modernization effort. More importantly, continuous innovation better serves the jurisdiction’s voters while meeting the new requirements of the California’s Voter’s Choice Act of 2016. Orange County was mandated to reach compliance to this act in 2020.

In 2016, the ROV’s office issued a request for information (RFI) on several segments of election technology including voting systems, electronic pollbooks, and ballot duplication solutions. Following an in-depth review of the RFI responses received, the ROV’s office hosted an election technology fair with over 20 providers demonstrating their offerings in 2017. This allowed the ROV’s office to learn more about the latest election technologies available in the marketplace.

Around this time, the OVI Working Group, in which Orange County ROV Kelley participates, began its study of tools and processes to aid in ballot duplication. The OVI released its initial set of ballot duplication recommendations in January 2016, and an in-depth report on the group’s ballot duplication research in December 2016.

In early 2019, armed with robust election technology research outputs from their exhaustive work, the Orange County ROV’s office issued a request for proposals (RFP) for election technology solutions. They selected each type of desired technology and entered into contracts with providers to implement these solutions during the 2020 election cycle. Ballot duplication technology was just one of the many solutions procured by the ROV’s office, with Novus optical character recognition ballot duplication software from Runbeck Election Systems selected.

The ROV’s office gradually phased in the Novus software with its first small-scale test usage during the March 2020 primary with its legacy voting system. Use of the Novus software expanded significantly during the November 3, 2020 general election in conjunction with the implementation of their new voting system plus many additional election technologies and processes.

The 2020 general election was an extremely challenging time to implement any new technology, but the Orange County ROV’s office experienced great success. Over 1.54 million ballots were cast by Orange County during the November 3, 2020 election representing an 87.3% turnout, the second highest voter turnout percentage ever experienced in the county. To add even more service to voters due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the California Secretary of State’s office mandated that all registered voters automatically received a vote by mail (VBM) ballot from their county election office. Both in Orange County and throughout the state, this resulted in a significant increase in VBM ballots. Despite the large number of VBM ballots, COVID-19’s significant impact on election administration, and the introduction of a new voting system and additional election technology, Orange County ROV Kelley said 2020 was one of the smoothest elections ever in Orange County’s history.

How did the ballot duplication technology work?

With oversight from Orange County ROV office’s operators, the Novus software read each ballot needing duplication, then extracted a “clean” ballot in the same style from the ROV’s election definition software. The Novus software then replicated the original ballot, adding duplicate identification numbers on both the original and the replicated ballot in order to match the newly replicated ballot to the original. The ROV team operators then manually verified all ballot selections that the Novus software suggested. The duplicate ballots were then printed, matched, and checked for quality control.

How did the ballot duplication technology fare?

The Orange County ROV’s office conducted time and process studies to compare the new ballot duplication technology solution with traditional manual remaking of ballots. While not dramatically increasing through-put and time savings, time and staff-power was still saved, plus the addition of the ballot duplication technology resulted in a smoother, more efficient, and easier to track / easier to audit process. Improvement in transparency and chain of custody alone makes this solution critical to the Orange County ROV’s post-election processing.

To learn more about ballot duplication technology, please see our 2020 and 2021 article series and be on the lookout for our new OVI ballot duplication recommendations for election officials.

The post Election 2020 in Review: Ballot Duplication Technology Implementation in Orange County, California appeared first on CSG OVI.

Beyond the Ballot with Jeffrey Danovich

Following the American – led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Jeffrey Danovich found himself among the many military men and women deployed to the country’s Northern region as part of the “War on Terror.” While serving in the Nineveh Province, Danovich was assigned to his battalion’s government legal team, where he worked as a Civil Affairs Operator with the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). Following the CPA’s dissolution in 2004, Danovich was selected by his battalion commander to become a Voting Assistance Officer (VAO).

As a VAO, Danovich quickly became well-versed in every aspect of military voting. The program, managed by the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP), is designed to ensure citizens covered by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) are aware of their voting rights and know how to exercise them – no small feat. For Danovich, this meant completing online training, in-person workshops and becoming versed in state-specific election rules, processes, and deadlines pertaining to the voters in his unit.

For Danovich, the role of VAO was a collateral, rather than primary duty. This required him to complete many of the position’s responsibilities in his downtime. Although many deployed VAOs find themselves in similar situations, the nature of Danovich’s battalion posed a unique challenge. Put simply, his battalion was divided into three smaller units that were stationed throughout the Province. Managing transportation to and from the different units according to various election cycles soon became an inescapable reality.

Over the course of his deployment, Danovich spent numerous hours in the back of a Humvee to fulfill his responsibilities as a VAO. “What little downtime deployed service members have is spent catching up on sleep, sending an email to family or reading a book, etc. Upcoming elections and how to vote in them are not at the forefront of their minds. That’s where my role came into play. It was my job to make a seemingly convoluted process as easy as possible for our soldiers,” said Danovich.

Upon returning stateside, Danovich attended George Washington University where he earned his bachelor’s degree in Political Science. Shortly thereafter, he decided to leverage his experience  as a VAO to re-enter the field of elections. Danovich has since worked for the District of Columbia Board of Elections, the Open Source Election Technology Institute and the Fulton County Government in Atlanta, Georgia. Through these roles, Danovich has trained poll workers and poll managers, managed mobile voting units and performed Logic and Accuracy Testing, among other things. In August 2021, he accepted a position with the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office as the Election Training Administrator.

Danovich has worn many different hats throughout his career in elections; however, his sustained and close contact with poll workers has made clear to him the mounting threat to their safety. Throughout the U.S., poll workers complete numerous tasks that are pivotal to any given election. Despite their centrality to the electoral process, the recent proliferation of disinformation has led poll workers to experience an increasing number of threats and abuse. “Because of the constant threat posed to poll workers, many of the folks who work the polls on Election Day are leaving. We are losing some of our best and brightest,” said Danovich.

Although poll workers experience some of the most significant impacts of election disinformation, they also play a crucial role in combatting it. Those working or volunteering at the polls on election day have extensive knowledge of precinct procedures and are trusted members of the community. This uniquely positions current and former poll workers to serve as reliable sources of election information within their communities.

In regard to the importance of poll workers, Danovich stated that, “One of my biggest takeaways from the 2020 election is that many of our fellow citizens are willing to step up in a crisis situation. The spread of misinformation is currently one of the biggest threats to the conduct of our elections. My colleagues throughout the country and I have sought to mitigate this by encouraging more and more people to become poll workers.”

In the coming months, Danovich will begin to transition into his new role with the Secretary of State’s Office. While he looks forward to the opportunity to shape elections policy at the state level, Fulton County always will hold a special place in his heart – after all, who else can say they found love in a polling place? Through all the turmoil that characterized the 2020 Presidential election, Danovich happened to exchange contact information with an observer who wanted to know more about the conduct of elections. Semi-formal conversations over dinners  quickly turned into something more and nearly a year later, the two have never been happier.

The post Beyond the Ballot with Jeffrey Danovich appeared first on CSG OVI.

How the Adoption of Secure Email Accounts and Sandboxing Techniques Strengthen the Electronic Ballot Return Process for South Carolina’s Military and Overseas Voters

Electronic Ballot Return Background

Military and overseas voters, and other U.S. citizens covered by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), face significant challenges when attempting to cast their ballot. Recent figures from the U.S. Department of Defense Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) indicate that since 2016, there is a 60-65 percentage point gap in voting participation between U.S. domestic and overseas voters, depending on the type of federal election (presidential or midterm) being administered. Approximately half of this gap can be attributed to obstacles preventing those who want to vote from doing so.

While electronic ballot return presents potential benefits and a unique opportunity to improve voting outcomes among UOCAVA voters, balance between critical security considerations and ballot access is necessary for success. This challenge is discussed in The Council of State Governments (CSG) Overseas Voting Initiative (OVI) 2021 paper, Electronic Ballot Return for Military and Overseas Voters: Considerations for Achieving Balance Between Security and Ballot Access.

In this digital age, many jurisdictions have considered the potential risks and benefits of electronic ballot return and have opted to allow for some method of electronic return for UOCAVA voters. Thirty-one states have authorized some form of electronic return for those voting outside the polling place.* *Only 22 of these states have allowed UOCAVA voters to return their ballot via electronic mail. To mitigate the security risks associated with emailing ballots, states and local election jurisdictions continually deploy measures to verify the integrity of a voted ballot and protect local networks from malware.

Two such risk mitigation measures are the application of sandboxing techniques and the use of .gov email domains by election officials. In the cybersecurity field, a sandbox is another term for an isolated environment on a network that allows the secure review of material potentially infected with malware without risking harm to the host device or network.

Electronic Ballot Return via Email in South Carolina

South Carolina is among the 22 states allowing email return of marked ballots. In 2015, the legislature adopted §7-15-690 allowing the South Carolina State Election Commission to, “take all steps and action as may be necessary” to ensure that citizens covered by UOCAVA have the opportunity to vote. This direction authorized the State Election Commission to allow for the electronic return of marked ballots by all UOCAVA voters.

In South Carolina, as in most states and local election jurisdictions, limited resources have made it difficult for local election officials to acquire and update cutting-edge digital tools that help protect against continually evolving cyber threats. Election officials facing both resource and time constraints often have resorted to using platforms such as Google Mail and Yahoo Mail to conduct election-related duties. These commercial platforms do not necessarily have heightened security protocols in place that allow emails containing ballots to be robustly screened for malware and subsequently quarantined.

Statewide Adoption of Sandboxing Techniques in South Carolina

By late 2018, in an effort to apply heightened security protocols across all local election offices in South Carolina while still being mindful of costs, former Executive Director for the South Carolina Election Commission Marci Andino and her team began collaborating with South Carolina’s State Data Center to set up secure email addresses to be used by all 46 county election offices. The resulting accounts were set up with .gov domains to help voters better identify local election officials and therefore, give the voters confidence in the election information provided.

The creation of these secure email accounts also posed unique security benefits for local election officials. Through the State Data Center, sandboxing techniques were integrated into the new accounts to provide officials with enhanced and continuous protection against malware. In essence, sandboxing provides account holders with a more secure environment where electronic ballot attachments can be opened securely to isolate potential viruses or other malware. This is done prior to an email entering the local network or mail server. If threatening activity is detected, the email is flagged and the account holder is prevented from unknowingly opening the malicious content, thereby infecting their network.

Beginning in January 2019, all counties in South Carolina were required to either adopt the state-issued email account or provide the State Election Commission with proof the county was using another secure system. Given the significant cost of instituting sandboxing techniques individually, most South Carolina local election offices opted to transition their communication with voters to the state supplied .gov accounts. Voter instructions and other supporting ballot materials were modified using these new email addresses.

Rollout Factors Leading to Success in South Carolina

According to Andino, the transition to .gov email addresses was initially met with reluctance from some local officials. That quickly passed when officials understood how easy and cost-effective these changes would be and how much this process would enhance the security of the electronic ballot delivery process. “Resistance to change is natural and rarely is there a perfect time to implement technology changes. Our job at the South Carolina Election Commission was to explain the value of the new technology and make the transition as easy as possible for the local election officials and their voters.” said Andino. “We did just that.”

In South Carolina, the State Election Commission plays an integral role in the conduct of elections at the local level. All local jurisdictions receive the technology infrastructure necessary to conduct an election from the State Election Commission. This structure has facilitated the adoption of secure .gov email accounts throughout the state. Uniform voter registration databases, voting systems and corresponding administrative procedures also have helped minimize the number and type of issues encountered at the local level. Furthermore, the authority of the State Election Commission has helped ensure all South Carolina local election offices, not just a select few, are using secure email accounts.

As of early 2022, the .gov email accounts have been used throughout South Carolina in hundreds of elections without issue. Through leveraging the State Data Center to create these accounts, local election officials in South Carolina have gained access to effective threat detection and mitigation safeguards that would otherwise be too costly for local jurisdictions to implement and troubleshoot.

When authorized by state statute, email remains the most popular electronic ballot return method used by UOCAVA voters. As technology evolves, the cyber threats to the email transmission of ballots increase. Enhanced security measures and risk mitigation strategies are warranted to ensure the secrecy and integrity of a voter’s ballot is preserved. CSG’s work with South Carolina and other states utilizing sandboxing techniques has uniquely positioned OVI to support states as they seek to implement similar solutions. Please reach out if OVI can assist in connecting your office with other states and local election offices who have successfully transitioned to secure email and sandboxing.

*Special acknowledgement to CSG OVI Working Group member and former Director of the South Carolina Election Commission, Marci Andino, for working with the OVI team on this piece, as well as to CSG team member, Rachel Wright.

**For the purposes of this article, forms of electronic ballot return include email, fax, and secure web portal.

The post How the Adoption of Secure Email Accounts and Sandboxing Techniques Strengthen the Electronic Ballot Return Process for South Carolina’s Military and Overseas Voters appeared first on CSG OVI.

Enhancing the EAVS with Administrative Data

The Election Administration and Voting Survey – Purpose and Limitations

The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) released the 2020 biennial Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS) results. The EAC administers the EAVS to state election officials, who provide aggregated administrative election data. That data is analyzed by the EAC, researchers, and election officials to better understand the voting process—including voter registration, voting equipment, poll workers, polling locations, and a variety of other topics. EAVS is an important mechanism providing a source of data that is unavailable anywhere else.

As important as the EAVS is, there are still issues with the data that is supplied. For example, election administrators report that EAVS questions are often confusing and attempt to translate practices that vary widely across localities to standardized categories. As a result, administrators may be asked to supply answers to questions that are not applicable to their locality. While we have seen steady improvement in the level of data completion of the data sets, there is still work to be done.

As Jack Williams, Senior Researcher at MIT Election Lab, noted in a recent article, “(The EAVS) is the most valuable in getting a national perspective on how Americans vote. Still, it’s no substitute for the administrative data maintained by the states themselves, which often differ from EAVS for many reasons that are justified.”

The EAVS Section B Data Standard – Purpose and Added Value

A comprehensive analysis of administrative election data stands to provide critical insight into effective policies. At this time, the EAVS can only provide limited information due to the nature of aggregated date and, at times, ambiguous questions subject to interpretation by election officials. The Council of State Governments Overseas Voting Initiative (OVI) is dedicated to improving the process of voting for military and overseas citizens and intends to use the implementation of the EAVS Section B (ESB) Data Standard as a catalyst to do so. We wrote more about the development of the ESB Data Standard here.

Section B of the EAVS collects data about military and overseas citizen voting. There is a wealth of knowledge that can be gleaned from this data, especially if collected at a transactional level. The ESB Data Standard does just this. This standard allows us to dig deeper into the data than EAVS, thus providing us with a better understanding of what can lead to either voting success or voting failure among military and overseas citizens.

More than that, the data can point to opportunities for further research. This would involve meeting with states and local jurisdictions to better understand what the data is showing. For example, perhaps we suddenly see a sharp decline in the rejection of ballots due to a missing voter signature. This could be caused by any number of things—more effective voter education, a new curing policy, a different set of instructions included with balloting materials, or just sheer luck. Upon speaking with election officials, we could determine if there was a particular action that yielded this result and highlight these findings for jurisdictions interested in doing the same. As another point of analysis, the ESB Data Standard can help officials mitigate the ever-changing difficulties of mail delivery during a pandemic. Data gathered according to the Standard can determine where a voter is located overseas , where a mail service disruption(s) took place, and if the mitigating strategies put in place were successful . This information is collected through multiple data fields of the Standard such as a voter’s mailing country. A visualization is provided below demonstrating the number of ballot requests by country. This figure was generated using the ESB data provided by a subset of working group members who have implemented the standard in their local context.*

It is important to work with the election officials to not just understand what is in the data set, but “the why” behind that data. Because EAVS is asking very specific questions that are at times confusing to election administrators, the full story behind the data is sometimes lost. Our goal with our project is to ensure that we are asking the why, as that can better inform reflections on policy changes.

Additionally, the work election administrators put into completing the EAVS is extremely burdensome. Often, states must enlist the help of local election officials to answer some parts of EAVS. These officials often have limited resources and, in many cases, numerous other job duties in addition to election administration. Our hope with the ESB Data Standard is that, upon creating either a database query or a report that aligns with the standard, it will be easy for election officials to pull all relevant transactional data with little effort.

Adaptability of the Standard

What is most exciting about the ESB Data Standard is its adaptability. Because the standard was designed to accommodate both traditional absentee voting models and vote-by-mail models, it can easily be modified to capture EAVS Section C data. EAVS Section C deals with all other by mail voting from absentee voting (other than military and overseas citizens), permanent absentee voting, to by-mail voting. As such, the structure of the ESB Data Standard already aligns with Section C of the EAVS.

Development of the Standard

The ESB Data Standard was developed in collaboration with election officials. Through soliciting their insight, the Standard was designed to incorporate the data that jurisdictions currently collect as well as the data that are central to a comprehensive understanding of the voting process. The OVI has also worked with election officials in one state to map processes pertaining to how military and overseas citizens register to vote, request their ballot, and vote their ballot. Such work revealed where the state’s database system captured or failed to collect ESB data points. The OVI also learned that some data points were captured and maintained outside of the state database, helping to explain why certain data points were not available in our research.

Overall, the EAVS provides us with a wealth of information. However, we believe that leveraging data standards such as the ESB Data Standard is a worthwhile investment. These standards allow us to acquire transactional level administrative data directly from the states in a manner that is less time consuming, creates less ambiguity in the data responses from election officials, and provides a more robust data set to analyze.

*The map was generated with the data from Colorado, Washington, Orange County, and Los Angeles County, and excludes records where the mailing location was the United States.

The post Enhancing the EAVS with Administrative Data appeared first on CSG OVI.

The Long-Term Budget Outlook: Implications for State Fiscal Policy 

By Valerie Newberg 

The Congressional Budget Office released its annual Long-Term Budget Outlook in July. The Long-Term Budget Outlook is a 30-year projection of different economic factors like government spending and revenues. The outlook is used as a tool for policymakers to evaluate the impact of proposed legislation against baseline economic data, such as the gross domestic product (GDP), which measures the total output of the United States economy and provides insight into to economic growth. This year’s report represents a continuation of recent forecasts, predicting a rise in mandatory federal spending on entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, increased interest costs on the deficit and a historically high debt to GDP ratio. Regardless of how the federal government approaches the unprecedented conditions predicted, states will have to grapple with changes in funding and fiscal practices to ensure their budgets remain balanced. 

Here are three takeaways for state leaders from this year’s report: 

  1. The economy remains volatile, showing signs of slowing. 

There are four main projections calculated in the outlook: the deficit, debt, spending and revenues. While states are trying to predict the forecast and how to prepare, all four factors point to stormy weather and rainy days with potential long-term economic difficulties: 

  • Under current fiscal practices, the budget deficit is expected to climb from 2.3% of the GDP to 3.9% at the end of 2052. 
  • As the deficit continues to grow, the national debt will climb from its projected 2022 total of 98% of the GDP to 185% in 2052, nearly doubling in size and reaching a historic high in 2031.  
  • Even as the end of federal pandemic relief programs results in a dip in federal spending, the budget will ultimately rise from 23.5% to 30.2% of the GDP by 2052. Increases in spending are driven by mandatory expenditures for programs like Medicare and Social Security, which will gain more dependents and experience higher costs as the U.S. population ages. Additionally, interest on the deficit will contribute to historically high spending. 
  • Finally, revenues are projected to spike in 2025 as a result of the expiration of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The CBO’s analysis makes clear the opportunities and feasibility of reducing the deficit through expenditure and tax-based policies and lays out the growing consequences of inaction. But until changes are made, federal spending will continue to outpace revenues. 

While these projections are focused on national trends and policies, states will not be immune to the effects of economic changes; state policymakers can expect economic uncertainty to impact both federal grants to states and the circumstances around state revenue collection. 

  1. Tax changes in 2025 are expected to temporarily increase federal revenues and will continue to impact state budgets and tax codes.  

Scheduled changes to the tax code will have an impact on the national economy and state policies, but this impact will vary across states and income groups. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act had disparate effects on state budgets and tax codes, with many states electing to align their tax laws with most or all of the federal tax legislation. Key provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that lower taxes for individuals and families are set to automatically expire in 2025, including the expanded Child Tax Credit and the State and Local Tax Deduction. The State and Local Tax Deduction impacts high-income taxpayers in states such as California, New Jersey and New York most aggressively because the $10,000 cap on deductions generally prevents those who pay the most in state and local taxes from deducting their entire liability from their federal taxes. Lawmakers in such states have sought solutions to ease this burden and prevent the loss of high-income residents.  

The future of these provisions is unclear, but the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the tax plan shows a nearly $1.5 trillion increase in the deficit over the next 10 years. As such, federal policymakers may look to more wide-sweeping changes to tax codes that would further impact state policies. 

  1. Congress may look to cut discretionary spending for state grants and other projects to decrease outlays.  

The Congressional Budget Office predicts that continued levels of discretionary spending between an average of 6.2% and 7% of the GDP will contribute substantially to federal debt levels. This debt, held by the public, leaves the economy at an increased risk of experiencing a fiscal crisis that would disrupt global financial stability. With adjustments in the largest mandatory spending programs such as Medicare and Social Security requiring a 60-person majority to pass the Senate and 74 percent of Americans saying benefits should not be reduced, it is more likely that funding for discretionary spending programs and grants to states would be reduced to contain expenditure levels.  

Since the federal government provides an average of one-third of state revenues, states are especially vulnerable to disruptions due to changes in federal discretionary spending for programs like Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), Head Start, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), law enforcement training and development assistance, and the Community Block Development Grant. States rely on these programs to provide for their most vulnerable citizens and policymakers will need to remain informed of their options for sustaining them when faced with reductions in federal funding.  

With President Biden signing into law the Inflation Reduction Act, which will reduce the deficit by over $300 million, fiscal consolidation through reduced spending and increased taxes is clearly a top priority for lawmakers in Washington. States should expect to see further action taken, and by remaining educated on the impacts of the federal budget and the CBO’s Long-Term Budget Outlook on their states’ circumstances, leaders can prepare to effectively tackle the economic issues that impact the everyday lives of their constituents. 

Apprenticeships: Apprentices with Disabilities

Worker serviceman operating industrial water purification filtration equipment in boiler room or treatment plant

The federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) regulations were last updated in 2017 with the implementation of some revisions delayed until 2019. Some alterations apply to apprenticeship programs and update  EEO regulations that already protect individuals from discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin and sex to include disability, age (40 or older), sexual orientation and genetic information.

For example, the EEO regulations ensure apprenticeship recruitment reaches people with disabilities. Sponsors cannot discriminate against those with disabilities and must provide reasonable accommodations. This applies to all aspects of employment, including outreach, application, interview process and employment.

The apprenticeship EEO regulations also require measurement of the rate of inclusion of individuals with disabilities. Employers must allow apprentices and applicants to self-identify whether they have a disability, but information on the specific disability need not be requested. In 2019, the goal was set that qualified people with disabilities make up at least 7% of a sponsor’s apprentices. This is the benchmark to measure whether barriers for people with disabilities exist in apprenticeship programs and whether diverse and accessible outreach occurs. If the goal is not met, apprenticeship programs are expected to review the program and determine what changes could be made to make it more inclusive.

In the years since these updates took effect, the United States has faced the challenge of a global pandemic. Even so, states have taken legislative steps to meet the requirements outlined in the EEO regulations as well as update disability employment laws. Outlined below are examples of bills enacted since the final updates to EEO went into effect in January 2019.

In August 2021 Illinois enacted House Bill 1838. This amends the Illinois Human Rights Act to include protection against discrimination involving  individual because of their association with a person with a disability. This is in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provision that protects applicants and employees from discrimination based on their relationship with an individual with a disability, regardless of whether the employee or applicant has a disability.

Maine passed several bills to conform Maine’s apprenticeship programs and terminology to EEO regulations. Senate Proposal 37, enacted in June 2021, requires apprenticeship programs to request demographic data including race, sex, ethnicity and disability status from apprentices. Also in June 2021, Maine’s governor signed into law House Proposal 987, which discontinues the use of the word “handicapped” and replaces instances of the term with “persons with disabilities.” The words used to portray people with disabilities are important. Remaining respectful, accurate and objective matters. Maine’s move to replace the word “handicapped” is a step toward more neutral language. The ADA National Network provides information about language preferences in their guidelines on language around people with disabilities.

In Washington, employers can apply for certificates to pay less than minimum wage to learners, student workers, apprentices, and previously, to individuals with a disability. In April 2021, Washington enacted Senate Bill 5284 which prohibits subminimum wage certificates based on an employee’s disability.  Subminimum wage certificates can still be obtained for apprentices. If a person with a disability also is an apprentice they may be paid subminimum wage. In this case, the employer must be in an approved program with a valid and approved apprenticeship agreement. The subminimum wage range cannot be less than 75% of the minimum wage rate in the state.

This workforce product was funded by a grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration. The product was created by the recipient and does not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Labor. The Department of Labor makes no guarantees, warranties, or assurances of any kind, express or implied, with respect to such information, including any information on linked sites and including, but not limited to, accuracy of the information or its completeness, timeliness, usefulness, adequacy, continued availability, or ownership. This product is copyrighted by The Council of State Governments.

Professional Licensing Boards Partner with Software Companies to Manage Online Licensing Services

There is significant variation in the way states issue and manage occupational licenses. Beyond differences in education and training requirements to obtain a license, states also differ in how they process and issue licenses. While some states still use paper application processes, others have migrated to online centralized licensing systems for most or all occupations requiring a license. This provides applicants a place to access information about occupational license requirements as well as application and renewal instructions.

Some states host a website that includes license management while other states partner with a software company to host and manage the process. The Council of State Governments (CSG) has compiled a sample of management software used by states in implementing online occupational licensure management. See the table below to find links to licensing boards, the software options currently used and links to the online licensing portals.

Choosing the correct management software is a decision specific to the state or board’s needs. Case studies on three different software options show what online licensing software can accomplish based on the regulatory structure in the state.

Case Studies

Colorado uses a centralized digital licensing system for all professions within their Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA). The DORA Division of Professions and Occupations recently signed a 10 year agreement with several Tyler Technologies options, including the ETK Regulatory solution. ETK Regulatory boasts the ability to automate the regulatory lifecycle and enable online self-service for licensees. This single, comprehensive, cloud-based system will give Colorado licensees and businesses across the state greater flexibility and control.

The Kentucky Board of Emergency Medical Services met their licensing and data needs by partnering with ImageTrend. ImageTrend offers services specifically for the health care and public service fields. Data analytics, services for emergency medical services (EMS) personnel, software solutions and license management are among the solutions ImageTrend offers. ImageTrend not only supports license management, but also allows for mobile data-collection and documentation so medical providers can use technology – such as tablets – to record information.

The North Carolina Board of Landscape Architects (NCBOLA) announced the opening of its new online licensure portal in May 2021. NCBOLA partnered with Certemy in 2020 to enable an online portal for its license management needs. The goal of the online system is to eliminate paper, lower costs, track continuing education and streamline the licensing process. In referencing why NCBOLA decided to partner with Certemy, Barbara Geiger, Board Administrator of NCBOLA, said, “We needed to go paperless, eliminate duplicate data entry, and automate all our manual workflows in a central system of record that our staff and professionals could access from work or home.”

License Management Software

SoftwareBoardOnline portalAccelaMichigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory AffairsLARA Licensing PortalAithentNevada Department of Health and Human Services
Vermont Agency of EducationOnline Licensing System
Vermont Online Licensing System for EducatorsBright LinkVirginia Board for Barbers and CosmetologyApplicant LoginCertemyLouisiana Auctioneers Licensing Board
North Carolina Board of Landscape Architects
West Virginia Board of ArchitectsLALB Login  
NCBLA Licensee Portal   WVBA Portal  Heuristic Solutions- Learning BuilderAlabama Board of Professional Engineers and Land SurveyorsBELS Licensing PortalImageTrend *primarily used for EMS licensingKentucky Board of Emergency Medical Services
Mississippi State Department of Health
Montana Department of Public HealthKEMSIS License and Certification
EMS eLicensing  
EMS eServicesMerit  Virginia Department of Professional Occupational Regulation  DPOR Digital LicenseNetShapersLouisiana Board of Drug and Device DistributersLicense RenewalPegaVermont Office of Professional RegulationOPR Online ServicesThentia CloudOklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority
Oklahoma Real Estate Commission
Oregon Mental Health Regulatory AgencyOMMA Portal
OREC Portal
MHRA Applicant PortalTyler TechnologiesColorado Department of Regulatory Agencies
State of Connecticut
Department of Financial and Professional Regulation
Kansas City Schools  *used for student info
Ohio Division of State Fire Marshal
State of Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation  DORA Online Services  
Connecticut eLicense
Online License  
Kansas City Public Schools Tyler SIS
Ohio Division of State Fire Marshal eLicense
eLicensing Rhode Island

States that transition to online application and renewal services are receiving benefits for boards and licensees. Benefits include ease of access and time and paper saved. An added benefit is that with license management online, boards have an easier time adapting to work-from-home requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic. The table above includes many license management software options states are using to meet their online management needs.

This workforce product was funded by a grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration. The product was created by the recipient and does not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Labor. The Department of Labor makes no guarantees, warranties, or assurances of any kind, express or implied, with respect to such information, including any information on linked sites and including, but not limited to, accuracy of the information or its completeness, timeliness, usefulness, adequacy, continued availability, or ownership. This product is copyrighted by The Council of State Governments.

Using Promising Models to Fulfill Occupational Licensure Requirements

Co-authored by Kyle Doran, a Director at Social Finance.

In any given state across the country, individuals trying to improve their own economic wellbeing face a complex workforce training and licensure system. Imagine Andy, a person who wants to become a licensed heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) contractor, for example. Based on an average of the requirements across 35 states, in order to work as an HVAC contractor, he must first gain over 1,000 cumulative days of experience and training, pay almost $400 in fees and pass two exams. This is a busy time for Andy, and in part due to his participation in this HVAC training, his income is much lower than prior to the program. Without full-time employment and the wages that come with it, transportation, childcare and other expenses become even more of a hardship, and he’s faced with the difficult decision of weighing the cost of a training program and expenses for these core necessities against the ultimate benefit of a more promising career.

This story plays out every day across business sectors, occupations and states. The occupational licensure process often includes fees, exams, education prerequisites and other requirements that differ by state and can be obstacles to an individual obtaining a license. These barriers to licensure are particularly acute for those whose backgrounds do not obviously map to an educational prerequisite, for example, or those who lack funds to pay for up-front fees, including veterans, people with criminal records, low-wage earners, immigrants with work authorization and people with disabilities. As the number of occupations in the U.S. requiring a license increases, states are looking for ways to remove or mitigate barriers to licensure for individuals trying to enter a profession and practice in their state.

At the same time, issues can arise when workers attempt to make education and experience portable across state lines. Veterans and immigrants often have challenges translating to the U.S. their education and experience abroad. Both instances can lead to unemployment and underemployment as these individuals work to meet a different state’s licensure requirements.

The economic effects of COVID-19 have exacerbated these issues and placed a spotlight on the need for licensure portability, especially in fields like health care strained by the pandemic. In addition to expanding telehealth, digital licensing and interstate compacts, states also are looking to expand opportunities for meeting educational requirements or reskilling through expanding apprenticeships.

Apprenticeships are a well-established “earn while you learn” model that can alleviate the financial difficulties that arise from significant upfront costs in many training programs—costs like those incurred by Andy in the example above. Apprenticeships also can simultaneously fulfill education and experience requirements that are necessary for many licenses, making it a viable alternative pathway to licensure. And they have a strong track record: the U.S. Department of Labor found that 94% of those who complete an apprenticeship program maintain employment after the program ends, and participation in Registered Apprenticeships has grown 70% over the last 10 years. Expanding apprenticeship programs may help states meet licensure requirements while still accounting for the disproportionate barriers some individuals face.

The Career Impact Bond (CIB) is a student-friendly model for upskilling and training programs, supported by Social Finance’s $50 million UP Fund. Supported by philanthropically minded impact investors, in a CIB, students enroll in training programs with no upfront costs, only repaying those costs if they gain meaningful employment after the program. CIBs provide wraparound support for students ranging from career coaching and job placement assistance to emergency aid funds and support for housing, childcare and transportation. CIBs put student-centered design first: students who land a job over a predetermined income threshold repay the cost of training and their repayment is capped both in length of time and dollar amount. CIBs also offer “downside protection” such that if a student does not find a job above the income threshold, they do not pay.

Early feedback shows that CIBs can be a meaningful tool to increase access to training for low-wage earners, including people of color. In General Assembly’s Career Impact Bond, the percentage of Black students is four times that of their typical student body. Student participation in the American Diesel Training Centers program doubled after the it began using CIBs, with over 90% of graduates getting hired. While CIBs are a relatively new tool in the workforce training space, they hold real potential to help workers find and embark on new career paths. There is great promise for similar models that help individuals attain the licenses they need for economic mobility.

Several states have started to take an interest in the model, forming a new policy tool called Pay It Forward Funds (PIFF) to bring the mechanism to more students. PIFFs are state-sponsored initiatives that leverage public funding (like federal stimulus dollars) to support CIBs, which may recycle student repayments back into the fund to support future cohorts of students. New Jersey was the first state to announce the development of a PIFF in 2020, and at least six other states are pursuing similar efforts. Read more about CIBs, PIFFs and many other models of cross-sector partnerships in Workforce Realigned: How New Partnerships Are Advancing Economic Mobility, a recent book from Social Finance and the Federal Reserve Banks of Atlanta and Philadelphia.

Apprenticeships, CIBs and PIFFs are promising tools that can help people overcome barriers to licensure. By sharpening their focus on innovative approaches to workforce training, states can help individuals like Andy earn licensure and improve their economic mobility while helping industries attract and train the workers they need.

This policy brief is a collaboration between CSG & Social Finance, a national impact finance and advisory nonprofit. Learn more at socialfinance.org.

This workforce product was funded by a grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration. The product was created by the recipient and does not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Labor. The Department of Labor makes no guarantees, warranties, or assurances of any kind, express or implied, with respect to such information, including any information on linked sites and including, but not limited to, accuracy of the information or its completeness, timeliness, usefulness, adequacy, continued availability, or ownership. This product is copyrighted by The Council of State Governments.

Credential Transparency: Alabama Launches Alabama Credential Registry

Postsecondary institutions, job training programs and employers in the U.S. offer over 950,000 different kinds of credential opportunities, including professional licenses, according to Credential Engine. With this number of offered credentials, it can be difficult to determine which education and training programs will make workers competitive for employment. Moreover, it can be difficult for employers to know if a worker’s credential gives them the necessary skill set for a job.

Solutions to these realities involve making data on credentials, competencies and occupational skills fully transparent, including data on skills in greatest demand and where such skills are being taught. As more and more states work to build back a more inclusive and equitable workforce, credential transparency has come to the forefront. Particularly for licensed professions, credential transparency can provide clearer information for practitioners working to earn their license and for those already licensed professionals upskilling.

On September 22, Alabama launched the Alabama Credential Registry, a partnership among Credential Engine, the Lumina Foundation, the Alabama Commission on Higher Education and the Alabama Workforce Council. This registry will congregate all certificates, licenses, traditional degrees and non-degree credentials offered in Alabama and is intended to foster transparency for both workers and employers. Workers and students will be able to find information more easily about the skills each credential certifies, its value and cost, as well as the employment opportunities it offers. Employers will be able to cross-check the existence of credentials listed on applicants resumes and the relevance to the role for which someone has applied. The Alabama Workforce Council Chair hopes to have over half of the credentials offered in Alabama published by 2023. It will help identify gaps in postsecondary offerings and facilitate new opportunities for professionals in Alabama.

Early next year, the Alabama Skills-Based Job Description Generator and Employer Portal, a tool that will allow employers to align job descriptions with more in-demand skills, also will be released. Alabama also was one of six states participating in the National Skills Coalition’s (NSC) quality postsecondary credential policy academy, where they leveraged their participation in the policy academy to build out the Credential Registry.

Other states have been moving aggressively, as well. Since 2020, several states have passed legislation to ensure information about credentials can be easily accessed, compared and connected to other education and workforce data. In 2021, Connecticut passed legislation that requires the executive director of the Office of Higher Education to create a database of “credentials”, defined as a documented award issued by an authorized body – the state is utilizing resources from Credential Engine. In Texas, legislators passed a bill that encourages the creation of a “library” of credentials. Additionally, Indiana partnered with their Professional Licensing Agency to add 47 licenses to their registry that prepare graduates to become licensed. The state also has published pass rates on the National Council Licensure Examination (NCLEX) with the intention to add other fields with available licensure exam results.

The National Conference of State Legislatures has identified four legislative actions states can take to increase credential transparency in their states: (1) developing statewide goals for credential attainment, (2) identifying high value credentials, (3) developing protocols to provide academic credit for completion of state-approved credentials, (4) and providing incentives or mandates for credential programs.

Increasing credential transparency can concurrently address other state goals in workforce development including recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, especially for displaced workers who seek to upgrade their skills or enter a different field. Other actions states could take to utilize credential transparency to lower barriers to licensure are leveraging credential databases to strengthen license portability, accessing apprenticeship programs and creating more inclusive workforces that include veterans, foreign-trained professionals, and individuals with criminal records.

This workforce product was funded by a grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration. The product was created by the recipient and does not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Labor. The Department of Labor makes no guarantees, warranties, or assurances of any kind, express or implied, with respect to such information, including any information on linked sites and including, but not limited to, accuracy of the information or its completeness, timeliness, usefulness, adequacy, continued availability, or ownership. This product is copyrighted by The Council of State Governments.