New Skills-Based Hiring Bill Is a Big Step Forward for Equal Opportunity

Reps. Mace and Krishnamoorthi Introduce ACCESS Act to Promote Skills-Based Hiring

Last week, Reps. Nancy Mace (R-SC-1) and Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL-8), members of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, introduced a bill to prevent federal government agencies from requiring the private businesses they contract with to hire employees with college degrees.

The ACCESS Act: Promoting Skills-Based Hiring

The “Allowing Contractors to Choose Employees for Select Skills Act,” or ACCESS Act, marks the latest development in a recent bipartisan push for policies that promote the practice of hiring based on relevant skills, rather than credentials. The absence of such policies has proven to be a major barrier to equal opportunity, as the last several decades have seen many employers instituting degree requirements for roles, justifying them as proxies to gauge job preparedness. As a result of this practice, the gap in wages and advancement opportunities between Americans without bachelor’s degrees and their degree-holding counterparts has increased markedly.

Provisions of the ACCESS Act

If passed, the ACCESS Act would prohibit all executive agencies from setting forth any minimum experience or educational requirements for contractor personnel, with the exception of cases where the contracting officer offers a written justification for said requirements. The bill specifies that each of these justifications would be reviewed on an ad hoc basis by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), ensuring that any remaining educational/experiential requirements satisfy specific needs of the agency implementing them. It also leaves the door open for OMB to issue additional instructions on how non-degree certifications or credentials could potentially be included in these remaining requirements. Following the bill’s enactment, the Government Accountability Office would also be tasked with submitting a report ensuring compliance with these new prohibitions.

Benefits of Skills-Based Hiring

The benefits of instituting skills-based hiring practices are multifold. Workers, for one, would no longer have to go through the expensive (and often impractical) process of obtaining a college degree in order to secure a high-paying job. In turn, employers would gain access to a large pool of untapped talent (military veterans in particular) from which they had previously been restricted by often-trivial requirements. The wallets of American taxpayers would also reap benefits from the elimination of degree requirements: With fewer people borrowing federal dollars to attend college, the rapid growth of forgone revenue from forgiven loans would likely slow dramatically. As the nation’s largest employer, the federal government has the power to bring about all of these benefits and more with the effective implementation of skills-based hiring.

Challenges and Potential Reforms

Even if passed, however, the ACCESS Act may face a significant uphill battle in its effort to minimize the wage gap. Recent research has found that, even when employers nominally eliminate degree stipulations, there only seems to be a modest uptick in the hiring of non-degree holders. And even at the federal level, policy has been historically difficult to carry into practice; despite a 2020 executive order that aimed to modernize hiring practices for federal jobs, 49 percent of federal employees still hold a bachelor’s degree as of 2022. All of this is to say that holding its own agencies accountable in honestly implementing and abiding by these new prohibitions will be a decisive factor in determining the impact of any new legislation.

Solving this problem may require larger-scale reforms of employers’ hiring processes apart from the mere updating of positions’ requirements. One potential means of facilitating such reforms might come by way of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws. Currently, EEOC’s “disparate impact” rules actually discourage the hiring of non-degree holders, since they require employers to actively prove any new skills-based assessments to not have a disparate impact on minority groups.

The irony here is that many of these assessments may render a far less disparate impact than many conventional degree requirements (which are not subject to the same standard) currently do, due to significant preexisting gaps in degree attainment. If EEOC were to reform these measures, nonconventional hiring assessments may finally be on a level playing field with more formal educational requirements, allowing more employers to adopt the former and ditch the latter.

Promoting Equal Opportunities

In spite of its potential shortcomings, the passage of the ACCESS Act would constitute a huge step toward a future where non-degree holding Americans have access to the same opportunities as their degree-holding counterparts. And one can only hope that states and the private sector will take note of this move from the federal government and be inspired to adopt skills-based hiring practices of their own.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 4: Quality Education
• SDG 5: Gender Equality
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The article discusses the practice of hiring based on relevant skills rather than credentials, which is connected to SDG 4 (Quality Education) as it challenges the traditional emphasis on college degrees as a requirement for employment. It also addresses SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) by highlighting how degree requirements have contributed to wage gaps and limited opportunities for individuals without bachelor’s degrees. Additionally, the article relates to SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) by emphasizing the potential benefits of skills-based hiring for workers, employers, and taxpayers.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 4.3: By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational, and tertiary education, including university.
• Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.
• Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value.
• Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic, and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion, or economic or other status.

Based on the article’s content, the specific targets that can be identified are related to ensuring equal access to education (Target 4.3), ending discrimination against women (Target 5.1), achieving full and productive employment (Target 8.5), and promoting social and economic inclusion (Target 10.2).

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator 4.3.1: Participation rate of youth and adults in formal and non-formal education and training in the previous 12 months.
• Indicator 5.1.1: Whether or not legal frameworks are in place to promote, enforce, and monitor equality and non-discrimination on the basis of sex.
• Indicator 8.5.1: Average hourly earnings of female and male employees, by occupation, age group, and persons with disabilities.
• Indicator 10.2.1: Proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income, by age, sex, and persons with disabilities.

The article does not explicitly mention indicators, but based on the identified targets, indicators such as the participation rate in education and training (Indicator 4.3.1), existence of legal frameworks promoting equality (Indicator 5.1.1), average hourly earnings by gender and disability (Indicator 8.5.1), and proportion of people living below a certain income threshold (Indicator 10.2.1) can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets.

4. Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Behold! This splendid article springs forth from the wellspring of knowledge, shaped by a wondrous proprietary AI technology that delved into a vast ocean of data, illuminating the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that all rights are reserved by SDG Investors LLC, empowering us to champion progress together.

Source: aei.org

Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.