Aditi Juneja

This is great advice. I’d add: 🏖️Take the time you need to recover and get ready for what’s next. I took four months off between jobs the first time I left government, and two months the second time. (After having a signed offer — it can be done, and any new employer worth their salt should be willing to let you take time in between (though maybe not four months.)) Starting a new role in a new organization is exhausting, and you want to start fresh and feel energized for what’s to come. I’ve done a cross-country road trip, solo long-distance hiking trips, family time, and beach vacations — whatever rejuvenates you will do the trick. 🎁 Think about how you can give back. If you’re like me, you benefitted from the advice and mentorship of many individuals and the groundbreaking achievements of countless more. Life outside government presents wonderful opportunities to pay it forward. I’ve found great joy and fulfillment teaching and serving on the boards of organizations I care about. Whether you’re volunteering, mentoring, teaching, or giving financially, you’ll likely find you benefit at least as much from this work as those your efforts serve. ⏰ Choose your moment wisely. The job market will be flooded, especially in the next six months. If you have a choice and can stay, it may be to your advantage. I left government the first time 18 months into the first Trump Administration and found employers were intensely interested in my ability to interpret what was happening behind the scenes and/or predict how the Administration would react in various scenarios. It was also a much less crowded job market. This isn’t an option for everyone, but if it is for you, it’s something to consider.

46

2 Comments

🚨 Great gig alert 🚨 Calling legal eagles, policy wonks, program directors and others interested in addressing #tech #privacy #humanrights #AIethics and more. Check out and subscribe to this great consolidator newsletter from Michael Samway's group! Head's up to my friends in Operators Guild in particular!

6

1 Comment

Good Morning everybody - I just donated to the Human Rights Data Analysis Group for my birthday. When I first met them 20+ years ago, I was floored by the clarity of their mission and work. Everybody counts; getting the data right about what's happening in the world is critical to understanding it. Technology is one of many tools to leverage knowledge, not a box that solves our hardest problems for us. I'm also going to have some cake, don't worry. But I like adding a little extra light to the candles. Tech's moving fast and moving us faster, spinning up decisions and happenings and allocations we may not even know how to evaluate. AI hype is making that "bigness" of solutionism again so compelling - but we disregard the details to our own detriment. We need people and organizations who can see in, work together with community, and approach these problems with compassion and integrity. I'm sharing here an op ed from data scientist Bailey Passmore: "Scientific and data-driven arguments that influence city spending as well as larger public health and safety initiatives must be substantive, transparent, and accessible to city leadership making decisions on behalf of communities they represent. Technological advancements do belong in the city, but on the leash of robust scientific evidence and informed community participation, not in spite of it." https://lnkd.in/ejknFJrc

31

2 Comments

Like many folks in DC I've been having lots of "hey, can I pick your brain" calls and coffees with friends and former colleagues. It's a tough time. The job market is about to be flooded with smart, qualified people who are coming off of intense jobs in the middle of a difficult transition. I've left White House roles twice, once during transition to a new Trump administration, and am always happy to meet with people making similar transitions. But here's some advice I often come back to in those conversations: 🌊 In a Flooded Market, Ride the Waves. Yes, we must ensure a peaceful transfer of power. But for most people leaving government, history won't know if you leave early. I was unemployed for several months in 2017 in part because I was so head down getting through transition I didn't start my search until after I left government. By then the market was flooded with Clinton and Obama people and it was a knife fight for jobs. If you find a good wave, ride it now. 🤝 Network, Network, Network. Obviously. Be respectful of people's time and efficient with asks for favors. Write thank you notes. Pay it forward. 🤓 Know Your Brand. You're about to become a "former," and in This Town people easily get stuck there. Remember: it's not about what you've done, it's about what you have to offer a new employer or client. Workshop your elevator pitch and hone/own your niche expertise. ✨ Define Your Priorities. It's not just about the next job: what do you want your life to look like during this next phase? What are the words or phrases you want to describe your days? When I left the NSC in spring 2022 my words were Family, Flexibility, and Portfolio - the last meaning I wanted a professional set-up that would let me do a bunch of different things like consult, teach, write, and support my community. Find your own defining words. 💡 Change = Opportunity. What are the skills you'll acquire in this next stage of your career? I learned a lot in government, but only after leaving did I learn how to work with a board of directors, build a book of business, educate myself on VC, and manage a team through a restructure. Inventory your skills toolkit and look for roles that will let you fill gaps. 💰 Portfolio, Not Just Paycheck. You're no longer beholden to an OGE 450 so get serious about investments and diversifying income streams. If you consult, consider asking for payment in equity. Explore start-up investment opportunities. 👤 Going Solo. Hoo boy, that's a whole other post, but tl;dr: unless you already have signed commitments from enough anchor clients to pay the bills AFTER you set aside at least 45% for taxes, expenses, and retirement, I'd be careful about hanging a shingle in this very crowded market. If you do go solo, talk with a financial advisor about setting up a SEP-IRA or other tax-deductible retirement vehicle. What else? Leave advice in comments!

786

56 Comments

Good advice

2

I've been sharing over the past few weeks reports out of countries from Chile to France to Nigeria and Taiwan on persons in prison voting. To lay the foundation of comparing the United States to other nations in terms of it's disenfranchisement policy. Today, The Sentencing Project, ACLU, and Human Rights Watch released "Out of Step: U.S. Policy on Voting Rights in a Global Perspective". It's a call back to Laleh Ispahani's work from the mid 2000s and builds on it. The report examines the laws of 136 countries around the world with populations of 1.5 million and above, and finds that the majority — 73 of the 136 — never or rarely deny a person’s right to vote because of a criminal conviction. In the other 63 countries, where some laws deny the right to vote in broader sets of circumstances, the United States sits at the top of the restrictive end of the spectrum, disenfranchising a wider swath of people overall. #unlockthevote #votingrights #outofstep See here:

7

As someone whose work has focused on the intersection of democracy and disability, I'm often under the impression that many people think this is a "niche" that isn't applicable to broader discussions of voting rights and democratic reform. This couldn't be further from the truth. Some examples: - Voting rights restoration: while disabled people are 27% of the voting-age population, two thirds of people incarcerated in state and federal prisons have a disability and are disenfranchised by rules that take away their voting rights due to felony convictions. - Plain language and cognitive accessibility: 54% of U.S. adults have a literacy rate below a 6th grade level. If you aren't writing clearly and concisely, defining unfamiliar terms, and incorporating plain language, you may be missing the mark. - Voter ID laws: 7.5% of people with disabilities do not have a state-issued photo ID, compared to 4.8% of people without disabilities. 10 million voters live over 10 miles from the closest office that can issue photo IDs. For disabled people who can’t drive or don’t have access to accessible public transportation, this is a significant barrier. - Absentee/mail-in and early voting: expanding voting options helps all voters, and particularly voters with disabilities. Absentee/mail-in voting is helpful for people who may have difficulty leaving their homes or traveling to polling places. Early voting and absentee voting give voters more chances to cast their ballot on their schedule and terms, and can reduce burdensome waiting times at the polls on Election Day. Long lines at the polls can be a significant barrier for voters with many types of disabilities. - Voter suppression: voter suppression increases barriers to voting for people with disabilities, particularly racially marginalized voters. In Randolph County, Georgia, election officials considered eliminating most local polling places in this rural community of mostly Black residents, as the polling places weren't compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Disability rights activists and civil rights groups fought back against this plan, which misused the ADA and improperly addressed access barriers at the polls, and the plan was dropped. Viewing democracy reform through a lens of disability rights isn’t a “niche issue,” it’s essential to understanding the barriers to civic participation for millions of Americans, whether they identify as part of the disability community or not. #Democracy #Disability #Accessibility

68

1 Comment

It’s a universal truth right now that in NYC non-profit legal groups and tenant advocates have successfully created a court system that has ended illegal evictions in NYC. No renter that goes through the typically years-long process of an eviction removal process wont have many, many chances to prevent their eviction from taking place. Non-payment cases, which make up over 90% of all housing court cases, also rarely ever actually get to the stage where a marshal executes an eviction, and often the tenant will have willingly vacated long before that. Point is: the era of fast and frequent evictions simply no longer exists within NYC. It is simply disingenuous and WRONG to suggest that making vouchers more competitive in the rental market by allowing them to be utilized to their fully approved amount in an otherwise capped regulated rent-stabilized apt creates a threat of mass evictions. For every reason stated above and also: 1) housing court doesn't work like that 2) there just aren’t that many vouchers 3) property owners are often claimed to be discriminating against voucher holders; this change would suddenly make vouchers so appealing they’ll throw out renters who are presumably paying their rent just to put a voucher renter in? Wouldn’t they be doing that already? After all, there are already thousands of vouchers out there right now paying above what some current occupants of apartments are paying? I don’t see tenant legal groups protesting to lower voucher payments or against more vouchers. Let’s not play games. This can work. It won’t harm other renters. The government is already approving these vouchers. It will improve the quality of housing (every single voucher placement must pass inspection) The amounts are all certified negotiated via rent reasonableness standards and always CHEAPER than shelter housing. People need homes. This is GOOD policy.

45

7 Comments

I started working in campaigns in 2009. As I was exposed to more candidates and their teams--I was struck by how uncentered they were. I was amazed at how running for office took otherwise very calm and confident people and made them ping pong around. Every candidate training program I saw focused on tactics or skills like, “how to write a press release” or “how to write a stump speech”. No one was talking about how to stay centered in the chaotic environment of campaigns. Answering the Call was born trying to solve this issue. As a City Year alum I was very interested in the leadership work Max Klau was doing at City Year. Convinced him to create a program where we only focus on internal centering work. I truly believe that before you can work on our democracy, you have to be clear and centered about who you are. Otherwise you will fail to be as powerful as you could be. This is why Answering The Call is so important in our work. The leadership development work is foundational to being able to survive and thrive in the political arena. Check out times, dates, and facilitators on the schedule page (https://lnkd.in/erxXNZ6h). Apply below. The deadline is October 1. https://lnkd.in/eBughX-2

27

4 Comments

Yesterday, I had an insightful conversation about civil discourse, consensus building, and bridging divisions in the criminal justice policy space. During our discussion, she posed a brilliant question: "What does the collective model look like?" If we want to pivot the criminal justice movement in a new direction—one that brings people together, focuses on similarities more than differences, and finds places of consensus rather than contention—it needs to be done collectively, not individually. So, what can this look like? How can we build a truly collective model that fosters unity and progress in criminal justice policy?

4

What a week, y'all? With Murthy v. Missouri decided (and as we wait for Moody v. NetChoice), sharing four fantastic resources that explore where we are in the US right now on speech, information integrity, and content governance. 1. Summarizing the TLDR of Murthy, from Kat Duffy: https://lnkd.in/ewSFUjj9. 2. Discussing the complexities of the ruling and dissent, ft. Evelyn Douek and Professor Genevieve Lakier: https://lnkd.in/ed2jGGJ7 3. Exploring the larger impact of the hyper-partisan effort to delegitimize and suppress the work of independent researchers, from Renee DiResta: https://lnkd.in/egtFjZKT (+ her full book!) 4. Finally, taking the issue of jawboning more broadly, what are the guardrails we want on government/company engagement to strengthen free expression, access to information, and info integrity? We've been exploring this at Freedom House, drawing on our global research. Matt Perault did us all a service diving into the US nuances: https://lnkd.in/e9Am3U6H. (Bonus points to Knight Foundation for their series on jawboning: https://lnkd.in/e4SFFBY6)

21

Hey all! I'm looking for some research assistance, and hoping someone has some data for me: I'm looking to compile data on how corporations are either dissuaded from operating in states with discriminatory laws, as well as how corporations are drawn to states with equal rights protections? I'm helping work on a white paper for Ohio Equal Rights to show how introducing a constitutional amendment to the Ohio constitution can make it more attractive for companies and workers to be here. Anyone have some solid data they can share?

32

17 Comments

Here is my newest blog post for "As Far As The Eye Can See" in which I discuss the impact of "Investigative and Systemic Bias" citing the cases of The Exonerated Five, Steven Truscott and Donald Marshall Jr. Although the investigations noted were by police these considerations are applicable to any investigative work including child welfare. Bias must be mitigated by critical thinking and reflection and it is essential that we all reflect on moments when we did not do so. https://lnkd.in/gyDQqgZH

9

PLEASE REGISTER & SHARE! Join me in September for a new Leadership for Democracy and Social Justice (LDSJ) Campaign Working Group virtual series. Led by veteran labor organizer Andrea Dehlendorf and yours truly, this series offers the opportunity to develop new strategies to challenge the power of the technology sector. Last night, we saw how tech giants and influential individuals like Elon Musk are willing to use their power to influence our upcoming elections. This could have far-reaching effects on our democracy, the future of work, and our understanding of the world. Now is the time to come together to build a shared understanding, develop new strategies, and create stronger networks to challenge the influence of big tech and work towards a fair and equitable world. Starting on September 13th, join us on Fridays from 12 to 2 pm ET to explore the impact of AI and digital technologies on communities and workers. Guest speakers include Steven Renderos ; Hannah Sassaman ; Evan Greer ; Mizue Aizeki, Surveillance Resistance Lab; Amba Kak of AI NOW and more! Don't miss this opportunity if you're a mid-career organizer or campaigner concerned about these issues. Apply using this link by August 23rd to be part of this transformative experience. https://lnkd.in/eFy5i2Fn

45

9 Comments

Well, folks: a new job has brought me back to Twitter/X. If you still use that platform, please follow me at @WittesNDI for National Democratic Institute (NDI) news and updates! (And if you think I would do better to put my energy into a different platform, leave your wisdom in the comments below!)

48

2 Comments

I was honored to testify this morning before the House Energy and Commerce Committee concerning the recent bipartisan, bicameral draft privacy legislation, the American Privacy Rights Act (APRA), and various other privacy and kids-related bills. My main messages were straightforward: 1. APRA presents a renewed opportunity to finish the long overdue job of passing a federal privacy law. The need for such a law is clear, and the explosive emergence of AI has only heightened that need. 2. APRA provides a sound framework built on data minimization, non-discrimination requirements, consumer rights, restrictions on data brokers, and effective enforcement. 3. To be sure, APRA will need refinement, from strengthening the protections for kids to clarifying some of the provisions around advertising. But the release of the draft is encouraging. 4. CDT has long advocated for comprehensive federal privacy legislation, and we look forward to continuing to work with legislators from both parties and other stakeholders to help move APRA through the legislative process and (hopefully!) into law.

146

4 Comments

Interesting report from Brookings in the US on Gen AI and the workforce, adds to the growing chorus of experts calling for workers to be more actively involved in decisions around AI, identifying the centrality of unions in representing worker voice https://lnkd.in/gXn5-9Yu

16

The imposition of non-disclosure agreements effectively silences the very Disability Representative Organizations that are MEANT to represent & advocate for the interests of #disabled individuals. By requiring these organizations to sign NDAs, the government has effectively muzzled their ability to speak out & provide transparent feedback on proposed changes to the #NDIS. This not only undermines the democratic principles of transparency & accountability but also erodes trust in the government's commitment to meaningful consultation & collaboration. The organizations that signed the NDAs, intending to participate in consultations, now find themselves constrained in their ability to fulfill their mandate of representing the voices of disabled individuals. This silencing not only deprives disabled individuals of their advocates but also perpetuates a power dynamic where decision-making processes are shrouded in secrecy & shielded from public scrutiny Furthermore, the use of NDAs raises concerns about the integrity of the policymaking process & the potential for undue influence from vested interests. By limiting the information available to the public, the #government risks making decisions that DO NOT fully reflect the diverse needs & perspectives of the disabled community. The DROs that were meant to represent the voices of individuals with disabilities & their families. By silencing these organizations through NDAs, the government effectively mutes the very voices it claims to be listening to. This raises serious ethical concerns about the legitimacy of the decision-making process & the extent to which the government is genuinely committed to engaging with and addressing the needs of the disability #community through co design. The use of NDAs not only prevents these organizations from openly discussing the proposed changes but also undermines their ability to advocate effectively on behalf of their constituents. This lack of #transparency deprives the public of critical information about the decision-making process and limits opportunities for meaningful public scrutiny and accountability. Let alone informed consent. By silencing these organizations, the government is not only disregarding the rights & perspectives of individuals with disabilities but also eroding the foundations of #democratic governance. It is imperative that mechanisms for public participation & accountability are strengthened to ensure that all voices are heard & considered in the development of policies that affect them. In this context, it is crucial for stakeholders & civil society to continue advocating for transparency, accountability, & meaningful participation in #policymaking processes. The silencing of voices through NDAs highlights the importance of safeguarding democratic principles and ensuring that all individuals, especially those from marginalized communities, have a genuine opportunity to have their voices heard & their concerns addressed.

3