Categories
Government and Policy McNair Center

The International Entrepreneur Rule: The US Startup Visa

The Obama administration proposed new provisions for immigrant entrepreneurs in August 2016. The administration designed the proposal to attract international entrepreneurial talent to the United States, especially in advanced technology fields. In mid-January, with only days left in President Obama’s term, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finalized the details of the “International Entrepreneur Rule.” It is scheduled to go into effect on July 17, 2017. Whether it goes into effect will depend on President Trump’s immigration plan, which may see changes in the current H1-B visa program.
statue

Overview

The International Entrepreneur Rule would allow USCIS to grant discretionary parole to international entrepreneurs for two and a half years . However, entrepreneurs may struggle to qualify for a parole grant unless they are already involved in a successful venture. The rule states that first-time applicants must own at least 10% of a U.S. startup that is less than five years old and play a significant role in its management.

Applicants must also demonstrate that their startup has high potential for growth and job creation. The two main avenues for satisfying this criterion are demonstrating that the company has received $250,000 or more in venture capital from “established U.S. investors” or at least $100,000 or more in funding from government entities. Applicants that do not meet these standards may still qualify if they can demonstrate “significant public benefit that would be provided by the applicant’s (or family’s) parole into the United States.”

After their initial parole is over, entrepreneurs may apply to extend their stay for an additional two and a half years. In order to receive an extension, entrepreneurs must show that their startups have “shown signs of significant growth.” A total of two parole grants is the maximum; there are no further extensions. If entrepreneurs wish to stay longer, they must find another method to secure a visa or a green card.

Analysis

When this rule was originally proposed by the Obama administration, it received early praise; Tim Ryan, the co-founder of Startup San Diego, applauded the proposal as a step in the right direction.

However, government agencies only expect this rule to impact a very limited number of entrepreneurs. The Department of Homeland Security estimates that a mere 2,940 international entrepreneurs will qualify annually. DHS also estimates they will bring approximately 3,234 dependents and spouses. In contrast, the USCIS approved 85,000 H1-B visas in the 2014 fiscal year.

The high level of investment required may serve as a hurdle for applicants. Y Combinator, widely considered the world’s best startup accelerator, only offers startups a maximum of $120,000 in investment funding. However, to qualify for the proposed International Entrepreneur Rule, USCIS expects companies to have at least $250,000. Not only that, but this money must come from investors with a record of repeated investment successes. Some policy advocates worry that there simply will not be enough reputable investors able to provide that level of funding. Moreover, even if some investors can fulfill the requirement, they may not all have the necessary experience to satisfy the rule.

The rule may help to keep entrepreneurial talent in the U.S., but will do little to attract new recruits. The applicant pool may be limited by the requirements that the company must be U.S.-founded and that the applicant have a significant role in the company. Because of these specifications, applicants must be individuals who are already in the U.S. Nonetheless, this rule may help international students at U.S. universities who are unable to acquire H-1B visas.

There is also an issue of time — entrepreneurs only have five years, maximum. The high levels of investment required for initial application and renewal may put strain on startups. TechCrunch puts the average time of an “IPO-track startup” at about seven years, although it can take up to ten years. Given this information, the parole periods may not be long enough to positively impact startups.

Ultimately, potential investors may view the startup visa as an undesirable risk. Investors will be aware of the possibility that a company, or at least its key members, could lose immigration status.

Lastly, it is unclear whether the Trump Administration will alter the details of the rule. A Department of Homeland Security spokesman informed CNN on January 23 that the DHS is still awaiting guidance on how President Trump’s executive order freezing new and pending regulations will impact the International Entrepreneur Rule’s implementation.

Learning from Other Countries

The U.S. is not the first to propose a visa for startup entrepreneurs. Many other countries have established their own processes for admitting international entrepreneurs, including the United Kingdom, Canada and France.

The U.K. allows individuals wishing to set up or take over a business within its borders to apply for a Tier 1 (Entrepreneurship) Visa which can be extended before they can apply for settlement or an indefinite leave to remain. The U.K.’s financial requirements for applicants are also more flexible than the U.S. requirements in sources and amounts of funding. The U.K. startup visa does not require that applicants start the business themselves. Instead, intention of starting a new business, taking over one or providing significant funding is enough.

Canada seeks to attract innovative talent by tying them to government-approved Canadian entities with a goal of facilitating long-term success. The Canadian Start-Up Visa Program focuses on the creation of new startups. Applicants must obtain at least one letter of support that details funding from a list of designated organizations. This includes venture capital funds, angel investor groups and business incubators.

France launched its French Tech Visa in 2016 to complement the “French Tech Ticket” program it began in 2015. The French Tech Ticket program selects 70 international entrepreneur teams and provides funding and support with a French incubator for a year. The French Tech Visa expands this program to attract foreign startup founders, exceptional talent, investors and angels by offering renewable visas.

The U.S. could look into incorporating aspects of these programs to compete for the top foreign entrepreneurs. For example, the entrepreneurs can only renew this visa once; perhaps lawmakers could extend its duration or allow additional renewals. The U.S. could also aid the integration of accepted businesses into the startup and tech communities. These changes, however, would be dependent on President Trump’s immigration policy.

Conclusion

Eligibility requirements of the International Entrepreneur Rule are rigorous, and the time period allotted by the visa is short. It is reasonable to assume that the proposed startup visa would have little, if any, economic impact. Moreover, if President Trump repeals the order, there may be little hope for a truly meaningful startup visa. While Trump vows to “establish new immigration controls to boost wages and to ensure that open jobs are offered to American workers first,” his exact plans for reforming H-1B visas, including the possibility of a startup visa, are unclear.

Categories
McNair Center Weekly Roundup

Entrepreneurship Weekly Roundup: 2/3/17

Weekly Roundup is a McNair Center series compiling and summarizing the week’s most important Entrepreneurship and Innovation news.

Here is what you need to know about entrepreneurship this week:


Reducing Recidivism through Entrepreneurship

Catherine Kirby, Research Assistant, McNair Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation

In her latest piece, McNair’s Kirby highlights the promise of entrepreneurial programs in curbing recidivism among newly released inmates. Beyond supporting local economies and communities, reducing recidivism increases productivity of the formerly incarcerated – an often overlooked and underutilized portion of the labor force.

Many ventures that offer entrepreneurial education programs in prisons have witnessed high returns on their investments. For instance, alumni of the Prison Entrepreneurship Program, a Houston-based nonprofit, boast a 100% employment rate after one year of their release and have created more than 2,000 small businesses.


Report: Trump Plans H-1B and Other Work Visa Reforms

Ingrid Lunden, Writer, TechCrunch

President Trump’s recent executive order on immigration was criticized by some Silicon Valley tech firms, including Google, Facebook and Microsoft. According to a report published by Bloomberg, the administration plans to announce another executive order that will reform the H-1B visa program. A draft of the order circulated by Bloomberg reveals an emphasis on protecting American workers.

Many tech companies rely on H-1B visas for recruiting  foreign employees who possess specific skills or talent that cannot be found domestically. However, there is a bipartisan consensus that the visa program needs reform as many outsourcing firms abuse H-1B visas.  Some legislators propose adding wage requirements to increase competition and quality in foreign recruitment.


Snap Said to Choose NYSE over Rival Nasdaq for Upcoming IPO

Sarah Frier and Alex Barinka, Reporters, Bloomberg Technology

Snap Inc.’s IPO will go through the New York Stock Exchange for its IPO, which is expected to come sometime in March. Snap’s choice reflects a reversal in tech IPO’s, as an increasing number of tech firms are choosing the NYSE over the Nasdaq to debut their shares. This transition follows Facebook’s botched IPO on Nasdaq in 2012.

In other news, Snap Inc. is developing technology that will update Snapchat’s in-app lenses to include filters for environments and landscapes. The AR features, though not scheduled for a near-term launch, also offer an attractive “range of options for potential advertisers.”


Small Businesses Uneasy over Border-Adjustment Tax Plan

Ruth Simon and Richard Rubin, Reporters, Wall Street Journal

The U.S. House Republicans’ proposal to reform the tax code includes an important section on border adjustment. Border adjustment restricts businesses from deducting the costs of imports from their taxable income. Some skeptics fear that the provision will pressure firms that rely on imports to raise their prices.

However, small businesses that rely on imports for obtaining cheap raw materials worry that border adjustment will bring higher operating costs. According to House Representative Tom Reed (R – N.Y.), a member on the House Ways and Means Committee, lawmakers are considering offering “safe harbors”  for small businesses to avoid increased expenses.

The proposed plan exempts domestic purchases and adopts a flat corporate tax rate of 20%. Supporters of the plan believe that “the dollar will rise to offset the tax change” through cheaper imports.


And in startup news…


Lyft Cuts Sales Staff, Reorganizes Team as the Startup Chases Uber

Eric Newcomer, Startup Reporter, Bloomberg Technology

San Francisco-based startup, Lyft, was founded in 2012 as ride-booking app.Despite trailing Uber in overall market share, Lyft has found success in marketing directly to customers. By cutting fares, the startup also now serves 20-40% of consumers in large U.S. cities. Coupled with recent cost-cutting efforts, Lyft plans to turn a profit by 2018.

Recent trims in its labor force are helping Lyft gain a competitive edge over other ride-hailing apps. The company also plans to partner with more governments and health-care organizations going forward. In January, Lyft announced a collaboration with National MedTrans Network to offer “2,500 rides a week for medical appointments” in New York City.


Cafe X Opens in San Francisco, Bringing Robots to the Coffee Shop

John Mannes, Reporter, TechCrunch

Cafe X founder Henry Hu is transforming the traditional coffee shop with his latest startup. With Cafe X, customers order their drinks at an on-site kiosk using a mobile app, and a “robot” prepares and serves their coffee. The startup opened its first American location in San Francisco this past week. Hu hopes to expand the company’s operations into a franchise, with each shop locally sourcing its coffee beans.

Hu’s startup received backing from a successful seed round from last year that drew in $5 million from prominent VCs, Khosla Ventures, Social Capital, Jason Calacanis, Felicis Ventures, Silicon Valley Bank and the Thiel Foundation.

With Cafe X, customers save time and money (only $2.25 for an 8 oz drink). Furthermore, automation introduces a marketing advantage, as profits can be spent on sales rather than labor costs.


Comparably Raises $7.25 million to Help Match Employees with the Best Companies

Ken Yeung, Staff Writer, VentureBeat

California-based startup Comparably collectively raised $7.25 from VC firms in its latest funding round. Competing with Glassdoor and LinkedIn, the startup offers job-market monitoring services and publishes relevant information on industry salaries and company culture for job hunters.

The startup’s recent funding totals enable Comparably to expand its monitoring services and partner with more companies. Comparably co-founder Jason Nazar told VentureBeat in 2016 that the company’s mission was “to make work better” through “transparency around compensation and culture.”

The Weekly Roundup is taking next week off and will return on February 17.

Categories
Government and Policy McNair Center

Reducing Recidivism through Entrepreneurship

Reducing Recidivism through Entrepreneurship

High rates of recidivism in the United States negatively affect prisons, inmates, the government and tax-paying citizens. In 2013, the U.S. imprisoned 2,220,300 people. A Bureau of Justice Statistics study found that within three years of release, 67.8% of released prisoners were rearrested. Utah_State_Prison_Wasatch_FacilityWithin five years, 76.6% of released prisoners were rearrested.

Researchers typically link recidivism to unemployment, low levels of education, mental health problems, inability to re-integrate into society after prison, impulsiveness, association with other criminals, family instability and as well as other factors.

High levels of recidivism costs states millions of dollars; A Pew Charitable Trusts study estimated that if 41 states cut their recidivism rates by 10%, they would save $635 million. On top of the monetary costs for the states, recidivism rates have a negative effect on families and communities including family instability and a higher probability that a family will live in poverty. Solving the recidivism issue would not only save the government and taxpayers money, but it would also improve the lives of former inmates and those around them.

Entrepreneurship Potential of Inmates

A variety of entrepreneurs and public service organizations have developed programs to empower prisoners and combat high recidivism rates. Notable social entrepreneurship programs such as the Last Mile and Cafe Momentum provide leadership skills and help reduce recidivism through a variety of methods. The Last Mile, as the McNair Center’s Julia Wang describes, focuses on teaching inmates business and computer skills in California. Cafe Momentum, a functional restaurant in Dallas, gives released youth offenders transferable life skills related to the restaurant industry.

While social entrepreneurship is a start, what about actually teaching entrepreneurship skills to prisoners?

While some might assume that inmates are incapable of holding down a job, let alone establishing their own businesses, the reality is that many people leaving the prison system are potential entrepreneurs. Inmates that took the Miner Sentence Completion Scale-Form T test, an assessment of entrepreneurial aptitude, scored higher than average entrepreneurs, slow-growth entrepreneurs and manager scientists. Additionally, many inmates are in prison due to their participation in illegal forms of entrepreneurship, including drug trafficking and smuggling. In Freakonomics, Steven Levitt remarks that the gang in Sudhir Venkatesh’s study of the drug trade acted as a franchise for the larger Black Disciples organization. Coupled with the willingness to take risks that characterizes many inmates, prisoners could be prime candidates for entrepreneurship.

Prison Entrepreneurship Program

One of the most notable and successful programs is the Prison Entrepreneurship Program (PEP), an innovative rehabilitation program aimed at transforming inmates in Texas. PEP places carefully selected inmates through a four-month business education program. This program teaches them skills valuable in entrepreneurial settings, including financial literacy, an employment workshop, a business etiquette course and a Toastmasters class. Participants take over forty exams and interact with business executives. The final exam involves a thirty-minute business-plan presentation. PEP also provides a prison-release and post-prison components including follow-up and startup mentoring.

PEP’s results demonstrate a fantastic return on investment, especially given the 1,300+ participants. 100% of PEP graduates find jobs within 90 days of release. Nearly 100% of these graduates stay employed after a year. Since 2004, PEP graduates have launched more than 200 businesses. Six of these generate over $1 million in gross annual revenue. Most importantly, PEP graduates have a recidivism rate of less than 7%.

Defy Ventures

Defy Ventures also provides an entrepreneurial education to inmates. This national organization, which mostly operates in New York and California, describes itself as “an entrepreneurship, employment and character development training program for currently and formerly incarcerated men, women and youth.” It puts former inmates, mostly former leaders of drug rings and gangs, through a two-month training program. Defy Ventures graduates of this program are eligible to apply for a 12-month entrepreneurship program in which they compete for startup grants. This program has a 3% recidivism rate and has produced more than 150 startups. Most of these startups are small businesses, such as eco-friendly cleaning services. Defy has distributed over half a million dollars to these startups and small businesses through business-pitch competition awards and micro-loans. Additionally, participants report a 95% employment rate within 7 months of enrolling in Defy.

Inmates to Entrepreneurs

Inmates to Entrepreneurs provides educational seminars on entrepreneurship, online resources and group-based support to help former inmates start low-capital businesses. This program, based in North Carolina, focuses on giving seminars on starting businesses in local prisons to inmates with six or fewer months to serve. Additionally, the organization brings in ex-offender mentors who run successful businesses. A.J. Ware, a member of the Board of Directors for this nonprofit noted in a TEDxRaleigh talk that participating inmates had less than a 3% recidivism rate. Additionally, former inmates had 75% employment rate within 90 days of release. Ware also stated that in 2012, participants started 14 business. Inmates to Entrepreneurs is unique in its ability to provide large-scale learning. Its online resources and seminars are easier to implement in a variety of locations compared to the other two programs.

For the Future

These three programs illustrate the potential of entrepreneurship programs in reducing U.S. recidivism rates. Expansion of these programs could potentially make the same positive impact on prison populations across the nation. However, it is also possible that the small size of these programs is integral to their success.

All of the programs described here carefully select a small group of participants. It may not be possible to target all parts of the prison population. Many of these programs have a competitive application process and low acceptance rate. Researchers could conduct further studies to see the effects of entrepreneurship programs on a large scale without rigorous selection criteria.

It may be impossible to use these programs to help all prisoners, so how many can these programs help? A 2012 Bureau of Justice Statistics statistic table on federal arrests indicates that approximately 20% of inmates could have entrepreneurial potential based on their crime. White-collar crime and drug trafficking offenses all indicate entrepreneurship potential. Targeting these specific offenders with entrepreneurship programs can help reduce recidivism.

Focusing on a small subset of the population still has long-term beneficial effects for inmates and their communities. PEP has a 340% return on every dollar donated due to reduced recidivism and reliance on government assistance. The potential economic benefit of an expansion of these programs could save the government and taxpayers millions of dollars.

Categories
Government and Policy McNair Center

Patents and the Cancer Moonshot

Patents and the Cancer Moonshot: How Subject Matter Eligibility Affects Research

When standard cancer treatments fail, some doctors are turning to the developing field of immunotherapy. Immunotherapy involves treatments that use the patient’s own immune system to combat cancer. Both pharmaceutical companies and the federal government see the promise in funding research in this innovative field. However, R&D in cancer treatments is a time-intensive process, and it takes months, if not years, before doctors can bring cutting-edge research to their patients.

In January 2016, President Barack Obama called for the Cancer Moonshot to double the rate of progress in cancer research. Vice President Joe Biden traveled across the country and the world (including to Rice University) to collect information on current barriers in cancer research, like inefficiencies in the patent process. However, is the lengthy patent examination process truly what is slowing cancer research?

Accelerating the Process with “Patents 4 Patients”

To help accelerate cancer research, the United States Patent and Trademark Office launched the Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program (also known as “Patents 4 Patients”) in July 2016. This program aims to fast track the review of patents that involve treating cancer using immunotherapy.

Usually, the USPTO examines patents in order of their U.S. filing dates. However, under “Patents 4 Patients,” the Patent Office will grant special status to patent applications relating to cancer immunotherapy. The USPTO aims to finish examining petitions submitted before June 29, 2017 within twelve months of granting special status.

Often, USPTO examination takes a long time. Over the last two years, first office action pendency, or how long it takes to mail a First Office Action after a patent application is filed, takes an average of 16.5 months. Additionally, traditional total pendency, or how long it takes to decide whether to issue or abandon a patent, takes an average of 26.4 months. The new Pilot Program certainly has the potential to reduce these wait times. However, long patent examination periods are not the only barriers that researchers face when developing cancer treatments.

Patent Subject Matter Eligibility: A Look at Section 101

Under Section 101 of Title 35 of the United States Code, “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement” is patent-eligible. Over the past few years, the U.S. Supreme Court has affected what is patentable. Under judicially recognized exceptions, laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas cannot be patented.

Most controversially, in Mayo v. Prometheus (2012), the Court held that correlations between blood test results and patient health were “laws of nature” and that any claims relating to these correlations were patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. Similarly, in AMP v. Myriad (2013), the Supreme Court held that claims relating to isolations of naturally occurring DNA cannot be patented.

Because of these decisions, the USPTO has rejected or abandoned many patents relating to cancer immunotherapy treatment on the basis that they claim laws of nature. According to Patently-O, patent rejections based on Section 101 objections increased substantially after the Mayo ruling from 15.9% of office actions to 86.1%.

For example, the USPTO has rejected patents relating to using gene expressions to predict chances of breast cancer (US20100035240A1) and using a specific protein as an early indicator of cancer (US20150072355A1) because they are applications of laws of nature. However, unlike the USPTO, the patent offices in Europe, Japan, and China have accepted these applications and granted their patents. Current U.S. patent law does not conform with internationally recognized forms of patent eligibility. Stifling the progress of research through patent rejections does not bode well for U.S. cancer patients. By refusing to protect emerging discoveries, the USPTO undermines cancer treatment research, especially in innovative fields like immunotherapy.

More Barriers with the FDA Approval Process

Even after a treatment is patented, it can take years to go through the phases of the clinical trial process. Phase I and II determine the safety and promise of a treatment. Phase III tests the effectiveness of the new treatment compared to existing standards. After successfully going through trials, companies file a New Drug Application (NDA) for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval.

According to DiMasi, Grabowski and Hansen (2016), clinical trials take an average of 9 years and 8 months. After a company submits an NDA, the FDA takes an average of 16 months to review it. This lengthy approval process further slows down R&D in cancer treatment.

Improving Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines

Excludability in fast-growing fields like immunotherapy is extremely valuable in the early stages of R&D. Patents provide stability and a relative level of certainty, so a more quickly granted patent can help firms stake their claim in a developing treatment. However, the higher amount of claims rejections decreases the probability that companies will be able to protect their research. Questions about what is patent-eligible material could discourage investment and deprive researchers of necessary funding.

The Cancer Moonshot initiative is eager to make the patent process more efficient to quicken the progress of cancer treatment. While Patents 4 Patients could potentially help expedite research, long pendency periods are not the only barrier to accelerating research. Many discoveries are patentable, nonobvious applications of laws of nature. Yet, after recent court rulings, the USPTO still rejects their patent applications.

In late 2016, the USPTO held two roundtables to improve the its guidance for patent examiners on subject-matter eligibility.  As judges and policymakers continue to define what can be patented, they must recognize the impact of their decisions on cancer treatment innovation.

Categories
McNair Center Weekly Roundup

Entrepreneurship Weekly Roundup: 1/27/2017

Weekly Roundup is a McNair Center series compiling and summarizing the week’s most important Entrepreneurship and Innovation news.

Here is what you need to know about entrepreneurship this week:


The Right to Entrepreneurship

Tay Jacobe, Research Assistant, McNair Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation

This week, McNair’s Jacobe focuses on the link between entrepreneurship and human rights. While the intersection between activism and entrepreneurship has yet to gain significant traction in the U.S., international collaborations between the two sectors have found success. Jacobe points out that “Human rights and entrepreneurship have the ability to reinforce one another,” citing reports from Fordham University and Pontifical Catholic University of Peru on the potential of human development-centered entrepreneurial ventures. According to Jacobe, U.S policy should reflect a balance that advances entrepreneurship and promotes protection of human rights.


Prairie meets CES: Top 10 trends to watch in 2017

Keith Fix, Contributor, Silicon Prairie News

The annual Consumer Electronic Show (CES) took place earlier this month in Las Vegas. Silicon Prairie’s Fix shares his 2017 predictions for major trends to shake consumer technology, and artificial intelligence, smart homes, intelligent systems (Amazon Echo), wearables, self driving cars, virtual reality, and drones are among his top picks. Fix expects the industry to experience further fragmentation and democratization as startups continue to develop new technologies in order to keep pace with consumer expectations.


In a tech-saturated world, customer feedback is everything

Jeremy Bailey, Contributor, TechCrunch

TechCrunch’s Bailey emphasizes the importance of gauging customer feedback throughout the design process in the tech industry. Too often, design teams undervalue the power of customer interactions. As evidence, Bailey cites AirBnB’s notorious success in growing its consumer base by 200% after meeting for one afternoon with its early users. In order to achieve a dynamic and responsive design model, companies should restructure their “internal bureaucracy” and adopt a “customer-centric” mindset. Bailey suggests that design teams take a simple approach: development of a problem statement, collaborative hypothesis-generation, and constant reevaluation.


Most Small Businesses Create Fewer Than One New Job a Year, Study Finds

Ruth Simon, Senior Special Writer, The Wall Street Journal

According to a recent study from JPMorgan Chase & Co. Institute that spanned the payroll records of 45,000 small business in 2015, small business hiring has been sluggish and inconsistent. In fact, the sector’s median level of employment growth sits at less than one new full time position per year. Although small businesses are often considered the crucial driver of the American economy, most do not expand. While small businesses employ 17% of America’s labor share, 89% employ fewer than 20 workers. Professor Scott Stern, who studies entrepreneurship at MIT, explains that the “belief that entrepreneurship in general is a driver of economic growth and prosperity” might be misguided.


How to Find and Start Your Next Entrepreneurial Effort

Nathan Resnick, Contributor, Entrepreneur

Nathan Resnick, founder of Sourcify, a startup based in Tel Aviv that helps connect entrepreneurs with trusted manufacturers, offers helpful advice for millennial entrepreneurs who are considering their next venture. Resnick advises entrepreneurs to consistently gauge audience feedback during early planning stages as audience responses help narrow the focus of a project.  Resnick emphasizes the importance of an entrepreneur’s willingness to acquire new skills and embrace market competition.


Fintech Companies Could Give Billions of People More Banking Options

Jake Kendall, Author, Harvard Business Review

Harvard Business Review’s Kendall is the director of Digital Financial Services Lab, an early stage incubator that supports entrepreneurs who launch fintech startups in developing companies. Financial technology, or fintech, refers to the high-tech industry involved in computer software development of innovative financial services, such as digital banking programs. Despite investment into fintech increasing eight-fold since 2011, its benefits have largely been restricted to mature economies.

Kendall identifies three main challenges that fintech startups operating in developing countries must overcome: “lack of cloud infrastructure, users who are “less digital” than rich-world users, and users who live economically chaotic lives based primarily in the informal sector.” Still, many entrepreneurs are launching fintech startups to support the 2 billion customers living in regions without formal banking services. Plus, an increasing global trend of mobile phone ownership serves as a promising platform for fintech startups.


3 charts that show the effect of venture fundraising on founder ownership

Adley Bowden, VP of Market Analysis, PitchBook

PitchBook released an article illustrating the diluting effects of venture fundraising on founder ownership. The data used in the graphic analysis are taken from the results of a survey conducted by J.Thelander Consulting’s of 380 private venture-backed companies in the US. Although capital raises are a critical and necessary component of any startup’s success, PitchBook’s Bowden emphasizes that founders should understand the diluting effects of venture fundraising on their equity percentages. According to Bowden, “If all goes well and the company’s value increases, this is a win-win situation, but in the case that things don’t go well, the economics can turn against founders fairly quickly.” The article includes three charts that track founders’ shares in their companies – distinguishing between biotech, medical device, and tech industries – through various funding stages. At pre IPO, all three industries reveal founder ownership percentages below 10%.


15 charts that illustrate how the US venture industry looked in 2016

Kyle Stanford, Analyst, PitchBook

PitchBook also recently released an article that depicts the state of venture capital in 2016. The article features 15 charts of the key performance indicators that are frequently used in measuring VC activity. Utilizing standard industry metrics, PitchBook’s full report offers an in-depth analysis of VC-backed firms in the U.S, including graphics on angel and seed funding, fundraising by quarter, VC-backed exits, and corporate VC participation.


Categories
Government and Policy McNair Center Women

The Right to Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship and human rights are not frequently mentioned in the same conversation in the United States. However, in international policy, human rights and entrepreneurship are linked by many common policy goals, including enforcing the rule of law, improving infrastructure and fighting corruption. Rights necessary to pursue entrepreneurial endeavors–like the right to participate in the economy, the rights to education and information and access to credit–are considered crucial for the world’s poor. By pursuing these goals, human rights activists and entrepreneurship advocates can work together for the good of all.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/UN_Geneva_Human_Rights_and_Alliance_of_Civilizations_Room.jpg The UN Human Rights Council meets here.
The UN Human Rights Council meets in Alliance of Civilizations room in Geneva.

Human Rights

Human rights are defined by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights as “rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language or any other status.” Since the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, criteria has changed. Nonetheless, human rights continue to be a top priority in international law. According to the Department of State, the U.S. places an emphasis on human rights while pursuing foreign policy goals:  “A central goal of U.S. foreign policy has been the promotion of respect for human rights, as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

A Mutually Beneficial Relationship

Human rights and entrepreneurship have the ability to reinforce one another. Hrishikesh D. Vinod of Fordham University examined the policy and advocacy goals of entrepreneurship and human rights, looking for areas for collaboration. He identified five key areas where the goals of entrepreneurs and rights advocates align: promotion of fair competition, creating infrastructure, protecting migration rights, exposing government corruption and preservation of the rule of law. Vinod describes entrepreneurship and human rights as natural allies. He notes that “their cooperation is likely to become a potent force for a worldwide progressive change.”

A study done by the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru helps to demonstrate Vinod’s argument in action. In this study, implementation of a human rights awareness and training campaign in Central Asia by a nongovernmental group increased new micro-businesses by five percent. The researchers who conducted this study urged that “the time is now ripe for acceptance of human rights approach to development of entrepreneurship as the human rights and entrepreneurship share a preoccupation not only with necessary outcomes for improving the lives of the people but also with better processes.”

The Right to Entrepreneurship

The United Nations Development Programme asserts that the rights that allow someone to start a business or become self-employed are “essential for the livelihoods of the poor.” The UNDP stresses that micro-entrepreneurship and self-employment are often the only option for the poor to generate money. Protection of these rights can impact many lives.

The right to entrepreneurship, along with other economic rights, can lead to the promotion of other social and political rights. A study commissioned by the World Bank explains the nature of the relationship: “The importance of participation in economic decision-making demonstrates how civil and political rights and socio-economic rights are mutually supportive, and why human rights recognize them to be interrelated, indivisible and interdependent.” For example, micro-credit and micro-entrepreneurship can increase economic, social and political empowerment of the poor, especially poor women. The Benazir Income Support Program offers small loans to women in Pakistan to pay for expenses and pursue entrepreneurship opportunities. However, this program did more than just bolster these women’s rights to entrepreneurship; the program also resulted in previously “unregistered” women becoming “registered,” giving them access to other social and political rights.

A 2010 study on women in rural Bangladesh also noticed a connection between entrepreneurship and other rights. Bangladeshi women often don’t have the opportunity to become formally involved in the economy. In this study, small bank loans gave them capital to start micro-businesses and increase their economic empowerment. With the ability to participate in trade, women can use their newfound security to pursue other rights as well.

In 2008, the Harvard Human Rights Journal pushed for the promotion of entrepreneurial rights of the poor. In their recommendation for the U.S. Human Rights agenda going forward, they suggested that the U.S. increase micro-entrepreneurship funding for other countries “because we know it works.” They added that it is “up to us to focus our resources on building a new generation of small entrepreneurs in the developing world.”

How Can This Impact Policy Decisions?

Knowing that entrepreneurship and human rights have the power to reinforce one another, we can create policy that accelerates both. When we protect human rights, individuals can feel empowered and safe to explore entrepreneurial endeavors. The trend works in the opposite direction as well; possessing the right to entrepreneurship can empower individuals to pursue the protection of their other rights. Economic power can allow vulnerable individuals to fight more effectively for the promotion of their rights.

This relationship demonstrates an important point for advocates of any cause: it is important think about collaboration whenever possible. There is always potential to find compromises that benefit all, and we have more in common than we expect.

Categories
McNair Center Rice Entrepreneurs

Spotlight on Rice Entrepreneurs: Elevator Pitch Competition

What is an elevator pitch?

The 8th Annual Rice Undergraduate Elevator Pitch Competition was held on Wednesday, November 16. Elevator pitches describe a problem or need and a design solution in 90 seconds or less. Judges evaluated the pitches based on technical merits of the project as well as the team’s perselevator-358249_1920uasive speaking abilities.

Who can participate in the Rice Elevator Pitch Competition?

Although the competition was open to any Rice undergraduate student or team with a business concept or idea, this year senior engineering design teams won each of the ten finalist positions. Some of the ideas pitched in the finals included cost-efficient retractable needles targeted toward patients in India, single-arm propulsion wheelchairs for low-income patients who have shoulder injuries and a mechanical hippotherapy device.

The 2016 winners: Diabetes Compression Sock

Jessica Griffiths, Nikitha Cherayil, Crystal Lin, Amy Fox and Lucas Navarro won First Place and the Popular Choice Award for their pitch. This senior engineering design team pitched their plan to design a more effective compression sock for diabetes mellitus patients. The inspiration for team’s design is personal; a team member’s grandfather had to wear traditional compression socks to prevent blood clots. Her grandfather struggled to put on these socks by himself, and resorted to enlisting family members for help. Many patients forgo the socks altogether due to this struggle. Jessica Griffiths says a redesigned compression sock could increase patient compliance in wearing the socks, which in turn would decrease their risk for blood clots.

Benefits of participating in the elevator pitch competition

Griffiths praises the elevator pitch competition for giving senior design teams a unique opportunity to showcase their projects. “[The competition] was good for us and the other teams to compete in, because we don’t usually compete against each other.” She also recommends that non-senior design teams enter the competition, particularly freshman pasted-image-at-2016_12_15-04_51-pmengineering students enrolled in ENGI 120. She says that “The entrepreneurship at Rice is one of the best in the nation because we have such creative students here, the Elevator Pitch Competition is excellent practice to learn to present not only something you’re working on but also yourself.”

Upcoming Rice Entrepreneurship Event

The 17th annual Rice Business Plan Competition, the world’s “richest and largest” graduate-level student startup competition, will be held April 6-8, 2017. Applications are being accepted through February 10.

Hundreds of teams apply to the competition, hoping to receive some of the over $1.5 million in cash and prizes available. Over 180 corporate and private sponsors provide support to the competition and investors from all around the nation volunteer to judge.

Categories
Government and Policy McNair Center

True Impact of the Bayh-Dole Act

Addressing the True Impact of the Bayh-Dole Act

Since the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, many researchers have debated its contribution to the transfer of technology from universities to industry. Some credit the act as an engine of economic growth responsible for the emergence of the biotechnology industry. Critics say that the law decreased data sharing and basic research and increased health care costs. Others think that the act had little impact and that changes in university patenting were inevitable.

University patenting would have increased regardless of the Bayh-Dole Act. However, the act did help universities license patents, creating positive economic benefits especially in the biotechnology industry.

Background

The Bayh-Dole Act was intended to improve the commercialization of federally funded research.

 Former Senator Birch Bayh and Senator Bob Dole, authors of the Bayh-Dole Act, in Washington D.C. on July 22, 1985.
Former Senator Birch Bayh and Senator Bob Dole, authors of the Bayh-Dole Act, in Washington D.C. on July 22, 1985.

Before 1980, only 5% of government-owned patents were ever utilized in industry. Corporations found it difficult, risky or unappealing to receive licenses for government patents. Several government agencies did not want to give up ownership of patents to universities or corporations. Agencies such as the National Science Foundation tended to give nonexclusive licenses to anyone, unappealing for companies. As it was easy for any company to procure licenses, the system did not incentivize companies to purchase licenses; most wanted exclusive rights.

The Bayh-Dole Act enabled institutions to keep control of patents invented using federally funded research. The university or business could then grant licenses on its own terms. The act also required universities or businesses to have clear patent policies and encourage development of inventions.

Did the Bill Work?

Claims that the Bayh-Dole Act alone led to increased patenting and economic activity surrounding university patenting are not true. Economic models show that the acceleration of patenting would still have occurred even without the act. David Mowery finds that universities increased their shares of patenting from 0.3% in 1963 to 4% by 1999. However, he notes that this increase had already begun before 1980, which indicates that the Bayh-Dole Act was not its cause.

Since the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act, more than 5,000 new companies have formed from federally funded university research. In 2008, more than 600 new university products were introduced to the marketplace. According to MIT, about 30 billion dollars of economic activity per year and 250,000 jobs can be attributed to technology born in academic institutions.

The Bayh-Dole Act may not have been the only contributor, but these large numbers show the importance of university innovation to the economy and make it clear that innovation spurring legislature can have enormous positive effects on economic growth.

Creation of the Biotechnology Industry

From the 1968-1970 period to the 1978-1980 period, biomedical university patents increased by 295%. Biomedicine, an important part of biotechnology, was therefore growing rapidly before the introduction of the Bayh-Dole Act. Most likely increased funding in the field, advances in science and emergence industry interest also played major roles in the growth of university patenting in this area.

The Bayh-Dole Act likely contributed to increased licensing of university biotechnology patents. The ability of universities to license patents created strong incentives for many scientist-entrepreneurs to form companies around their inventions. At least 50% of current biotech companies began as a result of a university license. Additionally, 76% of biotechnology companies have at least one license from a university.

These license based biotech companies have made huge impacts on the economy. University licensing of biotechnology patents generated more than $40 billion in economic activity in 1999. According to Boston University, biotechnology companies represented over 1.42 million jobs in 2008, and the bioscience sector as a whole represents an employment impact of 8 million jobs. By 2009, 1,699 biotech firms generated annual sales of $48.2 billion.

Addressing Criticisms

Critics of the Bayh-Dole Act cite the decrease of data sharing, higher health care costs and a shift away from fundamental research as flaws of the law.

Because researchers patent new inventions, they might tie up research data in patent rights. This could prevent other researchers from accessing this data, slowing the research process. An article by Neil Thompson and others suggest that this isn’t true in practice. They find no evidence that licensing of academic patents limits the sharing of research data. However, their work leaves open whether licenses on research tools lead to restrictions on continual research in a subject.

Many also argue that health care costs have increased as a result of the Act. Biomedical university patents often can be utilized in the process of drug creation. As these discoveries are not final products, companies must license each patent that they use to create a drug. The cost of licensing many of these patents allegedly drives up the cost of the final product, hurting the consumer. The NIH and USPTO have created guidelines to prevent the unreasonable licensing of biomedical patents. However, these guidelines are not all concrete.

While this “royalty stacking” may contribute to high prices, it is unfair to blame the costs solely on the Bayh-Dole Act. Drug development includes a multitude of phases with high costs that extend beyond patents at each step. Many drugs could also not have been developed without the help of the patented technologies.

Finally, others point out that applied research generates more money from patenting. They argue that the Bayh-Dole Act therefore incentivizes universities to focus on applied research instead of basic research. This too is not true. According to the National Science Foundation, the percentage of basic science research from 1980 to 2001 increased from 66.6% to 74.1%. Applied researched actually decreased from 33.4% to 25.9%.

Conclusion

The Bayh-Dole Act was not the sole factor in the increase of university patenting. However, it does appear to have played an important role in the licensing of university patents, particularly in the biotechnology industry.

The biotechnology is sector is large and growing. In 1980, it was almost nonexistent. By 2009, the sales of just 1,699 biotech firms were worth more than 2.5% of U.S. GDP. Academic intellectual property provides the crucial foundation for this sector. Further incentivizes for university patenting and its licensing could therefore drive yet more economic growth.

In addition, the government could encourage the use of unlicensed academic patents by offering tax breaks to companies who commercialize them. It could also encourage universities that excel at technology transfer such as Stanford or MIT to share best practices to other universities.

Categories
Government and Policy McNair Center

Bureaucracy and Public Sector Innovation

The public benefits greatly when there are innovations in how our government approaches policymaking and regulation. However, sometimes barriers created by bureaucratic structures can slow implementation. When regulation and rigidity are holding us back, leaders are responsible for ensuring that our government institutions are allowing for change when our old ways of approaching challenges become antiquated.

Innovation in the Public Sector

Our traditional idea of innovation tends to point science and technology developments, like the iPhone or social media. Innovation within the public sector takes many forms. Journalist Alex Howard broadly defined public sector innovation as any government-created “new idea, technology or methodology that challenges and improves upon existing processes and systems, thereby improving the lives of citizens or the function of the society that they live within.” For example, the introduction of speeding cameras in the late 1980s in the U.S. is a public sector innovation that allowed local police to improve public safety by catching speeders more efficiently.

In the U.S., innovation in public policy takes place in many levels of government. For example, the Rebuild by Design program, launched in response to Superstorm Sandy, created a competition for innovators to develop creative solutions to problems posed by natural disasters. In Boston, this program created Climate Ready Boston (CRB). CRB works with the Boston city government to ensure that infrastructure is created to withstand the impacts of climate change, like rising sea levels and extreme temperatures. Another public sector innovation, the Citizen Archivist Initiative, uses online tools and crowdsourcing to make public records more easily accessible to the public.

United States Efforts to Encourage Public Sector Innovation

Within the last 30 years, federal executive and legislative action have also encouraged innovation within the public sector. For example, the Small Business Research and Development Enhancement Act of 1992 gave the Small Business Administration the ability to conduct the Small Business Innovation Research Program to better serve small businesses. Later, President Bill Clinton’s Executive Order 13103 placed an emphasis on increasing government awareness of computer vulnerabilities, demonstrating that the government would be adapting to new technologies.

President Barack Obama emphasized this as well. In 2009, his administration released the Strategy for American Innovation to increase efforts to support American innovators. In 2015, they released an updated strategy that placed importance on public sector innovation. The new strategy includes “new efforts to make the Federal government more innovative to improve performance and create a better environment for innovation by the private sector and civil society.”

Public Sector Innovation Around the World

Public sector innovation is not unique to the United States. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Observatory of Public Sector Innovation tracks these innovations for each member country.  In Iceland, the Reykjavik Metropolitan Police Department began using social media to connect with citizens. In the United Kingdom, policy innovation took place through the creation of the What Works Network, an evidence-collection initiative to inform policy decisions.

Although there are success stories, innovation in the public sector can be difficult. Government agencies tend to be deeply entrenched in the rigidity of bureaucracy, a structure that can hinder creativity.

How Can We Boost Innovation within Government Agencies

We should want to encourage policy innovation. However, this is easier said than done. The hierarchical layout of many government agencies can be beneficial for clarity and accountability, but it can also inhibit creativity, thereby stifling innovation. Bureaucratic structures can prevent change and creativity. How can we overcome these obstacles?

University of Connecticut and Georgia Tech researchers found that workplace environment can enhance or curtail creativity. Encouraging creativity is essential for innovation. Employees must have the time, physical resources and supportive peers to implement innovative solutions. Within a government agency, these factors could manifest in many forms: Collaborative and open work spaces, efficient technologies like portable laptops and tablets and smart deadlines that are both challenging and realistic can all be effective.

The Importance of Leadership

The barriers to change in the government bureaucracies can make innovation difficult. Leadership plays a large role in whether bureaucratic organizations successfully overcome the obstacles that accompany bureaucracies. Leaders must actively prioritize innovation. The Harvard Business Review suggests, “Leaders of big bureaucracies need to get — and keep — everyone enthused, create and communicate a future vision, assure support during the transition, insist on excellence, create demands on managers and convince everyone of top management’s conviction and commitment to change.”

Simply articulating creativity as a goal can improve creativity of groups. When leaders direct groups to develop creative solutions, their groups generate more creative results than groups who are not given this instruction. If leaders want to see creativity amongst their employees, they should communicate that creativity is a goal for every project.

Hierarchies can often be complex and make it difficult for senior leadership to stay in touch with employees on the lower end of the hierarchy. To combat this, leaders need to make themselves available to employees. Open communication between leaders and lower-level employees can promote development of new ideas.

Further Applications

Any business that is looking to transform their culture to encourage creativity and innovation can use these lessons. Change requires sustained efforts on the part of leadership. With continuing organizational support, the benefits can be great.

Categories
McNair Center Women

Women in Top Tech Companies

In 2014, many of the top tech companies released information on their employee diversity demographics for the first time, bringing attention to the low representation of women in top tech companies. This post looks beyond these numbers. How are tech companies responding to this gender imbalance?

The top five tech companies by market cap are, in order: Apple, Alphabet (Google), Microsoft, Amazon, and Facebook. The gender balance of each company’s workforce is in the table below:

women-workforce-table
Sources are linked for Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, and  Facebook. Data on national averages can be found here and here.

All of these companies are seeking to improve their gender balance and support current women employees. Resource groups, family benefits and smart hiring practices are some of the most common solutions. Even when these efforts are made, the male-dominated work environments can be far from ideal for women at these companies.

Women Employee Experiences

Resource Groups

Resource groups can serve as valuable support networks for women employees. Each of the top tech five has at least one employee resource group for women (Apple: Women@Apple; Google: Women@Google, Google Women in Engineering; Microsoft: Women@Microsoft; Facebook: Women@Facebook, Amazon: Women@Amazon, Amazon Women in Engineering, Women in Finance Initiative). All of these groups share similar goals: empowering women in their workforce and providing networking opportunities.

Many of these resource groups also participate in community outreach, engaging young girls and women and creating programs to foster their interests in technology. (See Women in STEM: Closing the Gap for more information on how community outreach can help change the culture around women in STEM in the United States.)  After recognizing that underrepresentation of women in tech is related to the lack of educational STEM exposure and encouragement for women, Facebook created Computer Science and Engineering Lean-In Circles to support women in college who are interested in CS.

Conferences

Sponsoring women’s tech conferences, like the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing or the Women in Real Life (WiRL) Conference, is also common among these resource groups. Amazon even holds its own conference: Every year, the women’s resource groups at Amazon also team up to host AmazeCon, a diversity conference that focuses on the achievements due to diverse teams at Amazon. The conference draws thousands of experts and leaders to discuss the importance of diversity in creativity and accomplishments.

Microsoft has taken an extra step by creating an innovative program for women, Women Think Next. WTN is a “worldwide community for professional women,” bringing together women from varying fields and backgrounds to network and support one another.

The program is not limited to Microsoft employees. WTN encouraged any and all professional women around the world to join. Women Think Next holds an annual networking conference and provides resources for women throughout the year. The conference also serves as a recruitment event for Microsoft to hire women with strong skills.

Employee Complaints

Everything isn’t always as it seems on paper, though. The male-dominated work environments at these companies can be isolating for female workers. In 2015, Microsoft faced a lawsuit accusing the company of gender-discriminatory policies in employee reviews. In May 2016, a former Facebook contractor published a piece on the sexism she experienced while working on a project team. During September 2016, Apple received criticism in the media for a series of leaked emails that revealed the company’s unresponsiveness to concerns of women employees. Through these emails, women employees described the company’s atmosphere as “toxic,” including workplace harassment and gender discrimination.

It is important to note that these are all anecdotal experiences. Each company responded by emphasizing that they take complaints like these seriously. The sensitive nature of the companies’ investigations of these claims prevents more information from being public.

Work-Life Balance

In American society, women often face conflict between the gender norms surrounding women’s family responsibilities and a desire to pursue a career. Maternity and family leave benefits can be an important factor in a woman’s decision to stay with a company in the long run, especially after she has started a family.

Of all of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development member countries, the United States is the only one that does not mandate paid maternity leave. According to the most recent statistics, only 12% of Americans receive this benefit.

However, within the tech top five, they seem to go far and beyond this requirement. Below is a summary of the family leave benefits for the tech top five.

maternity-leave-chart
Sources are linked for Apple here and hereAlphabet, Microsoft here, here and here, AmazonFacebook, and National Standard

It is not surprising that these companies give generous benefits. Named the best place to work in the U.S. in 2015 by both Forbes and Glassdoor, Google is known for its employee perks. One of Google’s greatest strengths lies in its emphasis on self-study to determine workforce problems and find solutions. In 2007, Google’s People Operations (AKA Human Resources) department noticed that new mothers left Google at twice the average departure rate. In response, the company decided to lengthen paid maternity leave from 12 to 18 weeks. After this change, Google’s departure rate for new mothers dropped by 50 percent.

Controversial Benefits

In 2014, both Apple and Facebook received media attention for their announcements that they would pay to freeze U.S.-based employees’ eggs. Apple announced it as a new dimension to their support for infertility treatments. The move was met with mixed reviews by the media. NBC News praised it as a “game-changing perk,” but The Guardian denounced it as “unreasonable and illogical.” Supporters of the policy argue that it gives female employees more flexibility in their decision to have children. Critics claim that the policy sends the wrong message, implying that if female employees want to succeed at work, they need to delay motherhood.

Parental Equality

It is important to look not only at a company’s maternity leave policies, but at their parental and family leave policies as well. Studies of maternity and motherhood-related policies in other countries, like a mandated child care law in Chile and a reduced hours law in Spain, have shown that offering parental benefits only to women can lead to a decrease in salary and promotion rates of all women at a company, even those who don’t take advantage of them. One approach to combating these negative effects could be making these policies gender-neutral. This would allow for men to take advantage of these policies and reduce gender-discriminatory practices.

Hiring, Promotions and Pay

Facebook has received attention for its hiring point system. Facebook’s recruiters receive points for new hires, but based on the new recruits’ diversity, it can earn recruiters more points. White or Asian males only count for one point, whereas black, Hispanic, or female new hires count for two points. Higher point totals can lead to good performance reviews and bonuses for recruiters. This system incentivizes the creation of a more diverse workforce.

At Google, employee studies showed that women were less likely than men to submit their names for promotions. After Google brought this information to the attention of women employees, this discrepancy disappeared. Google now prides itself in the fact that they promote women and men at the same rates.

In August 2016, Apple announced plans to increase hiring of women and minorities. During the same announcement, they celebrated their official elimination of all gender pay gaps within the company. To maintain this, they have pledged to analyze and correct any gaps as they may arise in the future.

Amazon has also addressed its pay gap. Amazon boasts that women earn 99.9 percent of men’s salaries, explaining that the percentage fluctuates annually, so that it may not always reach a perfect 100 percent. However, Amazon has received criticism on its diversity reports for not including statistics on the percentage of women who make up their tech workforce. This discrepancy has led media to question whether Amazon has something to hide. Until Amazon releases more information, there is no way to know the state of female representation in their tech workforce.

What Does This Mean?

When compared to national averages, women are not as well-represented in the top tech companies. However, these companies provide benefits and services to their women and employees that are above and beyond the norm. Nonetheless, as the anecdotal experiences of the women at Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft have shown, a company can offer great benefits while still tolerating a discriminatory workplace environment.

Regardless, these companies need to develop new strategies  to address low women’s representation. Only time will tell how future policy, research, and incentives will impact women’s employment in the tech workforce.