Using Behavioral Science Insights To Better Serve the American People

This executive order directs federal agencies to incorporate behavioral science insights—such as automatic enrollment, simplified forms, and improved information presentation—into policy design to improve program outcomes and cost-effectiveness. It establishes the Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST) under the National Science and Technology Council to provide guidance and requires annual implementation reports through 2019.

Federal Register Open PDF 80 FR 56365

Impact dates

Sep 14, 2019
Fourth and final annual NSTC report on agency implementation (through 2019)
Sep 14, 2017
Second annual NSTC report on agency implementation
Oct 30, 2015
SBST Chair issues guidance to assist agencies in implementing this order

Key directives

Agencies encouraged to identify policies where behavioral science insights may improve public welfare, program outcomes, and cost-effectiveness
Agencies shall develop strategies for applying behavioral science insights and rigorously test their impact where possible
Agencies shall streamline processes to help qualifying individuals access public programs and benefits
Agencies shall improve information presentation considering content, format, timing, and medium effects on comprehension and action
Agencies shall review choice architecture including default options in programs offering choices
Agencies shall review policy elements encouraging specific actions and consider use of nonfinancial incentives
SBST to provide advice and policy guidance to agencies under NSTC
NSTC to release yearly implementation reports through 2019
SBST Chair to issue guidance within 45 days of order date

Who is ordered

Timeline

Immediate

SBST Chair to issue implementation guidance within 45 days

Near term (90d)

Initial agency identification of policies suitable for behavioral science application
Recruitment of behavioral science experts

Long term

Annual NSTC reports on agency implementation through 2019
Ongoing integration of behavioral insights across federal programs
Potential structural changes to program design and delivery

Risks & tensions

Language is largely permissive ('encouraged,' 'as appropriate') rather than mandatory, creating implementation uncertainty
Dependent on appropriations and existing legal authorities, limiting enforcement
No private right of action—beneficiaries cannot sue for non-compliance
Potential tension between behavioral 'nudges' and transparency/autonomy concerns not addressed
Vague criteria for 'substantial improvements' may lead to uneven adoption across agencies
SBST advisory role lacks direct enforcement mechanism over agencies