Climate Change, Culture, and Collective Action: A Path Forward

In this series, we discussed climate change from a multitude of vantage points: academia, organizations, corporations, governments, and individuals. We intend to show how each group is distinct in its influence but ultimately interconnected and reliant on each other to propel lasting climate action. 

Regardless of size, every entity is made up of people. Whether it be a community garden led by a few individuals or a larger initiative supported by thousands, people’s desire for climate action is determined by their personal position on the matter. This position is determined by three key factors (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences). 

1. What they regard as truth

2. How they see themselves as individuals and society members

3. How they deal with social issues

What they regard as truth

People surrounded by ideologies suspicious of climate research might feel that sustainable policies and guidelines challenge their beliefs and lifestyles and are less likely to regard climate science as true. 

Advocating for climate science is more difficult when surrounded by non-believers who influence local laws and climate policies. Arguing doesn’t tend to get us very far on these issues, but climate science advocates should try to stay resolute amidst these agonizing conversations. 

Denial is a reaction due to fear of the unknown. Starting a conversation with those who deny climate change by providing facts about the issue is a great way to introduce the topic, and framing the facts in a compassionate, community-focused way can propel mutual understanding. Even still, only engage in these conversations when you feel secure and respected by the other party. 

How they see themselves as individuals and society members

In the United States, people tend to think on the basis of individual impact and personal capability. Culturally, Americans believe that they control their own destiny and are ensured liberty and personal freedoms as a basic right. This can be a motivating and freeing feeling, but when trying to improve systemic challenges, individualism can feel limiting as problems feel too big to conquer. 

How people see themselves as individuals is important because it determines how they perceive their impact on the environment. The amount of pollution reduced when one person ditches their car and commutes by bus is negligible. However, the influence that one person might have on their social circle, when they share their commute-decision with others, can cause a ripple effect of sustainable choices that lead to greater impact. 

Decisions, such as the bus commute example, are called contagious behaviors. This is because people are likely to adopt them after seeing them in practice by someone else (Mic). Other examples include participating in peaceful protests, hosting climate conversations, and posting your sustainability efforts to social media. Rather than solely trying to minimize one’s own carbon footprint to fix the climate crisis, collective action recognizes climate change as a problem that requires the contributions of the whole community and not just a small group. 

When tackling climate change, it is important to avoid an individualistic mindset, and rather think about actions in terms of the greater community. How can you challenge norms and inspire others to adopt more sustainable habits? Are there any environmental problems you can call out to make the people around you more aware of the issue? As a member of a larger entity such as a company or organization, how can you make environmentalism more integral to the discussions being had in the spaces where you have influence?

How they deal with social issues

Some individuals are more likely to respond to social issues than others. This can be for social, cultural, or personal reasons. People who haven’t been directly or majorly affected by the impacts of climate change might feel less of a sense of urgency in the matter. Climate change predominantly affects lower-income communities that don’t have the infrastructure to defend against extreme weather events (EPA Report).

Wealthy CEOs don’t push climate practices forward because they don’t feel the gravity of the issue in the same way other people do. Therefore they will continue to perpetuate bad practices that cause environmental damage because they don’t see the benefit in changing their practices at the risk to their bottom line.   

On the other hand, individuals greatly impacted by the climate crisis might struggle to deal with the reality of climate change as well. It can be overwhelming to process social issues like climate change, leading some to avoid discussing it altogether. Not everyone needs to be a climate activist or expert. That’s why it is important to lean on the experts and people committed to this work in order to push climate action forward. 

Even if you don’t have the bandwidth to lead an initiative, think of the smallest step you can take toward climate action. Who are the people in your community pushing the climate conversation forward? In your organization or company, is there a team of people committed to assessing climate change and your company’s impact? If not, who can you raise this concern to that will have the power to implement change?

In Conclusion

The conversation does not end here. Be on the lookout for more of our work in the sustainability space.

---

Writing and illustration by Nia-Simone Eccleston, Design Strategist Apprentice.

Choice Architecture and Achieving Goals with Apps

The Apple Store offers nearly 2 million apps for download worldwide. Many promise to be personal assistants that help people sleep better, eat healthier, read more, or learn a new skill. But with so many different offerings, how do apps keep users coming back and achieving their goals? Through the art of persuasive design, app designers successfully utilize behavioral science principles to nudge users to do certain actions. 

Nudging is one of the most common ways science is used to influence behavior.  It refers to any influential change in your environment that doesn’t “forbid options or significantly change economic incentives” (Behavioral Economics). 

Receiving bonus points or hearing a celebratory ding after making a selection are examples of nudging in apps that can influence user actions. These features fall under the app’s greater choice architecture, which is the structure app designers create to set the stage for how users navigate the app (Behavioral Economics). There are various nudging techniques, or ways the choice architects design app features, that steer user behavior. 

Users respond to these techniques positively when they feel accomplished or generally satisfied. Apps that help build confidence through positive feedback, relatedness through social engagement, and self-actualization through behavior achievement strengthen the user’s positive associations with the activity and keep them coming back to the app. This idea is called the self-determination theory, which highlights that competence, relatedness, and self-actualization are the three basic psychological needs necessary to maintain psychological well-being during an activity (Behavioral Economics). 

Duolingo, a language learning app, is adept at nudging users to do certain actions and achieve their language goals. It is one of the largest language learning apps in the world with 9.6 million daily active users in 2022 (Statista). Using various nudging techniques, Duolingo keeps users feeling accomplished while satisfying their need for self-determination. 

Framing, a common nudging technique, works by highlighting either positive or negative attributes of a choice to make that choice appealing or unattractive. Duolingo frames the difficult process of language acquisition as an entertaining and rewarding game. User success in the app is measured by his or her ability to play every day to maintain their growing streak.  Duolingo reframed learning and practice into a streak-keeping game that relies on our natural competitiveness. 

The app also utilizes another technique called defaults, an interaction that is already set in the design and doesn’t require the user to make a decision. Upon starting a new language, content is arranged in trees that gradually stack lesson plans. This allows users to focus on language acquisition without worrying about the sequencing of content. This way, they aren’t confused about what they should learn next (Berman, 2021). 

Ultimately, Duolingo is an excellent example of how apps can convince people to achieve positive goals. But not all apps are designed in the best interest of the user. Sometimes persuasive design convinces users to continue bad behaviors, like making purchases (ie. Candy Crush) or perpetuating negative self-image through unrealistic beauty filters (ie. Snapchat). 

App design paves the way for a lot of behavioral design thinking. When it comes to using digital assets to influence user behavior, nudging is a great tool. But nudging techniques can be influential outside of the digital environment, influencing product, system, and service design. In future blogs, we will dive deeper into this, and see how behavioral design can and has influenced people across different sectors and environments.

---

Writing By:

Odiraa Okala, Public Health Innovation Analyst 

Odiraa is a Master of Public Health Candidate at Saint Louis University in Missouri. He has a concentration in Behavioral Science and Health Education and has extensive experience in public policy and human-centered design thinking.

Nia-Simone Eccleston, Design Strategist Apprentice

Nia-Simone Eccleston is a 2022 graduate of the Georgia Tech Industrial Design program, BSc. She has many years of experience in journalistic writing and has contributed as a design researcher for various social impact projects.

Illustrations and infographic by Nia-Simone Eccleston

Behavioral Science and Tech Pilots: Google Glass Case Study

Two decades after Marty McFly Jr. wore video glasses in Back to the Future II, Silicon Valley hoped to change the face of eyewear. In 2014, Google piloted its first edition of smart eyeglasses. This wearable technology presents information, like weather alerts and text messages, directly in the user’s field of vision using augmented reality (Tech Target). 

Because it was a pilot and not a formal launch, the Google team focused on gaining insights into how the consumer interacted with the product, rather than having a perfected version of the glasses at that point (Bentley University).  This was a completely revolutionary technology that the public had not interacted with before, so Google needed to understand how their glasses could fit into people’s lives. This is where behavioral science became integral to the product launch.

“Behavioral science – from cognitive psychology, to behavioral economics, to social psychology – offers a framework to understand the impact that context and cues have on people’s decision making. The greatest innovation in the world will fail if it is not tailored to the context in which it will be used” (Kantar). 

It was pretty clear that soon after the glasses were released that Google had missed the mark. Consumers didn’t really understand how the glasses were supposed to be an improvement from the capabilities of their smartphones. The high-tech “phone for your face” was reminiscent of a Star Trek look that many considered geeky and unflattering to wear in public. Additionally, businesses and organizations worried that the glasses would record everything– a privacy concern for hospitals, casinos, and other places where confidentiality is important (Bentley University). 

Pilots are meant to have issues. Many times these issues translate to insights that the designers can iterate on to create a better and more useful product. By no means was the Google glass a total failure, but if certain behavioral design strategies were implemented at the beginning of the design process, the Google Glass team might have been able to realize the flaws in the product before spending millions of dollars in the piloting phase.

Based on behavioral science principles, we determined two important considerations necessary for the beginning stages of developing any innovation, whether it be a product, service, or system. 

1. Identify the problem you are trying to solve. 

Instead of identifying the problem that Google glass would solve, Google let the users define how the glasses could benefit their lives. When Google released the glasses, they asked consumers to “submit photographs and videos that communicated who they were and what they would do with their Google Glass.” (Market Week).  

Users didn’t respond well to this because they were overwhelmed by the number of options they had. This occurrence is studied in behavioral science and is referred to as choice overload or decision paralysis. When faced with too many options, users actually have a more difficult time choosing anything (The Decision Lab). In the minds of many consumers, having countless choices about what problem the glasses could solve actually ended up being a problem unto itself. 

2. Identify the target audience

In addition to not explaining what the glasses were for, the target audience also wasn’t clear.  According to marketing expert Laura Lake for The Balance Small Business, a target audience is the “demographic of people most likely to be interested in a company's product or service.” 

Google’s first round of testing was initially for software developers. Later on it was opened up to consumers that Google specifically recruited because they had won their contest for the coolest uses of the Google Glass (Market Week). Essentially, Google artificially created a target audience rather than discovering one.

While creating an audience was a deliberate marketing strategy, it likely introduced selection bias. Selection bias is the tendency for researchers to choose who their user group is, and “is usually associated with research where the selection of participants isn’t random” (Institute for Work and Health). If they had organically identified a target audience by doing an initial test on a random user group, Google could have more easily seen how the broad range of audiences responded to the glasses and chosen the most appropriate audience to design for. 

Conclusion

If you feel like these considerations are basic design-thinking principles, you are exactly right! We aren’t reinventing the wheel here, these considerations are popular because they work. Think of them as a launching point to position your offering in context to your user before committing extensive time and money to the project. 

Large companies like Google are not infallible, which demonstrates that even the most powerful technology still relies on the fundamentals of behavioral science in order to be successful in the market.  There is still a lot to be understood about where behavioral science fits into the design process. In the next blog, we will explore the focused and intentional use of behavioral design to achieve positive user outcomes. Be on the lookout for more content as we continue the series!

---

Writing By:

Nia-Simone Eccleston, Design Strategist Apprentice

Nia-Simone Eccleston is a 2022 graduate of the Georgia Tech Industrial Design program, BSc. She has many years of experience in journalistic writing and has contributed as a design researcher for various social impact projects.

Odiraa Okala, Public Health Innovation Analyst 

Odiraa is a Master of Public Health Candidate at Saint Louis University in Missouri. He has a concentration in Behavioral Science and Health Education and has extensive experience in public policy and human-centered design thinking.

The Power of Starting Local: Community Outreach and Climate Action

When we think about climate change, it’s easy to feel hopeless. The greater entities that influence our daily lives, such as corporations and governments, seem to have a stronghold on the path forward for climate action since their influence is so resounding. They inform our everyday decisions, for example: how we recycle, how our food is packaged, and the cost of solar-paneling our roofs. But individual people also have the power to influence the systemic issues that propel climate change, particularly through collective action. In fact, by getting everyday people involved throughout the process, communities can build resilient and established networks that will be pivotal in adapting to moments of instability.

A resilient community network needs a local champion to unite and lead the group. This group can tackle local politics, development and planning, or even grassroots initiatives to improve the local environment. 

For example, a small group in the town of Wellington, UK applied for seed funding so they could build a community garden and wildlife habitat in an abandoned part of their neighborhood. In a report to the Resilience program team member Helen Gillingham underscored how simple it was to get the initiative off the ground (Resilience).

“Sometimes people look at us and seem to imagine we are a massive group with huge knowledge and experience. But we’re not! You only need a few people to lead on projects and then a lot of people who are willing to help and to fit that in around their work.”

- Helen Gillingham

Finding a group of enthusiastic people to initiate a project is an important part of building sustainable communities. Change starts with people who have unique perspectives and creative solutions. In fact, solutions developed by community members can grow into government-funded initiatives. In Wellington, the district and town council bought 63 more acres of land to build a green corridor after the community's initial action (Resilience). Sometimes all that is needed is momentum and a project framework to spur further development. 

Being a champion for local, sustainable development is as much social activism as it is environmental. For years, communities of color in the United States have not had access to nature, with 74% of them lacking significant natural areas or green spaces, compared to 23% of predominantly white communities (The Wilderness Society). 

Environmental activist Leah Thomas is another great example of how a single person can propel change on this issue. As the founder of the Intersectional Environmentalism organization and author of a book with the same name, Thomas believes that environmental action must amplify the contributions of individuals from all backgrounds and abilities. 

By understanding that climate change does not impact every community equally, Thomas has started this organization to make climate action more inclusive and accessible. Her organization provides consulting and support to fashion brands, non-profits, and other companies, helping them raise awareness and expose the public to the contributions all different types of people are making in this space. 

Additionally, Green Heart Louisville is a Kentucky-based organization monitoring air quality in Louisville, a city with a large black and white population. Friend of OSB Dr. Natasha DeJarnett is working directly with this team, investigating how an increase in green canopies will decrease pollution and benefit the local community. The advisory board for this project is composed of local members who work alongside researchers like Dr. DeJarnett to make sure the project’s evolution supports the needs of their community.

Intersectional environmentalism means more people can feel included in the growing movement to protect the planet. Community members of all kinds need to raise their voices and champion the perspectives of marginalized groups who have been historically ignored, making space for different perspectives in the ongoing climate conversation. 

Like with everything else related to climate action, there is no “one size fits all” approach to being an active participant in a sustainable community. If you are interested in supporting your community’s climate initiatives, find opportunities near you by contacting your local non-profit organizations.

---

Writing by Nia-Simone Eccleston, Design Strategist Apprentice.

Illustration by Hannah Ranieri, Design Strategist.

Neo-Retail: The Evolution of the Department Store Experience

Before the internet, the most convenient way to get trendy and affordable clothes was to go to the department store. Now, with Amazon and other online retailers, physical shops must compete with online stores that offer low prices and quick delivery. 

It might be natural to think of online shopping in competition with physical retail. As consumer preferences change, online retailers can more quickly reflect new trends and demands faster than physical stores can restock their shelves. However, physical stores provide consumers the opportunity to see how a product looks and feels in the real world, without having to buy it first. But the future of shopping is not quite so either/or, emerging neo-retail is a new model that blends digital assets and physical experiences, shaking up the conventions of commerce.

Showfields and Neighborhood Goods, department-esque stores in NYC,  are successful takes on this new wave of experiential retail. They are more like showrooms, with exhibits that leave products on display like art. There is an emphasis on perusing the store like a gallery as opposed to combing racks full of the same product. Each brand is highlighted with its own unique story, and consumers can rally behind the mission of a small-scale creator whose product might be in support of BIPOC, LGBT+, feminist, and/or sustainable goals.  

Displays at Showfields, NYC.

Because of the open, museum-style layout of neo-retail,  there is an opportunity to play with the function of the space without upending the store and moving everything around. Outside of business hours, Showfields and Neighborhood Goods quickly renovate their stores into yoga classes, conferences, and family events that locals can enjoy.  This is particularly important in New York City, where real estate is valuable. 

Unlike traditional department stores, neo-retail spaces are designed to host people, not just get paying customers in and out. This reinforces that neo-retail is just as much about community as it is about commerce, which reflects the values of a growing class of consumers who want to feel more connected to the brands they spend money on and the companies they support. 

Screenshot of Showfields website. Event posting.

Window-shoppers can explore products without feeling pressured to make a purchase. In fact, in-store shoppers are encouraged to go to the store’s website and get products shipped straight to their houses. This can help to reduce online returns, which have increased sharply since the pandemic. In fact, around 218 billion dollars of all online purchases were returned in 2021 (National Retail Federation). Neo-retail’s diverse product offerings, from makeup to clothes to baby formula, should help mitigate the issue of returns across the board by giving consumers a one-stop shop for in-store-first, online purchases. In this neo-retail model, backroom inventory does not exist in-store, which makes the goods feel more exclusive, but also positions the customer to shop from the company website after seeing the product in person.

In the 90s and early 00s, shopping was all about buying the right brand. Stores like Abercrombie and Fitch had a monopoly on clothing culture and lifestyle; they promoted white centrism and social exclusivity. In neo-retail, we are seeing micro-brands explode into popularity, with BIPOC and LGBT+ creators popping onto the scene with small-scale, mission-based offerings. Stores like Showfields and Neighborhood Goods give a physical platform to many of these brands that once only had access to digital marketplaces, like Etsy and Instagram. Ultimately, these offerings speak to the lifestyle aspirations of young people that want the products they buy to represent their values and intersectional identity.  

Screenshot of Showfields website. Search products by social mission.

Neo-retail stores like the ones in NYC represent a trend we see across the country. In the decisions people make every day, they want to feel like they are having a positive impact and are contributing to the greater good of society. Additionally, customers want customizable products fast, and at their fingertips, without sacrificing the quality that is often questionable with online ordering.  With these trends in mind,  retailers can begin to rethink their existing digital and physical assets to draw audiences and entice existing customers in new and valuable ways. Neo-retail has the potential to become a more efficient hybrid of existing retail options; Showfields and Neighborhood Goods are just the beginning. At Orange Sparkle Ball we are excited for the opportunity to see and shape what comes next.  

---

Writing and research by Nia-Simone Eccleston, Design Strategist Apprentice.

Photos and research by Ashley Touchton, Design and Startup Strategy Consultant

Introducing: Behavioral Science and Innovation

In our work supporting client innovation, we have seen great ideas fall flat because the design and implementation failed to address user reactions to the solution and, more importantly, how the solution would fit into their daily lives.  From technology startups to government departments, the importance of understanding human behavior is paramount to creating a solution that people actually want and will reliably use. 

Some companies have gotten increasingly good at determining what makes people change their behavior. Research around human decision-making has enabled them to produce products and services with real and sustained value for the end-user, encouraging positive behaviors such as eating healthier or reading more. Conversely, this research can be used to convince consumers to buy products or services that encourage negative behaviors, such as fast-food consumption or prolonged social media use. 

This research is called behavioral science. Properly defined, it refers to the study of human behavior through the use of “systematic experimentation and observation” (Chicago Booth).

This series is going to explore behavioral science as it pertains to innovative technology and strategy. As an impact agency, we are always looking for examples of innovative ways to approach a problem. Innovation, in the OSB definition, is actionable progress. Here at OSB, we stress the importance of finding the smallest, most viable element of a possible solution and testing it, iterating on that opportunity until we have something worthwhile. 

At OSB, we never claim to be subject matter experts, and we refer to behavioral scientists and researchers for the principles that inform our work. Throughout the series, we want to emphasize how anyone can draw from the insights of behavioral science and apply them to their own projects. 

Understanding human decision-making allows us to maximize the positive impact and value of a project. Under the umbrella of behavioral science exists behavioral psychology, economics, and design. In our series, we will be focusing on behavioral economics and behavioral design, the pillars that most impact our work. Their definitions are listed below.

Behavioral economics: the study of choices and how people make them in a world with limited resources, or scarcity (SUE Behavioral Design). 

Behavioral design:  “the systematic understanding of how people think and how they make decisions. This understanding forms the basis of designing interventions that lead to behavioral change” (SUE Behavioral Design). 

Throughout the series, we will provide case studies and examples that bridge the gap between behavioral science and innovation, focusing on how economics and design are pivotal to innovative thinking. 

We are excited to cover a range of topics that help push the conversation about the complexity of human behavior. If at any point in the series you have any questions, feel free to send us an email at hello@orangesparkleball.com

---

Writing By:

Nia-Simone Eccleston, Design Strategist Apprentice

Nia-Simone Eccleston is a 2022 graduate of the Georgia Tech Industrial Design program, BSc. She has many years of experience in journalistic writing and has contributed as a design researcher for various social impact projects.

Odiraa Okala, Public Health Innovation Analyst 

Odiraa is a Master of Public Health Candidate at Saint Louis University in Missouri. He has a concentration in Behavioral Science and Health Education and has extensive experience in public policy and human-centered design thinking.

Public Health + Care Economy

Recap

In May’s Public Health+ Webinar, OSB design innovation strategist Sophie Becker sat down with Sara Gardner and Meghan Kluth from the Center for Public Partnerships and Research at the University of Kansas. In their conversation, they discussed the care economy, a sector that considers the multiple types of care across lifespans and its economic implications.

With a background in working at nonprofits as a fundraiser, Gardner has an economic approach to how to address the problems that affect caregivers, care receivers, and their families. Kluth’s journey in this space started with her diagnosis of a chronic illness in college, which has since strengthened her passion for supporting the accessibility and affordability of care for all those in need of it. 

"There are only four kinds of people in the world: those who have been caregivers, those who are currently caregivers, those who will be caregivers, and those who will need caregivers.” - Rosalynn Carter

Both Kluth and Gardner emphasized that caregiving touches every person’s life. It can look like a parent taking care of their newborn, a teenager caring for their neighbor with dementia, or a family that works together to support someone with limited mobility. Because it is so pervasive, care is one of the biggest sectors of the economy. According to Kluth, it is worth an estimated 648 billion dollars.

In this conversation, Gardner and Kluth focused on the value of accessible quality care, explaining how investing in caregivers will have positive returns in improving the wellbeing of communities. Gardner emphasizes the importance of seeing caregiving as something that doesn’t just affect those in need of care, but the community as a whole.

“We are social beings, we are interconnected, whether we want to think of it or not. To not recognize the ripple effects of our connections when it comes to need for care is really short-sighted” - Sara Gardner

Overall, Gardner and Kluth believe that improving care in communities has to start with involvement from the local level. Attached to the idea of caregiving are many stigmas that challenge community investment in care.

“Slowly chipping away by having a conversation, asking and normalizing the conversation around caregiving is one thing people can do today to push the boulder slowly to break down that stigma” - Sara Gardner

Reflection 

1. Care is universal, almost everyone will be impacted by caregiving in their life.

We will all experience being a part of the care economy. Finding ways of caring that allow people to share that burden can only help improve the experience for everyone.

“When you look at care roles and care needs across life spans, it really represents a significant portion of the population in the United States and across the world. ” - Meghan Kluth 

In public health, we often talk about the importance of examining issues across lifespans. Despite the relative unfamiliarity of the term care economy, it truly is a sector that we all interact with and is prevalent in all our lives. At the start of our lives, the vast majority of us will receive care from a parent or relative as children and adolescents. As we age into adulthood it’s likely that we will join the 53 million Americans who are looking after a friend or relative - with 61% of us doing so while we might be employed in some other capacity (Caregiving in the U.S. 2020). Finally, as we enter old age, particularly in our late 70s and beyond, many of us will receive anywhere from an average of 25-38 hours of care per week from another relative. Most of this will be uncompensated and informal. Addressing issues like caregiver burnout, loneliness, and isolation would benefit us all either now or in the future. Additionally, given that many of us will both give and receive care, finding ways of caring that allow people to share that burden can only help improve the quality and sustainability of that care. 

2. There needs to be consensus and legitimacy around caregiving language.

As noted by Meghan Kluth, one of the issues around intervening in the care economy is the issues that come with defining a caregiver. Many people take on the role of caregiver at various points in their lives. However, only a small percentage of them formally take on the title of ‘caregiver’ or even consider themselves one.

Not having that shared language can make it difficult to assess their needs and formulate a strategy to address those needs. For example, the needs of a stay-at-home mother of four will look very different from a middle-aged man taking care of his elderly parents. Yet, both fit the role of caregiver and will experience stresses and challenges because of that role. As Kluth noted, “We tend to try to put caregiving in a box, but it doesn't tend to fit in one simple box, it’s a complex issue.” 

Kluth noted that there's sometimes a stigma attached to the role that makes people reluctant to consider themselves part of that group. This can also particularly affect those who are being taken care of or helped by a caregiver. Especially if the title isn’t designated as part of a formal job, it can be odd to consider oneself a caregiver.  Yet, the only way to start addressing those needs is to start looking more expansively at the role of caregiving and preparing people for what to expect when they enter into that space, rather than if. 

3. Caregivers deserve adequate compensation.

Another difficulty in understanding and negotiating the care economy is adequate compensation. One of the issues raised in the seminar concerned identifying productivity. After all, there’s a reasonable challenge in identifying how much someone’s time and money is worth without any external reference to work off of. 

This isn’t a new realization. In a phenomenon noted by economists several decades ago, working mothers were noted to put in “second shifts” when taking care of their families after work. All of this work usually goes uncompensated, even though it helps the economy and society as a whole. After all, well-fed and educated children tend to eventually turn into productive members of society (broadly speaking). However, at no point in time do they get compensated for this time spent. 

“We already have the mechanisms to pay caregivers, it’s called Medicaid and Medicare. We have to make some policy changes to open up the billing code. We have to generate the public will to make that happen… I think change happens from the ground up, it's about informing people about giving people the language to use, it's about communities demanding different ways of doing things." - Sara Gardner

Fixing this unjust oversight will require reimagining ways of measuring productivity. Collecting, aggregating, and sharing data will be important for this effort. It will also require a broader reorientation of our ideas around just compensation and what roles in society need to be valued more. While this won’t address all the stresses and challenges that caregivers face, it would be a start toward healthier participation in the care economy for all caregivers and their loved ones. 

---

Writing By:

Odiraa Okala, Public Health Innovation Analyst  & Nia-Simone Eccleston, Design Strategist Apprentice