The bill amends titles 5, 31, and 44 of the U.S. Code to force equity into the core planning, performance, and data governance documents of federal agencies. It requires agencies to include specific goals and performance measures tied to ‘‘equitable provision of services to underserved communities and individuals,’’ to consult outside stakeholders when developing plans, and to adopt formal governance structures aimed at operationalizing equity.
Beyond goal-setting, the bill creates and assigns responsibilities to three coordinating bodies: agency-level Agency Equity Advisory Teams led by Performance Improvement Officers; an Equity Subcommittee inside the Performance Improvement Council; and an Equitable Data Working Group inside the Chief Data Officer Council. It also directs GAO to evaluate the expanded CDO Council functions within four years and prevents termination of the Council until two years after that report, signaling a medium-term federal commitment to integrating equity into data and performance practices.
At a Glance
What It Does
It requires agencies to dedicate at least one, or 20% of, strategic and performance goals to equitable service delivery, mandates stakeholder consultation in plan development, creates agency-level equity advisory teams, and expands duties of the Chief Data Officer Council to prioritize equitable data practices.
Who It Affects
All executive branch agencies with strategic planning and performance reporting obligations, their Chief Data Officers and Performance Improvement Officers, OMB and the Performance Improvement Council, GAO for evaluation duties, and external stakeholders such as community organizations and research partners that agencies must consult.
Why It Matters
The bill moves equity from guidance into statutory requirements, tying it to agency planning, performance management, and cross-agency data governance. That creates new compliance and reporting obligations, channels external input into federal program design, and enshrines an evaluative checkpoint via GAO to assess whether these changes produce more equitable service delivery.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Equity in Government Act alters three statutory regimes to elevate equity as a required planning and operational priority. First, it amends the agency strategic plan statute in title 5 to force agencies to include at least one equity-related goal or a floor equal to 20% of an agency’s goals, to require consultation with nongovernmental stakeholders when preparing plans, and to add clear definitions for ‘‘State,’’ ‘‘underserved communities,’’ and ‘‘underserved individual.’' Those changes embed a statutory baseline for equity goals and open plan development to external partners beyond internal agency actors.
Second, the bill makes parallel edits to title 31 performance and priority-goal provisions. Agencies must allocate at least one, or 20%, of performance and priority goals to improving equitable service provision.
The statutory language extends required consultation when developing performance plans and links agency priority goals to the equity mandate, which pushes equity into the parts of agency management that drive budgeting, evaluation, and executive attention.Third, the bill reorganizes governance and data architecture around equity. It amends the Performance Improvement Officers statute to require each officer to establish an Agency Equity Advisory Team of at least ten members drawn from a defined set of agency roles (for example, counsel, civil rights designee, CFO, CDO, evaluation and data leads, procurement and communications).
It also creates an Equity Subcommittee within the Performance Improvement Council to produce guidance, share promising practices, coordinate with the Chief Data Officer Council’s Equitable Data Working Group, and solicit input from community stakeholders. Title 44 changes expand Chief Data Officer Council duties to emphasize ‘‘equitable’’ use, collection, access, and policymaking, formally create an Equitable Data Working Group inside the Council, require quarterly reports from that working group, and direct GAO to evaluate the Council’s added functions within four years.
The bill prevents the Council from terminating until at least two years after GAO files that report, effectively locking in a review period and continued operations while Congress assesses effectiveness.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill forces agencies to include at least one equity-related strategic goal — or equity goals equal to 20% of all goals, whichever is greater.
Performance and priority goals in title 31 must also include at least one equity-related goal or meet the 20% floor.
Performance Improvement Officers must create an Agency Equity Advisory Team with at least 10 members drawn from specified agency leadership roles (e.g.
CDO, CFO, counsel, civil rights designee).
The Chief Data Officer Council must operate an Equitable Data Working Group that meets quarterly, issues recommendations about equitable data collection and use, and coordinates with the Performance Improvement Council.
GAO must report on whether the Council’s expanded duties improved equitable collection and use of evidence within 4 years, and the Council cannot terminate until two years after GAO’s report is submitted.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Adds equity goals and stakeholder consultation to agency strategic plans
This amendment requires each agency’s strategic plan to include at least one goal — or equity goals comprising 20% of all goals — focused on improving equitable service delivery. It also requires agencies to consult external stakeholders (nonprofits, academic partners, state and local governments, advocacy groups) when preparing plans. Practically, that means strategic plans must both list equity objectives and document outside input; agencies will need processes to solicit, record, and incorporate stakeholder feedback into a statutorily required planning document. The amendment also supplies working definitions for ‘‘State,’’ ‘‘underserved communities,’’ and ‘‘underserved individual,’’ which will guide which populations and jurisdictions the equity goals target.
Inserts equity goals into agency performance plans
This change mirrors the strategic-plan requirement at the performance-plan level: agencies must set at least one or 20% equity-related performance goals for the coming fiscal year. It expands the list of actors agencies consult when developing performance plans to include nongovernmental organizations and local partners, which creates an expectation that performance metrics reflect input from community stakeholders. For program managers and budget officers, this links equity objectives directly to the mechanisms that drive resource allocation and reporting under the Government Performance and Results Act framework.
Requires equity among agency priority goals
By inserting an equity requirement into the agency priority-goal statute, the bill elevates equity targets into a short list of goals that receive concentrated executive attention and cross-agency tracking. Agencies that already publish a small number of priority goals will need to ensure at least one (or 20% of that small set) addresses equitable service provision, forcing senior leadership to prioritize equity in the agency’s top public operational commitments.
Creates Agency Equity Advisory Teams and an Equity Subcommittee
Performance Improvement Officers must establish and head an Agency Equity Advisory Team of at least ten members, drawn from a laid-out list of offices (legal, civil rights, data, evaluation, procurement, communications, user experience, etc.). The statute also creates an Equity Subcommittee within the Performance Improvement Council to help OMB draft guidance on equitable service delivery, share cross-agency lessons, coordinate with the CDO Council, and solicit stakeholder input. The provision effectively builds a sustained intra-governmental forum for translating equity goals into operational guidance and shared practices.
Expands Chief Data Officer Council to prioritize equitable data and adds evaluation requirement
The CDO Council’s statutory duties are amended to require attention to equitable use, collection, access, and policymaking for data. The bill creates an Equitable Data Working Group inside the Council that must meet quarterly and submit recommendations for equitable data practices. It directs GAO to evaluate the Council’s expanded work within four years and bars termination of the Council until two years after GAO’s report, creating a legislated review window and continued council operations while Congress assesses effectiveness.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Underserved communities and individuals — They gain a statutory hook that requires agencies to set goals and performance measures explicitly tied to improving service equity and to consult outside community organizations during planning.
- Community and advocacy organizations — The bill institutionalizes their role in plan and performance development, creating formal opportunities to influence goal design, metrics, and corrective actions.
- Researchers and academic partners — The Equitable Data Working Group and CDO Council directives promote standardized, equity-focused data practices and cross-agency sharing, improving access to structured data for evaluation and policy research.
- Program and performance officers inside agencies — Those tasked with meeting statutory planning and reporting requirements receive centralized guidance, cross-agency practices, and a formal subcommittee to coordinate implementation, which can shorten the learning curve for embedding equity in operations.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies and program offices — They must draft, track, and report additional equity goals and performance metrics, implement stakeholder engagement processes, and stand up advisory teams, all without dedicated appropriations in the bill.
- Chief Data Officers, Performance Improvement Officers, and agency leads — These officials absorb new operational duties (running advisory teams, producing quarterly recommendations, coordinating with councils) and face added coordination and reporting workload.
- Small agencies and offices with limited analytic capacity — Agencies lacking CDOs, robust evaluation teams, or data infrastructure may need to redirect scarce resources to comply, or rely on interagency support, raising short-term implementation costs.
- Privacy and IT operations — Expanding equitable data collection and sharing increases demands on data governance, security, and privacy compliance units; those teams must balance new collection needs against existing privacy statutes and policy constraints.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between making equity measurable and enforceable versus producing superficial compliance: requiring goals and governance structures pushes agencies to act, but without tight definitions, metrics, funding for data capacity, or enforcement mechanisms, the mandate risks becoming a box-checking exercise that consumes agency resources without delivering demonstrable service improvements to the communities it intends to help.
The bill flips equity from an optional priority into a measurable statutory requirement, but it leaves significant design questions unresolved. It prescribes floors (one goal or 20% of goals) but not the substance of those goals, the metrics agencies should use, or how to weigh competing objectives.
That invites heterogeneous implementation: agencies with existing equity analytics may set outcome-oriented goals, while others may adopt simple, process-oriented measures that meet the letter but not the spirit of the law. The consultation requirements expand stakeholder voice but lack prescriptive standards for who must be included, how input is recorded, or how dissenting recommendations are reconciled with program constraints.
Data requirements and governance present another tension. The bill pushes for ‘‘equitable’’ collection, access, and use of data and creates a working group to harmonize practices, but it does not provide funding for expanded data systems, nor does it resolve legal limits on collecting protected-class or sensitive information.
Agencies will face trade-offs between richer demographic data to measure equity and privacy, statutory confidentiality, and the risk of compounding bias through poor data quality. Finally, the statute creates multiple new fora (agency advisory teams, an equity subcommittee, and a working group), increasing coordination needs and potential turf battles among CDOs, civil rights offices, program managers, and OMB if roles and authorities remain ambiguous.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.