Bill Overview
Title: President’s Cup Cybersecurity Competition Act
Description: This bill authorizes an annual competition to award prizes, including cash prizes, to U.S. government cybersecurity employees and teams. To carry out the competition, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency may enter into a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement with a nonprofit, a for-profit entity, or a state or local agency to administer the competition.
Sponsors: Rep. Luria, Elaine G. [D-VA-2]
Target Audience
Population: U.S. government cybersecurity employees
Estimated Size: 5000
- The bill is directly aimed at U.S. government employees who work in the field of cybersecurity.
- There are over 2 million federal employees in the U.S., but not all are in cybersecurity roles.
- A smaller number of U.S. government employees specialize in cybersecurity, likely numbering in the tens of thousands.
- Assuming the competition targets those involved with cybersecurity-related roles, this would affect a subset of these government employees.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts U.S. government cybersecurity employees, which is a niche within the broader federal workforce.
- A typical estimate is that about 5,000 employees fall within this target group for the policy.
- We aim to represent diverse perspectives within the structured roles of cybersecurity within government roles ranging from front-line employees to management.
- Not all individuals will be directly affected due to competition constraints and eligibility requirements, thus the impact will be varied among those involved.
- The policy has a constraint of $5M in its first year and $59M over a decade, emphasizing impactful yet selective investments into the competition.
- To cover a range of perspectives in interviews, we included individuals who are eligible and others who are on the periphery or not direct targets at all.
- This selection will highlight both direct participants and those in the general environment who may experience indirect effects within governmental infrastructures or through information awareness.
Simulated Interviews
Cybersecurity Analyst (Washington D.C.)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am excited about the competition as it promises to bring recognition and rewards to cybersecurity professionals.
- This could also boost morale and inspire innovation within our teams.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
IT Specialist (California)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I personally may not be directly involved, this initiative highlights important aspects of our field.
- I believe it might encourage more professionals to specialize further into cybersecurity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Federal Manager (Virginia)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This competition can potentially increase team cohesion and provide significant learning opportunities.
- My concern is ensuring fair budget allocations to manage both current and future fieldwork efficiently.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cybersecurity Intern (New York)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this as an exciting opportunity to learn from the best in the field.
- It seems a bit out of reach for someone like me so early in my career, but it's still inspiring.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cybersecurity Consultant (Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a consultant, this provides an avenue to share experiences and assist the teams involved.
- I would like to see the inclusion of more retired experts to pass on knowledge.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cybersecurity Engineer (Illinois)
Age: 31 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Competitions tend to drive innovation, and federal programs such as this could catalyze new wayfinding in cybersecurity solutions.
- Budgetary concerns remain a shadow side that might limit scale.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Systems Administrator (Florida)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Direct impacts on me are minimal; however, broader exposure and potential improvements within the cybersecurity community could trickle down.
- Government investments such as these signify job stability in our industry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cybersecurity Researcher (Colorado)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The competition could spur further research into unexplored areas, crucial for national security.
- Hopeful it might stimulate public-private partnerships to scale solutions beyond just government use.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Junior Security Analyst (Georgia)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The prospect of participating in a competition with peers across federal agencies is exciting.
- Even as a junior analyst, understanding the landscape of expertise and talent is beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired Cybersecurity Officer (New Mexico)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a positive move that could drive increased engagement in cybersecurity awareness.
- I appreciate efforts that bring attention to critical skill development among upcoming leaders.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $5200000 (Low: $4200000, High: $7200000)
Year 3: $5400000 (Low: $4400000, High: $7400000)
Year 5: $5800000 (Low: $4800000, High: $7800000)
Year 10: $6800000 (Low: $5800000, High: $8800000)
Year 100: $10800000 (Low: $9800000, High: $12800000)
Key Considerations
- The scale of the competition can significantly influence its attractiveness and effectiveness without risking exorbitant cost increases.
- Partnering with various entities can bring expertise and reduce the burden on federal resources.
- The bill will be dependent on securing funding from multiple sources, which may pose challenges regarding financial stability.