�鶹������ý

Rhode Island’s foster care system had a problem. And it wasn’t just the hundreds of children in need of safe homes; an overwhelmed Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) staff; or even a lack of potential parents. Rather, the root problem facing DCYF was a confusing, laborious foster family onboarding process—one that left many eager, prepared prospective parents hearing the words, “You’re not qualified.”

That’s what �鶹������ý’s Public Interest Technology (PIT) project found when it was brought on board to help improve Rhode Island’s foster care. Other tech experts looking at DCYF might have tried any number of slick, digital-first solutions—a sophisticated app, perhaps, or an algorithm to match families. PIT, however, chose to open a spreadsheet, fill it with families with pending applications, and invite them to a weekend course where they could complete all their outstanding licensing requirements. Over the course of two days, families completed their training hours, had their fingerprints taken, received on-site physicals, and were given fire extinguishers if they didn’t have them In total, 174 families completed the weekend, opening that many more homes to Rhode Island children in need.

In Rhode Island, fresh eyes and fresh perspectives provided the impetus for change where other models had failed—a lesson we would do well to heed in our hyper-connected era. How governments deal with rapid changes has a real impact on everyday lives—especially those living in the country’s most marginalized and vulnerable communities.

While technology plays an integral role in unlocking opportunities for those who need it most, it cannot serve as a panacea for all public problems. And bringing technical solutions to communities that haven’t asked for them and may not need them might create more problems than it solves, eroding valuable trust that’s hard to earn back.

In charting a new path forward, we must recognize that “technology”—especially as it applies to problem-solving—doesn’t just mean apps, websites, and digital solutions. When bringing technology to government and public problems, we must center our approach around the needs of the community we’re trying to help, and decide from there what solutions are best. In some cases, that may well mean a smartphone app; other times, it could be something as simple as a fire extinguisher.

This approach can radically shift our policy advocacy. It’s easy to get stuck in the same ways of thinking and lose sight of exactly who it is we’re serving, and how best to bring their voices into the conversation. It’s important to consider new ways to unpack complex tech policy issues—and recognize that federal problems ultimately have local frontlines. By partnering with organizations that operate in those spaces, we can introduce fresh perspectives into traditional mindsets, and do it in a way that centers community needs.

Take mass surveillance, for example. Contrary to what you might think, the most intensive scrutiny of individuals and communities (particularly those of color) often isn’t coming from the federal government. Local police departments in many jurisdictions have access to sophisticated technical tools, such as and , that can create a granular and highly invasive surveillance state—often without input from residents or even the local legislature. In light of this, �鶹������ý’s Open Technology Institute (OTI) is working with (COS-DC)—a coalition of local and national policy groups pressing the Washington, D.C. City Council to give residents a say in when and how local government acquires surveillance tech. While it’s crucial to reform federal policy to better safeguard individual liberty, our work with COS-DC is a constant reminder that the challenges surveilled communities face aren’t always going to be resolved on Capitol Hill.

With technology playing an increasingly essential role in delivering policy to people, it’s imperative that civic technologists and policy advocates work in tandem to bring new approaches and solutions to the table. We can move beyond a dynamic where advocates develop policy without visibility into how citizens will access new programs and practices—and where technologists feel cornered into saving poor policymaking through slick design rather than being included from the get-go.

In an effort to fuel such collaboration, �鶹������ý is partnering this year with —a civic tech organization that works to make government services simpler, more effective, and easier to use—to bring a policy development angle to its . Rather than simply patching up existing programs with technology, tech and policy should be brought together from the start to craft and deliver innovative, user-centric government programs from the ground-up.

Technology can often feel like it’s all about solutions: new products and ideas that “disrupt” the status quo and spur monumental change. But in modernization and delivery across the public sector prove that that perspective just doesn’t cut it. Instead, those working in technology and policy must learn from past mistakes, create new approaches to problem-solving that center the needs of communities, and initiate real, lasting change. Public service is ready for an update.