What partnerships have worked well?

1. Cross-Sector Collaborations

   1. Government and civic tech/vendors. Federal cross agency councils along with civic tech organizations (e.g., Nava, USDS, Code for America), and other vendors were recognized as being central to successful projects. Civic tech organizations brought expertise to inform and iterate on human-centered research and service design. 

   2. Academia and research organizations. Research teams (e.g. BGL, Urban Institute, Georgetown) brought expertise in measuring, interpreting, and evaluating launched services, as well as studying administrative burdens. 

   3. Community-based organizations. Community-based organizations were recognized for their value in service delivery, user research recruitment, advocacy, and access to customer voices. 

   4. Private philanthropy. Philanthropic funding has assisted in gaining momentum and catalyzing innovation, particularly at state and local levels, as well as supporting the field through coordination of work and building networks for collaboration. Partnership examples: Several states, including California, Colorado, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island were highlighted for examples of successful partnerships in a variety of public benefits and digital service delivery projects. Some examples include:
      

      HUD HOTMA forms project: HUD, Vargas Premiere Corporate Consultants, FirstPic, Public Policy Lab
      

      New Jersey peer navigators for paid family medical leave: New Jersey DOL, New Practice Lab, Better Government Lab, Burke Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
      

      Income verifications as a service: USDS, CMS, SNAP, Better Government Lab, State and local government, Nava PBC, federal, state and local levels

      
      

2. Product Champions and Partner Buy-In. Effective collaboration depended on in-house champions and partner buy-in, and were strengthened when partners had existing expertise and provided access to data. When a clear product owner – either from a federal team or a local champion – was in place, work moved faster and more effectively.

   
   

3. Trust, Flexibility, and Goal Alignment. Successful partnerships were characterized by shared trust, flexibility, and goal alignment, thriving when government teams acted as strong product owners and maintained trusting relationships with leadership, staff, and vendors.

What tactical considerations are important for good partnerships?

1. Strong Executive Leadership and Dedicated Staff. The group stressed the importance of having a strong executive champion and the benefit of early engagement with decision-makers and those who can remove obstacles. Successful partnerships also benefited from clear expectations and dedicated staff who sustained efforts and prioritized the project.
   

2. Early and Ongoing Communication, Shared Goals, and Trust. Participants emphasized the essential role of communication, highlighting the need for early and consistent engagement to establish shared goals, build trust, and address issues as they arise. Once goals are set, ongoing reflection and course correction are needed, along with maintaining flexibility to accommodate shifting priorities. Trust is essential, ensuring that if states are out of compliance, they don’t fear penalties at the federal level.
   

3. Clearly Defined Roles and Responsibilities. Participants pointed out the importance of clearly defined roles, which could be facilitated through memorandums of understanding (MOUs) between government and organizations and upfront data-sharing agreements.

   
   

4. Quick Wins and Project Evaluation. Small and quick wins were important to alleviate pressure and pave the way for tackling more challenging long-term goals. These quick wins, when paired with data collection and light-weight, flexible methods of evaluation of project impact (or even more near-term measures), serve as effective tools for advocating for future change. The use of philanthropy was also suggested as a strategy to mitigate project risks.
   

5. Human-Centered Design. The group highlighted the significant role of human-centered design (HCD), user research, and staff engagement. Suggestions included providing HCD training for the entire team, including leadership, and consistently sharing end-user feedback with all partners, especially feedback from customers/users most impacted. Frontline staff were recognized as valuable assets in spotting and raising problems, acknowledging their dual role as both staff and customers.
   

What types of questions do we have right now that could be useful to answer?

1. State Capacity

   1. How do you build state capacity in state and local government?

   2. What data infrastructure exists at the state level?

   3. Are state cabinets shuffling to better serve residents? Unlocking data to test and improve services?

   4. How can we fund shared state procurement training (DITAP for states)
      

2. Legislative Role

   1. How do we improve legislative use of evidence for better services / strengthen the feedback loop from customer experience to government

   2. What can Congress do to make implementation easier?

   3. How do you build tech capacity in Congress?

   4. How can we leverage bad legislative changes to drive good things?
      

3. Scaling

   1. How can we scale in a time- and resource-constrained environment?

   2. What parts of our work cannot be productized and scaled?
      

4. Champions and Stakeholders

   1. How do you identify the champions?

   2. How do we navigate permanence vs volatility of champions?

   3. For the stakeholders who we still need to convince on HCD, where are their tables and how do we get a seat?
      

5. Sharing Information and Data Transparency

   1. Are there mechanisms for sharing tools, information, practices?

   2. How do we create faster data sharing and matching?

   3. What is the impact of data transparency? Better compliance? Fewer lawsuits?

   4. What are common data/stats that all benefits programs collect?

      
      

6. Intergovernmental Collaboration

   1. What barriers exist at federal and state agencies that impede effective collaboration (e.g. policy, rules and regulations, agency culture, barriers)?

   2. How might we build understanding between different government spaces state/local/federal in this moment of flux?

   3. How can we make handoffs and transitions lasting?

What types of solutions & learnings have not yet been scaled or replicated?

1. Procurement and Vendor Management. Participants discussed the importance of sharing best practices for managing vendor contracts and procurement resources. Suggestions included creating model contracts and RFP templates, developing a shared vendor evaluation system to flag concerns for other states and agencies, and building a pre-qualified state vendor pool to enhance efficiency and consistency in procurement

   
   

2. Feedback Loops from Implementation to Policy. Suggestions included building a federal-state feedback mechanism to enhance collaboration and responsiveness, proactively reporting learnings and user experience research to Congress, and developing a national scorecard to assess administrative burdens and access outcomes.
   

3. Workforce Development and Leadership. The group suggested simplifying hiring processes to attract individuals with diverse experiences and to make it easier to hire technical experts. It was noted that increasing the number of in-house technical experts could reduce reliance on external vendors. Participants also discussed utilizing public-private partnerships to bring in specialized skills, and leveraging emerging technologies, such as AI, to automate and streamline government operations. Courageous leadership was also highlighted, specifically the need for decision-makers who understand and advocate for human-centered design (HCD). Additional suggestions included having designating legal experts for digital innovation projects and improving digital literacy among program managers.

   
   

4. Knowledge Sharing, Consistency, and Scaling. Workshop participants suggested creating a centralized location for sharing best practices and implementation recommendations, including turning successful pilots into templates, and promoting consistency in use of language and visuals. Other suggestions included open-source tools among states to encourage collaboration and reduce redundancy, and developing state digital services teams to help address unique state-level challenges.

   
   

5. Community Engagement and Frontline Staff. Participants highlighted the importance of engaging with community members and frontline staff, stressing the value of human-centered design (HCD), usability testing, co-working, communicating with customers, and utilizing co-design and other methods to include clients and staff in the process. Additionally, participants mentioned the need for compelling storytelling and transitioning from tech-focused to service design strategies.
   

6. Data Matching and Interoperability of Systems: Efforts should be made to improve data matching, utilizing opt-in strategies, and interoperability of systems.

What are we most afraid of? What will need rebuilding?

1. Loss of Gains of Civic Tech Capacity and Institutional Knowledge. Some examples under this theme include the risk of losing the CX and policy progress made in recent years, as well as the greater civic tech ecosystem. Additionally, there may be an erosion of civil service knowledge and institutional memory. Attendees were concerned that rebuilding efforts may repeat past mistakes or ignore what worked and that a lack of coordination and leadership during rebuilding could lead to chaos and disorganization or more silos. This could also lead to over-correcting what was destroyed and civic technologists spending more time undoing harms than improving services.
   

2. Budget Cuts and Threats to Services and Institutions. Budget cuts and funding instability could threaten essential services (Medicaid, SNAP) and lead to increased poverty, worse health, and other hardship. Meanwhile, the federal government is likely to continue its campaign to undermine safe, trusted institutions, such as higher ed, courts, and states. One participant was worried about the threat of violence to local social services.
   

3. Policy Regression. Participants expressed concerns about the potential rollback of policies that support equitable access to services, the use of data to undermine privacy and civil rights, and the development of a privatized state that caters only to those who can pay.

   
   

4. Rise in Administrative Burdens and Inequity. Examples of this include a deliberate increase in burdens for vulnerable populations, such as in SNAP and Medicaid. If red tape increases, it could cause disproportionate harm to low-resourced, marginalized, and especially noncitizen groups.
   

5. Decline in Trust and Compassion. A collapse of trust in government systems and the rule of law could lead to declining public empathy and compassion and an increase in public cynicism.

What future opportunities in CX are you most excited about?

1. Rebuilding and Reimagining Systems. This can include the chance to re-do broken systems with simplicity and cohesion; craft more inclusive, people-centered service delivery; align around shared priorities and vision; and build a more mature ecosystem that will better withstand hits/change. Participants shared new ideas such as a more unified, user-friendly “one government account” experience, the ability to “just start getting benefits” if one qualifies, and smart procurement contracts.

   
   

2. Cross-Government Collaboration, Increased State Capacity, and New Coalitions. This includes Increased state capacity and leadership at the state and local levels; increased collaboration across federal, state, and local governments; and states banding together to share lessons. Attendees also expressed hope for the formation of new partnerships and civic tech coalitions, increased philanthropic support, and the ability to remake the federal workforce and improve federal hiring.

   
   

3. Scaling What Works. Participants suggested  scaling successful pilots beyond the federal level to communities, learning from past service delivery innovations and applying them system-wide, and embedding CX into the core of policy and operations.

   
   

4. New Technologies and Policy Norms Enable Innovation. For instance, AI, automation, and data sharing could be used to reduce burdens, improve access to services, and improve CX. Similarly, new technologies such as AI could be used to augment caseworker productivity. Perhaps DOGE going around red tape may have an unexpected silver lining if civic technologists are able to similarly avoid barriers  to innovate for good.
   

5. Public Awareness and Engagement. Participants expressed optimism that the public may begin to recognize the value of services when they disappear and create a renewed voter mandate and civic urgency to improve services. They also expressed the need for better storytelling about both the successes and harms of CX disinvestment and the attachment of CX to a political movement.

The event was made possible by generous support from Schmidt Futures and the Walmart Foundation.