Recoding America

Jennifer Pahlka is showing how government can change. Political leverage will accelerate that process.

Before and after releasing my short 126-page theory on reforming Washington, I searched for authors who might offer a like or competing perspective. I didn't find any, and that bothered me.

Was I doing as they say in Finland, aiming for the sky because it's hard to miss?  Theory is mist without something to bond to.

Thoughtful studies on government, like "The Government-Industrial Complex,” by NYU Professor Paul C. Light, have no place on Amazon alongside sensations like "The Democrat Party Hates America," by Mark Levine, "Government Gangsters," by Kash Patel, "Saving Democracy,” by David Pepper, or “101 Indisputable Facts Proving Donald Trump Is An Idiot” by Guy Fawkes.

We all get it. Drama is preferred to problem-solving. But what good is a book of arguments that offers no solutions? 

Recently, I found redemption in Jennifer Pahlka's 317-page "Recoding America: Why Government Is Failing in the Digital Age and How We Can Do Better."

Unlike my experience as a tech contractor to the Federal Government, haunted by Washington's wastefulness, Pahlka is haunted by the "government's struggle to participate in the digital revolution." Despite this, the themes in Pahlka's book intersect with the themes of age, complexity, size, and (fundraising-centric) politics examined in my book, The 90-Degree Turn.

While my look at government is broad and for the purpose of identifying a better governmental model for democracy, Pahlka's work is a deep dive into the digital world of government. This is her field of expertise and the source of ever-increasing government spending.

Pahlka observes the government's disproportionate ways and tendency to go all in. "The idea that some choices could be made, and in fact would very much need to be made, was unspeakable, perhaps unthinkable."

Agile software development is a familiar topic in government, but spoken and not practiced. Instead, Pahlka sees a world where the dreaded Waterfall method rules. An outdated lock-step approach to tech development, the Waterfall consistently fails in complex scenarios but invariably leads to greater spending.

We mustn’t forget, spending is Washington’s top priority and the reward for political donations that, remarkably, have risen at the same rate as the national debt since 2000, increasing over 500%.

Whether or not spending always finds its way to the right donor pockets is irrelevant. The habit of reckless spending is deeply ingrained in the way government works, originating in Congress.

In 2009, Pahlka started Code for America, whose mission reads, "We're people-centered problem solvers working to improve government in meaningful ways."

Brava! People solving problems for people is the essence of government. One would think all governments – federal, state, and local – operate with this in mind. Indeed, all will proclaim they do. But as Pahlka points out, the government's answer to most problems is to spend big, not to streamline.

 "A big part of what keeps government from transitioning to agile, user-centered development is that teams are often trying to practice it in a megafunding framework. They are doomed before they even start."

For one who had a ring-side seat during the rollout of the $1.7 billion HealthCare.gov website, Pahlka has witnessed megafunding up close.

While I used HealthCare.gov as a prime example for calculating the Federal Government's overhead costs in the 90-Degree Turn, Pahlka points out something I didn't know. The prime vendor of 34 vendors (and 60 contracts) for HealthCare.gov was CGI Federal. CGI was chosen not because of its skillset but because it had an "indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity" contract with the Federal Government.

Washington's outdated approach to serving the country had, once again, painted the taxpayer into a corner. The Affordable Care Act was passed with considerable fanfare, but the deadline for implementing its website did not afford the time required to shop responsibly.   

Like my experience selling to the Pentagon for Oracle, the fast and safe approach to any acquisition was to latch it onto an existing contract. The formal process could take years and result in a competitor getting the business. This was the dilemma faced by HealthCare.gov, where policy and implementation were grossly misaligned. A website that may not have been needed went full steam ahead.

Like Halliburton's cost-plus-fixed-fee contract in Iraq that bilked billions from taxpayers, CGI Federal found its windfall in HealthCare.gov.

In 2006, working with a team of four, I managed and funded the development of a HIPAA-compliant web service for pain management called ReliefInsite.com (sold to PatientsLikeMe in 2010). Our budget was half a million dollars. Based on this experience and after assessing the complexity of HealthCare.gov, and reading reports about it, I estimated that Healthcare.gov should not have cost more than $10 million. However, in the Waterfall, the original budget for building the HealthCare.gov website went from $97 million to $1.7 billion. CGI’s lobbying investments had paid a big dividend.

Today, I wonder if HealthCare.gov was needed at all. After nine years of operation, only 3.6 percent of the country utilizes it. A September 2022 report from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that out of 299 million health-insured Americans, only 10.9 million entered through the HealthCare.gov marketplace. In January, the Biden Administration reported this number has risen to 16.3 million, but still, that's only 5.4% of the country's insured.

As Palhka points out, choices are not part of the discussion in the Federal Government’s digital world of megafunding where the mentality is to build first and ask questions later. It’s Washington's everyday protocol where the tail wags the dog. Here, politics defeats pragmatism, and deficits are driven through the roof.

What does this tell us about the 9.8 million individuals (defense, civilian, and contractor) responsible for the upkeep of our democratic republic?

Pahlka recognizes the enormity of this task and shows her frustration and a degree of panic. She realizes that time is running out and that the government cannot continue to run as it has in the past. The organization founded by Pahlka, Code for America, has succeeded in creating a vibrant grassroots community for taking on government’s digital future.

A Missing Element

I applaud what Pahlka once called "civic hacking," the significant team Code for America has built, and the TakeAction initiative at the Recoding America website. But I see a missing element.

The missing element is the political leverage for advancing these initiatives and establishing a new digital development paradigm for government. As Pahlka writes: "It's not just one agency that has to adapt and learn but tens of thousands across federal, state, and local government."

Developing an ecosystem of skilled individuals and partners to address the government's digital needs is vital to the efficiency of government and the preservation of our democratic republic. But getting tens of thousands of agencies to benefit from these skills is nearly impossible without a fundamental change in how government operates. 

The bottom-up perspective afforded by the Needs Monitor would give Code for America and Recode America a jump on government's digital future. Enabling involvement in a project before it begins.

Designed as the citizen’s portal to government and the government’s portal to citizens – where the desires of citizens are matched with the resources of government – the Needs Monitor provides an avenue for engaging with government (local to federal) and end-users. It bridges gaps, aligns resources with needs, drastically reduces costs, and provides better outcomes.

This bottom-up approach is a means for pivoting government from yesteryear to tomorrow, from Waterfall to Agile and beyond.  As agencies learn of this model, it becomes easier to convert them when the benefits are not just technical but also political.

I hope Jennifer Pahlka reads this as an invitation to partner. No effort is more urgent than returning value to government and extending the life of our democratic republic. (jbfred@90degreeturn.com)