People

Government tech ‘shouldn’t be the laughingstock’

Delali Dzirasa on building civic tech companies and fixing tech's diversity problems.

Delali Dzirasa

With Fearless and Hutch, Delali Dzirasa (pictured center) is working on making good government software.

Photo: Courtesy of Fearless

Government websites don't exactly have the best reputation, with crashes all too common when people most need to use them. That annoys Delali Dzirasa.

The government is "servicing an entire nation, and the tech that supports it should not be second class to just about anything," he said. "It shouldn't be the laughingstock."

Dzirasa is trying to make things better with Fearless, a digital services firm focused on civic technology, and civic tech incubator Hutch. Baltimore-based Fearless has built a dashboard for the city's health department, completely redesigned the Small Business Association's website, and built a gateway for processing Payment Protection Program loans — in about 10 days. Dzirasa thinks there's a big opportunity in providing high-quality tech services like this to the federal government, doing well by doing good because, as he notes, the government "tends to pay its bills."

In a conversation with Protocol, Dzirasa explained the opportunities he sees in civic tech, how he's trying to build an ecosystem of like-minded companies, and how tech can start to fix its diversity problems.

The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

Tell me about Hutch, Fearless' incubator.

Our vision is a world where good software powers things that matter. For that to happen, we know that Fearless can't be the only solution. We shouldn't be the only one that's in this fight. So we wanted to figure out how we can bring more people to the table. We want to ensure that as we grow as a tech company, that our community grows as well, and the technical stuff around us continues to grow and thrive as well. And so Hutch was created to help fill that void: for us to groom and grow other civic tech and socially minded tech companies.

There are 13 companies that we're incubating today, and we're really excited about it. We're starting to get a pretty good lock on the curriculum, and the process, and how to grow these companies. It's very much been a labor of love, and we've self funded the entire program to be able to get these companies off the ground.

We've got an ask from all of them. One, that you grow and make an impact, and give back to Baltimore City. And two, as they continue to grow, that they would at some point learn how to do this, and go help others get started — get more people in the game.

Do you take equity in the companies?

We do. For each year they're in the program, it's 2.5%. Some would say, "that's a pretty small chunk … why would you invest so much for so little?" And for us, it is much bigger than just the return. This is going again to our vision: We want to grow great civic tech companies that want to go do good work and help to change this planet. We also want to grow jobs here locally within Baltimore City, and so our hope is that if we can train and we can grow new companies that begin to hire new talent into the city, it elevates our entire ecosystem. They will benefit, the city will benefit, we will benefit from that.

The other reason is these become key partners for us down the road. There's lots of teaming and partnering within the federal and services space in general. And for us, who better to partner with … they know our practices, they know how we work … They become really logical partners for us down the road. It becomes a growth opportunity for us to be able to have really strong relationships and partners with some up-and-coming companies.

Can these kinds of companies ever produce venture-level returns?

Everyone wants to found a company, they want the 10x-plus multiples and return — and that's great. Baltimore, and the East Coast, is so tied to services and the federal government. We've got the largest purchaser on the planet down the street in D.C., with the federal government. So there's plenty of opportunity there for people to be able to come in and provide extremely meaningful impact across federal services.

What we saw was, there aren't a lot of people that are willing or want to support the creation of services-based companies, but it's such a service economy, I think, on the East Coast that it's a missed opportunity. So Hutch was created to help to fill that void. There's no shortage of work, and we've got a customer in the federal government that tends to pay its bills. So we thought it was a relatively good place to start, and we've seen some big success so far.

What's it like having the government as a customer? There's a reputation of it being really slow and unwieldy and bureaucratic.

It is all those things! Federal government can be slow, it can be frustrating. It can be extremely challenging if someone new gets elected and priorities change. But it is also some of the most impactful and most important work that I've ever been a part of: to be able to touch and produce services that, in our opinion, should be world class. We're servicing an entire nation, and the tech that supports it should not be second class to just about anything. It shouldn't be the laughingstock.

There's increasingly talk about the importance of this space — is that all talk, or is it grounded in something real?

I think it's not just rhetoric: There is a movement that has really started in this space. There's a small undercurrent that is growing, relatively quickly, in this sub-sector of IT called digital services. That was largely pioneered by two government organizations: One is called 18F, out of the General Services Administration; and the second one is USDS, the United States Digital Service. When healthcare.gov was rolling out and the thing crashes, the White House started canvassing and going to the tech giants and saying, "Hey, this isn't working, we don't get it. You guys build large-scale applications all the time — come help us." So a small contingent came over and they helped to turn it around and to get it working. And it turned out great, and they said, "I'm going home, Mr. President, good job."

And then the White House did something that was really critical, that kicked off a lot of momentum in this movement. They said, "Wait a minute, that was pretty cool. Why don't we keep doing that?" And they started a startup in the White House called the USDS. It was their attempt to say "we want to think about how we do technology a little bit differently, so we don't have an issue like that in the future." And that has birthed a huge movement of tech companies.

There is a difference between traditional IP and digital services, and digital services — the government cannot find enough of it.

One thing I noticed about Hutch was how diverse the cohort was. What do you think tech companies need to do to fix their diversity issues?

Tech companies have long known that they have diversity problems. And this isn't this isn't a new phenomenon — I think it's starting to shed light right now.

I think a lot of what makes this challenging is you see companies that will say, "Oh, we've got to do better," and they hire a Black or minority diversity officer: "OK now go tell us and go fix our problem." I think it's much deeper than that. Folks will have strategic planning around how they do just about anything — how we're gonna get more market share, how we're going to build our business, how do we beat our competitors, and all these things, right? This seems, from my perspective, for many of them more of a charitable thing — like "oh, let's go give back and let's hire some minorities to show that we've done our part" — and not really valuing, as a generalization, the thought leadership that comes from a diverse cast of people that are at the table.

And so my recommendation to them, always: Look at your team. Who do you surround yourself with? Who's on your executive team, who's on your board? It gives some assurances where it doesn't feel like it's just a handout — it makes it feel like this is a genuine attempt for a company to be different, and to look different and think different, and to value a number of different opinions at the table.

How about on the startup side of things — what do you think needs to be done to encourage more Black founders to start companies and succeed?

[There are] a number of things. Number one is exposure. I'll talk about Baltimore City, which is where we reside: As an example, 40% of homes may not have connectivity or a device. Those kids are not thinking about becoming tech founders. They can't even get to the internet to do their homework. And so there's a huge divide there from an opportunity perspective: There's not an even playing field, even to be able to learn.

The second piece is people being able to see folks that look like them, and understand that this is a viable career, and a viable option for them. The third thing is understanding there is a career, and a financial upside of doing this. A lot of folks are hungry — I need to go work to get food today, I'm going to do whatever I need to do to make sure I can eat today. And so there has to be an ability to connect this to some sort of like economic perspective for people to be interested.

If you do all of those baseline things, then and only then can you start to provide structure and resources and support systems. People are creative, that's not the question. They just need resources to be able to come together, and resources can be in the form of funding, investment that's part of it. It's also in information.

Over on the West Coast, as a company grows, you get a unicorn, they get acquired, those people break apart and they go start other companies — that happens over and over and over again. And so to be able to build that, to be able to see it, you've got to have resources. We need more money but we need access, and we need exposure — all those things are vital pieces.

Climate

This carbon capture startup wants to clean up the worst polluters

The founder and CEO of point-source carbon capture company Carbon Clean discusses what the startup has learned, the future of carbon capture technology, as well as the role of companies like his in battling the climate crisis.

Carbon Clean CEO Aniruddha Sharma told Protocol that fossil fuels are necessary, at least in the near term, to lift the living standards of those who don’t have access to cars and electricity.

Photo: Carbon Clean

Carbon capture and storage has taken on increasing importance as companies with stubborn emissions look for new ways to meet their net zero goals. For hard-to-abate industries like cement and steel production, it’s one of the few options that exist to help them get there.

Yet it’s proven incredibly challenging to scale the technology, which captures carbon pollution at the source. U.K.-based company Carbon Clean is leading the charge to bring down costs. This year, it raised a $150 million series C round, which the startup said is the largest-ever funding round for a point-source carbon capture company.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma

Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol covering climate. Previously, she was a news editor of live journalism and special coverage for The Wall Street Journal. Prior to that, she worked as a staff writer at Wirecutter. She can be reached at mma@protocol.com.

Sponsored Content

Great products are built on strong patents

Experts say robust intellectual property protection is essential to ensure the long-term R&D required to innovate and maintain America's technology leadership.

Every great tech product that you rely on each day, from the smartphone in your pocket to your music streaming service and navigational system in the car, shares one important thing: part of its innovative design is protected by intellectual property (IP) laws.

From 5G to artificial intelligence, IP protection offers a powerful incentive for researchers to create ground-breaking products, and governmental leaders say its protection is an essential part of maintaining US technology leadership. To quote Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo: "intellectual property protection is vital for American innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.
Workplace

Why companies cut staff after raising millions

Are tech firms blowing millions in funding just weeks after getting it? Experts say it's more complicated than that.

Bolt, Trade Republic, HomeLight, and Stord all drew attention from funding announcements that happened just weeks or days before layoffs.

Photo: Pulp Photography/Getty Images

Fintech startup Bolt was one of the first tech companies to slash jobs, cutting 250 employees, or a third of its staff, in May. For some workers, the pain of layoffs was a shock not only because they were the first, but also because the cuts came just four months after Bolt had announced a $355 million series E funding round and achieved a peak valuation of $11 billion.

“Bolt employees were blind sided because the CEO was saying just weeks ago how everything is fine,” an anonymous user wrote on the message board Blind. “It has been an extremely rough day for 1/3 of Bolt employees,” another user posted. “Sadly, I was one of them who was let go after getting a pay-raise just a couple of weeks ago.”

Keep Reading Show less
Nat Rubio-Licht

Nat Rubio-Licht is a Los Angeles-based news writer at Protocol. They graduated from Syracuse University with a degree in newspaper and online journalism in May 2020. Prior to joining the team, they worked at the Los Angeles Business Journal as a technology and aerospace reporter.

Climate

The fight to define the carbon offset market's future

The world’s largest carbon offset issuer is fighting a voluntary effort to standardize the industry. And the fate of the climate could hang in the balance.

It has become increasingly clear that scaling the credit market will first require clear standards and transparency.

Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

There’s a major fight brewing over what kind of standards will govern the carbon offset market.

A group of independent experts looking to clean up the market’s checkered record and the biggest carbon credit issuer on the voluntary market is trying to influence efforts to define what counts as a quality credit. The outcome could make or break an industry increasingly central to tech companies meeting their net zero goals.

Keep Reading Show less
Lisa Martine Jenkins

Lisa Martine Jenkins is a senior reporter at Protocol covering climate. Lisa previously wrote for Morning Consult, Chemical Watch and the Associated Press. Lisa is currently based in Brooklyn, and is originally from the Bay Area. Find her on Twitter ( @l_m_j_) or reach out via email (ljenkins@protocol.com).

Policy

White House AI Bill of Rights lacks specific guidance for AI rules

The document unveiled today by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is long on tech guidance, but short on restrictions for AI.

While the document provides extensive suggestions for how to incorporate AI rights in technical design, it does not include any recommendations for restrictions on the use of controversial forms of AI.

Photo: Ana Lanza/Unsplash

It was a year in the making, but people eagerly anticipating the White House Bill of Rights for AI will have to continue waiting for concrete recommendations for future AI policy or restrictions.

Instead, the document unveiled today by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is legally non-binding and intended to be used as a handbook and a “guide for society” that could someday inform government AI legislation or regulations.

Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights features a list of five guidelines for protecting people in relation to AI use:

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories
Bulletins