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.

Workplace

The tools that make you pay for not getting stuff done

Some tools let you put your money on the line for productivity. Should you bite?

Commitment contracts are popular in a niche corner of the internet, and the tools have built up loyal followings of people who find the extra motivation effective.

Photoillustration: Anna Shvets/Pexels; Protocol

Danny Reeves, CEO and co-founder of Beeminder, is used to defending his product.

“When people first hear about it, they’re kind of appalled,” Reeves said. “Making money off of people’s failure is how they view it.”

Keep Reading Show less
Lizzy Lawrence

Lizzy Lawrence ( @LizzyLaw_) is a reporter at Protocol, covering tools and productivity in the workplace. She's a recent graduate of the University of Michigan, where she studied sociology and international studies. She served as editor in chief of The Michigan Daily, her school's independent newspaper. She's based in D.C., and can be reached at llawrence@protocol.com.

Sponsored Content

Foursquare data story: leveraging location data for site selection

We take a closer look at points of interest and foot traffic patterns to demonstrate how location data can be leveraged to inform better site selecti­on strategies.

Imagine: You’re the leader of a real estate team at a restaurant brand looking to open a new location in Manhattan. You have two options you’re evaluating: one site in SoHo, and another site in the Flatiron neighborhood. Which do you choose?

Keep Reading Show less

Elon Musk has bots on his mind.

Photo: Christian Marquardt/Getty Images

Elon Musk says he needs proof that less than 5% of Twitter's users are bots — or the deal isn't going ahead.

Keep Reading Show less
Jamie Condliffe

Jamie Condliffe ( @jme_c) is the executive editor at Protocol, based in London. Prior to joining Protocol in 2019, he worked on the business desk at The New York Times, where he edited the DealBook newsletter and wrote Bits, the weekly tech newsletter. He has previously worked at MIT Technology Review, Gizmodo, and New Scientist, and has held lectureships at the University of Oxford and Imperial College London. He also holds a doctorate in engineering from the University of Oxford.

Policy

Nobody will help Big Tech prevent online terrorism but itself

There’s no will in Congress or the C-suites of social media giants for a new approach, but smaller platforms would have room to step up — if they decided to.

Timothy Kujawski of Buffalo lights candles at a makeshift memorial as people gather at the scene of a mass shooting at Tops Friendly Market at Jefferson Avenue and Riley Street on Sunday, May 15, 2022 in Buffalo, NY. The fatal shooting of 10 people at a grocery store in a historically Black neighborhood of Buffalo by a young white gunman is being investigated as a hate crime and an act of racially motivated violent extremism, according to federal officials.

Photo: Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

The shooting in Buffalo, New York, that killed 10 people over the weekend has put the spotlight back on social media companies. Some of the attack was livestreamed, beginning on Amazon-owned Twitch, and the alleged shooter appears to have written about how his racist motivations arose from misinformation on smaller or fringe sites including 4chan.

In response, policymakers are directing their anger at tech platforms, with New York Governor Kathy Hochul calling for the companies to be “more vigilant in monitoring” and for “a legal responsibility to ensure that such hate cannot populate these sites.”

Keep Reading Show less
Ben Brody

Ben Brody (@ BenBrodyDC) is a senior reporter at Protocol focusing on how Congress, courts and agencies affect the online world we live in. He formerly covered tech policy and lobbying (including antitrust, Section 230 and privacy) at Bloomberg News, where he previously reported on the influence industry, government ethics and the 2016 presidential election. Before that, Ben covered business news at CNNMoney and AdAge, and all manner of stories in and around New York. He still loves appearing on the New York news radio he grew up with.

We're answering all your questions about the crypto crash.

Photo: Chris Liverani/Unsplash

People started talking about another crypto winter in January, when falling prices had wiped out $1 trillion in value from November’s peak. Prices rallied back in March, restoring some of the losses. Then crypto fell hard again, with bitcoin down more than 60% from its all-time high and other cryptocurrencies harder hit. The market’s message was clear: Crypto winter was no longer coming. It’s here.

If you’ve got questions about the crypto crash, the Protocol Fintech team has answers.

Keep Reading Show less
Latest Stories
Bulletins