In Andrew Yang's recent panel at Monetery Tech Summit, he was making the case that most of these are problems that the free market doesn't reward solving:
These are all important problems, but there have been people working on them for decades already without much progress. What we really need is for either government to tackle these problems itself, or else to put in place market mechanisms that are able to better reward entrepreneurs for solving them.
I didn't watch the linked video, but aren't things like education and affordable housing also problems that governments have been tackling for decades without much progress and even often making things worse?
For example, economists are almost uniformly against rent control, which many cities try to implement. And the flood of government money encouraging educational loans seems to have made college costs spiral.
Personally, I think both the free market and the government can do good and can do bad. Sensible policies and entrepreneurs can help these issues, and bad policies and bad companies can worsen them.
I agree - it would be great for the government to tackle these problems. But looking at the current US government that doesn't look likely. I agree it feels almost impossible for a startup to actually fix some of these problems. But we fund startups who try to do the almost impossible all the time. And sometimes they succeed :)
Having a bunch of white tech dudes show up with a startup to "solve" something like mass incarceration is just absurd, and reveals both the massive naivete of this project and the extent to which startup funding has become a meaningless ponzi scheme with no expectation of profitability.
It's also just insulting to activists and others who have been in the trenches fighting these problems for decades.
As someone who works in technology in the public sector at the state level, let me just say that there is tremendous greenfield opportunity for software startups within existing government programs. Probably every program that government runs requires one or more systems to administer it; these are often painfully legacy systems. We are starting to see startups in some of these niche line-of-business areas (Medical Marijuana licensing, Senior & Long Term Care services, ...) but there are many other areas yet untouched.
The problem is not that there aren't opportunities to improve but that getting those into the hands of users is often nearly impossible. Public officials are not incentivized to improve software or even services. People vote based on emotions and the downside of fucking up a software upgrade is far more politically damaging than the upside of fixing it.
Until the procurement and purchasing process is improved—changes that, in my mind, have to come from within—building better products just doesn't matter all that much. (I say this as someone who co-founded a YC-back company building software for local governments and burned out after 2.5 years trying to sell into them.)
This 10000%. I founded a YC company that's focused on Public Sector, and we see the greenfield opportunity in this space every day.
Only 5% of a given public sector IT's budget is cloud software (most of their software is legacy/on-prem) vs. 50%+ for similar large commercial enterprise.
As governments digitize more and more, they will prefer native "gov first" products. So while it's still early days in these parts of the market, the early winners will be a great position as we move along the tech adoption curve.
It's worth noting too that the tech adoption curve still exists in government, even if it's backwards skewed. And when the early majority hits, given the scale and size, it's going to create some very large and successful companies.
If anybody is planning anything that combines laws, versioning/revision control and public access to legal resources, please get in touch with me. I have quite a bit of experience in that field that I'll be happy to share thoughts and talk shop.
I have been dreaming about a government system of laws that uses open source version control with a github-like ui, maybe even a constitution. If I had my own country, that's how I would do it.
During my work as a legislative aide, I often thought about the benefit of using an almost Github-like system for editing, and making that revision history public when a bill went up for a vote. The requested edits would be issues, when incorporated they would be commits, forks and branches for and merges for committee deliberations etc.
I talked to a few people in NY State about it and it went over like a lead balloon, so I'm rest curious about your experience!
Please feel free to reach out! [email protected] - We build a apigee/mulesoft/domo kinda data management utility for cities, a lot of our recent research has been on api driven compliance as a service.
You're investing in these companies, right? You expect them to make themselves — and you — money?
The problem is what happens when we get to ways to solve the problems these companies are tackling, without the companies. If we enact universal healthcare, will Gusto pivot? If we structure our economy to remove the need for food stamps, will mRelief shut down?
Or will there be attempts to entrench these problems so these companies still have something to solve?
It reminds me of an op-ed about Imperfect Produce destroying local food coops. Their whole pitch to investors is they're environmentally friendly but in practice they are actually entrenching the agribusiness industry by competing with better alternatives:
I have a request too. I’d like to see a reduction in the power and influence of unaccountable billionaires over our public policy.
I wonder if the people who write things like this have processed the fact that they are no longer insurgents, but the entrenched establishment with a very bad history of exploiting the masses for private gain.
Any sane person should instinctively distrust the idea of giving valley tech startups and private equity firms more power over the mechanics of government.
I think this is not the real root of any particular problem. I think entrenched power is good at exploiting weakness in the system. The fact is that the major pro-wealthy policies aren't snuck in as obscure riders to normal policy. Candidates run on a pro-wealthy platform and people cheer for it. The question is why are voters so easily convinced to vote against their interests.
Municipal Government Employee here (from a top 15 US city).
Municipal & State IT systems (particularly around cyber-security) are atrocious (See Atlanta, Baltimore Ransomware). Many of our (and our peers') systems are a hodgepodge of paper, excel sheets, legacy systems, and new off the shelf systems.
At the end of the day, government maintains a strong role in the operations of cities, counties, and states. For example, our city manages the issuance of more than 250,000 permits annually, a road network of more than 10,000 lane miles, and an annual capital infrastructure budget of nearly $1 billion.
There is a very real need for better IT systems that can be customized to meet the needs of differing legacy systems and data structures by municipalities. If our city is any indication of the industry, there is an insane amount of waste and mismanagement that can be attributed to poor/legacy systems or data.
I've tried so many times to work with government entities. It's a complete mess. It seems the only people who want to fix the problems don't work there or are fine with the problems.
I have to confess, this effort makes me very, very nervous.
I already think that business has replaced too much of what government should be doing, and has too much influence over what it hasn't replaced. Also, given the activities coming from the tech industry over the last decade or more, I'm even more nervous that this is aimed in that direction.
Increasing the amount of that doesn't seem wise to me.
Bleah - government shouldn't be the default actor in a space unless it's absolutely necessary. It's actually a good thing if community problems can be solved by smaller organizations which don't need tax money or coercive measures to get things done.
Disregarding the misaligned incentives of for-profit enterprises delivering the kinds of services that are traditionally handled by governments, what evidence is there that technology can materially improve many of these services?
Many of the needs listed in the post (housing, education, food security, etc) are largely challenges of resource allocation. I'm skeptical that a web app can somehow make landowners willing to encourage increasing the housing stock in a city.
It is hard to predict how a small startup can grow to address a huge problem until after they do it. What we want to do is back the founders who are at least trying to solve these problem.
I'm genuinely doubtful that people would want a tech-associated fund to try and mess around running the government. I mean tech doesn't get much of good press lately.
Not that I agree with that sentiment, but "something needs to be done with Facebook!" is one of the few things that both US parties seem to agree on.
A startup working on a secure digital voting system should be one of the top priorities here. As it currently stands, this is what the voting experience is like:
- Always on a weekday, so if you have a job and then a family to take care of after work, good luck finding time.
- Long lines, so that even those who find time are discouraged by standing around in November weather.
- The countless cases of voting locations in minority areas conveniently having broken machines or other barriers that prevent them from voting.
This environment has essentially optimized the experience for one group: retirees who have the time and energy to prioritize their day around voting. It's no surprise that legislation often favors this specific group as a result.
My high-level vision of how digital voting would look:
- A secure open source app that verifies your identity before letting you vote.
- Every candidate on the ballot would have a bio detailing their policies and views, to be filled out by them.
- A digital approach would make it easier to eventually adapt the system to involve things like ranked voting.
This would allow everyone to vote whenever and wherever they want, no relying on external factors like those mentioned above. It also provides one consistent place for every voter to see the same information about the candidates, rather than placing that task in the hands of media and their inherent bias/interests.
That's my 2 cents, I'm excited to see how startups tackle this.
I have been working a project to create a place where youth can exhibit their writing talents outside of the standard educational system. Exceptional students exist in all schools, but in districts like Oakland, their work never gets visibility. We Write Here (http://wewritehere.com) aims to fix that.
Student created content has way more relevance than what the government can mandate. Eventually, we will expand beyond writing. I was a K-12 teacher for the past 10 years, and know this to be a critical need. I have been building this for the past 6 months, and we have gotten 200+ submission, and published and awarded 25+ amazing students.
Does this fit under Government 2.0? Even otherwise, would love to hear what the community feels about it.
I can't help but feel that with better representation (or at least representation that felt they had to actually do right by voters) then we would be in a much better place and many of these problems would be solved through legislation. I know this is glossing over many things like lobbying, gerrymandered areas, favoritism for incumbent candidates, etc. but I really think there's something to getting more people elected who represent the people and have a serious interest in passing legislation that actually helps people and solves major societal issues.
Maybe political training for "everyday" people who pledge to vote the way the majority of constituents want them to (I think there was a YC startup back in the day that had a software platform for something like this)?
Maybe a political donation platform like Crowdpac that only unlocks donations to a politician if they've voted a way they promised to on an issue?
Maybe a way to help bring more people to the polling station during elections to make them more representative of the population (many poorer voters can't make it as in the U.S. these are often during weekdays, have lines, etc. and they can't afford to take off work or the Uber ride to get to the location)
I've been researching the area and am looking to jump on something full time (currently working for the Estonian govt but will move back into the private sector soon) but haven't landed on a final killer idea so more than open to kicking around ideas with anyone who is interested!
Unfortunately I think your point boils down to "if we had better representatives, we'd have a better government". I agree, but at least since Plato, there's been no consensus on questions like "what is a good government", "what makes a good representative", and "how do we identify good representatives".
Once the philosophers give us a decent spec, it should be trivial to implement. ^__^;
I have come to the conclusion that commercial offerings in the government space are just fucking over the taxpayer and should be replaced by open source services maintained in specific ways
- OSS for gov should be seen as a pro bono "year out" for professionals on their journeyman year
- OSS needs to be funded at government level for development and for ops separately. Something like a kickstarter / auction for features and for support
- this oss suite gets to become well known and cross supported - because so many small companies work on it they can become a matrix like support network - no worries that there is not a single huge supplier "supporting" their crap source, here comes a "Guardians of the Galaxy" web of small ships all able to pick up the load from another because they all know this big code base
- This is partly "let's bring our government into the digital age, but more importantly its "let's bring all governments" - including those not so democratic. Look at how the GDPR just made itself the default. Now think of every small interaction with government being designed with individual agency in mind. this is potentially the biggest act of cultural "laying down of rails" since the Napoleonic code. Shall Western democracy do it?
- remember "developer hegemony" - this is where such firms would do well
Any way - bed time so not well put but it all popped into my head so wanted to share
Having been part of the startup community in both Silicon Valley and greater DC, I think this is a much-needed and brilliant effort on the part of YC. I hope it pays off in spades, both for the public and YC.
That said: My hat is off to anyone who manages to cross the divide between silicon valley culture and govt bureaucracy culture. Navigating the differences in those world views is not for the faint of heart.
The solution to income inequality is not going to come from venture capitalists and private companies.
I have an idea for a non-profit that tackles a systemic problem, but I can't help but look at some of the other yc grads and think that their companies seem hopelessly out of touch with the problems they're trying to tackle.
Promise is mentioned as "tackling mass incarceration", but their company seems geared more towards improving efficiency in criminal justice agencies. Do they really think that an app that sends reminders is going to help failure to appear rates? Crime, recidivism, failure to appear etc are deeply rooted in poverty and hopelessness.
How does a reminders app fight any of those problems? People fail to show up to court because they don't see the point, because they think the system is stacked against them, because they can't afford to take the time off of work, because they can't find child care, or because they don't have transportation. It's ridiculous to suggest that an app that sends reminders of court dates will make an impact on any of these problems.
You're absolutely correct that good approaches to social problems (don't want to use the term "solution" which is ill-suited, I think) will not come from VCs: It will come from naive entrepreneurs, naive in the sense that they don't quite appreciate the problem they are tackling, because if they do they would never take it on. A simple fact I learned in volunteering that's applicable here, too, is that in tackling these issues money is not the bottleneck, it's finding people who want to be involved. If you have a good idea in this space it's not hard to secure money from many different foundations and sponsors.
You have focused on a single idea to criticize. It's true that some who venture in this space may be young, privileged, out of touch, etc. I don't think this negates the approach.
Many times what happens with non-profits is that they start great with founders' motivation but have a tough time turning that into a sustained operation.
I think you're making a category error by thinking of companies and countries as completely different.
In the global world countries can be seen as sort of quasi-companies that happen to have monopoly control on a particular area (a monopoly that is slowly dissolving with the internet) + force.
There are many ways a company can help solve problems that we tend to think of as government problems.
1. Government also buys services.
2. Startups can fix the services government does badly as an additive product, e.g. Gusto or TurboTax.
3. Startups can solve government problems directly, e.g. Fedex vs USPS.
The only real difference between the two entities is the power of force that government can apply to make you people their services. Which is sometimes useful, but doesn't make voluntary efforts at solving the same problems a bad thing. It is also not in competition. Whenever I see these arguments being made I see people who would rather limit their work on these problems to voting once a year, instead of actually trying to solve the problems themselves.
> It's ridiculous to suggest that an app that sends reminders of court dates will make an impact on any of these problems.
I listened to a podcast with the founder. She was impressive.
In terms of the impact of reminders, you'd be surprised. One of the student loan guarantors tried a model where they were paid more if they kept people paying their loans. Their program was very successful with just well-timed reminders and calls. It was pretty amazing.
I have an idea for a non-profit that tackles a systemic problem, but the companies you've listed seem hopelessly out of touch with the problems they're trying to tackle.
Promise is mentioned as "tackling mass incarceration", but their company seems geared more towards improving efficiency in criminal justice agencies. Do they really think that an app that sends reminders is going to help failure to appear rates? Crime, recidivism, failure to appear etc are deeply rooted in poverty and hopelessness.
How does a reminders app fight any of those problems? People fail to show up to court because they don't see the point, because they think the system is stacked against them, because they can't afford to take the time off of work, because they can't find child care, or because they don't have transportation. It's ridiculous to suggest that an app that sends reminders of court dates will make an impact on any of these problems. Have you encouraged the people in Promise to talk to experts in this area?
Or is your approach with all of these systemic problems to just make some apps that crunch data and send reminders?
It really does not make me want to apply, given that you are listing a company like this as one of your bright, shining Government 2.0 examples. Not that I would trust a bunch of VC's to tackle income inequality anyway, but it's almost funny how terrible these companies are about missing the mark.
Why'd you name it Government 2.0, if you "do not seek to replace the government and its policymakers but seek to fund startups that create solutions that provide Americans the foundations for economic growth?"
Did you consider any other less misleading/terrifying names?
I find this very exciting - it strikes me that this field could create some tremendously valuable companies, whose impact upon society will be even more valuable than they are. Great work and best of luck to everyone involved in this general space!
[+] [-] Alex3917|6 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhNpbPhFwRc&t=957
These are all important problems, but there have been people working on them for decades already without much progress. What we really need is for either government to tackle these problems itself, or else to put in place market mechanisms that are able to better reward entrepreneurs for solving them.
[+] [-] berberous|6 years ago|reply
For example, economists are almost uniformly against rent control, which many cities try to implement. And the flood of government money encouraging educational loans seems to have made college costs spiral.
Personally, I think both the free market and the government can do good and can do bad. Sensible policies and entrepreneurs can help these issues, and bad policies and bad companies can worsen them.
[+] [-] mwseibel|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tacosx|6 years ago|reply
It's also just insulting to activists and others who have been in the trenches fighting these problems for decades.
[+] [-] marknadal|6 years ago|reply
The free market can reward this, with certain incentive structures ( https://hackernoon.com/wealth-a-new-era-of-economics-ce8acd7... ).
It is Capitalism that doesn't. Neither does Socialism. :/
[+] [-] thomasjudge|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tyre|6 years ago|reply
The problem is not that there aren't opportunities to improve but that getting those into the hands of users is often nearly impossible. Public officials are not incentivized to improve software or even services. People vote based on emotions and the downside of fucking up a software upgrade is far more politically damaging than the upside of fixing it.
Until the procurement and purchasing process is improved—changes that, in my mind, have to come from within—building better products just doesn't matter all that much. (I say this as someone who co-founded a YC-back company building software for local governments and burned out after 2.5 years trying to sell into them.)
[+] [-] corry|6 years ago|reply
Only 5% of a given public sector IT's budget is cloud software (most of their software is legacy/on-prem) vs. 50%+ for similar large commercial enterprise.
As governments digitize more and more, they will prefer native "gov first" products. So while it's still early days in these parts of the market, the early winners will be a great position as we move along the tech adoption curve.
It's worth noting too that the tech adoption curve still exists in government, even if it's backwards skewed. And when the early majority hits, given the scale and size, it's going to create some very large and successful companies.
[+] [-] justaguyhere|6 years ago|reply
How can really small players get into this space though?
[+] [-] mwseibel|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gioele|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bytematic|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] breck|6 years ago|reply
I am highly confident it will work--the code and tech are there I'm just waiting for a strong project leader with good domain knowledge to lead it.
Shoot me an email if interested.
[+] [-] nsriv|6 years ago|reply
I talked to a few people in NY State about it and it went over like a lead balloon, so I'm rest curious about your experience!
[+] [-] neom|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlelonm|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ibeckermayer|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sillypuddy|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jakelazaroff|6 years ago|reply
The problem is what happens when we get to ways to solve the problems these companies are tackling, without the companies. If we enact universal healthcare, will Gusto pivot? If we structure our economy to remove the need for food stamps, will mRelief shut down?
Or will there be attempts to entrench these problems so these companies still have something to solve?
[+] [-] halfjoking|6 years ago|reply
https://newfoodeconomy.org/imperfect-produce-ugly-food-waste...
Startups need to make money, and it will always be way more profitable to sell software to those with power/money than those who are disadvantaged.
[+] [-] CPLX|6 years ago|reply
I wonder if the people who write things like this have processed the fact that they are no longer insurgents, but the entrenched establishment with a very bad history of exploiting the masses for private gain.
Any sane person should instinctively distrust the idea of giving valley tech startups and private equity firms more power over the mechanics of government.
[+] [-] tootie|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Slam7min|6 years ago|reply
Municipal & State IT systems (particularly around cyber-security) are atrocious (See Atlanta, Baltimore Ransomware). Many of our (and our peers') systems are a hodgepodge of paper, excel sheets, legacy systems, and new off the shelf systems.
At the end of the day, government maintains a strong role in the operations of cities, counties, and states. For example, our city manages the issuance of more than 250,000 permits annually, a road network of more than 10,000 lane miles, and an annual capital infrastructure budget of nearly $1 billion.
There is a very real need for better IT systems that can be customized to meet the needs of differing legacy systems and data structures by municipalities. If our city is any indication of the industry, there is an insane amount of waste and mismanagement that can be attributed to poor/legacy systems or data.
[+] [-] yeahitslikethat|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JohnFen|6 years ago|reply
I already think that business has replaced too much of what government should be doing, and has too much influence over what it hasn't replaced. Also, given the activities coming from the tech industry over the last decade or more, I'm even more nervous that this is aimed in that direction.
Increasing the amount of that doesn't seem wise to me.
[+] [-] Uhhrrr|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] astuary|6 years ago|reply
Many of the needs listed in the post (housing, education, food security, etc) are largely challenges of resource allocation. I'm skeptical that a web app can somehow make landowners willing to encourage increasing the housing stock in a city.
[+] [-] mwseibel|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] YjSe2GMQ|6 years ago|reply
Not that I agree with that sentiment, but "something needs to be done with Facebook!" is one of the few things that both US parties seem to agree on.
[+] [-] ghobs91|6 years ago|reply
- Always on a weekday, so if you have a job and then a family to take care of after work, good luck finding time.
- Long lines, so that even those who find time are discouraged by standing around in November weather.
- The countless cases of voting locations in minority areas conveniently having broken machines or other barriers that prevent them from voting.
This environment has essentially optimized the experience for one group: retirees who have the time and energy to prioritize their day around voting. It's no surprise that legislation often favors this specific group as a result.
My high-level vision of how digital voting would look:
- A secure open source app that verifies your identity before letting you vote.
- Every candidate on the ballot would have a bio detailing their policies and views, to be filled out by them.
- A digital approach would make it easier to eventually adapt the system to involve things like ranked voting.
This would allow everyone to vote whenever and wherever they want, no relying on external factors like those mentioned above. It also provides one consistent place for every voter to see the same information about the candidates, rather than placing that task in the hands of media and their inherent bias/interests.
That's my 2 cents, I'm excited to see how startups tackle this.
[+] [-] byoung2|6 years ago|reply
I didn't see the link in the article, but here is the list mentioned: https://www.ycombinator.com/rfs/
[+] [-] laurenWWH|6 years ago|reply
Student created content has way more relevance than what the government can mandate. Eventually, we will expand beyond writing. I was a K-12 teacher for the past 10 years, and know this to be a critical need. I have been building this for the past 6 months, and we have gotten 200+ submission, and published and awarded 25+ amazing students.
Does this fit under Government 2.0? Even otherwise, would love to hear what the community feels about it.
[+] [-] atlasunshrugged|6 years ago|reply
Maybe political training for "everyday" people who pledge to vote the way the majority of constituents want them to (I think there was a YC startup back in the day that had a software platform for something like this)?
Maybe a political donation platform like Crowdpac that only unlocks donations to a politician if they've voted a way they promised to on an issue?
Maybe a way to help bring more people to the polling station during elections to make them more representative of the population (many poorer voters can't make it as in the U.S. these are often during weekdays, have lines, etc. and they can't afford to take off work or the Uber ride to get to the location)
I've been researching the area and am looking to jump on something full time (currently working for the Estonian govt but will move back into the private sector soon) but haven't landed on a final killer idea so more than open to kicking around ideas with anyone who is interested!
[+] [-] mLuby|6 years ago|reply
Once the philosophers give us a decent spec, it should be trivial to implement. ^__^;
[+] [-] dnautics|6 years ago|reply
What is the mechanism by which you propose to enforce this? Who gets to define "do right by voters"?
[+] [-] tptacek|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lifeisstillgood|6 years ago|reply
http://oss4gov.org/manifesto
I have come to the conclusion that commercial offerings in the government space are just fucking over the taxpayer and should be replaced by open source services maintained in specific ways
- OSS for gov should be seen as a pro bono "year out" for professionals on their journeyman year
- OSS needs to be funded at government level for development and for ops separately. Something like a kickstarter / auction for features and for support
- this oss suite gets to become well known and cross supported - because so many small companies work on it they can become a matrix like support network - no worries that there is not a single huge supplier "supporting" their crap source, here comes a "Guardians of the Galaxy" web of small ships all able to pick up the load from another because they all know this big code base
- This is partly "let's bring our government into the digital age, but more importantly its "let's bring all governments" - including those not so democratic. Look at how the GDPR just made itself the default. Now think of every small interaction with government being designed with individual agency in mind. this is potentially the biggest act of cultural "laying down of rails" since the Napoleonic code. Shall Western democracy do it?
- remember "developer hegemony" - this is where such firms would do well
Any way - bed time so not well put but it all popped into my head so wanted to share
[+] [-] jpmattia|6 years ago|reply
That said: My hat is off to anyone who manages to cross the divide between silicon valley culture and govt bureaucracy culture. Navigating the differences in those world views is not for the faint of heart.
[+] [-] nabnob|6 years ago|reply
I have an idea for a non-profit that tackles a systemic problem, but I can't help but look at some of the other yc grads and think that their companies seem hopelessly out of touch with the problems they're trying to tackle.
Promise is mentioned as "tackling mass incarceration", but their company seems geared more towards improving efficiency in criminal justice agencies. Do they really think that an app that sends reminders is going to help failure to appear rates? Crime, recidivism, failure to appear etc are deeply rooted in poverty and hopelessness.
How does a reminders app fight any of those problems? People fail to show up to court because they don't see the point, because they think the system is stacked against them, because they can't afford to take the time off of work, because they can't find child care, or because they don't have transportation. It's ridiculous to suggest that an app that sends reminders of court dates will make an impact on any of these problems.
[+] [-] Jun8|6 years ago|reply
You have focused on a single idea to criticize. It's true that some who venture in this space may be young, privileged, out of touch, etc. I don't think this negates the approach.
Many times what happens with non-profits is that they start great with founders' motivation but have a tough time turning that into a sustained operation.
[+] [-] SRasch|6 years ago|reply
In the global world countries can be seen as sort of quasi-companies that happen to have monopoly control on a particular area (a monopoly that is slowly dissolving with the internet) + force.
There are many ways a company can help solve problems that we tend to think of as government problems. 1. Government also buys services. 2. Startups can fix the services government does badly as an additive product, e.g. Gusto or TurboTax. 3. Startups can solve government problems directly, e.g. Fedex vs USPS.
The only real difference between the two entities is the power of force that government can apply to make you people their services. Which is sometimes useful, but doesn't make voluntary efforts at solving the same problems a bad thing. It is also not in competition. Whenever I see these arguments being made I see people who would rather limit their work on these problems to voting once a year, instead of actually trying to solve the problems themselves.
[+] [-] ericb|6 years ago|reply
I listened to a podcast with the founder. She was impressive.
In terms of the impact of reminders, you'd be surprised. One of the student loan guarantors tried a model where they were paid more if they kept people paying their loans. Their program was very successful with just well-timed reminders and calls. It was pretty amazing.
[+] [-] mwseibel|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nabnob|6 years ago|reply
Promise is mentioned as "tackling mass incarceration", but their company seems geared more towards improving efficiency in criminal justice agencies. Do they really think that an app that sends reminders is going to help failure to appear rates? Crime, recidivism, failure to appear etc are deeply rooted in poverty and hopelessness.
How does a reminders app fight any of those problems? People fail to show up to court because they don't see the point, because they think the system is stacked against them, because they can't afford to take the time off of work, because they can't find child care, or because they don't have transportation. It's ridiculous to suggest that an app that sends reminders of court dates will make an impact on any of these problems. Have you encouraged the people in Promise to talk to experts in this area?
Or is your approach with all of these systemic problems to just make some apps that crunch data and send reminders?
It really does not make me want to apply, given that you are listing a company like this as one of your bright, shining Government 2.0 examples. Not that I would trust a bunch of VC's to tackle income inequality anyway, but it's almost funny how terrible these companies are about missing the mark.
[+] [-] saeedjabbar|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fwip|6 years ago|reply
Did you consider any other less misleading/terrifying names?
[+] [-] blang|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hluska|6 years ago|reply