How policymaking could be transformed — with just three simple tools

This opinion piece was written by Emma Coleman, Senior Communications Manager at New America's Public Interest Technology initiative. It can also be found in our government innovation newsfeed.

If you try to build a bench with just wood and a staple gun, you could probably do it. But chances are, it won’t look nice, and when people begin to sit on it, there’s a significant chance that it will break. It might even cause unintended consequences, giving people splinters and wasting materials that would have been better suited for other projects.

Too often, we build policy with only wood and a staple gun. It’s functional, but we aren’t using all the resources we could be, and the end result doesn’t help the people leaning on it as much as it could be. How could we expand that policymaking toolbox to include new tools and tactics?

• Want to write for us? Take a look at Apolitical’s guide for contributors

The private sector, and specifically Silicon Valley, can provide some inspiration here. Tech companies have innovated by necessity — their products have to provide the best possible experience to users, or else they leave the service and migrate elsewhere. Because of this, tech companies use tools like user research, multidisciplinary teams and iterative testing — three tools that could greatly improve the policymaking process.

Tech companies use tools like user research, multidisciplinary teams and iterative testing

Central to these three tools is problem investigation and the anticipation of implementation challenges. In the policy space, “users” are those who are impacted by policy, and specifically those who are most vulnerable to significant policy changes. If policymakers want to ensure that their actions achieve the best outcomes for their constituents, there must be a period of community involvement, or user research, with a focus on marginalised members of that community.

For example, if you implement new criteria for public housing without speaking to those who are in public housing, currently applying for public housing, and even those who have been rejected from public housing, that policy will likely cause harm. Compare that process to one in which interviews are conducted with those groups, the central issues with public housing are better understood, and the resulting policy appropriately suits the needs of those who it is intended to serve.

The second tool that can be borrowed from Silicon Valley is less concrete, but equally important. A typical team meeting for product development at a startup includes software engineers, designers, researchers and marketers. No one background can cover the breadth of skills needed to create and unveil a service.

Why not apply the same mentality with policymaking? Policymakers usually receive counsel from lawyers and communications experts, and may hear testimony from subject matter experts, but that leaves so many empty seats at the table. Policy is often much bigger than any single product, so it requires input from multiple sources.

Those same people who populate startups can provide new insights and anticipate the issues that many arise once the policy goes live — the latter of which is critical in a world where every policy has an increasingly complex technical component to its implementation. Remember when Healthcare.gov crashed on the first day of enrolment? That’s what happens when you don’t include technologists in the policy creation process.

Once a policy is implemented, we shouldn’t be afraid to change it

The last option to improve policy isn’t only a tool. It’s also a mindset shift. Once a policy is implemented, we shouldn’t be afraid to change it. In fact, we probably should adapt it regularly to improve its usefulness. And central to our ability to do that is through data collection and analysis.

Policymaking is so often thought of on the spectrum of years or decades, and because of this, passing a law feels like the period at the end of a sentence. Allowing flexibility and the space to iterate off the original idea can make that passage feel more like a semicolon. Policymakers should be working with real time data to monitor if a new law or program is achieving the goals that it said it would — and if it isn’t, figure out what needs to be changed.

The best thing about user-informed policymaking is that it isn’t an abstract concept — it’s happening now. In one recent example, New America Public Interest Technology, in partnership with the Rural Community Assistance Partnership and the National Cooperative Business Association, hosted a Farm Bill Innovation Summit, with the goal of convening rural nonprofit leaders, designers and policymakers to redesign federal legislation.

The group specified challenges that rural communities face (sourced from on-the-ground experience), then engaged in a design thinking process to source new policy solutions that recognised rural America as a place for innovation. They created a series of recommendations, met with congressional agriculture committees and worked directly with Senator Gillibrand to introduce a new bill that better suits the needs of current rural America.

Creating better policy doesn’t rely on complex algorithms or fancy tech tools

Processes like these are happening in cities and states across the country and being put to use on problems big and small. Everyone calls it something different, and the tactics vary, but the core goals of problem investigation, engagement with people on the ground and challenge anticipation remain.

The beauty of these tools is found in their simplicity. Creating better policy doesn’t rely on complex algorithms or fancy tech tools. It relies on a willingness to implement tried-and-tested strategies that can make policy more responsive to its users on the ground. — Emma Coleman

If you'd like to learn more about the work of Public Interest Technology and the efforts to redesign the policymaking process, visit our website and get in touch.

(Picture credit: Flickr/Design Interest Centre)