Who controls the data in a program like food stamps?
When the New York Times reported two weeks ago that start-up Propel had its access to food stamps data crippled by Conduent, a government contractor that manages food stamps networks in several states, it seemed like a clear cut case of establishment players using their power to crush innovators. And on the surface, it is. But it’s also more complicated than that.
As more government services bring their programs online, who controls the data in a program like food stamps? When many states initially contracted with companies like Conduent for their services, it’s not clear that the use cases of services like Propel or other third party apps were even considered. In fact, in other areas it’s taken legislation to clarify the use of personal data, as the Times article references:
What Propel is doing in the low-income market is broadly similar to what other companies like Mint and Yodlee have done by offering digital services that let people organize and manage their personal finances. The major banks initially opposed allowing those online services to pull account information, but the Dodd-Frank financial reform law in 2010 included a mandate to allow consumers — and third-party apps on their behalf — to access their data.
A comparable principle of data control should apply to the food stamp program, said Stacy Dean, vice president for food assistance policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning research and advocacy group.
“It should be up to the participants in the program to decide how to organize and use their information,” Ms. Dean said.
The principle of user control seems like a good one here, but in a post-Cambridge Analytica world, we are acutely aware that unfettered access by any third-party app could also be problematic. People with low incomes are routinely subject to scams (often involving identity theft) or just bad deals (like payday loans). As reported in the Times, Propel’s service appears to provide real value to its users; one could easily imagine the same data feed being used by other apps in ways that may not benefit the users.
The central problem in this case is that — as far as we know — the vendor is making the decision to cut off the data, not the government agency responsible for providing the service. The contracts that governments sign with vendors like Conduent must change if we wish to take advantage of the innovations that platforms can enable in a way that truly serves the people programs like food stamps are meant help. Governments are held accountable by voters and must think first about the benefit to those they intend to serve.
Understanding and responding to complex new issues like this is essential if government is going to keep up with the needs of people in the digital age. That’s going to take time. And it’s going to take a lot of thought. California Undersecretary for Health and Human Services Mike Wilkening is one of the people thinking about this, just as I’m sure Mark Zuckerberg and others at Facebook are thinking about the governance of their platform.
Who should determine which organizations or companies get access to food stamp data, or student loan data, or any other data set that government uses or creates to deliver services? Who should bear the costs of creating, maintaining, and managing the governance of the APIs that provide access? What happens when venture-funded businesses rely on this data as their core business model? And if it all goes wrong, who’s left holding the bag?
These kinds of important questions are why we’re gathering leaders in government technology in Oakland at the end of May. If you have a stake in how they are answered, come to the Code for America Summit because….
Mike Wilkening is giving a keynote talk on this exact topic the morning of Friday, June 1st. Come hear how he’s thinking about government’s role in setting the rules that will put the people we serve first.
Rafael Lopez, now with Accenture and formerly head of the Administration on Children, Youth and Families under the Obama Administration, will comment on ways that the government contracting ecosystem needs to change if we are to truly have a government that works for all people in a digital age. That’s on Thursday morning, May 31st.
Catherine Geanuracos of CityGrows will lead a panel on Industry Standards: What Criteria Should Governments Use When Evaluating Technology Vendors? including representatives from Mark 43, Avisare, the City of Los Angeles, and the federal government, on Thursday, May 31st.
And we’re running not one but TWO half-day workshops relevant to this issue, both on Wednesday, May 30th:
A Better Way to Buy IT: Lessons in Modular Contracting, with Alla Seiffert, Jessie Posilkin, and Robin Carnahan, all of 18F.
and
Procuring Better Outcomes: View from the Vendor Front, led by representatives from Ad Hoc, Exygy, and Truss; three vendors who are engaging in these new outcome-focused contracting models.
There’s still time to register.
