Engaging Government: ‘Build First’ or ‘Build Together’?

Once you have your vision and are ready to partner with government, how do you actually go about engaging in an effective way?

The organizations we interviewed about government partnerships reported adopting a variety of approaches for engaging government in the solution. At the extremes are two approaches:

1. Build First, by developing and proving a model first and then bringing it to government for consideration and
2. Build Together, alongside government.

While few enterprises exist on either extreme of the spectrum, this framework can help enterprises think more intentionally about their approach and related implications for strategy.

Build First

The Approach:
Social enterprise develops and refines a model or approach through direct implementation and testing. Gathers sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the model works and can be scaled, and brings it to government to propose partnership.

Generally Most Appropriate For:

• Venture start-up phase, when first developing and testing solution.
• When government is contracting for a product, service, or solution.
• When testing a new product, service, or approach in a context without existing government partnership or with little government capacity.

An Example:
When Pratham initially developed its Read India program, it designed and tested its solution independent of government (although with light government engagement and the go-ahead to implement in government schools). Pratham staff and volunteers implemented the model and gathered sufficient evidence (including through randomized control trials) to gain buy-in from the government and see adoption at a larger scale.

Common Pros:

• More room for experimentation and risk-taking.
• Quicker (at the pace of the enterprise) mobility and adaptation.
• Tighter control, providing opportunity for more rigorous testing.

Common Cons:

• May be less aware of nuanced government needs.
• Solution may be viewed as too disruptive by government.
• Can be seen as too much of an ‘outsider.’
• Government can act as roadblock if lack of formal engagement is perceived as an affront.

Build Together

The Approach:
Co-creation in which social enterprise engages government in the early stages of the design and both parties contribute to design, testing, and implementation.

Generally Most Appropriate For:

• Organizations entering new countries but building on a portfolio of work with governments in different contexts.
• When launching new products, services, or approaches within context of existing government partnerships.

An Example:
Fundación Capital takes a strong Build Together approach to developing new products/services. When designing any new solution, such as its LISTA (which in Spanish stands for Achieving Inclusion through Technology and Savings) Initiative, it aims to identify a government partner with whom it can co-design and co-implement from the very beginning. It adopts a similar approach when entering new countries, engaging governments to uncover challenge areas and jointly identifying how Fundación Capital can help co-design solutions. [To learn more about Fundación Capital’s approach to scaling, read the scaling snapshot here.]

Common Pros:

• Shared ownership leading to more durable and sustainable solutions.
• End-product aligned with all stakeholders’ needs.
• Stronger understanding of government needs and operational nuances.

Common Cons:

• Often moves forward at a slower pace.
• Often need some level of reputation or prior evidence to convince government to engage.
• May be difficult to move too far away from existing approaches, given perceived risk.

Graph represents responses to question: “When do you typically engage in government partnerships in your process of product/service development? Choose the place on the spectrum that best represents your typical process.”

Advice from the Field

Interviewees shared tactical advice for other social enterprises determining whether to Build First or Build Together:

1. Align with the proposed government partnership goal. The majority of organizations we interviewed who were pursuing the Adopt end game took a Build Together approach to build ownership and ensure solution alignment with government systems and motivations. On the other hand, most organizations that seek to Outsource should expect to Build First. Governments are more likely to expect proven models with strong evidence and model fidelity at scale when they are contracting for a specific solution.
2. Consider whether the enterprise needs ownership and credit. In order to truly Build Together with government, it is often necessary for social enterprises to give up some degree of control and credit. Said Lisha McCormick, Chief Operating Officer of Last Mile Health, “An organization’s approach needs to align with its values and personality. We aim to support from behind and enable the government to take credit for its programming.” Some organizations are constrained in their ability to Build Together for a variety of reasons, such as a greater need for control or ownership of the implementation (to test variables, prove impact, etc.) or a need to more effectively measure and take credit for impact due to fundraising or brand-building.
3. Balance ‘soft engagement’ and formal engagement for Build First. Organizations we interviewed that took a Build First approach often found opportunities for initial ‘soft engagement’ with government — even when they are not formally engaging government in pilots or initial implementation. For example, VillageReach finds ways to keep government interests and needs top-of-mind as it pilots new solutions. At the initial stages of VillageReach’s Health Centre by Phone initiative in Malawi, it recognized that even though the Minister of Health was very supportive of the idea, it was not yet at a stage where it was reasonable to have the national government actually partner on the pilot. The district health team in the pilot district was the initial key government partner. At the same time, VillageReach set up a project advisory committee that included key voices from the national government to provide formal input and initial approval of the pilot project. Although VillageReach did not ask for much from the advisory committee, it regularly reported to this group — which proved to be an effective way to develop the model with an eye to the needs of its potential future government partners.
   This approach of light engagement has also paid off for Code for America. Initially, its GetCalFresh program was what Founder and Executive Director, Jennifer Pahlka, calls a bit of a “rogue” project, not formally sanctioned by the State of California. “We had enough trust built up with the counties and the State of California that they let us run it at an arm’s length and watched it but did not shut it down. When they could see that, in the counties where we were operating, we were starting to get better outcomes, the State came to us and said we want you to do this everywhere — which is when we asked them to pay us.”

Read next: Determine the type & level of evidence needed for partnership, Define your government partnership role, or return to see all articles in Government Partners.

Access the full PDF of Leveraging Government Partnerships for Scaled Impact here or the key takeaways checklist here.

This article was written by Erin Worsham, Kimberly Langsam, and Ellen Martin, and released in September 2018.