‘Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir mens’ blood, and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work."

- Chicago Architect Daniel Burnham, 1910 speech to city planners in London

This quote, highlighted by Code for America (CFA) CEO Amanda Renteria at the annual summit, encapsulated the event’s common themes in Chicago.  Hope was a common one, explicit and implicit throughout the main stage, in the workshops, and in the spirit of the participants.

I have no doubt that the people at the Chicago Marriott last week are on the front lines of delivering government services effectively and human-centeredly, and of leading responsible, human-driven development of AI tools.

This was my third CFA Summit (I’m still a relative rookie), and as usual, it was a healthy mix of bold guiding principles and granular in-the-weeds know-how.  

Very often, at national conferences, participants bring ideas back to their state and have to relay the message or advocate for new policies and procedures.  With CFA, so many participants aren’t just influencers; they’re implementers.  

 The participants in these conversations are often the ones who can make the changes.

Whether we’re talking about a benefits delivery tech stack, the intake process at a government office, or how to improve the procurement process, the participants in these conversations are often the ones who can make the changes.

I attended my first Summit in 2024, when I was concerned that the progress we had made in New Jersey on agile, iterative, and modular modernization focused on end-user needs wasn’t being replicated in other states’ benefits programs, particularly unemployment insurance.  

Four years into learning the lessons of COVID-19 and adjusting our practices, it seemed, for the most part, that the moment to make serious reforms in how the government buys and applies technology had passed, and we would be destined to endless cycles of big-bang waterfall failures affecting states and those they serve.  

I knew I had come to the right place to restore my positivity when the former Deputy Secretary of the United States Treasury, Wally Adeymo, appeared on the screen for a live announcement about the IRS direct file. 

The reaction from the assembled crowd is what I imagine Shea Stadium sounded like when The Beatles arrived. The energy, enthusiasm, and pride pouring out of a thousand fellow nerds, geeks public servants dedicated to a government technology improvement (even one this important) showed me I had found my people.

It was unsurprising that this year’s summit focused on hope. 

So, it was unsurprising that this year’s summit also focused on hope. The highlight of the first day’s main stage program was a talk entitled, ‘The Strategic Power of Hope' from Chan M. Hellman, PhD, Professor at the University of Oklahoma & Director of the Hope Research Center.  

His definition of Hope was ‘the belief your future can be better than today, and you have the power to make it so.’  

For too many government employees and customers, hope can be difficult to come by when you are stuck in an entrenched punishment loop of benefits delivery or misguided policy implementation. 

One of the main points was that hope wasn’t a feeling, but ‘a way of thinking…a cognitive process and therefore can be taught’.  This framing can empower all of us to have a positive impact on ‘The Future we Build' (the summit's slogan).

There were no better instructors to ‘teach hope’ than the dozens of dedicated public servants who shared best practices and lessons learned over 62 workshops, lightning talks, panel discussions, and demo lab presentations.  

For me, the best way to teach hope is to show that an ideal or improvement can be achieved in the often difficult world of government implementation, even amid the entrenched barriers that come with it.

I was surprised to feel such optimism from a workshop entitled ‘Leaping the Pilot-to-Procurement Divide: Tools to Scale Innovation.’ 

Immediately after the inspiring lecture on hope was a workshop on a topic that so often makes policymakers feel hopeless: government technology procurement.  I was definitely surprised to feel such optimism from a workshop entitled ‘Leaping the Pilot-to-Procurement Divide: Tools to Scale Innovation.’ 

Usually, when I attend a workshop on a seemingly intractable problem across the country, I leave frustrated because the example(s) they focused on weren’t pertinent to my jurisdiction for one reason or another.  

In this workshop, Julia Fusfeld and Calgary Haines Trautman from the New York City Mayor’s Office of Contract Services outlined their ‘journey to escape “pilot purgatory,” where promising technologies often fail to advance due to regulatory, procedural, and cultural barriers.’  While the solutions they discussed were specific to New York City, what gave me hope was the replicable process they demonstrated, which could be used in any jurisdiction.   

Hearing from so many of their partners in city government and spurred by a Pilot NYC report on making New York City a ‘Global Hub of Innovation’ which found procurement modernization as a key recommendation for their roadmap, they got to work uncovering the legal underpinnings of various procurement steps in federal and state laws, NY City Charter and the New York City Procurement Policy Board (PPB) rules.  They compared those learnings with the policies in other states and charted a path to reform.  

In New York City, improvements led to expanded use of ‘challenge-based procurement’ where vendors propose and demonstrate solutions, as opposed to being evaluated on written proposals.

The long-term improvements from this process were realized after PPB changes, which may not have an exact equivalent in other jurisdictions, but the plan and path are replicable anywhere.  In New York City, it led to expanded use of ‘challenge-based procurement’ where vendors propose and demonstrate solutions, as opposed to giving quotes and being evaluated on written proposals.  This helps the City, and hopefully other jurisdictions, make large investments based on actual products and success rather than hypothetical bid submissions.

Before this post becomes longer than the Summit itself, one of the final day’s agenda items was a mainstage conversation with Former U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg.  

He first focused on the fact that with the many serious disruptions in the federal and state political landscape, the new focus on government tech, and, of course, AI, we have a ‘clean sheet’ to change how things are done when it comes to the delivery of services and benefits. 

When it comes to AI in government, he was optimistic that it could help address persistent challenges. The kinds of problems that seem like low-hanging fruit, but never really are, with necessary improvements that always feel within reach yet remain difficult to implement.

Secretary Buttigieg implored attendees to balance speed with care as they rethink the processes and systems in government that help good outcomes actually happen, rather than defaulting to the many safeguards designed primarily to prevent bad outcomes.

At InnovateUS, we're expanding our reach and training portfolio so that the sense of possibility from the Summit is matched by the practical skills and institutional capacity needed to turn ideas into action. 

At InnovateUS, we're expanding our reach and training portfolio so that the sense of possibility from the Summit is matched by the practical skills and institutional capacity needed to turn ideas into action. 

Because if there was one thing this year’s Summit made clear, it’s that hope in government does not come from rhetoric alone; it comes from public servants who know how to make change real — through procurement reforms, better service design, smarter implementation, and the persistence to keep pushing systems forward even when change is difficult.