I posted this on the bluesky and people found it useful there:

You should know that a big part of 18F's work was to make sure multi-million to multi-*hundreds*-of-millions dollar contracts at fed *and* state level didn't go to shitty enterprise IT consultancies that *repeatedly* delivered tech that didn't work, was late, or didn't even do what it needed to

Every one of those consultancies (e.g. an easy target is Deloitte -- you can look up what they've been involved in) would blame government for being a bad customer, and 18F were *also* involved in massively improving government's ability to run + manage these services

I brought 18F in on its first engagement with a state. They helped us turn around a giant half-billion-dollar procurement in a waterfall RFP into something that was broken up into smaller chunks in < 4 weeks.

They stood up user research. They helped assess vendors on what they could *actually* do.

18F helps states check whether consultancies and bidders can do what they say they do -- because many governments lack the experience + capability to check those claims anymore.

When people say they were the tip of the spear, they really were.

18F is where I met Robin Carnahan -- she was in charge of figuring out how a federal cost recovery org could even *work* with states. Robin would later go on to *run* the GSA in part because she know how important tech is to deliver government that works for the people.
Every single time I'd work with a government, I'd be able to point to 18F's derisking guide to help government leaders understand that a) how they were doing tech wasn't working (which they knew even if they wouldn't admit it) but most importantly b) that there's another way and they could get help.

You can't imagine how difficult it is to persuade a government to fundamentally change how it develops/acquires/manages technology at any scale without the reassurance that the federal government will support it.

States needed 18F to even have the thought that feds would have their back.

I will be the first to admit that I've had problems with 18F and wish it did things differently or better at times, but I can say without reservation that getting rid of them is one of the strongest signs that all this bullshit is politically motivated, in case you still needed to be persuaded.
If a criticism of 18F is that it didn't go faster (some bullshit on LinkedIn that they "failed to audit the Pentagon 7 times"), a) they were no more than 100 people, b) they actually realized the way through this is to bring all of government along, and not through diktat.
There are people out there building tech for government that works, that is accessible, that isn't a ripoff, and many of those companies exist *because* 18F helped government become a more sophisticated buyer. Not even a buyer but a partner that takes better ownership + responsibility.
People with experience at 18F would fan out to state and local governments too, where arguably better tech in government could affect even more people, just because of how government works in this country and states are closer to delivery.
And I *know* that one of the reasons why the Musk + Trump admin killed 18F is because their slack had a bot that reminded you if you used the word "guys" that perhaps you could use a more inclusive term and *sure* some of you might roll your eyes at that but *it wasn't doing any fucking harm*
And as I understand it 18F achieved its successes *despite* the fact that it was cost recovery. Agencies + departments would have to pay for 18F and they'd only do that *if they knew it would be better value for money*.
You wanted government that works for the people? For the first time, 18F was supporting deep efforts throughout gov to build tech *by talking to the people who use it* and learning from them. And not just build tech, but deliver policy! Which gov is terrible at doing! But now Musk knows better.

You should realize that federal government can't *practically* make states etc. produce better tech experiences for people. The fed can't practically just turn off funding for a critical program unless states develop tech better.

If you want government to do better, it needs help it can trust.

... and one of the reasons why you haven't heard of 18F is because 18F's successes are really down to the agencies, departments, and programs. Because they're responsible for the tech.

And you want them to be responsible, not a small authoritarian unaccountable cadre that works in secret.

One of 18F's jobs was helping gov everywhere actually make sure its info + services are readable and understandable by a normal person, instead of confusing, unclear, bureaucratic bullshit.

You can (& should) argue that gov should be doing that anyway. 18F was getting us there.

... if you're wondering "if 18F is so good then clearly we need more, why so small" then part of the answer is:

* it wasn't given the funding it was needed
* so it had to be cost recovery / paid for by customers
* guess which bit of congress didn't think it should exist

an infuriating things about DOGE etc is they're not entirely wrong. Accepting that is a sign of maturity imho. 18F could've done more but:

* not allowed to pick clients or directly offer help
* just getting agreements to work would take 6+mo
* programs didn't have money to afford 18F anyway

@danhon I've been trying to land a job at 18F for years. This really breaks my heart.

I'm going to be talking to my state rep in CA about the possibility of establishing a similar office here at the state level.

@danhon where are you based Dan? If I could get a meeting with a CA State ASM member would you be willing to talk to them?
@bckohan There's a whole bunch of 18F-ish stuff in CA already. There's the Office of Digital Innovation, and the state Department of Technology has got bits and pieces, too. There's no need to start something new.
@bckohan Individual agencies and departments are also doing great work. CA is also ahead of the game as one of the few states with a specific technology modernization fund.

@danhon Is there nothing you would change in CA? I've had massive problems interfacing with most government services here. The DMV no longer sucks, but if you're pulling state or county benefits the interface is atrocious.

Agree that CA has lots of money available for modernization. We're using it at Hollywood 4WRD to do the leg work on medical billing procurement.

@danhon I think part of my hangup is that LA County is such an elephant and it often seems like zero progress at the state level has trickled down to county systems. The County has a budget of 50 billion dollars and can't even produce an undergraduate level statistical treatment of basic questions like "How many Angelenos are homeless?"

@bckohan oh, LA county is its own thing.

You couldn't write a list long enough for what I'd do with CA

@danhon Well let me know if you ever want to word vomit at a new legislator here. I can't promise anything would come of it, but they do give a shit, work very hard and want to do the right thing. They're looking for smart paper to move atm.