 Hello and welcome to taking the slow lane. Why technology isn't the only answer part of our the Commons live series, which brings the latest issue of the Commons to life. Our next issue which comes out tomorrow is called the slow lane, and it was guest edited by one of today's speakers Sasha Hasselmeyer, a public interest technology fellow at New America. Sasha came to this issue with extensive experience as a social entrepreneur using public procurement as a tool for change, leading government innovation projects for 135 governments in more than 40 countries leading to better outcomes in areas like transport, energy, health, education, economic development and social care. His idea for this issue was to look at government and nonprofit work and debate the merits of taking the slow lane when it comes to technology. He and the other speakers today will discuss the fact that according to their experiences, not everything requires an enormous amount of technology to be thrown at it. In fact, there are times and situations as well as policies and processes that are actually worse off when technology is added to the mix. And this truism is most pronounced when social change is involved. And so that's why we'll be discussing what we're discussing today. And what the slow lane is why it matters how technologists can push back at funders government officials evil C level executives and partners and other stakeholders who are pushing for big change that's enabled by technology. We also have two other experts today, who are going to help us explore the topic both of whom are subjects of the common stories coming out tomorrow. They include Sonya posse the founder and CEO of free from a national organization that works to dismantle the nexus of intimate partner violence and financial insecurity, as well as Eric Dawson, the founder and CEO of peace first the world's largest online incubator for youth lead youth led social change. And so I have put together some prepared questions but we really want this to be a conversation. So please feel free to ask any questions at any point during our discussion, and I'll take the questions as soon as they come in, as well as having a more formal Q&A period towards the end of the event. We'd also like to point out the link to sign up for the comments, which you'll find right there in the chat tomorrow's issue will dig deeper into these topics that we'll be discussing today and give detailed stories about our all of our speakers so I really hope you'll check it out. So let's get started. I'd like to ask each of our speakers to introduce themselves and explain a little more about their organizations. So I'd really like to start by welcoming Sasha, our guest editor, and ask him to introduce himself and his work. In today's discussion I know we'll all like to hear about your foray into offering software as a service to cities across the globe. I think it would be great if you could just also give us a little background into how you curated this issue and how you found the folks that we interviewed. Well, yes. Thank you, Karen and thank you, Sonia and Eric for for joining us here and the team behind the scenes at New America who's who's kind of put together this panel. So I think maybe to start out with my my journey as a social entrepreneur. I considered for a long time to have been quite successful, and we managed to really tackle a kind of important public problem in the form of public procurement which is at local government level, 10% of world GDP that is allocated relatively poorly. And so we were quite successful we reached a lot of governments we managed to get a lot of traction. And I think had we run this panel five years ago I would have said we're we're the fast lane problem solvers. We're ruling the world we're in all over the world, but then at some point we began to stall, you know after quick progress things get got slower. We realized that the conventional software for government or gov tech playbook didn't really apply to us in the way we thought. And I think that was mostly because we wanted to change behaviors and the intentions of government and not just automate something they were already doing. So we weren't necessarily making their life easier, or or kind of more elegantly run, but we actually asked them to change their behaviors. And so I struggle to really reconcile my my own urgency for change with the available paths that we that we saw ahead of us. And I think one of the things that really kind of kept pulling me back was thinking about speed first like how do we get there fast and so at some point sometime ago I simply accepted that slowness might be okay that I wouldn't have to measure myself by how many governments how many people how many transactions but maybe a different qualitative rate of change. And I began to ask myself. What can this look like if it was a 40 year journey. Instead of the four year journey we have to promise our funders and investors and ourselves all the time like what if we actually accept, we're just starting, you know, 10 years I've done this maybe this is just the opening chapter. And the other thing that kind of related to it was, what if also if I acknowledge that it would never be us alone who would fix the problem. Right, it wouldn't be our fix, it wouldn't be our solution, but actually, maybe would work side by side with hundreds of other organizations, chipping away at the same problem and maybe slightly different ways and kind of kind of mentally getting ourselves from this this mindset. And so, so that's kind of the slowly and for me to kind of that's the trigger where it came from I'm sure we'll talk about it more. And I want to say so as Sonya and Eric are two fantastic social entrepreneurs we're connected through also the Ashoka fellowship I think Sonya has also been a fellow at New America before me. And I was really inspired by their work because they engage the messy and complicated humanness of social change without fear, which is something venture capitalists and engineers typically shy away from. And so I really wanted to force this conversation to say, you know what are the behaviors the mindsets that we're tackling and what role might technology play in that. And I have to say I've had so much fun working with you. Over the past months, you are actually the first thing I edited when I started New America. So not you, you're one of your pieces so I really, I love your work and and I'm really excited to be working with you so. So let's bring in our next speaker. And that is Sonya Posse. So Sonya welcome. I'd love to have you give everyone. Maybe those who may not know an overview of free from. And also when I interviewed you for the comments we discussed your new policy map tool, which I kept calling a dashboard but it's a tool map tool so maybe you can talk a little bit about that as, as well. Sure, absolutely. Hi everyone. Thank you Sasha for that intro. I'm thrilled to be here and talking about life in the slow lane which more than anything is something I aspire to. Free from is a national organization. We are a little over four years old, which truly in the grand scheme of social change is is just out of the womb. We are really addressing the issue of intimate partner violence, the way that we think about intimate partner violence in this country is as a natural disaster or you know a series of unfortunate events and random occurrences. We think that a warm bed and public assistance for a couple of weeks or months is all that is needed to solve the problem. So free from is trying to do is reframe the narrative to reframe this as a systemic issue a systemic economic issue, the number one obstacle to safety for individual survivors, generations and communities of survivors is financial insecurity. And to build an ecosystem of support and to really bring in all the different pillars of our society to address the problem. And that is an extremely lofty goal. And, you know, someone asked me once when people look back and say what did free from do what was their contribution. I think it just that that first sliver which is to say, I hope that people are like that's when we started to think about this differently. I don't expect that people will attribute all of the change that happened to free from nor do I want them to because if they do it stay too small. Really, we see ourselves as starting to build that community that that ecosystem that infrastructure around solving this problem the hard way. Can you tell everyone a little bit about I know that you are just recently starting to launch the mapping. No, no, that's okay, go ahead. Well, interestingly, you know when we talked Karen Sasha in December, I told you that it was launching on January 26. Embracing life in the slow lane we decided it needed more time and we're going to be launching it in early March. But this is a 50 state map and scorecard. We have cataloged all of the policies and legislation that every state in the US has that would help or hurt survivors financial security. We have given every state a score, and we have given them recommendations for what they can do better to do better to get a higher score to support survivors financial security. We've also got very easy ways for folks to tweet at their local representative and push for change to get involved in local advocacy in their state. To us, that is the blueprint. We don't foresee that we will enact change in all 50 states and free from lifetime. But here's the starting point and what our hope is is that change starts to happen in states that we weren't even no one even brought us in, you know, they looked at our website they saw this thing they went ahead and did it and they saw it on the wiser and that's sort of my dream for everything free from does is that we create conditions and we create context and we create community that then takes this idea or their own idea and runs with it within that context. Thanks. Thanks so much. So we have our final panelist is is Eric and Eric, can you give us a primer on piece first and again when I got a chance to interview you I was really blown away with what you're doing so we'd love to hear about what you're doing and how you came about and also like to hear about your slow lane implementation of your platform. Yeah. Hey, y'all. I'd say it's nice to see you but I can't see you, but I'm imagining the 98 of you out there in the world, listening in. Thank you so much for joining and I look forward to the world where we get to be in a room together, swapping stories and thank you to all of the folks who organize this panel, but both the folks that we can see in all the hands who put these things together. I know there are a lot of work and vision that goes into it. So I was a really, I was a really pissy kid. I was angry a lot of time. I thought the world was unfair. My guess is many of you felt that way and probably many of us still do because the world is unfair. And so I really found my redemption in youth organizing. I went to a huge public high school. I grew up in the Midwest here in the United States. And for me it was the first time I got to feel powerful that I could transform time and space and what I realized is so few young people get to feel powerful. Young people are the only group of human beings that are talked about exclusively as potential. Right, right, right what they're going to be right folks like me go into schools and tell young people that if they work hard and don't do drugs that someday they'll be great leaders artists writers you know what have you. Right they are victims we need to protect their perpetrators we need to punish or they're the future. And of course if you if you look at research or read the news or just talk to a smart young person you know that not only is that that not true. It's a it's a dangerous model to move through the world and because what happens is the 1.6 billion young people on the planet who represent the greatest single untapped human capital resource for good, or not only forgotten. They sit at the bottom of the privilege pyramid right so if we want to talk about domestic violence intimate partner violence, you know who is watching that happen, you know who sits at the result of climate change, or the arguments over the form or we could have, you know fill in the blank, yet is never invited to be part of those conversations so our work at peace first is to unleash young people's moral imaginations to solve problems so you can think of what we do as being like a Khan Academy and social justice. So we help 13 to 25 year olds all over the world figure out what they care about. We help them build a theory of change for how they want to care about it. Using compassion as a driver meaning they need to talk to folks who are affected by the problem they need to talk to folks who are causing the problem. And then we provide digital design tools to help them build projects we provide funding. We give money to young people we only give it to young people we try to give it to them in 48 hours they don't have to keep receipts. And then we connect them with caring adult mentors, if they want them. Projects are really small it's it's 313 year olds who go into their school cafeteria and find that one kid no one is sitting with and they go and sit with them and some are big and complicated we're helping a group of young people in Uganda and Italy who are mapping every single defibrillator on the planet. Some are social justice oriented we're helping a group of young people who are training the police in Baltimore on how to work with young people of color. Some are for profit businesses we're helping a group of young people in rural Columbia who've created an eco bike tour. The point is we don't tell young people what to solve or how to solve it. We just help them do it. And then if they want to we help them scale. So we don't privilege scale. But we help them scale projects that they want to so we've built the world's very first venture philanthropy fund. It's coming in close to $10 million, which will be the single largest direct investment in young people to scale social justice work so the next level is $2,500 to go through an accelerator. And then 25,000 if they want to globalize their work so we move behind young people's vision and work, wherever and however they want to they want to do that. So right now we're supporting about 8000 projects and 150 countries. And what's interesting is so much of our original speed. And I'm embarrassed to say this I'm hanging my head in shame for people who are not watching visually. I was driven by adults and adult needs. And so I think that's a really interesting thing for us to dig into is, is the fast lane for whom and to do what. So there were funders who want us to do certain things in certain ways. And so, as I think about our movement into the into the slow lane. It was thinking about how do we drive behind young people's visions and needs and understanding that sometimes meant backing up and slowing down. And in our case we had been a school based program about five years ago, we shut down our multimillion dollar 90 person program operation and started over an eight person tech company. So that's not even moving to the slowly and that's stopping and getting out and getting a soda and a burrito and sitting around and having a picnic and talking for a while. And so it's been an interesting journey. But but I think the question that that is the core of this panel is always at which pace for whom and to do what. So great. So really great. So now that our introductions are complete, let's sort of dive deeper into the slow lane. So Sasha, we've discussed it and you gave us some backgrounds in your introduction about what this line is. Let's talk about why it's such a crucial idea right now. And so I think I think it's important for a number of reasons. I start with the reason that happened 13 years ago in the global financial crisis. And when our financial system collapsed and all the world's leaders turned to experts from finance and economics to fix it to put it back in order. And for many people around the world for millions and millions of people. This meant a decade of unbelievable hardship of increasing unemployment at the time I lived in Spain and we had a youth unemployment of over 50% that still persists today. In the UK, and people had to choose between heating and food for years every winter. And it was a very very rushed decision. And as Eric was saying, for whom it was to keep the lenders happy that was the story and we were. We were sold the idea and and we accepted it we asked our leaders to lead right we enabled them to make that choice but it turned out that three five years into it things weren't getting any better. But we were seeing another part of society, doing rather well, and walking away again with the bonuses and so forth. So I think that's the kind of, and that that's been breeding and of course that's been breeding terrible distrust, terrible breeding ground for for hate for populism for division in our society that that we feel every day and that hopefully we're going to heal from. There's also a shorter shorter story to this is that we're glorifying the fast lane economy, we're glorifying the Elon Musk the Jeff Bezos the people that are supposedly disrupting the world by these quick fix technologies and really when you look at the, look at it from the point of view of the problems we're facing. Generally they're solving one problem by creating another. And I think, and the introductions by Sonia and Eric were so brilliant in terms of showing just how, and we can approach things differently and it's a harder way of doing it by trying to find a way of solving a problem, and solving it and that's it. So the, the, the story for me is really. And I've been looking at it over the past months intensively. I found and it's resonating in a lot of the stories. And we've already heard it has these. It has for me for guiding principles that that seem to be guiding people as they're, as they're trying to bring about social change. And one is a deep willingness to listen and listening is not asking a question listening is not asking do you want a or B listening is actually not putting an end to the conversation is seeing where it takes you. So I think when you're approaching this from a traditional product design point of view and things that we've done ourselves in our organization was to listen for answers, rather than listen for what do these people need. And another part is this holding the urgency. I said earlier we measured our success by how fast we were moving. So I translated the urgency I had for bringing about change directly into everything we were doing, and it began to trump other in considerations like community equity like inclusiveness like building real assets. And as this brings us to this third quality that I think is about, you know, everything we're doing tries to heal democracy, right, empowering the, the people struggling, you know, whether it's the youth or people from intimate violence, you know, that's actually however successful they are and what we're doing in our intervention every time we're doing that we're adding people to our democracy, where we're building structure and infrastructure that in itself has value, irrespective of the things we're trying to fix. And the last thing in many ways the hardest thing is this this curiosity. And all of us wake up in the middle of the night, thinking, oh that maybe there's a better way of doing this, or maybe we should do more tech or maybe we should do less or maybe we should put more money. So this constant curiosity of trying to, you know, let's link to that urgency right we don't want to drag our feet. But we also don't want to destroy anything by rushing over it. So I, you know what I had a question come in, and I'd love to open it up to all the panelists. So I'd like to know, could you please elaborate on the new metrics you use to measure what success looks like, and the impact of your work in communities in the slow lane, and I think if all of our panels, panelists could probably answer this but Sasha why don't you start and then hand it off to someone. Yeah, so and so I think a really good way of measuring is by something we avoided for 10 years, which was our, our approach avoided community engagement as an as a piece of the process we were offering specifically because it would be faster if we don't. And it was also hard for us to organize this globally, you know, in remote places. And so we to keep things lean and moving. We actually didn't measure that. And I look back and I look at friends of mine who've built organizations in one community over 10 years with only one purpose to let that community find out what they want. And in the same time that I went into 10 to 135 cities, they stayed in one place and listened. And so this for me is one of those metrics of measuring how much the community takes ownership and control of this, and is given the time to really come up with their own answer that I would say is a completely new metric that is changing everything for what I'm doing. And so I'll hand it over to Sonya. Yeah, it's a great question. Thank you to the person that asked it. You know the way that we think about intimate partner violence in this country is we think about it as something that happens over days and weeks. And we sometimes even go further than that and you know split decisions and you know deciding to leave and we really measure a survivor's strength by whether or not they left. And then we measure our interventions by how many days did we provide that person in the shelter. Were we able to get them into section eight housing. How were we able to get them a restraining order were we able to get them access to public assistance. None of that tells you anything about whether this person is safe, feel safe, and can create safety in their home. We think about or society thinks about intimate partner violence in days and weeks. Survivors think about our safety and our experience in years and generations. So, if we're going to respond to a generational problem and the very nature of it is we're probably not going to see it to the finish line. And we have to be okay with that. And, you know, Sasha and I have talked about this so much. I think there's a couple reasons why we're all compelled to the fast lane I think there's just, you know, we all live with a certain amount of anxiety. And a great way to quell anxiety is to keep moving and to not actually just sit with the anxiety and explore it and see why it's coming up. It's a way there's TV and then there's keep moving and those are the ways to numb it. I think the second is like we live in in a society that values individualism. And the way to succeed if we see ourselves as operating within that system is to stand out and to set ourselves apart. And ultimately that is like a race to who takes credit for the thing first, which I would argue then causes more of the anxiety and therefore you keep brushing and so now you're in a loop. And then I think that the third is the way that are, you know, for lack of a better word, nonprofit industrial complex is set up is we are reliant on funding that is one year, two year, maybe, you know, really forward thinking funders three years. And the return for that money. They want results. And measurable results. And we've gotten to a point where, you know, you need to have KPIs and you need to have put numbers on what you will achieve to a point where if I played into that, then what I'm going to do is I'm going to set my sites really small. But I know I can deliver what you asked for in 12 months or 24 months, as opposed to keeping my eye on that 40 year 50 year 60 year vision and working towards that in the way that it needs me to. And I think that plays into, you really have to actively be working to dismantle that whole perspective every day because all of the messages you were receiving from the world are telling you to do otherwise they're telling you the fast lane is the right lane. And every day I make a to do list and then I'm like, what on here actually needs to get then and what I'm here. Do I just feel rushed to do. And I'll just add on to that as another plus plus one to Sonya and thank you Rohan. And also de incentivize risk, right, both both in terms of innovation and trying things out but also working with folks who are more risky. You know it's one of the things that I worry about around like performance bonds, right where we're paying for performance in terms of what it incentivizes. I'll just add to my esteemed colleagues thoughts around, you know what I hear at the core of that question is what's different thinking about measurements with a slow lane versus a fast lane perspective. So if we understand evaluation is fundamentally asking, did we do what we said we were going to do and how well did we do it. I think a slow lane invites us to think about two things differently. One is what a colleague of mine calls a justice lens. So a justice lens asks, who isn't, and who isn't here. So, you know, in the case of peace first, it's not just looking at the amount of money given out the number of projects but to whom are we giving money. We're giving access to these resources. And so that, that invites us to look at, are we reaching young people with with lived experience of the problems that they're solving. How we building tools that are reaching young people with low literacy or no literacy rates. How are reaching young people in refugee camps in Syria. And that invites us to think about our design principles from the very beginning, right and so the justice lens as an evaluation isn't just asking, did we do we said we were going to do but it interrogates and I mean that in a, in a, in a Sasha way with curiosity. Who is or who isn't here at the table. And the other thing, you know, I want to just pull us back for a second if we think about this this triangle of impacts where we've got direct service right how do we feed clothes teach. We've got policy, right how do we use the levers of government to create impact that this third lever, this third side of the triangles around culture change right which is how do we change the stories that we tell about ourselves and that we then tell about the world. Right so Sonya when you were talking so beautifully a minute ago. You know you weren't just talking about in my mind. You know, not just how do we change a service delivery model but how do we tell the story about how do we change the story about intimate partner violence like how do we, how do we change the stories that we tell about about those humans that are involved in in in those moments and what those moments mean for us. Right, and so that is not just about policy that's not just about a program, it's about culture change. And we did this really interesting research and actually delayed to this research with us. We looked at movements over the past 120 years from the workers rights movement to the Arab spring so 120 years worth of culture change movements that created new cultural norms, you know from the concept of a weekend to marriage equality which you know changed our conception of love like all these moments is a fascinating piece of research if anybody wants to reach out and geek out about that be a whole other panel. But what I want to lift up in this conversation as we think about about impact. What was interesting is what drives that those changes is paying attention to internal as well as external change that it requires internal shifts, as well as external shifts, which of course are much harder and much more complicated and much more messy and to funders out there much more interactive to track and understand. And so we need to begin to think about how do we track those things like belonging. How do we track those things like narratives and stories how do we think about tracking those those internal shifts, as well as the external shifts those stories that we tell about ourselves in the world are an important lever for creating change as much as policy and as much as direct service. Okay, sorry about that. So, you know, I think one of the things that we wanted to talk about is why taking this little lane has been so important for everyone's work. And I think it sort of ties into the next question as well which is, you know, quick fix like instant gratification world. How do we accept that we're not going to fix things quickly. So, maybe we can start with Sasha, and you know, talk about that. Yeah, I think, I think that's a you know I think that that has a lot to do with experience right so. So, I've observed this kind of pattern of people jumping from action to action in all kinds of contexts right I was in. I was in Pentonville prison in London in 2015. And they're the prison governor and charge of the prison for the first time in 170 years had held a meeting with prisoners to listen about what they need. He took 170 years of jumping from action to action and the financial crisis by the way, and to suck funding out of the prison to the point that it became unmanageable for him to sit down. But, and he was supported by a fabulous nonprofit called user voice that had done that work in other prisons. So, the idea was on standby happened floating around here's something you can do. And I needed to come to precisely in a way that pointed also Eric into to write that alignment of internal realization. I'm not the owner of this I don't just go from fix to fix, but I need help and I need help from the people I'm supposed to be telling what to do. And that happens at. So I think that happens at different scales that happens in government that happens in these in public services that happens at our dinner table. Right. I mean, it happens all the time. Where this is so so the acceptance I think comes from that recognition right it has a lot to do with how do I define my leadership role or my my power my dominance over others and so forth. And then I think it becomes honestly a path of beautiful discovery in many ways you know if someone shows you a little bit of light it's not that hard to find these principles and and the way of going about it. But I think so I think that point to me has been, and I've myself gone through this process so maybe I kind of I just was a really late comer to that discovery. Really I see it play out over and over and it seems to be happening. That's the kind of seed right that that allows this this this change that acceptance to happen in some ways. How about our other speakers, Sonya. Like the key word that you said there Sasha was dominance. And we live in a society that celebrates dominance, you know that the Jeff Bezos is in the Elon Musk is much of the world like we all hate billionaires but they're all we talk about. If you can, if you can, I guess, heal enough yourself to not to not need to dominate in order to to feel safe to feel seen to feel important to feel validated. Then you can just do the work to do the work. And, you know, the biggest critique that free from gas. And Sasha and I talked about almost always from people in the tech world is we're doing too much. And someone went as far as to say to one of my employees in December, you're doing too much, you should focus on one thing and get really good at it. My experience has been that organizations that do too much are lacking a purpose. And so you should all, you know, really go and reflect on if you even have a mission, which besides the fact that it's ludicrous and also completely inappropriate to talk like that. It just is like it's it's actually been scientifically disproven at this point, you know, like, we have moved past the stage of human development where we think monocropping is the right thing to do and we all know that monocropping destroys the earth and we all know that the thing that saves the earth and means that we can sustain this life inevitably is a diverse ecosystem. And so why we continue to ignore the science and ignore all the proof and demand dominance, I think is something that we really collectively need to interrogate and heal and and get over so that we can become more effective and we can thrive together. Okay, I'm giving Sonya a big smile. It just reminds me all the stupid things people say to nonprofit leaders and I don't know maybe we'll form a drinking game and, you know, doesn't have to be alcohol it could be a peppermint tea. It's like when people say to just too many nonprofits you should merge and I remember being with the funder corporate funder and I shouldn't have said this and I was like yeah I feel the same way about banks or just too many banks like you all more or less do the same thing like really just need one of you. Anyway, I just want to add to two thoughts. So so one is I think that I think the world needs different pacing for different problems right so I think we need fast lane solutions for certain things and I think we need slow lane solutions for certain things right so if I you know get shot in my neighborhood I'm going to hospital like I don't want a group of doctors like ask me how I'm feeling and like like kind of creating an emergent strategy about what to do like I want them to get the bullet out like whatever you like you know whatever you're going to do do that. And so I think what we're kind of lifting up here is the imbalance and the privileging and you know so Sony you said this so well kind of the kind of the like whiteness and the maleness and the wealth around that gravitational pull of where those solutions come from. You know we just had the new year I don't know how many of you all used make New Year's resolutions I stood all the time. And then like by February 3 I was back doing ever I was doing so I started coming up with a word that I reflect on for the year and for many years the word I would. I sat on was this concept of humility. And there's just something I keep coming back to is I think about the slow lane is being rooted in humility. And humility to me is is not about lowering yourself. It's about how do we create space for other voices like how do we how do we like, you know with with our muscles and our love like draw the circle bigger. And really humility is a push against this throw away urgency culture that we live in. And so the mantra that I want to offer to us is is that not everything that has to be done has to be done. Right not everything that has to be done is important. Not everything that is important. Has to be done right now. Not everything that has to be done right now has to be done by us. And I think it's that cycle that that that we need to that we need to lean into right that is about that is about humility. And to me that's what the slow lane is about I mean Sasha you laid this out so well with with with your opening and and Sonya what you were describing about is is it was a brilliant example of that. But that's really I think what what we need more of is is that humility that that opening up that stretching. I think something you said there Erica super interesting you you you said. We need to understand we need to have more nuance about whether this is a crisis or not and whether it requires a fast lane response or slowly in response. And I think part of what we do is we don't take time to understand the root of a problem. So we are quick to categorize things as crises. Domestic violence is not a crisis it is a product of our society over over centuries we have created and maintained and supported the conditions that allow this type of violence to occur. We have somehow tricked ourselves into thinking it's a crisis that that being shot with a gun. I mean, gun violence is also not a crisis but being shot with a gun is a crisis for your body and requires immediate fast lane solutions. So addressing patriarchy and misogyny and white supremacy these are these are the things that we will spend their entire time on this earth trying to solve. And so, I guess creating space in our society to make sure we understand a problem before we set about our solution or cement our solution. We're going to of course explore many solutions and get to the right one but to really categorize things right I think is a really important starting point. So I'd love to give our attendees some, some advice and some, some maybe some tools to take into their own organization so how did you come to the conclusion all of you that technology doesn't work for every problem. And I, I wonder, would you all agree that tech is inherently risky and expensive and ends. You know how do you figure out how to reduce risk and save money. Sonya do you want to answer first. We from uses technology in different parts of our work we have a compensation tool that allows you to see how you might get money for the harm you've experienced in your state to taken is like for legal avenues we've broken those down and they're really easy to understand language you don't have to be a lawyer you don't have to know where to look on your states, you know, website. We have the map and scorecard that we talked about earlier. And that's kind of it and we've gotten a lot of pushback from tech funders and tech entrepreneurs that we are either not investing all of our time in one of those two solutions, or that we aren't using technology across the board that I think the answer lies in in what I just said which is, we are a team of survivors who were thinking about this issue before free from existed but spend every single day talking to each other talking to other survivors about why the problem exists. So, I know that for a lot of survivors they're going to want to explore how they might get compensation. But of course, many of those avenues to compensation require you to have a police report, or require you to at least engage with law enforcement to the point at which they kind of dropped your case, or require you to be in court with the person that harmed you. And so I know that not everybody's going to want to do that so then every time we explore a solution and it gets us part of the way, but it's not going to get us the whole way the question that we ask is so what else. And as you start to put solutions together, you're naturally going to get to something that feels like an ecosystem but we have like, you know, laws in our country that are at a state level and a federal level that are working against the problem that we are trying to solve. I can't create an app to fix that, you know, like I've got to engage with humans. Survivors are part of the way that intimate partner violence thrives is it isolates people. And it creates such financial devastation that you're not able to engage in your community in your society in a way that you once could or would want to. It's not an app for breaking isolation either. And so to really understand like, there is an isolation problem here which requires community building. There is an access issue here which I could probably solve with the tech, but then there's a different pillars of our society taking accountability issue which requires network building it requires lobbying legislation. And there's the culture saying change stuff which I also cannot end or create or develop with an app. And to really get over ourselves, and our like obsession with easy fixes tech isn't easy fix. That's what it is. And there are so many problems particularly around access and particularly around communication that tech is so good at fixing, but we're not facing all of the challenges we are simply because the dictionary was 700 page book and people needed access to it quicker like there's, we're humans, and we can't solve the human element of our problems through technology alone. Eric I'd love to hear you answer the same question please. Yeah, I mean, the, I don't have any of you saw remember the movie, my big fat Greek wedding that seminal work of art. I just I think about that the dad's sort of use of Windex to solve everything. And I think that's that's how we treat technology it. It does some things really well, like when next cleans windows really well. You know, but but I questioned it's use of doing other things. And so for me it's it's an it's an alignment question and a privileging question. More than anything else. And so, you know, for us, we wanted to be able to reach young people on their timetables right so if you're a young person right now. You know, if you're in a box on a Thursday night and you're angry because you're being bullied or you're watching bodies wash up from the Civil War in Syria, like there's not a lot of places you can go in that moment of obligation and so we wanted to create an always on available place for you to be able to connect with resources. Technology is a great fix for that. So if you have internet access in in rural Nigeria doesn't fix that right so it doesn't fix everything. It fixes some things. And so it's being clear about what it fixes, and then how it fixes and then what it doesn't and how it doesn't. For us it has been leaning into building things in in partnership with our young people so everything that we build has been built by young people designed, created, and often technically built as well. Another thing that we learned is to build things that are really simple and inexpensive and therefore, you know, not very pretty and kind of clunky and my team will hate me for saying this but but but you know, it could be better, but it works right so it's building just enough. And so, you know someone who is working in a tech startup in San Francisco and is used to a certain look and feel like, you know, a 16 year old in in in Mangalore in India like doesn't necessarily need all of that. And so part of this has been figuring out to how to build just enough in real time for the folks who need it and investing behind those needs rather than in front of those needs. What advice do you give to people who maybe are, you know, trying to figure out which technology, they should be looking at or, you know, how do we help people come to the, how did you come to the conclusion that technology doesn't work for every problem and, you know what advice would you give. Yeah, I mean, we came to that conclusion the very hard way and and I think maybe one dimension to add here is one of the reasons why technology is so risky is not so much the technology itself but it's the whole dynamic around it. So, when we reached the point where we were thinking about how do we scale from 135 cities to ideally every city on earth or 500,000 of them. We, we spoke to investors and most investors said to us, you can either be a tech company, or you can be a service provider as you are now consulting service, a hand holding service, you can't be both. And so we, we were cut in this kind of this T section, you know, where we had to choose left or right and it was literally at the time. We didn't really find anyone who was willing to go in between and there was certainly nothing in the, in the way of follow on financing perspectives and so forth. And then with that came a whole dynamic. Well, okay, if you want to be tech, where's your tech team, where's your head of product, where's your, who are your engineers, how are you hiring them how are you retaining these people they don't want to work in a consulting firm doing some little app on the side they want to be, you know, and you're not an engineer Sasha you know you're not you're not a tech leader, you're not never going to build a great tech team. And so it became and then, you know, quickly investors that when we raise more investment they were like are you doing AI, you know, I'll invest if you're doing AI AI and procurement sounds great let's do that. So, it quickly unraveled into its own dynamic. And I think this is this is familiar to to others. And, and I think we realized then later on we're like okay we let go of a lot of the things that people really needed which was we focused on automating the process the workflow and building the tools and making them much cheaper and self service. What we left out was the human relationship we had built with the people we were helping and working with, and how we were motivating them. We found out much later years later that people were afraid when we were consultants of working with us because we were so demanding but they loved it when they did it because they were as good as the best other people in the world. Right, so, so I would say the world of technology there is something we need to be careful with the dynamic it creates. And I would say another thing and I think I encourage anyone to look up societal platforms.org. It's a fabulous framework for thinking about public interest technology. The first design principles of this is no business model, it's free and open. Right don't even try to build public infrastructure and and try to somehow you know, except that you're creating it open and you're making it, you're making it easy for everyone to contribute and that it's shared and that it's not owned. And I think those design principles would have been immensely helpful for us early on they just didn't exist at the time. So the dynamic and I love how I followed Eric's transition and and and I hear also how Sonya very selectively uses technology in places where it matters. And I think technology really invites you into a new universe. It's not that you're taking the one thing you're doing and then putting it online. It becomes a different animal and I think that transition is very hard and then the alternative to that is to be a little more mix and match between both worlds and force your funders also to the table and say, this is the right path. So that actually brings us right to our next question. So, how do you push back when partners or funders or other than other organization tries to force technology on you, and sort of ask you to implement the latest buzzword or technology that they've heard about in the cycle. And, you know, I'd love to hear about examples of when you've been asked to rush technology, how you push back. And if you succeeded and even more important, what the outcome of outcome of that decision has been. So Sasha, why don't you, why don't you start. Yeah, I'll stay right with it. So, and so I think one of the things we we built was a design tool for people in government to frame better questions that they would ask through procurement. And the way what we learned about it that it had a lot to do with problem framing getting to the root cause of what you're actually trying to accomplish so when they wanted to buy a traffic signal to help them understand that really what they wanted was a safer street and then to show them what was possible to show them that there was not just one way of making the street crossing safer but 30. So we built all that and it required a fair amount of technology. The challenge with that is, and I think I think in many ways we did the right things and we built the right things that challenges that the world expects that within the life cycle of your current investment round. There was an exponential uptake that will sustain it and show attraction and so forth and what we found was the severe disconnect between moving and building technology and a slow moving market. You know, I think I came to realize that in what we demonstrated in 10 years and 135 governments is enough food for thousands of governments for probably the next 10 years to digest. Right, they don't need us more and more pushing they actually need to make sense of what we've put out there. And so I think, and I think that dissonance between the speed of uptake and so forth I think having the long breath. I think was really, really central and I think we were, we were chasing traditional investment rounds at a time when the market, you know, couldn't take more right couldn't it wasn't ready for for everything we were throwing at it. Sonya, how about you? We do it one way and not the other way. They really wanted us to have a single part focus. That was probably the worst example where we just like, okay, well, thank you, but it's not, it's not worth the $30,000 you're offering. And then in other cases, it's a lot of explaining our way. Listening to why we're wrong, and then taking the money and doing it our way anyway, because ultimately, they are trusting us they just sort of you don't want us to know that their way is better. And we went through this actually once with a point of, with a big funder who there were certain people on the board that had a really strong sense that we were doing too much. And then if they were going to invest in us, we needed to pick two things I think was the arbitrary advice. And over the course of the first year working with us, they got to see our work they got to see who we work with they got to see how one thing and the other thing and the other thing that during COVID, when so much of nonprofit activities were shut down frozen. We weren't going because we had enough different things going on that while one was slow another could move more quickly and vice versa, that at the end of that first year they, they were like, we were wrong. And we see that now and that's, that's always extremely satisfying but also of course not the norm the norm is you walk away from the funding, or the funding is taken away from you. And so I think there's so much education that needs to happen here for funders. It is so rare that the people with the money or the experts about the actual problem that you were trying to solve, and to really have our folks that are holding the wealth and holding the ability to solve these problems to have them really interrogate the fast line flowing I think is is such as next piece of work. Eric, same question to you. So I'm going to share a slightly different story, which is more how my own stupidity got in the way of doing the kind of listening to our constituents that our community that's necessary to do good work. I'm partly driven by funding but that's kind of like blaming the obvious. We, we were invited to a new part of the world, and there was a, we got funding to do that work and as part of that we built this coalition, an amazing group of youth serving organizations, who really represented, you know, an interesting foundation of those doing important work with young people. And we did what you do when you build a coalition. We spent a lot of time with them figuring out their needs, how to get those needs met and spend, you know, maybe 250 300 thousand pound dollars, oops, this may have been, and, and realized, like a year in that we'd spent all this time building and construction around adult needs like, like whose logo is where and what their needs are. And like no fault of the organizations like they were doing what they're supposed to do. And, you know, and, you know, we serve maybe like 50 teams of young people. And, you know, had a similar experience in another country where I met this really like cool interesting 24 year old. Like this is amazing I want to sign up and do a project she did a project she told 12 of her friends they told 12 of their friends and we like 500 team sign up in in in about a month and it just, it was like right like that is that's the work. It's like why do I keep going back to these systems right this technology of working through these institutions and these collaborations that are not youth centered that are not youth driven that don't work. But like the gravitational pull is so strong because it's what I knew it's what I grew up in. It's it's the logos that attract resources and it's a lesson I have to learn again and again and again. So, when I was sitting here and I was editing the issue, it hit me that three organizations that we have really represent like sort of three generations of progress I'm not talking about the CEOs I'm talking about the actual organizations. I think this work organizations been around for nearly 30 years Sonya is Sonya's organizations really part of that like digital native generation, and Sasha's work sort of falls right in the middle. So, I'm curious how the slow lane affects each generation, and how you can make this slow lane process work for each I think it's probably very different for, you know, an organization it's been around for 30 years versus something, you know that that was launched fairly where, you know, people are used to everything's digital. So, Sonya, can we hear from the digital native generation for. Absolutely, can you hear me okay I think I had some hedge bone issues before. Great. Um, you know what I, what I thought about when you said that Karen was less my digital nativeness and more the fact that I. You know, the benefit of free from being a new organization is we actually got to learn a bit from the mistakes of our predecessors before we got going and as we got going and so essentially life in the slow lane to some extent was built into our formation and our creation and when I started the organization I knew I wanted to do multiple things I knew I didn't want to just get really good at one thing and I knew that it was going to take trying a lot of different strategies to start to get somewhere. And I knew that because I had seen what had gone wrong in the single solution approach of the movement for the last 30 years. And so, in a lot of ways, that's, that's our privilege that's our, you know, we don't have to make those mistakes because someone made them before us. I think it's really interesting to see how to kind of explore what is the difference between having that baked into your foundation versus having to go through that shift. And I think more and more, I'm not going to say younger but but newer organizations are benefiting from that learning that generations before us had to do. What about our, our, our, I guess, gen X organization. Eric, what about you. I'm wrapping my hands around around the way you structured the question. Because, you know, I feel much more of a startup than even Sonya at this point with our latest iteration. What I appreciate at the heart of the question is kind of what am I learning right now, and how is that learning taken shape because because I've been doing this work for 20 years. Really, because my only other gainful employment has been Burger King, I guess, at this point in my, my, my, my long work life. So, you know, I think we, and again, you know, returning to an earlier point, I think it is, how do we understand that the movements within ourselves as leaders and the movements within ourselves as organizations. How do we create fast lane rhythms when we need fast lane time, how do we create slow lane rhythms when we need slow lane times. And how do we understand what we are called to do organizationally, and how do we hold to that calling when we are the world is telling us we have to move fast. And that has been the core of my journey. You know, technology in that sense as is a distraction to the to the question because I imagine if we were, you know, 1968 as activists and organizers this exact same conversation was going on a different set of actors and a different set of questions or, you know, in the 1780s religious structures like it this this is this is the human question right it's sort of how does change happen by whom and when and how. And so the thing I think I will offer, because it's wintertime in Boston is this metaphor of fallowness. You know, as I look out into my backyard garden which because I'm, you know, in the middle of Dorchester is about five feet by five feet. I look at that that frozen piece of tundra. And I, I see it's inactive right it is fallow it is not doing anything, which of course is is untrue that beneath that surface there's a ton of activity going on. And our ancestors are doing their business that the nitrogen is being returned to the soil. And our ancestors appreciated that process right that they understood that we leave our fields fallow every seven years that we honor a Sabbath, where we rest. And so, and so I'm getting a little spiritual with this but bear with me for a moment. What's just happening is we are, we conflate productivity with production. Right, and so the heart of the fast, what's so problematic about the fast lane, and therefore what is so revolutionary about the slow slow lane is is that we we only understand ourselves being productive when we're producing. The slow lane, therefore honors is that there are lots of other ways of being productive conversations curiosity vacation. The two most productive things I've done professionally in a 20 years of working are the two sabbaticals I've taken, and not because I did anything productive with that time. Because of my mind rested my spirits rested I reconnected with my kids and my wife, and an open things up in me that nothing else has. And so I think that you know the invitation there is to not conflate those two things and to understand that like butterflies and kindergartners, we all need those restorative moments and so I think what the slow lane invites us to do is to make different rhythms differently. But we're not being any less productive. We're just producing in a way that looks different and maybe more silent. Yeah, I wanted to, you said two really great things there. I mean you said a lot of great things there, but two things that I wanted to touch on Eric, the first was, you talked about nature, and you talked about the frozen side of your window and your nature isn't confused nature isn't isn't deceived by the fast lane and indigenous communities on this land and around the world, lived by nature, and in so doing, lived what we would call in the slow lane a way that really allowed the community to thrive and to have enough resources and to to sustain itself for you know indefinitely. And then you mentioned you know production productivity and production. And of course, the birth of that equation is capitalism and the Industrial Revolution and colonization and, you know when I said earlier we are learning from the mistakes of the generations before us. I want to put that in the context of there were people that inhabited this earth and indigenous communities still today that have not forgotten the slow lane, and honored and protected it for centuries while we all railroaded over it and murdered people and put highways in their place. And so, to, to see how far we have diverted from all of the truths that were told for so many, so many generations on this earth. And to understand the history of it and to understand that you cannot, you cannot, you cannot just like you cannot try to solve internal partner violence with technology alone. You cannot try to understand how we all ended up in the fast lane without talking about colonization and capitalism, and the need for dominance that drives us all to stay in the fast lane. So I want to jump into this, this, I'm the middle, the middle generation here. Supposedly. I want to jump into, into where what our points of reference where we started and I think Sonya, what you said is so true that there are more and more organizations now that from the, from the root up, have a different type of DNA. I trained as an, as an architect and so, and I trained at a very, very, very good architecture school. And what we were taught taught about success was to be a star producing beautiful coffee table books, usually devoid of people, but spectacular architecture and it was really about, you know, the idealized form of that profession was. To get your clients to build something that is probably totally dysfunctional. But that's kind of like your mark of success. And, and in the mid 1990s, I found myself in a slum in in Venezuela working there and seeing for the first time seeing architects who had completely put themselves at the service of a community. And it was really challenging for me because for one, you know, they weren't technically producing the best plan, right, it wasn't the best design. But the whole point of it was that this community in over 90 years had never had control over anything. And so, and I think this this this question we heard about this question of decolonizing right also one of the questions posted. I think it's a very, very hard journey to find your place within this and the only way I knew I didn't know there was a slow lane. I didn't know there was anything like that all I could see was, there was a social justice problem I wanted to fix. And from there everything else was I want to grow as fast as Facebook I want to be just like them I just want I want to be a successful entrepreneur and you know I had no other language know the vocabulary to understand the journey. And the challenge with that is is many fold right and that's why I think that's why I wanted to have this conversation about slow lane. Once you appreciate that we might be on a 40 year journey. So let's just start to take the sabbatical right once in a while. Maybe you are taking the time to let something sit right I mean our decision was to just let City Mart sit and let the world come back to us when it's ready to do more. As an entrepreneur that's a nightmare decision to take right but it's the only right decision to take much like going into a community to listen to get an answer by by this time tomorrow I need to know whether you want this electric scooter or that electric scooter is not listening. So I think the more every time we're, we're loading ourselves with these expectations and what the journey will be like how it will work what we will do tomorrow and what deadline we're hitting and what milestone and how our personal journey will work out. The more we're undermining all the equity. We're building and it doesn't matter who we are was doing this. And so, so to me I have to say I stepped into a world that glorified the entrepreneur glorified the startup. That was my point of reference, and hadn't yet found the language to say here's a social justice problem you're and really as close as that came were definitions of social entrepreneurship but they kind of almost inevitably tried to marry the two. Right. Some people would say oh it's like Steve Jobs mix with mother Teresa well it's not Steve Jobs is the mistake in that equation. Right it's it's yes the issue is there and yes the kind of the forcefulness and the creativity and the resilience to keep hanging in there and taking these risks. But the image of the disruptive domineering visionary who fixes things is just what is what is so so much in contrast to how the slowing operates. I can't believe how fast our time is passing. I have so many more questions for you all. I think it'd be interesting to look at you know when we engage with humans and complex human and power structures. How do you find a way to deal with technology to change things, you know, is it even possible and even more important to you do you want to do that. Eric, do you want to jump in I have a feeling you've got some really good insight in this into this. And talk light I think I'll I'll pass to my colleagues that I want to make sure to leave time for folks. Okay. Um, Sonya. I mean, I was going to do the same thing I don't know that I have anything to say that I haven't already said, but maybe either Sasha if you have something or maybe give me like a something that you feel like I haven't touched on Karen. Yeah, we spent a lot of time together I mean Sasha do you have any, do you have any feedback on this one or maybe we should move on to the next question, which I think is, I was actually interested to see the people that that signed up we have a lot of folks from the, the private sector on the call. And I'd love to hear about how you can take lessons that you've learned and possibly apply them to the private sector. Sasha do you want to start us off. I can, I can, I can try. So maybe, maybe kind of bridging a little bit with with prior question I think one thing we haven't talked about yet, or I haven't talked about that. We really struggled with the relationship between technology as a, as an accelerator of access and transactions and workflows, and the competence and the mindsets of people who are supposed to use these tools. And I think for me there's been a really enlightening moment of growth that probably a lot of this community already knows around people using technology and really smart ways to build sophisticated skills and know how. For those of you who don't, who've never looked at it, look at project echo. A doctor in New Mexico who realized that he couldn't treat hepatitis in the rural communities that were too far to drive to, and then walked practitioners in those communities through very complex treatments using video conferencing and now training hundreds of doctors around the world on very, very complex skills. And the reason why I mentioned this is that, and it comes back to this this question of curiosity, right. I think it's too easy to say technology cannot fix these things. But, and video conferencing and these are zoom calls originally, you know, and most most technologists won't even consider that building technology, but actually finding those opportunities to deliver this this nugget of value. And then as you're doing that learning about how you can scale, how you can scale that up and following in a way following the value. Now what I would say is, I mentioned this earlier listening is a really central skill in the swimming. And what I found in the business world and I think the tech companies and social media are a fabulous example of how that goes wrong. Listening taken to the extreme right successful businesses are almost always good at listening, but what they listen for is not for a way to empower me, Erica Sonia or others. They're listening for ways of tying us deeper into their products tying us deeper into their business, locking us in. So I think if there's something to take away from if you're in business is to think are the tools we use for listening. And can we maybe deploy some of them as tools for empowerment and not just for dominance and not just for ways of making us more and more inevitable and maybe empowering the other side and I think it's it's certainly for me. That's one of the big differences and I honestly don't know how to reconcile those motivations. But I think it would be a powerful contribution to make just to be aware of this right that listening you can be in a company the listening, the chief listening offers officer, but you hold a lot of power with the way you're structuring that conversation. So had other questions but we have so many questions from our listeners. So I like brainstorm really quick, we're not going to get to all these questions and they're really fabulous questions so I think what we're going to do is where I'm going to send out all of these questions or we'll have a we'll talk and I'll get answers to all of your questions and we'll we'll put them up on the Commons and make sure that you know you can read them and and but why don't we take one of these questions which I think is sort of interesting. Next, have you seen examples where slowly an approach is taken in government in spite of election cycles and administration changes. If so, could you share and all of the speakers feel free to jump in. I'll pass on this one because I don't. Yeah, I haven't. I'll answer this one. And actually we, we wrote about some of this in on the New America blog of the public interest technology group around this approach of making austerity a community project. Many governments, local and otherwise are embarking on these emergency budget cuts. And they're implemented by enlarge without consulting the public, but led by experts and in part this is motivated by wanting to take decisions quickly in part this is because supposedly budgets are complex, and so forth. But if you look at, if you look at the UK. There are a couple of cities I'd like to point you to one is the city of Sefton, and they, the government early on after the financial crisis realized that they were going to cut so much budget that the government no longer was able to be the patriarchal servant to the community delivering services, but would rely on the community to help them optimize those services. And in Sefton as well as in, in Wigan, they retrained the government, all public employees were retrained to become to look at people they were serving not as people with problems but with capacity, and try to involve them in solving the problem together. They tied in the voluntary sector. To facilitate that process. And so what I'm describing here is a government having the humility to say we're no longer able to serve you all in the way we thought we were in the past, and we're now becoming one of you. Yes, we bring resources and we have responsibility and we need to care. And that was very successful and in fact it got them reelected with a majority halfway through the austerity. And Sefton is interesting. And 50% of the budget was cut, not by any of their own doing, but by mandated by the central government, and just as they were about to no longer have to implement further cuts. COVID struck. And they had to cut yet again. They had to cut 80% after they were down on their knees. And the only way they could do any of this was because the community now work together with them to really, on a weekly basis, optimize the limited resources they had and I think that's, it's a really great story and we'll write about it but you know those are maybe a couple of cases to look at. We're actually at the end of our time together but I do want to read this question from the Tina Michael and she's actually at Arizona State University and I. I hate this because I think all of our speakers could have answered this but she says the word technology is in public interest technology, and I tell my students that the word technology should only be considered in context during the design prototyping not problem definition concept mapping or discovery, but what if technology was considered a process that even products were actually processes. And she wanted to know if the panelists agreed or disagreed with this approach. So, think about that because I'm going to be coming back and asking you to answer that. Sasha, since you were the one that came up with this fabulous idea do you want to leave us with some final thoughts and then I'll take it back to say goodbye to everyone. Oh man. I wonder, I want to thank you Karen and Sonya and Eric I mean this this has been mind blowing it's been everything I hope I've been I've honestly been waiting for this panel probably for at least 10 years if not longer so I want to thank you for indulging, me and reaffirming me in kind of what I'm learning, learning this low and hard way. I think I want to leave the panel maybe with with one thing that that issue of holding the urgency. I think we've we've this panel has covered a lot of ground from technology and tactics and strategy and investors and funders. All the way to to nurturing the ground and Eric's backyard. One thing here is to remember that every community I found in the slow lane and there are a lot has no lack of urgency. You know is not slacking. If they're slow it's intentional. If they're waiting, not doing something it's intentional. Everyone is bursting to their seams with with energy to solve things but they're using slowness as a tool as an instrument and I think I find that fascinating and I think Sonya spoke to this Eric spoke to this to the kind of instinct in us to do more. And so I really hate the distinguishing distinguishing between rushing and going slow. The slow lane is not about going slow the slow lane is about letting things emerge when the time is right. I'd like to thank our speakers to for spending so much time with us today for being willing to sit on the phone and sit on zoom and be interviewed by me to for the next issue of the Commons. And I hope if ever anyone out there is interested in reading tomorrow's issue and hearing more about each of our panelists and their connections to the slow lane. We'd love it if you could use that URL you'll find right there in the chat to sign up for the email delivery. And in addition we'd also like to invite you to attend our next new America public interest technology webinar, which is on February 9 at noon Eastern, and that events called from this disaster to recovery findings on a broken design and delivery of COVID housing and unemployment aid and pass forward. And that'll feature features speakers from our new practice lab. And you'll also see the link to sign up right there in the chat box. And with that, I'd really like to thank everyone for attending today's event taking the slow lane why technology isn't the only answer. Hope everyone has a great day.