Government leaders are finding clarity — and shaping what it looks like

The role of the local government leader has never been more demanding. In an era defined by rapid technological change, evolving public expectations and economic uncertainty, the mandate is no longer just to manage—it is to lead through profound complexity.

Leaders are balancing immediate community needs against long-term strategic goals while navigating competing priorities, limited resources and diverse stakeholder interests. The central paradox of modern public service remains the same: doing more with less.

At the heart of that challenge is an information problem. Government is not suffering from a lack of data. It is overwhelmed by it.

For local government decision-makers—including city managers, department heads, IT leaders and finance officials—relevant information may be scattered across public records, strategic plans, meeting notes, resident feedback and the institutional knowledge of different departments. Before leaders can evaluate a solution, they must bring those inputs together, understand what is driving the issue and establish a shared definition of the problem.

They can also benefit from knowing how their peers have approached similar issues. The challenges confronting one city, county or state agency are rarely entirely unique. Another government may have already asked the same questions, encountered the same constraints or tested an approach that others can build on.

Anthony Fisher, GovAI Coalition Founding Board Member, described the value of making those connections:

“It’s easy to feel like you’re on an island facing unique public sector challenges. But when you finally voice a struggle, you’ll find peers saying, ‘I just navigated that—here’s the cheat sheet.’ We believe in open collaboration, never gatekeeping information from our peers.”

That combination—clearly defining the challenge and learning from governments that have already navigated similar terrain—shaped the development of Clarity.

Clarity helps government teams define complex problems that span departments, stakeholders and constraints before evaluating potential solutions. Grounded in a government’s own public records, it gives leaders a substantive starting point rather than a blank page. It also surfaces how peer governments are approaching similar challenges and provides practical next steps for planning, budgeting, stakeholder alignment and action.

For Parrish Spisz of the City of Tempe, a member of CivStart’s Platform Partners User Group, the value began with the depth of that problem-definition process:

“This level of analysis [from Clarity] is something I’ve never experienced before in a technology tool—it makes it so much easier to start examining a problem and define it more clearly.”

What makes Clarity different is not only what it does, but how government leaders helped shape it.

Building a tool for government is not something you do to government. It is something you do with them.

Over the past year, CivStart worked alongside its Platform Partners User Group, a cohort of practicing city managers, department directors, IT and finance leaders, and other subject matter experts who run and support the business of government. They did not participate simply to watch product demonstrations. They tested an unfinished platform, challenged assumptions and helped determine what their peers would actually need and trust.

Their feedback sharpened Clarity’s focus on the outcome government leaders valued most: understanding the challenge before considering solutions. They helped shape how problems are structured, what context the platform surfaces and how teams can move from a broad concern to a clear set of considerations and next steps.

They also made peer learning central to the experience. Government leaders emphasized that seeing how comparable communities framed and approached an issue could be more valuable than receiving a single prescribed answer.

As Joseph Cazier of Arizona State University explained:

“The solution space of what you consider is broader than if you’re doing it by yourself.”

Access to that broader base of knowledge is especially important for governments without large research teams or extensive internal capacity. Leaders still need credible examples, relevant context and a way to build on what others have learned before committing limited resources.

Government leaders also made clear that analysis alone would not be enough. Clarity needed to produce practical outputs that teams could use to align departments, support budget discussions, brief executives and elected officials, and determine what should happen next.

Louis Svehla, communications director for the City of Peachtree Corners, reflected on how having those insights earlier could have strengthened a project the city had already undertaken:

“It gave answers—and suggestions—that would have been helpful at the very beginning, when we started this process. There are things on here that I don’t think we even thought about.”

Trust and control were equally important. The Platform Partners User Group pushed CivStart to be transparent about how information is used, give governments control over what they choose to share and ensure that the technology supports—not replaces—the judgment of public leaders.

That feedback reflects CivStart’s broader approach.

Technology should help government leaders organize complexity, learn from peers and make more informed decisions with confidence. It should not make those decisions for them.

Ultimately, the goal is clarity: a shared understanding of the challenge, a broader view of how it might be addressed and a practical foundation for deciding what to do next.

Clarity is free for government and nonprofit leaders because the strongest solutions begin with a clear understanding of the challenge—and government leaders have been shaping that approach from the very beginning.