Recent critiques of government digital service teams like 18F fundamentally misunderstand both their mission and their impact. As someone who has closely studied federal technology modernization efforts, I can say with confidence: 18F represents exactly the kind of practical innovation our government desperately needs.

Critics often point to 18F's early growing pains, particularly around cost recovery. But this narrative ignores the team's remarkable evolution. By fiscal year 2019, 18F had dramatically improved its financial management and was nearly cost-recoverable, despite challenges like the government shutdown. The organization achieved this while right-sizing its workforce from over 225 to a more focused team of about 100 technical experts.

More importantly, measuring 18F solely on its balance sheet misses the point. The federal government spends nearly $90 billion annually on information technology, with up to 80% dedicated just to maintaining outdated legacy systems. In this context, 18F's role isn't to generate profit – it's to help agencies spend that massive IT budget more effectively.

And the evidence shows they're succeeding. Since its founding, 18F has worked on more than 372 projects with 109 government entities. Their impact ranges from making it easier for Americans in crisis to find substance abuse treatment centers to helping farmers more efficiently access loan applications. These aren't just technical achievements – they represent real improvements in how government serves citizens.

Critics also miss how 18F has matured organizationally. Early process control issues identified by oversight bodies have been systematically addressed. The team now fully complies with federal IT security requirements and CIO oversight mandates. They've implemented rigorous project planning practices and focused on transitioning work back to agencies or industry partners rather than maintaining permanent control.

Perhaps most importantly, 18F has helped foster a culture of innovation across government. Their open-source work, human-centered design practices, and agile development approaches have been widely adopted by other agencies. They've shown that government technology projects don't have to be slow, expensive waterfall disasters.

The core premise of 18F remains sound: bringing modern technical expertise inside government to help agencies build and buy technology more effectively. While early execution had room for improvement, the team has learned from experience and evolved. Rather than abandon this model, we should build on its success.

The reality is that government desperately needs internal technical capability to effectively serve citizens in the digital age. The alternative – complete dependence on traditional contractors with little incentive to modernize – is far more expensive and risky in the long run.

As Congress continues its oversight role, the focus should be on helping digital service teams like 18F expand their impact while maintaining appropriate controls. The last decade has shown that these teams, when properly structured and managed, can be a powerful force for positive change in how government serves citizens through technology.

The choice isn't between innovation and responsible management – it's about achieving both. 18F has shown it can be done. Let's build on that progress rather than tear it down.