Head of State

GovernmentVAR: What are the biggest benefits of involvement with NASCIO?

Jarrett: I think the connection with our peers, combined with the advocacy NASCIO provides, are the biggest benefits. We have a tremendous amount of work going on in all of our states. NASCIO is able to do a lot of the legwork and research—from spyware and enterprise-architecture technology to procurement—and be our soundpiece from a federal perspective. Cybersecurity, for example, is a No. 1 issue for states, but from our perspective not a high priority for the feds. NASCIO helps tell our story.

GV: In that sense, is the federal government responsive to issues brought up by the states?

Jarrett: [Pauses] Most of the time. States and the federal government get caught up in a turf situation—it will always be that way. But as NASCIO becomes a stronger voice for the states as far as technology is concerned, we're getting more respect. That's really what we want. It's about having a voice and having a seat at the table.

GV: What is needed to improve the relationship?

Jarrett: We need to talk. We would like to take the politics out of it, but that won't happen. More and more responsibilities are being pushed to the states; the states can either push back, or work together with the federal government to address, for example, health-care/Medicaid costs. If we're going to correct those sorts of universal issues, we need to build a collaborative effort. The feds can't just do it on their own, because the real costs are to the states. What we don't want is another HIPAA situation where we barely even had a say in policy.

We can analyze the relationship all day long, but what it comes down to is a need to first establish a mutual respect, and then hammer out what roles we need to play to get things done.

GV: What role do the integrators play in helping to forward state IT initiatives and improve the relationship with the federal government?

Jarrett: With all due respect, having spent 30 years on that side of the fence, there is an advantage for the private sector to leaving it the way that it is. The less state and federal government combine goals and initiatives, the more opportunity [integrators] have to sell. I respect that. But we need to establish a win/win. They're in the business of selling stuff, but they also have to be respectful of how we're forced to operate.

GV: What are the key points that integrators are missing?

Jarrett: Mainly, they need to understand how widespread the differences between states are and do their homework. There's no one size that fits all. Don't come in and start complaining about the rules or the process because the reality is I, or my people, can't do anything about it. And from the CIO perspective, integrators need to understand the lay of the land and who's in charge. In a lot of states, the CIO is the final authority regarding technology deployment. Integrators that try to sell to agencies are going to get themselves into trouble—that's been a big issue in my state of Delaware. Integrators go out and spend six months selling to an agency, only for that agency to show up on my doorstep. We look at the solution and say, "This doesn't meet the standards, so you're not doing it." We're not going to stop anyone from doing business, but I sign off on these things. Be careful to not spend a lot of time selling something that won't ever get funded. CIOs need to be in the discussion process.

GV: So, what makes a good partner?

Jarrett: I'm looking for someone who has a clear understanding of my requirements. And at the same time, I have a responsibility to understand their solution as well. Partnership goes beyond the "stuff"—it comes down to the people and how you treat each other. I respect what you have to do, I respect your business, I respect your corporate model, and you have to respect what I have to go through. Again, that just means communication and mutual respect.

GV: What technologies are big right now at the state level, for Delaware and across the board?

Jarrett: It's all over the map. But generally speaking, wireless is big; anything that touches the whole issue of homeland security is big. For us in Delaware, the technologies we're buying and deploying all have some security component to them. That's what a lot of folks are spending money on.

GV: Do the types of security solutions being deployed by states differ from those at the federal level?

Jarrett: Not necessarily. But the reality is that the majority of money coming from DHS is being spent on physical security—rather than cybersecurity, which is where states see the biggest risk. It's disconcerting; we're not trying to stop funds going elsewhere, but we want equal emphasis.

GV: What else is NASCIO focusing on?

Jarrett: Right now, we're going to stay focused on these four key areas: data sharing, cybersecurity, privacy and health information. The staggering health-care costs are something we can't sustain. We have to stop it—and technology is not the entire answer, but it's one way among many to try to drive out costs. Until now, education was the predominant cost for states—it's not anymore. At the same time, I'm spending a lot of our own money on things like cybersecurity—which should be covered by federal funds coming out of DHS. That's money not going into health-care information initiatives and education. n