The public mandate: Innovation with accountability
When an agency CIO decides to bring artificial intelligence into workflows, the choice is never purely technical. It is political, legal, and deeply connected to citizen expectations. The public demands faster, more accessible services, but it also expects transparency and accountability when government decisions touch people’s lives. Framing AI as a tool that enhances mission outcomes—and not as a gamble with public trust—is the first step in any successful program. That framing reframes requirements such as explainability, auditability, and records retention from afterthoughts into first-class design constraints.
For agencies that must comply with FOIA and retention schedules, every AI-driven interaction becomes a potential record. Designing for transparency means building systems that can produce human-understandable rationales where decisions matter, and logging those rationales in ways that are discoverable during audits or records requests. A pragmatic risk-tiering of AI use cases—separating low-impact automation from decisions that materially affect benefits, licensing, or legal status—keeps innovation moving while containing liability.
Secure AI baseline: policy, patterns, platforms
Before pilots multiply, invest in a secure AI baseline that standardizes policy, development patterns, and approved platforms. Aligning to the NIST AI RMF public sector guidance gives you a structured way to assess and manage risks, and mapping those controls back to familiar baselines like NIST SP 800-53 makes the requirements operational for auditors and engineers alike. That mapping should be explicit: which RMF functions are covered, which 800-53 controls apply, and how evidence will be collected.
Operationally, choose cloud environments and services that satisfy FedRAMP and FIPS requirements and that support strong key management and secrets handling. Default to data minimization: collect and store only what is necessary, and apply redaction and anonymization at ingestion for PII/PHI. Enforce encryption at rest and in transit, and require vendors to document where models were trained and with what data to preserve provenance.
Governance that works without slowing delivery
Good governance balances speed and safety. Too many gates grind pilots to a halt; too few invite risk. Start with lightweight intake forms that capture use case, data sensitivity, expected outcomes, and compliance constraints. Pair that intake with a model registry where every model—whether open source, third-party, or custom—is recorded with metadata: lineage, evaluation metrics, and approved use cases.
An AI governance board provides fast, multidisciplinary reviews using standardized threat-model templates. Those reviews focus on high-impact failure modes and on whether a human-in-the-loop threshold is required for the use case. For example, content classification that only surfaces recommended reading may be allowed to operate autonomously, while eligibility determinations require human sign-off. These rules preserve velocity while creating clear escalation paths.
Picking the first two pilots
Choose pilots that deliver visible value without exposing the agency to outsized legal or reputational risk. Two strong starter projects are document triage and citizen-service chat. Document triage automates the identification, redaction, and summarization of records—freeing staff from repetitive reviews while preserving FOIA and retention obligations. Implement strict redaction rules and data minimization so PII/PHI never leaves protected repositories in raw form.
Citizen-service chatbots can dramatically reduce wait times when genAI in citizen services is bounded to vetted content. Use retrieval-augmented generation that retrieves authoritative documents and prevents hallucination by gating outputs to a verified knowledge base. Both pilots are procurement-friendly: they can be evaluated with clear acceptance criteria such as redaction accuracy, response latency, and traceability of sources, and they include exit ramps if risks are realized.
Threats to prepare for from day one
Public-sector deployments encounter familiar and unique threats. Prompt injection and jailbreak attacks can coax models into revealing sensitive data; design your interfaces and prompts to validate inputs and to enforce filtering. Data exfiltration is a real concern when models are connected to external APIs—limit model access to only necessary datasets and employ monitoring that can detect anomalous outbound requests.
Content safety and misinformation are amplified in public contexts. Implement toxicity filters and provenance tagging; for any claim that could affect public behavior, require sources and a human review. The supply chain matters: demand an SBOM-like artifact for models, insist on vendor model provenance, and perform vendor diligence that includes testing for shadow training and unauthorized data reuse.
Change management and workforce enablement
Policies and platforms are only useful if people adopt them. Executive briefings set direction and show how secure AI ties into mission metrics. Training must be practical: teach program teams which data can go into models, how to interpret confidence metrics, and how to use playbooks for AI-assisted workflows in contact centers and service desks. Provide role-based guidance—what frontline staff need differs from what procurement officers must know.
Communication plans for the public are equally important. Transparently explain how AI is used, what safeguards exist, and how citizens can request records or corrections. That kind of openness builds public trust AI governance into operational practice rather than leaving it to compliance documents.
12-month roadmap and metrics
A focused 12-month roadmap balances capability building and measurable outcomes. In the first quarter, complete the secure baseline: policy adoption, approved cloud platform list, and the model registry. By quarter two, onboard the two pilots with documented threat models and monitoring. Quarter three should focus on audits: privacy impact assessments, bias testing, and operational metrics. By the end of the year, publish public reporting templates that summarize performance, incidents, and mitigations.
Measure both technical and mission outcomes. Quarterly maturity assessments against the NIST AI RMF public sector profile, privacy and bias audit results, and SLAs such as backlog reduction and response-time improvements all give decision-makers the clarity they need. Public-facing metrics—appropriately redacted—help sustain trust while enabling oversight.
How we help agencies
We partner with agencies to translate policy into practice. Our approach aligns AI strategy to mission goals and to the NIST AI RMF public sector guidance, helping teams map controls to NIST SP 800-53 where needed. We assist in architecting secure AI development on FedRAMP-authenticated platforms, enforce FIPS-compliant cryptography, and implement key management and redaction pipelines for PII/PHI.
Beyond technology, we equip program teams with tailored training, create intake and governance artifacts like model registries and threat-model templates, and support procurement with evaluation criteria designed for secure AI procurement. The aim is straightforward: enable safe, auditable, and effective genAI in citizen services while preserving the public trust that government must protect.
Starting right means balancing ambition with accountability. By building a secure baseline, governing with agility, choosing prudent pilots, and measuring outcomes, agency leaders can harness AI to improve services without sacrificing the transparency and protections citizens expect.
Sign Up For Updates.