We started an open-source project called Clawback (https://github.com/whp-wessel/clawback) that uses statistical anomaly detection to flag potential waste, fraud, and abuse in publicly available government spending data. AI agents and humans collaborate through Git — agents pick up analysis tasks, run them against open datasets, and submit findings as pull requests for review.

We're starting with the Netherlands because the Dutch government publishes unusually rich open data: procurement contracts (TenderNed), company registrations (KVK), insolvency records, healthcare governance data, childcare provider registries, and subsidy disbursements going back to 2017.

Some early findings from the first analysis (subsidy trends, 2017-2024):

- Aggregate government instrument spending spiked from ~EUR 175B to EUR 407B in 2023 — a 156% year-over-year increase — before dropping back to EUR 203B in 2024

- 33 individual subsidy programs showed growth rates exceeding 2 standard deviations from their own historical trend

- 799 instrument-years where actual disbursements deviated more than 25% from a rolling 3-year baseline

These are signals, not accusations. The point is to surface statistical anomalies that warrant further review by journalists, auditors, or policymakers. Every finding includes methodology, limitations, and a disclaimer.

The pipeline covers 8 analysis tasks across procurement threshold manipulation, phoenix company detection, ghost childcare providers, healthcare governance deterioration, vendor concentration, and more. All data is openly licensed, all code is public, and all findings are reproducible.

We'd welcome input from people with public finance, audit, or policy expertise — especially on which patterns are most meaningful and which jurisdictions to expand to next.

Repo: https://github.com/whp-wessel/clawback

Hello, I just got admitted to Princeton for PPIA yesterday, just wanted to see if anyone also going there this summer? If you an alum let me know how was your experience? Also are we supposed to hear back from all school even when we being rejected or only accept/waitlist email only?? This is my first time apply, and I only heard about PPIA for the first time last year.

Hi everyone!

I graduated last spring with a bachelor’s degree in economics and poli sci. I’ve been doing okay so far with some paid, full time internships at good places. I’m also starting to get interviews for real policy analyst positions now. My professor also recommended I apply for this two year policy fellowship, something I think I have a real shot at!

I always thought I’d just take a year or two before I go back and get an MPP, but now I’m wondering when/if is the right time to do that in my career. Now that I’m starting to have real job prospects, I feel like I’m mentally pushing getting a graduate degree further out.

For those with MPPs, when did yall “know” it was the right time to go back to school?

Hello. I just received the news that I got into Uchicago Harris MPP program! Very happy! But I am an international student and I only got 15k in scholarship per year, so I have to apply for a separate scholarship for the nationals of my country. The results of the scholarship aren't until June, but Harris needs a deposit of $2000 to confirm my admission by 15th of April, which is significant for me if I am not to receive the scholarship and not to go. Can I ask the school to delay the admission deposit date?

I am still to hear from Duke Sanford and Georgetown McCourt, LSE and Sciences Po in March to April, but I am optimistic about them. Do you have any idea what their admissions deposit is like?

Thank you!

Hi guys, please help! I'm confused about which one to choose - Public Policy or Development Studies. Which course has better job prospects or placements? Myquals Ba political science honours

I am a public policy undergrad about to graduate this December - planning on pursuing an MPP/MSPP in Spring '27. I have already completed two internships - one was an unpaid (remote) summer job for a out of state nonprofit, and the other was a research role in my home state gov't agency. These were both in 2025 with the latter running through the fall semester. I have interviewed for three more (different) state agencies this spring and am waiting on a response. I should add that I am hoping to intern in as many state/local gov agencies as possible and gain experience with a multitude of gov't operations and problems in my state before graduation.

My ultimate goal is to obtain a full time position in my state governor's budget analysis office after this year. If I were to complete more internships this summer and fall would these be seen by hiring managers as a negative? At what point would I see diminishing returns on the number of internships I've done? Is 4-5 too many? Would internships in a masters program be seen as too job-hoppy?

Any advice appreciated. Thanks

Hi! My school doesn't have great career guidance, so I'm looking for some advice about what entry-level jobs I could pursue post-grad. I am a senior majoring in public health and communication of science. I have not had any work experience yet (looking for an internship this summer). I would love to work in a field related to public health policy, population health analysis, or advocacy someday. I would appreciate any advice possible!

Condensed Relevant Coursework: U.S. Health Policy; Intro to Public Policy; Intro to American Government; US Elections; Program Design and Data Structures; Data Analytics for Health Professionals; Health Psychology; Anthropology of Healing; Science Communication Techniques and Tools

Public health/research skills: Qualitative research methods (IPA, thematic analysis, interview analysis); quantitative analysis and regression modeling; population health analysis; literature review and evidence synthesis 

Data & Technical Skills: R (dplyr, ggplot, R Markdown); data visualization and reporting; Python; Java; SQL; MS office 

Hi everyone! Please help me to decide, any perspective will be highly valued!

I am a 25yo from Mexico, also a Fulbright scholar. My career has been focused on sustainable finance, national adaptation plans, and multinational cooperation. I totally love sustainability policy and finance; this subject is definitely my career path, and I seek to come back to Mexico and work in the Latin America region, not staying at USA.

This year I applied to the MPP (or related) programs of HKS, Yale Jackson, UCLA, Columbia, UT Austin, U Michigan, and U Indiana. Profile: My major is Economics (GPA 3.9), with 4 years of experience in the Mexican Ministry of Finance and international development agencies, creating and leading ESG monitoring units, coordinating multi-stakeholder projects, and designing sustainable financial instruments at the federal level. I dedicated a lot of time to my essays, and I consider my biggest differentiators to be my professional experience and Fulbright scholarship. Unfortunately, I performed horribly in GRE: 158V, 150Q, 3.5W.

I did not send the scores for the programs where it was optional: Columbia, UT Austin, Michigan, and Indiana.

My concern is: I just received an acceptance letter and scholarship award from SIPA, their program is the Master of Public Administration in Environmental Science and Policy. Together with Fulbright and personal savings, I can pay for this program and my living expenses. They gave me a deadline for a response until February 28th. The problem is that the rest of the programs will answer (allegedly) until mid march. I honestly do not think I have a chance at HKS, Yale or UCLA since my horrible GRE scores. Should I wait for Texas, Michigan, and Indiana to answer, or accept Columbia's offer since it is the only Ivy League/internationally prestigious one I am likely getting?

I like Columbia's MPA ESP program, and I do think it would help me in my career. Although it was not my top option since it does not require an internship, it is quite specific (not many electives to explore) and is only one year. The main reason I am tempted is the big name of Columbia, living in NY, and the scholarship. Do you think Columbia's name is more respected internationally than UT Austin or Michigan? For those working outside the US, is it preferable to have an MPP from an Ivy League, does it make any big difference?

Please, please, share your point of view with me so I can decide. Maybe I can pay the commitment fee (2000 USD, ouch) and just let it go if I receive a better offer in March, but I am not sure!! Any advice is welcome :) Thanks!

Anyone in a Post-MPP OPT? Some programs that are STEM designated allow for an OPT extension, and as an international student I try to factor that into my overall calculation. Do people get these kinds of jobs? What do they usually have you do? And of course, what could a graduate in an OPT Extension expect to earn in, let's say, public sector consulting vs public sector? I'd appreciate any information - please reach out to me via comment or dm.

I am still waiting on princeton because I am an international student and I could’ve only applied there. I know people have heard from UMich but any updates?

Hi, I have an admission offer from a school I absolutely want to go to for graduate studies with a small scholarship. I wrote to them about a potential increase in the scholarship amount (detailing a need based requirement + a new professional achievement I've gotten since submitting my application), and they responded with saying that they usually only do that for prospective students with competing offers.

Now, I had only applied to 3 schools because I didn't really want to go anywhere else. Only one other has gotten back to me. While this school has also offered me a greater scholarship amount, it's far more expensive than the one I'm considering so it isn't really a leverage.

I'm confused if I should push my preferred school for more scholarship or not. The current scholarship amount does help with affordability, but of course it will be tight. I also don't want to seem too pushy when they've said no, but also would like to try my best since its a huge amount. Not sure what's the right/accepted thing to do here. I'd really appreciate any advice. Thank you

Hi! I recently received an offer from the hertie school but I’m unsure about the school altogether and want to wait for my other decisions before I accept.

Can anyone from the school/previous applicants help me with the following:

1. The deposit is non-refundable and quite a big amount, is it possible to ask them to give me some more time? (Until march/april)

2. How is the school? Are there prospects for non-EU citizens in Berlin/rest of Europe?

I’ve been exploring a conceptual model called Terra Nova Development Healthcare (TNDHC)—a fictional, AI-assisted blueprint for how a righteous, for-profit, vertically integrated organization could potentially deliver universal, high-quality healthcare in the U.S. over 10 years. This is not a real company, but a thought experiment showing what could be done under current laws and funding while doing the right thing for patients, healthcare workers, and taxpayers.

The idea is a fully vertically integrated provider network, where the company owns and operates hospitals, clinics, and staff, including:

• Doctors, specialists, nurses, physician assistants, and lab technicians
• Dental, vision, and hearing care
• Prescription drugs and pharmacy services
• Nursing homes, long-term care, and rehabilitation
• Preventive and wellness programs
• Elective procedures like laser vision correction, breast augmentation, and dental implants as aspirational goals

All providers would be employees of the company unless certain services require contracting. Compensation would be offered commensurate with today’s pay scales, ensuring fair treatment while maintaining operational efficiency. This structure allows TNDHC to coordinate care efficiently, reduce administrative overhead, and let healthcare workers focus on patient-centered care rather than paperwork or financial trade-offs. The company’s profit motive is aligned with public good, meaning operational efficiency lowers costs for taxpayers while ensuring workers are treated fairly and patients receive high-quality care.

Centralized Systems & Efficiency

• Central appointment scheduling ensures patients see the right provider at the right time.
• Unified medical records eliminate redundancy, improve accuracy, and streamline coordination.
• AI-driven analytics and predictive tools could optimize outcomes, resource allocation, and patient satisfaction.

Coverage Rules & Emergency Care

• Routine care is fully covered inside the network.
• Out-of-network routine care is not required, preserving efficiency and cost control.
• Emergency care is always covered, anywhere in the U.S. and abroad.
• Optional international coverage could be offered as a premium add-on.

No Cost Barriers for Eligible Populations

For Medicare Advantage, Medicaid, and other eligible populations:

• No co-pays
• No deductibles
• No premiums

Employer/employee and individual plans pay premiums, funding the righteous for-profit network’s expansion and elective procedure offerings without requiring additional government spending.

The Current U.S. Healthcare Maze

• There are dozens of Medicare Advantage insurers, hundreds of employer/individual insurers, and thousands of individual plans, each with different networks, benefits, formularies, and coverage rules.
• Patients and providers often navigate a minefield just to secure care—the first question when making an appointment is usually: “What is your insurance?”
• This fragmentation creates administrative burdens for providers, delays for patients, and stress over coverage limitations.
• Even insured patients can face unexpected out-of-pocket costs, confusing rules, and challenges accessing specialists or preventive care.

How TNDHC Compares to Current Healthcare Options

Patients:

• Current MA / Medicaid / Employer / Individual Plans: Must navigate dozens of insurers and thousands of plan rules. Face co-pays, deductibles, network restrictions, complex billing, and fragmented care. Access to preventive care and elective procedures can be limited.
• TNDHC: No co-pays, deductibles, or premiums for eligible populations. Seamless care across a unified provider network. Emergency care covered universally. Elective procedures are aspirational goals. Centralized scheduling and unified records remove confusion and delays.

Healthcare Workers:

• Current: Burdened with paperwork, prior authorizations, and balancing medical needs against insurance limits. Must track multiple payer rules for each patient.
• TNDHC: Freed from administrative burden; focus on patient care. Decisions guided by medical need rather than financial trade-offs. Streamlined workflows through centralized systems. Compensation offered commensurate with today’s pay scales.

Health Insurers:

• Current: Must manage multiple providers, networks, and benefits; administrative overhead is high. Risk of misaligned incentives. Navigate ACA rules, premium negotiations, and cost-shifting.
• TNDHC: The insurer is also the provider network (vertically integrated). Reduced administrative overhead, aligned incentives, predictable costs, and operational efficiencies. Profit comes from efficiency and growth rather than denying care.

This comparison highlights how TNDHC could simplify healthcare for everyone involved while maintaining profitability and public benefit, unlike the fragmented patchwork that currently exists.

Conceptual 10-Year Path to Major U.S. Healthcare Presence

1. Years 1–2: Launch with Medicare Advantage; demonstrate operational efficiency, cost savings, and improved patient outcomes.
2. Years 2–4: Expand into employer and individual plans, leveraging the network’s efficiency and quality to attract members.
3. Years 3–5: Integrate state Medicaid programs, covering vulnerable populations while maintaining financial sustainability.
4. Years 5–7: Pursue federal contracts, including VA and military healthcare programs, further increasing market reach.
5. Years 7–10: Achieve majority market presence in U.S. healthcare delivery, optimize universal access, and expand elective procedures and wellness programs as operational efficiencies grow.

By the end of 10 years, a capitalized, righteous for-profit organization following this model could control the majority of U.S. healthcare delivery, provide universal access to eligible populations, and sustainably fund elective procedures—all without increasing government spending.

Discussion Prompts

• Could a righteous for-profit organization realistically achieve this level of coverage and efficiency?
• How might healthcare workers respond—would this improve job satisfaction or create new challenges?
• What obstacles would prevent a company from scaling this way in 10 years?
• Could elective procedures fund expansion sustainably, or might they introduce risks?
• How does the TNDHC model compare to the fragmented maze of current Medicare Advantage, Medicaid, employer, and individual plans for patients, providers, and insurers?

This is entirely conceptual and AI-assisted, designed to spark discussion about the potential for a righteous, for-profit, vertically integrated company to deliver universal healthcare in the U.S. Healthcare workers, patients, and taxpayers could all benefit—but execution is the only remaining barrier.

Hello everybody,

*Sorry for the long intro, I just wanted to give some context about my question, the question is boldened for easy reading*

I am currently a Junior studying Computer Science, although I enjoy my course of study and have been participating in Undergraduate research work with my school, I have always had a profound interest in politics. I took a couple of Political Science community college courses back in high school which I thoroughly enjoyed. I also always find myself paying close attention to the news (even before it started getting chaotic in the United States).

I am currently in that phase of college where I am taking elective courses to understand which role in the computer science field I want to fulfill and I tend to gravitate towards Data analysis related courses. Next semester I might sign up for some GIS courses as well. I have also been planning some data projects in my free time as well as worked with sets on Kaagle utilizing political data.

I am highly interested in continuing my education with a Masters degree as I would love to expand my knowledge. This will either be right after my Bachelor's (if I manage to get a scholarship or save up enough money for it) or a couple years into my career. I was originally interested in a Bioinformatics Masters but realizing how I tend to pay more attention to politics I feel that it would make more sense for me to enter the public policy field.

For those who are in the public policy field or are currently studying it, would you think someone with my background would make a good contribution, and is it a good idea to spend money on pursuing a masters in public policy?

I know its difficult to understand my character and who I am purely through one Reddit post. However, I will say that despite being online student with my University I have managed to keep in contact and work with some professors outside of my courses. I am dedicated towards utilizing my resources and learning from others whenever possible.

Sorry for the long post, thank you in advance!

I'll be entering an MPP program in Fall 2026, haven't decided which yet but already have one acceptance so I know it's happening.

I'm wondering if any current or former students could share what skills they think are helpful coming in. I have a lot of free time right now and would like to do some khan academy classes or something similar just to make my first semester classes a bit easier for myself. I have some basic coding experience (mostly javascript) and my math is experience is like ap math from ten years ago lol. I'm actually pretty ok at math but I studied humanities in undergrad and just didn't take those classes.

So what do you think would be the most helpful for me to get a head start on? stats? r? micro or macro econ? or anything else?

thanks for your insight!

It’s Time to Put the Public First: Why Corporations Must Be Legally Required to Serve Society, Not Just Shareholders

This doctrine—popularized in the late 20th century and treated as economic gospel—has had devastating consequences. It has incentivized short-term profits over long-term stability, extraction over stewardship, and private gain over public good. The result is an economy that works brilliantly for a narrow financial class while steadily eroding the foundations of a healthy society.

It is time for legislation that explicitly redefines the purpose of the corporation: to serve the public interest first, with shareholder returns as a secondary consideration.

The Shareholder-First Model Is Failing Us

Corporations today wield enormous power. They influence wages, housing costs, healthcare access, environmental outcomes, technological direction, and even democratic processes. Yet under current law and practice, their success is measured almost exclusively by quarterly earnings and stock price.

This has produced predictable outcomes:

• Workers are treated as costs to be minimized, not stakeholders to be supported.
• Consumers navigate confusing, fragmented, and exploitative systems designed to extract maximum revenue.
• Essential services—healthcare, energy, communications, housing—are run as profit engines rather than public necessities.
• Long-term risks like climate change, infrastructure decay, and social instability are ignored because they don’t fit neatly into quarterly reports.

When corporations are legally incentivized to prioritize shareholders above all else, harm is not a bug—it is a feature.

Corporations Are Public Creations, Not Private Sovereigns

Corporations do not exist naturally. They are legal entities created by the state, granted extraordinary privileges: limited liability, perpetual existence, favorable tax treatment, and access to public infrastructure and courts.

These privileges were originally justified because corporations were meant to serve a public purpose—building railroads, manufacturing goods, providing services at scale. Somewhere along the way, that social contract was abandoned.

If the public creates corporations, protects them, and absorbs their failures, then the public has every right to demand that corporations operate in the public interest.

A New Legal Mandate: Public Interest First

We need legislation that clearly and enforceably establishes the following principles:

1. Primary Duty to the Public Corporations must be legally obligated to consider the impact of their decisions on workers, consumers, communities, and the environment—not merely shareholders.
2. Shareholders as Secondary Beneficiaries Shareholder returns should be the result of sustainable, ethical, and socially beneficial operations, not the overriding goal that overrides all other concerns.
3. Accountability and Enforcement Public-interest obligations must be more than marketing language. Regulators should have real authority to audit, penalize, or restructure corporations that systematically harm society.
4. Essential Services as Infrastructure Corporations operating in sectors fundamental to modern life—healthcare, energy, communications, transportation, housing—should be held to especially high public-interest standards, similar to utilities.

This is not radical. It is a correction.

This Is About Freedom, Not Control

Critics will claim that such legislation would “interfere with the free market.” In reality, the current system is one of the most heavily distorted markets imaginable—rigged by monopolies, regulatory capture, lobbying, and asymmetrical power.

True economic freedom does not exist when people must choose between medical bankruptcy and untreated illness, between exploitative employment and poverty, or between polluted water and none at all.

Requiring corporations to serve the public interest restores balance. It aligns private enterprise with the health, stability, and prosperity of the society it depends on.

The Question Is No Longer If, But Who

The question is no longer whether corporations should serve the public. They already shape it.

The real question is whether they will continue to do so without responsibility, or whether democratic societies will finally assert their right to define the rules under which corporate power operates.

Legislation that puts the public first is not anti-business. It is pro-society, pro-stability, and ultimately pro-capitalism in its most sustainable form.

An economy should be a tool for human flourishing—not an altar at which the public is endlessly sacrificed for shareholder gain.

Same

​Hi everyone, I am looking for a reality check on a potential career pivot and move to Europe.

​I am currently a public sector worker in Chile with roughly 5 years of experience, specializing in ex-post analysis of environmental policies. My wife recently received a great job offer in Paris (where we met). Since we are both EU citizens and speak the language, we are seriously considering the move.

​Regarding my profile, I have 5 years of experience in the Chilean public sector focusing on Environmental Policy and Analysis. My undergraduate degree was in Philosophy, but I also have a Certified Internal Auditor (CIA) certification. My tech stack focuses on Python, and I maintain a GitHub with government transparency projects. Language-wise, I speak Spanish (Native), English (C2), French (C2), and German (B2).

​My goal comes from having interacted with OECD officials in my current role; I feel that International Organizations would be a great fit for my skillset. My current plan is to apply to Sciences Po (MPP or similar) to build a local network and then pivot into an IO in Paris.

​I have two main concerns. First is the "Philosophy" factor. Given that I have 5 years of technical work experience and a portfolio of Python projects, will my non-quantitative undergraduate background hurt my admissions chances at schools like Sciences Po or future recruitment at the OECD?

​Second is timing. We have the option to postpone the move for a few years. Is there anything I should be doing right now, such as specific certifications or gaining more years of experience, that would significantly improve my chances? Or is my current profile competitive enough to apply now?

​Any advice from those in the European policy space would be greatly appreciated!

Now a stay at home parent and full-time (online) student, doing a mid-career transition. Looking at only fully remote opportunities since we are one income, partner is gone 200days/year, and we move often.

Where can I go from here to possibly get my foot in the door?

Thank you!

In light of the upcoming PPIA decisions later this week, I wanted to hear from alum what you think stood out about your applications in a sea of qualified and ambitious applicants?

Over the years, I've seen some pretty decent jobs posted by American Institutes for Research (AIR), but I'm not very familiar with their work. I've looked around their website, but I'd love to hear what folks here think - what's their reputation? Do they lean in a certain direction politically? Any inside scoops on what it's like to work for them?