Our focus / Human rights
Rights need institutions that listen, decisions people can challenge, and remedies that reach those harmed.
Explore the agendaA right that cannot be understood, invoked, defended, or enforced is an aspiration, not yet a protection.
A public system can promise equal treatment and still leave a person unable to understand a refusal, correct a record or recover a lost service. Rights become dependable through the details of administration: who exercises power, which evidence is used, how reasons are explained and who can require repair. Our proposed agenda follows that chain, including people who cannot begin a complaint.
Research & proposal stage. No current grants, funded partnerships or service delivery are claimed.
Five distinct supports carry one common lintel. Their forms remain different; their standing is shared. The study reflects a rights framework that protects difference while holding every institution to a common floor of dignity.
New in the policy library · October 2026
A proposed framework connecting care, learning, work and community with autonomy, privacy and accountable technology. Read all 300 sections with the Foundation’s legal, fiscal and implementation analysis.
Explore the bill and analysis ↗The proposed next chapter
The next work would examine the full route from a public decision to effective review and repair. A right on paper is the starting point.
A remedy matters when it changes what happens next.
Priorities for developmentOpaque administrative and automated processes can conceal mistakes and leave people unsure who is responsible.
Develop a decision record linking lawful authority, evidence, understandable reasons and a reviewer empowered to correct the outcome. Rehearse its use with fictional cases before considering real records.
Comprehension, time to effective review and erroneous adverse decisions, including sampled cases without an appeal. A low appeal rate may hide an inaccessible process.
Cost, disability, language and fear can make a formal remedy impossible to use.
Design assisted legal-navigation and representation pathways with affected communities. Include urgent protection, confidential support and a practical handoff to someone who can act.
Completed referrals, abandoned attempts, urgent protection and enforceable remedies. Complaint volume alone says little about whether people can access justice.
Correcting one person’s case can leave the same institutional defect affecting many others.
Develop a systemic-repair protocol for identifying affected cases, correcting records, restoring services and considering compensation where applicable. Name who can compel and verify each action.
Completed restoration, unresolved cases and recurrence of the underlying error. Closing an incident report is not the same as repairing the harm.
Human rights are not self-executing. They require law, culture, institutions, enforcement, public courage, and repair. True Tomorrow works on the systems that convert moral commitments into durable protections.
Make automated and administrative decisions legible, attributable, reviewable, and reversible when they affect a person's rights or essential life conditions.
Proposed outputNotice standard · appeal pathway · accountable system record
Strengthen participation, expression, association, information integrity, voting access, and institutional resilience under pressure.
Proposed outputCivic risk map · protection protocol · coalition compact
Reduce the practical distance between a formal right and a usable remedy through language access, legal navigation, representation, and public-interest support.
Proposed outputRights guide · navigation route · remedy design
Design protections, independent oversight, enforcement, and review so rights remain operative during crisis, polarization, or technological change.
Proposed outputModel framework · oversight design · stress test
Advance when the conditions are met. These are proposed stages, not announced projects or deadlines.
Map one public-service decision from its legal rule to its lived result. Include people who lack the time, support or confidence to challenge it.
Use fictional cases to test explanations, assisted review and a shared-error response. Identify where legal authority or reviewer capacity would be missing.
Define evidence of restored services and corrected records. A future pilot needs independent oversight, confidential reporting and enforceable remedies.
Legal authority, local procedure and enforceability require separate examination in every jurisdiction. Model principles cannot substitute for an effective institution or qualified local advice.
A rights framework should protect people before, during and after an institutional failure.
Evaluate the outcome for the person and the institution’s ability to prevent the same harm from recurring.
Proposed measures, not reported outcomes. Baselines, targets and methods would be agreed with participating communities before any pilot.
How the work would be developed, and what it must protect.
Describe the lived barrier, responsible power, legal context, material consequence, and people excluded from the record.
Treat people as authors of the protection and remedy, not symbols, anecdotes, or passive consultation subjects.
Join law, process, access, enforcement, oversight, finance, and institutional responsibility into one usable pathway.
Publish what changed, who can challenge it, whether harm persists, and how the institution must adapt.
The policy agenda joins anti-discrimination, democratic safeguards, digital rights, due process, privacy, civic participation, accessible justice, independent oversight, enforcement, and material repair.
PRICING Act of 2026Communities should shape definitions, evidence, remedies, oversight, and evaluation—not be added after the architecture is set.
Emergency authority should remain bounded, reviewable, time-limited, and subject to notice, evidence, and remedy.
Claims of security, efficiency, innovation, or fraud prevention must not conceal discrimination, surveillance, or unappealable power.
Acknowledgment matters, but restoration may also require compensation, corrected records, service access, institutional change, and enforcement.
Further reading
A sourced evidence brief on notice, responsible human review, remedy, procurement evidence, accountable system records, and risk management after launch.
In-depth publicationRights Protections in Automated Public SystemsThe ICCPR supplies a rights foundation. The Robodebt Royal Commission offers a concrete administrative-failure reference; its recommendations are not universal law.
Rights advocates, public-service teams and researchers can contribute evidence about inaccessible decisions, effective review and institutional repair. Please do not send confidential case files.
Contribute to the work