Skip to content
Projects

The problems we take on.

Our first field assessment is complete, and a larger effort is under consideration. Here is the work the Foundation is built for — and the parts that have already happened.

On the record

Field assessment 001.

In September 2026, the Foundation assessed a municipal police battalion in Mesquita, Rio de Janeiro — what it could not do today, and whether technology would genuinely address those gaps.

The assessment is published in full, including the parts it could not establish. One aircraft was delivered to the unit, and a larger effort there is under consideration, subject to Board approval and available funding.

Mesquita, Baixada Fluminense — the ground the assessment was written on.

On the record

Capability discussion 001.

On 30 September 2026 the Foundation sat down with a municipal special enforcement unit in North Carolina for a first conversation about what technology could do for it.

The discussion covered emerging technology, uncrewed aircraft systems, situational awareness, training, equipment modernization, and the shape a future collaboration might take. It was exploratory: nothing was assessed, nothing was recommended, and nothing was given.

This is the work the Foundation exists to do — helping public-safety organizations evaluate technology that is practical, scalable and responsible, rather than simply available. Specific operational detail is not published, here or anywhere else.

On the record

Equipment Donation 001

On October 22, 2026, Sojourner Technology Foundation (STF) donated a DJI Avata 2 unmanned aircraft system to the Fuquay-Varina Police Department in North Carolina. Alongside the donation, STF provided approximately three hours of hands-on instruction to participating officers, helping establish the knowledge and skills needed to safely and effectively operate the equipment.

The training included equipment familiarization, system capabilities and limitations, operational safety considerations, and three progressive flight exercises, culminating in a practical indoor flight scenario. This approach reflects STF’s commitment to delivering more than equipment alone — ensuring recipients receive practical training that supports the responsible and sustainable use of donated technology.

The aircraft is now under the department’s ownership and operational control. STF does not direct or participate in its deployment.

Examples of problems the Foundation takes on

Problem type

Aerial assessment for a rural fire department

The problem
An under-resourced department arrives at a structure or wildland fire with no way to see the incident from above.
Why it persists
A capable airframe, a thermal payload, pilot certification and a written program cost more than a small department's annual equipment budget — and no one on the roster has spare hours to build it.
What a solution looks like
One reliable aircraft with thermal imaging, a written operating procedure, two or three certified pilots already on staff, and a maintenance path the department can afford to sustain.
Problem type

Search capability in difficult terrain

The problem
A rural sheriff's office or volunteer search-and-rescue team covers large areas of forest, water or mountain on foot.
Why it persists
Aviation support is hours away and expensive. Ground search is slow, and it exposes searchers to the same terrain that endangered the subject.
What a solution looks like
Thermal-capable aerial search with mapping and grid discipline, operated by trained local people — so the capability exists in the first hour, not the sixth.
Problem type

Connectivity for an isolated community

The problem
A school, clinic or emergency responder operates where there is no dependable internet or cellular service.
Why it persists
Extending terrestrial infrastructure is uneconomic. Satellite service exists and is affordable, but someone has to plan the installation and answer for the recurring cost.
What a solution looks like
Connectivity sized to real demand, installed properly, and a written answer to who pays the monthly service in year two.
Problem type

Energy resilience for a remote community

The problem
Essential functions stop when power does — refrigeration for medicine, radio communications, water pumping.
Why it persists
Solar and storage are cheap now; sizing, installation and maintenance knowledge are not locally available, and systems installed without them fail within a few years.
What a solution looks like
Modest generation and storage matched to specific essential loads, local people trained to maintain it, and a realistic source for replacement parts.
Problem type

Environmental awareness for a partner organization

The problem
An organization responsible for protecting land or monitoring conditions cannot see change across the area it covers.
Why it persists
Aerial imagery and change detection need equipment and analytic skill the organization does not have, and commercial imagery is priced for extractive industry rather than for stewards.
What a solution looks like
Imagery, mapping and change detection at a cadence the partner can sustain, with local staff trained to fly, process and interpret it themselves.
Problem type

Coordination support for underserved urban partners

The problem
Community organizations and emergency responders in under-resourced urban areas work the same incidents with no shared communications and no common picture.
Why it persists
Interoperable communications are procured agency by agency, and community organizations are almost never inside the procurement.
What a solution looks like
Shared, lawful communications and coordination tools for emergency response and preparedness.

This work is shared communications and coordination for community responders. It is not monitoring of residents, and STF does not operate anything it provides.

Problem type

Capability gaps in the first days of a disaster

The problem
A hurricane, wildfire or flood overwhelms local capacity. Communications fail, infrastructure becomes inaccessible, and leaders are making consequential decisions without current information.
Why it persists
These are capabilities nobody budgeted for, because they are never required during normal operations. Mutual aid is stretched thin exactly when it is needed most, and the organizations under the greatest pressure are the least able to go and find help.
What a solution looks like
A mission-specific team carrying temporary communications, aerial assessment, mapping and portable power — alongside experienced people who can help leaders assess conditions and set priorities.

STF does not replace incident command, government authorities or established emergency-response organizations. It reinforces them by closing specific capability gaps.

Selection

How we choose projects.

Every request is reviewed against the same nine questions. A project that fails one of them is declined, however compelling it is otherwise.

  1. Mission alignment

    Does the project directly advance the Foundation's charitable purpose?

  2. Demonstrated need

    Is there a legitimate operational or community need?

  3. Resource constraints

    Would the organization otherwise struggle to obtain the capability?

  4. Feasibility

    Can the solution realistically be implemented here?

  5. Sustainability

    Can local users operate and maintain it after we leave?

  6. Safety

    Can the project be delivered and used responsibly?

  7. Legal compliance

    Can the project be conducted lawfully, in every jurisdiction involved?

  8. Public benefit

    Will it create meaningful benefit beyond private interests?

  9. Measurable impact

    Can we reasonably determine whether it improved anything?

Request assistance
The record

What every project has to document.

Six things, written down before work starts. A project that cannot state its expected outcome in advance has not been thought through, and we would have no way to tell afterwards whether it worked.

Defined requirement
What the organization cannot do today, in its own words.
Proposed solution
The specific technology selected, and why it rather than something more expensive.
Cost or value
What it costs, including delivery, training and the recurring burden.
Beneficiary
Who receives it, who will operate it, and who is responsible on their side.
Implementation plan
How it gets installed, integrated and handed over.
Measurable outcome
What we expect to change, stated before we start.

Follow-up may include operational data, photographs, beneficiary feedback, lessons learned, equipment accountability and cost-per-beneficiary information.