ENGAGE: Building and Harnessing Networks for Social Impact

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Faizal Karmali and Claudia Juech at the Rockefeller Foundation: “Have you heard of ‘X’ organization? They’re doing interesting work that you should know about. You might even want to work together.”

Words like these abound between individuals at conferences, at industry events, in email, and, all too often, trapped in the minds of those who see the potential in connecting the dots. Bridging individuals, organizations, or ideas is fulfilling because these connections often result in value for everyone, sometimes immediately, but often over the long term. While many of us can think of that extraordinary network connector in our personal or professional circles, if asked to identify an organization that plays a similar role at scale, across multiple sectors, we may be hard-pressed to name more than a few—let alone understand how they do it well….

In an effort to capture and codify the growing breadth of knowledge and experience around leveraging networks for social impact, the Monitor Institute, a part of Deloitte Consulting, with support from The Rockefeller Foundation, have produced ENGAGE: How Funders Can Support and Leverage Networks for Social Impact— an online guide which offers a series of frameworks, tools, insights, and stories to help funders explore the critical questions around using networks as part of their grantmaking strategy—particularly as a means to accelerating impact….

ENGAGE draws on the experience and knowledge of over 40 leaders and practitioners in the field who are using networks to create change; digs into the deep pool of writing on the topic; and mines the significant experience in working with networks that is resident in both Monitor Institute and The Rockefeller Foundation. The result is an aggregation and synthesis of some of the leading thinking in both the theory and practice of engaging with networks as a grantmaker.

Compelling examples on how the Foundation leverages the power of networks can be seen in the creation of formal network institutions like the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) and the Joint Learning Network for Universal Health Coverage, but also through more targeted and time-bound network engagement activities, such as enabling greater connectivity among grantees and unleashing the power of technology to surface innovation from loosely curated crowds.

Building and harnessing networks is more an art than a science. It is our hope that ENGAGE will enable grantmakers and other network practitioners to be more deliberate and thoughtful about how and when a network can help accelerate their work…. (More)“

IMF Publishes Worldwide Government Revenue Database

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

IMF Press Release: “The IMF today published for the first time the World Revenue Longitudinal Dataset (WoRLD), which provides data on tax and non-tax revenues for 186 countries over the period 1990-2013. The database includes broad country coverage and time periods, and it is the result of combining in a consistent manner data from two other IMF publications — the IMF Government Finance Statistics and World Economic Outlook (WEO)– and drawing on the OECD’s Revenue Statistics and Revenue Statistics in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Vitor Gaspar, Director of the IMF’s Fiscal Affairs Department, said the purpose of releasing the database for general use is to “encourage and facilitate informed discussion and analysis of tax policy and administration for the full range of countries, the need for which was highlighted most recently during the Financing for Development conference in Addis Ababa.”

Constructing the database was a challenging exercise. An accompanying background note will be released in the coming weeks to explain the methodology. The database will be updated annually and will include information from IMF staff reports.

The database is available for download free of charge on the IMF e-Library data portal (http://data.imf.org/revenues).”

 

Postal Service’s Futuristic Vision for the Internet of Things

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Mohana Ravindranath at NextGov: “The U.S. Postal Service is betting a new device will soon enter hi-tech homes, alongside the self-adjusting thermostats, text-enabled washing machines, and fridges notifying owners when groceries run out: the smart mailbox.

It’s the future of mail delivery, according to USPS’ Office of the Inspector General: a mailbox, equipped with tiny sensors that can collect data on mail delivery and pick up time, or outside temperature. The owners might control the box’s internal temperature and locking mechanism through a smartphone app.

The smart mailbox is just one element of the Postal Service’s larger vision for the Internet of Things, a term for a connected network of devices and sensors. In a report about that vision — dubbed the “Internet of Postal Things” — the Inspector General’s Office, in collaboration with IBM, paints a picture of post office systems that auto-fill paperwork for customers as they walk in, delivery vehicles that monitor themselves for maintenance, and sensors that notify package recipients upon delivery, among other scenarios.

The IG’s office recommended the Postal Service “start experimenting with Internet of Things technologies” to modernize its business, “as well as develop new business models to stay relevant in the digital age.”

A more advanced technological infrastructure could prepare the agency for same-day delivery and real-time rerouting for packages, options which “have the potential to grow in importance as consumers continue to buy more items online,” the report said.

For instance, sensors in a smart mailbox could scan a barcode or read an RFID tag on a letter, which could confirm delivery and replace the hand scan and delivery signature process, the report said. If the mailbox were temperature controlled, employees could deliver groceries or temperature-sensitive medicine.

These new mailboxes could also make the agency money. “If 5 percent of the 117 U.S. million households rented such a box for $3 a month, the product would generate $210 million a year in revenue,” the report said.

Postal Service vehicles could use sensors for driving routing systems, modeled after the DHL’s SmartTruck program, which can recalculate routes based on real-time events such as traffic, weather, or new pick-up requests. Vehicle sensors could also weigh cargo to make sure the truck is fully packed.

In the 2012 fiscal year, the Postal Service spent $926 million on fuel for more than 15,000 highway routes, some of which are coast-to-coast — sensors could help manage those contracts better, the report said.

In-vehicle sensors could also “incentivize contract drivers as well as its own carriers to adopt fuel-efficient behavior.”

The sensors could additionally collect large volumes of data on routes, helping the agency identify operational inefficiencies. The Postal Service has about 200,000 vehicles traveling more than 1.2 billion miles annually, often the same route six  days a week — and plans to acquire about 10,000 vehicles over the next two years, the report said.

The IG also suggested post offices themselves get a tech upgrade. More efficient lighting or air conditioning systems might turn off when the office is empty. During business hours, beacon technology could detect when a customer enters the post office, send him or her a push notification through a smartphone app, and direct them to the right counter.

Customers could also use an app to pre-fill paperwork, such as customs forms, which could then be displayed on a clerk’s monitor. They may also use a smartphone app to pay for postage….(More)”

The New Science of Sentencing

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Anna Maria Barry-Jester et al at the Marshall Project: “Criminal sentencing has long been based on the present crime and, sometimes, the defendant’s past criminal record. In Pennsylvania, judges could soon consider a new dimension: the future.

Pennsylvania is on the verge of becoming one of the first states in the country to base criminal sentences not only on what crimes people have been convicted of, but also on whether they are deemed likely to commit additional crimes. As early as next year, judges there could receive statistically derived tools known as risk assessments to help them decide how much prison time — if any — to assign.

Risk assessments have existed in various forms for a century, but over the past two decades, they have spread through the American justice system, driven by advances in social science. The tools try to predict recidivism — repeat offending or breaking the rules of probation or parole — using statistical probabilities based on factors such as age, employment history and prior criminal record. They are now used at some stage of the criminal justice process in nearly every state. Many court systems use the tools to guide decisions about which prisoners to release on parole, for example, and risk assessments are becoming increasingly popular as a way to help set bail for inmates awaiting trial.

But Pennsylvania is about to take a step most states have until now resisted for adult defendants: using risk assessment in sentencing itself. A state commission is putting the finishing touches on a plan that, if implemented as expected, could allow some offenders considered low risk to get shorter prison sentences than they would otherwise or avoid incarceration entirely. Those deemed high risk could spend more time behind bars.

Pennsylvania, which already uses risk assessment in other phases of its criminal justice system, is considering the approach in sentencing because it is struggling with an unwieldy and expensive corrections system. Pennsylvania has roughly 50,000 people in state custody, 2,000 more than it has permanent beds for. Thousands more are in local jails, and hundreds of thousands are on probation or parole. The state spends $2 billion a year on its corrections system — more than 7 percent of the total state budget, up from less than 2 percent 30 years ago. Yet recidivism rates remain high: 1 in 3inmates is arrested again or reincarcerated within a year of being released.

States across the country are facing similar problems — Pennsylvania’s incarceration rate is almost exactly the national average — and many policymakers see risk assessment as an attractive solution. Moreover, the approach has bipartisan appeal: Among some conservatives, risk assessment appeals to the desire to spend tax dollars on locking up only those criminals who are truly dangerous to society. And some liberals hope a data-driven justice system will be less punitive overall and correct for the personal, often subconscious biases of police, judges and probation officers. In theory, using risk assessment tools could lead to both less incarceration and less crime.

There are more than 60 risk assessment tools in use across the U.S., and they vary widely. But in their simplest form, they are questionnaires — typically filled out by a jail staff member, probation officer or psychologist — that assign points to offenders based on anything from demographic factors to family background to criminal history. The resulting scores are based on statistical probabilities derived from previous offenders’ behavior. A low score designates an offender as “low risk” and could result in lower bail, less prison time or less restrictive probation or parole terms; a high score can lead to tougher sentences or tighter monitoring.

The risk assessment trend is controversial. Critics have raised numerous questions: Is it fair to make decisions in an individual case based on what similar offenders have done in the past? Is it acceptable to use characteristics that might be associated with race or socioeconomic status, such as the criminal record of a person’s parents? And even if states can resolve such philosophical questions, there are also practical ones: What to do about unreliable data? Which of the many available tools — some of them licensed by for-profit companies — should policymakers choose?…(More)”

Public Participation in Selected Civilizations: Problems and Potentials

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Sulaimon Adigun Muse and Sagie Narsiah: “Public participation is not a recent phenomenon. It has spanned centuries, cultures and civilizations. The aim of this paper is to present a historical overview of public participation in some selected civilizations across the globe. The conceptual basis of the paper is premised on participatory democracy. It will adopt an analytical and historical approach. Scholars have recognized that public participation remains a relevant concept globally. The concept is not unproblematic, but there is enormous potential for substantive democratization of the public sphere. Hence, one of the key recommendations of the paper is that the potentials of public participation have to be fully explored and exploited….(More)”

Yelp’s Consumer Protection Initiative: ProPublica Partnership Brings Medical Info to Yelp

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Yelp Official Blog: “…exists to empower and protect consumers, and we’re continually focused on how we can enhance our service while enhancing the ability for consumers to make smart transactional decisions along the way.

A few years ago, we partnered with local governments to launch the LIVES open data standard. Now, millions of consumers find restaurant inspection scores when that information is most relevant: while they’re in the middle of making a dining decision (instead of when they’re signing the check). Studies have shown that displaying this information more prominently has a positive impact.

Today we’re excited to announce we’ve joined forces with ProPublica to incorporate health care statistics and consumer opinion survey data onto the Yelp business pages of more than 25,000 medical treatment facilities. Read more in today’s Washington Post story.

We couldn’t be more excited to partner with ProPublica, the Pulitzer Prize winning non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest.

The information is compiled by ProPublica from their own research and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for 4,600 hospitals, 15,000 nursing homes, and 6,300 dialysis clinics in the US and will be updated quarterly. Hover text on the business page will explain the statistics, which include number of serious deficiencies and fines per nursing home and emergency room wait times for hospitals. For example, West Kendall Baptist Hospital has better than average doctor communication and an average 33 minute ER wait time, Beachside Nursing Center currently has no deficiencies, and San Mateo Dialysis Center has a better than average patient survival rate.

Now the millions of consumers who use Yelp to find and evaluate everything from restaurants to retail will have even more information at their fingertips when they are in the midst of the most critical life decisions, like which hospital to choose for a sick child or which nursing home will provide the best care for aging parents….(More)“

Print Wikipedia

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

“Print Wikipedia is a both a utilitarian visualization of the largest accumulation of human knowledge and a poetic gesture towards the futility of the scale of big data. Michael Mandiberg has written software that parses the entirety of the English-language Wikipedia database and programmatically lays out 7600 volumes, complete with covers, and then uploads them to Lulu.com. In addition, he has compiled a Wikipedia Table of Contents, and a Wikipedia Contributor Appendix…..

Michael Mandiberg is an interdisciplinary artist, scholar, and educator living in Brooklyn, New York. He received his M.F.A. from the California Institute of the Arts and his B.A. from Brown University. His work traces the lines of political and symbolic power online, working on the Internet in order to comment on and intercede in the real flows of information. His work lives at Mandiberg.com.

Print Wikipedia by Michael Mandiberg from Lulu.com on Vimeo.”

 

The Data Divide: What We Want and What We Can Get

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Craig Adelman and Erin Austin at Living Cities (Read Blog 1): “There is no shortage of data. At every level–federal, state, county, city and even within our own organizations–we are collecting and trying to make use of data. Data is a catch-all term that suggests universal access and easy use. The problem? In reality, data is often expensive, difficult to access, created for a single purpose, quickly changing and difficult to weave together. To aid and inform future data-dependent research initiatives, we’ve outlined the common barriers that community development faces when working with data and identified three ways to overcome them.

Common barriers include:

  • Data often comes at a hefty price. …
  • Data can come with restrictions and regulations. …
  • Data is built for a specific purpose, meaning information isn’t always in the same place. …
  • Data can actually be too big. ….
  • Data gaps exist. …
  • Data can be too old. ….

As you can tell, there can be many complications when it comes to working with data, but there is still great value to using and having it. We’ve found a few way to overcome these barriers when scoping a research project:

1) Prepare to have to move to “Plan B” when trying to get answers that aren’t readily available in the data. It is incredibly important to be able to react to unexpected data conditions and to use proxy datasets when necessary in order to efficiently answer the core research question.

2) Building a data budget for your work is also advisable, as you shouldn’t anticipate that public entities or private firms will give you free data (nor that community development partners will be able to share datasets used for previous studies).

3) Identifying partners—including local governments, brokers, and community development or CDFI partners—is crucial to collecting the information you’ll need….(More)

Confronting the Internet’s Dark Side: Moral and Social Responsibility on the Free Highway

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

New book by Raphael Cohen-Almagor: “Terrorism, cyberbullying, child pornography, hate speech, cybercrime: along with unprecedented advancements in productivity and engagement, the Internet has ushered in a space for violent, hateful, and antisocial behavior. How do we, as individuals and as a society, protect against dangerous expressions online? Confronting the Internet’s Dark Side is the first book on social responsibility on the Internet. It aims to strike a balance between the free speech principle and the responsibilities of the individual, corporation, state, and the international community. This book brings a global perspective to the analysis of some of the most troubling uses of the Internet. It urges net users, ISPs, and liberal democracies to weigh freedom and security, finding the golden mean between unlimited license and moral responsibility. This judgment is necessary to uphold the very liberal democratic values that gave rise to the Internet and that are threatened by an unbridled use of technology. (More)

Who Are You Calling Irrational?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst
New paper by Aneil Kovvali: “Cass Sunstein is the leading advocate of “nudges” – small policy interventions that yield major impacts because of behavioral quirks in the way that people process information. Such interventions form the core of Sunstein’s philosophy of “libertarian paternalism,” which seeks to improve on individuals’ decisions while preserving their freedom to choose. In “Why Nudge?”, Sunstein forcefully defends libertarian paternalism against John Stuart Mill’s famous Harm Principle, which holds that government should only coerce a person when it is acting to prevent harm to others. Sunstein urges that unlike more coercive measures, nudges respect subjects’ goals, even as they reshape their choices. Using an analogy to voting paradoxes, this review shows that reconciling multiple, inconsistent goals is a fundamentally challenging problem; the challenge leaves even deliberative individuals vulnerable to manipulation through nudges. The fact of inconsistent goals means that government regulators who deploy nudges select and impose their own objectives, instead of merely advancing the goals of the regulated. The analogy also highlights that multimember legislative bodies are subject to many of the same quirks as individuals, raising questions about the government’s ability to improve on individuals’ choices….(More)”