Harnessing the feed: social media for mental health information and support 

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by ReachOut: “…highlights how a social media ban could cut young people off from vital mental health support, including finding that 73 per cent of young people in Australia turn to social media when it comes to support for their mental health.

Based on research with over 2000 young people, the report found a range of benefits for young people seeking mental health support via social media (predominantly TikTok, YouTube and Instagram). 66 per cent of young people surveyed reported increased awareness about their mental health because of relevant content they accessed via social media, 47 per said they had looked for information about how to get professional mental health support on social media and 40 per cent said they sought professional support after viewing mental health information on social media. 

Importantly, half of young people with a probable mental health condition said that they were searching for mental health information or support on social media because they don’t have access to professional support. 

However, young people also highlighted a range of concerns about social media via the research. 38 per cent were deeply concerned about harmful mental health content they have come across on platforms and 43 per cent of the young people who sought support online were deeply concerned about the addictive nature of social media.  

The report highlights young people’s calls for social media to be safer. They want: an end to addictive features like infinite scroll, more control over the content they see, better labelling of mental health information from credible sources, better education and more mental health information provided across platforms…(More)”.

Data-driven decisions: the case for randomised policy trials

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Speech by Andrew Leigh: “…In 1747, 31-year-old Scottish naval surgeon James Lind set about determining the most effective treatment for scurvy, a disease that was killing thousands of sailors around the world. Selecting 12 sailors suffering from scurvy, Lind divided them into six pairs. Each pair received a different treatment: cider; sulfuric acid; vinegar; seawater; a concoction of nutmeg, garlic and mustard; and two oranges and a lemon. In less than a week, the pair who had received oranges and lemons were back on active duty, while the others languished. Given that sulphuric acid was the British Navy’s main treatment for scurvy, this was a crucial finding.

The trial provided robust evidence for the powers of citrus because it created a credible counterfactual. The sailors didn’t choose their treatments, nor were they assigned based on the severity of their ailment. Instead, they were randomly allocated, making it likely that difference in their recovery were due to the treatment rather than other characteristics.

Lind’s randomised trial, one of the first in history, has attained legendary status. Yet because 1747 was so long ago, it is easy to imagine that the methods he used are no longer applicable. After all, Lind’s research was conducted at a time before electricity, cars and trains, an era when slavery was rampant and education was reserved for the elite. Surely, some argue, ideas from such an age have been superseded today.

In place of randomised trials, some put their faith in ‘big data’. Between large-scale surveys and extensive administrative datasets, the world is awash in data as never before. Each day, hundreds of exabytes of data are produced. Big data has improved the accuracy of weather forecasts, permitted researchers to study social interactions across racial and ethnic lines, enabled the analysis of income mobility at a fine geographic scale and much more…(More)”

Policy for responsible use of AI in government

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Policy by the Australian Government: “The Policy for the responsible use of AI in government ensures that government plays a leadership role in embracing AI for the benefit of Australians while ensuring its safe, ethical and responsible use, in line with community expectations. The policy:

  • provides a unified approach for government to engage with AI confidently, safely and responsibly, and realise its benefits
  • aims to strengthen public trust in government’s use of AI by providing enhanced transparency, governance and risk assurance
  • aims to embed a forward leaning, adaptive approach for government’s use of AI that is designed to evolve and develop over time…(More)”.

Policy fit for the future: the Australian Government Futures primer

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Primer by Will Hartigan and Arthur Horobin: “Futures is a systematic exploration of probable, possible and preferable future developments to inform present-day policy, strategy and decision-making. It uses multiple plausible scenarios of the future to anticipate and make sense of disruptive change. It is also known as strategic foresight...

This primer provides an overview of Futures methodologies and their practical application to policy development and advice. It is a first step for policy teams and officers interested in Futures: providing you with a range of flexible tools, ideas and advice you can adapt to your own policy challenges and environments.

This primer was developed by the Policy Projects and Taskforce Office in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. We have drawn on expertise from inside and outside of government –including through our project partners, the Futures Hub at the National Security College in the Australian National University. 

This primer has been written by policy officers, for policy officers –with a focus on practical and tested approaches that can support you to create policy fit for the future…(More)”.

Illuminating Lived Experience

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Lab Note from the Sydney Policy Lab: “The lived experiences of people involved in care – from informal and formal care workers to the people they support – is foundational to the Australia Cares project. To learn from the ways people with lived experience are included in co-design and research methods, the Sydney Policy Lab initiated reflective research that has resulted in a Lab Note on Illuminating Lived Experience (pdf, 1MB).

Through a series of interviews, dialogues and collaborative writing processes, co-authors explored tensions between different approaches and core concepts underpinning lived experience methods and shared examples of those methods in practice.

Illuminating Lived Experience poses questions that may help guide researchers and policymakers seeking to engage people with lived experience and three core principles we believe are required for such engagements.

The Lab Note aims to encourage researchers to be creative in the ways co-design and lived experience are approached while being true to the critical roots of participatory methodologies. Rather than prescribing methods, the principles and practices developed are offered as a guide – a starting point for play…(More)”

Framework for Governance of Indigenous Data (GID)

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Framework by The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA): “Australian Public Service agencies now have a single Framework for working with Indigenous data.

The National Indigenous Australians Agency will collaborate across the Australian Public Service to implement the Framework for Governance of Indigenous Data in 2024.

Commonwealth agencies are expected to develop a seven-year implementation plan, guided by four principles:

  1. Partner with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
  2. Build data-related capabilities
  3. Provide knowledge of data assets
  4. Build an inclusive data system

The Framework represents the culmination of over 18 months of co-design effort between the Australian Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander partners. While we know we have some way to go, the Framework serves as a significant step forward to improve the collection, use and disclosure of data, to better serve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander priorities.

The Framework places Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples at its core. Recognising the importance of authentic engagement, it emphasises the need for First Nations communities to have a say in decisions affecting them, including the use of data in government policy-making.

Acknowledging data’s significance in self-determination, the Framework provides a stepping stone towards greater awareness and acceptance by Australian Government agencies of the principles of Indigenous Data Sovereignty.

It offers practical guidance on implementing key aspects of data governance aligned with both Indigenous Data Sovereignty principles and the objectives of the Australian Government…(More)”.

World-first data storage infrastructure solution built by Iwi Māori, for Iwi Māori

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Media release: “Te Kāhui Raraunga Charitable Trust (TKR) is on a mission to provide a data storage solution like no other in the pursuit of mana motuhake when it comes to data and the digital future. The concept of the network’s purpose is encapsulated in its name, Te Pā Tūwatawata.

And after six months of testing, the pilot phase has proven so successful, TKR expects Te Pā Tūwatawata to go live in early 2025.

The kaupapa involves the development of a distributed storage network to enable iwi, hapū and whānau Māori to collect, store, protect, access and control their own data.

Unlike other data storage solutions here and around the world, the servers used to connect the network will be based at the heart of where the data comes from – on marae, inside Māori organisations, or at other relevant iwi locations.

Three locations have been in the testing phase since late 2023, with the final network set to open with eight locations around the motu.

TKR Chairman, Rāhui Papa says the project is not only a world-first, but significantly embraces core concepts like kotahitanga – through sharing and scaling; and rangatiratanga – by giving iwi and hapū the power to control and make decisions over their own data.

“Iwi Māori Data sovereignty is at the heart of everything we do at TKR. As the world becomes more and more digital, we must adapt and be prepared to create our own infrastructure and empower our people with the know-how and skills to use it,” says Mr Papa.

Kirikowhai Mikaere, Lead Technician for the Data ILG and Te Kāhui Raraunga says traditionally, data centres are located in big warehouses, completely isolated from the source of the data and the people and whenua who have connection to it.

“With this kaupapa, we’re housing the data where it belongs, under the safe protection of the people that it means the most to. Additionally, with Te Pā Tūwatawata being located on-shore and owned by us, it meets the principles of Iwi Māori Data Sovereignty at the highest levels,” says Ms Mikaere…(More)”.

Building a trauma-informed algorithmic assessment toolkit

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Suvradip Maitra, Lyndal Sleep, Suzanna Fay, Paul Henman: “Artificial intelligence (AI) and automated processes provide considerable promise to enhance human wellbeing by fully automating or co-producing services with human service providers. Concurrently, if not well considered, automation also provides ways in which to generate harms at scale and speed. To address this challenge, much discussion to date has focused on principles of ethical AI and accountable algorithms with a groundswell of early work seeking to translate these into practical frameworks and processes to ensure such principles are enacted. AI risk assessment frameworks to detect and evaluate possible harms is one dominant approach, as are a growing body of AI audit frameworks, with concomitant emerging governmental and organisational regulatory settings, and associate professionals.

The research outlined in this report took a different approach. Building on work in social services on trauma-informed practice, researchers identified key principles and a practical framework that framed AI design, development and deployment as a reflective, constructive exercise that resulting in algorithmic supported services to be cognisant and inclusive of the diversity of human experience, and particularly those who have experienced trauma. This study resulted in a practical, co-designed, piloted Trauma Informed Algorithmic Assessment Toolkit.

This Toolkit has been designed to assist organisations in their use of automation in service delivery at any stage of their automation journey: ideation; design; development; piloting; deployment or evaluation. While of particular use for social service organisations working with people who may have experienced past trauma, the tool will be beneficial for any organisation wanting to ensure safe, responsible and ethical use of automation and AI…(More)”.

Sludge Toolkit

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

About: “Sludge audits are a way to identify, quantify and remove sludge (unnecessary frictions) from government services. Using the NSW Government sludge audit method, you can

  • understand where sludge is making your government service difficult to access
  • quantify the impact of sludge on the community
  • know where and how you can improve your service using behavioural science
  • measure the impact of your service improvements…(More)”.

Debate and Decide: Innovative Participatory Governance in South Australia 2010–2018

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Matt D. Ryan: “This article provides an account of how innovative participatory governance unfolded in South Australia between 2010 and 2018. In doing so it explores how an ‘interactive’ political leadership style, which scholarship argues is needed in contemporary democracy, played out in practice. Under the leadership of Premier Jay Weatherill this approach to governing, known as ‘debate and decide’, became regarded as one of the most successful examples of democratic innovation globally. Using an archival and media method of analysis the article finds evidence of the successful application of an interactive political leadership style, but one that was so woven into competitive politics that it was abandoned after a change in government in March 2018. To help sustain interactive political leadership styles the article argues for research into how a broader base of politicians perceives the benefits and risks of innovative participatory governance. It also argues for a focus on developing politicians’ collaborative leadership capabilities. However, the article concludes by asking: if political competition is built into our system of government, are we be better off leveraging it, rather than resisting it, in the pursuit of democratic reform?…(More)”.