Chicago uses big data to save itself from urban ills

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Aviva Rutkin in the New Scientist: “THIS year in Chicago, some kids will get lead poisoning from the paint or pipes in their homes. Some restaurants will cook food in unsanitary conditions and, here and there, a street corner will be suddenly overrun with rats. These kinds of dangers are hard to avoid in a city of more than 2.5 million people. The problem is, no one knows for certain where or when they will pop up.

The Chicago city government is hoping to change that by knitting powerful predictive models into its everyday city inspections. Its latest project, currently in pilot tests, analyses factors such as home inspection records and census data, and uses the results to guess which buildings are likely to cause lead poisoning in children – a problem that affects around 500,000 children in the US each year. The idea is to identify trouble spots before kids are exposed to dangerous lead levels.

“We are able to prevent problems instead of just respond to them,” says Jay Bhatt, chief innovation officer at the Chicago Department of Public Health. “These models are just the beginning of the use of predictive analytics in public health and we are excited to be at the forefront of these efforts.”

Chicago’s projects are based on the thinking that cities already have what they need to raise their municipal IQ: piles and piles of data. In 2012, city officials built WindyGrid, a platform that collected data like historical facts about buildings and up-to-date streams such as bus locations, tweets and 911 calls. The project was designed as a proof of concept and was never released publicly but it led to another, called Plenario, that allowed the public to access the data via an online portal.

The experience of building those tools has led to more practical applications. For example, one tool matches calls to the city’s municipal hotline complaining about rats with conditions that draw rats to a particular area, such as excessive moisture from a leaking pipe, or with an increase in complaints about garbage. This allows officials to proactively deploy sanitation crews to potential hotspots. It seems to be working: last year, resident requests for rodent control dropped by 15 per cent.

Some predictions are trickier to get right. Charlie Catlett, director of the Urban Center for Computation and Data in Chicago, is investigating an old axiom among city cops: that violent crime tends to spike when there’s a sudden jump in temperature. But he’s finding it difficult to test its validity in the absence of a plausible theory for why it might be the case. “For a lot of things about cities, we don’t have that underlying theory that tells us why cities work the way they do,” says Catlett.

Still, predictive modelling is maturing, as other cities succeed in using it to tackle urban ills….Such efforts can be a boon for cities, making them more productive, efficient and safe, says Rob Kitchin of Maynooth University in Ireland, who helped launched a real-time data site for Dublin last month called the Dublin Dashboard. But he cautions that there’s a limit to how far these systems can aid us. Knowing that a particular street corner is likely to be overrun with rats tomorrow doesn’t address what caused the infestation in the first place. “You might be able to create a sticking plaster or be able to manage it more efficiently, but you’re not going to be able to solve the deep structural problems….”

Innovation in Philanthropy is not a Hack-a-thon

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Sam McAfee in Medium: “…Antiquated funding models and lack of a rapid data-driven evaluation process aren’t the only issues though. Most of the big ideas in the technology-for-social-impact space are focused either on incremental improvements to existing service models, maybe leveraging online services or mobile applications to improve cost-efficiency marginally. Or they solve only a very narrow niche problem for a small audience, often applying a technology that was already in development, and just happened to find a solution in the field.

Innovation Requires Disruption

When you look at innovation in the commercial world, like the Ubers and AirBnBs of the world, what you see is a clear and substantive break from previous modes of thinking about transportation and accommodation. And it’s not the technology itself that is all that impressive. There is nothing ground-breaking technically under the hood of either of those products that wasn’t already lying around for a decade. What makes them different is that they created business models that stepped completely out of the existing taxi and hotel verticals, and simply used technology to leverage existing frustrations with those antiquated models and harness latent demands, to produce a new, vibrant commercial ecosystem.

Now, let’s imagine the same framework in the social sector, where there are equivalent long-standing traditional modes of providing resources. To find new ways of meeting human needs that disrupt those models requires both safe-to-fail experimentation and rapid feedback and iteration in the field, with clear success criteria. Such rapid development can only be accomplished by a sharp, nimble and multifaceted team of thinkers and doers who are passionate about the problem, yes, but also empowered and enabled to break a few institutional eggs on the way to the creative omelet.

Agile and Lean are Proven Methods

It turns out that there are proven working models for cultivating and fostering this kind of innovative thinking and experimentation. As I mentioned above, agile and lean are probably the single greatest contribution to the world by the tech sector, far more impactful than any particular technology produced by it. Small, cross-functional teams working on tight, iterative timeframes, using an iterative data-informed methodology, can create new and disruptive solutions to big, difficult problems. They are able to do this precisely because they are unhindered by the hulking bureaucratic structures of the old guard. This is precisely why so many Fortune 500 companies are experimenting with innovation and R&D laboratories. Because they know their existing staff, structures, and processes cannot produce innovation within those constraints. Only the small, nimble teams can do it, and they can only do it if they are kept separate from, protected from even, the traditional production systems of the previous product cycle.

Yet big philanthropy still have barely experimented with this model, only trying it in a few isolated instances. Here at Neo, for example, we are working on a project for teachers funded by a forward-thinking foundation. What our client is trying to disrupt is no less than the entire US education system, and with goals and measurements developed by teachers for teachers, not by Silicon Valley hotshots who have no clue how to fix education.

Small, cross-functional teams working on tight, iterative timeframes, using an iterative data-informed methodology, can create new and disruptive solutions to big, difficult problems.

To start with, the project was funded in iterations of six-weeks at a time, each with a distinct and measurable goal. We built a small cross-functional team to tackle some of the tougher issues faced by teachers trying to raise the level of excellence in their classrooms. The team was empowered to talk directly to teachers, and incorporate their feedback into new versions of the project, released on almost a daily basis. We have iterated the design more than sixteen times in less then four months, and it’s starting to really take shape.

We have no idea whether this particular project will be successful in the long run. But what we do know is that the client and their funder have had the courage to step out of the traditional project funding models and apply agile and lean thinking to a very tough problem. And we’re proud to be invited along for the ride.

The vast majority of the social sector is still trying to tackle social problems with program and funding models that were pioneered early in the last century. Agile and lean methods hold the key to finally breaking the mold of the old, traditional model of resourcing social change initiatives. The philanthropic community should be interested in the agile and lean methods produced by the technology sector, not the money produced by it, and start reorganizing project teams and resource allocation strategies and timelines in line this proven innovation model.

Only then we will be in a position to really innovate for social change.”

The Power of Data Analytics to Transform Government

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Hugo Moreno at Forbes: “It’s mind boggling to consider the amount of information governments collect on their citizens. We often just expect them to manage and analyze it in a way that will benefit the general public and facilitate government transparency. However, it can be difficult to organize, manage and extract insights from these large, diverse data sets. According to “Analytics Paves the Way for Better Government,” a Forbes Insights case study sponsored by SAP, government leaders have called for investment in Big Data analytics capabilities to modernize government services and aid their economies. State and federal governments have begun to recognize the benefits of applying analytics. In fact, McKinsey & Co. estimates that by digitizing information, disseminating public data sets and applying analytics to improve decision making, governments around the world can act as catalysts for more than $3 trillion in economic value.
Governor Mike Pence of Indiana understands the importance of data and is keeping it at the center of his long-term vision for improving the management and effectiveness of government programs and making Indiana a leader in data-driven decision making. A year after taking office, he ordered state agencies to collaborate and share data to improve services. Data sharing is not a common practice in states, but the governor recognized that sharing data will lead to a successful enterprise.
Insights from analytics will help Indiana pursue six public policy goals: Increase private sector employment; attract new investment to the state; improve the quality of the state’s workforce; improve the health, safety and well-being of families; increase high school graduation rates; and improve the math and reading skills of elementary students….”

In an emergency, apps locate nearby first aiders

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Springwise: “In the case of a sudden accident or health problem, a matter of seconds’ difference in the response times of emergency services can be the difference between saving a life and losing one. The irony is that there could even be trained first aiders nearby, but there’s usually no way of letting them know they’re needed. Now two apps — GoodSAM and PulsePoint — both let those with life-saving skills to receive alerts when an emergency happens close by.
The GoodSAM app comes in two versions — the Alerter and Responder. Those facing an emergency can use the Alerter app to instantly send a call for help to any responders in the vicinity, along with their exact location. At the same time, the country’s emergency number is also called. Those who have first aid or medical experience can download the Responder app, which pushes a notification to their device whenever someone needs help. If they’re unavailable, they can choose to reject the request and the Alerter will be notified. If accepted, the app offers a map and directions to the location of the incident and the two parties can communicate through an in-app messaging service.
Watch the video below for a demonstration of how the system works…
The PulsePoint Respond app works in much the same way, although is mainly focused on sudden cardiac arrests and those who can offer CPR resuscitation. Additionally, anyone in the community can use the app to track emergency activity in their neighborhood. Local authorities can also implement the PulsePoint system across their jurisdictions, with community outreach strategies and project management services included starting from USD 5,000….”

A new generation of Openaid.se

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Openaid.se: “We are happy to launch the new version of the Swedish aid transparency tracker Openaid.se. This tracker brings a lot of new features – both visible and in the backend system. We have focused more on the professional user and making the site a quick but powerful tool to find the data you need.
The top navigation is structured like a sentence which filters the data. It states from who, to whom, via which organisation, for what purpose, and in which year – giving you the basic tools needed to filter the data, which then can be grouped and sorted below. You can also make a comparison with another such sentence by adding comparative data.
openaid-se-top-menu
The new Openaid.se presents either a graph that shows data over time or a map that gives a quick geographical overview. Depending on your choice of recipient (the “to whom”) and/or organisation you will also be presented with overview data on the recipient/organisation in the right column.
You can always choose to view a full list of all the activities, that can range from one to several thousands, depending on your filtering choices. You can also, at any time, choose to download a csv-file containing all the activities.
export-button
More information, including a smaller graph, is shown when you dig into the details by clicking on an activity. You can also choose to look at the full activity sheet, where you will find any document links available at the activity level.”

Mapping the Next Frontier of Open Data: Corporate Data Sharing

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Stefaan Verhulst at the GovLab (cross-posted at the UN Global Pulse Blog): “When it comes to data, we are living in the Cambrian Age. About ninety percent of the data that exists today has been generated within the last two years. We create 2.5 quintillion bytes of data on a daily basis—equivalent to a “new Google every four days.”
All of this means that we are certain to witness a rapid intensification in the process of “datafication”– already well underway. Use of data will grow increasingly critical. Data will confer strategic advantages; it will become essential to addressing many of our most important social, economic and political challenges.
This explains–at least in large part–why the Open Data movement has grown so rapidly in recent years. More and more, it has become evident that questions surrounding data access and use are emerging as one of the transformational opportunities of our time.
Today, it is estimated that over one million datasets have been made open or public. The vast majority of this open data is government data—information collected by agencies and departments in countries as varied as India, Uganda and the United States. But what of the terabyte after terabyte of data that is collected and stored by corporations? This data is also quite valuable, but it has been harder to access.
The topic of private sector data sharing was the focus of a recent conference organized by the Responsible Data Forum, Data and Society Research Institute and Global Pulse (see event summary). Participants at the conference, which was hosted by The Rockefeller Foundation in New York City, included representatives from a variety of sectors who converged to discuss ways to improve access to private data; the data held by private entities and corporations. The purpose for that access was rooted in a broad recognition that private data has the potential to foster much public good. At the same time, a variety of constraints—notably privacy and security, but also proprietary interests and data protectionism on the part of some companies—hold back this potential.
The framing for issues surrounding sharing private data has been broadly referred to under the rubric of “corporate data philanthropy.” The term refers to an emerging trend whereby companies have started sharing anonymized and aggregated data with third-party users who can then look for patterns or otherwise analyze the data in ways that lead to policy insights and other public good. The term was coined at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, in 2011, and has gained wider currency through Global Pulse, a United Nations data project that has popularized the notion of a global “data commons.”
Although still far from prevalent, some examples of corporate data sharing exist….

Help us map the field

A more comprehensive mapping of the field of corporate data sharing would draw on a wide range of case studies and examples to identify opportunities and gaps, and to inspire more corporations to allow access to their data (consider, for instance, the GovLab Open Data 500 mapping for open government data) . From a research point of view, the following questions would be important to ask:

  • What types of data sharing have proven most successful, and which ones least?
  • Who are the users of corporate shared data, and for what purposes?
  • What conditions encourage companies to share, and what are the concerns that prevent sharing?
  • What incentives can be created (economic, regulatory, etc.) to encourage corporate data philanthropy?
  • What differences (if any) exist between shared government data and shared private sector data?
  • What steps need to be taken to minimize potential harms (e.g., to privacy and security) when sharing data?
  • What’s the value created from using shared private data?

We (the GovLab; Global Pulse; and Data & Society) welcome your input to add to this list of questions, or to help us answer them by providing case studies and examples of corporate data philanthropy. Please add your examples below, use our Google Form or email them to us at corporatedata@thegovlab.org”

More Feedback Would Improve Foundations’ Service to Society

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

OpEd by Hilary Pennington and Fay Twersky at the Chronicle on Philanthropy: “We value your feedback as a customer of our services. Would you be willing to answer a few questions at the end of this?”
Airlines, online retailers, medical offices, and restaurants all ask these kinds of questions. They recognize that getting regular customer feedback helps them continuously improve. It doesn’t mean they take every suggestion, or that businesses are handing over the reins of decisions to their customers.
Far from it.
But the consistent avenues for feedback do mean that businesses can listen and consider what they hear, and then make adjustments to respond to customer preferences, thereby improving their outcomes—the bottom line. Often, businesses publicly share the changes they make because customers appreciate responsive businesses.
What if the people meant to benefit from the programs that foundations support, as well as the nonprofits we finance, could contribute their needs, opinions, and experiences to help us improve our current grant-making programs and suggest ideas for the future? Imagine if all of us working for social and environmental change understood better what the intended beneficiaries of our work think and what we could do differently to ensure that we achieve our goals….
As foundation leaders, we believe that lack of openness and input from the people nonprofits serve prevents us from being as effective as we want and need to be. We have been asking ourselves how the foundation world can do better.
How can we learn more about the ways people experience the services and products our grantees provide? Do they find the services useful? Relevant? Are the hours of operation convenient? Is there room for improvement? If we knew the answers, might we also improve the outcomes?
It’s time to make gathering such feedback routine so that all of us, at both foundations and other nonprofits, reliably consider the perspectives and experiences of those we seek to help.
But we know such efforts are costly, in both time and money, and too few experiments have been conducted to figure out the most effective ways to get feedback that matters.
To help elevate the voices of the people our grant money is designed to help, we have joined with five other grant makers to create the Fund for Shared Insight, which will award $5-million to $6-million a year over the next three years.
In addition to Ford and Hewlett, we are joined by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the JPB Foundation, Liquidnet, the Rita Allen Foundation, and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Shared Insight will award one- to three-year grants to nonprofit organizations that seek new ways to get feedback and use the findings to improve their programs and services, and conduct research on whether those improvements—and the willingness to listen to clients—make a difference. We’ll also finance projects that take other steps to promote more openness among grant makers, nonprofits, and the public.”

Riding the Second Wave of Civic Innovation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Jeremy Goldberg at Governing: “Innovation and entrepreneurship in local government increasingly require mobilizing talent from many sectors and skill sets. Fortunately, the opportunities for nurturing cross-pollination between the public and private sectors have never been greater, thanks in large part to the growing role of organizations such as Bayes Impact, Code for America, Data Science for Social Good and Fuse Corps.
Indeed, there’s reason to believe that we might be entering an even more exciting period of public-private collaboration. As one local-government leader recently put it to me when talking about the critical mass of pro-bono civic-innovation efforts taking place across the San Francisco Bay area, “We’re now riding the second wave of civic pro-bono and civic innovation.”
As an alumni of Fuse Corps’ executive fellows program, I’m convinced that the opportunities initiated by it and similar organizations are integral to civic innovation. Fuse Corps brings civic entrepreneurs with experience across the public, private and nonprofit sectors to work closely with government employees to help them negotiate project design, facilitation and management hurdles. The organization’s leadership training emphasizes “smallifying” — building innovation capacity by breaking big challenges down into smaller tasks in a shorter timeframe — and making “little bets” — low-risk actions aimed at developing and testing an idea.
Since 2012, I have managed programs and cross-sector networks for the Silicon Valley Talent Partnership. I’ve witnessed a groundswell of civic entrepreneurs from across the region stepping up to participate in discussions and launch rapid-prototyping labs focused on civic innovation.
Cities across the nation are creating new roles and programs to engage these civic start-ups. They’re learning that what makes these projects, and specifically civic pro-bono programs, work best is a process of designing, building, operationalizing and bringing them to scale. If you’re setting out to create such a program, here’s a short list of best practices:
• Assets: Explore existing internal resources and knowledge to understand the history, departmental relationships and overall functions of the relevant agencies or departments. Develop a compendium of current service/volunteer programs.
• City policies/legal framework: Determine what the city charter, city attorney’s office or employee-relations rules and policies say about procurement, collective bargaining and public-private partnerships.
• Leadership: The support of the city’s top leadership is especially important during the formative stages of a civic-innovation program, so it’s important to understand how the city’s form of government will impact the program. For example, in a “strong mayor” government the ability to make definitive decisions on a public-private collaboration may be unlikely to face the same scrutiny as it might under a “council/mayor” government.
• Cross-departmental collaboration: This is essential. Without the support of city staff across departments, innovation projects are unlikely to take off. Convening a “tiger team” of individuals who are early adopters of such initiatives is important step. Ultimately, city staffers best understand the needs and demands of their departments or agencies.
• Partners from corporations and philanthropy: Leveraging existing partnerships will help to bring together an advisory group of cross-sector leaders and executives to participate in the early stages of program development.
• Business and member associations: For the Silicon Valley Talent Partnership, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group has been instrumental in advocating for pro-bono volunteerism with the cities of Fremont, San Jose and Santa Clara….”

Bloomberg Philanthropies Announces Major New Investment In City Halls' Capacity To Innovate

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Press Release: “Bloomberg Philanthropies today announced a new $45 million investment to boost the capacity of city halls to use innovation to tackle major challenges and improve urban life. The foundation will direct significant funding and other assistance to help dozens of cities adopt the Innovation Delivery model, an approach to generating and implementing new ideas that has been tested and refined over the past three years in partnership with city leaders in Atlanta, Chicago, Louisville, Memphis, and New Orleans. …

The foundation has invited over 80 American cities to apply for Innovation Delivery grants. Eligible cities have at least 100,000 residents and mayors with at least two years left in office. Grantees will be selected in the fall. They will receive from $250,000 to $1,000,000 annually over three years, as well as implementation support and peer-to-peer learning opportunities. Newly formed Innovation Delivery Teams will hit the ground running in each city no later than spring 2015.
Innovation Delivery Teams use best-in-class idea generation techniques with a structured, data-driven approach to delivering results. Operating as an in-house innovation consultancy, they have enabled mayors in the original five cities to produce clear results, such as:

  • New Orleans reduced murder in 2013 by 19% compared to the previous year, resulting in the lowest number of murders in New Orleans since 1985.
  • Memphis reduced retail vacancy rates by 30% along key commercial corridors.
  • Louisville redirected 26% of low-severity 911 medical calls to a doctor’s office or immediate care center instead of requiring an ambulance trip to the emergency room.
  • Chicago cut the licensing time for new restaurants by 33%; more than 1,000 new restaurants have opened since the Team began its work.
  • Atlanta moved 1,022 chronically homeless individuals into permanent housing, quickly establishing itself as a national leader.

“Innovation Delivery has been an essential part of our effort to bring innovation, efficiency and improved services to our customers,” said Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer. “Philanthropy can play an important role in expanding the capacity of cities to deliver better, bolder results. Bloomberg Philanthropies is one of few foundations investing in this area, and it has truly been a game changer for our city.”
In addition to direct investments in cities, Bloomberg Philanthropies will fund technical assistance, research and evaluation, and partnerships with organizations to further spread the Innovation Delivery approach. The Innovation Delivery Playbook, which details the approach and some experiences of the original cities with which Bloomberg Philanthropies partnered, is available at: www.bloomberg.org …”

How technology is beating corruption

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Jim Yong Kim at World Economic Forum: “Good governance is critical for all countries around the world today. When it doesn’t exist, many governments fail to deliver public services effectively, health and education services are often substandard and corruption persists in rich and poor countries alike, choking opportunity and growth. It will be difficult to reduce extreme poverty — let alone end it — without addressing the importance of good governance.
But this is not a hopeless situation. In fact, a new wave of progress on governance suggests we may be on the threshold of a transformational era. Countries are tapping into some of the most powerful forces in the world today to improve services and transparency. These forces include the spread of information technology and its convergence with grassroots movements for transparency, accountability and citizen empowerment. In some places, this convergence is easing the path to better-performing and more accountable governments.
The Philippines is a good example of a country embracing good governance. During a recent visit, I spoke with President Benigno Aquino about his plans to reduce poverty, create jobs, and ensure that economic growth is inclusive. He talked in great detail about how improving governance is a fundamentally important part of their strategy. The government has opened government data and contract information so citizens can see how their tax money is spent. The Foreign Aid Transparency Hub, launched after Typhoon Yolanda, offers a real-time look at pledges made and money delivered for typhoon recovery. Geo-tagging tools monitor assistance for people affected by the typhoon.
Opening budgets to scrutiny
This type of openness is spreading. Now many countries that once withheld information are opening their data and budgets to public scrutiny.
Late last year, my organization, the World Bank Group, established the Open Budgets Portal, a repository for budget data worldwide. So far, 13 countries have posted their entire public spending datasets online — including Togo, the first fragile state to do so.
In 2011, we helped Moldova become the first country in central Europe to launch an open data portal and put its expenditures online. Now the public and media can access more than 700 datasets, and are asking for more.
The original epicenter of the Arab Spring, Tunisia, recently passed a new constitution and is developing the first open budget data portal in the Middle East and North Africa. Tunisia has taken steps towards citizen engagement by developing a citizens’ budget and civil society-led platforms such as Marsoum41, to support freedom of information requests, including via mobile.
Using technology to improve services
Countries also are tapping into technology to improve public and private services. Estonia is famous for building an information technology infrastructure that has permitted widespread use of electronic services — everything from filing taxes online to filling doctors’ drug prescriptions.
In La Paz, Bolivia, a citizen feedback system known as OnTrack allows residents of one of the city’s marginalized neighbourhoods to send a text message on their mobile phones to provide feedback, make suggestions or report a problem related to public services.
In Pakistan, government departments in Punjab are using smart phones to collect real-time data on the activities of government field staff — including photos and geo-tags — to help reduce absenteeism and lax performance….”