Data saves lives: reshaping health and social care with data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

UK Department of Health and Social Care: “In England and in every community around the world, digital developments have been essential to the pandemic response. People have accessed advice and care remotely in unprecedented numbers, helping keep them and their families safe. World class genomics helped identify and track new variants. Daily analysis allowed problems to be understood rapidly, and resources redeployed. Staff worked remotely. And the COVID-19 vaccination service was mobilised in record time.

Such an efficient and effective response was only possible because of investment in digital systems, innovation and skills over the last few years, and the partnerships forged between digital, clinical and operational colleagues.

The opportunity now is for the health and care sector to apply such approaches with increased urgency and consistency to both our long-term challenges and to the immediate tasks of rebuilding from the pandemic. We have a responsibility to do both.

The Digital Transformation Plan sets out the overarching vision for how we will digitise, connect and transform the health and care sector. This data strategy explains in more detail the role that data will play in that transformation and how it can inspire effective collaboration across the NHS, adult social care, and public health, help us care for people in the best possible way, and ensuring that our citizens have the best experience possible when using the system.

There are 3 key priorities which underpin this strategy:

  • first to build understanding on how data is used and the potential for data-driven innovation, improving transparency so the public has control over how we are using their data
  • second to make appropriate data sharing the norm and not the exception across health, adult social care and public health, to provide the best care possible to the citizens we serve, and to support staff throughout the health and care system
  • third to build the right foundations – technical, legal, regulatory – to make that possible…(More)”.

A Taxonomy for AI / Data for Good

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Jake Porway: “There is huge potential for AI and data science to play a productive role in advancing social impact. However, the field of “AI for good” and  “data for good” is not only overshadowed by the public conversations about the risks rampant data misuse can pose to civil society, it is also a fractured and disconnected space without a single shared vision. One of the biggest issues preventing AI for Good from becoming an established field is a lack of clarity. “Data” and “AI” are treated like they’re well-defined terms, but they are stand-ins for a huge set of different – and sometimes competing – outcomes, outputs, and activities. The terms “AI for Good” and “Data for Good” is as unhelpful as saying “Wood for Good”. We would laugh at a term as vague as “Wood for Good”, which would lump together activities as different as building houses to burning wood in cook stoves to making paper, combining architecture with carpentry, forestry with fuel. However, we are content to say “AI for Good”, and its related phrases “we need to use our data better” or “we need to be data-driven”, when data is arguably even more general than something like wood. 

One way to cut through this fog is to be far more clear about what a given AI-for-good initiative seeks to achieve, and by what means. To that end, we’ve created a taxonomy, a family tree of AI-and-Data-for-Good initiatives, that groups initiatives based on their goals and strategies. This taxonomy came about as a result of studying and classifying over 600 initiatives labeled as “AI for good” or “data for good” publicly (you can read more about the methodology here). At the highest level, the taxonomy identifies six major branches of AI and data for good activities, which will help field builders, funders, and nonprofits better understand the distinctions in this space. Within each branch, you’ll see sub-branches that further subdivide initiatives, which we hope will aid collaboration for the groups within those branches and help funders make more strategic funding decisions.

Below you’ll find a landscape map of a subset of initiatives in the AI and Data for Good space, categorized into those six main branches we observed. Before we dive into describing each branch, here are a few caveats on how to interpret this work: 

  • We are focused on initiatives that are enabling and advancing the field of Data for Good, not trying to catalog every data science project every nonprofit or company is doing (though that would be an interesting landscape to see as well). These initiatives are those focused on advancing the field of using data and AI for good.
  • We chose to categorize initiatives, not organizations. It would be impossible to classify “Microsoft”, when their activities span funding through Microsoft Philanthropies, creating open satellite imagery through Microsoft AI for Earth, providing infrastructure through nonprofit licenses of Microsoft Azure, and so on. Therefore you may see organizations appear multiple times across the landscape.
  • The current database of organizations is minuscule – it is nowhere near exhaustive. We have only mapped enough initiatives to show the results for feedback, but we encourage you to recommend other initiatives you know of but don’t see here with this form.
  • While we are incredibly privileged to have advisors contributing to this project from countries like Brazil, Nigeria, and Nepal, the initiative still skew Western…(More)”.

Guide to Digital Participation Platforms

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Guide by People Powered: “In the past decade, it has become increasingly common to engage citizens in various aspects of government via online platforms. In fact, in the release of their most recent data, the publishers of the PB Atlas reported an “accelerating trend toward the digitalization of participatory budgeting,” spurred on by the COVID pandemic.

To satisfy this demand, several comprehensive digital participation platforms have emerged. They help governments, civil society groups, and other institutions engage residents in all types and stages of participatory processes, ranging from planning and budgeting to citizens’ assemblies and the drafting of legislation. 

While we often think of such technological platforms in the context of advanced democracies, they have been used to facilitate participatory decision-making in a wide variety of contexts.

At their best, platforms enable decision-makers or communities to manage:

  • Community and stakeholder engagement.
  • Collective deliberation and decision-making.
  • Public communication.
  • Project tracking and monitoring.
  • Internal coordination.

If you are looking to engage your community through a digital platform, this guide is for you. It explains what they are and shows you how to choose, set up, and run them. We’ve reviewed hundreds of participatory democracy tools and platforms, and this guide shares a limited subset for your consideration (see our Digital Participation Platforms Matrix)…(More)”.

OECD Report on Public Communication: The Global Context and the Way Forward

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

OECD Report: “…The first OECD Report on Public Communication: The Global Context and the Way Forward examines the public communication structures, mandates and practices of centres of governments and ministries of health from 46 countries, based on the 2020 Understanding Public Communication surveys. It analyses how this important government function contributes to better policies and services, greater citizen trust, and, ultimately, stronger democracies in an increasingly complex information environment. It looks at the role public communication can play in responding to the challenges posed by the spread of mis- and disinformation and in building more resilient media and information ecosystems. It also makes the case for a more strategic use of communication by governments, both to pursue policy objectives and promote more open governments, by providing an extensive mapping of trends, gaps and lessons learned. Finally, it highlights pioneering efforts to move towards the professionalisation of the government communication function and identifies areas for further research to support this transition….(More)”.

The Use Of Digitalisation and Artificial Intelligence in Migration Management

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Joint EMN-OECD inform: “…In view of the dynamic nature of the migration policy landscape and in the context of the new Pact on Migration and Asylum, this series explores existing trends, innovative methods and approaches in migration management and will be used as a basis for further policy reflection at EU level. 

This inform builds on trends identified in the EMN-OECD series on migration management informs on COVID-19 in the migration area. Its scope includes EU Member States, EMN observer countries as well as OECD countries. This inform aims to explore the role of new digital technologies in the management of migration and asylum. It focuses on a number of specific areas in migration, acquisition of citizenship, asylum procedures and border control management where digital technologies may be used (e.g. digitalisation of application processes, use of video conferencing for remote interviews, use of artificial intelligence (AI) to assist decision making processes, use of blockchain technology). It also considers the implications of using these types of technologies on fundamental rights…(More)”.

Trust with integrity: Harnessing the integrity dividends of digital government for reducing corruption in developing countries

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Carlos Santiso: “Does digitalization reduce corruption? What are the benefits of data-driven digital government innovations to strengthen public integrity and advance the Sustainable Development Goals? While the correlation between digitalization and corruption is well established, there is less actionable evidence on the effects of specific digitalization reforms on different types of corruption and the policy channels through which they operate. This paper unbundles the integrity dividends of digital reforms that the pandemic has accelerated. It analyses the rise of integrity-tech and integrity analytics in the anticorruption space, deployed by data-savvy integrity institutions. It also assesses the broader integrity dividends of government digitalization for cutting redtape, reducing discretion and increasing transparency in government services and social transfers. It argues that digital government can be an effective anticorruption strategy, with subtler yet deeper effects. There nevertheless needs to be greater synergies between digital reforms and anticorruption strategies….(More)”.

Financing Models for Digital Ecosystems

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Rahul Matthan, Prakhar Misra and Harshita Agrawal: “This paper explores various financing models for the digital ecosystem within the Indian setup. It uses the market/non-market failure distinction and applies it to different parts of the ecosystem, outlined in the Open Digital Ecosystems framework. It identifies which form of financing — public, private and philanthropic — is suitable for the relevant component of the digital world — data registries, exchanges, open stacks, marketplaces, co-creation platforms, and information access portals. Finally, it treats philanthropic financing as a special case of financing mechanisms available and analyses their pros and cons in the Indian digital ecosystem…(More)”.

Data Innovation in Demography, Migration and Human Mobility

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Bosco, C., Grubanov-Boskovic, S., Iacus, S., Minora, U., Sermi, F. and Spyratos, S.: “With the consolidation of the culture of evidence-based policymaking, the availability of data has become central for policymakers. Nowadays, innovative data sources have offered opportunity to describe more accurately demographic, mobility- and migration- related phenomena by making available large volumes of real-time and spatially detailed data. At the same time, however, data innovation has brought up new challenges (ethics, privacy, data governance models, data quality) for citizens, statistical offices, policymakers and the private sector.

Focusing on the fields of demography, mobility and migration studies, the aim of this report is to assess the current state of utilisation of data innovation in the scientific literature as well as to identify areas in which data innovation has the most concrete potential for policymaking. For that purpose, this study has reviewed more than 300 articles and scientific reports, as well as numerous tools, that employed non-traditional data sources for demographic, human mobility or migration research.The specific findings of our report contribute to a discussion on a) how innovative data is used in respect to traditional data sources; b) domains in which innovative data have the highest potential to contribute to policymaking; c) prospects for an innovative data transition towards systematic contribution to official statistics and policymaking…(More)”. See also Big Data for Migration Alliance.

Building with and for the Community: New Resource Library and Data Maturity Assessment Tool Now Live

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Perry Hewitt and Ginger Zielinskie at Data.org: “At data.org we have heard (and personally experienced) the challenge of needing to get smarter about data, and the frustration of wading through a trove of search engine results. It takes not only time and effort, but also field experience and subject matter expertise for social impact leaders to determine if a resource is from a trustworthy source, current enough to be relevant, and appropriate for their stage of data strategy. To solve this challenge, we have built two new elements into our data.org digital platform: a Resource Library and a Data Maturity Assessment Tool….We are delighted to be launching the Data Maturity Assessment Tool. This project, too, began with the community: an early alpha co-developed in the spring of 2021 with DataKind was tested with ten organizations, and in-depth interviews yielded insights about the data topics needing investigation. With this experience and extensive desk research in hand, we sought to create a solution that was short enough to be taken online, but substantive enough to identify areas of opportunity. Our goal was to provide organizations with a pulse check, helping them measure and understand where they stand today on their data journey.  

Mindful of organizations’ need to act on an assessment, we ensured the results page offers not only a benchmark score, but also specific resources aligned with areas for growth. Integration of the Tool with our Library of guides and resources via a shared taxonomy on the backend ensures that organizations receive results with specific, vetted resources for delving more deeply into content. We also heard from social impact organizations that a significant obstacle in launching and sustaining a data competency is developing and communication a shared understanding of areas for opportunity and growth. With this challenge in mind, the results page is mindfully designed to be sharable with organizational leadership, boards, or funders to provide clarity, and to set the stage for an ongoing data conversation….(More)”.

Guide for Policymakers on Making Transparency Meaningful

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by CDT: “In 2020, the Minneapolis police used a unique kind of warrant to investigate vandalism of an AutoZone store during the protests over the murder of George Floyd by a police officer. This “geofence” warrant required Google to turn over data on all users within a certain geographic area around the store at a particular time — which would have included not only the vandal, but also protesters, bystanders, and journalists. 

It was only several months later that the public learned of the warrant, because Google notified a user that his account information was subject to the warrant, and the user told reporters. And it was not until a year later — when Google first published a transparency report with data about geofence warrants — that the public learned the total number of geofence warrants Google receives from U.S. authorities and of a recent “explosion” in their use. New York lawmakers introduced a bill to forbid geofence warrants because of concerns they could be used to target protesters, and, in light of Google’s transparency report, some civil society organizations are calling for them to be banned, too.

Technology company transparency matters, as this example shows. Transparency about governmental and company practices that affect users’ speech, access to information, and privacy from government surveillance online help us understand and check the ways in which tech companies and governments wield power and impact people’s human rights. 

Policymakers are increasingly proposing transparency measures as part of their efforts to regulate tech companies, both in the United States and around the world. But what exactly do we mean when we talk about transparency when it comes to technology companies like social networks, messaging services, and telecommunications firms? A new report from CDT, Making Transparency Meaningful: A Framework for Policymakers, maps and describes four distinct categories of technology company transparency:

  1. Transparency reports that provide aggregated data and qualitative information about moderation actions, disclosures, and other practices concerning user generated content and government surveillance; 
  2. User notifications about government demands for their data and moderation of their content; 
  3. Access to data held by intermediaries for independent researchers, public policy advocates, and journalists; and 
  4. Public-facing analysis, assessments, and audits of technology company practices with respect to user speech and privacy from government surveillance. 

Different forms of transparency are useful for different purposes or audiences, and they also give rise to varying technical, legal, and practical challenges. Making Transparency Meaningful is designed to help policymakers and advocates understand the potential benefits and tradeoffs that come with each form of transparency. This report addresses key questions raised by proposed legislation in the United States and Europe that seeks to mandate one or more of these types of transparency and thereby hold tech companies and governments more accountable….(More)”.