Last night (Thursday, May 17, 2012), NPower Northwest brought together a community of individuals (clients, supporters and friends) interested in the use of technology to create an positive impact. Institutions represented at the event included Accenture, AT&T, Avanade, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Cognizant, Community Builder, Dell, Deloitte, IBM, KForce, Liquid Planner, Microsoft, Oracle, PointB, Presidio, SAP, Slalom, Sprint, Univar, Verizon and West Monroe Partners.

In addition to great company, Wolfgang Puck Catering provided attendees with fabulous food.  My favorite was the Jicama and Orange Salad with Watercress and Jalapeno Dressing. It was magically delicious!

The food was not the only thing that was great. There was the energetic sounds of Mark Mendonca and the UpBeat, a team of drummers that opened and closed the speaker part of the program.

In between the amazing performances, there were a few speakers. The first of which was NPower Executive Director Alison Carl White. She opened up by reminding the audience why they were there and closed the event with a passing mention of a “theory of change”. I don’t know about anyone else, but I DEFINITELY would have liked to hear more about this theory!

Then came the main attraction, three (3) speakers who spoke about the work they do and how NPower enhances their ability to have a positive impact.

The first speaker, Bridgett Chandler of Camp Fire USA Central Puget Sound Council (CFUSA-CPSC), talked about the amazing work CFUSA has been involved in for over 100 years and highlighted how NPower helped them employ technology to enhance their work.

Next there was Nicholas Merriam, the Operations Manager for Building Changes. In his brief speech about how NPower has help Building Changes understand how technology can be used to address homelessness, Nicholas highlighted the fact that NPower is not an agency that employs technology for technology’s sake.

Last, but not least, NPower staff and Americorp participant Abby Nafziger talked about her work helping fifteen (15) anti-poverty organizations assess their use of technology and create a strategy map to help guide their growth and development.

This was an action packed event with a great vibe! I am sure there were many more stories about how NPower helped organizations use technology to enhance impact. Too bad there wasn’t enough time to hear more.

What is your NPower story? Use the comment section below to share.

Ever wondered how policies get selected and implemented? Me too! It was with this and other questions that I attended a presentation by Elizabeth K. Drake a Senior Research Associate with the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP).

Drake started by presenting a three-step model used to help policy makers on what works and what doesn’t and ended by showing how the approach was used in her work at WSIPP. The last part of the three-step process is a fairly new approach that helps stakeholders gain a better understanding about  which program/cost combinations yields the best results.

The Three (3) Steps

1. What works (to improve outcomes)? Conducting an outcome evaluation or meta-analysis can be used to fulfill this step. The first requires one to conduct a rigorous evaluations to determine if a particular program achieves expected outcome. However, it can be expensive and time-consuming. The latter requires researchers to identify programs that have already been rigorously tested elsewhere and we make a ranked list. This can help reveal the average effect. Although it is not expensive and you can do it immediately, it is not as effective in providing information on specific things researchers maybe interested in. 
2. What pays off for taxpayers?  Determining the effectiveness of a program is an important first step. However, they may be so expensive that it doesn’t pay off. Researchers conduct a cost/benefit analysis–compute benefits, costs and risks (return on investment) to the people of Washington for each policy option.
   
3. How would a “portfolio” of options affect statewide outcomes? How much risk of failure? Portfolio here refers to a menu of programs being funded. The “new kid on the block”, this step compliments the first two by exploring the impact of a program within the larger ecosystem (e.g. the statewide crime rate, graduation rate). Then researchers try different scenarios to understand the effect on shifting funding around. The intent here is to invest wisely without negatively affecting the portfolio of outcomes.

If done satisfactory, the three (3) step approach leads will help researchers articulate what works/doesn’t.

In Action

Drake and her colleagues used the approach described above to inform their recent research and publication.

1. What works? Based on eleven (11) studies selected using the method described in step one, they determined that correction Education for Offenders in Prison Reduces Recidivism Rates by 16 percent.
   • Long term: Without education over the 15 yr period there is 66% risk of recidivism.
   • With corrections education that DROPS to 57%
2. What pays off for taxpayers?
• For every one dollar invested in corrections education you save 19.00
• In a model ran 10,000 times, 100% of the time there is a benefit
  
3. Portfolio of Options
   Based on the chart below one could conclude that the supervision tactic that focuses on risk, need and responsivity is the most effective.
   

Give it a Try

Well. you now have everything you need to get started. This is my first exposure to this type of logic, so I am still wrapping my head around it. Perhaps you can help me make additional sense.

Still got questions? Put them in the comments section and I will try to get them answered for you.

On the evening of Monday, May 1, 2012 I received an email saying:

“Thanks for giving up a part of your day tomorrow to help the Voices from the Rwanda Tribunal team refine our workshop methods before we leave for Rwanda in a couple of weeks.”

I thought to myself, “I did agree to participate in the three-hour session, didn’t I?” I debated whether I should follow through with my agreement or spend the time writing my dissertation proposal.

I decided to go and I am glad I did. It was a thought provoking session where I provided critical feedback, I was in the company of great thinkers and I devoured some delicious snacks.

Background – What Led to “Voices from the Rwanda Tribunal”

About seventeen years ago (between January 1, 1994 and December 31 , 1994) over 500,000 people–men, women and children–were killed in Rwanda. In response to the 1994 Rwandan genocide, the United Nations Security Council established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (UN-ICTR) who was to prosecute those accused of responsibility for the genocide and other serious violations. For more information on the ICTR click here.

In 2008, a team of information scientists, legal experts, and cinematographers led by Batya Friedman set out to record the voices of those who were part of the UN-ICTR legal process. This resulted in 48 video interviews with judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, interpreters, court administrators, investigators, and many others associated with the ICTR. For more information on the project click here.

Fast Forward

The goal of Voices from the Rwanda Tribunal’s is “to release the entire collection of video interviews for widespread public access, particularly for the Rwandan people and for the international justice community.” It is with this mission (among others) that they will return back to Rwanda. It is their hope that the adults and youth that they work with will help them answer questions about dissemination.

During the test run we were engaged in several activities. The activities revolved around the following 8 videos

1. Roland Amoussouga – “…a witness in court”
2. Ndongo-Keller – communal wrong-doing
3. Straton Musonera – location of the ICTR
4. Linda Bianchi – rape is a serious crime
5. Alex Obote Odora – prosecution and reconciliation
6. Inés Weinberg de Roca – genocide can happen anywhere
7. Hassan Jallow – law not revenge
8. Claver Sindayigaya – innocent until proven guilty

One of the most fulfilling activity came towards the end of the day. It involved providing answers to three questions:

1. What metaphor best describes the online collection of videos?
2. What could go wrong with the collection?
3. What does it look like if there is success?

What metaphor best describes the online collection of videos?

I really enjoyed brainstorming metaphors/titles that I thought best represented the collection.  A took a while, but once I got started, I was on a roll. Some of the ones I contributed included:

I encourage you to visit the collection of video clips  (click here) and come up with your own metaphors/titles that you think best describes the collection.

What could go wrong with the collection?

This is an important question that most people are afraid to ask. I was glad to see that the Batya and her team are considering this! The question solicited many responses from the audience. My responses include:

What does it look like if there is success?

The two things I thought would indicate success were:

1. The successful integration of the videos into the Rwandan school curriculum
2. The Rwandan government linking to the collection from their website

Several other indicators of success were described as well.

Off They Go

The group of  us that participated in the dry run provided lots of critical feedback. I was extremely impressed that the Voices from the Rwanda Tribunal team was willing to have us (outsiders) come and provide some critical feedback. As I indicated during the workshop, it would be even more fantastic to have people who will ideally be in the workshops take part in the dry run as well. I look forward to hearing how the actual workshops go.

And for you the reader. I have two (2) tasks.

1. Visit http://www.tribunalvoices.org/ and try answering the three (3) questions listed above and see how your answers compare to mine.
2. Try integrating the three (3) questions into some of your work/personal processes and see how it enriches it.

Ever wondered about how to take field projects to the next notch? The eight (8) steps outlined by InSTEDD’s Nicolás di Tada may be just what you were looking for!

With over five (5) years of experience in the field, InSTEDD’s interdisciplinary team of public health experts, scientists, and software engineers help design different tools and build local capacity to solve critical health, safety and development problems as they arise.

The steps listed below are appropriate virtually all settings!

The Countdown Begins

8 – Be There

Unless you are on site, your potential contributions are limited. Being “there” helps you understand a given scenario in a way that other means cannot.

7 – Be Ready

Bring all the tools necessary to do your work. In resource constrained settings this may mean things as simple as water or as unusual as solar panels.

6 – Think Small, Act Fast

In many emergency and disaster situations, time is of the essence. Every passing minute can mean a lost life. As described by di Tada, an iterative cycle that moves along the following sequence: Observe –> Design/Redefine –> Prototype –> Publish –> Back to “Observe”, can help manage this. Unlike most circumstances where this can take a month or more, the tool may need be released into the field within days or even hours of beginning.

5 – One User to Rule them All

This is exactly what it says. Although one might be tempted to try designing a tool that pleases the full spectrum of users, this is usually not possible in emergency situations. Instead, select a user and let that person represent your universe of users.

4 – Get Feedback in Short Bursts

Forget about those long user studies and get all of the information you need to make the product better in the time it takes to consume a cup of hot chocolate.

3 – Feel Comfortable With What’s On The Table:

Design tools that make use of resources that are easily accessible, for example, low-end cell phones, radio and even paper. Doing so increases the chances that your tool will be used after your departure.

2 – Divide and Conquer

When you arrive at an emergency situation the tendency is to try to address everything at once. Resist this urge! Instead list what needs to do be  done and prioritize the tasks.

1 – Train

Equipping local stakeholders with the knowledge and ability to use the tools you design has several benefits. Among them is that it multiples the potential reach of the tool and it can lead to product adoption.

For Nicholas  di Tada’s full PPT deck click here.

Whew!

Well, there you have it! The 8 steps you should follow if you want to take your field projects to the next level! Have questions or comments share them below OR contact InSTEDD.

I must admit, although I knew that the defeat of Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) & Protect IP Act (PIPA) didn’t mean things were over and that copyright holders would continue to push for laws that would get what SOPA/PIPA was intended to provide, the issue had become secondary to me. It began to fade like flood waters after a storm. In fact it was on April 8th, 2012, a few days before Eric Goldman’s talk, that I decided to remove the banner from my website.

A few days later (4/10/2012), Goldman, director of Santa Clara’s Law School’s High Tech Law institute, stopped by the University of Washington’s Law School and gave a presentation called “SOPA/PIPA and Online Copyright Battles”. Though I have not put the banner back, Goldman’s presentation reinvigorated me. It reminded me why we cannot become complacent.

The Black Out

On the days leading up to and after January 18th, there were two groups at odds, copyright holders and the general public. The first felt that laws did not do enough to protect creative works, while the latter felt copyright laws did too much. Goldman’s presentation confirmed my belief that most people against SOPA/PIPA did not REALLY understand what it means for the creation and use of content online. Think back in time…do you remember January 18th, 2012? Some amazing things occurred on that day including

• Popular sites (Google, Wikipedia, etc.) doing either a partial or full black out,
• Well-known individuals (e.g. Kim Kardasian) expressing their displeasure with the possibility that SOPA would be passed and
• Nineteen (19) senators changing their votes from supporting SOPA to opposing it.

How many of the events listed above were you aware of? Did you ever consider there significance? For example, why did 19 senators change their position on the issue over night?

Going After Everyone

Goldman, an articulate and entertaining speaker, explained how SOPA/PIPA really targets stakeholders who are indirectly linked to those accused of violations in an easily understood fashion. Below is the graphical representation Goldman used and my attempt to summarize his explanation.

At the most basic level you have uploaders and downloaders who use a host/P2P to complete their transactions. The clearest “bad guy” is the uploader who is said to be making content that shouldn’t be available accessible to others. Instead going only for the bad guy, SOPA/PIPA focuses on punishing everyone else–literally. Everyone else includes, investors, consultants, directories, search engines, registrars, ad networks, payment systems, landlords, phone companies and power companies.

You can see how this can quickly get out of control. Such a law would have detrimental effects on the cyber-landscape. It would inevitably lead to a “take down first, ask questions later” approach that would hurt the “little guys” the most. As articulated by Goldman, hosts would probably start doing ad-hoc risk assessments of sites that are flagged to determine whether keeping it up is worth the potential financial loss. In situations where they are not willing to take the heat, the creator would justly or unjustly suffer the consequences. In the best case scenario, an individual would go through a long elaborate process to get their information restored, resulting in the loss of time, money and more.

What has happened Since?

Fortunately, SOPA was successful defeated. Copyright holders didn’t know what hit them! But they are not done. They are hard at work trying to recover from a devastating defeat. At the same time we, the general public has become complacent. If this continues, copyright holders will surely slide comparable laws under our nose. Using true political tact they will do it by getting a seemingly harmless laws passed. Later they will amend those laws (a much easier process) to include stipulations that are aligned with what they wanted all along.

To summarize, the fight for intellectual freedom and against censorship is NOT over. Though the opposition underestimated us in the past, they will be better prepared in the future. So should we. In the words of Goldman, “the only way we’re going to beat SOPA [and other variations of it] is to go on the offensive”.

How do you think we can keep the issue front and center? Use the comments section to let me know.

Last week I was asked to prepare a presentation for CHANGE, a seminar group at the University of Washington that explores the role of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in improving the lives of underserved populations in low-income regions.

I wanted to lead a discussion that explored how and why ICT4D projects are done in certain regions while ignoring others. Among other things, this question/topic is motivated by the fact that very little ICT4D work seems to happen in places within close proximity (e.g. Haiti) to the United States. However, a pressing deadline and the inability to find works that tackle this issue caused me to abandon that and prepare to lead a discussion exploring why ICT4D projects fail with my partner Alexis Hope.

We decided to that we would build a discussion around Dr Clint Rogers’ et al. video called Top 7 Reasons Why Most ICT4D FAIL!

The Discussion

After defining how ICT4D would be used within the one hour session, Alexis and I asked the attendees to list the reasons they feel ICT4D projects fail. The list we came up with was:

Using the list above, the audience decided that top five reasons were:

1. Lack of local ownership
2. Cross cultural communication Problems
3. Funding fizzles
4. Good ideas executed poorly
5. Cultural translation problems

To see if the the reasons above were in aligned with what local stakeholders feel are reasons that ICT4D projects fail, Alexis and I shifted to the the video. The rest of this document will be dedicated to highlighting some of the key points made during the discussion that developed around statements made in the video & in the audience.

Reason for Failure #1 – Idea/Results NOT directly tied to improving economic conditions of end-user

Attendees thought the view that ICT4D projects need to be connected to economic conditions to be successful was a narrow one. The group consensus was that whether it’s through tools that allow family members separated by distance to communicate more often or  helping hospitals do a better job of tracking patients with illnesses, the overarching goal of ICT4D is to improve overall quality of life.

This led to a discussion questioning “success” We concluded that success looks different in different situations and means something different for every stakeholder. Whereas success for a researcher may be collecting enough data to write a paper, success for the community may mean increasing the income or extended lifespan of livestock. Planning ICT4D projects that address the different perceptions of success can be quite difficult.

To mitigate the aforementioned issue, attendees emphasized the importance of collaborating with local stakeholders. Attendees made it clear that collaboration meant clear, authentic communication by researchers. This includes informing stakeholders that you have an idea that may have a meaningful impact; that you would like to test it out in their community; The potential shortcomings are x, y and z;  That if it works fabulous; If not, sorry. Though this does not mean failure will be prevented. It may make it easier to deal with failure if a project is not successful.

An attendee rightly pointed out that it is easy for us as ICT4D researchers to make the above statement because figuratively speaking, it is not our skin on the line. At the end of the day, we are free to pick up our things and leave—a critical power dynamic that cannot be ignored. It is the local stakeholders who are left to deal with the impact of our failed attempts.

Reason for Failure #2 – Not Relevant to Local Context/Strengths/Needs

This clip led to a lengthy discussion covering several interrelated topics. In the video, one of the speakers challenged those in the ICT4D field to consider what their intervention might look like in 100, or even just 10, years. Many CHANGE participants thought that was unreasonable because conditions in developing countries can change rapidly, and it is unrealistic to think that a particular technology will be around in 100 years, or even 10 years.

An audience member found it problematic that the conversation taking place in the room seemed to focus on the technology instead of discussing the human element because even if the technology would be gone in ten years, the wouldn’t. Consequently, a greater attempt should be made to ensure that interventions introduce seriously consider this.

Reason for Failure #3 – Not understanding infrastructure capability

The audience validated the statements made in the video regarding infrastructure-related issues and that when thinking about infrastructure, one should consider both human and information infrastructure, in addition to technical infrastructure. Attendees believe that the ICT4D field as a whole was beginning to get better at anticipating these issues and accounting for them in proposed interventions.

Reason for Failure #4 – Underestimate Maintenance Costs & Issues

This claim was validated and identified as a big problem. One example to illustrate this was that there was a lab where several computers were donated. Within a few weeks all but three were up. When the person in charge of the lab was asked about them, they stated that they had contacted someone at an office and they had not yet come. Upon further investigation, the storyteller noticed a sticker with a phone number and the words “3 year complete warranty” besides the computers. When the person in charge of the lab was asked if they called the 800 number they said no and they had no intention on calling the phone number because they had already called their contact who was not associated with the computer’s manufacturer or reseller. This illustrates some of the complexities associated with maintenance. In additional to me associated with maintenance related issues, an audience member thought this was also an example of “lack of local ownership.

Though everyone did not agree, some participants stated that high maintenance costs can be attributed to the “design for throw-away” and not “design for repair” culture.

Too Many Reasons, Not Enough Time

Unfortunately, we ran out of time and weren’t able to discuss the other reasons mentioned in the video—that’s what you get for having such a lively and engaged audience! The remaining three common reasons for failure that we didn’t get a chance to cover were:

• Reason for Failure #5 – Projects supported only by short-term grants
• Reason for Failure #6 – Not looking at the entire context and system
• Reason for Failure #7 – Project built on condescending assumptions

Take aways

The five key points by attendees were:

1. There is no fool-proof way to prevent failure
2. The intention and all possible shortcomings of an ICT4D intervention needs to be clearly stated up front
3. Local ownership is important because it will help carry projects beyond the piloting phase
4. It is naïve to believe that “your” ICT4D project by itself will have a life-changing impact
5. Technology must NOT be the main focus of ICT4D-related research or discussions

The five key points by local stakeholders in the video were:

1. ICT4D projects need to enhance activities that are already going on
2. Outsiders DON’T know what local stakeholders need, so include them in the development of ICT4D projects
3. Make sure the infrastructure to support your project is in place
4. There must be funds to help take projects beyond the pilot stage
5. There are so many things (e.g. weather, trained staff) that make the maintenance of technology complicated

Though the conversation in the room concluded, the conversation in the field continues. Let us know what you think about the ideas expressed in this post.

Use the comments section below to make sure your voice is heard.

Two weeks ago, I received a link to Alexis Madrigal’s  article titled “Bringing San Quentin to Social Media” from one of my colleagues with a note that read, “Read this yesterday on the train. Would love to hear your thoughts at some point!” Rather than limit the discussion to the two of us, I thought I would engage a larger audience and so I am sharing my thoughts here.

The Last Mile

Last Mile is a program co-founded by Chris Redlitz and Beverly Parenti intended to acquaint inmates with technology and related competencies “for eventual employment in a paid internship program within the Silicon Valley technology sector”. To accomplish this, inmates are taught technical skills, participate in discussion groups and use social media, well sort of. For more about visit http://www.thelastmilesq.com/about/

Before I continue, I want to applaud everyone involved in the Last Mile program for taking a step in the right direction and for the author of this article for writing about it.  As my colleague noted, “There needs to be more news stories on the experiences of prisoners coming out of prison and into the digital age.” My comments are intended to ensure that we do not think it is okay to stop with the level of access Last Mile has secured.

Interaction not Intermediary

By it’s very nature social media tools are meant to be interactive. This leads me to conclude that San Quentin has not been brought to social media, rather it has brought it to volunteers who act on behalf of the inmates. Needless to say, the mediators are not a suitable replacement for having the inmates interact directly with the social media tools within a networked environment.

In fact, having volunteers and not the inmates interact directly with twitter, the blog and Quora is in many ways a violation to the tenets–“interactive dialogue, the creation and exchange of user-generated content and creating media not for social “communication” but rather for social “interaction”–of social media.

As a result, some of the benefits and lessons to be learned through utilizing social media tools are lost. For example, the men complete “Tweet Sheets” that are collected every week and entered at a later date by a volunteer. Though it is an innovative idea, twitter is designed for “real-time” participation. Not delayed—“let me collect tweets and post them when I get to the office” interactions. Furthermore, twitter is used for much more than posting what seems to be mostly quotes/sayings. This fact can be lost in the current approach.

Holistic not Atomistic

The article states “they [Last Mile] also teach technical skills…” There is no doubt that technical skills are important. Unfortunately policies in and out of prison seem to focus mostly on technical aspects when providing training. However, technical skills are not enough to make meaningful use of social media and other digital tools. As a result it is imperative that technical skills are taught in context to something that is important to the individuals. For example, searching for jobs on Craigslist list, using Google’s advanced search tool to help locate local food banks that provide halal food.

Every Little Bit Counts — Literally!

Exposure equates to education and builds familiarity with the name and purpose of different digital based tools. This can cultivate the motivation necessary for incarcerated groups to want learn more after release. So, despite the externally imposed limitations which lead to some of Last Mile’s shortcomings, there is great value in the work they are doing. For example, although the questions probably preselected and aggregated by the volunteers, the fact that inmates craft responses that are posted is evidence that they are developing critical thinking skills.

Don’t Leave the Divided One’s Behind

Everyone, not just technologist must have a baseline level of skills in order to participate in today’s society. The fact that the program is catered towards people who are interested in entering the technology sector is concerning because it excludes many people from getting a chance to obtain the digital literacy skills. I believe a more useful approach/strategy would be to focus efforts on equipping all inmates with fundamental digital literacy skills. Doing so can help reverse the trend of a deepening divide as described by Jan van Dijk in his work titled, The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society.

I’ll close by stating what I said in the beginning. Last Mile is a step in the right direction. But by no means should it be where the work to prepare those incarcerated to participate in a networked society stop. Why? Because everyone needs the digital literacy skills—painter to programmer.

On Wednesday March 21, 2012 I left the Access to Justice (ATJ) committee meeting excited about the future. Three events occurring over three (3) months spurred this.

1 - Teaching Practicum Reveal and Refreshes

My teaching practicum (TP) in Dr. Ricardo Gomez’s (University of Washington) information policy course allowed me to design and facilitate 30% (3 of 10) of the class sessions. Being the lead instructor reminded me of and revealed my strengthens & weaknesses as a lecturer/facilitator. For example, I learned that I can over use the word “cool” and that my “New York style” encouragement techniques can cause students to shut down. I was reminded that I have a good stage presence and that I can engage an audience in meaningful discussions.

2 - Technology for Social Justice

To prepare for my third and final lecture of the quarter, I read several articles about the role of technology in promoting social justice including Donald Horowitz and Richard Zoza’s 2006 article, Washington State Access to Justice Technology Principles: A Perspective for Justice System Professionals. The article discusses the evolution of a set of principles created by legal, technology, and academic experts, in response to a May 2000 article (The Digital Divide and Digital Justice: Do Clients Need a Technology Bill of Rights) written by law librarian Jean Holcomb. The principles were developed to ensure that technology is used to encourage, not discourage access to justice (specifically the judicial system) and the chance for equal participation by everyone.

After reading the article I thought, “It would be wonderful if this concept was extended to include incarcerated people!” Modified to make incarcerated groups the main focus, “Access to Justice” might include:

• shifting the conversation around the introduction of training and the accompanying networked technology in prison from one of reservation to one of belief. Belief that the Department of Correction in collaboration with other stakeholders can determine how to make this happen
• building an infrastructure that would support access and training to inmates while incarcerated so that they can be better prepared to participate in our networked society after returning

3 - Meet and Greet

The third and final factor that led me to the ATJ committee meeting was an one-on-one meeting with Mike Katell, IT Manager, Columbia Legal Services. During our conversation, I learned about Mike’s connection to ATJ and was invited to attend their March 21, 2012 meeting.

Looking Ahead

I arrived at the meeting not really knowing what to expect and left excited about the future. Why? Because….

• I was in a room filled with people interested in exploring ways of using technology to promote social justice
• I learned about other groups/people who share my interest in preparing inmates for reentry
• I heard about relevant upcoming events (e.g. the ATJ Conference)
• I discovered Donald Horowitz et al. may have data about incarcerated people’s experience with technology &
• I explained to a new group of people why prisons should proactively explore innovative ways to provide inmates with the digital literacy skills they will need when they reenter society

I am looking forward to contributing to Access to Justice’s mission. They can play a crucial role in my quest to provide one of society’s most excluded and underserved groups–prison inmates–with an environment and training that will allow them to gain the skills required for a technology-driven community.

In mid-January a fellow PhD Student (Ivette Bayo) sent out an e-mail asking if anyone was planning to applying to the Dell Social Innovation Challenge (DSIC), a competition drawing 100′s of entries from across the globe. After doing some research, I found out that submissions are supposed to address the world’s most pressing problems and that an entry would put us in contention for one of 27 awards, more than $140,000 in cash prizes and more than $500,000 worth of in-kind prizes.

Since projects can be in any phase of development, there is really no limitation and so Ivette and I decided to enter the contest. Our proposed social innovation is to set up an infrastructure that supports digital literacy education in United States prisons. This would benefit society by eventually saving states millions that are currently invested in incarceration and reincarceration.

The current prison education model is dated and mostly excludes meaningful integration of technology. Failing to create an environment that allows digital literacy education to be employed leaves inmates at risk of returning our communities without the skills necessary for success in personal (e.g. managing funds, locating social services) and professional endeavors (e.g. finding a job). As a result our social innovation proposes to replicate Internet connectivity and other digital tools within prisons. This will allow prisoners to gain the digital literacy skills they will need upon release.

The innovation will call for collaboration between the Washington State Department of Corrections, undergraduate and graduate students in computer science, information science and education.

If successful, this intervention/social innovation will allow states to reallocate millions that are currently being spent on incarceration.

So help us get funding!

How to Vote for Us

It’s easy:

1. Register (takes 30 seconds-input only name and email) at http://www.dellchallenge.org/user/register
2. Validate your email address
3. Vote for us here: http://www.dellchallenge.org/projects/digital-empowerment

Last Word and Final Request

The reality is that some people believe  incarcerated people do not deserve a digital literacy education. Despite this belief it is not feasible to leave them out of the digital revolution. Doing so could have detrimental effects on our communities. Furthermore,  it has been shown that providing an education to incarcerated groups has a positive effect, one of which being less of them returning to prison. On the surface this may not mean anything. But when you consider that around $50,000 is spent yearly to house each inmate you may see different.

Share this will all of your social networks (Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc) we will need as many advocates as we can get.

Thank you for your support!

Jared Mills, Readers Advisory Librarian, Seattle Public Library, shared  tips and techniques for creating fun, innovative, and engaging video booktalks at the 2012 iYouth Conference. The jam-packed room combined with the valuable information Jared shared led me to conclude that someone should capture the key points and make it accessible for the world!

That “someone” ended up being me! Without further delay, let us begin!

The Digital Booktalk

A video or digital booktalk is a modified version of the traditional booktalk with only few differences. The main one being, digital booktalks are usually shorter in length.

Jared, gave a quick and dirty lesson highlighting the do’s and don’ts to creating video booktalks. It was simple enough for even the least digitally savvy person to keep up.

DO: Make videos short! People have short attention spans. Aim for :30 seconds or less.
DON’T: Booktalk a book that you are not excited about! It will be apparent to viewers.
DO: Make videos as conversational as possible (e.g. OMG, I just read this book …). This increases the likelihood that you can will your listeners.
DON’T: Over rehearse! Try to stay away from creating a script. This will make your booktalk have a more authentic feel.
DO: Relax, no pressure! Imagine you are talking to a friend.
DON’T: Be long-winded. Instead try providing a full review in three (3) sentences.
DO: Take a deep breath. It’s only :30 seconds and then it is done.
DON’T: Expect to nail it on the first attempt, sometimes it takes a several tries.
DO: Remember, it is about the book, not you!

Production and Technical Aspects [The Nitty Gritty]

You want to make watching the digital booktalk(s) a pleasurable experience for your audience. Whether you use a digital camera or camcorder to accomplish this, there things you must consider.

1. Lighting: Generally speaking you want to stay away from fluorescent lights. Though you may be tempted, there is really no need for any special professional grade lighting. Just make sure the lighting you record under is naturally diffused and you should be fine. Be careful not to have the speaker stand in a position that makes them look distorted either.

2. Audio/Sound: Unfortunately the built-in microphone camcorders come with usually do a better job of picking up the background noise and not the presentor. To resolve this invest in a wireless (lavaliere) microphone. Wireless microphones can be expensive. If the people responsible for the purchase need some convincing, pitch the wireless microphone as a long-term investment–a tool that can be used at other events.

3. Camera – Action in the frame: The relationship between the camera’s and the person in front of the camera is an intimate one. Respect it! Rather then include my notes on this, I have copied and pasted Jared’s verbatim advice on this topic.

Jared Mills’ on the camcorder functions:

Pay attention to how you (or your subject) are positioned within the space. Don’t place someone in front of a column or under a low banner; it will look like the object is coming out of his or her head. Use vertical objects like bookcases, columns, or trees, positioning the subject between them, to add framing to your shot.

Zoom in as needed. Sometimes, getting a little closer will cut out distractions, like other people in the background, the trash barrel, or the wall color that goes from restful blue to shocking hot pink at the corner. Look through the lens and move anything that catches your eye—a poster, a plant, etc.—and might detract from your subject.

Jared Mills’ on the individual being recorded:

Basic rules from photography apply. Imagine your screen divided into two rows of three columns.

Try to avoid having things in the exact middle; place the subject a little to the left or right. Avoid vertical or horizontal lines that fall straight along these imaginary ones. A bookcase to the left of a person standing on the rightmost vertical line will lead the eye to the book talker.

Ask the subject to sit or stand in a natural way. Have the performer present the book talk two or three times. Usually by the third take, s/he will start to look and sound more natural and less awkward (that’s a tip from NPR, which employs this as an interview method with guests on their radio programs).

4. Software: Video editing programs allow you to do all sorts of cool things with your videos before posting them for the public to see. Some free programs are

• Windows MovieMaker,
• Apple’s iMovie
• YouTube‘s Playbook

If you have a budget then think about getting Adobe Premiere Elements. It has lots of bells and whistles. If you have never used Adobe Premiere before, not a problem. Visit lynda.com‘s YouTube page where you will find many videos at your disposal.

5. Post: You may be asking yourself, “Where can I post it?” Well, start with any of the free video hosting sites listed below:

• Blip.tv (www.blip.tv)
• Flickr (www.flickr.com)
• TeacherTube (www.teachertube.com)
• YoutTube (www.youtube.com)
• Vimeo (www.vimeo.com)

Once you upload your video you can embed the actual recording on your site for visitors to see.

Lights, Camera, Action!

Well, there you have it, the information you need to create and post a digital booktalk! If you are a bit nervous or still unsure about how to move forward, click here for examples.

Make comments and post links to your digital booktalks and the name of other resources that may be helpful in the space below.