Connect Chicago Meetup Recap: Youth-Led Tech Program Lessons & Comcast Internet Essentials

Members of Chicago’s public computing and digital learning community come together every month to hear a presentation from a Connect Chicago Corporate Partner and a Connect Chicago featured program. Join us! Sign up at Meetup.com.

On September 3rd, the Connect Chicago Meetup group convened for a session on Youth-Led Tech Program Lessons & Comcast Internet Essentials. We learned about expansions to the Internet Essentials program from Comcast’s Director of External Affairs, Joe Higgins. Then, Smart Chicago gave a detailed, behind-the-scenes look at Youth-Led Tech Summer program – sharing everything from catering records to detailed curriculum.

CC Meetup 9.3.15

Meetup attendees hailed from LISC Chicago, the Chicago Public Library, Accenture, the Adler Planetarium, Microsoft Chicago, Comcast, Smart Chicago, Englewood Blue, BLUE1647, Hive Chicago, Galvanize Labs and United Way of Metropolitan Chicago, reinforcing the idea that connectivity and digital skills touch so many types of people and institutions across Chicago. 

Comcast Internet Essentials is a program serving low income families with children eligible for free and reduced lunch. The goal is to tear down the barriers to broadband adoption by offering training, reduced cost computers, and $9.95/month Internet access. In Chicago, Internet Essentials serves about 55,000 families – 26% of eligible families in Chicago. 

In his presentation, Joe outlined several new components to the Internet Essentials program:

  • Eligibility Expansion. Any student attending a school where over 50% of students are eligible for free or reduced lunch will automatically be enrolled in Internet Essentials
  • Faster Speeds. Internet Essentials download speeds will be 10 Mbps – up from 5 Mbps
  • Wi-Fi. All current and future Internet Essential customers can get a free Wi-Fi router

In addition to these expansions, Comcast is experimenting with a pilot senior technology program in San Francisco, CA and  Palm Beach County, Florida. The company also invested in a study evaluating the impact of its Internet Essentials Program which you can read here. 

After Comcast’s presentation, Smart Chicago’s Youth-Led Tech program organizers gave detailed overview of their open online documentation. These items would be of interest to anyone hoping to replicate or build on this youth summer program:

  • How do you recruit the youth that would benefit most from a program like this? Flyer, use SlideShare as a platform, and use tools like Wufoo and Zapier. It also helps to have program partners like Get IN Chicago
  • How do you hire neighborhood instructors that will resonate with and inspire the recruited youth? Read all about the Smart Chicago hiring process here
  • How do you feed 140 kids 2 meals each day over 6 weeks? See a spreadsheet of thousands of meals from dozens of vendors. This food fueled learning at 5 sites across Chicago and no doubt contributed to the >90% participant retention rate. You can read a longer blog post about catering from Smart Chicago’s Chris Walker
  • How do you implement 170+ hours of training, ultimately empowering and teaching youth to imagine and build their own websites? Youth-Led Tech’s day-by-day, hour-by-hour schedule is published online in pdf and word for other to use and improve on. See it here on SlideShare. 

You can watch the whole Youth-Led Tech graduation ceremony on YouTube. 140 students completed the program and earned their own laptops. Microsoft hosted the ceremony.

YLT grad ceremony 1As you can see from the highlights above, from the beginning of Youth-Led Tech, the program set out to document everything and share everything. We hope other digital skill-building programs in Chicago will adopt similar practices, ultimately strengthening the City’s entire digital learning ecosystem.

Access the entire Connect Chicago Meetup presentation here on Google Slides. You can access the meeting notes here.

Chicago Hospitals Win $8.75 Million to Launch Data Network

A data-sharing network of 10 Chicago hospitals could make medical research more reliable and less expensive. It’s a big-data project that keeps patients records locked up, but lets researchers search for trends.

An $8.75 million grant will fund the three-year launch of the Chicago Area Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Network. Awarded July 21, the contract taps money set aside in the Affordable Care Act for medical research.

Terry Mazany

Terry Mazany, The Chicago Community Trust

“What’s unique about CAPriCORN is that it brings together these 10 institutions that historically have been competitors, or at least disinterested in each other,” says Terry Mazany, chief executive of The Chicago Community Trust and the project’s principal investigator. (The trust is also a Smart Chicago funder.)

“This brings them together in a very formal organization across the entire region,” Mazany says, “with a patient population of upwards of 5 million patients potentially available for research, and in particular a patient population that is very diverse.”

The Chicago network and clinical networks in 10 other regions will allow health advocates to monitor even rare conditions and prove how well current treatments work.

Their first test will be Duke University’s nationwide study to prove whether taking children’s aspirin to prevent a heart attack is as effective as an adult dose, which carries potential side effects. Researchers in Chicago and five other cities will study 20,000 at-risk heart patients, a large sample size that allows fine-tuned analysis.

Richard Kennedy, Loyola University Chicago

Richard Kennedy, Loyola University Chicago

“They contacted us and said, you’ve got the numbers that we need, would you be able to participate?” says Richard Kennedy, vice provost for research and graduate studies at the Loyola University Chicago health sciences division in Maywood. “We had a significant number of patients that would fit nicely in the cohort.” Kennedy and Frances Weaver are Loyola’s head researchers for the data network.

Hospitals now are collaborating on how to conduct the trial and manage the data. Other studies will track obese patients after bariatric surgery and children on antibiotics to treat immune disorders. Mazany sees Chicago hospitals as active participants. “When the national level is looking at need and expertise in an area, we have a far broader and deeper bench than any of the other systems,” he says. “That’s a real strength.”

In a $7 million startup phase, CAPriCORN built out a system to connect the medical centers without exposing patient information. The next phase explores its real-world uses, as well as a funding model that puts patients’ interests first.

The aspirin study “is going to answer a question of great clinical concern,” Kennedy says, “but the importance is truly we’re testing the infrastructure we’ve been building for the past 18 months. All right, you’ve put together what seems to be a very impressive informatics system with all the security we would want for our patients. Now let’s see if it works.”

Privacy starts with keeping personal identifiers off the network. Researchers query data in a small, separate access layer, with names and addresses reduced to a cryptographic hash. “We’re currently having it validated by a security firm that’s one of the top in the region to make sure it protects subjects,” Kennedy says.

A novel algorithm links the anonymous patients’ records across all hospitals, giving public health researchers a more reliable count of how common their condition is and where to find hot spots. “You have the ability to look for rare diseases and aggregate an adequate sample size to do statistically significant studies,” Mazany says.

“There’s a next step in some of the research designs,” he adds. Instead of just counting how many patients share a condition, studies that pass an ethics review will reach out to them.

“Let’s say you’re looking at exploring treatments for sickle cell, and you’re specifically looking at teenagers as a population,” he explains. “Then you can do a query to identify the total population and where they’re distributed among institutions.”

Hospitals then can ask patients to join clinical trials that will log treatment details. “It still protects patient privacy but is able to more efficiently identify candidates for the research study,” Mazany says.

Researchers see the network as low-cost way to recruit trial subjects. “Instead of tens of thousands of dollars per participant, then it’s dollars per participant,” Mazany says. “You leverage the efficiency of large data systems so each researcher doesn’t independently have to enroll institutions.

“What makes this in someone’s interest? Lowering the cost of research, speeding up research, creating greater effectiveness. Those three standards are part of a health system that’s learning and evolving rapidly.”

The focus likely will improve data handling as well. “One interesting byproduct could be if there is unevenness across institutions that may become apparent,” Mazany says.

Research on the network will be subject to more thorough advance review. “It’s patient centered,” Loyola’s Kennedy says. “It includes a lot of patient input into the design of the study, the importance of the study to the subjects, the patients, the community.”

Like other clinical trials, research must pass muster with an institutional review board. Feedback also comes from a doctor-patient advisory panel that includes advocates for treating asthma, arthritis and other diseases.

“There’s also a pastor’s group on the South Side that’s very active,” Mazany says. The advisory group “totals about 30 people — it’s a pretty large group.”

The extra review should put important research on a fast track, and prime doctors and patients to follow its recommendations.

“Oftentimes research truly answers medical questions for the people that ran it, yet the results don’t get distributed and implemented as well as we would like,” Kennedy says. “We hope that by engaging the community and the patients – and the clinicians who are taking care of those patients – the results will be implemented much more quickly, because they will be designed in part by input from these subjects.”

The aspirin study also will look into the benefits of mobile health devices. A University of California-San Francisco team will give some participants apps to send reminders and record activity. In Chicago, Kennedy says investigators are considering how they might manage frequent readings from blood sugar monitors in a diabetes trial.

The network is “more open and accessible for that type of data collection,” Mazany says. “Who knows where that will lead as far as the efficacy of the research?”

Hospitals will have to consider a long-term funding model after federal funding runs out in 2018. “We’ve been contacted by an industry sponsor, who would very much like to think that there was a Chicago network they could access without working individually with the 10 institutions,” Kennedy says “That’s going to take some time to create that kind of trust.”

Mazany wants to make sure patient advocates can propose research on the network, but they’ll need to be thoroughly vetted. “They’ll come up with their own queries, but there won’t be an open-data hack night,” he says. “There are just too many privacy and security concerns with these types of data. But in a sense, the hack night would be communities and patients identifying questions that could interrogate data sets through the mechanism of the queries.”

The network has no data portal, but researchers will be encouraged to find ways to show their work outside of medical journals. That may include websites such as Smart Chicago’s Chicago Health Atlas, a past collaborator with hospital networks.

“The Health Atlas is an example of a good partner both on the front end of identifying important trends in the data that can help to frame priorities, and then on the back end as a distribution system for communications outward,” Mazany says. “I look for the Health Atlas to be a very valuable partner, but none of this has been formalized.”

The big-data approach also might spread beyond hospitals. “I don’t know how that’s going to play out,” Mazany says. The network already includes community health centers that store electronic health records centrally. He envisions opening up the network to more health providers.

“That line of thinking is an exciting frontier,” Mazany says. “Right now everybody is up to their necks in alligators draining the swamp. The analogy with Walt Disney envisioning Disney World and Florida in the midst of the swamp I think is appropriate here. We have a vision and are laying the infrastructure to have arise a Magic Kingdom.”

Recap of the Illinois GIS Association 2015 Chicago Regional Meeting

On April 20, I attended the Illinois GIS Association Regional Meeting at the DePaul Center in Chicago.

ILGISA President Andrew Vitale (Sr. GIS Coordinator, Village of Niles) kicked off the day by giving an overview of ILGISA. ILGISA is a statewide organization of GIS and geospatial professionals. There are 625 members from government, college and university, and private sectors.
ILGISA Membership

Next, Patrick McHaffie, Ph.D. from the Department of Geography at DePaul spoke about the Geography and GIS program and classes available at DePaul. Graduate students from DePaul’s Geography program participated in the Map Poster Gallery available throughout the day.

Cook County 

The first session focused on Utilization of GIS in Cook County. Margaret Cusack and Raymond Gottner from the Office of the Clerk of Cook County spoke first. They spoke about the development of the PIN system and walked through the meaning of each part of a PIN. They also spoke about their collaboration with GIS and the addition of TIF Boundaries to Cook County’s Open Data Portal.

Amber Knapp, GIS Manager for Cook County, gave an overview of the GIS department functions. Greg Roberts from the GIS Department spoke about some the applications they have developed including Connect to Cook and TIF Viewer. Cook County GIS utilized an open source Configurable Map Viewer to build the TIF Viewer. Greg also spoke about their Open Data on the Open Data Portal.

There were 3 speakers in the second morning session. Julie Hwang (DePaul University) spoke about the use of GIS data in health research. Michael Lange spoke about the use of GIS for inventory, evaluation, and access at the Chicago Park District. They used GIS to develop the 2014 Land Policy Plan. Molly Mangan (W4Sight LLC) looked at the intersection of Business Intelligence tools and GIS utilizing data from the City of Chicago’s Data Portal to demonstrate functionality in Tableau.

In the afternoon there was a panel discussion on :GIS Careers in the Public and Private Sectors” and a demonstration of the ESRI’s Web AppBuilder for ArcGIS. The final session of the day focused on GIS at the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) for local planning, land use inventory, and measuring transit accessibility.

See pictures from this meeting at ILGISA’s Facebook page.

The next Regional Meetings will be June 8 in Wheaton. Smart Chicago’s Dan O’Neil will be speaking at that event about the importance of GIS in the open data movement.

Follow-up from On The Table 2015: Data Integrity for Small Businesses and Small Non-Profits

on-the-table-logoFor On The Table 2015 I met with Heidi Massey and Ben Merriman over coffee and tea in the Loop. My idea for the conversation focused on creating an open consent form template — meaning, a web form users could finish and then export as a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), or a Data Sharing Agreement (DSA).

The different documents work in different contexts. Except when working with datasets protected by federal law (more on this later), calling an agreement between parties an MOU or a DSA is largely a matter of habit, while an NDA is a legally binding contract that says which types of confidential information should not be disclosed. Within legal limits, there’s nothing stopping you from writing agreements for your organization in the language and structure you prefer. Consider the purpose of the dataset, who has stakes in its integrity, and what might happen to the dataset in the future.

Often boilerplate NDAs and MOUs are kept filed by organizations. An employee, consultant, or another partner adds their details to the agreement. Both parties sign the agreement and each keeps a copy for themselves. The agreement acts as a promise that, essentially, data stays where it belongs. Violations end the data sharing relationship.

Wseedere saw problems with agreements whose force relies on the color of law and a CYA — Cover Your Ass — mentality. So we tried to imagine how the language of the agreements could promote a culture of shared best practices. The conversation followed Heidi’s idea that small nonprofits have more in common with small businesses than they do with very large nonprofits. Here’s a plain English outline for a data agreement which also works like a data integrity check list.

People who are working with shared data should understand:

  • How the data is formatted for use. This means organizing the dataset into simple tables and, for example, by using the same file type, naming conventions, and variable order.
  • The versions of the dataset. An original version of the dataset should be kept unmodified. Changes to the dataset should be made to a copy of the original version and documented in detail. The location of the original version of the dataset should be known but access restricted.
  • How long the data sharing agreement lasts. The dataset’s life cycle—how a dataset gets created, to where it can be transferred, and when, if at all, a dataset is destroyed–is just as important as a straightforward timeline for deliverables.
  • How to keep information confidential. Avoiding accidental violations of the data sharing agreement is easier when everyone who works with the dataset is familiar with its terms of use. It’s possible to define access permissions to datasets by using password protection and defining read/write roles for users. Data cleaning is a crucial part of this process to ensure that personally identifiable information is kept safe.
  • What costs come with sharing the data. This means being clear about who is in charge of updating the dataset, whether there are financial obligations associated with the data sharing process, and knowing risks associated with breaches. Federal law regulates the sharing of datasets about school children (FERPA), medical information (HIPPA), and vulnerable populations (IRBs).
  • Specific use requirements. This is the nitty-gritty of data sharing. Use requirements specify whether a dataset can be shared with third parties, what other data (if any) can be linked to the dataset, and what changes can be made to the dataset.

Ben has written extensively about the consent process as it relates to the genetic material of vulnerable populations. A vulnerable person — say, a prisoner, child, or an indigenous person — consents to give a sample of their genetic material to a researcher for a study. The genetic material gets coded into a machine readable format and aggregated into a dataset with other samples. The researchers publish their study and offer the aggregated dataset to others for study.

Bowser_Tsai

Image from Anne Bowser and Janice Tsai’s “Supporting Ethical Web Research: A New Research Ethics Review”. Copyright held by International World Wide Web Conference Committee: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2736277.2741654.

As it stands, though, there is no way for a person to revoke their consent once s/he gives away their genetic material. The dilemma applies not just to genetic material but any dataset that contains sensitive material. We thought people should have a say in what data counts as sensitive. An organization can limit how much data is shared in the first place. There are technical limitations and capacity limitations that stop people “in” datasets from having a voice during the dataset’s full life cycle.

For more information you can go to one of Smart Chicago’s meetups or review a list of informal groups here. The documentation is from last year’s Data Days conference as part of the Chicago School of Data project. There’s a large community in Chicago willing to teach people about data integrity. Check out Heidi’s resource list, which you can access and edit through Google.

Before you came to this room, did you think of your work as “civic tech”?

On April 4th, as part of the Experimental Modes project, we gathered together 30 technology practitioners in a one-day convening to discuss the strategies they use to make civic tech—though very few attendees would call it such.

Artists, journalists, developers, moms, community organizers, students, entrepreneurs (and often, some combination of the above), the practitioners in the room represented diverse parts of the civic ecosystem and the words we each used to talk about the work that we do reflected that.

Below, we’ve rounded up thoughts from each participant in answer to the question:

Before you came into this room did you think of your work as “civic tech”? If you didn’t, how would you describe your work?

The answers provide an important window into the limits and potentials of “civic technology”: who feels invited into this latest iteration of the “tech for good” space and who doesn’t (or who rejects it) and why.

(What follows are a slightly cleaned up version of the live notes taken during our conversations. You can read the original, unedited documentation of this conversation here.)

Attendees of the Experimental Modes Convening. April 4, 2015. Photo by Daniel O'Neil.

Attendees of the Experimental Modes Convening. April 4, 2015. Photo by Daniel O’Neil.

Marisa Jahn (The NannyVan App): At first we called our work public art, but then we identified as civic tech because the White House called us.

Maegan Ortiz (Mobile Voices): I identified the work as civic tech because I was told that what I do is civic tech, though with the populations I work with, civic engagement has a particular meaning.

Geoff Hing (Chicago Tribune): If you owned the language, what language would you use to describe your work?

Maegan Ortiz: Great question — for me, we have meetings and make media. We’re putting ourselves out there in different ways.

Marisa Jahn: We code switch a lot. Communications, civic media.

Asiaha Butler (Large Lots Program): We’re open to being as “googleicious” as possible. What we do is community.

Geoff Hing: I call my work journalism/journalistic.

Greta Byrum (Open Technology Institute): “Training”.

Stefanie Milovic (Hidden Valley Nature Lab): I’d call it “civic tech”. The21 only people who get involved are people who are looking to learn.

Jeremy Hay (EPANow): I’d call it civic tech depending on the grant. Otherwise, “Community journalism”

Tiana Epps-Johnson (Center for Technology and Civic Life): Skills training and civic tech.

Naheem Morris (Red Hook Digital Stewards): Training.

Laura Walker McDonald (Social Impact Lab): For FrontlineSMS, I’d say m-gov, m-health, etc. Digital Diplomacy. Civic tech. But the term I like the most is “inclusive technology”, which baffles people because we made it up.

Robert Smith (Red Hook Digital Stewards): Training, skill building. Not tied into government, so “civic” may not apply. Community building. “Independent”. “Tied in to building the Red Hook community”.

Jennifer Brandel (Curious Nation): Well, now I’m going to start using “civic tech” for grants. Usually, though, we call our work “public-powered journalism”. Sometimes I think about our work in terms of psychogeography: “a whole toy box full of playful, inventive strategies for exploring cities… just about anything that takes pedestrians off their predictable paths and jolts them into a new awareness of the urban landscape”. (“A New Way of Walking”)

Demond Drummer (Large Lots Program): I only started using “civic tech” about 6 months ago. Usually I refer to the work of tech organizers as “digital literacy” and “digital leadership”, in the mode of the literacy trainings from the Mississippi Freedom Movement. Now I think of what I do as the “full stack of civic tech”.

Josh Kalov (Smart Chicago Collaborative): Open data and website stuff. “Everything I do is civic tech though I hate the term”.

Anca Matioc (AbreLatAm): I work with a foundation in Chile, similar to Sunlight Foundation. Building platforms to inform people about voting, political issues. I hate the term “civic tech”. It’s missing “a lot of what you guys [in the room] have”, missing the communities part, the engaging grassroots part. People from civic tech need more of that. Impressed with R.A.G.E. (Asiaha’s organization), their structure and constituent funding (and therefore their constituent accountability). Maybe that’s why organizations like R.A.G.E. don’t immediately identify as civic tech, because they don’t have to adopt language for funders.

Allan Gomez (The Prometheus Radio Project): I don’t use the term civic tech, but our work does fall under it. I’d call it “participatory democracy”. Having a voice (through radio) is a civic ambition. Electoral politics is not the full range of civic participation. What about non-citizens? People who don’t vote can be politically engaged in a really deep way, more so than people who only vote and that’s it.

Sanjay Jolly (The Prometheus Radio Project): Our work falls into civic technology frames – and that can be important, useful. For a long time Prometheus was a “media justice organization” (to tell funders “what we are”). Now nobody call themselves media justice anymore. What makes sense to people is to say that “we’re building a radio station so people can have a voice in their community”.

Whitney May (Center for Technology and Civic Life): Our work fits pretty squarely with civic tech language because we’re building tools for government. But it’s also skills training, so I’d also call it “technically civic”.

Sabrina Raaf (School of Art and Design at University of Illinois at Chicago): I’d call it open source culture. Documenting new tech. Teaching new tech. Bridging between academia and maker culture (two cultures that are biased against each other). “Sharing knowledge”, documenting knowledge, workshopping knowledge.

Daniel O’Neil (Smart Chicago Collaborative): I work in civic tech, and I find the people in civic tech deeply boring.

Sonja Marziano (Civic User Testing Group, Smart Chicago Collaborative): “Civic” is a really important word to what I do every day.

Maritza Bandera (On The Table, Chicago Community Trust): I never thought of what I did as “civic tech” before. Conversation. Community-building. Organizing.

Adam Horowitz (US Department of Arts & Culture): Social imagination, cultural organizing, building connective tissue in social fabric.

Danielle Coates-Connor (GoBoston2030): Something I haven’t seen in the civic tech space is about the interior condition of leaders…the visionary elements.

Diana Nucera (Allied Media Projects): I think of civic tech more as product than process. It’s hard to hear people wanting to take the term and use it because it takes several processes to create a product that can scale to the size of civic tech—beyond a neighborhood, something that can cover a whole area. Taking over the term civic tech de-legitimizes the history of social organizing. When we use blanket terms we have to start from scratch. What I do is “media-based organizing”. The work is heavy in process, not products. The products are civic tech. So, I discourage people from using words civic technology to get grants, and so on. We actually need more diversity in processes—that’s what can make civic tech valuable.

Laurenellen McCann (Smart Chicago Collaborative): This is something I’ve been struggling with as I’ve been exploring the modes of civic engagement in civic tech—it’s a study of processes people use to create civic tech…but I’ve been wrestling with whether and how things that identify as “civic tech” count.

Diana Nucera: What you’ve shown us is that community organizing, media making, public art, all have a place within civic tech. And what I find helpful is to understand how people are approaching it: “Civic tech” or “Community tech”.

Chicago at the White House Tech Meetup

Today leaders, organizers and innovators from across America convened for the first-ever White House Tech Meetup. We came together to share strategies and methods for tackling a central question facing our communities, cities and country today: how do we bring more people into the digital economy?

Megan Smith, U.S. Chief Technology Officer, opened the meetup with a clarion call to action. “The are a lot more neighbors in our communities who aren’t in on this game,” she noted. “How can we work together to figure out our inclusion strategies?”

Jeffrey Zeints, Director of the National Economic Council, emphasized the urgency of this question for America’s continued competitiveness. “This is not only the right thing to do,” said Zeints, referring to the TechHire Initiative. “It’s really important for our country’s position in the global economy.”

It was an incredibly diverse crowd that assembled in the South Court Auditorium of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (“from the ‘hood to the holler,” as one attendee from Kentucky observed). Half of the participants were organizers of tech meetups; the other half were people doing innovative work in community tech. A key theme driving the day was the power of local communities.

“Community unleashes opportunity,” declared Meetup CEO and co-founder Scott Heiferman. “And people have more power than ever to create community.”

Here, it is worth noting that Meetup is a vital tool in Chicago’s civic tech ecosystem. At Smart Chicago we use Meetup to convene and communicate with members of our Connect Chicago meetup group and the Open Government Chicago meetup we host and help organize.

whmeetup

Chicago had a strong presence in the room for the day-long session. It was great to see Mike Stringer, organizer of Data Science Chicago. Mike was one of 50 Meetup organizers personally invited to the event by Meetup HQ. Laurenellen McCann, a Smart Chicago consultant, delivered a spotlight talk charging participants to build with, not for people and communities. Tiana Epps-Johnson, co-founder of the Center for Technology and Civic Life (a Smart Chicago partner), shared her organization’s work delivering tech solutions and training for the unsung enablers of our democracy: local election administrators. Rounding out Chicago’s presence in the spotlight talks, I presented on why tech organizing is a foundational component of Chicago’s efforts to achieve full participation in the digital economy (my remarks are at the end of this post).

I was proud to see Chicago in the room, but there was much to learn from people doing similar work in other cities. I was particularly compelled by the story of Felicia and Jamal O’Garro, the dynamic husband-wife duo who co-founded Code Crew in New York. When they found themselves out of work at the same time, Felicia and Jamal decided to turn a crisis into an opportunity to retool their skills. They looked far and wide for a way to get into tech, but to no avail. When they didn’t find a program that suited their needs they took matters into their own hands and organized the Code Crew meetup group. That group has since grown into an organization that delivers tech training to thousands of people in New York. Find a way or make one – that’s the ethic that drives innovation from the bottom up.

My biggest takeaway from the White House Tech Meetup was that the answers to these pressing questions will not be found in Washington. Rather, we will find the answers in communities and cities across the country creating new ways to build inroads into the digital economy. At stake is nothing less than our continued competitiveness.

There is some tremendously valuable and innovative work happing right here in Chicago: the CyberNavigators, YouMedia and Maker Labs at the Chicago Public Library; the Smart Communities program model piloted by LISC Chicago that drives households online, improves digital skills and increases real incomes for working families; and the deliberate ecosystem-building work we do at Smart Chicago. Programs like i.c. stars. Places like BLUE1647. Projects like LargeLots.org. There are many, many others.

It was a real privilege to participate in the White House Tech Meetup, learn from leaders from all across America and share one part of Chicago’s comprehensive approach to driving full participation in the digital economy.

We truly have an opportunity to be a model for the nation.


 Tech Organizing in Chicago

Adapted from notes for a talk delivered at the White House Tech Meetup
April 17, 2015

Good afternoon. I’m Demond Drummer and I bring greetings from Englewood, on the south side of Chicago.

In Chicago I lead a cross-sector partnership to engage residents and local businesses in every neighborhood to achieve full participation in the digital economy. We call this effort The Connect Chicago Challenge.

Tech organizing is a core component of our strategy to engage communities across the city. This is the work I’ve done in my neighborhood, Englewood, for the past 4 years. This is the work I want to talk to you about today.

I’m a tech organizer. Tech organizers trace our lineage to the Mississippi Freedom Movement. If you recall, the Jim Crow South used literacy tests to create a wall to block black people from fully participating in our democracy. Savvy organizers focused on literacy to build power and tear down that wall.

Despite its obvious advantages technology, by default, reinforces existing patterns of power and inequality. In my neighborhood – and in communities across America – technology is a wall blocking many people from fully participating in society and the digital economy.

Tech organizers focus on digital literacy to build power and tear down that wall.

Digital literacy is more fundamental than skills. Digital literacy is understanding. Digital literacy means we see technology for what it is: a tool to make our lives better and our communities stronger. Digital literacy is about power.

We’ve found that digital literacy is cultivated best in context and in community – a gathering at the senior center, a block club, a parent group at a neighborhood school, or teens working together to build a website for a local business.

In Chicago we seek to achieve full participation in the digital economy. We see tech organizing as a model for driving us toward this goal –  in every neighborhood, from the bottom up.

 

Englewood Codes, summer 2013.

Englewood Codes, summer 2013.