Suchergebnisse

Since the 1930s, the zealous, idealistic proponents of musical revolution in Soviet Russia, the Rossiiskaia assotsiatsiia proletarskikh muzykantov (Russian association of proletarian musicians, RAPM), have served primarily as an embarrassing footnote to the history of Soviet music and cultural politics. Scholarly opinion of RAPM is remarkably consistent in its condemnation, as Russian-Soviet scholars and westerners alike dismiss the organization for its "simplistic" (western) or "vulgar" (Soviet) ideology and aesthetics. This consensus suggests that RAPM deserves its place in the dustbin of history alongside the Rossiiskaia assotsiatsiia proletarskikh pisatelei (Russian association of proletarian writers, RAPP) and other militant advocates of cultural revolution. But the condescending (western) and embarrassed (Soviet) dismissal of RAPM is itself simplistic. Seeing members of RAPM as undertalented and unwitting tools of the regime's agenda, or misguided if well-intentioned deviationists, obscures the important role the proletarian musicians played in the evolution of Soviet musical culture and aesthetics.

ObjectivesThis presentation describes a successful framework for developing and implementing processes to support intradepartmental data access, integration, and use in the US. This case study describes on-going streams of work, 2019-present, to implement a new legal framework and data governance approach across a large health and human service agency.
ApproachThis work is conducted in partnership with a state agency and university-based researchers. The case study relies upon participatory action research as the primary approach, using mixed methods to inform inquiry, including interviews and deliberative dialogue to support action. An initial Data Landscape Overview was conducted from 2019-2020 through on-going meetings, document review, a survey of legal agreements, weekly calls with the Department's Data Office, and structured interviews with 44 individuals. Deliberative dialogue has informed on-going action steps from 2020 to today as we have co-created a data governance roadmap, specifically focused on data governance and a new legal framework.
ResultsThis work was performed in the context of a data strategy across five pillars: data governance & legal framework; workforce development & data literacy, data quality, data infrastructure, and data use. We focused on the first pillar—governance and legal frameworks. Drawing upon departmental exemplars and through deliberative dialogue with legal counsel, we built a new legal framework and successfully executed a three-tier legal approach using an Intradepartmental Memorandum of Understanding, Data Sharing Agreement, and Data Use Agreement. To date, we have co-created a department wide Data Sharing Guidebook, which includes a range of data pathways and data request processes; processes for developing high value data asset inventories; parameters for legal use; and clearly defined department-wide data governance—all operationalized within the established legal framework.
ConclusionOur work provides a model for large agencies to collaboratively develop and implement data governance (even during a pandemic). We are grounded in the understanding that data sharing is hard, and more relational than technical. Our goal is long-term sustainability, and therefore people have been central through all work streams.

Data integration by local and state governments is undertaken for the public good to support the interconnected needs of families and communities. And though data infrastructure is a powerful tool to support equity-oriented reforms, equity is rarely centered as a core goal for data integration. This raises fundamental concerns, as integrated data increasingly provide the raw materials for evaluation, research, and risk modeling. This session presents findings from a toolkit collaboratively generated by a workgroup convened by Actionable Intelligence for Social Policy at the University of Pennsylvania.
IntroductionWhile data sharing occurs within a legal framework, an emphasis on equity is often peripheral. Generally, institutions have not adequately examined and acknowledged structural bias in their history, or the ways in which data reflects systemic inequities in the development and administration of policies and programs. Meanwhile, the public are rarely consulted in the development and use of data systems.
Objectives and ApproachThis toolkit was collaboratively generated by a workgroup of civic data stakeholders from across the US.
ResultsThe toolkit aims to support agencies seeking to acknowledge and compensate for the harms and bias baked into data and practice. It is organized across six stages of the administrative data life cycle—planning, data collection, data access, use of algorithms and statistical tools, analysis, and reporting and dissemination. For each stage, the toolkit includes promising and problematic practices for centering equity in administrative data reuse, with site-based examples of work in action from across the US.
Conclusion / ImplicationsThe workgroup concluded that centering equity within data integration efforts is not a binary outcome, but rather a series of small steps towards more equitable practice. There are countless ways to center equity across the administrative data reuse life cycle, and this report provides concrete strategies for agencies, organizations and collaboratives to begin and grow that work in practice.