Amidst the flurry of party conferences and the release of another report, this time by Deloitte here, I find myself increasingly frustrated. In our technologically advanced society, digital exclusion looms as an urgent, undeniable issue. This year spent campaigning and wearing various hats, including volunteering, helping to establish campaigning charities, advising the UN, and working within one of the UK’s largest FTSE banks, it’s clear to me and by looking at the numbers that our approach requires a significant overhaul.
The current strategy for combating digital poverty is undeniably inadequate, where the burden of responsibility has been on the charity sector and volunteers. This is unsustainable and, I would argue, unfair. Over £50 million has already been spent by Government grants, which have undoubtedly been helpful, but the number of people left behind has not improved. We cannot expect grants to efficiently or inclusively address a widespread issue that affects millions. This is a mainstream problem that demands a mainstream and inclusive response. I recently heard from a friend who struggled to access information about free skills and hardware offered for her elderly relative. While digital skills were easier to acquire than hardware, the details about assistance centres were often incorrect. It took an eternity to reach someone, if at all, due to the overwhelming demand for this and other support I expect. Moreover, the support was offered at inconvenient times and locations and so not inclusive for her needs.
Isn’t it high time we look at technology to improve the customer journey for people within the welfare sector, just like FinTech has helped transform how people with disabilities can access their money or shop? We need to stop signposting to further signposting. Treat welfare services the same as other customer transformation. We need to adopt a holistic “one journey” approach, and I wholeheartedly agree with Beena Puri whom I heard speak at the excellent The RSA (The Royal Society for Arts, manufactures and Commerce) and University of Liverpool Labour Party fringe event. Beena and others, including #jointhedots Freddie Quek and BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT advocate for adopting a service design approach, which I also learned about working with researchers at Money and Pensions Service (MaPS) with Sarah Porretta a few years back and last year designing solutions with the brilliant Lightning Reach with Ren Yi Hooi and Matthew Adam Jonathan Prew and We Are Group for the Cost of Living crisis with MaPS excellent Chair Sara Weller. This is aligned with behavioral scientists who advocate solutions for people who need them to be served “just in time and place”. We need a sustainable strategy to facilitate organisations in providing support at the point of need, be it in shops, banks, job centres, train stations, and more, while also empowering and funding a “one journey” triaged and human-assisted approach to link to the third sector without sole reliance on it to assist everyone. What we need is an integrated programme and was clearly stated in the DPA National Plan intro with Niel McLean and Paul Finnis FRSA, which I personally believe should be funded collectively by the organisations benefiting in the millions and billions from digital access and transformation: banks, content providers eg Netflix, government, ISPs, broadcasters, and more. As I shared with the Mayor of Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, Steve Rotherham, earlier in the week, the government should play the central coordinating role, and I strongly disagree with any suggestion that the taxpayer should solely fund this initiative. One, it is going to cost billions to fix this; two, support is needed at the point of need, so what better motivation for organisations to offer incredible and efficient support than to be co-funding it and three a general principle that the very organisations who have saved and made £bs whilst also improving their products and services through digital technology, don’t they have an obligation to ensure everyone can access them? I am not saying there are no examples of brilliance but its clearly not enough and the offers often result in a post code lottery.
Many individuals and families are in dire need. They should have access to a well-funded, comprehensive service that provides seamless multi-channel support. This entails support at point of need (whether it be accessing the health service, train tickets, online banking etc) and a single telephone number that connects them to an integrated live service, allowing them to easily obtain skills support tailored to their location, interests, and abilities, spanning all age groups and proficiency levels. Additionally, there should be options for free or partially funded connectivity solutions for both all types of hardware as well as mobile phones, as well as access to hardware, including home delivery for those with mobility issues. Individuals could also have opportunities to access grants, along with financial literacy and welfare support included. To also ensure ongoing assistance and sustainability, digital champion programs, like the admirable Digital Unite initiative, could be an integral part of this comprehensive service. As Simeon Yates pointed out this week in Liverpool, there is no such thing as an online and offline world anymore. Digital Assistance, in my view, should be universal and readily available when and where people need it, whether at a community centre, in a local branch, while using a service (e.g., buying a train ticket online or in a shop), or in the comfort of their homes. It must be fully inclusive, not just for those physically able or able to afford the time to find and attend a community centre.
Just a couple of weeks ago, I was at Coventry station, and a lady was distressed because she couldn’t prove she had paid for her ticket and lacked access to Wi-Fi for assistance. The station staff had no viable solution, and no one offered to help her as a station digital champion. This made me ponder once again what will happen to millions of people if we transition to ticketless stations, just as one example. Assisted digital services must be available continuously, at the point of need, while using the service, as well as community centres for those that have one in easy reach.
The challenges we face are undoubtedly real. Outdated infrastructure and unreliable data to help people find the support they need exacerbate the difficulties for those in need. We simply cannot afford to let them down any longer. The reason I champion We Are Group and their mission for a world where no one is left behind is because, as well as running effective assisted digital and digital inclusion programs, which are also each measured for social and economic impact, they embody the “one journey” approach, and they are co-designing a unique Wel-Tech proposition with over 50 exceptional individuals and organisations you can see here, and Chaired by Mark Thompson which I personally believe is leading the way.
So, how do we fund this strategy? Firstly, I believe we need a universal business case to prove the case for funding. Reports such as the one from the Digital Poverty Alliance and others such as GTF are good and are steps in the right direction, and the benefits case is clear for social and economic reasons. However, we now require a comprehensive case backed and in partnership with the HMT team and policy makers to underpin concrete plans based on what works and address the pressing issues. This includes current policy matters such as the Financial Conduct Authority Consumer Duty Regulation and NHS and social care and changes in BBC broadcasting, which could serve as a significant lever for behavioural change, perhaps one of the biggest opportunities for tackling the motivational aspect of the crisis this decade. Provided we have the right support and funding in place to help millions “cross the bridge” and, crucially, on a continual basis.
I wholeheartedly endorse recommendations in the recent data poverty APPG report here led by Darren Jones MP and Matt Warman and supported by Loadstone and I encourage you to give it a read when you can. What we need is a unified investment and program approach, one that transcends the notion of mere Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and grant giving checkboxes. It’s time to take collective action on a universal solution which also to be sustainable uses the very technology we all advocate to deliver easy to find “one journey” and accessible, inclusive solutions whilst enabling all parts of the ecosystem, including community services but not limited to, to also deliver at the right time and place at scale. This is what the impact council enabled by We Are Group is all about. Secondly, whichever political party is next in place, we need to support public servants to actually write the digital strategy advocated by so many alongside a HMT backed investment case to help fund all parts of the ecosystem required. I would love to see an inclusive strategic “all in it together” approach based on what works, designed on the way people live their lives and so we can fundamentally help lives sustainably and for the better! If you got to this point I thank you so much for taking the time to hear my thoughts on this matter. I sincerely appreciate it. #DigitalPoverty #ChangeIsNeeded #TogetherWeCan #inclusivedesign
Original article posted here.