LISTA and ADE partnership will work to facilitate digital advocacy, digital literacy,
job creation and economic development in regards to digital empowerment initiatives
Today, Latinos in Information Science and Technology Association (LISTA), the nation’s leading organization of Latino technology professionals and the Alliance for Digital Equality (ADE), a nonprofit organization that provides broadband solutions and broadband related services to underserved and un-served communities, are excited to announce a partnership to facilitate digital empowerment initiatives.
The strategic alliance of ADE and LISTA combines the collective skills, knowledge and experience of two diverse technology-based organizations, enabling them to work together to facilitate digital advocacy, digital literacy, job creation and economic development in regards to digital empowerment initiatives. In particular, the MSI Wireless Technology Act, the Workforce Investment Act, the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA), among others.
“We are forming this partnership right now because this is a pivotal time in the race to close the digital divide. Access to affordable high-speed Internet and broadband technology is a stepping stone to the opportunities of economic prosperity,” said Julius H. Hollis, Chairman of ADE. “As we focus on turning our economy around, we must make sure that those Americans currently in un-served and underserved communities are not left behind and further marginalized in this economy.”
“Both LISTA and ADE have worked hard individually to provide and enhance digital empowerment opportunities for communities of color, now as LISTA joins ADE’s Board of Directors we will combine our unique strengths and expand our reach,” said Jose Marquez, President and CEO of Latinos in Information Sciences and Technology Association. “This will strengthen our ability to make a difference. I am very excited to work with the ADE leadership team to further these important goals.”
Together, ADE and LISTA will pursue initiatives in order to increase Latino and African American employment opportunities within American based information sciences, telecommunication, and technology industries. The partners will target project opportunities that make technology applications available to communities of color for educational purposes, for job training and development, and to enable fuller participation in the learning, civic engagement and cultural opportunities afforded jointly or separately by ADE-LISTA utilizing online technologies.
“As part of the LISTA/ADE Partnership, we will conduct a series of surveys of African Americans and Latinos in the tech sector to measure which tech companies are leading the way in corporate responsibility relative to their Latino and African American inclusion in higher management within their company. While Latinos have made strides there are areas in the tech industry we still have little to no representation, boards, upper management and key decision making positions are still scarce at some of the most successful tech companies, we can’t ignore Latinos in high tech anymore, it is just bad business,” said Marquez.
###
About Latinos in Information Science and Technology Association (LISTA) (www.a-lista.org)
Latinos in Information Science and Technology Association (LISTA) promotes the utilization of the technology sectors for the empowerment of the Latino community. We are an organization that is committed to bringing various elements of Technology under one central hub to facilitate our partners, members and the community with the leverage and education they need to succeed in a highly advanced technologically driven society. LISTA Mission is to educate, motivate and encourage the use of technology in the Latino community and empowering them to bridge the digital divide.
About The Alliance for Digital Equality
The Alliance for Digital Equality (ADE), headquartered in Atlanta, GA, is a national, non-profit consumer advocacy organization that serves to facilitate and ensure equal access to technology in underserved and un-served communities. The Alliance also serves as a bridge between policymakers and minority individuals in order to help the public understand how legislative and regulatory policies regarding new technologies can impact and empower their daily lives. For more information on The Alliance for Digital Equality, please visit www.alliancefordigitalequality.org
EVERY ADVANCE IN healthcare information technology presents a new challenge to a patient’s privacy. The recent initiatives promoting electronic health records (EHRs) and personal health records (PHRs) are no exception. While the use of these records could potentially revolutionize the way physicians treat patients and both patients and physicians manage medical data, they will also put unprecedented amounts of personal information at the fingertips of thousands of third parties. An increased number of individuals with access to health information will only increase the likelihood that, whether inadvertently or purposefully, data security will be breached. The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), state health information privacy laws, and state security breach laws all aim to protect an individual’s data from various incidents in which personal information may be compromised. However, the mere existence of these laws does not mean that a person’s health data is necessarily safe. Scores of high profile security breaches have occurred over the past several years, including breaches resulting in unauthorized access to massive amounts of private data at pharmaceutical companies, major data brokers such as ChoicePoint, hospitals, and the Veteran’s Administration. In the dawning era of EHRs and PHRs, physicians, hospitals, insurers, claims processing companies, and various information technology entities must be ready to combat threats to electronic health information. The reality is that many are unprepared.
There is a growing tension between the rapid growth in the use of EHRs and PHRs and the tightening regulation of the security of personal information. In order to effectively navigate the emerging technology and opportunities afforded by EHRs and PHRs, entities conducting business involving such records must be equipped to prevent or mitigate any threat to personal data that may occur, as we will discuss in greater detail below.
Electronic health Records and Personal health Records: Overview and Trends
EHRs are typically defined as clinical patient health records in electronic format that are originated, managed and maintained principally by healthcare providers. They may include information about a patient such as medical history, lifestyle, demographics, any prescription medication, test results, and billing information, and in some instances, they are made accessible to patients.
EHRs have many attributes; if used effectively they can reduce medical errors and costs, as well as increase efficiency. Their advantages range from eliminating confusion resulting from a physician’s handwriting to enhanced searchability, making it easier for a provider to assess possible drug interactions or for a consistent pattern of symptoms. Depending on the platform, another advantage EHRs may offer is accessibility. If they can be transmitted outside of a particular entity’s local information system, they have the potential to be shared with providers and other healthcare entities throughout the world.
PHRs are clinical patient health records in an electronic format that are created by patients themselves, but are maintained by an outside vendor such as an HMO member site or an information technology entity such as Microsoft or Google. They are accessed principally by the patient, but in some formats can be accessed by providers and/or insurers depending on what level of access the patient provides to healthcare entities. PHRs have advantages similar to those of EHRs if a patient grants his or her providers full access to records.
Adoption of EHR platforms has been historically slow. In late 2006, approximately 11 percent of hospitals had a fully implemented EHR system, according to a survey conducted by the American Hospital Association.1 In study by the Healthcare Financial Management Association in 2006, hospitals cited lack of national information standards and code sets, lack of funding, concern about physician usage, lack of interoperability and concerns about privacy as obstacles to EHR adoption.2 Less than 30 percent of office- based physicians reported using EHR systems in a recent study by the National Center for Health Statistics, and only 12.4 percent used comprehensive EHR systems.3 However, the use of EHR systems by office-based physicians has increased over 50 percent in the past five years.4 A wave of recent local, state and federally-sponsored initiatives should help to increase the implementation rate of EHRs. New York State and New York City have been particularly active in encouraging expanded use of EHRs by healthcare providers. At the end of February 2008, Mayor Bloomberg announced that New York City was ready to equip 1,000 Medicaid providers with an EHR system by the end of 2008. Already more than 200 primary care doctors in New York City are using EHRs, and the city says it is on track to reach its goal of 1,000 providers serving more than a million patients by the end of the year.5 Furthermore, Mayor Bloomberg is collaborating with a coalition of House Democrats to help achieve the goal of linking 75 percent of the nation’s health care providers through an e-record system within a decade. On the state level, New York Governor David Patterson awarded $105 million in grants in late March 2008 to 19 community based health information technology projects to help build a statewide EHR system.6 Grant recipients include Regional Health Information Organizations (RHIOs) such as the Bronx Regional Health Information Organization and Brooklyn Health Information Exchange, which facilitate the exchange of health information electronically within a specific geographic area.
Last year, a groundbreaking bill was introduced in the Senate by U.S. Senator Kennedy that, if passed into law, would “recommend specific actions to achieve a nationwide interoperable health information technology infrastructure” and “make recommendations concerning standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria for the electronic exchange of health information for adoption by the federal government.”7 The “Wired for Health Care Quality Act” would also authorize the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to award grants to facilitate the “widespread adoption of interoperable health information technology.”8 Essentially, it would serve to boost implementation of EHRs throughout the U.S. using a common platform. At the time of publication, the sponsors of this legislation were hopeful that the legislation would pass by unanimous consent in the coming weeks.
Various private entities are now offering their own versions of PHR platforms. These platforms would allow consumers to manage and access their health records online. It would also give consumers the option of giving providers and insurers access to their records as well. Microsoft (through its website HealthVault), Google and a variety of HMOs are all developing such platforms, with security and privacy controls tailored to the needs of the consumer. Additionally, the Medical Banking Project, a policy group that focuses on the integration of banking technology, infrastructure and credit with healthcare administrative operations, is also conceiving of a private PHR- type platform, which it calls “consumer-directed healthcare (CDH) platforms.” CDH platforms aim to go a step further than the PHR-platforms offered by Microsoft and Google, as they would not only give a consumer control of his or her health records, but also engage the consumer more fully in the financial aspects of his or her healthcare-related activities. A CDH platform would combine information from an individual’s health plan and personal health accounts such as Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs). The main objective of a CDH platform would be “to provide a coordinated link between the healthcare and financial services systems to offer the most comprehensive consumer-directed solution.”9 Such a platform would also benefit from enhanced security from the banks that help to administer CDH platforms. Banks would protect health-related information much as they presently protect financial information.
However, despite the recent surge in EHR and PHR initiatives, efforts still remain highly fragmented. The available EHR and PHR frameworks are driven by different philosophies, potentially compete with each other, and appeal to different types of users, therefore creating different standards for privacy and security. The current lack of coordination between these various frameworks may lead to an increased risk of security breaches, as communication between multiple and possibly incompatible platforms could lead to data leaks and subsequent tampering with records by outside parties. The patchwork of state laws as well as the general lack of regulation in this area beg for federal legislation to set a uniform standard that will harmonize these efforts.
Security Breach Laws, HIPAA and Their Application to EhRs and PhRs
Because private PHRs such as those offered by Microsoft are not explicitly regulated under HIPAA, which governs the use and disclosure of an individual’s identifiable health information, health records created by consumers using these services would not be protected by HIPAA’s privacy and security provisions. HIPAA generally applies to “covered entities”, i.e. providers, health plans and clearinghouses, and breaches in the privacy and security of patient records by these entities result in significant penalties.10 However, when an entity such as Microsoft enters into an agreement with a consumer, it is not subject to the obligations of a covered entity; it would not even need to enter into a business associate agreement, which extends HIPAA protections from a covered entity to its business partners. Thus, without the protection of HIPAA, consumers may be left vulnerable and could potentially shift blame in any privacy breach situation to the providers viewing their PHRs (unless comparable state law protections extended to entities like Microsoft). While publicly-sponsored initiatives such as the ones in New York would be more strictly regulated (as they would be most likely subject to HIPAA indirectly through these public entities” activities as business associates of covered entities as well as other state privacy laws), questions remain about just how secure their EHR platforms are.
The Wired for Health Care Quality Act, described above, would have amended HIPAA so that “an operator of a health information electronic database” would essentially become a covered entity.11 This would have resulted in entities that offer PHR platforms such as Microsoft becoming subject to HIPAA and would create a new class of businesses that would be required to adopt more stringent policies and procedures related to the privacy and security of certain health data. However, at the time of publication, an amendment authored by Senator Leahy significantly altering the privacy provisions of the bill had been accepted by Senator Kennedy in order to “ensure the privacy of individual protected health information.”12 Senator Leahy stated in a recent press release that the amendment would prevent “operators of personal health information databases” from giving sensitive health records “to virtually anyone under the [HIPAA] Privacy Rule.”13 This amendment eliminates the requirement that operators of PHR databases would be automatically covered under HIPAA. Rather, it would require that HHS submit to the Senate recommendations for privacy and security protections for PHRs, including whether it is appropriate to apply certain privacy regulations promulgated under HIPAA to PHRs and “the extent to which the implementation of separate privacy and security measures is necessary.”14
Certain covered entities dealing with EHRs and PHRs must also be prepared for heightened scrutiny of their security policies and procedures related to HIPAA. Earlier this year, the Office of E-Health Standards and Services of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) distributed a sample Interview and Document Request list for HIPAA Security Onsite Investigations and Compliance Reviews.15 This list indicates that CMS may request that a covered entity which contracts with CMS produce evidence of policies and procedures that address prevention, detection, containment and correction of security violations as well as other technical documents that address security matters.
Regardless of whether an entity operating an EHR or PHR platform is a “covered entity,” all such entities would be subject to state security breach notification laws (currently enacted in 43 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) which require disclosure to consumers of any breach in their personal data. Under most states’ laws, “personal information” includes only basic identifying information, but under the amended California security breach notification law, breaches in health insurance information and medical information16 are also covered. Therefore, any entity that has clients or patients who reside in California would be subject to these heightened requirements. The Arkansas security breach notification law also has similar requirements regarding medical information. Regardless of which state security law(s) apply to a particular entity, the increased aggregation of data in EHR and PHR platforms as a result of the initiatives described above will leave more personal data vulnerable to security breaches.
An entity that deals with medical data should be prepared to adapt its policies and procedures to the changes in California law. If the entity has a national presence, it is more than likely to have customers or patients from California. Also, because California was the first state to codify a security breach notification law, and most states followed its lead, one could expect that other states will soon follow its example of including “medical information” in the definition of “personal information.”
The challenges in complying with California’s recently enacted amendments are already apparent. Even an advisory group affiliated with the California Office of Privacy Protection, which assists with the implementation and enforcement of the California security breach notification law, has struggled with formulating recommendations as to how best to comply with the new requirement that businesses and state agencies protect against and notify California residents of security breaches in medical information. Prior to being amended, the California breach notification law and related guidance was geared toward breaches affecting financial information. According to Joanne McNabb, Chief of the California Office of Privacy Protection, a breach of medical information is “a different kind of breach in a lot of ways . . . . The risk it poses is not the same” as a financial data breach.17 The advisory group found that there is not an obvious way to “flag” a person’s medical record in the same way a person’s financial records would be flagged in the event of a security breach. Still, the recommendations are likely to include suggestions that breach notices be as specific as possible, stating what types of records were breached. Pam Dixon, a member of the California Office of Privacy Protection advisory group, said that the amended California law “may drive the debate nationally toward a uniform system like the credit bureaus for medical information.”18
Lack of Preparedness and Increased Enforcement
While entities increasingly adopt EHR platforms and promote the use of PHRs, they may not be prepared to assume the security risks associated with these types of data systems. In a 2008 study conducted by Kroll Fraud Solutions/HIMSS Analytics to better understand the status of patient data security at hospitals, the hospitals surveyed reported an average level of preparedness to deal with a security breach of 5.88 on a one to seven ascending scale.19 Yet the same study indicated that only 56 percent of these hospitals had notified patients whose information was compromised as a result of a security breach.20 13 percent of the respondents to the survey reported that their organization had a security breach in the previous 12 months, with a patient’s name and high level patient information, such as diagnosis, most frequently compromised.21 Also, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), in 2004–2005, 47 percent of Medicare Advantage contractors, 42 percent of Medicare fee-for-service contractors, and 38 percent of TRICARE contractors reported experiencing a privacy breach.22 While hospitals and health plan contractors may have policies and procedures in place to combat security breaches, the Kroll survey and the GAO report would seem to indicate that the implementation of such policies and procedures is insufficient.
As healthcare institutions lag behind in their preparedness to deal with data security issues, HHS has stepped up its enforcement efforts to counter noncompliance with HIPAA. In 2007, the total number of resolutions of possible Privacy Rule and Security Rule violations totaled 7,176, compared with only 4,761 resolutions in 2004. Of those resolutions, there were 2,199 investigations in 2007, compared to just 1,392 investigations in 2004.23 HHS is clearly responding to the proliferation of data security incidents that occur with increasing frequency as more health records become digitized and thus susceptible to compromise.
The short history of enforcement of security breach notification laws on the state level has been quite robust. Unlike HIPAA, which puts the onus on a covered entity to come up with its own solution to mitigate a violation of the Privacy and Security Rules, security breach laws mandate disclosure to individuals and, in some instances, to law enforcement agencies. Companies found to have violated a notification law may face civil penalties, injunctive relief and attorney’s fees and costs.
Recommendations for Implementation, Prevention and Response
Businesses that retain individuals’ healthcare data, especially those that interface with EHRs and/or PHRs, should revisit their existing policies and procedures to ensure that they are not only compliant with existing federal and state law, but also to anticipate inevitable changes to the privacy and security regulations and increased enforcement activities. As individuals and healthcare providers become more comfortable with putting personal health information in electronic format, they will expect a heightened level of security to accompany this data. Businesses must be vigilant about protecting this data, as a security incident of any magnitude may cause substantial reputational damage. Providers, insurers, and any other businesses that possess personal health information should consider taking the following measures in order to smoothly transition to a work environment incorporating EHRs and PHRs:
First, an entity should determine exactly what types of data it possesses (if it is a covered entity, it should inventory its protected health information). The entity should also assess whether sensitive information is encrypted and the level of accessibility of such data.
Next, an entity should assess its vulnerability to a security breach. It should look across its organization to identify strengths and weaknesses, i.e. not only should an information technology department be prepared to deal with increases in electronic data and potential security threats, but also departments such as human resources, claims processing, and recordkeeping that view and use individuals’ health information.
An entity should review its physical, technical and administrative safeguards. It should make sure that passwords, encryption, physical locks and barriers allow only authorized personnel access to sensitive data and equipment.
After the steps outlined above, an entity should revise its policies and procedures to reflect any new information gained and processes developed through its own assessment. For example, if the entity determines that it is inadequately prepared to respond to a security breach, it should create or revamp any related guidelines and protocols, such as, with respect to an entity handling medical information of California residents, how to notify a California resident of a breach in his or her medical information.
An entity should periodically train new and existing employees to effectively administer electronic data and comply with rules, regulations and policies and procedures. Existing employees should be required to attend “refresher” courses on policies and procedures related to privacy and security matters.
A business should reevaluate its contracts that include provisions regarding healthcare data and assess what types of provisions it could incorporate into its agreements regarding potential security breaches—how it will coordinate with the other party to prevent and/or notify individuals of security breaches.
Specifically with respect to EHRs and PHRs, providers and insurers should assess whether they wish to develop their own systems, contract with an outside vendor, or try to become part of a state or federal program that facilitates the use of electronic records.
If a provider or insurer does not wish to adopt its own EHR system, it should weigh the risks and benefits of encouraging its patients to utilize a PHR web-based system such as Health Vault. The provider or insurer should be comfortable with uploading patient records to an accessible web site and ensure it obtains necessary authorizations from the patient before transferring health records. The provider or insurer should also be aware of the potential for out-of-date, incomplete or inaccurate records from other providers or insurers to be kept on an individual’s PHR account and plan accordingly for associated risks.
Entities involved with all sectors of the healthcare industry information. should start strategizing now about how they can best coordinate their operations in anticipation of either adopting an EHR or PHR platform or merely interacting with consumers or other entities that use EHRs or PHRs now. Understanding how privacy and security laws affect a business in connection with EHRs and PHRs is crucial, as most healthcare operations deal with patient records at some point or another and will inevitably deal with EHRs and PHRs in the future. Preparedness is key. Making sure your business is in full compliance with existing privacy and security laws and anticipating changes to relevant laws are necessary steps to effectively navigate the increasingly regulated environment of digital healthcare information.
Linda A. Malek is a partner at Moses & Singer LLP, chair of the firm’s Healthcare practice group and co-chair of the firm’s Privacy practice group. Jay D. Meisel is an associate in the firm’s Healthcare and Privacy practice groups. Moses & Singer counsels a variety of entities in the healthcare industry and other industry sectors on matters related to privacy and security. For more information on this topic, please contact Linda A. Malek at lmalek@mosessinger.com or 212-554-7814 or Jay D. Meisel at jmeisel@mosessinger.com or 212-554-7823. For further information about Moses & Singer LLP, please visit www.mosessinger.com.
1American Hospital Association. “Continued Progress: Hospital Use of Information Technology” (2007) at 3.
2Health Financial Management Association. “Overcoming Barriers to Electronic Health Record Adoption” (2006) at 2.
16Medical information may include medical history, diagnosis, policy number, subscriber number, and claims and appeals histories.
17Laura Mahoney. Advisory Group Struggles to Pen Guidance On California’s Medical Breach Notice Law. BNA’s Privacy and Security Law Report. Volume 7 Number 18 (2008).
18Id.
192008 HIMSS Analytics Report: Security of Patient Data (Commissioned by Kroll Fraud Solutions), Apr. 2008, 21.
20Id. at 4.
21Id.at 19.
22Government Accountability Office, Domestic and Offshore Outsourcing of Personal Information in Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE (GAO-06-676, Sept. 2006).
Moses & Singer LLP ( Disclaimer Viewing this article or contacting Moses & Singer LLP does not create an attorney-client relationship. This article is intended as a general comment on certain recent developments in the law. It does not contain a complete legal analysis or constitute an opinion of Moses & Singer LLP or any member of the firm on the legal issues herein described. This article contains timely information that may eventually be modified or rendered incorrect by future legislative or judicial developments. It is recommended that readers not rely on this general guide in structuring or analyzing individual transactions but that professional advice be sought in connection with any such transaction. Attorney Advertising It is possible that under the laws, rules or regulations of certain jurisdictions, this may be construed as an advertisement or solicitation. )
Following the release of the FCC’s National Broadband Plan yesterday, Chairman Julius Genachowski sat down for an interview on YouTube National Broadband Plan Wrap-Up By Brad
A sampling of online chatter following yesterday’s release of the National Broadband Plan. First up, the Huffington Post:
Among the cornerstones of the plan is a ‘shoot for the moon’ goal of connecting 100 million U.S. households to 100 megabits per second broadband service over the next decade. Goals of this ambition require an unshakable policy foundation that is unequivocally supportive of investment. This means the many rule-makings that likely flow out of this plan must be cohesive in nature—pulling in the same constructive and unifying direction and staying true to the Chairman’s early and firm commitment to fact-based, data-driven decisions.
From Business Week:
If the U.S. military ranked 17th in the world, you can bet that as a nation we would make strengthening our armed forces a national priority. Yet that’s just how the U.S. stacks up against the rest of the world in terms of access to high-speed Internet connections. The vital communications systems that make our economy work and serve as a platform for business innovation and social interactions are second-class. Sadly, many of us have accepted that.
It’s time to overcome our broadband complacency. The national broadband plan sent to Congress on Mar. 16 by the Federal Communications Commission is critical to our economic and national security. Without a plan, we simply cannot compete.
The L.A. Times:
The FCC’s plan calls for a dramatic expansion of affordable, high-speed Internet. A chief goal is to ensure that at least 100 million homes have access to networks that allow data downloads at speeds at least 20 times faster than what most networks now deliver.
The bulk of the recommendation can be enacted by the FCC, such as diverting money from a fund for affordable phone service to rural areas to be used for increasing broadband access.
But Congress would have to act on others, particularly changing rules for federal auctions of federal airwaves to entice some broadcasters to give up their spectrum so the airwaves could be used for wireless Internet access.
USA Today:
FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn criticized the recommendation to coax, and possibly force, television broadcasters to give up some airwave spectrum. The plan aims to increase broadband competition by boosting the amount of spectrum for wireless Internet services to 500 MHz from 50 MHz.
She said that “it is certainly possible, if not likely” that the few minority-owned stations likely would be among the first to sell their spectrum. She says she would find a policy that further diminished that number to be “untenable.”
The Wall Street Journal:
The FCC report suggests that 100 million U.S. homes—of a total 112 million—should have “affordable access” to 50 megabit per second Internet service in five years. That’s about 10 times faster than most homes get today. But the plan doesn’t define affordable.
Nor does it offer a specific recipe for its aim. The FCC says it will ultimately propose dozens of new rule changes to enact some of the ideas in Tuesday’s report.
The New York Times:
The broadband proposal, which the agency sent to Congress on Tuesday, “is necessary to meet the challenges of global competitiveness, and harness the power of broadband to help address so many vital national issues,” the agency chairman, Julius Genachowski, said in a statement.
President Obama said the plan recalled the way “past generations of Americans met the great infrastructure challenges of the day, such as building the transcontinental railroad and the Interstate highways.”
Statement by the President on Today’s Meetings on Immigration Reform
I have met with Senators Schumer and Graham and was pleased to learn of their progress in forging a proposal to fix our broken immigration system. I look forward to reviewing their promising framework, and every American should applaud their efforts to reach across party lines and find commonsense answers to one of our most vexing problems. I also heard from a diverse group of grassroots leaders from around the country about the growing coalition that is working to build momentum for this critical issue. I am optimistic that their efforts will contribute to a favorable climate for moving forward. I told both the Senators and the community leaders that my commitment to comprehensive immigration reform is unwavering, and that I will continue to be their partner in this important effort.
Declaraciones del Presidente sobre las reuniones de hoy sobre la reforma migratoria
Me reuní con los senadores Schumer y Graham, y me complació enterarme de los logros que han alcanzando en el desarrollo de una propuesta para arreglar el sistema quebrado de inmigración. Estoy deseoso de examinar su promisorio marco de trabajo para la reforma, y todos los estadounidenses deben aplaudir sus esfuerzos por entablar un diálogo entre partidos y encontrar respuestas de sentido común para uno de nuestros problemas más polémicos. También escuche a un diverso grupo de líderes comunitarios de todo el país sobre la creciente coalición que está trabajando para impulsar este tema crucial. Me siento optimista de que sus esfuerzos contribuirán a un entorno favorable para seguir avanzando. Les dije a ambos senadores y a los líderes comunitarios que mi compromiso con una reforma integral de la inmigración es inquebrantable, y continuaré siendo su socio en este importante esfuerzo.
Civil Rights Organizations’ Hopes for Change at the FCC Remain Unmet
Guest Blogger: Sylvia Aguilera
Executive Director, Hispanic Technology and Telecommunications Partnership (HTTP)
A letter issued by 23 civil rights organizations should provide some answers to those who profess to being troubled and confused by the civil rights community’s unwillingness to fall into lock-step with them and the Administration on the Open Internet proceeding.
It should go without saying that civil rights organizations are not only entitled, but justified, to question the ability of a government agency to manage the regulation of something as vital as the Internet. Even a cursory look at the Federal Communications Commission’s record in addressing the needs of unserved and underserved communities, opens one’s eyes to appalling disregard for the needs of communities of color. It is a record that the current Commission has done little to change.
The FCC has failed to address:
enforcement of broadcast Equal Employment Opportunity rules,
assignment of a compliance officer for advertising non-discrimination rules,
promulgation of multilingual broadcasts of emergency information,
holding a hearing on faulty audience measurement technologies impacting minority-serving radio.
These are only a few examples of the FCC’s failure to protect the interests of minority communities. While these failures can be directly attributed to the prior Administration, more recent examples – such as the omission of minority, digital divide or minority business enterprise issues in its December 2009 National Broadband Plan Framework, and the agency’s failure to support funding for much-needed support for media and telecom ownership by women and minorities – can only be interpreted by advocates as an outright dismissal of the concerns of disenfranchised communities.
If these issues were not so serious, questions about civil rights organizations’ reluctance to embrace regulation of an open Internet would be almost laughable. When presented with the FCC’s dismal record of neglect and disregard for the needs of our communities, why would any advocate expect civil rights organizations to trust the FCC’s ability to safeguard our rights on the Internet?
Civil rights organizations need not excuse or explain themselves in the face of such naiveté. Like any group of engaged, concerned citizens, we have the right to petition our government. In this case, where the trust and goodwill of minority communities have been decimated by neglect, we will be especially vigilant in our efforts to ensure that our government engages in responsible policy making. While we respect the right of advocates to hold differing opinions, we feel strongly that the energy and resources being used to discredit civil rights organizations over this one proceeding would be better placed in moving the FCC to act on the long-standing list of civil rights proposals that have languished at the agency.
It is distressing to witness groups and individuals that are aligned with the Commission using smear tactics – typically the domain of political operatives – to discredit civil rights organizations. These tactics are at odds with the “Change” that had been the uniting promise of a new Administration that many of us helped bring into office. In the past, we have partnered with some of the same organizations that now question our motives. In the future, it would serve all of us to collaborate once again. We ask these organizations to not make the same mistakes that the FCC has made in disregarding our very real concerns for the needs of disenfranchised communities.
Sylvia Aguilera is the Executivew Director of Http: Hispanic Technology and Telecommunications Partnership (HTTP) is a s a coalition of twenty national and regional U.S. Hispanic organizations working to increase awareness of the impact of technology and telecommunications policy on the U.S. Hispanic community. LISTA is a proud member of HTTP:
Contact Sylvia at http@httponline.org. or follow her on twitter httponline
The 2010 Census is your community’s voice in government.
“Just like we can’t survive without roads and bridges, the country doesn’t function well without an updated Census to distribute funds to areas that most need them and to support community decisions about their own future.”
– – Robert M. Groves, Director of the United States Census Bureau
Accurate data reflecting changes in your community are crucial in apportioning seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and deciding how more than $400 billion per year is allocated for projects like new hospitals and schools.
That’s more than $4 trillion over a 10-year period for things like new roads and schools, and services like job training centers.
The census effect in action
In addition, residents themselves have used census data to support community initiatives involving environmental legislation, quality-of-life issues and consumer advocacy.
“Low-income families have clearly been targeted in this study.” The Organic Consumers Association used census data to lobby the Environmental Protection Agency to halt testing dangerous chemicals on low-income children in Florida. The testing was eventually stopped due to the petition. Go to the petition site and read the census data cited to help augment their case
“This data shows that Phillips has a higher number of both elderly and children under the age of 5 within its boundaries.” A town in Minneapolis used census data to push for further examination of the environmental and physiological impact of a proposed energy facility. Read the actual petition that was filed in court
“Florida is rapidly being developed, increasing the threats to wildlife” Save the Manatee Club petitions Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to step up protection of Florida’s at-risk species using census data. Go to the official press release
Redistricting 101: What is redistricting and why do states redistrict?
Redistricting is the process of changing electoral district and constituency boundaries, usually in response to periodic census results
The U.S. Constitution requires that electoral districts be periodically adjusted or redrawn to account for population shifts
While the census does provide information to the U.S. states on population in order for the states to redistrict appropriately, the census is not actually responsible for the act of redistricting. State legislatures or independent bi-partisan commissions (depending on the state) are the bodies that actually redraw district lines.
Today, Latinos in Information Science and Technology Association (LISTA), the nation’s leading organization of Latino technology professionals and the Alliance for Digital Equality (ADE), a nonprofit organization that provides broadband solutions and broadband related services to underserved and un-served communities, are excited to announce a partnership to facilitate digital empowerment initiatives.
