An introduction to the crossroads of digital technology and social cohesion

The gap between will and implementation can be quite large because it is not possible to make mistakes that would expose people to risks regarding privacy protection, poorly conceived dematerialization, etc. The counterpart of promoting uses is to accentuate the digital divide. In order for digital technology to serve people, it is necessary to have a proportionate use of digital technology for access to rights.

There is room for improvement in the use of teleservices: they can reduce the transaction costs of contacting people, and this has been tested in the context of an SISIAO for emergency accommodation requests. The possibility of innovating at a lower cost must be done at the service of people by exploring the potential for better use.

The groups and beneficiaries to be taken into account have specific characteristics: vulnerability, high mobility, etc. This creates complex problems that require coordination between institutions: social and professional integration cannot be achieved without securing housing. Social assistance tools, digital or not, are used to stabilize a person and accompany him in his life project.

Digital technology makes it possible to concentrate the human resources of social work: people who do not need an interview with an agent can quickly open their rights at the CAF for example. Of course, this does not prevent us from having to reflect, as the High Council for Social Work is doing, on the ethical dimension of the management of sensitive information by social workers.

Thus, the digital strategy joins the work on poverty and social work and must take up the challenges of digital in social cohesion policies.

The Capacity survey results: an insight into the impact of digital technology on the social, cultural and economic capital of individuals

The research question is the result of the ambivalences of digital technology: in the 1980s, social actors were already helping people to make CVs on Word for their job search. Does digital technology reinforce inequalities or increase equal opportunities, facilitate access to rights or not?

A few preliminary remarks were made before the presentation of Capacity's results.

The terminology "digital divide" is very common, but it must be used with caution: it covers the penetration rate of equipment but says nothing about the realities of usage. It is also stigmatizing for people who are "behind". However, digital technology generates confusion and a feeling of being outdated among a wide variety of people. The realities of use can be very different and paradoxical: very advanced practices among people in great difficulty, and the reverse is also true. We must therefore change our vocabulary and focus on inclusion rather than on the dissemination of digital technology, which is a palliative policy. Moreover, massification does not mean happy and controlled uses.

Digital technology also brings overlaps between social economy and social work actors: exchanges are sometimes very rich and sometimes bring overlaps between their activities. We are also confronted with very strong imaginations or people build themselves in relation to strong social injunctions: the will to make young people from the neighborhoods coders, the downgraded equipment for destitute people reinforces the feeling of exclusion.

The Capacity project has enabled qualitative surveys and a national quantitative survey to be conducted. Active practices have been identified, in particular very rich amateur practices, related to cooking, DIY, etc. The fields of disability are enlightening because they are very dynamic in terms of appropriating uses and tools. The uses of migrants are also very inspiring.

First of all, the Internet allows two types of learning: one formal (MOOCs, distance learning, e-learning, etc.) and the other informal (tutorials, forums, blogs, etc.). The first concerns 15% of Internet users, who are more qualified, younger and better off than the average, so the effect of the Internet is rather to reinforce inequalities in terms ofcultural capital. However, 45% of Internet users say that the Internet has given them the opportunity to learn, and 6/10 acquire know-how through informal learning (but this always concerns the most qualified).

On the subject of enrichment of social contacts, 55% of Internet users replied that the Internet had not given them any opening, but a third replied "A little" and 10% "A lot". It is important to note the correlation between low income level and the people who answer that the Internet has allowed them to open up to other people. In this case, the internet can potentially be an element of correction of social capital inequalities, assuming however social dispositions and a minimum of digital skills.

Does the Internet save or earn money? Capacity's results show that the most affluent people declare more than the others that the Internet has allowed them to increase their purchasing power.

As for non-users, they are on average older, less educated and with lower incomes. When asked why they do not use the Internet, most of them say that they have no interest in it, and to a lesser extent that they do not know how to do it. The top reason why the Internet would make things easier is administrative procedures. But only 25% of non-Internet users have ever found themselves in the situation of having to use the Internet. 2/3 say they are happier without the Internet and 1/3 feel proud not to use it. 1/10 are ashamed; this feeling is more experienced by the most qualified and the youngest.

Elements of analysis and courses of action

Internet generates complex social realities: when the uses are socialized, Internet is rather positive, the most isolated people are the most unhappy.

All research studies say that the concept of digital natives is not at all robust. Access to rights is a specific category of usage that students are not well versed in, and those who are not in school even less so.

It is essential to distinguish between questions of access and use and to articulate mediation and self-service. A purely digital offer is divisive and blocking for people who have not learned and do not master the codes.

Many avenues remain to be explored in terms of enabling digital technology: illiteracy, precarious and homeless people. There are several basic conditions for digital technology to be empowering: self-esteem, socialization, learning (learning to learn)

If we consider that digital policies are a matter of culture and not of stacking skills, then we are on the right track. Socialized practices, especially learning and representations, are essential and this goes against an individualistic approach of empowerment. In the same way, the action on digital is too often punctual whereas it is a question of a long time: course of the people, setting in capacity of the mediators,...

Digital technology can also give people with disabilities the ability to become citizens again. The mastery of tools requires collective dynamics but also a personalization of the support for the appropriation. The pre-report does not include any provision in this sense.

A point of attention to add is the design of objects for sobriety because the digital has risks and charges: dependence, power, repair, subscription, ...

Experimenting with digital safes with the CCAS: some lessons on the uses and needs of users

The experimentation of digital safes targeted the publics who use digital technology the least: what are the uses of digital technology by these different publics (types of use, frequency, difficulties encountered, etc.)? How does this change the social support relationships? In what way is it a gateway to a global digital strategy, opening to other uses?

There are two models of safes: the generalist ones (opening a stand-alone account, a single personal space, available from different devices), and the specialized ones (opened via a structure, personal space and space shared with partners such as CCAS).

The DGCS, UNCCAS, 16 CCAS (in 12 territories), 5 solution providers participated in the experiment.

The results of this experiment show that the tool is useful but has limited uses. While the digital safe does correspond to certain needs and uses, it can still be improved. Over the course of the experiment, there were an average of two connections per safe and five documents per safe, with very significant differences from one user to another. The main uses are :

• The conservation of documents
• The realization of steps

The fact of being able to deposit a document in various ways could favour the uses (automatic recovery, taking pictures, ...).

The main obstacles to use are access to the Internet and digital literacy, both of which are necessary.

A few keys for a better application: the more the public is accompanied, the more receptive they are and the more they appropriate the tool. The use must even be accompanied on a daily basis, so the people accompanying them must be mobilized.

A total of seven recommendations are made around three main themes:

• Improve public reception areas by providing access to computer equipment in institutions and associations where the digital safe can be used:
• Promote interoperability between digital safes and the dematerialized personal spaces of Social Security organizations:
• Set up a "solidarity digital safe" label:
• Secure the status of the people who accompany those in precarious situations when opening and using the digital safe:
• To finance training courses on the use of digital technology for people in precarious situations:
• To finance and support the structures accompanying the people in situation of precariousness to the use of the digital:
• Build sustainable national perspectives on digital inclusion to support the deployment of digital safes

Round Table

Speakers: Joëlle Martinaux, President of UNCCAS, Antoine Darodes, Director of the Digital Agency, Olivier Noblecourt, Interministerial delegate for the prevention and fight against child and youth poverty

The State can define a digital inclusion strategy, but to implement it in the territories, it must be done by local actors. The challenge is to regain trust, which is widely questioned today.

The improvement of information systems can be used to improve access to rights by automating access, renewals, etc. Today, information systems developed to fight fraud are used to reduce non-use of rights. The DGCS is considering the transformation of social work and the productivity gains possible thanks to digital technology in the delivery of services.

In communities, there are good practices but not enough sharing of good ideas and tools, we must find ways to ensure that good practices are copied elsewhere.

- always ensure that the people concerned are involved in the design, management and evaluation of the project, in order to identify blind spots and unthinking ideas. This is a safeguard that must be maintained at all times.

- work with economic actors because there will be disruptive innovations. Associative networks are committed to these subjects: solidarity clouds, etc. Social actors must not challenge themselves and must accept the method of experimentation within an ethical and operational framework. We need periods of trial and error to test solutions.

- be very concrete in the objectives: there are strong issues concerning early childhood, families who need information on their rights to aid, etc. Digital technology can be a powerful lever. Pôle emploi and social actors can build a support system centered on the obstacles that prevent people from seeing themselves as employable through MOOCs, for example. Digital technology has an incredible potential to reinvent support models.

- on the professions and the places of social intervention: digital technology can be a guilt-free space, into which we enter with our heads held high. It is possible to work on two aspects: the digital reception and the place of social life.

Emmaus connect has acquired know-how and transferred skills. We need to open the door to new professions and make room for people who do not have access to the current nomenclature. Borloo talks about an "army of the republic"; he refers to the large number of social workers in the territories.

Workshops

• Setting up a digital safe:why and how ?
• The links between digital mediation and social work fora better service to people
• Digital: what resources for vulnerable youth ?
• How to develop and implement a digital inclusion strategy in your territory ?
• Presentation and enrichment of the tools produced within the framework of the national strategy foran inclusive digital.

Références : 1 2 3 4