Social Audit Standard (SAS) 1500
Bridging the digital divide in internet and mobile phone access, addressing issues of
misinformation and data protection
(SAS 1500 should be read in conjunction with “Preface to the Social Audit Standards” and “Framework for
the Social Audit Standards”, issued by the ICAI)
SECTION I – INTRODUCTION
Objective and Scope
1.10 This Social Audit Standard relates to the thematic area of “Bridging the digital divide in internet and mobile phone access, addressing issues of misinformation and data protection”. The Standard aims to provide the Social Auditor with the necessary guidance in relation to independent impact assessment engagement of Social Enterprises engaged in bridging the digital divide in internet and mobile phone access, addressing issues of misinformation and data protection, and the audit steps and procedures that should be applied while conducting the social impact assessment. The standard sets out the minimum requirements to be followed while conducting impact assessment. Laws or Regulations may establish additional requirements which should be followed as applicable.
SECTION II – PROCESS OF SOCIAL AUDIT
Data Collection
1.20 The stakeholders that may be approached for obtaining data include:
> Direct beneficiaries
> Immediate family members of the beneficiaries
> Trainers imparting knowledge/ training/ awareness
> Service providers
> Funding entities, Government and related institutions
> Monitoring Agency
> Key program officials of the entity, etc.
-
- The sample chosen for conducting survey by way of Questionnaires, In-depth Interview, Focussed Group Discussions shall be fairly representative of the diverse target communities and geographies, in order to cover a wide range of the stakeholders involved and give due representation to each category. Each such category should be analysed to assess the percentage composition represented by it for e.g., representation from disadvantaged sections of the society, women, elderly, children, at-risk adolescents and region wise beneficiaries.
- The assessment rate or the response rate is the number of actual responses received against the targeted number of respondents in the survey. A high assessment rate shall provide reasonable assurance that most of the targeted respondents have been largely covered under the survey and that the sample responses considered for the study are fairly representative. Identify the reasons for the gap between respondents contacted and responses received. Such gaps may be due to the candidates not being reachable, or the candidates having migrated to another place or due to incorrect contact details in the database.
- The overall activity of conducting survey and collecting sample data should be reviewed in terms of the following factors to assess relevance and reliability:
- designed by in-house team or external specialized agency
- conducted by in-house team or external specialized agency
- number of days taken
- number of teams formed
- number of manpower deployed
- number of villages / districts covered
- total distance (kms.) covered
Desk Review
1.30 The Social Auditor should conduct a desk review of existing documents to gain further insight into the evaluation procedure and impact assessment. Such documents, in relation to bridging the digital divide in internet and mobile phone access, addressing issues of misinformation and data protection, may include the following:
- Digital literacy programmes
- Incentives to information and communication technology entities
- Collaborations with various service providers
- Cyber club set-ups
- Stronger infrastructure to provide uninterrupted internet connectivity and electronic devices
- Introduction of E-pathshalas
- Prioritizing last mile connectivity
- Innovative ideas viz. Dig once policy such that fibre companies dig up common tunnel to lay cables resulting in reduced cost that can be diverted towards providing various other benefits, etc.
- Comprehensive cybersecurity framework for data security, safe digital transactions, and complaint redressal
- Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the entity and the implementing agencies/ hardware and service provider/ trainers/ other related institutions
- Help-desk facilities
- Photographs of various programmes/ events
- Advertisement – leaflets / newspaper
- Reducing gender and caste divide in internet access
- Preventing discrimination or exploitation through data protection
- Ensuring consent and rule-based data collection
Inspection & Personal Interviews
1.40 Besides desk review, the Social Auditor should also consider conducting physical inspection and personal interviews to get firsthand assessment of impact.
Evaluation Questions
1.50 The Social Auditor should review the evaluation questions addressed through Questionnaires, In-depth interviews, and Focused Group Discussions to assess the responses received from various stakeholders and to understand what has changed.
In relation to bridging the digital divide in internet and mobile phone access, addressing issues of misinformation and data protection, may cover the following aspects:
(a) Composition of the participants
-
- Whether the program objectives were found to be consistent with the composition of the beneficiaries?
(b) Quality of benefits provided
-
- How was the quality of services provided?
- Were the beneficiaries satisfied with the services that they received?
- How was the quality of engagement with beneficiaries?
- Has the digital divide been bridged?
- Are beneficiaries better informed about their rights, entitlements, and the policies and schemes that affect them viz. BharatNet project, National Digital Literacy Mission, Pradhan Mantri Gramin Digital Saksharta Abhiyan, The Gyandoot Project in the state of Madhya Pradesh, FRIENDS Project in the state of Kerala, E–Chaupals Project in few states of India, etc.?
- Whether there is increased data security?
- Whether there is reduced spread of misinformation?
- Whether help-desk facilities provided were beneficial and effective?
- Suggestions from beneficiaries for improvement of the programs
- Whether more data protection measures were used?
(c) Suggestions / Feedback
-
- What were the constraints or challenges faced in providing the services/ programs?
Key Metrics for Evaluation of Project/ Program
1.60 The Social Auditor should review the project/ program documents to frame the evaluation criteria for assessing impact. Such key metrics may be collated from base-line, mid-line (monthly / quarterly) and end-line assessment (if available), respectively at the beginning, middle and end of the reporting period / project / program to effectively understand and evaluate impact.
The evaluation of the project/ program information would facilitate the Social Auditor to assess:
- What would have happened in the absence of the intervention?
- How much the project contributed to the changes that are evidenced?
- How much unintended negative impacts happened due to the intervention?
Assessment of Evaluation Criteria (Illustrative Key Performance Indicators)
1.70 The Social Auditor should identify the quantitative and qualitative evaluation criteria or the key performance indicators against which the impact has to be assessed.
Such criteria in relation to bridging the digital divide in internet and mobile phone access, addressing issues of misinformation and data protection may include any of the following aspects:
|
S. No |
Evaluation Criteria |
| (A) | Quantitative Criteria |
| 1 | Number and amount of deployment of electronic devices including mobile devices along with demographical and geographical bifurcation |
| 2 | Number of Internet users and data consumption along with demographical and geographical bifurcation |
| 3 | Number of Digital literacy programmes conducted and number of attendees along with demographical and geographical bifurcation |
| 4 | Amount spent on creating technology infrastructure along with demographical and geographical bifurcation |
| 5 | Number of cyber clubs set-up and number of beneficiaries along with demographical and geographical bifurcation |
| 6 | Amount spent on providing uninterrupted internet connectivity and number of beneficiaries along with demographical and geographical bifurcation |
| 7 | Number of beneficiaries from E-pathshalas along with demographical and geographical bifurcation |
| 8 | Current and historical number of data security breaches based on the total population susceptible to such breach |
| 9 | Current and historical number of times information is inaccurately spread based on the total population |
| 10 | Number of broadband connections and number of beneficiaries along with demographical and geographical bifurcation |
| 11 | Number of queries raised to help-desks and number of queries resolved along with demographical and geographical bifurcation |
| (B) | Qualitative Criteria |
| 1 | Improvement in Digital Divide– Increased digital literacy, reduced spread of misinformation, reduced data breaches, increased cyber security may be used to assess the improvement in digital divide. |
SECTION III – ASSESSMENT OF CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS
Challenges / Areas for improvement
1.80 The Social Auditor should identify the challenges faced by the stakeholders and the areas for improvement based on the suggestions and feedback received from them, which might have an influence on the impact assessment. Some of the examples of commonly faced issues in relation to bridging the digital divide in internet and mobile phone access, addressing issues of misinformation and data protection may include the following:
- Costly investments and infrastructure
- Lack of digital literacy and skills
- Resistance to change due to tech savvy operations
- Language barriers
- Gender gap in access to digital devices
- Rapid spread of incorrect information without verification of facts
- Data security breach
Any significant issues observed during the assessment, that may influence the user of the Impact Assessment in decision making, should be highlighted by the Social Auditor in the Social Audit report.
Limitations of the assessment
1.90 The Social Auditor should identify the inherent limitations of the evaluation process which might have an influence on the impact assessment. Some of the examples in relation to bridging the digital divide in internet and mobile phone access, addressing issues of misinformation and data protection may include the following:
- Cases of no-response in case the questionnaire is not administered in person
- Some of the questions being skipped by the respondents and remaining unanswered
- Non-availability of respondents due to relocation to other places after completion of the course
Social Audit Standards
- Change in contact details of respondents due to which they could not be contacted
Any significant limitations observed during the assessment, that may influence the user of the Impact Assessment in decision making, should be highlighted by the Social Auditor in the Social Audit report.
SECTION IV – APPENDIX
Taxonomic classification of areas and sub-areas for Social Objectives
(Relating to bridging the digital divide in internet and mobile phone access, addressing issues of misinformation and data protection)
|
Sr. No. |
Areas | Sub-Areas |
| 15 | Bridging the digital divide in internet and mobile phone access, addressing issues of misinformation and data protection | Undertake reforms to reduce inequalities with regard to access to, use of, or impact of information and communication technologies (ICT) between individuals, households, businesses, or geographic areas, usually at different socioeconomic levels or other demographic categories |
| Undertake activities that advocate or promote promises of neutrality and equality in data protections and privacy (data protection as right rather than a paid/luxury good) for disadvantaged communities |
*****
To Read Related post Social Audit Standard
