Community technology centers and bridging the digital divide

Community Technology Centers and Bridging the Digital Divide

Scott Kaiser

In the past decade, policy makers, activists and scholars have touted the Internet as a potentially valuable resource and service around the world. Its use, they claim, can improve the way people communicate, do business and are educated. This is a perspective in one of the more heated discussions among those who study the impact of the Internet on politics and society: the tension between the optimists and the pessimists. The optimists believe that the existence of the Internet can change the world for the "better," that is, better communication has the potential to, for example, feed those who are hungry, teach literacy, or improve human rights (see Davis 1999 and David and Owen, 1998). The pessimists, on the other hand, believe that the Internet's presence exacerbates disparities already visible in society, such as the increasing gap between the educated who tend to use new technologies with greater frequency, thus making them even more educated, and those who are less educated and, consequently, might use them less often (see Norris, 1999).

There is no doubt, however, that physical distances between people have been narrowed, as the Internet has made it possible to reach people far away almost instantly. At the same time, grave inequities seem to exist in terms o f who actually has access to Internet services. This discrepancy in access is often identified as the Digital Divide. Data show that the Internet and computer technologies are available far more frequently to wealthy and educated people than they are to the poor and to racial minorities. Bridging the Digital Divide is not as simple as improving access, but rather, as former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Wil- liam Kennard wrote, "It's about learning a new vocabulary?' Kennard cautioned that "those who don't understand these concepts or have no stake in their development will be digital have-nots with limited access to knowledge and economic leverage" (Kennard 1).

One political and social response to this disparity has been the establishment o f area community computer centers to offer the necessary services for a community

Scott Kaiser is an associate at the law firm, Bryan Cave LLP, in New York, NY. He graduated from Harvard Law School with a JD degree in 2004 and graduated from Duke University with an AB cum laude in Public Policy in 2001. He may be reached at <[email protected]> Knowledge, Technology, & Policy, Summer 2005, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 83 100.

84 Knowledge, Technology, & Policy / Summer 2005

to bridge its Digital Divide. Community centers provide not only the physical ap- paratuses necessary to be connected, but also may provide computer training to members of the community who may not otherwise have the knowledge to use technology services. These centers are created through various sources, including government funding, private sector and business philanthropy, and non-govern- mental organizations.

To resolve the problems of the Digital Divide, a community must do more than seek to increase access opportunities. Solutions need to also include means to improve education to ensure that citizens will use computers and the Internet. Even once these community technology centers (CTCs) are built, if they are not run well, they will be ineffective in combating the Digital Divide. Wanda Gardner, the Director ofa CTC in Decorah, Iowa, discussing the changes in her community that followed the construction of the CTC, stated that while "bridging the Digital Di- vide took energy and vision," it will be "maintaining and upgrading in the future." That is essential to the community's success (Gardner 2). Simply stated, building a web of community learning centers is not enough. Rather, to combat the Digital Divide, these centers should be well operated and long-range plans should be made. But, bridging the Digital Divide is not something that will happen simply because of the existence of CTCs. These centers must be evaluated periodically and up- graded based on those evaluations.

Before taking a closer look at how learning centers can help bridge the Digital Divide, it is pertinent to further discuss and define the Digital Divide, and what makes it a problem that vexes communities and policymakers nationwide.

The Digital Divide can be discussed at two levels: national and international. Globally, scholars have shown discrepancy between the diffusion of information technology in wealthier and less wealthy countries (See Norris). At a national level, each country will experience the divide in a different way, depending on the form of government, the capacity of the citizenry to adapt to the new technologies, and the political will to help it diffuse.

In the United States, on February 2, 2000, President Clinton introduced a pro- posal to "help bridge the Digital Divide and create new opportunity for all Ameri- cans" (White 1). Clinton believed that "unequal access to technology and high-tech skills by income, educational level, race, and geography could deepen and rein- force the divisions that exist within American society" (1). Creating $2 billion in tax incentives, Clinton encouraged the expansion of access to technology, increased education and training to be successful in "the information economy," and the pro- motion of online content to "empower all Americans to use new technologies to their fullest potential" (1).

Clinton's initiatives included means to increase the funding of Community Tech- nology Centers, from $32.5 million in FY2000 to $100 million in FY2001. The President's plan explained that the centers "help close the Digital Divide by providing computers and Information Age tools to children and adults that are not able to afford them at home." The plan said:

Children will be able to improve their performance in school by having access to high- quality educational software after school and prepare for the high-tech workplace of the 21 st century by getting certified with an information technology skill. Adults will be

Kaiser 85

able to use computers and the Internet to take a self-paced adult literacy course; get access to America's Job Bank to see what jobs are available; learn to type up a resume; learn to start up their own 'micro-enterprise' or Web-based business, or acquire new training (3).

The initiative cited evidence that supporting the CTCs would help bridge the Digi- tal Divide. A survey of CTC users taken by the National Science Foundation found that 62 percent of users had incomes of less than $15,000, 65 percent enrolled in computer classes to increase their job skills, and 41 percent received help on home- work at the centers (3).

Although the U.S. government has emphasized the importance of community learning centers in bridging the Digital Divide, few comprehensive studies have been performed analyzing their effectiveness and recommending how they can be improved or how their efforts to bridge the Digital Divide may be supplemented. This research attempts to begin to fill this void.

We will evaluate the Triangle Area Learning Centers (TALCs) in the Raleigh- Durham, North Carolina area, which are gathered under the umbrella organization called The Triangle Area Centers for Technology (TACT). Raleigh-Durham is an innovative region known for housing many technology companies in the Research Triangle Park, making it an interesting area to examine in terms of how computer centers are reaching the poorer people in this community, who may not be benefit- ing from the area's technological richness.

If the study finds that the community solutions being implemented in North Carolina are successful, they could be implemented in other areas. The analysis will also analyze ways in which the efforts of the learning centers might be supplemented to continue to bridge the Digital Divide and create greater opportunities for all citizens, regardless of their demographic limitations. The ultimate question is whether any of the results of the study can be generalized globally. CTCs--in various guises from Mobile Internet Units in Malaysia to computer telecentres in Mozambique---exist around the world. There is a generally accepted maxim (with vocal detractors) that they are useful and needed. But, careful evaluation, based on the criteria we posit here, could be helpful in their improvement or continued success.

Further Defining the Digital Divide: Why Is It a Policy Problem?

The debate over the definitions and causes of the Digital Divide continues in many academic, political and policymaking circles. Its complexity is often ham- pered by the question of whether it actually exists--at both the national and international levels. Contending policy views suggest three ways of looking at the Digital Divide. The first is that the Digital Divide does not exist. Adam Thierer of the Heritage Foundation explained this view, contending that the growing availability of inexpensive computers and free Internet service providers "clearly calls into question the presence of a significant Digital Divide in America." He contends, "The marketplace is doing more than an adequate job of providing computing technologies to Americans" (3).

The second view suggests that the Digital Divide exists, but that the situation is


improving. In a preface to the October 2000 report of the Department of Com- merce, former Secretary of Commerce Norman Mineta wrote that the "nation is moving toward full digital inclusion" as "the number of Americans who are utiliz- ing electronic tools in every aspect of their lives is rapidly increasing." Yet, Secre- tary Mineta confirmed that "the digital divide still remains. Not everyone is moving at the same speed" and some "groups are progressing more slowly" than others (Falling ii).

The third view suggests that the Digital Divide exists, but rather than improving, the situation is worsening. Roger Crockett argued this view, stating that "the notorious Digital Divide isn't closing." He supported his contention by arguing that the increase in Internet usage in households with incomes under $15,000 per year is far slower than the increase in Internet usage in households with incomes between $50,000 and $74,999 per year. While the latter group saw an increase in Internet penetration rates from 47 percent in 1999 to 62 percent in 2000, the former group witnessed only a two percent rise, from nine percent to eleven percent (56). Views such as Crockett's therefore contend that the gaps between the haves and the have-nots are growing, rather than decreasing. The Digital Divide is a difficult political issue because data can be found supporting all three views.

This paper rejects the first thesis, but accepts the assumption that the Digital Divide exists. It is improving in some areas while also worsening in others at both the international and national levels. The Digital Divide is an essential issue to address because not all people are able to enjoy the benefits that come from Internet usage. The Internet is an important resource that has grown so much because of its universality, yet in America, for example, there are still millions of people who simply cannot embrace the new technology because of its cost. Data show that computers and the Internet are much less frequently utilized in poor, minority, and rural communities than in wealthier urban and suburban areas. As of July 1999, 58.9 percent of Americans with an annual income greater than $75,000 had access to the Internet, while only 19.9 percent of Americans with income between $20,000 and $24,999 had access (Bridging 1).

Some argue that the Internet is simply like any other commodity and regardless o f its affordability, it should not be a matter for government concern. However, the Internet is not a standard good; rather, it has become a necessary tool to succeed economically. Jonathan Sallett has recently written that the Internet is not "the same as television, radio, or the telephone--the traditional communication media we know so well. It's more like an architecture than a physical entity." The Internet is a "global information system, inviting and making possible the expression of multiple points of view, simultaneously and instantaneously, in ways other traditional systems simply can't match" (1). According to this definition then, the Internet is an essential good because of the role that it plays in communication and commerce worldwide.

However, if the Internet remains an unattainable good to citizens with lower socioeconomic statuses, it will intensify current social divisions, resulting in the widening of economic inequities within or among nations. Because of the educational opportunities available through the Internet, people presently in lower socioeconomic classes might have difficulty accessing them, while those in higher socioeconomic classes could continue to advance as they acquire more knowledge

Kaiser 87

and opportunities. Internet and computer skills can be indispensable to advance in a career, and the Digital Divide is intensifying divisions because it can be even more difficult for the uneducated and those without Internet access to get stable, good paying jobs. The Internet also offers the potential to improve civic life by moving government services online, such as fee and tax collection. However, these programs will not be equitable and successful unless all citizens can have the ability to take advantage of them.

The Department of Commerce's Annual study of the Digital Divide released in October 2000 suggests that "digital inclusion" is rapidly increasing, as the percentage of American households with Internet access "soared" from 26.2 percent in December 1998 to 41.5 percent in August 2000. They also present data that access to the Internet has increased across age, gender, income, and racial lines. Yet, showing the need for further solutions to the Digital Divide, the Department of Commerce study stresses that the Digital Divide still remains, especially in terms of large gaps for Blacks and Hispanics "when measured against the national average Internet penetration rate." Eighteen percent fewer Blacks and Hispanics have access to the Internet than the percentage of the White population with access. Additionally, the Department of Commerce report states that "income and education differences do not fully account for this facet of the Digital Divide" but rather "account for about one-half of the differences" (xv-xvii).

A further study by Thomas Novak and Donna Hoffman (1998) of Vanderbilt University has examined the impact of race on Internet usage, finding educational attainment to be crucial to closing the Digital Divide (12). These accounts supporting the existence of the Digital Divide also suggest a need to bridge it.

Clearly, all of these benefits will have associated costs; in fact, it will be very expensive for governments to facilitate the expansion of Internet access. Simply providing computers or access cannot bridge the Digital Divide, but rather educational and training programs are needed. Offering the funding for both Internet access and proper education may be outside of a government's scope. Yet on a local scale, it may be possible to find subsidies and tax incentives to help fund applicable projects. Additionally, the private sector may be willing to participate and help ease the associated costs; for instance, Hewlett Packard is one of several computer companies currently working with area learning centers to provide grants to improve Internet access.

This study is a follow-up on several previous studies that have sought to explain the factors causing the Digital Divide. The study aims to confirm the best aspects of the different theories and then apply them to the case of the Digital Divide in Raleigh-Durham. Yet, this study differs from the previous studies in that rather than simply addressing the factors that cause the Digital Divide, this study ana- lyzes responses to bridge the Digital Divide.

This study will use two forms of data: survey data of community technology center users and interviews with managers of learning centers. Because of the scope of this project, Clifton Chow's "Impact of CTCNet Affiliates" will be used to provide the survey data discussing the reasons why users use community technology centers. Chow's study is the result of a 1998 survey of 817 people who are users of forty-four community-based technology centers around the United States. The TALCs are affiliated with the network of centers Chow studied, sharing the com-


mon mission to "provide access to computers and related technologies, typically (but not entirely) to underserved or otherwise disadvantaged populations" (Chow Exec 1). The Chow study established the legitimacy of interviews in this research area, stating that "interviews allowed researchers to probe the ways in which community technology centers brought benefits to users, particularly in the domains of employment, learning, personal growth, and sense of community" (Chow, Intro 1).

The second phase of the research will be interviews which were conducted with eleven managers and organizers of TALCs in the Raleigh-Durham area. These interviews offer anecdotal, not statistical evidence. In setting the sample size at the small number of eleven managers, breadth has been sacrificed for depth of information and understanding.

Criteria for Analysis

To assess the efficacy of the learning centers, their performance can be analyzed on two bases. First, how the centers meet their organizational goals and needs; including evaluating educational programs, funding, the level of up-to-date technology offered in the center, and an anecdotal look at the impact of the centers on the community. Second, how the centers are received by the users and members of the community. In terms of measuring user response to the centers, it is important to evaluate who uses the centers, in terms of demographic information, as well as why the users come to the centers.

Educational Programs

The centers must be effective in providing educational opportunities to computer users. As learning centers, TALCs have the potential to not only improve Internet access but also to redefine how people think about using computers and technology. Data should reveal whether or not computer center users are interested in receiving education and what they want from it. Educational programs will be evaluated on the basis of how well they train computer users, in an effort to bridge the Digital Divide.

Funding

No matter how innovative the ideas to bridge the Digital Divide may be, if centers have limited funding, the ideas may not be able to be implemented. It is also important to assess funding sources to see whether they carry any conditions for use. For instance, it will be important to learn if the centers are free to use the funds as they choose or if donors dictate their use. The amount of funding is also a sign of how the communities respond to the centers and whether or not other organizations believe that they are important to bridging the Digital Divide. The amount of support that the centers receive from the government is also an important issue. An important distinction to assess in terms of a center's funding is whether it is funded publicly or privately and what, if any, bearing this may have on the center's efficacy.

Kaiser 89

State of Facilities and Technology

This criterion examines the following elements of the center's technology system:

�9 The type of computers the computer centers are using �9 The quantity of computers at the centers �9 The speed at which Internet connections are offered �9 The technological support available to the centers �9 How often the centers are able to upgrade their facilities

As the Internet continues to grow and become more developed, web resources have come to require more sophisticated computers. As such, it is important that the centers offer top-quality computers and high-speed connections in order to fully offer the best o f the Internet to members of the community. The Department of Commerce wrote in Falling through the Net IVthat 10.7 percent o f online households in the United States have broadband access and that 4.5 percent o f all households have this high-speed access (23).

Influence on the Community

The study will examine how effective centers are at creating change in their community. The following questions will need to be answered:

�9 Do people in the community know that the centers exist? �9 How well do the centers publicize their services? �9 Do the users believe that the centers make a difference in their lives?

These questions are difficult to assess, yet in order to be effective, centers should be able to address them. In a 1997 study of Community Technology Centers, Susan Rose defined the need for a center to be concerned with outreach to its community. "Outreach goes beyond letting the population know that the center exists; it in- cludes education on the importance of technology training to make people aware of the need" (Section 3, p. 7).

User-based Criteria

Underprivileged Demographic Groups

Three important demographic issues are educational attainment, race, and income. Assessing the TALCs' usage on these levels will be accomplished through center manager interviews. How a CTC addresses racial disparities in Internet usage is an important aspect o f its success in bridging the Digital Divide. Many studies have shown that race is a factor in determining Internet access. Simply put, studies have found that minorities such as African Americans and Hispanics are less likely than Whites to have access to the Internet or to have had educational experiences teaching them how to effectively use computers. Novak and Hoffman found that "there are statistically significant differences between whites and Afri- can Americans" in terms of computer access and Internet use (Novak 2).


Additionally, many believe that income disparity is the major factor in the disparity in Internet usage. The data discussed above demonstrated that people with higher income levels are more likely to have access to the Internet at their homes than people with lower income levels are. To be successful, the computer learning center must reach out to people from a variety of income levels, to ensure that those who are disadvantaged are given an opportunity to have access to the Internet. Because of the difficulties in acquiring this data through surveys at the Triangle Area Learning Centers, data will be used from the Chow study. This nationwide study of computer learning centers found that they do in fact reach out to deprived races and income levels, in helping to bridge the Digital Divide.

Why Users Visit the Centers

The Learning Centers have noble goals to build an online community and to improve educational opportunities. How effective a center can be in bridging the Digital Divide has a lot to do with how the centers are received by members of the community. Chow's 1998 study will supplement the local interviews to provide more data and insight on the reasons why people use community learning centers.

Analyzing the Organizational Criteria

Education Programs

The first criterion is education programs. Education programs are perhaps the most important aspects of the local area computer center's plans to combat the Digital Divide. Every center offers some sort of educational program as a service to its users. Many of the people interviewed in the study shared a belief that giving a person a computer without any training on how to use it is similar to simply giving them a box. Education is necessary in order to maximize the potential benefits of having a computer. In discussing the education programs offered at the computer centers, the discussion can be separated on several types of education: computer training, educational opportunities for children, educational opportunities for adults, and literacy training.

On a whole, educational programs are perhaps one of the TALC features that best address the issues of the Digital Divide. Many of the programs see measurable results, especially programs that help people off of welfare rolls or that help children pass computer competency exams. In order to be more successful in its educational offerings, some centers may need to increase their funding, but the centers with adequate funding are doing a fine job of promoting education through computer technology centers.

Funding

The second criterion to assess is how the centers are funded. Here, the differences that exist between centers are clear. Centers funded by private corporations were far more successful and could offer far greater programming opportunities than centers that were reliant on public sources and grants. These results were

Kaiser 91

interesting, showing the need for the private sector to take the initiative. Govern- ment support and social budgets are too slim to cover the costs associated with running a community technology center, especially since President Clinton's plans to increase funding will likely not come to fruition. Multiple interviewees com- mented that their funding is being threatened due to a reduction in federal funds by the Bush administration. It will be important for the centers that are currently strug- gling to receive grants and public support to follow the model o f some of the privately funded groups if they want to be as successful.

Technology

The third criterion to analyze is the technology located at each computer center. Surprisingly, the majority of computer centers had a sufficient number of up-to- date computers. The centers were fortunate to receive computers from donations from within the community. Other important areas which were less up-to-date were the speed of the Internet connections, the networking capabilities, and how well the centers are able to service and upgrade their machinery. This last area is perhaps the most difficult area for the centers when it comes to technology, and the one on which they have the most room to improve. Simply, there are not enough people to support or repair the computers when such servicing is needed.

Impact on the Community

The final organizational criterion calls for an examination of the impact that the centers have on their surrounding communities. It is here that the true work of bridging the Digital Divide can be done, as the centers offer a valuable resource to their communities. Interviews with TALCs managers revealed that many o f the centers in Durham and Raleigh were located in public housing areas or in other areas where a majority of residents are on welfare in order to capitalize on some of the intended audiences.

A major obstacle, however, is publicizing the services that a center has to offer. Unfortunately, it is not simply the case that i f a center is opened, people will come to it. Rather, a center must work to make its presence known in the community.

Related to this discussion of the various methods through which users learn about TALCs in the Raleigh-Durham area is helpful to look at Clifton Chow's national study of community technology center users to see how they found out about the centers that they attend.

Chow's statistical data supports the anecdotes conveyed by the TALCs' managers that the most important way to develop a clientele is through word-of-mouth. Thus, the centers must do a good job to attract users and encourage them to tell their friends and relatives about the center's offerings.

Analyzing the User-based Criteria

The user-based criteria are different because they relate more to who is coming to the center and why, rather than what the centers offer to the community. To be effectively bridging the Digital Divide, the centers must be reaching out to groups


Table 1

How Computer Center Users Learn About Centers

Ways users learned about Computer Centers Percentage expressing this method

From someone they knew Through center's outreach or media coverage Active search for a computer center Learned about the center at school By living nearby Having a 'work-related connection' Referred to the center

56% 16% 10% 5% 5% 4% 3%

Source: (Chow, Part V, p. 2)

that otherwise would not have Internet access and to people who are interested in using the Internet for educational and civic related tasks.

Demographic Groups

The first user-based criterion is demographics groups. Chow's data conveys an idea of who is coming to the centers across the nation, l Because conducting a survey of the TALCs' users was not in the purview of this study, Chow's study will fill the role of providing statistical data about who takes advantage of computer centers nationwide.

The three demographic groups that are important indicators of whether the TALCs are bridging the Digital Divide, based upon traditional research of factors leading towards the existence of the Divide, are the education level, race, and income of the users. This study did not survey users of TALCs about their demographic background; however, interviews with TALCs managers conveyed the impression that the majority of the people using the centers were from the groups that are typically underrepresented in terms of Internet access. For example, several TALCs are located in public housing area or other similarly underprivileged neighborhoods. These locations place them in communities in which residents are in the lowest income brackets of society. Aldostin Byrd, Director o f the Heritage Park and Chavis Heights Community Learning Centers, remarked, "you can most definitely tell that [the users] are disadvantaged. They would not have access to computers and education help without the center."

TALC directors are making a conscious effort to reach out to those who are traditionally underrepresented in Internet usage. Toni Webb, a Raleigh city employee who coordinates their Park and Recreation Computer program, said that their "programs to bridge the Digital Divide are mainly geared towards children. The kids in the after school program do not have access to computers otherwise." Community Relations Director Jeff Martin remarked, "we are talking about job training with the lowest of socio-economic people in the area."

In terms of education, a vast number of TACT computer center users do not have

Kaiser 93

Table 2

Educational Attainment of Internet and Computer Center Users

Educational Category Internet Use Rates by Computer Center Users Education Level

Less than high school 12.7 % 37 % High School Diploma 30.6 % 16 % Some college 54.2 % 27 % College graduates 74.5 % 16 %

Source: (Falling 41) and (Chow, Part IV, p. 2)

college or even high school degrees. Many centers offer popular GED classes as a means to improve the education o f the users because they do not have high school diplomas.

These views can be supported by Chow's study. On a national level, users of computer centers do come proportionally from groups that are underrepresented in terms of access to the Internet. (The data below contrasts Chow's study with data from the Department of Commerce's 2000 Digital Divide Report). z

First, Chow's data supports the notion that computer center users have low education rates, particularly in comparison to overall Internet use by people with low education.

The computer centers are reaching some o f the most underrepresented sectors of Internet access-- those with less than a high school diploma. Only 12.7 percent o f households in this demographic group have Internet access, yet 37 percent o f computer center users come from this group. Computer centers are reaching this segment of the population that otherwise does not have a place to use the Internet. It is also noteworthy that such a small percentage o f the computer center users are college graduates. The Department o f Commerce data reveals that three out o f every four people in this group are already Internet users, so the fact that they make up such a small percentage o f computer center users suggests that people who already have access to the Internet are not using the centers.

Chow's study also offered data that supports the contention that computer centers serve the needs o f racial minorities.

These numbers depict a vast number of African-American and Hispanic users

Table 3

Racial Background of lnternet and Computer Center Users

Overall Internet Use Percentage of Computer Race by Race / Ethnicity Center Users

White 50.3 % 32 % African American 29.3 % 37 % Hispanic 23.7 % 19 % Asian American 49.4 % 7 %

Source: (Falling 38) and (Chow, Part IV, p. 2)


Table 4A: Income Level of Internet Users

Income Classifications in National Internet Use by Income Dept. of Commerce Study

Under $15,000 18.9 % $15,000--$24,999 25.5 % $25,000--$34,999 35.7 % $35,000--$49,999 46.5 % $50,000 --$74,999 57.7% Over $75,000 70.1%

Source: (Falling 37)

Table 4B: Income Level of Computer Center Users

Income Classifications in Percentage of Computer Center Users Chow Study

Under $15,000 54 % $15,000--$29,999 21% $30,000--$50,000 13 % Over $50,000 8 % Non-responsive 4 %

Source: (Chow, Part IV, p. 5)

when considering their actual percentage of the population, confirming that the centers provide computer access for these minorities. It is noteworthy that such a large percentage of center users are African American and Hispanic when com- pared to the percentage of people in these demographic groups who use the Internet. Less than 30 percent o f African Americans use the Internet, while 37 percent o f computer center users are African American. Further, it is important to note that 68 percent o f the computer center users are not White, further showing the centers' success at bridging the Digital Divide in terms o f racial minorities.

The last demographic area on which Chow can support the anecdotal evidence is in terms o f classifications o f users on the bases o f income levels. Chow's data confirms that computer centers are used primarily by people with low income levels who generally do not have access to the Internet. (Because the Department of Commerce study and the Computer Center survey employed different income classifications, two charts will follow to summarize each study's findings on the income of Internet users and computer center users.)

Looking at this data, three out o f every four computer center users earns a salary of less than $30,000. People at such salary levels are often unable to use the Internet or have access to a computer, but the computer centers offer a place for them to go to access the Internet.

One further note: while the centers are successful at reaching people that are traditionally unable to access the Internet, limitations on the centers' funding, size, and hours of operation limit the number of people who can take advantage of the services. If the centers had greater resources, they might be able to accommodate more people.

Kaiser 95

Table 5: Computer Center Users' Motivations for Taking Classes

Reason for computer center users taking classes

Percentage of users citing this reason

For personal satisfaction To improve work skills For tutoring For academic classes such as GED or literacy training

63 % 65 % 41% 36%

Source: (Chow, part IV, p. 8).

Why Users Visit the Centers

The other user-based criterion in this study assesses why users are coming to the computer centers. The anecdotes revealed through interviews suggest several reasons why people come to the computer centers. A primary reason is to enhance job skills. A second motivation to come to the centers is children's desire to have time on computers for completing their schoolwork and to supplement their time spent on computers in school with extra practice outside the classroom.

A third motivation expressed throughout interviews of why people come to the centers was simply for the opportunity to increase their education and exposure to computers and the Internet. Chow surveyed users who had this motivation to assess the individual reasons people chose to take classes at the centers.

These figures show that there are many reasons why people visited the centers to explore educational programs, yet at the essence of every one o f them is that people went to the centers to better themselves, by either improving their skills or by simply raising their self-esteem. As further evidence for this contention, Chow's survey asked, "Have your feelings about yourself as a learner changed as a result o f coming to this center?"

Thus, 85 percent o f the users felt more positive about their abilities to learn as a result o f coming to the center. These feelings can be carried over to other areas o f their life, helping these computer center users be more successful citizens. Signifi- cantly, this offers support for the anecdotal contention that users come to the centers to explore new opportunities and to be more comfortable with technology.

Lastly, to assess the overall reasons people have for coming to the center, one o f Chow's survey questions that asked users to "please rate the importance of the following reasons for coming to a technology center." The results provide a way to

Table 6: Computer Center Users' Beliefs about their Learning Abilities

How computer center user's feelings about their learning abilities changed

Percentage expressing this sentiment

Much more positive 51% Somewhat more positive 34 % Unchanged 13 % More negative 2 %

Source: (Chow, part IV, p. 9)


Table 7: Users' Reasons for Attending Computer Centers

Please rate the importance of the following reasons for coming to a technology center.

Number of people surveyed

Fairly important or very important

Comfortable, supportive atmosphere 753 Low cost 719 To get state / federal government information 710 Close to my home or work 733 Do my projects 507 Surfing or browsing the Web 708 Socializing 743 To get local government information 709 To find out about local events 727 Playing computer games 731

616 (82 %) 584 (81%) 547 (77 %) 542 (74%) 349 (69%) 439 (62%) 404 (54%) 382 (54%) 383 (53%) 257 (35%)

Source: (Chow, Part VII, p. 2)

categorize and begin to quantify the importance of users' motivations for coming to the centers.

People might not necessarily think that the comfortable atmosphere o f the computer centers would be the most commonly held reason for attendance. Yet, this was seen in the context of the Triangle area anecdotal research, particularly that seniors used a Durham Recreation Centers for this very reason. Rick Leggett said the centers "take away the intimidation factor and make [the seniors] feel more comfortable." Because people have had so little access to technology, in order to close the Digital Divide for them, they can not merely be given access to a computer, but they must be comfortable in learning how to use it at their own pace. Because the community technology centers are located right in their community and offer an opportunity to be with peers and have dedicated supervisors, they can make people more comfortable with computers in aiding their attempt to enter the digital world.

Synthesis

How well do the computer centers meet each of the criteria? In assessing the criteria, it became clear that the first three criteria were measurable whereas the latter three were intangible. It is clear that an overriding theme throughout all o f the criteria is that in order to be successful, the center must have sufficient funding to run its operations. To be the most successful, there must be funding to offer a full complement of services including educational programming, computer training, sufficient hours of operation, staff support, computer repair capabilities and up-to- date computers.

Looking at the criteria individually, the first addressed was education. More work was being done in the educational offerings than with any of the other criteria. While some programs may be more developed or comprehensive than others, practically every center offers some sort o f educational opportunity for people of all ages.

Kaiser 97

The second criterion of financing was the most important criteria in order for a center to achieve its mission. Simply put, how successful a center was at raising its operating budget was directly proportional to how successful it could be as a force to bridge the Digital Divide.

Overall, TACT has tried to keep its technology up-to-date. TALCs have been successful in receiving donated computers, of which many are new. Additionally, many of the centers offer high-speed access to the Internet, clearly going a long way towards bridging the Digital Divide in that respect.

The centers that are well funded have a strong impact on the community. These centers are successful in teaching children and helping adults move out of welfare rolls. However, in the case of the centers that struggle financially, it is difficult to meet this criterion due to the limited availability of programming and simply a limitation on the number of hours per day the center can operate. Nevertheless, simply by being in the community and offering residents the opportunity to have some access to computers and the Internet, the centers are performing a valuable service.

The fifth criterion measured the TALCs' ability to reach demographic groups who are underrepresented when it comes to Internet access. Through the impres- sions of the TALCs' managers and the national survey data, the centers appear to be a successful way to provide access for underrepresented groups. The centers serve racial minorities, people with low educational attainment, and people from low-income levels who otherwise may not have access. Being located near and within public housing areas, the centers have identified impoverished areas that could benefit as well.

The sixth criterion explored the reasons why people used the computer centers. In order to be an effective source in bridging the Digital Divide, the computer users have to be interested in more than the entertainment value of computers. The data from interviews and Chow's study revealed that they were, in fact, interested in far more, as many users visited the centers as a place to not only learn about computers, but to improve their job skills, their education level and their comfort level with computers.

Implications

A preliminary analysis of these issues on an international level indicate some similarities and a few differences. As with the CTCs in the United States, the funding issue is by far the biggest concern. There are both public and private sources of funding. But the distinction between the two takes on a new dimension. Simply because of the differences in forms of government, most CTC projects in countries other than the United States are publicly funded, though in some more developed countries like Europe and Japan, private funding does play a stronger role. In countries where the tradition has been for the government to provide a social net, an initial examination leads to the observation that more resources have been allo- cated for Internet access and training than in countries without that tradition. For example, the goal of the Australian-based Local Government Association of the Northern Territory (LGANT) Internet Pilot Project is to eventually equip many communities in the Northern Territory with Internet and e-mail access (see Morfison, 2000).


A second difference is that, if the CTC is privately funded, it is funded by an organization that is not based in the country. This can have both positive and negative results. The positive result is foreign direct investment into countries where such a situation might not be desirable under other conditions (see "E-Link Lim- ited to Provide Rural Community with Internet Access, 2000). The negative results often show up in criticisms of the exportation of culture with the exportation of goods and services (see for example, Hart, 2000). There is another dimension of this funding that is not as applicable to the United States: the presence of international organizations. Many international organizations are involved in funding and administering Internet community access projects around the world. These bring their own rewards and challenges.

A second problem is that of infrastructure. Many countries don't have the wired or wireless systems in place to handle the connectivity that CTCs require. Other countries emphasize wireless over wired (like Malaysia, see Abbot, 2001) and, thus, are pursuing a different route, which may also result in differing outcomes or challenges.

A final observation is about the constituencies that CTCs around the world serve. Many of the general reasons that people in the United States frequent CTCs can be applied globally, though specifics might be different. That is, people want to 1) learn how to use computers and 2) discover content or applications that will help them or entertain them. For example, in the United States, a desire to visit a CTC for educational purposes might be to pass the GED; in other countries, it might be basic literacy skills.

Conclus ions

Access to the Internet has the potential to change many ways that society inter- acts with the economy and political systems of governance. Donna Hoffman recently wrote "the United States economy may also be at risk ifa significant segment of our society, lacking equal access to the Internet, wants for the technological skills to keep American firms competitive." She further cautioned that the Internet could not be permitted to "provide for equal economic opportunity and democratic communication" if it can only be enjoyed by those with access (4).

In addition, the role of government will change if the Digital Divide is closed. Some argue that with broadened Internet access, there is potential for citizens to have increased access to government documents, to take part in online voting, to empower and give more importance to the voice of individuals, and to "'improve democratic governance on a local level" (Leahy and Goodlatte, 1). It is possible that, as more people gain access to the Internet, government services can be moved online to reduce the size of the bureaucracy involved in processes such as getting a driver's license or passport. Chow's study even showed that 77 percent of computer technology center users believe it is important to use computers to learn more about their federal and state governments. Thus, if the Digital Divide is amelio- rated, people's positions as citizens of the democracy might be enhanced.

The Digital Divide plagues underprivileged citizens of the world. Local area computer centers have the potential to be an effective means of bringing the Internet and all of its potential to members of society. In order to make local computer

Kaiser 99

centers work, the three most essential elements will be to improve funding, improve educational opportunities, and seek an expansion to bring the benefits of Internet access to even more people.

Notes

1. Chow's data does not entirely coincide with the demographics of TACT centers due to Chow's study being in a more diffuse area across the nation.

2. It is important to note that the percentages represented in these charts have different meanings for each study. The data from the Department of Commerce study (listed in the middle column of each chart) represents the percentage of people in a given demographic group who use the Internet. This figure is not a percentage of all Internet users, but merely a percentage oflnternet users within that given demographic group. The computer center data (listed in the right column of each chart) represents the percentage of computer center users who fall into a given demographic group. It is important to note that these percentages will sum to 100 percent, whereas the Department of Commerce data will not.

References

Abbot, Jason E (2001). Bridging the Digital Divide? Malaysia and the Multimedia Corridor Project, paper presented at the International Studies Association 42 nd Annual Convention, Chicago, February 22, 200 I.

Bucy, Erik P. (2000). Social Access to the Internet. Harvard International Journal of Press~Politics 5(1): 50-61.

Byrd, Aldostin. (200 l). Telephone Interview with Director of the Heritage Park and Chavis Heights Community Learning Centers in Raleigh, North Carolina. (2 March).

Chow, Cli/ton, et al. (1998). Impact of CTCNet Affiliates: Findings from a National Survey of Users of Community Technology Centers. Washington DC: Education Development Center. <http://www.ctcnet.org/resources/reports/impact98.htm>. (Accessed: 2 July 2004).

Crockett, Roger O. (8 May 2000) How to Bridge America's Digital Divide. Business Week. E 56. Davis, Richard. (1999). The Web of Politics. New York: Oxford University Press. Davis, Richard and Diana Owen (1998). New Media and American Politics. New York: Oxford

University Press. "Durham County's Population Info." (2000). Durham Chamber o f Commerce. <http://

www.durhamchamber.org/dccdocs/demograf.html>. (Accessed: 30 January 2001 ). "Economy & Demographics." (2001) Wake County Economic Development Program. <http://

www.raleigh-wake.org/content/wc-info-hq/econ_demographics.html>. (Accessed: 30 January 2001).

Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion. (2000). U.S. Department of Commerce Report. <http://www.nti a.doc, gov/ntiahome/ftm00/contents00.html>.

Gardner, Wanda. (2000). Now That We've Built It, How Do We Keep It? Digital Divide Network.<http://www.digitaldividenetwork.org/content/stories/index.cfm ?key=117>. (Ac- cessed: 14 July 2004).

"RTPnet Announces Triangle Area Centers for Technology Project." (30 August 2000). <http:// rtpnet.org/tact/announce.txt>. (Accessed: 14 July 2004).

Hart, Michael. (2000). The American Internet Advantage: Global Themes and Implications of the Modern World. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Hoffman, Donna L, et al. (2000). The Evolution of the Digital Divide: How Gaps in Internet Access May Impact Electronic Commerce. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 5(3) (March 2000): online. <http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol5/issue3/hoffman.html>.

Kennard, William E. (2000). Claiming the Digital World. Essence. 31 (3): 170. Leahy, Senator Patrick J. and Rep. Robert Goodlatte. (2000). "The Internet and the Future of Demo-

cratic Governance." Internet Policy Institute. <http://www.4uth.gov.ua/usa/english/tech/ip/ leahy.htm>. (Accessed: 2 July 2004).


Leggett, Rick. (2001). Personal Interview with the Executive Director of the City of Durham City- Wide Technology Program (CTEP). (26 February).

Martin, Jeff. (2001). Personal Interview with Raleigh, North Carolina Communications Director. (20 February).

Morrison, Perry. (2000). A Pilot Implementation of Internet Access for Remote Aboriginal Commu- nities in the 'Top End' of Australia. Urban Studies. 37(10): 1781.

Norris, Pippa. (1999). Who Surfs? New Technology, Old Voters and Virtual Democracy. In Elaine Ciulla Kamarck and Joseph S. Nye, Jr., eds. democracy.corn: Governance in a Networked World. Hollis, NH: Hollis Publishing Co.

Novak, Thomas P. and Donna L. Hoffman. (1998). Bridging the Digital Divide: The Impact of Race on Computer Access and Internet Use, Working Paper (a longer version of the article, Bridging the Racial Divide on the Internet, published in Science, April 17, 1998, 280(5362): 390-391). <http://e•ab.vanderbi•t.edu/research/papers/htm•/manuscripts/race/science.htm•>. (Accessed: 7 July 2004).

Rhodes, Eric. (2000). Bridging the Digital Divide. New York: The Century Foundation. <http:// www.ideas2000.org/Publications/MediaPolitics/digitaldivide.pdf>.

Rogowski, Richard. (1998). Partnership puts Internet access in public housing. Triangle Business Journal. <http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/1998/06/29/focus3.html>.

Rose, Susan. (1997). The Role of Community Access Centers in Bridging the Technology Gap. <http://www.ctcnet.org/resources/reports/rose/03cac.htm>. (Accessed: 14 July 2004).

Sallett, Jonathan. "What is the Internet (And What Makes it Work)." (December 1999). Internet Policy Institute. http://www.internetpolicy.org/briefing/12 99 story.html (26 October 2000).

Stocking, Ben. (1997). Housing Complex Goes Online. The News and Observer. 4 April:B 1. Thierer, Adam D. (2000). How Free Computers are Filling the Digital Divide. The Heritage Founda-

tion Backgrounder. <http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternetandTechnology/BG 1361.cfm>. (Accessed: 4 September 2004).

Webb, Toni. (2001). Telephone Interview with Raleigh city employee who coordinates their Park and Recreation Computer program. (9 March).

White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2000). The Clinton-Gore Administration: From Digital Divide to Digital Opportunity.<http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/digitaldivide>. (Accessed: 1 October 2004).

Date post:	25-Aug-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	scott
View:	216 times
Download:	1 times

Community technology centers and bridging the digital divide

Documents